logiclife
12-20 07:55 PM
<If anything like out of status or unauthorized employed happened before your last legal entry into USA (whether is more than 180 days or less than 180 days) IT DOES NOT MATTER and you can adjust status. You are fine. What's important is that "out of status" and "unauthorized stay" periods must not happen after you last entered USA and after you filed your 485 - and if it does happen, then it should be less than 180 days.>
So, logiclife, going with your above statement, I don't have any problem with my adustment of status? My last legal entry to the U.S was Mar, 2006. I applied for AOS in July, 2007. Can you point to any USCIS memo/documents stating the above facts? I was out of status in the year 2001 (more than 180 days).
This is not based on any memo. Its in the immigration and nationality act. That is even better because it wont change without an act of congress. Its rock solid. Memos and field manual can be changed by USCIS and they dont need change in laws. To change or edit 245(k), you need change in laws, which needs an act of congress. So the whole thing is on rock solid grounds.
The section is 8 USC � 1255 (k). Also known as 245(k).
Here is how to find the text of 245(k) on USCIS website:
1. Go to USCIS.gov
2. Go to "Laws and Regulations" menu item on top menu.
3. Click on "Immigration and Nationality Act" on the left menu.
4. Click on the link that says "Immigration and Nationality Act" below the 2 paragraph lecture.
5. Scroll down to Chapter 5 and go to "Act 245". DONT GO to "Act 245A".
6. Under Act 245, go to section (k), the lowercase k.
You will read this :
(k) 7/ An alien who is eligible to receive an immigrant visa under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 203(b) (or, in the case of an alien who is an immigrant described in section 101(a)(27)(C) , under section 203(b)(4) ) may adjust status pursuant to subsection (a) and notwithstanding subsection (c)(2), (c)(7), and (c)(8), if--
(1) the alien, on the date of filing an application for adjustment of status, is present in the United States pursuant to a lawful admission;
(2) the alien, subsequent to such lawful admission has not, for an aggregate period exceeding 180 days--
(A) failed to maintain, continuously, a lawful status;
(B) engaged in unauthorized employment; or
(C) otherwise violated the terms and conditions of the alien's admission.
Another link is here http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001255----000-.html
Go to (k) -lowercase k.
So, logiclife, going with your above statement, I don't have any problem with my adustment of status? My last legal entry to the U.S was Mar, 2006. I applied for AOS in July, 2007. Can you point to any USCIS memo/documents stating the above facts? I was out of status in the year 2001 (more than 180 days).
This is not based on any memo. Its in the immigration and nationality act. That is even better because it wont change without an act of congress. Its rock solid. Memos and field manual can be changed by USCIS and they dont need change in laws. To change or edit 245(k), you need change in laws, which needs an act of congress. So the whole thing is on rock solid grounds.
The section is 8 USC � 1255 (k). Also known as 245(k).
Here is how to find the text of 245(k) on USCIS website:
1. Go to USCIS.gov
2. Go to "Laws and Regulations" menu item on top menu.
3. Click on "Immigration and Nationality Act" on the left menu.
4. Click on the link that says "Immigration and Nationality Act" below the 2 paragraph lecture.
5. Scroll down to Chapter 5 and go to "Act 245". DONT GO to "Act 245A".
6. Under Act 245, go to section (k), the lowercase k.
You will read this :
(k) 7/ An alien who is eligible to receive an immigrant visa under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 203(b) (or, in the case of an alien who is an immigrant described in section 101(a)(27)(C) , under section 203(b)(4) ) may adjust status pursuant to subsection (a) and notwithstanding subsection (c)(2), (c)(7), and (c)(8), if--
(1) the alien, on the date of filing an application for adjustment of status, is present in the United States pursuant to a lawful admission;
(2) the alien, subsequent to such lawful admission has not, for an aggregate period exceeding 180 days--
(A) failed to maintain, continuously, a lawful status;
(B) engaged in unauthorized employment; or
(C) otherwise violated the terms and conditions of the alien's admission.
Another link is here http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001255----000-.html
Go to (k) -lowercase k.
wallpaper Now, R. Kelly#39;s
jamesbond007
02-19 03:06 PM
Instead of opposing it for fear of application deluge, why not ask for a clause that says applications should be adjudicated within a certain timeframe?
And do not under estimate USCIS. They are capable of approving 45K GCs in a week. (July 2007??). They may not want to do it for various reasons - rake in perpetual fees on renewals, numerical limitations each month/quarter/year etc. I think they have the capability; but not the willingness.
May be getting 10 millions latinos in the AOS queue is what is needed to improve the USCIS' processing. With them, the latinos also bring their strong lobbying efforts too.
There has to be some movement towards bettering the immigration process in this country. If you will only accept a "perfect" fix, no reform will ever make it. Any change towards improving the immigration process should be encouraged.
It is really sad to see opposition to this proposal just because it did not include every one.
And do not under estimate USCIS. They are capable of approving 45K GCs in a week. (July 2007??). They may not want to do it for various reasons - rake in perpetual fees on renewals, numerical limitations each month/quarter/year etc. I think they have the capability; but not the willingness.
May be getting 10 millions latinos in the AOS queue is what is needed to improve the USCIS' processing. With them, the latinos also bring their strong lobbying efforts too.
There has to be some movement towards bettering the immigration process in this country. If you will only accept a "perfect" fix, no reform will ever make it. Any change towards improving the immigration process should be encouraged.
It is really sad to see opposition to this proposal just because it did not include every one.
vghc
07-03 12:51 PM
I remember there was a proposal to give one Green Card per family to eliminate the retrogression for EB categories. I don't know what happen to that. It was like one year ago or so.
Yes, i recall seeing that too.
I don't like seeing families being torn apart......the best solution is to increase the number of GC for all of us. But that won't happen. :(
So the next best thing in my opinion, is to give GC's to principle applicant. That would benefit the country as a whole and all those who are working in this country.
Yes, i recall seeing that too.
I don't like seeing families being torn apart......the best solution is to increase the number of GC for all of us. But that won't happen. :(
So the next best thing in my opinion, is to give GC's to principle applicant. That would benefit the country as a whole and all those who are working in this country.
2011 As a rape victim herself,
vbkris77
06-11 01:42 PM
I just want to Thank you for your passion on this subject. Can we think of this from another angle where we approach politicians from our respective countries for a counter trade restrictive bills to make things apples to apples? Just a thought!!!
Look I don't want to say this to you but I am left with no choice. When CEOs such as Steve Ballmer and John Chambers are personally calling the Senators because they think this amendment a real threat, it will be least of our worries what opponents would think about us getting scared. We are not scared, we are simply making our voices heard. If we were scared we won't be doing this.
Now, you have no freaking clue of what is going on behind the scenes, this is your third post in this forum and all these posts in opposition to our action item which we are coordinating with other coalition partners. Why do you think you know more than the folks who are right now speaking with the Senators?
Look I don't want to say this to you but I am left with no choice. When CEOs such as Steve Ballmer and John Chambers are personally calling the Senators because they think this amendment a real threat, it will be least of our worries what opponents would think about us getting scared. We are not scared, we are simply making our voices heard. If we were scared we won't be doing this.
Now, you have no freaking clue of what is going on behind the scenes, this is your third post in this forum and all these posts in opposition to our action item which we are coordinating with other coalition partners. Why do you think you know more than the folks who are right now speaking with the Senators?
more...
Alabaman
10-20 10:29 PM
The democrats will take the house by a very large majority and the senate by a less-than-60 vote majority. So if CIR makes a come back republicans will not be in a very strong position to strike a deal on high-skilled immigration. But there are a number of democrats who also support high-skilled immigration. People opposed to H1B and employment-based green card reforms are on both sides of the aisle (Dems Dick Durbin and Byron Dorgan, Republicans Jeff Sessions and Chuck Grassley for example) but hopefully they will remain a minority. It also looks like vocal supporters like Jon Cornyn will win re-election. But Pete Domenici is retiring. So, on the balance, there will be some change but not a drastic change on the legislative side.
Sen Obama is a very pragmatic and thoughtful person. You should know that he was co-sponsor of the PACE Act which, among other things, tried to create a F4 visa and make it very easy for STEM graduates to get green cards. There is absolutely no need to be panicked about a Obama win. Sen McCain, on the other hand, seems to have gone back on many of his immigration promises these last few months. It will be a concern if there is a democratic congress and McCain is in the White House.
Thanks for re-articulating what I posted earlier. Well said!
Sen Obama is a very pragmatic and thoughtful person. You should know that he was co-sponsor of the PACE Act which, among other things, tried to create a F4 visa and make it very easy for STEM graduates to get green cards. There is absolutely no need to be panicked about a Obama win. Sen McCain, on the other hand, seems to have gone back on many of his immigration promises these last few months. It will be a concern if there is a democratic congress and McCain is in the White House.
Thanks for re-articulating what I posted earlier. Well said!
andy garcia
09-10 11:48 AM
We have the most important thing on our side: TRUTH! And remember the millennia-proven phrase: TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE
chanduv23
THIS IS THE TIME - SET YOURSELVES FREE - MARCH TO WASHINGTON
Are you guys in jail or something?
chanduv23
THIS IS THE TIME - SET YOURSELVES FREE - MARCH TO WASHINGTON
Are you guys in jail or something?
more...
Openarms
08-11 03:20 PM
As far I am concerned they are one of the organizations that injected this EB2 vs EB3 allocation... at that movement they might have their own reasons... but it might change now... We kinda know where IV stands on this...
They do....
How come a person with EB2 category applied GC in 2006 doing the same thing that a EB3 person does who applied GC in 2002 gets their Green Cards approved?? Again not against any category...What in the world of kinda rationale is this is??
They do....
How come a person with EB2 category applied GC in 2006 doing the same thing that a EB3 person does who applied GC in 2002 gets their Green Cards approved?? Again not against any category...What in the world of kinda rationale is this is??
2010 “rape victim”;
waitnwatch
07-28 01:01 PM
I did shake hands with Donald Duck, so did my 4-yr old daughter (in Disney Land), in hindsight I should have washed my hands well after that :(
:)....See we could start a new thread discussing the repurcussions of shaking hands with Donald Duck.
PLEASE EVERYONE: THE PERSON WHO STARTED THIS THREAD IS A FAKE. GO SEE THE PUBLIC PROFILE OF THIS PERSON.
Sorry for the caps.....admins please close this useless thread.
:)....See we could start a new thread discussing the repurcussions of shaking hands with Donald Duck.
PLEASE EVERYONE: THE PERSON WHO STARTED THIS THREAD IS A FAKE. GO SEE THE PUBLIC PROFILE OF THIS PERSON.
Sorry for the caps.....admins please close this useless thread.
more...
thirdworldman
03-12 11:01 AM
Haha, I didn't think anyone would actually pick up on that, Pink. Oh, well. Anyway, thanks for the comments and votes. I think everyone did a great job. Eilsoe, awesome wireframe.
hair Could It Be True That R. Kelly
sriramkalyan
06-08 11:21 AM
I am doing MS in Technology Management from Howee School of Technology Management at Stevens Institute of Technology!!
Similar ones are offered at Penn State, Rutgers, MIT .. totally on Web.
Similar ones are offered at Penn State, Rutgers, MIT .. totally on Web.
more...
dealsnet
03-19 08:17 AM
See Ron Gotcher's Immigration news letter.
http://imminfo.com/resources/newsletter/2008-03Newsletter.pdf
http://imminfo.com/resources/newsletter/2008-03Newsletter.pdf
hot R. Kelly is the best- looking black man. I PRESENT TO YOU TAYE DIGGS:
unitednations
12-21 10:48 PM
This is from Murthy chat.
Question: If in the past I have been out of H1B status for 6 months (I-94 not expired), is this going to hurt my GC (or any new petitions to change / extend / adjust status)?
Answer: A person who fails to maintain status for over 180 days may have a problem obtaining the approval of the I-485, which allows a maximum of 180 days for one to be out of status under Section 245(k) of the INA, unless the person is covered under 245(i) of the INA. Sometimes, though, the fault of the employer in not paying the salary while the person is considered an employee may not pose a problem but at other times it may pose a problem. Not having pay stubs will certainly adversely impact the ability to obtain an extension or change of status from the USCIS. Jun-20-2005.
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
I had written about this in the past. When I went for local office interview; he had requested all w2's and tax returns from my initial entry shown on g-325( LAST ADDRESS OUTSIDE USA FOR MORE THEN ONE YEAR) which was 1999.
It said prove that you maintained status on each entry.
Now: i didn't have any issues but I was pretty upset that officer was going way outside the law and testing periods that he wasn't supposed to. My date of last entry before filing 485 was December 2002 and he was requesting 1999-2006.
I did inform him that he wasn't supposed to ask for this as it was outside the law. However; what I gathered is that although 245k does have some significant protection for everyone; uscis tries to go other ways in catching/snagging you. Another link was provided in this link where a person listed an employer on his g-325a but he was on bench and never got paid. USCIS was trying to deny his 485 due to fraud. Fraud overrules 24k any time.
Therefore; uscis uses many different avenues to get at other aspects; especially to get you to lie, cover up, mislead in things you don't need to but inadvertently do because you think it is problematic when it really wasn't.
The feeling i got from my interview is that is what he was exactly trying to do.
Question: If in the past I have been out of H1B status for 6 months (I-94 not expired), is this going to hurt my GC (or any new petitions to change / extend / adjust status)?
Answer: A person who fails to maintain status for over 180 days may have a problem obtaining the approval of the I-485, which allows a maximum of 180 days for one to be out of status under Section 245(k) of the INA, unless the person is covered under 245(i) of the INA. Sometimes, though, the fault of the employer in not paying the salary while the person is considered an employee may not pose a problem but at other times it may pose a problem. Not having pay stubs will certainly adversely impact the ability to obtain an extension or change of status from the USCIS. Jun-20-2005.
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
I had written about this in the past. When I went for local office interview; he had requested all w2's and tax returns from my initial entry shown on g-325( LAST ADDRESS OUTSIDE USA FOR MORE THEN ONE YEAR) which was 1999.
It said prove that you maintained status on each entry.
Now: i didn't have any issues but I was pretty upset that officer was going way outside the law and testing periods that he wasn't supposed to. My date of last entry before filing 485 was December 2002 and he was requesting 1999-2006.
I did inform him that he wasn't supposed to ask for this as it was outside the law. However; what I gathered is that although 245k does have some significant protection for everyone; uscis tries to go other ways in catching/snagging you. Another link was provided in this link where a person listed an employer on his g-325a but he was on bench and never got paid. USCIS was trying to deny his 485 due to fraud. Fraud overrules 24k any time.
Therefore; uscis uses many different avenues to get at other aspects; especially to get you to lie, cover up, mislead in things you don't need to but inadvertently do because you think it is problematic when it really wasn't.
The feeling i got from my interview is that is what he was exactly trying to do.
more...
house Rhythm and Blues singer R
paskal
07-03 01:54 PM
the discussion on such heated topics can still be in civil tones.
frankly personal attacks and strong language are not going to get anyone's point across any better. try keeping a cool approach and write well reasoned thoughtful posts. also don't forget, in everything, there is ususally something to the other point of view- however much we disagree on something. lets try this refreshing new approach...maybe we will find there is actually common ground...;)
frankly personal attacks and strong language are not going to get anyone's point across any better. try keeping a cool approach and write well reasoned thoughtful posts. also don't forget, in everything, there is ususally something to the other point of view- however much we disagree on something. lets try this refreshing new approach...maybe we will find there is actually common ground...;)
tattoo He said that rape was a
Googler
02-20 02:54 PM
I'd posted elsewhere about my Feb 13, 2008 conversation with the DOS official who sets cutoff dates:
And then there this piece of info from Ron Gotcher posted on Feb 14, 2008
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4285
"Last night, at a meeting of the American Immigration Lawyer's Assocation Southern California chapter, Charles Oppenheim spoke. Mr. Oppenheim is the officer within the Visa Office tasked with calculating visa bulletin cutoff dates each month. He offered the following thoughts as to cutoff date movement in the upcoming months:
In April, India and China EB2 will be set at 12/01/2003
EB3 for India and China will slow down for the rest of the fiscal year."
I am riveted by this because I spoke to Oppenheim just the day before this meeting (he referred to it). This was the conversation in which he told me that at present EB-2 India would only get numbers leftover from EB-1 India -- the problem is he doesn't know either exactly how many EB-2 India adjudicated applications there are in any specific PD range -- so every month he makes wild guesses, with the intent of using up visas. So I guess at least as of 2/14/08 he thought moving the date to 12/1/03 would more than mop up whatever was leftover from EB-1 India. Given the end of the FBI boondoggle (the effects of which have not been quantified by Oppenheim or USCIS) I'd predict that even a date in early 2002 would be good enough to mop up. Let us see if he changes his mind by mid March.
But his statement at the AILA meeting has been bothering me so I talked to him again today. Here is what he said -- that he is considering not only the EB-1 India excess, but the entire EB-1 worldwide excess being given to oversubscribed EB-2! I asked him about his earlier statement and he said that he had had a chance to look at the numbers and determine that unlike recent years EB-1 worldwide is not using numbers up at a rate that would max out EB-1 usage. BUT. He is waiting for USCIS to give him an estimate of the number of EB-2 India applications that would become eligible if he moves the cutoff dates up to 12/1/03, he will set the date ONLY after he gets that data and determines that there won't be too many within that cutoff date.
I also asked him to confirm that he was relying on his interpretation of Section 202(a)(5) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558 dbe) of the INA in order to proceed with this spillover. This is his current interpretation of that section -- spillover from EB-1 to EB-2 IF there appears to be a worldwide excess in EB-1, when there is no worldwide excess in EB-1 then country specific spillover for example, from EB-1 India to EB-2 India only etc. In past years like FY06, EB-1 ROW was looking maxed out, so barely any spillover from EB-1 to oversubscribed EB-2.
And then there this piece of info from Ron Gotcher posted on Feb 14, 2008
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4285
"Last night, at a meeting of the American Immigration Lawyer's Assocation Southern California chapter, Charles Oppenheim spoke. Mr. Oppenheim is the officer within the Visa Office tasked with calculating visa bulletin cutoff dates each month. He offered the following thoughts as to cutoff date movement in the upcoming months:
In April, India and China EB2 will be set at 12/01/2003
EB3 for India and China will slow down for the rest of the fiscal year."
I am riveted by this because I spoke to Oppenheim just the day before this meeting (he referred to it). This was the conversation in which he told me that at present EB-2 India would only get numbers leftover from EB-1 India -- the problem is he doesn't know either exactly how many EB-2 India adjudicated applications there are in any specific PD range -- so every month he makes wild guesses, with the intent of using up visas. So I guess at least as of 2/14/08 he thought moving the date to 12/1/03 would more than mop up whatever was leftover from EB-1 India. Given the end of the FBI boondoggle (the effects of which have not been quantified by Oppenheim or USCIS) I'd predict that even a date in early 2002 would be good enough to mop up. Let us see if he changes his mind by mid March.
But his statement at the AILA meeting has been bothering me so I talked to him again today. Here is what he said -- that he is considering not only the EB-1 India excess, but the entire EB-1 worldwide excess being given to oversubscribed EB-2! I asked him about his earlier statement and he said that he had had a chance to look at the numbers and determine that unlike recent years EB-1 worldwide is not using numbers up at a rate that would max out EB-1 usage. BUT. He is waiting for USCIS to give him an estimate of the number of EB-2 India applications that would become eligible if he moves the cutoff dates up to 12/1/03, he will set the date ONLY after he gets that data and determines that there won't be too many within that cutoff date.
I also asked him to confirm that he was relying on his interpretation of Section 202(a)(5) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558 dbe) of the INA in order to proceed with this spillover. This is his current interpretation of that section -- spillover from EB-1 to EB-2 IF there appears to be a worldwide excess in EB-1, when there is no worldwide excess in EB-1 then country specific spillover for example, from EB-1 India to EB-2 India only etc. In past years like FY06, EB-1 ROW was looking maxed out, so barely any spillover from EB-1 to oversubscribed EB-2.
more...
pictures R. Kelly Jurors Admit It Was
GCard_Dream
12-28 12:26 PM
Both of the flights were on the same itinerary and were booked through Thai. United was asking for money for international part of the travel because he said that Thai would charge United for the extra weight if United checked in the luggage all the way to Bangkok, which isn't really true because Thai did allow 70 LB then. I am not sure what the regulation is now.
I think you are right that the guy was probably ignorant and didn't really care becasue I wasn't flying United after LA anyways.
i have never had that problem
may have been because you booked those flights separately, if they are on the same itinerary and both were booked through Thai, United should not do that, guess they don't care because you are not continuing on United. btw how could they demand money for the international part of the flight- they are not Thai and their rules don't apply...i also think the person you dealt with was ignorant...
the problem i have seen- you fly into the US and have a connecting flight onwards- if you take it withing 24 hrs ie same day- bags just continue- if not you are stuck with domestic rules. now it no longer matters on american carriers at least, intl allowance has also been decreased to 50 lbs.
I think you are right that the guy was probably ignorant and didn't really care becasue I wasn't flying United after LA anyways.
i have never had that problem
may have been because you booked those flights separately, if they are on the same itinerary and both were booked through Thai, United should not do that, guess they don't care because you are not continuing on United. btw how could they demand money for the international part of the flight- they are not Thai and their rules don't apply...i also think the person you dealt with was ignorant...
the problem i have seen- you fly into the US and have a connecting flight onwards- if you take it withing 24 hrs ie same day- bags just continue- if not you are stuck with domestic rules. now it no longer matters on american carriers at least, intl allowance has also been decreased to 50 lbs.
dresses one reason why R. Kelly#39;s
luvschocolates
08-21 11:52 AM
I did not marry the man I was engaged to. I came here initially for ONE month and was approved at the airport customs terminal to stay that long. When I got here, it was for a visit with my fiance only. Unfortunately, things did not work out and we broke it off. Thank God! However, I was staying with his uncle and aunt, and they had a disabled man in the house. HE turned out to be my sponsor when they asked me to care for him while they were doing long haul trucking. I agreed to do this and we immediately contacted USCIS to get instructions on what needed to be filed first. With that information in hand, we filed everything they requested. All the stuff on the RFE I received has never been mentioned before now and if it had, it would have been filed along with the rest. There are tons of applications, how is one supposed to know what to file and when if there are no specific instructions? I have gone through all the copies we have of all the required applications and I still do not see anything where all these other forms were to be filed along with the I-485.
Nothing was done illegally. He filed the application on my behalf, signed, sealed and delivered it himself. I did not do this on my own, I just signed whatever I was required to sign, he did the rest.
If all of this was illegal, then why was I not informed of this nearly 6 years ago when we filed the first application? Seems a bit odd that if I was illegal and they know where I am and who I live with that they wouldn't be quick to throw me out, but they have not done so.
My former fiance has nothing to do with this, I never intended to stay here when I first came, it was merely a visit but circumstances were such that I was needed at a moment's notice so we filed the necessary paperwork as quickly as possible and thought we were doing the right thing. No one has ever said otherwise until now and I think that is rather unfair to spring it all on me at this point and expect me to get it all done within 30 days. I know I am not the only applicant out there and I realize there is a huge backlog of other applications, I'm not that stupid to think that they will make me a priority, but one measly letter informing me that I was here illegally sometime over a 6 year period is not asking to much is it? Why would they send me all the other Notices of Action if I was here illegally and they knew it?
Something is terribly screwed up and I guess I have no choice but to find an attorney who can deal with this mess.
Nothing was done illegally. He filed the application on my behalf, signed, sealed and delivered it himself. I did not do this on my own, I just signed whatever I was required to sign, he did the rest.
If all of this was illegal, then why was I not informed of this nearly 6 years ago when we filed the first application? Seems a bit odd that if I was illegal and they know where I am and who I live with that they wouldn't be quick to throw me out, but they have not done so.
My former fiance has nothing to do with this, I never intended to stay here when I first came, it was merely a visit but circumstances were such that I was needed at a moment's notice so we filed the necessary paperwork as quickly as possible and thought we were doing the right thing. No one has ever said otherwise until now and I think that is rather unfair to spring it all on me at this point and expect me to get it all done within 30 days. I know I am not the only applicant out there and I realize there is a huge backlog of other applications, I'm not that stupid to think that they will make me a priority, but one measly letter informing me that I was here illegally sometime over a 6 year period is not asking to much is it? Why would they send me all the other Notices of Action if I was here illegally and they knew it?
Something is terribly screwed up and I guess I have no choice but to find an attorney who can deal with this mess.
more...
makeup Rape victim forgave attacker
lahiribaba
02-03 12:28 PM
Mirage - I totally support you man. You got to do what your heart feels like ... If you get too tired of waiting and living this CHAINNNNED life and you want to meet Mr President to let him know how you feel - man by all means you got to do it.. Remember the flutter of a butterfly wings in Jailsalmer starts a tornado in florida... there are numerous occassions when one single man's stand changed the entire nation .. I totally support you . If the good old USA is still a FREE COUNTRY then there is no reason why you should not go ahead...
As for getting support from others it is nice to have support but it does not mean that if they do not support you , you are wrong. What you are saying is RIGHTFULLY JUSTIFIED and every man and woman in this country has the RIGHT TO PURSUE HAPPINESS. After all that is the reason why we want our GC here. There are many people in this forum who are just FOB's and there are many who have just given up after years of waiting .. but people like you can keep the flame alive. Salute and good luck my friend.
As for getting support from others it is nice to have support but it does not mean that if they do not support you , you are wrong. What you are saying is RIGHTFULLY JUSTIFIED and every man and woman in this country has the RIGHT TO PURSUE HAPPINESS. After all that is the reason why we want our GC here. There are many people in this forum who are just FOB's and there are many who have just given up after years of waiting .. but people like you can keep the flame alive. Salute and good luck my friend.
girlfriend GOP loses #39;forcible rape#39;
bsbawa10
03-09 03:48 PM
hey bsbawa atleast ur pd is apr 04, now it is feb 04 for you , there is hope that you will get it by this year end atleast, think about folks like me, i have to wait till 2019 to get my eb3 to current......... so stop crying and be happy that atleast ur in EB2........ :o
I came in 1999 and filed GC atleast 5 times (every time sometthing went bad), spent atleast 30,000 dollars. Applied for immigration to Australia and got rejected so the anguish is natural.
I came in 1999 and filed GC atleast 5 times (every time sometthing went bad), spent atleast 30,000 dollars. Applied for immigration to Australia and got rejected so the anguish is natural.
hairstyles One of R. Kelly#39;s right hand
frostrated
09-09 03:09 PM
For those of you thinking that EB3I will move forward once EB2 becomes current in the next year or so, please think again.
There are many EB2 I & C waiting to file their AOS applications. Anyone that missed the 2007 and 2008 windows, are eagerly waiting to file. It is estimated that there are a few thousand primary applicants in EB2 alone, each year from 2007 to 2010.
As a result, it is very unlikely that EB3 I will advance apart from its annual allocation of approximately 2800 visas. At the current rate, it will be three years before EB3 I 2002 is cleared, and many more years for the other years. In the meantime, there will be more applicants in EB2 category, thereby preventing your applications from being approved.
The options that lie before you are the passage of CIR, removal of country limits (which again is invariably tied to CIR), porting to EB2. The only option that is within your control is porting.
I would highly suggest that you use that option rather than rely on a change in law - a law that we have seen being dangled before us like a carrot for the past four years.
If you have been given a promotion or even offered one, take that. Contrary to what someone says about not being able to use experience in your current company, that is wrong to a certain extent. Experience in your current company in your current position cannot be used. But, experience in a different position in the same company can be used as experience to your EB2 status.
Take your promotion, and have the employer file a new labor petition. During the I-140 stage, port your EB3 priority date to your EB2 petition, and pretty much your 485 will be approved along with your 140, if not a few weeks after that (provided your PD is current).
Good luck in your porting. If you decide to wait until EB3I becomes current without porting, you are going to wait for a long time. I would suggest that anyone with a PD of Jan 2003+ to start your porting process. For the others, I'd suggest you wait it out as in the time it takes to do the porting, your 485 in EB3 will be approved.
There are many EB2 I & C waiting to file their AOS applications. Anyone that missed the 2007 and 2008 windows, are eagerly waiting to file. It is estimated that there are a few thousand primary applicants in EB2 alone, each year from 2007 to 2010.
As a result, it is very unlikely that EB3 I will advance apart from its annual allocation of approximately 2800 visas. At the current rate, it will be three years before EB3 I 2002 is cleared, and many more years for the other years. In the meantime, there will be more applicants in EB2 category, thereby preventing your applications from being approved.
The options that lie before you are the passage of CIR, removal of country limits (which again is invariably tied to CIR), porting to EB2. The only option that is within your control is porting.
I would highly suggest that you use that option rather than rely on a change in law - a law that we have seen being dangled before us like a carrot for the past four years.
If you have been given a promotion or even offered one, take that. Contrary to what someone says about not being able to use experience in your current company, that is wrong to a certain extent. Experience in your current company in your current position cannot be used. But, experience in a different position in the same company can be used as experience to your EB2 status.
Take your promotion, and have the employer file a new labor petition. During the I-140 stage, port your EB3 priority date to your EB2 petition, and pretty much your 485 will be approved along with your 140, if not a few weeks after that (provided your PD is current).
Good luck in your porting. If you decide to wait until EB3I becomes current without porting, you are going to wait for a long time. I would suggest that anyone with a PD of Jan 2003+ to start your porting process. For the others, I'd suggest you wait it out as in the time it takes to do the porting, your 485 in EB3 will be approved.
squishy
03-07 07:45 AM
same here :p:
greencard_fever
07-28 03:55 PM
yawn...
rolls over to the other side of bed...
yawn again...
turns over pillow to the cooler side...
yawn again..
dreams of this thread getting closed because it is absolutely worthless ... crap .. twas just a dream :D
Yawn...
Please close this thread..
Big Yawn..
rolls over to the other side of bed...
yawn again...
turns over pillow to the cooler side...
yawn again..
dreams of this thread getting closed because it is absolutely worthless ... crap .. twas just a dream :D
Yawn...
Please close this thread..
Big Yawn..
No comments:
Post a Comment