Mike Tyson Tattoos

I promise ... last bump of the day !! or may be not......:D

If you look at the numbers.
EB3 - 3 years to file 485. Very little risk of rejection of 140 by USCIS.
EB2 - 1 year for LC processing, because you have to file new LC. Very HIGH risk of rejection of 140 by USCIS.

Now take your pick.

h1techSlave,

I saw that priority date for EB2 (all other countries) now is current, while for EB3 is May 2005.....

Does it mean that when my LC is ready I will have to wait my priority date for approximately 3 years?

I have already contributed $ 200 in the past. I prefer to make one time contributions instead of recurring.

Contributions is the need of the hour. Please help in contributions from other members. Thanks.

I do not think that you have any issues to work on W2 with an end client or with any other consulting company. Since you have completed six months period with your present employer, who supported to file GC , from the date filing I 485, there should not be any issues at all. Also filing AC21 is optional. If you are on bench your first option should be to find a project ASAP.
Why do you do not want to file AC21, do you have any apprhencion or any specific reason ?

Regarding your first question : QUOTE [Could any one please answer my questions about my RFE on I 485?]
Many applicants got same RFE. I believe no body knows accurately reason for this type of RFE. There may be valid reason for this type of RFE , that 485 applicant is on bench for a long period , left USA surrendering I94 , Employer might have cancelled H1 visa and even some applicant got RFE without of any of these reasons.

You have slogged all these years. Take a break, have a Kit-Kat and take a vacation in Italy. Have heard it's pretty good. Have a good time.

How can you check that FBI namecheck has cleared? Call the FBI? I see quite a few people with date of the FBI namecheck on their sig.

Bumping it up again:
Pls. try to come for this meet and you will know more about our current I485 push and our upcoming plans. We urge all NY, NJ and CT members to try to make it to this meet. PM Anurakt in advance so that you can confirm your attendence and get his contact.

I hope you are right. I hope the visa dates move forward by another year in the next two or three months (atleast for EB3 ROW). But it is unlikely. (Maybe, if the backlog reduction centers are shut down, it might be a possibility)

I am under the new points based system however. My wifes is still in the old system (EB3 ROW.)

BTW, for India, 10% of 90K would be 9K. Not any different than what was in 2006.
The PDs probably moved because they didn't want to lose visa numbers, like they lost the 11K visa numbers. So now, with such a huge advance, they are guaranteed an unending supplly of petitions for a long long time.

I hope I am wrong, and you are right, and the PDs continue to move forward.

But it doesn't seem likely. Nothing has changed fundamentally.




One example is how PD moved 2 years suddenly. For that also some people will negative spin that PD will move back years. I bet that at least 3 months it will not move back. All the calculations were over estimations. 90k increase + 3% country quota will make lot of difference. It means more than double number compared to current numbers for India. It wll make sure that PD will move 1 to 2 year forward.

the new congress will meet in Jan 2007 session and will decide what bills they will consider during that session and will come up with a timetable to discuss those bills. especially after new members are elected, i dont think they can discuss uncompleted bills from previous session (correct me if i'm wrong). all they can do is to come up with new version of bill if they want to pass.

so the option before congress is either a new CIR bill (or) SKIL bill if nt discussed earlier (or) any bill like border security which includes EB provisions.

I think the new CIR bill will take time because of its complications. so I prefer SKIL bill or EB provisions in any bill. let us see.....:)

forgerator - Can you please check your PM?

RNGC .. great work done by your little princes ... am eagerly waiting to see the letter ... guess when you post in the forum you have an option to attach certain documents like pdf etc ...

Sammy.

Thank you everyone for the reply.


Thanks for joining, IV.

We need more membership. Kindly help IV by introducing ONE member.
And this request is to everyone - Please help add ONE member to IV by dec 31st.

Thank you.

Mine was filed in Jan and still waiting :).....

[Federal Register: October 6, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 192)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51236-51237]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06oc09-4]
---------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

22 CFR Part 41

[Public Notice: 6779]

Visas: Documentation of Nonimmigrants Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, as Amended; Requirements for Aliens in Religious Occupations

AGENCY: State Department.

ACTION: Final rule.

---------------------------------------

SUMMARY: To comply with the Department of Homeland Security regulation requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. This rule establishes the requirement that consular officers ensure that R-1 visa applicants have obtained an approved U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Form I- 129 petition from the Department of Homeland Security before issuance of a visa.

DATES: This rule is effective October 6, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lauren A. Prosnik, Legislation and Regulations Division, Visa Services, Department of State, 2401 E Street, NW., Room L-603D, Washington, DC 20520-0106, (202) 663-2951.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Why is the Department promulgating this rule?

On November 26, 2008, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) promulgated regulations requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. 73 FR 72276. As a result, the requirements for an R-1 nonimmigrant visa now include establishing that the applicant is the beneficiary of an approved petition. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has implemented the petition requirement for nonimmigrant religious workers as a way to determine the bona fides of a petitioning religious organization located in the United States and to determine that a religious worker will be admitted to the United States to work for a specific religious organization at the request of that religious organization. This rule amends the Department regulations to ensure consistency with the regulations set forth by DHS.

Regulatory Findings

Administrative Procedure Act

This regulation involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and, therefore, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1), is not subject to the rule making procedures set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553.

Regulatory Flexibility Act/Executive Order 13272: Small Business

Because this final rule is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553, it is exempt from the regulatory flexibility analysis requirements set forth at sections 603 and 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604). Nonetheless, consistent with section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulates individual aliens who seek consideration for R-1 nonimmigrant visas and does not affect any small entities, as defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6).

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UFMA), Public Law 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, 2 U.S.C. 1532, generally requires agencies to prepare a statement before proposing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure of $100 million or more by State, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector. This rule will not result in any such expenditure, nor will it significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

This rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, for purposes of congressional review of agency rulemaking under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104- 121. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign based companies in domestic and import markets.

Executive Order 12866

The Department of State has reviewed this proposed rule to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in Executive Order 12866 and has determined that the benefits of this final regulation justify its costs. The Department does not consider this final rule to be an economically significant action within the scope of section 3(f)(1) of the Executive Order since it is not likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or to adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities.

Executive Orders 12372 and 13132: Federalism

This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor will the rule have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Orders No. 12372 and No. 13132.

Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform

The Department has reviewed the regulations in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order No. 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not impose information collection requirements under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35.

[[Page 51237]]

List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 41

Aliens, Foreign officials, Immigration, Nonimmigrants, Passports and Visas.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of State amends 22 CFR Part 41 as follows:

PART 41--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 41 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1104; Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681- 795 through 2681-801; 8 U.S.C.1185 note (section 7209 of Pub. L. 108-458, as amended by section 546 of Pub. L. 109-295).

2. Revise Sec. 41.58 to read as follows:

Sec. 41.58 Aliens in religious occupations.

(a) Requirements for ``R'' classification. An alien shall be classifiable under the provisions of INA 101(a)(15)(R) if:

(1) The consular officer is satisfied that the alien qualifies under the provisions of that section; and

(2) With respect to the principal alien, the consular officer has received official evidence of the approval by USCIS of a petition to accord such classification or the extension by USCIS of the period of authorized stay in such classification; or

(3) The alien is the spouse or child of an alien so classified and is accompanying or following to join the principal alien.

(b) Petition approval. The approval of a petition by USCIS does not establish that the alien is eligible to receive a nonimmigrant visa.

(c) Validity of visa. The period of validity of a visa issued on the basis of paragraph (a) to this section must not precede or exceed the period indicated in the petition, notification, or confirmation required in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

(d) Aliens not entitled to classification under INA 101(a)(15)(R). The consular officer must suspend action on the alien's application and submit a report to the approving USCIS office if the consular officer knows or has reason to believe that an alien applying for a visa under INA 101(a)(15)(R) is not entitled to the classification as approved.

Dated: September 24, 2009.
Janice L. Jacobs,
Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E9-24089 Filed 10-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-06-P



More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2009/10/07/dos-final-rule-on-amended-requirements-for-religious-workers.aspx?ref=rss)

theres other ones but i guess these are the best for "grunge"

Hey check this prediction out.

http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4541

I think it is like a orchard of mangoes miles long. The riped mangoes are plucked and the farmer moves on to the next tree. He has to walk up and down the whole stretch every month in the second week to determine what's ripe and what's not. He then comes back with his helpers with baskets . There might be some accidental drops of ripe mangoes which get lost for a while :) Just my analogy of EB immigration .

Correct me if I am wrong...

My Perm got filed today :).. atleast 1st step in the door.

Most of the time you will hanlde referential integrity checks via SQL constraints or a double layer via your business objects and constraints together. If you wrap your update statements in a try/catch you can always catch any SQLExceptions first.

Self incrementing IDs shouldn't be a problem - the data objects should be smart enough to know not to try to insert a key, and they will let SQL pick it. You shouldn't need to worry about these at all.

As long as SQL has the constraints you shouldn't have any problems introduced by the application - the worst case is that the application throws an unhandled exception after trying to do an illegal insert. Of course if this causes any problems within the application and the data display it should be handled, but the actual underlying data shouldn't be affected.

Thank you Meridiani.Planum and jnraajan for your quick reply. will look for a job and use EAD.

I trust IV core members 99% for their efforts. But the remaining 1% does not come from the fear that IV is corrupt financially. It comes from the lack of information. If IV does not let the members know about their plans, how many members do the core expect to trust them and make an almost blind contribution? I suggest that members who want to contribute do the following.
1. pick up your phone and get ready to contribute.
2. call IV and during the call, contribute.
3. verify with IV that you are not a spy by giving your detailed information.
4. IV email you or mail you the ongoing plan.

:)
:)
As for the state chapter, I don't think IV should push for it in the near future. It will take a long time to build the grassroots. It won't be done in this year, in my opinion.

--------------------------------
$20/month.

This is terrible news !:eek:

Its not so bad. The President could have created a consensus to not to anything right now in the meeting on 17th June. He has postponed the meeting, which seems to indicate that they are trying to cut a deal or count votes required for the bill. Its not bad, its a good news.