jsb
09-09 12:57 PM
No, Did not port to EB3, He is EB3, Filed for 485 in July '07 fiasco. He is consulting his attorney to see, what to do about the unusual approval. Also did not receive the FP, after filing for 485 in July '07 until last month, when they did the first FP mid-august. Pretty sure about that, from what I heard from my friend.
If case is approved, there is no need to do anything about what you call an unusual approval. Legally, an I-485 can be filed only when visa is immediately available (although we know that is not the case), which he/she did (based on his PD being current when he/she filed his/her I-485). What happens thereafter is all internal matter of USCIS. As far as an I-485 filer is concerned, his/her case is in the works until is approved.
If case is approved, there is no need to do anything about what you call an unusual approval. Legally, an I-485 can be filed only when visa is immediately available (although we know that is not the case), which he/she did (based on his PD being current when he/she filed his/her I-485). What happens thereafter is all internal matter of USCIS. As far as an I-485 filer is concerned, his/her case is in the works until is approved.
wallpaper 2 new free Wallpapers,
Mount Soche
09-04 10:23 PM
Don't know much about how long medical tests are valid for but for sure the test has changed. I medical took a test last year for the employer sponsored green card and just took another medical test in August for another green card petition and my doctor told me that they're much stricter with the TB section.
I saw the form and it is totally different. They're asking for more detail.
I had to take another vaccine, which wasn't required last year.
Folks,
Due to the priority data transfer issue my I-485 application was rejected in June'08 (submitted based on June'08 visa bulletin).
As part of my application necessary medical exam tests were conducted in May'08. If I were to submit my application today based on the new visa bulletin do you think I need to take all medical exams again and re-submit? Won't the first set of medical exams have any validity?
Also, on the forums there is a talk about medical forms being changed? Can anyone confirm?
Thanks in advance for all your responses.
I saw the form and it is totally different. They're asking for more detail.
I had to take another vaccine, which wasn't required last year.
Folks,
Due to the priority data transfer issue my I-485 application was rejected in June'08 (submitted based on June'08 visa bulletin).
As part of my application necessary medical exam tests were conducted in May'08. If I were to submit my application today based on the new visa bulletin do you think I need to take all medical exams again and re-submit? Won't the first set of medical exams have any validity?
Also, on the forums there is a talk about medical forms being changed? Can anyone confirm?
Thanks in advance for all your responses.
eb3retro
04-17 04:44 PM
I didnt sign this petition.
2011 Christian Wallpapers
xmmx10
11-19 12:16 PM
Damn...I saw it was Apr 2007 for NSC and when I rechecked its back to Oct bulletin. What the hey...
For Nebraska:
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
For Texas:
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=TSC
Summary for I485:
Nebraska has processed most applications that it has had for 7 months (filed on or before April 14 2007).
Texas has processed most applications that it has had for 6 months.
Since 6 months is the target, Texas can be considered to be caught up, and Nebraska will likely have caught up next month.
For I485 that makes the visa bulletin the main issue.
For Nebraska:
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
For Texas:
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=TSC
Summary for I485:
Nebraska has processed most applications that it has had for 7 months (filed on or before April 14 2007).
Texas has processed most applications that it has had for 6 months.
Since 6 months is the target, Texas can be considered to be caught up, and Nebraska will likely have caught up next month.
For I485 that makes the visa bulletin the main issue.
more...
geesee
07-20 05:21 PM
^^^^
ashshef
08-31 12:44 AM
Unfortunately this won't help....of course assuming you find a way to do it :)
They look at the country of birth to determine the quota....not country of citizenship.
They look at the country of birth to determine the quota....not country of citizenship.
more...
Gravitation
10-23 10:30 AM
One common misconception is that there's a "quota" for each country. There's none.
The number 2600 is actually the upper limit. It means that no one country should get more visa numbers than 2600.
The total number of EB3 visa numbers for the whole world is 40,000. There's no entitlement here. There's no guarantee of all visa numbers being issued. There's no minimum number of visas that a specific country is sure to get...
If there's a demand for more than 2600 for a specific country, it's said to be oversubscribed. If the total demand from all countries remains below 40,000, the remaining visa numbers may overflow to the oversubscribed countries.
Once again, it's perfectly within the law to issue less than 40,000 visa numbers. It's a limit, not a quota.
The number 2600 is actually the upper limit. It means that no one country should get more visa numbers than 2600.
The total number of EB3 visa numbers for the whole world is 40,000. There's no entitlement here. There's no guarantee of all visa numbers being issued. There's no minimum number of visas that a specific country is sure to get...
If there's a demand for more than 2600 for a specific country, it's said to be oversubscribed. If the total demand from all countries remains below 40,000, the remaining visa numbers may overflow to the oversubscribed countries.
Once again, it's perfectly within the law to issue less than 40,000 visa numbers. It's a limit, not a quota.
2010 christian wallpapers for free
anilsal
01-08 05:15 PM
the latest passport information once you got it..
more...
insbaby
10-05 08:20 AM
Based on current estimates, it will be 10-15 years time, unless u r son/daughter can sponsor you prior... u will end up in family quota wait still.
I am not sarcastic this is the reality,
Hey, in 5 years, all the EB waitings are going to start the family based GCs with their kids. So in 10 years, the Family Queue will be same as EB Queue, so it is better to wait on EB Queue. :)
I am not sarcastic this is the reality,
Hey, in 5 years, all the EB waitings are going to start the family based GCs with their kids. So in 10 years, the Family Queue will be same as EB Queue, so it is better to wait on EB Queue. :)
hair Free Daily Christian
snathan
08-18 06:39 PM
Some people did mistakes in the past and tried to correct it. If they are successful in correcting the mistake legally, then you should feel happy about it and wish them success.
At least don't wish them bad luck....
This is stupid. I am not wishing good luck or bad luck to anyone. We are trying to explain the rule and its consequences. Its up to them to take it or not. Moreover I am not a fan of people who applied H1 through some desi consulting (most of them with fake experience), sitting on bench without any project and put everyone in the bad light, giving ammo to the antis. Do you know how many house wives put eight-ten years fake experience when they dont even know the difference between USB port or ether net port. Its not a mistake...its called greed. Well I am not here to fight with you...but thats the fact.
At least don't wish them bad luck....
This is stupid. I am not wishing good luck or bad luck to anyone. We are trying to explain the rule and its consequences. Its up to them to take it or not. Moreover I am not a fan of people who applied H1 through some desi consulting (most of them with fake experience), sitting on bench without any project and put everyone in the bad light, giving ammo to the antis. Do you know how many house wives put eight-ten years fake experience when they dont even know the difference between USB port or ether net port. Its not a mistake...its called greed. Well I am not here to fight with you...but thats the fact.
more...
sertasheep
03-16 11:14 AM
The only easy options I see for US educated physicians (of Indian origin) are either the Middle East(where , you can get jobs after min 2+ years of US work experience, not just residency) or back in India.
- Neither Australia or UK recognize US medical education(ironic, isn't it!!!), requiring an arduous recertification process. Not worth it, IMHO.
- Canada claims that the process is simple, but Note that this is not that simple and rosy- jobs aren't that easy to get in Canada.Do a google search for "foreign doctors in Canada". Also, don't go by what migration/immigration agents tell you.
- I have heard of "exchange programs" (you work for a couple of years) in New Zealand or Australia, but you can't settle down there, unless a non-physician spouse is already a permanent resident or citizen
If something has changed in the recent past, or I am wrong, I'd like to hear more.
Here's an email trail from 2003. You can probably talk or contact the organization given below.
>>I hope this can help clarify your situation as concerns your wife's
>>future employment in Canada. If she will be graduating from an
>>accredited medical college in he United States, she will have
>>substantially less difficulty obtaining her license to practice medicine
>>in Canada.
>>
>>She will have to complete the qualifying examinations that are
>>administered by the Medical Council of Canada. There are two of these
>>exams. Information about these exams can be found at http://www.mcc.ca.
>>She should not have to worry about being subjected to the international
>>medical graduate programs since American schools have their degrees
>>recognized by the licensing bodies in Canada.
>>
>>If you would like to speak to me directly please feel free to contact me
>>at the numbers below.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Scott Butler
>>Member Relations/Project Manager
>>Association of International Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (AIPSO)
>>2 Carlton Street, Suite 1004
>>Toronto, ON M5B 1J3
>>
>>Phone: (416) 979-8611 x 4301
>>Fax: (416) 979-9853
>>Email: membershipaipso@cassa.on.ca
>>Web: http://www.aipso.ca
- Neither Australia or UK recognize US medical education(ironic, isn't it!!!), requiring an arduous recertification process. Not worth it, IMHO.
- Canada claims that the process is simple, but Note that this is not that simple and rosy- jobs aren't that easy to get in Canada.Do a google search for "foreign doctors in Canada". Also, don't go by what migration/immigration agents tell you.
- I have heard of "exchange programs" (you work for a couple of years) in New Zealand or Australia, but you can't settle down there, unless a non-physician spouse is already a permanent resident or citizen
If something has changed in the recent past, or I am wrong, I'd like to hear more.
Here's an email trail from 2003. You can probably talk or contact the organization given below.
>>I hope this can help clarify your situation as concerns your wife's
>>future employment in Canada. If she will be graduating from an
>>accredited medical college in he United States, she will have
>>substantially less difficulty obtaining her license to practice medicine
>>in Canada.
>>
>>She will have to complete the qualifying examinations that are
>>administered by the Medical Council of Canada. There are two of these
>>exams. Information about these exams can be found at http://www.mcc.ca.
>>She should not have to worry about being subjected to the international
>>medical graduate programs since American schools have their degrees
>>recognized by the licensing bodies in Canada.
>>
>>If you would like to speak to me directly please feel free to contact me
>>at the numbers below.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Scott Butler
>>Member Relations/Project Manager
>>Association of International Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (AIPSO)
>>2 Carlton Street, Suite 1004
>>Toronto, ON M5B 1J3
>>
>>Phone: (416) 979-8611 x 4301
>>Fax: (416) 979-9853
>>Email: membershipaipso@cassa.on.ca
>>Web: http://www.aipso.ca
hot Christian Wallpaper background
ck_b2001
12-12 11:33 AM
I got only 2 copies of AP from TSC. I might have to go to India multiple times in coming months (more that 2). Will the POE officer take the original AP on each entry? Is there any USCIS/CBP reference/guidelines that instructs the POE officer to take the copies and leave the orignals with us? Any help appriciated
Thanks
Give them one orginal. Subsequent trips, just tell them that you have only one original and they will make copies. Some body posted a memo but i am telling you from my personal experience that they do not insist for original if you dont want to give them one.
Thanks
Give them one orginal. Subsequent trips, just tell them that you have only one original and they will make copies. Some body posted a memo but i am telling you from my personal experience that they do not insist for original if you dont want to give them one.
more...
house Free Christian Wallpaper
ram_ram
11-01 07:05 PM
Legally speaking, You should not change the Metro Location for which the labor is applied. Exemption is Consulting companies can specify alternate location as 'Various client locations as specified by the employer'. Primary location would be the Head Office. So it all depends on what is specified in the labor.
Hello
My PD is March 2006 and my 6th year on H1B ends in March 2007. My LC was approved in March 2006 and I-140 got approved in July 2006. My company has relocated me to a different state. (same job, same title and company)
I have updated INS about my address change by sending AR-11. Would the job location change (from CA to NJ) have any impact on my GC processing?
Could you please advice if you info on this?
Regards
Hello
My PD is March 2006 and my 6th year on H1B ends in March 2007. My LC was approved in March 2006 and I-140 got approved in July 2006. My company has relocated me to a different state. (same job, same title and company)
I have updated INS about my address change by sending AR-11. Would the job location change (from CA to NJ) have any impact on my GC processing?
Could you please advice if you info on this?
Regards
tattoo Free Christian Wallpapers
eb3_nepa
07-29 06:46 PM
CHC speaks only for illegals...
they fear any partial immigration reforms will harm their political constituents..namely the hispanic voter base.
They will never come onboard for legals..we have to fight our own battle.
So individual constituents on this forums can have personal views..
Yes, but we do not represent the CHC, nor are we in any way affiliated to them.
Secondly there are no "individual constituents" when it comes to Immigration Voice. This is an organization OF, FOR and BY the "EMPLOYMENT BASED LEGAL IMMIGRANTS". We neither support nor oppose rewards or penalties for or against the undocumented workers (illegal immigrants). Individual members can have their own "opinions/biases", but NO individual member can speak on behalf of Immigration Voice on major issues. As per my understanding, ONLY the IV Core team/Board members as a WHOLE can make such decisions.
they fear any partial immigration reforms will harm their political constituents..namely the hispanic voter base.
They will never come onboard for legals..we have to fight our own battle.
So individual constituents on this forums can have personal views..
Yes, but we do not represent the CHC, nor are we in any way affiliated to them.
Secondly there are no "individual constituents" when it comes to Immigration Voice. This is an organization OF, FOR and BY the "EMPLOYMENT BASED LEGAL IMMIGRANTS". We neither support nor oppose rewards or penalties for or against the undocumented workers (illegal immigrants). Individual members can have their own "opinions/biases", but NO individual member can speak on behalf of Immigration Voice on major issues. As per my understanding, ONLY the IV Core team/Board members as a WHOLE can make such decisions.
more...
pictures Free Christian Backgrounds
rayen
02-05 03:47 PM
Chris,
Thanks a lot I will try to reach them now.
Thanks, again.
Cris,
I just called teh number and was able to talk to the officer.. he said the case under review.. means.. Any idea.
Thanks again.
Thanks a lot I will try to reach them now.
Thanks, again.
Cris,
I just called teh number and was able to talk to the officer.. he said the case under review.. means.. Any idea.
Thanks again.
dresses Free Christian Desktop
carbon
09-19 12:46 PM
Looks like the article is coming straight out of NumberUSA's mouth!
more...
makeup Free Christian Wallpapers
Leo07
09-16 05:52 PM
done done done...
girlfriend free christian wallpaper
jgh_res
05-17 10:01 AM
Here is the link:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/17/dobbs.bushspeech/index.html
Posted article is below. Refer to the highlighted section :
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's address from the Oval Office on border security and illegal immigration failed to satisfy either advocates of amnesty or those demanding that the government secure our borders and ports. Whether by design or not, however, the president did manage to advance public awareness of both crises.
The president finally acknowledged the unsustainable social and economic burdens of permitting millions of illegal aliens to forge documents, pressure our public schools and hospitals, and overtax our local and state budgets.
And the president, in asking for more border patrol officers and sending 6,000 National Guardsmen to our southern border to support the Border Patrol, also acknowledged the federal government's utter failure to protect the American people by securing our borders, across which as many as three million illegal aliens enter this country each year.
President Bush's five-point plan began with the words, "First, the United States must secure its borders." But the president did not assign any urgency to the national task of doing so. Deploying as many as 6,000 members of the National Guard to help secure our broken border with Mexico is positive step.
But the president's proposal to place those National Guardsmen in some sort of adjunct support role is peculiar at best, and without question, woefully inadequate. The president sounded as if he were trying to appease Mexico's President Vicente Fox, assuring him we would not militarize the border. If there is to be appeasement at all, that should fall to the Mexican government rather than President Bush.
Not only are millions of illegal aliens entering the United States each year across that border, but so are illegal drugs. More cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana flood across the Mexican than from any other place, more than three decades into the war on drugs.
President Bush and all the open borders advocates should be held to account for not doing everything in their power to destroy the drug traffic across our borders, as well as illegal immigration.
If it is necessary to send 20,000 -- 30,000 National Guard troops to the border with Mexico to preserve our national sovereignty and protect the American people from rampant drug trafficking, illegal immigration and the threat of terrorists, than I cannot imagine why this president and this Congress would hesitate to do so.
And how can this president and this Congress begin to rationalize placing immigration reform, which has been neglected since the last amnesty 20 years ago, ahead of national security and the safety of all Americans?
President Bush went on to say that in order to secure our borders we must create a temporary guest worker program. What? Come again, Mr. President. The president knows better, and so do the American people. Control of our borders and ports is necessary to our national security and a temporary worker program is an exploitive luxury for corporate America.
The president also said we need to hold employers who hire illegal aliens accountable, but he failed to say how. What should be the penalties for these illegal employers? How large a fine should they receive? How many years in jail for the executives of such companies?
It would have been inspiring to hear the president say that he and his friend Vicente Fox had discussed illegal immigration and drug trafficking and reached an agreement that both our country's militaries would be used to create a joint border security force, one that working together would ensure the integrity of the Untied States/Mexico border.
Wouldn't it have been nice as well for this president to suggest that the U.S. government would also take seriously its responsibilities to create a new and efficient immigration system to accommodate the backlog of millions of people trying to do the right thing? The same agency that would have to oversee Mr. Bush's amnesty program could not begin to do so because the Citizenship and Immigration Services already faces a backlog of millions of people who are trying to enter this country lawfully.
Aside from the fact that both political parties are complicit with corporate America and special interests in placing so-called immigration reform ahead of border and port security speaks volumes about our elected officials' commitment to the national interest and the weight and influence of corporate America over both parties.
Mr. President, I don't think the American people will tolerate this much longer.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/17/dobbs.bushspeech/index.html
Posted article is below. Refer to the highlighted section :
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's address from the Oval Office on border security and illegal immigration failed to satisfy either advocates of amnesty or those demanding that the government secure our borders and ports. Whether by design or not, however, the president did manage to advance public awareness of both crises.
The president finally acknowledged the unsustainable social and economic burdens of permitting millions of illegal aliens to forge documents, pressure our public schools and hospitals, and overtax our local and state budgets.
And the president, in asking for more border patrol officers and sending 6,000 National Guardsmen to our southern border to support the Border Patrol, also acknowledged the federal government's utter failure to protect the American people by securing our borders, across which as many as three million illegal aliens enter this country each year.
President Bush's five-point plan began with the words, "First, the United States must secure its borders." But the president did not assign any urgency to the national task of doing so. Deploying as many as 6,000 members of the National Guard to help secure our broken border with Mexico is positive step.
But the president's proposal to place those National Guardsmen in some sort of adjunct support role is peculiar at best, and without question, woefully inadequate. The president sounded as if he were trying to appease Mexico's President Vicente Fox, assuring him we would not militarize the border. If there is to be appeasement at all, that should fall to the Mexican government rather than President Bush.
Not only are millions of illegal aliens entering the United States each year across that border, but so are illegal drugs. More cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana flood across the Mexican than from any other place, more than three decades into the war on drugs.
President Bush and all the open borders advocates should be held to account for not doing everything in their power to destroy the drug traffic across our borders, as well as illegal immigration.
If it is necessary to send 20,000 -- 30,000 National Guard troops to the border with Mexico to preserve our national sovereignty and protect the American people from rampant drug trafficking, illegal immigration and the threat of terrorists, than I cannot imagine why this president and this Congress would hesitate to do so.
And how can this president and this Congress begin to rationalize placing immigration reform, which has been neglected since the last amnesty 20 years ago, ahead of national security and the safety of all Americans?
President Bush went on to say that in order to secure our borders we must create a temporary guest worker program. What? Come again, Mr. President. The president knows better, and so do the American people. Control of our borders and ports is necessary to our national security and a temporary worker program is an exploitive luxury for corporate America.
The president also said we need to hold employers who hire illegal aliens accountable, but he failed to say how. What should be the penalties for these illegal employers? How large a fine should they receive? How many years in jail for the executives of such companies?
It would have been inspiring to hear the president say that he and his friend Vicente Fox had discussed illegal immigration and drug trafficking and reached an agreement that both our country's militaries would be used to create a joint border security force, one that working together would ensure the integrity of the Untied States/Mexico border.
Wouldn't it have been nice as well for this president to suggest that the U.S. government would also take seriously its responsibilities to create a new and efficient immigration system to accommodate the backlog of millions of people trying to do the right thing? The same agency that would have to oversee Mr. Bush's amnesty program could not begin to do so because the Citizenship and Immigration Services already faces a backlog of millions of people who are trying to enter this country lawfully.
Aside from the fact that both political parties are complicit with corporate America and special interests in placing so-called immigration reform ahead of border and port security speaks volumes about our elected officials' commitment to the national interest and the weight and influence of corporate America over both parties.
Mr. President, I don't think the American people will tolerate this much longer.
hairstyles Free Christian Wallpaper
kondur_007
06-08 02:09 PM
What if someone returned the initial I94 but not the latest one because we attched the wrong I94 portion, will we need to send the new I94 after extension back to USCIS as well?
In my opinion, you do not really have to. here are a few points (to the best of my knowledge):
1. Surrendering I 94 establishes the day/date when you left US.
2. If you have more than one I 94 (from the same entry), the "white one" will be attached to your passport and others (that came with extension or change of status) will be attached to your approval notices. THEY ALL ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE SAME NUMBER. So, technically you have to surrender them all when you leave the country, but if you surrender any one of them, it still establishes the same thing and you do not need to do anything about the rest.
3. If you forgot to return I 94 altogether, keep a record of your leaving US on specific date (copy of boarding passes, passport stamp of entry in another country etc) and you can use that as an evidence of leaving in time (if asked about it in future). OR you can return your I 94 at a laterdate with these copies attached to USCIS.
I have not heard of anyone getting in trouble because of not returning I 94 (please correct me on this if any of you have heard of it) - as long as they did not overstay.
In my opinion, you do not really have to. here are a few points (to the best of my knowledge):
1. Surrendering I 94 establishes the day/date when you left US.
2. If you have more than one I 94 (from the same entry), the "white one" will be attached to your passport and others (that came with extension or change of status) will be attached to your approval notices. THEY ALL ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE SAME NUMBER. So, technically you have to surrender them all when you leave the country, but if you surrender any one of them, it still establishes the same thing and you do not need to do anything about the rest.
3. If you forgot to return I 94 altogether, keep a record of your leaving US on specific date (copy of boarding passes, passport stamp of entry in another country etc) and you can use that as an evidence of leaving in time (if asked about it in future). OR you can return your I 94 at a laterdate with these copies attached to USCIS.
I have not heard of anyone getting in trouble because of not returning I 94 (please correct me on this if any of you have heard of it) - as long as they did not overstay.
nashdel
08-07 11:09 PM
Mine approved August 2nd, Wife`s pending. May be this is one of the administrative fixes from USCIS! As primary on EAD I would have to Work in same job classification, can not stay here for long without work or open a new business. But spouse on EAD can do either one of those per my knowledge. They can allot visa number to another primary. I do not think this is the reasoning from USCIS and there has to be some other reason though such as security check. I wonder if it is smart for them to allot visa numbers to primary and secondary in 2:1 ratio. Will ease problems for lot of people.
pmamp
06-13 09:21 AM
I work for US university on H1B. Based on my knowledge the following are valid points.
- There is no deadline or quota for H1B visa's for these non-profit orgs.
- You can transfer from F1, OPT to H1B (I did the same).
- If you are being paid by a for-profit org then you ARE SUBJECT TO QUOTA.
So, to answer your question (original poster), you will be subject to quota if you are working for a consulting firm (it does not matter if your assignment is at a non-profit org or not).
So, if you want to get a H1B visa try to get in directly with non-profit organization.
For many US university jobs you can visit:
http://www.higheredjobs.com
Good luck!
- There is no deadline or quota for H1B visa's for these non-profit orgs.
- You can transfer from F1, OPT to H1B (I did the same).
- If you are being paid by a for-profit org then you ARE SUBJECT TO QUOTA.
So, to answer your question (original poster), you will be subject to quota if you are working for a consulting firm (it does not matter if your assignment is at a non-profit org or not).
So, if you want to get a H1B visa try to get in directly with non-profit organization.
For many US university jobs you can visit:
http://www.higheredjobs.com
Good luck!
No comments:
Post a Comment