Desertfox
12-10 07:06 PM
Hi friends,
I need your help!!!
I'm here at California with L-2 visa. I can stay legally in US but i can not get a SSN number, i can work too.But For a driver license they ask for SSN. Do i still get the Driver License or no?
Thank you very much...
If you have valid L-2 status, you need to apply for your EAD (file I-765 with USCIS) to be able to work legally. Once your I-765 is approved, you will get your EAD card and you will have to take it to your local SSN office and apply for a SSN. Having your EAD (employment authorization) card allows you to apply for a SSN. Also no matter what, you will need a SSN to work legally.
I need your help!!!
I'm here at California with L-2 visa. I can stay legally in US but i can not get a SSN number, i can work too.But For a driver license they ask for SSN. Do i still get the Driver License or no?
Thank you very much...
If you have valid L-2 status, you need to apply for your EAD (file I-765 with USCIS) to be able to work legally. Once your I-765 is approved, you will get your EAD card and you will have to take it to your local SSN office and apply for a SSN. Having your EAD (employment authorization) card allows you to apply for a SSN. Also no matter what, you will need a SSN to work legally.
wallpaper HQ Cars Wallpapers Volvo XC60
apb
08-16 01:04 PM
Provided there is a separate check associated with that. If 485 is not filed your EAD/AP application will be rejected. Once your date becomes current CHANGE your lawyer because from my understanding of your situation either your lawyer is ignorant or he/she has pathetic attitude towards your case.
amsgc
07-28 01:46 PM
Religion is a private matter and your faith and what you believe in is your affair.
I don't understand why we are having a discussion on this subject on this forum (self filing docs). I think the original poster made a poor decision by opening this thread. Someone should close it so that we can talk about the more important matter of getting the green card faster.
I don't understand why we are having a discussion on this subject on this forum (self filing docs). I think the original poster made a poor decision by opening this thread. Someone should close it so that we can talk about the more important matter of getting the green card faster.
2011 cars wallpapers for desktop hd
vbkris77
04-06 09:39 PM
Look below the URL. If they are doing it. It is legal. But If some one is denied entry, they can also challenge the decision. Consultants especially will need to use proper/legal answers.
http://www.golishlaw.com/statutes/ina212.htm
(5) Labor certification and qualifications for certain immigrants.-
(A) Labor certification.-
(i) In general.-Any alien who seeks to enter the United States for the purpose of performing skilled or unskilled labor is inadmissible, unless the Secretary of Labor has determined and certified to the Secretary of State and the Attorney General that-
(I) there are not sufficient workers who are able, willing, qualified (or equally qualified in the case of an alien described in clause (ii)) and available at the time of application for a visa and admission to the United States and at the place where the alien is to perform such skilled or unskilled labor, and
(II) the employment of such alien will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of workers in the United States similarly employed.
(ii) Certain aliens subject to special rule.-For purposes of clause (i)(I), an alien described in this clause is an alien who-
(I) is a member of the teaching profession, or
(II) has exceptional ability in the sciences or the arts.
http://www.golishlaw.com/statutes/ina212.htm
(5) Labor certification and qualifications for certain immigrants.-
(A) Labor certification.-
(i) In general.-Any alien who seeks to enter the United States for the purpose of performing skilled or unskilled labor is inadmissible, unless the Secretary of Labor has determined and certified to the Secretary of State and the Attorney General that-
(I) there are not sufficient workers who are able, willing, qualified (or equally qualified in the case of an alien described in clause (ii)) and available at the time of application for a visa and admission to the United States and at the place where the alien is to perform such skilled or unskilled labor, and
(II) the employment of such alien will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of workers in the United States similarly employed.
(ii) Certain aliens subject to special rule.-For purposes of clause (i)(I), an alien described in this clause is an alien who-
(I) is a member of the teaching profession, or
(II) has exceptional ability in the sciences or the arts.
more...
fatboysam
12-25 10:20 AM
I will like to know if a person on L2 visa with EAD can open new company in US ?
bestin
04-06 06:15 PM
hmmm...I have a travel coming up in Nov/Dec...with all adventurous luck going on with me, I have other plans now :confused::confused:
Dont get confused.I just travelled and came back after one week of vacation.Everything was very smooth.POE CHICAGO.
Dont get confused.I just travelled and came back after one week of vacation.Everything was very smooth.POE CHICAGO.
more...
vik352
07-01 06:12 PM
We already called the local lawmakers. This online petition can have two columns, one for people who are suffering because of this per country quota and other for people who support the idea (Friends/relatives/coworkers). We can start the petition and we may generate 100K signatures.
mpadapa: We will let you have the 1000001th signature:)
mpadapa: We will let you have the 1000001th signature:)
2010 Free Desktop Car Wallpaper
crystal
07-02 10:00 AM
Currently Active Users: 1800 (489 members and 1311 guests)
Most users ever online was 1,801, Today at 09:58 AM.
Most users ever online was 1,801, Today at 09:58 AM.
more...
GCScrewed
07-04 11:06 AM
Paskal,
It is possible that EB1 C might become unavailable, because you might be looking at it more closer than I am. But I still find it hard to believe that an MNC will just create a phony Managerial position for every Joe Bloggs, an abuse similar to Labor substitution and satellite offices in states where labor processing was fast etc. Lets say an MNC really promoted some one to a position that qualifies for EB1, moves him out and moves him back, it is still by the book and can't be compared to labor sub, which were sold for money. Labor sub by itself is NO crime irrespective of what we think. The rampant abuse of it caused the demise. Same rule applies to some one who goes out and comes back as its all by the rules and no abuse is involved. In responding to the OP, My intention was to say that MNC's do not go to such an extent of creating a Managerial position that do not exist or have an employee do the same work in the name of managerial position. Some companies might have abused it in such way on few occasions, but thats definitely NOT a practice as rampant as Labor Sub's once was. If that were true and as easy as depicted, A lot of people & companies would have done it, by now. We don't need to teach the gamers. They are a step ahead in getting things done, if there is a way.
Given the severe backlog of EB2 and EB3, some people will find ways to outsmart the system so that they can get the greencards sooner. If those loopholes are not plugged now, it will make a mess just as Labor Sub once did.
I think we should pursue a goal that benefit everyone in the backlogs... not just a specific types, say I, C vs ROW; EB1 vs. EB2 vs. EB3; STEM vs. Non-STEM; Schedule A vs. Non-Schedule A; Healthcare vs. Non-Healthcare; IT vs. Non-IT. The only cause which will get everyone on the same page and therefore is worth pursuing is to recapture unused #s so that all people in the backlogs can go through the pipeline quickly. Of course, all the government agencies, esp. USCIS, must be held accountable for processing cases in a consistent and orderly way. This may be another goal IV should pursue. Just my opinion.
It is possible that EB1 C might become unavailable, because you might be looking at it more closer than I am. But I still find it hard to believe that an MNC will just create a phony Managerial position for every Joe Bloggs, an abuse similar to Labor substitution and satellite offices in states where labor processing was fast etc. Lets say an MNC really promoted some one to a position that qualifies for EB1, moves him out and moves him back, it is still by the book and can't be compared to labor sub, which were sold for money. Labor sub by itself is NO crime irrespective of what we think. The rampant abuse of it caused the demise. Same rule applies to some one who goes out and comes back as its all by the rules and no abuse is involved. In responding to the OP, My intention was to say that MNC's do not go to such an extent of creating a Managerial position that do not exist or have an employee do the same work in the name of managerial position. Some companies might have abused it in such way on few occasions, but thats definitely NOT a practice as rampant as Labor Sub's once was. If that were true and as easy as depicted, A lot of people & companies would have done it, by now. We don't need to teach the gamers. They are a step ahead in getting things done, if there is a way.
Given the severe backlog of EB2 and EB3, some people will find ways to outsmart the system so that they can get the greencards sooner. If those loopholes are not plugged now, it will make a mess just as Labor Sub once did.
I think we should pursue a goal that benefit everyone in the backlogs... not just a specific types, say I, C vs ROW; EB1 vs. EB2 vs. EB3; STEM vs. Non-STEM; Schedule A vs. Non-Schedule A; Healthcare vs. Non-Healthcare; IT vs. Non-IT. The only cause which will get everyone on the same page and therefore is worth pursuing is to recapture unused #s so that all people in the backlogs can go through the pipeline quickly. Of course, all the government agencies, esp. USCIS, must be held accountable for processing cases in a consistent and orderly way. This may be another goal IV should pursue. Just my opinion.
hair HD Cars Desktop Wallpapers
Ramba
07-09 07:44 PM
I came across this law about the departmental control of numerical limitations, and I'd appreciate it if you all could post your interpretations of the same.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
I feel that they did not violate any clause. Till June 30 which is end of third quarter, they are authorized to approve (3*27%*140K) 113,400. However they approved only 66,400 till May 31. That yields about 47,000 for June alone(10%+any number not used in previous months). The reamining visas are eligible for Jul 1, which is 13,000. Put together June and July1, it comes 60,000. Therefore they did not violate any law. This makes only 126,000. The remaining number was splitted for Consular processing.
my 2 cents...
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
I feel that they did not violate any clause. Till June 30 which is end of third quarter, they are authorized to approve (3*27%*140K) 113,400. However they approved only 66,400 till May 31. That yields about 47,000 for June alone(10%+any number not used in previous months). The reamining visas are eligible for Jul 1, which is 13,000. Put together June and July1, it comes 60,000. Therefore they did not violate any law. This makes only 126,000. The remaining number was splitted for Consular processing.
my 2 cents...
more...
alterego
07-14 09:37 PM
The fundamental rule (for getting GC) is the longterm intent of having permanent employment relationship between employer and employee at the time of filing 140 and 485 (see the Q&A). The intet has to be "at the time of filing" only. The employee has worked 3 years in H1B for thr sponser. It clearly establishes the both party's intent at the time of filing. So, even if the employer revokes his approved 140, he is 100% safe.
I do not think what you are saying is correct. Ac21 does not allow you to leave before 180 days of your 485 filing.
The RFE is trying to determine whether your former employer holds a bonafide future job open for you or not. If he/she does not then your application is not valid in your circumstances from what I know.
If you get a letter from him/her then that should be adequate, however you will also need to start work with that employer for a reasonable time afterward to be within the law.
If as the poster above said the intent has to be there at the time of filing, then it would be easy for everyone to intend whatever the needed at the time of filing and then change their minds. It does not work that way.
The revocation of the 140 would not have been a problem if it happened after the 180 days, but would be an issue now.
I can see you are in a difficult spot. I would definitely suggest you stay honest, since they have all of your filing records etc. and if you fudge it, your petition can be denied for fraud, which could harm future applications.
Rather than relying on the advise here, you should seek out a good attorney experienced in AC21.
I do not think what you are saying is correct. Ac21 does not allow you to leave before 180 days of your 485 filing.
The RFE is trying to determine whether your former employer holds a bonafide future job open for you or not. If he/she does not then your application is not valid in your circumstances from what I know.
If you get a letter from him/her then that should be adequate, however you will also need to start work with that employer for a reasonable time afterward to be within the law.
If as the poster above said the intent has to be there at the time of filing, then it would be easy for everyone to intend whatever the needed at the time of filing and then change their minds. It does not work that way.
The revocation of the 140 would not have been a problem if it happened after the 180 days, but would be an issue now.
I can see you are in a difficult spot. I would definitely suggest you stay honest, since they have all of your filing records etc. and if you fudge it, your petition can be denied for fraud, which could harm future applications.
Rather than relying on the advise here, you should seek out a good attorney experienced in AC21.
hot cars wallpapers for desktop hd
ChainReaction
12-12 12:57 PM
Guys I have a basic question if filing for 140 and 485 concurently is rule that uscis can change.. why cant they change a rule to file for EAD and AP after 140 is approved. Since these two are seperate all together from 485 anyway, all we need is filing these two. and 485 can filed when numbers are available.
And also if the FBI name check can be done during or after the i-140 stage as the labor market is already tested and the employer has/had committed to hire the alien (One of the major factor contributing to this is the retrogression ,which can be reduced substantially at the name check stage) . At least the name check can be taken care of while people are waiting for their PD to become current?
And also if the FBI name check can be done during or after the i-140 stage as the labor market is already tested and the employer has/had committed to hire the alien (One of the major factor contributing to this is the retrogression ,which can be reduced substantially at the name check stage) . At least the name check can be taken care of while people are waiting for their PD to become current?
more...
house Need For Speed 14 HD wallpaper
Hinglish
01-08 10:04 PM
May the best man win !
tattoo 5000 HD Desktop Wallpaper for
mayhemt
09-10 08:06 AM
I get this question every day, what are the hopes for EB3-I, or rather are there any hopes for EB3-I? Are we fighting a lost battle?
What do people here really think?
1. There are X % chance that there would be some immigration bill that would help us and we will have GC in next couple of years?
2. Keep going on with life as is, till the time we can renew EAD every 2 years, and AP every year.
3. Wait for another X years, and then go back.
4. Hopefully my son/daughter will be 21 by 2020, and will sponsor my GC.
--- Hoping family based GC would still be allowed by then
5. Don't know, confused?
6. Look for entrepreneurial options & file in EB5. You get freedom from daily-job-rat-race and visa/GC hassles.
What do people here really think?
1. There are X % chance that there would be some immigration bill that would help us and we will have GC in next couple of years?
2. Keep going on with life as is, till the time we can renew EAD every 2 years, and AP every year.
3. Wait for another X years, and then go back.
4. Hopefully my son/daughter will be 21 by 2020, and will sponsor my GC.
--- Hoping family based GC would still be allowed by then
5. Don't know, confused?
6. Look for entrepreneurial options & file in EB5. You get freedom from daily-job-rat-race and visa/GC hassles.
more...
pictures HD Cars Desktop Wallpapers
amsgc
07-02 09:36 PM
Regarding your argument on fairness:
On the contrary, under the current system immigrants from all nations do not have an equal opportunity to apply for a green card. Immigrants from the retrogressed countries are at an unfair disadvantage.
It is easy to see: A guy from ROW and a guy from India both are equally qualified engineers who have a EB2 PD of Jan 2008. The guy from ROW can apply to adjust status now, but the guy from India cannot apply until five years from now. That doesn't tell me that both immigrants have an equal opportunity.
Both immigrants would have had an equal opportunity if both could apply for GC at the same time. Once you have entered the country, have been gainfully employed, and your immigrant petition has been approved, how does it matter whether you came from India, china or Timbuktu? Your employer needs you for your skills, not your place of birth. Do you resolve your day to day office problems with your birth certificate pasted to your forehead?
Regarding your argument on diversity:
You need to understand that the country cap (set up 50 years ago) was NOT set up to give all countries an equal shot at sending EB immigrants to the US. The cap was based and an already existing xenophobic tendency (formally expressed way back in 1924) and the desire to retain the cultural and racial character of the US of '65. They would do fine with only handful of you if you didn't eat, drink, talk, walk and look like them.
Now, you need to understand another important point - The world has changed by leaps and bounds in the last fifty years, all made possible by advances in technology and a conscientious effort by governments to educate their people. As a result there are highly skilled people all over the world, who bring their own unique character and experience to the work place. And things have changed dramatically in the US too. Among other things, the US has become more accommodating to people of different cultural identities. Economically, the US is in need of more high skilled people than ever before. This is an irreversible trend, where the US of today is more interested in who you are and what you bring to the table than what you look like. If a few thousand Indians or Chinese are given the green card, based on their SKLLS, it will not alter the racial and cultural character of 300000000 Americans (that's 300 followed by six zeros). Rather it will only make it richer.
Usually politicians work in reactionary mode – they will espouse an idea once it is obvious that they can’t do without it. The fact that discussion to remove country caps in EB has come up in the congress means that the American people have already written it off as an absurd idea.
The law will change, whether you like it or not.
Read here and get yourself some education:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Services_Act_of_1965
Regarding the agenda:
The agenda of this organization is pretty darn obvious if you care to go through the home page. The idea is to get as close as possible to a system of immigration that appropriately addresses the needs of the US economy and is fair to both Peter and Paul. A system which gives out a green card in a timely fashion, based on skills, job requirements, and the time when the process was started. We need to advocate a change because the current system says to Paul "screw you" and rewards Peter.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - I don't see how the per country limit is unfair! It was set up so that immigrants from ALL nations would have EQUAL opportunity to immigrate to the U.S. and to prevent any one (or two) countries from monopolizing the visa numbers. Getting rid of the per country limit would most certainly lead to immigration from a limited number of sources (countries) and thus jeopardize the diversity of the immigration process. Getting rid of it would be like robbing Peter to pay Paul because those countries who are severely retrogressed now would only see limited benefits and those who are not all that retrogressed would fall backwards - is that fair!? It seems these forms are dominated by "certain" groups who have their own agenda and don't really care about ROW! It makes me feel uncomfortable being an IV member from ROW!
On the contrary, under the current system immigrants from all nations do not have an equal opportunity to apply for a green card. Immigrants from the retrogressed countries are at an unfair disadvantage.
It is easy to see: A guy from ROW and a guy from India both are equally qualified engineers who have a EB2 PD of Jan 2008. The guy from ROW can apply to adjust status now, but the guy from India cannot apply until five years from now. That doesn't tell me that both immigrants have an equal opportunity.
Both immigrants would have had an equal opportunity if both could apply for GC at the same time. Once you have entered the country, have been gainfully employed, and your immigrant petition has been approved, how does it matter whether you came from India, china or Timbuktu? Your employer needs you for your skills, not your place of birth. Do you resolve your day to day office problems with your birth certificate pasted to your forehead?
Regarding your argument on diversity:
You need to understand that the country cap (set up 50 years ago) was NOT set up to give all countries an equal shot at sending EB immigrants to the US. The cap was based and an already existing xenophobic tendency (formally expressed way back in 1924) and the desire to retain the cultural and racial character of the US of '65. They would do fine with only handful of you if you didn't eat, drink, talk, walk and look like them.
Now, you need to understand another important point - The world has changed by leaps and bounds in the last fifty years, all made possible by advances in technology and a conscientious effort by governments to educate their people. As a result there are highly skilled people all over the world, who bring their own unique character and experience to the work place. And things have changed dramatically in the US too. Among other things, the US has become more accommodating to people of different cultural identities. Economically, the US is in need of more high skilled people than ever before. This is an irreversible trend, where the US of today is more interested in who you are and what you bring to the table than what you look like. If a few thousand Indians or Chinese are given the green card, based on their SKLLS, it will not alter the racial and cultural character of 300000000 Americans (that's 300 followed by six zeros). Rather it will only make it richer.
Usually politicians work in reactionary mode – they will espouse an idea once it is obvious that they can’t do without it. The fact that discussion to remove country caps in EB has come up in the congress means that the American people have already written it off as an absurd idea.
The law will change, whether you like it or not.
Read here and get yourself some education:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Services_Act_of_1965
Regarding the agenda:
The agenda of this organization is pretty darn obvious if you care to go through the home page. The idea is to get as close as possible to a system of immigration that appropriately addresses the needs of the US economy and is fair to both Peter and Paul. A system which gives out a green card in a timely fashion, based on skills, job requirements, and the time when the process was started. We need to advocate a change because the current system says to Paul "screw you" and rewards Peter.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - I don't see how the per country limit is unfair! It was set up so that immigrants from ALL nations would have EQUAL opportunity to immigrate to the U.S. and to prevent any one (or two) countries from monopolizing the visa numbers. Getting rid of the per country limit would most certainly lead to immigration from a limited number of sources (countries) and thus jeopardize the diversity of the immigration process. Getting rid of it would be like robbing Peter to pay Paul because those countries who are severely retrogressed now would only see limited benefits and those who are not all that retrogressed would fall backwards - is that fair!? It seems these forms are dominated by "certain" groups who have their own agenda and don't really care about ROW! It makes me feel uncomfortable being an IV member from ROW!
dresses cool cars wallpaper hd. cool
Googler
02-21 05:15 PM
I-485: EB2 India with PD June 2003
I was wondering why I am I getting a LUD in Feb 08? (since EB2 India is 'U').
Now I know why :) it seems USCIS is getting ready for the deluge in April 08' :D
Lord almighty people are getting really carried away. :) This cutoff setting guy hadn't even made up his mind as of Feb 13. Also read my entire post, he won't set the date till he sees the estimate from USCIS.
Btw, my PD is Jan 03 and my LUD is still back in November 07 (when my attorney changed).
I was wondering why I am I getting a LUD in Feb 08? (since EB2 India is 'U').
Now I know why :) it seems USCIS is getting ready for the deluge in April 08' :D
Lord almighty people are getting really carried away. :) This cutoff setting guy hadn't even made up his mind as of Feb 13. Also read my entire post, he won't set the date till he sees the estimate from USCIS.
Btw, my PD is Jan 03 and my LUD is still back in November 07 (when my attorney changed).
more...
makeup HD Fiat Vintage Car Wallpapers
kutra
07-21 10:03 AM
once you get past the I-140, the typical reasons for denial of I-485 are some criminal background, out of status >180 days, mistakes on forms etc.
IMO a simple case would be someone who:
- has never changed employers
- was employed with a large US corporation which is more likely to have paid him his salary every month (as opposed to a 3-4 person company where getting hold of the W-2 is the only way to confirm).
- was never denied any application (change of status / entry to US)
- has clear medical records
- has clear documents related to birth certificate
Complicated cases are when:
- someone has repeatedly changed and employers since entering the US. The IO will need to make sure status was maintained throughout all those transitions.
- some document was not submitted, or not submitted with transalations/affidavits etc. Commonly birth certificate issues.
You are correct. Unfortuantely, they are not looking for these "ripe" or "low hanging fruits" cases in a FIFO order. It can be highly exasperating when a "ripe" case with a March 2006 PD gets approved when "ripe" cases with PDs earlier than 2003 are languishing! That really makes the whole system even more unjust.
IMO a simple case would be someone who:
- has never changed employers
- was employed with a large US corporation which is more likely to have paid him his salary every month (as opposed to a 3-4 person company where getting hold of the W-2 is the only way to confirm).
- was never denied any application (change of status / entry to US)
- has clear medical records
- has clear documents related to birth certificate
Complicated cases are when:
- someone has repeatedly changed and employers since entering the US. The IO will need to make sure status was maintained throughout all those transitions.
- some document was not submitted, or not submitted with transalations/affidavits etc. Commonly birth certificate issues.
You are correct. Unfortuantely, they are not looking for these "ripe" or "low hanging fruits" cases in a FIFO order. It can be highly exasperating when a "ripe" case with a March 2006 PD gets approved when "ripe" cases with PDs earlier than 2003 are languishing! That really makes the whole system even more unjust.
girlfriend wallpapers,hd desktop
nitinboston
04-09 03:38 PM
same story every month, KLPD
hairstyles HD Car Wallpapers
alkg
10-16 11:28 AM
Yes guys we should come together and do something instead of just waiting and waiting.. Most of us have already waited for 7-8 years............now we do not have that strength to wait for another 7-8 years .............
UNITED WE STAND,DEVIDED WE FALL
UNITED WE STAND,DEVIDED WE FALL
ganguteli
04-03 12:26 PM
Hello there,
Please contact me at fermion_boson@ymail.com if you are interested to take part in efforts to re-capture unused visa numbers for EB categories.
Let's do this NOW.
"To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield" --Lord Tennyson in "Ulysses"
Dude complete your profile first if you want to be taken seriously.
I would be hesitant to write to some anonymous email id.
Please contact me at fermion_boson@ymail.com if you are interested to take part in efforts to re-capture unused visa numbers for EB categories.
Let's do this NOW.
"To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield" --Lord Tennyson in "Ulysses"
Dude complete your profile first if you want to be taken seriously.
I would be hesitant to write to some anonymous email id.
alex99
11-05 03:58 PM
Bump
No comments:
Post a Comment