ufo2002
11-08 03:04 PM
How does passing CIR help us? I didn't really have the energy to go thru the whole bill but it didn't specify what "line" those 20+million ppl who eventually get amnesty will be processed in. If they line up on EB3 or a supplementary bill in the future decides to allocate some EB3 to a "Schedule B" (just for example), then we are right back to where we started (but add more years to the waiting).
wallpaper gift certificates. arney
nyte_crawler
04-10 12:29 PM
And this new caste system of the DONOR forum which basically says screw you to everyone who has spent time, money or effort on IV and completely goes against the "Change for fairness and Justice" mumbo jumbo is a step in the right direction, IV needs to give way to an actual movement that actually does something and this DONOR forum concept will certainly go a long way in the marginalization of this site and community.
I completely understand what chaanakya is saying and I have a similar opinion. I understand the concept of "Donor" form and it exclusivity of information if you donate. If I question about the concept, I know I will be put down and if IV wants to move in that direction to reach the goals then so be it. So let me spare you from typing anything against my opinion. The only thing I would want to know is who is the "CORE" of IV now ? I vaguely remember it was up in the website somewhere when I joined in 2006. I don't see it anymore.
I completely understand what chaanakya is saying and I have a similar opinion. I understand the concept of "Donor" form and it exclusivity of information if you donate. If I question about the concept, I know I will be put down and if IV wants to move in that direction to reach the goals then so be it. So let me spare you from typing anything against my opinion. The only thing I would want to know is who is the "CORE" of IV now ? I vaguely remember it was up in the website somewhere when I joined in 2006. I don't see it anymore.
desi3933
02-02 12:32 PM
Another Example:
Let us say, Employer XYZ has 3 employees on H-1B. Its upto Employer's choice to file green card for any or all of them. Employer may decide to sponsor employment based green card for only 1 of them.
If employer decides to sponsor green card for only 1 of the H-1B worker, can other 2 H-1B workers claim right to get sponsored based on Equal Opportunity Law? The answer is No, since it is perfectly ok and does not come under employment based discremination.
People here are mixing 2 different laws without knowing law's applicability limitations.
________________
Not a legal advice.
Let us say, Employer XYZ has 3 employees on H-1B. Its upto Employer's choice to file green card for any or all of them. Employer may decide to sponsor employment based green card for only 1 of them.
If employer decides to sponsor green card for only 1 of the H-1B worker, can other 2 H-1B workers claim right to get sponsored based on Equal Opportunity Law? The answer is No, since it is perfectly ok and does not come under employment based discremination.
People here are mixing 2 different laws without knowing law's applicability limitations.
________________
Not a legal advice.
2011 gay arney. reply
raj3078
07-07 01:06 PM
Guys and Gals,
Lets not bash anyone here. IEEE might sound anti-immigrant on the surface in true sense, its only anti H1B for all the right reason. I am not trying to defend IEEE but just getting the facts straight. Please check the attached file which is a letter sent by IEEE-USA president to Gov of Minnasota.
Raj
On the surface, yes, IEEE-USA supports EB visas and opposes H1-B visas. But if you take a closer look, its not as clear cut as that. What they really want is to restrict immigration to the most exceptional foreign scientists and engineers (roughly those who would qualify for EB1), and make the path to a GC faster for them. They are dead opposed to foreigners being hired for general engineering jobs, and the current practise of almost everyone on an H1-B being eligible to apply for a GC. I would think twice before calling them a friend to any of us; they are at best anti free-trade restrictionists minus the rabidity and political incorrectness of our "friends". A while ago there was a discussion on IEEE-USA's reaction to CIR, where they expressed displeasure on the increase in H1-Bs along with the increase in permanent visas.
Lets not bash anyone here. IEEE might sound anti-immigrant on the surface in true sense, its only anti H1B for all the right reason. I am not trying to defend IEEE but just getting the facts straight. Please check the attached file which is a letter sent by IEEE-USA president to Gov of Minnasota.
Raj
On the surface, yes, IEEE-USA supports EB visas and opposes H1-B visas. But if you take a closer look, its not as clear cut as that. What they really want is to restrict immigration to the most exceptional foreign scientists and engineers (roughly those who would qualify for EB1), and make the path to a GC faster for them. They are dead opposed to foreigners being hired for general engineering jobs, and the current practise of almost everyone on an H1-B being eligible to apply for a GC. I would think twice before calling them a friend to any of us; they are at best anti free-trade restrictionists minus the rabidity and political incorrectness of our "friends". A while ago there was a discussion on IEEE-USA's reaction to CIR, where they expressed displeasure on the increase in H1-Bs along with the increase in permanent visas.
more...
nlssubbu
09-27 03:59 PM
Like I said, its a combination of the 2 main things, the efficiency of processing and the quota limits. Changing either 1 without the other other probably won't get us far.
Yes, USCIS IS capable of processing quickly (for example, my own case - but I'd say I was very VERY lucky, rather than an indication of system wide improvements). Remember, my GC was approved whilst my PD was not current, and I am still baffled why this happened. Having talked to many people about it, there is a strong suspicion of "squeaky wheel" helping.
What I was trying to say was - the perceived improvement in speed in the last quota 1/4 of this year (May- Sept) was NOT because USCIS suddenly streamlined and improved their processing speed. It was because there was a backlog of approved applications just waiting for PDs to move so that visa numbers can be assigned.
If I am offending anyone who tries to predict on visa bulleting cut-off days, I am sorry for doing so in advance. The agencies involved in this process themselves are out of clue and it is clearly pointed out by ombudsmen himself. I am still puzzled how they derive the cut-off days every month without such statistics? In the past there were numerous statistics regarding the cut-off date prediction and not even came close to what is getting published. This is one department who defy any logic in determining the cut-off dates. I think it is mere waste of time and energy in trying to do so at our end based on my past experience.
Thanks
Yes, USCIS IS capable of processing quickly (for example, my own case - but I'd say I was very VERY lucky, rather than an indication of system wide improvements). Remember, my GC was approved whilst my PD was not current, and I am still baffled why this happened. Having talked to many people about it, there is a strong suspicion of "squeaky wheel" helping.
What I was trying to say was - the perceived improvement in speed in the last quota 1/4 of this year (May- Sept) was NOT because USCIS suddenly streamlined and improved their processing speed. It was because there was a backlog of approved applications just waiting for PDs to move so that visa numbers can be assigned.
If I am offending anyone who tries to predict on visa bulleting cut-off days, I am sorry for doing so in advance. The agencies involved in this process themselves are out of clue and it is clearly pointed out by ombudsmen himself. I am still puzzled how they derive the cut-off days every month without such statistics? In the past there were numerous statistics regarding the cut-off date prediction and not even came close to what is getting published. This is one department who defy any logic in determining the cut-off dates. I think it is mere waste of time and energy in trying to do so at our end based on my past experience.
Thanks
shukla77
02-29 10:07 PM
I sent my letters today....
more...
whoever
02-09 06:30 PM
and i have a feeling they will really get those 90000 from pool of prious years unused eb visas. i dont think it is rumor or just someone without knowing what they are doing writing on a blog and spreading rumor.
2010 BARNEY THE DINOSAUR WALLPAPER
kc_p21
12-10 02:07 PM
Nothing against Logiclife but response doesn't sound right.
Logiclife,
IV is a voluntary organisation. You can request people to volunteer, but cannot force them or scold them for not volunteering. This is not professional. They might have their reasons and the right to work their way. I agree with your frustration when people who signed to turn up do not show up. But I feel this is not the way to express it.
Ram
Logiclife,
IV is a voluntary organisation. You can request people to volunteer, but cannot force them or scold them for not volunteering. This is not professional. They might have their reasons and the right to work their way. I agree with your frustration when people who signed to turn up do not show up. But I feel this is not the way to express it.
Ram
more...
svam77
07-19 09:21 PM
Please read secion 10:5 - b:5
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/RFEFinalRule060107.pdf
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/RFEFinalRule060107.pdf
hair famous Barney Stinson from
sheela
06-26 03:11 PM
Thanks Sheela.
I got a relief. So since I ma on EAD and on I-485 status is it ok to take a break for 3 months and then start the next job. So this break will not affect my status right.
Yes, that is right. On EAD you can stay in-between-jobs
I got a relief. So since I ma on EAD and on I-485 status is it ok to take a break for 3 months and then start the next job. So this break will not affect my status right.
Yes, that is right. On EAD you can stay in-between-jobs
more...
burnt
03-28 02:16 PM
Just to add.... porting process is legit for EB-2 as well. EB-1 is current now. :p
***
The Indian CRAB is the story of how a fisherman kept a basket with crabs, uncovered. When asked, he replied " They�re Indian Crabs - If one tries to climb out, the others will pull it back in, hence there�s no need for a lid "
***
The Indian CRAB - Contribute - MSNIndia (http://content.msn.co.in/MSNContribute/Story.aspx?PageID=222e21f3-f981-4a9c-9f9b-a5706f249433)
Story of Indian Crabs was a good one...:-)
***
The Indian CRAB is the story of how a fisherman kept a basket with crabs, uncovered. When asked, he replied " They�re Indian Crabs - If one tries to climb out, the others will pull it back in, hence there�s no need for a lid "
***
The Indian CRAB - Contribute - MSNIndia (http://content.msn.co.in/MSNContribute/Story.aspx?PageID=222e21f3-f981-4a9c-9f9b-a5706f249433)
Story of Indian Crabs was a good one...:-)
hot barneyapr , , wallpapers
rego
02-13 04:06 PM
hydboy77,
This seems to be an entirely new issue. I think it deserves to have its own thread. Let the current thread handle the original issue.
Thanks.
Dear Administrator2\IV core,
Just getting the provision to file AOS when priority date is not current without the other provisions that are related to pre filing AOS like "removal of semilar\same job restriction when using EAD\AC21" is not good. Dont get me wrong I understand how much the guys who missed out on the july fiasco want to prefile AOS and get EAD but without the provision to remove the restriction of same\semilar job requirement in AC 21 it (EAD) is useless. By now everyone knows that USCIS is heavily issuing RFE or denial notices for h1b transfer and extension. It is just a matter of time before USCIS starts issuing RFE or denial notice on EAD\485 as well. The prime candidate for USCIS to kick out people using EAD\485 is the same or semilar job restriction while using EAD\AC21. If everyone gets to pre file AOS without PD restrictions then USCIS will make using EAD as difficult as using H1b. Please fight for the removal of "same\semilar job requirement in AC 21" along with prefiling AOS so that everybody gets true relief and it really becomes a win win situation, otherwise it is a waste and will speed up uscis making life miserable for EAD workers.
This seems to be an entirely new issue. I think it deserves to have its own thread. Let the current thread handle the original issue.
Thanks.
Dear Administrator2\IV core,
Just getting the provision to file AOS when priority date is not current without the other provisions that are related to pre filing AOS like "removal of semilar\same job restriction when using EAD\AC21" is not good. Dont get me wrong I understand how much the guys who missed out on the july fiasco want to prefile AOS and get EAD but without the provision to remove the restriction of same\semilar job requirement in AC 21 it (EAD) is useless. By now everyone knows that USCIS is heavily issuing RFE or denial notices for h1b transfer and extension. It is just a matter of time before USCIS starts issuing RFE or denial notice on EAD\485 as well. The prime candidate for USCIS to kick out people using EAD\485 is the same or semilar job restriction while using EAD\AC21. If everyone gets to pre file AOS without PD restrictions then USCIS will make using EAD as difficult as using H1b. Please fight for the removal of "same\semilar job requirement in AC 21" along with prefiling AOS so that everybody gets true relief and it really becomes a win win situation, otherwise it is a waste and will speed up uscis making life miserable for EAD workers.
more...
house How I Met Your Mother: Barney
nrakkati
03-20 08:40 PM
As long as you have had a valid h1b peition approved for employer 1 and employer 2 while you worked for them you are FINE.
According to my lawyer there is nuthing like a h1b transfer. When someone decides to move to a new sponsor that new sponsor files for a h1b via the petition but nuthing gets transfered, they need to refer to old h1b just to prove thatyou are legal and have been maintaining legal status.
in your case Employer X did so but you never joined that employer so you are fine. USCIS can get back to that emplyer if they have not cancelled your h1b as they are liable to pay you by law.
For real as you had an approved petition (latest but not the greatest) from Employer X but did not join them you are fine as long as you were still holding a valid petition with Emp # 2. You should respond back to RFE stating that you were maintaining stauts via emp#2 and were offered a job by EmpX which you never accepted. As a proof you should sen copies of pay stub for enitre period and w-2 + peition and visa copies.
Hope this helps!:)
Thanks piyu7444.
According to my lawyer there is nuthing like a h1b transfer. When someone decides to move to a new sponsor that new sponsor files for a h1b via the petition but nuthing gets transfered, they need to refer to old h1b just to prove thatyou are legal and have been maintaining legal status.
in your case Employer X did so but you never joined that employer so you are fine. USCIS can get back to that emplyer if they have not cancelled your h1b as they are liable to pay you by law.
For real as you had an approved petition (latest but not the greatest) from Employer X but did not join them you are fine as long as you were still holding a valid petition with Emp # 2. You should respond back to RFE stating that you were maintaining stauts via emp#2 and were offered a job by EmpX which you never accepted. As a proof you should sen copies of pay stub for enitre period and w-2 + peition and visa copies.
Hope this helps!:)
Thanks piyu7444.
tattoo wallpaper border arney
santb1975
02-11 11:50 AM
Keep this thread on Top
more...
pictures Barney Stinson Wallpaper
japs19
06-30 08:00 PM
Congrats! Thanks for sharing the news. Just chill and enjoy.
dresses one mar smith Barney roles
logiclife
09-25 12:04 PM
Your rights as a participant of a bulletin board or online forum like Immigration Voice forums:
The rights of bloggers (site admin, site owner or site moderators), their liability and section 230. Section 230 refers to Section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code (47 USC � 230) (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/230.html). To learn the plain English language explanation of this section, go here: http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-230.php (http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-230.php)
What this means is that whenever someone posts anything against anyone, Immigration Voice is immune from libel suits or defamation lawsuits, with couple of exceptions (discussed in item 2). Therefore, any anonymous poster saying bad things about their lawyers, employers, or anyone else DOES NOT HAVE TO BE DELETED.
Immigration Voice is not going to delete, edit or moderate the posts and threads posted by our members no matter how defamatory or criticizing they are. That�s because A) Immigration Voice is not liable for what our members do or not do per section 230 and B) Immigration Voice needs to give freedom to members to vent out against the incompetent immigration lawyers and/or dishonest employers because that is what makes us unique and different from censored forums and it is the ESSENCE of this bulletin board.
Other than couple of exceptional scenarios (see point # 2), we are not liable for content posted by users of message boards, forums, discussion boards etc. Section 230 protects Immigration Voice website administrator and moderator against libel suits or other lawsuits caused by participants who post messages against their lawyers, employers or anyone else. A recent example of such a case is illustrated in 22 page opinion of a federal judge in DiMeo V Max (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1149152717145).
The exceptions when Section 230 protections won�t work.Section 230 will not protect Immigration Voice if site moderators and administrators themselves post content that causes damages to others. We (site admin and moderators) will not edit or delete posts that say bad things about other orgs or persons - no matter how derogatory or defamatory they are against some lawyers, employers etc. We are not liable or responsible for them and legally it�s best and safest for moderators/site admins to leave those posts alone. Besides, that is one reason why people come to this site � freedom to vent out without any censorship, sometimes even against the Immigration Voice leadership and core group.
The other scenario when the section 230 wont protects us is in case of intellectual property. So don�t post any patented information or technology details on this website. However the laws give us a lot of latitude when we post some news articles or other content created by other sources. More details of intellectual property are here on this link. http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-ip.php (http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-ip.php).
Are we obligated to provide information to plaintiffs about our anonymous posters?First of all, most of the time, we ourselves don�t know the anonymous posters and who they are. The most we can do is provide IP address. Those IP addresses too are not easy to pin down in certain kinds of network environments. However, we will not give any information about our members to anyone unless and until we are subpoenaed for it. Subpoenas are either issued by law enforcement or by plaintiffs who file the lawsuit. Unless we are subpoenaed, we don�t have to give away any information like IP or email of any anonymous poster. Immigration Voice will never make the IP address or any information available to anyone unless it is ordered by court. Immigration Voice will use all possible legal avenues to protect the privacy and anonymity of its members and online discussion participants.
What if someone with deep pockets sues Immigration Voice with the objective of shutting us down, even though they know they don�t have a case, but want to sue us just to drag us into expensive court battle and make us bankrupt?There is nothing that protects Immigration Voice (or any such website with discussion boards and forums) from frivolous lawsuits. Anyone can sue anyone else, whether he or she lose or win is a different matter. Section 230 protects immigration voice from libel lawsuits resulting from anonymous participants posting messages that cause damages to organizations or individuals. They are even more counterproductive for the plaintiff if that state has ANTI-SLAAP laws.
SLAAP means �Strategic lawsuit against active participation�. If someone sues us just to make us bankrupt and shut us down without caring for outcome of the case, then it�s a SLAAP lawsuit. The objective is such lawsuit is not to win but to drag the other party into expensive court battle and make them bankrupt. Some states have laws against SLAAP lawsuits called ANTI-SLAAP laws. They are different in every state. What those laws do in general is make the plaintiff of SLAAP lawsuit pay the defendant for the cost of litigation and defense if they lose. So if someone from state that has ANTI-SLAAP laws sues us, then the money we spend on litigation would have to be paid by plaintiffs if they lose. Therefore there is good chance of finding a pro-bono lawyer because if they win, they get paid from the other party. What this means is that it�s difficult to drive someone to bankruptcy with frivolous lawsuits if the state has good ANTI-SLAAP laws. California is one example. Therefore the chances of us getting sued by someone in CA are lesser than other states.
Should any party sue Immigration Voice for libel based on posted messages on online forums, Immigration Voice will fight back to the fullest extent and will not remove posts or threads against those organizations.
What should one do if they have been badly hurt due to incompetence or malfeasance on the part of employer or lawyers?Immigration Voice will neither encourage nor discourage members to post messages against their employers or lawyers or any other party. Members and participants are free to post whatever they want to post. If you lawyer�s actions have hurt you and if you think it�s due to malpractice then you can file a complaint against that lawyer in a state bar. If your employer�s action has hurt you and if you think his actions are illegal, then you can file a complaint against your employer at the department of labor (for wages issues) or other departments for other issues.
The rights of bloggers (site admin, site owner or site moderators), their liability and section 230. Section 230 refers to Section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code (47 USC � 230) (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/230.html). To learn the plain English language explanation of this section, go here: http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-230.php (http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-230.php)
What this means is that whenever someone posts anything against anyone, Immigration Voice is immune from libel suits or defamation lawsuits, with couple of exceptions (discussed in item 2). Therefore, any anonymous poster saying bad things about their lawyers, employers, or anyone else DOES NOT HAVE TO BE DELETED.
Immigration Voice is not going to delete, edit or moderate the posts and threads posted by our members no matter how defamatory or criticizing they are. That�s because A) Immigration Voice is not liable for what our members do or not do per section 230 and B) Immigration Voice needs to give freedom to members to vent out against the incompetent immigration lawyers and/or dishonest employers because that is what makes us unique and different from censored forums and it is the ESSENCE of this bulletin board.
Other than couple of exceptional scenarios (see point # 2), we are not liable for content posted by users of message boards, forums, discussion boards etc. Section 230 protects Immigration Voice website administrator and moderator against libel suits or other lawsuits caused by participants who post messages against their lawyers, employers or anyone else. A recent example of such a case is illustrated in 22 page opinion of a federal judge in DiMeo V Max (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1149152717145).
The exceptions when Section 230 protections won�t work.Section 230 will not protect Immigration Voice if site moderators and administrators themselves post content that causes damages to others. We (site admin and moderators) will not edit or delete posts that say bad things about other orgs or persons - no matter how derogatory or defamatory they are against some lawyers, employers etc. We are not liable or responsible for them and legally it�s best and safest for moderators/site admins to leave those posts alone. Besides, that is one reason why people come to this site � freedom to vent out without any censorship, sometimes even against the Immigration Voice leadership and core group.
The other scenario when the section 230 wont protects us is in case of intellectual property. So don�t post any patented information or technology details on this website. However the laws give us a lot of latitude when we post some news articles or other content created by other sources. More details of intellectual property are here on this link. http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-ip.php (http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-ip.php).
Are we obligated to provide information to plaintiffs about our anonymous posters?First of all, most of the time, we ourselves don�t know the anonymous posters and who they are. The most we can do is provide IP address. Those IP addresses too are not easy to pin down in certain kinds of network environments. However, we will not give any information about our members to anyone unless and until we are subpoenaed for it. Subpoenas are either issued by law enforcement or by plaintiffs who file the lawsuit. Unless we are subpoenaed, we don�t have to give away any information like IP or email of any anonymous poster. Immigration Voice will never make the IP address or any information available to anyone unless it is ordered by court. Immigration Voice will use all possible legal avenues to protect the privacy and anonymity of its members and online discussion participants.
What if someone with deep pockets sues Immigration Voice with the objective of shutting us down, even though they know they don�t have a case, but want to sue us just to drag us into expensive court battle and make us bankrupt?There is nothing that protects Immigration Voice (or any such website with discussion boards and forums) from frivolous lawsuits. Anyone can sue anyone else, whether he or she lose or win is a different matter. Section 230 protects immigration voice from libel lawsuits resulting from anonymous participants posting messages that cause damages to organizations or individuals. They are even more counterproductive for the plaintiff if that state has ANTI-SLAAP laws.
SLAAP means �Strategic lawsuit against active participation�. If someone sues us just to make us bankrupt and shut us down without caring for outcome of the case, then it�s a SLAAP lawsuit. The objective is such lawsuit is not to win but to drag the other party into expensive court battle and make them bankrupt. Some states have laws against SLAAP lawsuits called ANTI-SLAAP laws. They are different in every state. What those laws do in general is make the plaintiff of SLAAP lawsuit pay the defendant for the cost of litigation and defense if they lose. So if someone from state that has ANTI-SLAAP laws sues us, then the money we spend on litigation would have to be paid by plaintiffs if they lose. Therefore there is good chance of finding a pro-bono lawyer because if they win, they get paid from the other party. What this means is that it�s difficult to drive someone to bankruptcy with frivolous lawsuits if the state has good ANTI-SLAAP laws. California is one example. Therefore the chances of us getting sued by someone in CA are lesser than other states.
Should any party sue Immigration Voice for libel based on posted messages on online forums, Immigration Voice will fight back to the fullest extent and will not remove posts or threads against those organizations.
What should one do if they have been badly hurt due to incompetence or malfeasance on the part of employer or lawyers?Immigration Voice will neither encourage nor discourage members to post messages against their employers or lawyers or any other party. Members and participants are free to post whatever they want to post. If you lawyer�s actions have hurt you and if you think it�s due to malpractice then you can file a complaint against that lawyer in a state bar. If your employer�s action has hurt you and if you think his actions are illegal, then you can file a complaint against your employer at the department of labor (for wages issues) or other departments for other issues.
more...
makeup how to harwood a winding
rameshk75
05-01 03:27 PM
All the registered members of IV should contribute to make it a big success...If the bills are passed, there will be huge relief and happiness for everyone...
Those who are watching the threads for some success, nothing will happen if we don't contribute and lobby the bills.
Hence please give a hand to IV by CONTRIBUTING for the SUCCESS...
Those who are contributing let's move forward.. I will contribute another $50 at 20K..
Those who are watching the threads for some success, nothing will happen if we don't contribute and lobby the bills.
Hence please give a hand to IV by CONTRIBUTING for the SUCCESS...
Those who are contributing let's move forward.. I will contribute another $50 at 20K..
girlfriend zoey 101 wallpaper.
test101
07-05 12:46 PM
called Kennedy office at Washington: They said that the sentor is aware of it but do not know what he action.
called kerry office at Washington: they directed me to the boston office.
Called Cornyn office: They said the sentor is out of town and they will pass the issue for him. The one i spoke to does not know the position of the sentor on this issue.
called kerry office at Washington: they directed me to the boston office.
Called Cornyn office: They said the sentor is out of town and they will pass the issue for him. The one i spoke to does not know the position of the sentor on this issue.
hairstyles Nov carter bays these arney
cin45220
03-28 03:00 PM
@EBX -Man
Your comments are insulting!
Be EB2 or EB3, you should have guts to post what you think from your original ID. Creating a temp ID just to post crap shows that you are a good-for-nothing spineless bigot.
-CinBoy
Your comments are insulting!
Be EB2 or EB3, you should have guts to post what you think from your original ID. Creating a temp ID just to post crap shows that you are a good-for-nothing spineless bigot.
-CinBoy
ksircar
07-20 07:37 PM
Lawsuit will not help you. See AILA lawsuit for Visa Bulletin. USCIS did not even negotiate with AILA and chose to negotitate with IV. So you need to learn from it.
AILA now feels defeated because they could not show themselves as the protector of this community. If you see the lawsuit text by AILF, it clearly asks for money for lawyer fees, but does not asks for moeny for Medical exam and mental agony. So if you are going to trust your lawyers to help you, then good luck.
By the way, your Indian lawyer I dont know the name, sued DOL once and lost.
Secondly, how are you going to pay for the lawsuit? People here dont even want to pay $20 and you will need 20K or more for a lawsuit. Do you think you can raise that much?
Thirdly you are using IV site for your agenda. Instead of supporting IV you are creating your own selfish agenda and not listening to IV. I have seen lot of offensive messages by you guys. You guys celebrated when all of us got screwed
I do not support your agenda.
Although, some people may call it SELFISH AGENDA and advice not to use IV platform, I strongly support the cause. Some people may advice that once the labor is cleared, people with 2001/2002/2003... PDs will be at the front of the line. But, when those old labors are cleared, will they be able to apply for I485? DOL may say that by September 30 the backlog will be cleared. Is there any gurantee? Even all are cleared, they will not be able to apply for 485 now (has to apply by August 17). I think some SELFISH people with recent PDs are scared as people with older PDs may take the quota.
Regarding IV platform, it is an organization for the GC sufferers and by the GC sufferers. So this is of course the right place. If IV is busy with other issues, then people have to start their own fighting.
I am neither sure about the legal complications nor have any idea about the legal fees (or who will pay it) etc. Better consult attorneys about the viability of the case.
BTW, my labor is not in BEC and I have already contributed $500 to IV.
AILA now feels defeated because they could not show themselves as the protector of this community. If you see the lawsuit text by AILF, it clearly asks for money for lawyer fees, but does not asks for moeny for Medical exam and mental agony. So if you are going to trust your lawyers to help you, then good luck.
By the way, your Indian lawyer I dont know the name, sued DOL once and lost.
Secondly, how are you going to pay for the lawsuit? People here dont even want to pay $20 and you will need 20K or more for a lawsuit. Do you think you can raise that much?
Thirdly you are using IV site for your agenda. Instead of supporting IV you are creating your own selfish agenda and not listening to IV. I have seen lot of offensive messages by you guys. You guys celebrated when all of us got screwed
I do not support your agenda.
Although, some people may call it SELFISH AGENDA and advice not to use IV platform, I strongly support the cause. Some people may advice that once the labor is cleared, people with 2001/2002/2003... PDs will be at the front of the line. But, when those old labors are cleared, will they be able to apply for I485? DOL may say that by September 30 the backlog will be cleared. Is there any gurantee? Even all are cleared, they will not be able to apply for 485 now (has to apply by August 17). I think some SELFISH people with recent PDs are scared as people with older PDs may take the quota.
Regarding IV platform, it is an organization for the GC sufferers and by the GC sufferers. So this is of course the right place. If IV is busy with other issues, then people have to start their own fighting.
I am neither sure about the legal complications nor have any idea about the legal fees (or who will pay it) etc. Better consult attorneys about the viability of the case.
BTW, my labor is not in BEC and I have already contributed $500 to IV.
vik_tx
06-14 08:57 AM
Good news for some and not so good news for others. I have been waiting for my labor for last 4 years and have still not got the approval on hand. So I am not ready to apply for 485. Where as a friend of mine who came to US last year and applied for labor through perm 2 months back has his approved labor and can apply for 485. I feel this is kind of unfair. The dates should have progressed slowly but steadily instead of trying to create a mad rush now.
I had a similar issue.. labor was stuck in the backlog ctr for 4 years.. Tired of waiting - i then directed my lawers to request the dol for a screenshot, ven though my h-1b was valid and i did not actually need it.. lo and behold.. 15 days after that .. it was miraclously approved.. I suggest you try the same.. keep me posted if that works.
I had a similar issue.. labor was stuck in the backlog ctr for 4 years.. Tired of waiting - i then directed my lawers to request the dol for a screenshot, ven though my h-1b was valid and i did not actually need it.. lo and behold.. 15 days after that .. it was miraclously approved.. I suggest you try the same.. keep me posted if that works.
No comments:
Post a Comment