nonimmi
08-13 03:56 PM
I believe some top-level IV core members are EB3-I with PD 2003-04. So it is hard to believe that they are not worried watching "U" month after month and don't want to do anything about it. But as IV-Core they can not just do something for EB3-I. We need to find a way to fix this issue without creating another subgroup for EB3-I and take advantage of IV movement.
Michael chertoff
12-14 06:40 PM
Dear Friends,
What about if some of us will go for hunger strike in front of USCIC building? may be the will listen to us then.
please dont give reds if you dont like it, just ignore it. man I am very frustrated with the situation.
MC
What about if some of us will go for hunger strike in front of USCIC building? may be the will listen to us then.
please dont give reds if you dont like it, just ignore it. man I am very frustrated with the situation.
MC
ind_game
05-15 10:13 AM
Hi ind_game,
For me, 1. I-140 approval in September, 2007 (actually 09/04/2009 as I have the hard copy) has typo. I think your 09/04/2009 should be 2007.
Please correct.
I have corrected my previous post. thanks ak_2006
For me, 1. I-140 approval in September, 2007 (actually 09/04/2009 as I have the hard copy) has typo. I think your 09/04/2009 should be 2007.
Please correct.
I have corrected my previous post. thanks ak_2006
indianindian2006
05-03 10:14 PM
This is The call
Don't miss the chance
IV and We suceeded in July, 2 Year EAD and many more ...
Pls pick up the phone and do your bit
IV is YOU and is Your Best Friend
Sure buddy,
did my part twice.....
Thanks
Don't miss the chance
IV and We suceeded in July, 2 Year EAD and many more ...
Pls pick up the phone and do your bit
IV is YOU and is Your Best Friend
Sure buddy,
did my part twice.....
Thanks
more...
priti8888
07-23 05:12 PM
Thanks for the reply and encouragement. This is what makes this Immigration Voice community different from others...
no problem
no problem
ArkBird
08-12 03:10 PM
Am I the only one here feeling like being used as toilet paper waiting to get flushed with other "stuff" ??
more...
sledge_hammer
04-17 02:20 PM
H4+ I-485 pending still is a valid status. Now what rules they have regarding approving the loan to someone who is not working (because of H4 status) is something I am unaware of and not immigration related, I guess.
But if you are going to send them a copy of your I-485 application, that should mean SOMETHING in their eyes.
Do let us know how it goes. It will also be helpful to others in your situation. Good luck!
Thank you Mr. Hammer.
My question was about H4 + 485 pending? Then what is the status? I have earlier given EAD, but they did not accept that. I am submitting 485 receipt with A#. Let me see how it goes.
But if you are going to send them a copy of your I-485 application, that should mean SOMETHING in their eyes.
Do let us know how it goes. It will also be helpful to others in your situation. Good luck!
Thank you Mr. Hammer.
My question was about H4 + 485 pending? Then what is the status? I have earlier given EAD, but they did not accept that. I am submitting 485 receipt with A#. Let me see how it goes.
manderson
12-28 06:31 PM
After some point we need to ask USCIS to update the processing times to reflect this long delay, or take legal action or whatever to expedite this...
more...
eb3_nepa
07-14 05:42 PM
Go to TOP
Hey kevin can you please update your signature to reflect that you contributed towards this campaign and add the link to this thread to your signature.
Hey kevin can you please update your signature to reflect that you contributed towards this campaign and add the link to this thread to your signature.
baburob2
03-15 06:25 PM
Overall no big progress w.r.t our title's though Brownback's comment on immigration numbers is good.
Senate Judiciary Committee Continues Slow Progress in Markup of Immigration Reform Legislation
Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 06031540 (posted Mar. 15, 2006)"
The Senate Judiciary Committee continued its consideration today of draft legislation on comprehensive immigration reform sponsored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter. The Committee officially took up the bill, known as the �Chairman�s Mark,� on March 2 but has made very slow progress to date.
The following is a very brief summary of the amendments that were addressed during today�s session. See our previous update on last week�s markup sessions. We will continue to update you as action on the bill continues.
1. The Committee passed by a voice vote a compromise amendment by Feingold that would preserve some level of judicial review over naturalization applications.
2. A Specter 2nd degree amendment to a Sessions amendment on evading inspection passed.
3. A Leahy amendment on security-related issues passed by voice vote.
4. A Kennedy amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s retroactive provisions was debated and deferred.
5. A Feinstein amendment to modify the provisions of the Mark relating to border security was deferred for future action.
6. A Durbin amendment to strike the Mark�s criminalization of unlawful status was once again deferred for future consideration. Feinstein attempted to offer a 2nd degree amendment that would provide aliens with a 60-day grace period for visa overstays before they are subject to criminal prosecution under INA � 275(a), but Specter would not allow it since Durbin�s underlying amendment was set aside.
7. A Durbin amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s smuggling provision so as not to criminalize humanitarian assistance was once again debated and deferred. Kyl spoke in opposition to the amendment. Cornyn had a second degree that Hatch thought was insufficient. Hatch, Schumer and Biden spoke in opposition to Cornyn�s 2nd degree. Cornyn was not convincing, but Kyl did some damage.
8. A Sessions amendment to affirm the inherent authority of state and local law enforcement personnel to enforce federal civil immigration laws during the normal course of carrying out their duties was discussed. Specter offered a 2nd degree that would limit the inherent authority of states and localities to the enforcement of the criminal provisions of the immigration laws. Sessions would only support the 2nd degree if the provisions of the Mark criminalizing unlawful presence remain intact. Thus, if the Durbin amendment to strike those provisions passes, Sessions wants to revisit the Specter 2nd degree. Specter�s 2nd degree passed by voice vote.
9. A Sessions amendment that would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide information to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) related to aliens who may have violated certain immigration laws passed by a voice vote. The broadly worded amendment would encompass visa overstayers, other civil violators, and even members of vulnerable populations such as asylum-seekers who are improperly documented but seeking relief. Leahy and Kennedy voted against the amendment and Leahy spoke in opposition to overloading the NCIC database with individuals who do not belong in it. A Specter 2nd degree amendment that would provide a procedure for requesting removal from the database and modify the group of individuals included in it passed by voice vote.
10. A Sessions amendment that would require at least one law enforcement agency in each state to enter into a � 287(g) cooperative enforcement agreement to enforce immigration laws against alien smugglers was considered. Sessions accepted a Coburn 2nd degree amendment that would clarify: (1) that such agreements would be purely voluntary, and (2) that the �287(g) enforcement authority would not be limited to alien smuggling. There was no quorum to vote on these, however, and they were set aside.
Part way through the markup, Specter attempted to jump to a debate on the issue of the undocumented population, noting that he has reiterated to Senate Majority Leader Frist that he (Specter) opposes bringing immigration reform to the Senate Floor before the Senate Judiciary Committee had completed its consideration of the Chairman�s Mark. Biden and Kennedy voiced their support of Specter�s desire to complete work in Committee. Kennedy added, �this issue is NOT going away, like some other issues,� and urged deferral of the Title VI discussion until tomorrow (Title VI contains the provisions dealing with the undocumented population). He added that we need to deal with ALL aspects of reform to have real, lasting border security�going forward with any of these components alone will fail.
Durbin said that, to defeat the House bill (H.R. 4437), the Committee needs to pass a strong bipartisan bill with the support of about 12 members. He feels the Committee should do an extra markup session on a day when there is no other Senate business. �We need to watch the House,� noted Durbin, adding: �They have a bill we need to fight at all costs. We need bipartisan support out of this Committee.�
Brownback stated that the Committee has started a process to create broad bipartisan support for good policy, and that this is the most significant legislation of the year. �We have serious problems with immigrant numbers,� he said. �We can�t live with these and need to change them. McCain/Kennedy would deal with this. How do we get the Mark to deal with these numbers? We need a way NOT to end up here again after 10 years. We can�t move too quickly.�
Cornyn described the process as akin to �digging out of a big hole,� noting that with enforcement done first, other issues would get simpler. He believes we need to impose circularity---not permanent immigration.
Coburn said that, like it or not, we have to deal with issue of the undocumented population. He urged the Committee to split the bill in two and do enforcement first, and work to reach consensus on other parts later in the year. �No one in the country trusts us on this issue because we haven�t enforced our existing laws,� he said.
Feinstein stated her concerns about the process, and also spoke out against comprehensive immigration reform and in favor of her more limited agricultural pilot program idea. She said she had met with Senator Craig (the sponsor of AgJobs) yesterday to see if they could work out their differences but there has been no resolution yet. She also expressed much frustration with Frist�s artificial timeline. She indicated her opposition to the House bill, and said that consensus was needed in the Committee (she believes the Committee has come to some consensus on the enforcement pieces but little else). She urged Specter to go back to Frist and ask for more time.
Sessions said we need to focus on enforcement now, and then have a national discussion later on the other elements of immigration reform. He believes Congress needs to focus on enforcement to build credibility with the public. �I�m not prepared to repeat 1986,� he said. �We should slow down.�
Specter repeatedly voiced his concern about �line-jumping,� arguing that the McCain/Kennedy bill would �leap frog� the current undocumented population over individuals who have been waiting in the backlogs. He also said that he�d prefer it if the legislation contained a path to citizenship but, as Chair, was trying to balance both sides.
In other hurdles to the Judiciary Committee�s completion of work on the bill, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Grassley, who is also a member of the Judiciary Committee, argued that the Finance Committee should have jurisdiction over the provisions of the Mark relating to the Social Security Act, adding that the IRS has raised serious concerns about some of these amendments. However, several other senators argued for consideration of these provisions in the Judiciary Committee. It is also possible that Grassley could exercise the Finance Committee�s authority by managing those amendments during floor debate.
The Committee disbanded about noon, due to a number of votes on the Senate Floor and the attendant low probability of maintaining a voting quorum in the Committee.
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=18835
Senate Judiciary Committee Continues Slow Progress in Markup of Immigration Reform Legislation
Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 06031540 (posted Mar. 15, 2006)"
The Senate Judiciary Committee continued its consideration today of draft legislation on comprehensive immigration reform sponsored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter. The Committee officially took up the bill, known as the �Chairman�s Mark,� on March 2 but has made very slow progress to date.
The following is a very brief summary of the amendments that were addressed during today�s session. See our previous update on last week�s markup sessions. We will continue to update you as action on the bill continues.
1. The Committee passed by a voice vote a compromise amendment by Feingold that would preserve some level of judicial review over naturalization applications.
2. A Specter 2nd degree amendment to a Sessions amendment on evading inspection passed.
3. A Leahy amendment on security-related issues passed by voice vote.
4. A Kennedy amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s retroactive provisions was debated and deferred.
5. A Feinstein amendment to modify the provisions of the Mark relating to border security was deferred for future action.
6. A Durbin amendment to strike the Mark�s criminalization of unlawful status was once again deferred for future consideration. Feinstein attempted to offer a 2nd degree amendment that would provide aliens with a 60-day grace period for visa overstays before they are subject to criminal prosecution under INA � 275(a), but Specter would not allow it since Durbin�s underlying amendment was set aside.
7. A Durbin amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s smuggling provision so as not to criminalize humanitarian assistance was once again debated and deferred. Kyl spoke in opposition to the amendment. Cornyn had a second degree that Hatch thought was insufficient. Hatch, Schumer and Biden spoke in opposition to Cornyn�s 2nd degree. Cornyn was not convincing, but Kyl did some damage.
8. A Sessions amendment to affirm the inherent authority of state and local law enforcement personnel to enforce federal civil immigration laws during the normal course of carrying out their duties was discussed. Specter offered a 2nd degree that would limit the inherent authority of states and localities to the enforcement of the criminal provisions of the immigration laws. Sessions would only support the 2nd degree if the provisions of the Mark criminalizing unlawful presence remain intact. Thus, if the Durbin amendment to strike those provisions passes, Sessions wants to revisit the Specter 2nd degree. Specter�s 2nd degree passed by voice vote.
9. A Sessions amendment that would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide information to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) related to aliens who may have violated certain immigration laws passed by a voice vote. The broadly worded amendment would encompass visa overstayers, other civil violators, and even members of vulnerable populations such as asylum-seekers who are improperly documented but seeking relief. Leahy and Kennedy voted against the amendment and Leahy spoke in opposition to overloading the NCIC database with individuals who do not belong in it. A Specter 2nd degree amendment that would provide a procedure for requesting removal from the database and modify the group of individuals included in it passed by voice vote.
10. A Sessions amendment that would require at least one law enforcement agency in each state to enter into a � 287(g) cooperative enforcement agreement to enforce immigration laws against alien smugglers was considered. Sessions accepted a Coburn 2nd degree amendment that would clarify: (1) that such agreements would be purely voluntary, and (2) that the �287(g) enforcement authority would not be limited to alien smuggling. There was no quorum to vote on these, however, and they were set aside.
Part way through the markup, Specter attempted to jump to a debate on the issue of the undocumented population, noting that he has reiterated to Senate Majority Leader Frist that he (Specter) opposes bringing immigration reform to the Senate Floor before the Senate Judiciary Committee had completed its consideration of the Chairman�s Mark. Biden and Kennedy voiced their support of Specter�s desire to complete work in Committee. Kennedy added, �this issue is NOT going away, like some other issues,� and urged deferral of the Title VI discussion until tomorrow (Title VI contains the provisions dealing with the undocumented population). He added that we need to deal with ALL aspects of reform to have real, lasting border security�going forward with any of these components alone will fail.
Durbin said that, to defeat the House bill (H.R. 4437), the Committee needs to pass a strong bipartisan bill with the support of about 12 members. He feels the Committee should do an extra markup session on a day when there is no other Senate business. �We need to watch the House,� noted Durbin, adding: �They have a bill we need to fight at all costs. We need bipartisan support out of this Committee.�
Brownback stated that the Committee has started a process to create broad bipartisan support for good policy, and that this is the most significant legislation of the year. �We have serious problems with immigrant numbers,� he said. �We can�t live with these and need to change them. McCain/Kennedy would deal with this. How do we get the Mark to deal with these numbers? We need a way NOT to end up here again after 10 years. We can�t move too quickly.�
Cornyn described the process as akin to �digging out of a big hole,� noting that with enforcement done first, other issues would get simpler. He believes we need to impose circularity---not permanent immigration.
Coburn said that, like it or not, we have to deal with issue of the undocumented population. He urged the Committee to split the bill in two and do enforcement first, and work to reach consensus on other parts later in the year. �No one in the country trusts us on this issue because we haven�t enforced our existing laws,� he said.
Feinstein stated her concerns about the process, and also spoke out against comprehensive immigration reform and in favor of her more limited agricultural pilot program idea. She said she had met with Senator Craig (the sponsor of AgJobs) yesterday to see if they could work out their differences but there has been no resolution yet. She also expressed much frustration with Frist�s artificial timeline. She indicated her opposition to the House bill, and said that consensus was needed in the Committee (she believes the Committee has come to some consensus on the enforcement pieces but little else). She urged Specter to go back to Frist and ask for more time.
Sessions said we need to focus on enforcement now, and then have a national discussion later on the other elements of immigration reform. He believes Congress needs to focus on enforcement to build credibility with the public. �I�m not prepared to repeat 1986,� he said. �We should slow down.�
Specter repeatedly voiced his concern about �line-jumping,� arguing that the McCain/Kennedy bill would �leap frog� the current undocumented population over individuals who have been waiting in the backlogs. He also said that he�d prefer it if the legislation contained a path to citizenship but, as Chair, was trying to balance both sides.
In other hurdles to the Judiciary Committee�s completion of work on the bill, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Grassley, who is also a member of the Judiciary Committee, argued that the Finance Committee should have jurisdiction over the provisions of the Mark relating to the Social Security Act, adding that the IRS has raised serious concerns about some of these amendments. However, several other senators argued for consideration of these provisions in the Judiciary Committee. It is also possible that Grassley could exercise the Finance Committee�s authority by managing those amendments during floor debate.
The Committee disbanded about noon, due to a number of votes on the Senate Floor and the attendant low probability of maintaining a voting quorum in the Committee.
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=18835
more...
GotGC??
01-03 03:05 PM
This thread is long time coming, and thank you for starting this. This is a question often discussed in friend circles, but most people I know hesitate to take a position. I think the anonymity of this forum will let us express ourselves more honestly...
When I came to the US 6 years ago, I had deliberately made the decision not to decide in the first couple of years about staying on or returning back after sometime. I had seen too many friends and relatives who all said "don't worry, we'll back in a couple of years" and never made it back. Marriage, kids, school, house, GC...Citizenship...it kinds of gets on you. And before you know, your kids are making the decision for you. I know of a couple of families with grown up kids who moved back to India only to move back to US because the "kids could not adjust". It's not hard to read between the lines that "we also could not adjust".
As days go by, it is becoming more clear everyday that I will also return back one day, sooner rather than later. I have some questions that haunt me:
- if/when I get my GC, and if I return back, is there a way to hold on to the GC status?
- if someone has a US citizenship, when companies such as Infosys hire them, do they have to get a work visa or something? Is there a concept equivalent of H1/GC for non Indians yet?
When my son was in 3rd grade, he was asked a question ...who were the pilgrims from your family. I told him it was his parents.
I presume just like the first pilgrims in USA had a lot of struggle, similarly we too are in the same boat....a time will come when we all will get our GC's....however the true beneficiary of the GC will be our children and our benefit will come by seeing our children getting that benefit. However, we all seem to be living better off than the 1st pilgrims...we are living more comfortably, driving good cars and have homes, enjoying the US dream to some extant....Even now if you go to your home country...you are considered a wealthy guy.....even if you have less money in your bank than your counterparts in India or other places...this is due to the standard of living in USA is expensive.
With the global economy and Infosys hiring US Citizens, I am not sure where where the job market is going, but I feel for the next 50-60 years US is still the place to live, since it has a very strong economy. With that perspective I believe a little struggle is acceptable.....
GC is out there for all of us...keep the hope alive...
When I came to the US 6 years ago, I had deliberately made the decision not to decide in the first couple of years about staying on or returning back after sometime. I had seen too many friends and relatives who all said "don't worry, we'll back in a couple of years" and never made it back. Marriage, kids, school, house, GC...Citizenship...it kinds of gets on you. And before you know, your kids are making the decision for you. I know of a couple of families with grown up kids who moved back to India only to move back to US because the "kids could not adjust". It's not hard to read between the lines that "we also could not adjust".
As days go by, it is becoming more clear everyday that I will also return back one day, sooner rather than later. I have some questions that haunt me:
- if/when I get my GC, and if I return back, is there a way to hold on to the GC status?
- if someone has a US citizenship, when companies such as Infosys hire them, do they have to get a work visa or something? Is there a concept equivalent of H1/GC for non Indians yet?
When my son was in 3rd grade, he was asked a question ...who were the pilgrims from your family. I told him it was his parents.
I presume just like the first pilgrims in USA had a lot of struggle, similarly we too are in the same boat....a time will come when we all will get our GC's....however the true beneficiary of the GC will be our children and our benefit will come by seeing our children getting that benefit. However, we all seem to be living better off than the 1st pilgrims...we are living more comfortably, driving good cars and have homes, enjoying the US dream to some extant....Even now if you go to your home country...you are considered a wealthy guy.....even if you have less money in your bank than your counterparts in India or other places...this is due to the standard of living in USA is expensive.
With the global economy and Infosys hiring US Citizens, I am not sure where where the job market is going, but I feel for the next 50-60 years US is still the place to live, since it has a very strong economy. With that perspective I believe a little struggle is acceptable.....
GC is out there for all of us...keep the hope alive...
MahaBharatGC
08-08 02:42 PM
Pappu - it is good to know that we are using the current mass media in this techie country (actually world...should say). Anything "Open" would yield good results.
My suggestion is not only contribution but also careful screening of opinions would be needed.
I will definitely love to contribute.
My suggestion is not only contribution but also careful screening of opinions would be needed.
I will definitely love to contribute.
more...
pappu
11-16 12:31 PM
nice write-up Jimi
Congratulations Jimi
http://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=86f99ab1b7774fc7f6a26 f10eb4183ba
Congratulations Jimi
http://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=86f99ab1b7774fc7f6a26 f10eb4183ba
ravish_kaipa
09-12 12:29 PM
Here are my details.
Confirmation Number: 5HL471558P745653V
Amount $100
Confirmation Number: 5HL471558P745653V
Amount $100
more...
dpuranik
07-15 10:36 PM
Thanks
InTheMoment
07-18 02:23 PM
Yes..a fairly correct and concise way of putting it !:)
So now guys realize how RD becomes crucial within the PD current window !
If the window is too current say 06/07 than it may not be fair to older PD's
if it around 2003 the window is not too wide and quotient of fairness increases.
He is absolutely correct. 485 Processing would start depending on RD (Receipt Date). But at the time of approval PD should be current and if it is current then the applicant whose RD (Receipt Date) is oldest would get the approval first.
So now guys realize how RD becomes crucial within the PD current window !
If the window is too current say 06/07 than it may not be fair to older PD's
if it around 2003 the window is not too wide and quotient of fairness increases.
He is absolutely correct. 485 Processing would start depending on RD (Receipt Date). But at the time of approval PD should be current and if it is current then the applicant whose RD (Receipt Date) is oldest would get the approval first.
more...
akhilmahajan
07-14 01:34 PM
Simply send the check of $5 to Immigration Voice at the address listed in the first post as if you were paying a utility bill. That way your bank will send IV a check of $5.00 (or whatever amount you want it to) and IV gets the WHOLE $5 and no fees are deducted.
Sent for me and my wife.
GO IV GO
Sent for me and my wife.
GO IV GO
rajeev_74
04-25 08:32 AM
Does it make sense to request for first arrival date to be considered as the priority date for immigration purposes? Just a thought!!!
jeevarakkiannan
07-19 11:55 AM
Secure $50 Per Month Recurring Contribution
$50.00 USD for each month
Effective Date: Jul. 19, 2007 $50.00 USD
Thank you core team for your sacrifices.
$50.00 USD for each month
Effective Date: Jul. 19, 2007 $50.00 USD
Thank you core team for your sacrifices.
apet2007
03-10 11:18 PM
You must be a permanent resident to open or own an S-Corp. An LLC is the best way to go and if you are not engaged in actual sale of goods, you can register this LLC in Nevada and pay no corporate taxes. I've done it. All income then passes through your own filing. Have a CPA and I strongly recommend you do this. Registering a NV LLC only costs $195 annually. Go to incorpservices.com and it will walk you through.
485Mbe4001
02-01 04:19 PM
Do we have a meeting scheduled today? if yes at what time?
thanks,
thanks,
No comments:
Post a Comment