jthomas
01-30 06:27 PM
voted
wallpaper Download Free Scarlett
patbose
06-16 01:44 PM
Just got done calling all the reps. Here's hoping for the best.
Thanks
PB
Thanks
PB
validIV
03-26 05:18 PM
I got a soft LUD on 3/25/09. I didnt apply for AP or EAD.
2011 house pc wallpapers hd.
SGP
04-19 02:49 PM
Congrats. Enjoy your freedom.
more...
priti8888
10-16 06:24 PM
How do we know we're stuck in the namecheck process?
Does the on-line status state that the application is in the namecheck 'phase' or something to that effect?
Thanks,
NO..online status wont chnage.
U can either call the 1-800 # or make an infopass appointment 4-6 Months after your first FP. If u plan to call, make sure u call 3-4 times because you might get conflicting info
Does the on-line status state that the application is in the namecheck 'phase' or something to that effect?
Thanks,
NO..online status wont chnage.
U can either call the 1-800 # or make an infopass appointment 4-6 Months after your first FP. If u plan to call, make sure u call 3-4 times because you might get conflicting info
bhatt
03-14 08:31 AM
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4177.html
I get 404 error when clicked on the above url. Did they remove it ? is it again the same July 2007 fiasco ?
Try now, it is back !
I get 404 error when clicked on the above url. Did they remove it ? is it again the same July 2007 fiasco ?
Try now, it is back !
more...
Alien
02-14 09:45 AM
So is this how you brainstorm ideas at work?
Ideas are just as important as contributions.Your design team at work dont have to write the code as well. If its a bad idea then shoot it down,lets not ask everyone who comes up with an idea to implement it as well. Providing ideas is much better than sitting out there in blissful ignorance not knowing anything about retrogression or IV.
You may wanna read "Six thinking hats" by Edward de bono.He talks about having critical thinking hat(black hat) during brainstorming.Lets have some people with black hats here.
btw I thought anand26 was banned from this forum. I am not too far away from being banned as well. I got a post deleted by the admin already without any notice.
Forgive me for wearing the black hat in recent times and yes I have signed up for recurring contributions.
Oh wait. I get it now. We're probably mistaken in thinking anand26's idea is to improve IV; looks like the idea is to promote "yelling at people" as a way of life.
The plan is to do nothing oneself but make a random to-do list for other people; so we should also respond in the same spirit.
Here are some things you should do, anand26; now do it quickly and report back to this forum by tomorrw:
Eat more broccoli.
Raise money for IV.
Do not use "zapata" in a sentence ever again
See. Anyone can do this. Pretty easy. Thanks Anand26 for sharing this idea.
Ideas are just as important as contributions.Your design team at work dont have to write the code as well. If its a bad idea then shoot it down,lets not ask everyone who comes up with an idea to implement it as well. Providing ideas is much better than sitting out there in blissful ignorance not knowing anything about retrogression or IV.
You may wanna read "Six thinking hats" by Edward de bono.He talks about having critical thinking hat(black hat) during brainstorming.Lets have some people with black hats here.
btw I thought anand26 was banned from this forum. I am not too far away from being banned as well. I got a post deleted by the admin already without any notice.
Forgive me for wearing the black hat in recent times and yes I have signed up for recurring contributions.
Oh wait. I get it now. We're probably mistaken in thinking anand26's idea is to improve IV; looks like the idea is to promote "yelling at people" as a way of life.
The plan is to do nothing oneself but make a random to-do list for other people; so we should also respond in the same spirit.
Here are some things you should do, anand26; now do it quickly and report back to this forum by tomorrw:
Eat more broccoli.
Raise money for IV.
Do not use "zapata" in a sentence ever again
See. Anyone can do this. Pretty easy. Thanks Anand26 for sharing this idea.
2010 scarlett johansson 10
unitednations
03-31 11:51 AM
I (and I�m sure others too) would like to know how the following works,
Employer X filed labor, 140 for their employee. Both were approved (assumption - no RFEs, etc. until now), 485 was filed for in July 2007, and remains pending.
The employee was employed with Employer X from before the labor was applied and until ~360 days after the 485 was filed, and was always paid more than the LC prevailing wage/offered salary.
In July 2008, the employee leaves employer X and joins employer Y under AC21 provisions. An AC21 letter, G-28N are submitted.
140 never gets revoked by employer X.
In Jan 2009, employer X receives an Ability to Pay RFE for another pending 140 of theirs.
At this point, employer X has 16 140s that are open (pending OR approved with 485 pending to be filed/filed and pending). Out of those 16 140s, one was for the employee that left under AC21.
When they respond to that RFE, I do understand that they could be asked to show ability to pay for all 16 140s, even for the one that doesn�t work for them anymore, because of the fact that it was never revoked.
In this case, is the employee (that left) covered or at risk? I ask this question because the employee that left submitted AC21 documentation immediately upon leaving, thus notifying the USCIS that the �ability to pay� responsibility for his case, if any at all, now lies with the new future employer. There probably isn�t any clear definition of such a situation in the law, but can such an argument ever hold up in court, and protect the employee�s AOS application from getting affected due to any ability to pay issues the old employer (X) has had AFTER the employee left them.
The only person on here that I expect to be able to give a non-speculative answer to this is UN, unless someone else has personally gone through something similar.
Long post, I know, and I hope it does get read.
Thank you.
I worked on a very big case back in 2006.
Company had 20 pending 140's which were filed in 2005
Company had 42 approved 140's
in Janaury 2006 they sent RFE on one of the cases and asked for ability to pay. Before response was sent; second rfe is received on another pending casestating ability to pay and that uscis has noted company has filed many 140's; then third rfe is received on another case asking ability to pay on all pending cases (note this was in vermont service center and at this time the whole cybersoftech issue was going on; so there was a heightened alert from vermont service center).
In preparing for the response to the 20 pending cases; we had to analyze the 42 approved cases to ensure that just in case USCIS went after those cases together with the 20 then we should be ready in this particular response to justify the 42 approved cases.
In the response we only showed the 20 pending cases and that we had ability to pay for them.
Within three weeks; USCIS sent notice of intent to revoke the approved 140's. In the notice of intent to revoke; they stated that their records showed 20 pending; 42 approved cases and 205 h-1b's filed. USCIS went through their calculations and stated that if the average salary was xxx on all these petitions then the company would have to have paid close to $15 million in salaries which was (at that time the 2004 tax returns) more then five times the revenue. USCIS also went on to state they thought the company was involved in fraudulently obtaining h-1b's and 140's.
Now; company guy talks to Shusterman and he wants $2k per case and he can only handle the immigration component and that he neeed a CPA (which was me) and the company guy should also get a criminal attorney.
Well anyways; because in the first 20 cases we thought uscis may go after the approved 140's; the financials looked the right way to support all the cases.
The response was very scientific; hire dates; priority dates; amounts people got paid before priority date; amounts paid after; dates people left the company, etc.
In the various calculations; we proved out that even with people leaving who used ac21; we still had ability to pay for them (ie., even though they were no longer there we still had the financials to pay them). Then we gave another scenario that ability to pay clock should stop once person used ac21. We then did recalculation under this scenario.
In every scenario we showed we had ability to pay. Now; we never requested USCIS to revoke the approved 140's for people who had left; in one of the scenarios we adjusted the calculation to stop showing ability to pay once a person left.
USCIS re-approved all the cases. However; they sent notice of intent to deny for pepole who left using ac21. those candidates then gave updated letters and they all eventually got the greencards approved.
Now;this particular case is a little different because even though people left; the company still had ability to pay for them. Therefore, it is difficult to draw conclusion from this for other peoples particular cases. In this case; the fair value of the work I did for them would have cost them about $100K (i actually did audited financial statements for them; they are the only company I did audited financial statements for becuase the stakes were very very high for everyone concerned).
I can tell you that when a company does get this type of RFE; it is very difficult to substantiate everyone together and the calculations and supporting documentation is very complex AND companies have very little desire to help those who have already left. In these types of queries; the company/lawyer doesn't even bother to justify those who have already left; they just ask for revoation and they prove ability to pay for those who are still left with the company. Therefore; USCIS could just make the determination that those revoked cases were approved in error.
The main law for ability to pay is that company has to prove it from priority date until person obtains lawful permanent residency; law was never changed/modified to accomodate ability to pay for a company whose candidates have left using ac21.
Note: This is all pure speculation of what is going on in these cases. I am just writing out loud of why/if there is a shift within uscis.
Employer X filed labor, 140 for their employee. Both were approved (assumption - no RFEs, etc. until now), 485 was filed for in July 2007, and remains pending.
The employee was employed with Employer X from before the labor was applied and until ~360 days after the 485 was filed, and was always paid more than the LC prevailing wage/offered salary.
In July 2008, the employee leaves employer X and joins employer Y under AC21 provisions. An AC21 letter, G-28N are submitted.
140 never gets revoked by employer X.
In Jan 2009, employer X receives an Ability to Pay RFE for another pending 140 of theirs.
At this point, employer X has 16 140s that are open (pending OR approved with 485 pending to be filed/filed and pending). Out of those 16 140s, one was for the employee that left under AC21.
When they respond to that RFE, I do understand that they could be asked to show ability to pay for all 16 140s, even for the one that doesn�t work for them anymore, because of the fact that it was never revoked.
In this case, is the employee (that left) covered or at risk? I ask this question because the employee that left submitted AC21 documentation immediately upon leaving, thus notifying the USCIS that the �ability to pay� responsibility for his case, if any at all, now lies with the new future employer. There probably isn�t any clear definition of such a situation in the law, but can such an argument ever hold up in court, and protect the employee�s AOS application from getting affected due to any ability to pay issues the old employer (X) has had AFTER the employee left them.
The only person on here that I expect to be able to give a non-speculative answer to this is UN, unless someone else has personally gone through something similar.
Long post, I know, and I hope it does get read.
Thank you.
I worked on a very big case back in 2006.
Company had 20 pending 140's which were filed in 2005
Company had 42 approved 140's
in Janaury 2006 they sent RFE on one of the cases and asked for ability to pay. Before response was sent; second rfe is received on another pending casestating ability to pay and that uscis has noted company has filed many 140's; then third rfe is received on another case asking ability to pay on all pending cases (note this was in vermont service center and at this time the whole cybersoftech issue was going on; so there was a heightened alert from vermont service center).
In preparing for the response to the 20 pending cases; we had to analyze the 42 approved cases to ensure that just in case USCIS went after those cases together with the 20 then we should be ready in this particular response to justify the 42 approved cases.
In the response we only showed the 20 pending cases and that we had ability to pay for them.
Within three weeks; USCIS sent notice of intent to revoke the approved 140's. In the notice of intent to revoke; they stated that their records showed 20 pending; 42 approved cases and 205 h-1b's filed. USCIS went through their calculations and stated that if the average salary was xxx on all these petitions then the company would have to have paid close to $15 million in salaries which was (at that time the 2004 tax returns) more then five times the revenue. USCIS also went on to state they thought the company was involved in fraudulently obtaining h-1b's and 140's.
Now; company guy talks to Shusterman and he wants $2k per case and he can only handle the immigration component and that he neeed a CPA (which was me) and the company guy should also get a criminal attorney.
Well anyways; because in the first 20 cases we thought uscis may go after the approved 140's; the financials looked the right way to support all the cases.
The response was very scientific; hire dates; priority dates; amounts people got paid before priority date; amounts paid after; dates people left the company, etc.
In the various calculations; we proved out that even with people leaving who used ac21; we still had ability to pay for them (ie., even though they were no longer there we still had the financials to pay them). Then we gave another scenario that ability to pay clock should stop once person used ac21. We then did recalculation under this scenario.
In every scenario we showed we had ability to pay. Now; we never requested USCIS to revoke the approved 140's for people who had left; in one of the scenarios we adjusted the calculation to stop showing ability to pay once a person left.
USCIS re-approved all the cases. However; they sent notice of intent to deny for pepole who left using ac21. those candidates then gave updated letters and they all eventually got the greencards approved.
Now;this particular case is a little different because even though people left; the company still had ability to pay for them. Therefore, it is difficult to draw conclusion from this for other peoples particular cases. In this case; the fair value of the work I did for them would have cost them about $100K (i actually did audited financial statements for them; they are the only company I did audited financial statements for becuase the stakes were very very high for everyone concerned).
I can tell you that when a company does get this type of RFE; it is very difficult to substantiate everyone together and the calculations and supporting documentation is very complex AND companies have very little desire to help those who have already left. In these types of queries; the company/lawyer doesn't even bother to justify those who have already left; they just ask for revoation and they prove ability to pay for those who are still left with the company. Therefore; USCIS could just make the determination that those revoked cases were approved in error.
The main law for ability to pay is that company has to prove it from priority date until person obtains lawful permanent residency; law was never changed/modified to accomodate ability to pay for a company whose candidates have left using ac21.
Note: This is all pure speculation of what is going on in these cases. I am just writing out loud of why/if there is a shift within uscis.
more...
jetflyer
06-13 04:11 PM
when a EB3-I family gets a GC ..they should buy a lottery on that day..it is definitely one of their lucky days
I like that as it aligns with my thought that to get GC (EB India) you need better odds than hitting Lotto :D
I like that as it aligns with my thought that to get GC (EB India) you need better odds than hitting Lotto :D
hair Scarlett Johansson
VINJE76
06-20 12:11 AM
Bah. Skinned the stupid click wheel. What is it with you guys and the click wheel.. IT DOESNT WANT TO BE PAINTED
It is called STICKERS, they go over the buttons.
It is called STICKERS, they go over the buttons.
more...
InTheMoment
10-18 11:37 PM
4-6 months after your Notice Date. The date you give your FP has absolutely no relation to the initiation of namecheck by FBI.
The submission for namecheck is generally made to FBI 1-2 weeks after your Notice Date. (The date one's data is entered into the USCIS CLAIMS3 system)
NO..online status wont chnage.
U can either call the 1-800 # or make an infopass appointment 4-6 Months after your first FP. If u plan to call, make sure u call 3-4 times because you might get conflicting info
The submission for namecheck is generally made to FBI 1-2 weeks after your Notice Date. (The date one's data is entered into the USCIS CLAIMS3 system)
NO..online status wont chnage.
U can either call the 1-800 # or make an infopass appointment 4-6 Months after your first FP. If u plan to call, make sure u call 3-4 times because you might get conflicting info
hot hot scarlett johansson wallpapers. hot scarlett johansson
deletedUser459
06-16 11:11 AM
normally iPod skins don't change the appearence of your surroundings....
more...
house hot Scarlett Johansson
amulchandra
04-02 12:36 AM
What do you mean by "Our PDs are close"?. I don't understand. Your PD is July 2006 that too EB3/India.???:confused:
Please don't worry. Even in my dreams I don't dream about my PD becoming current in the near future.:confused:
Please don't worry. Even in my dreams I don't dream about my PD becoming current in the near future.:confused:
tattoo Hot Actress Scarlett Johansson
rajuseattle
04-18 08:11 PM
NNreddy:
I would request you start a fresh thread and people can answer your questions.
I would request you start a fresh thread and people can answer your questions.
more...
pictures Hot Scarlett Johansson in
kumar1
03-11 02:21 PM
jsb - I received an email today from CRIS that they have issued an RFE on my I-485. I am EB-3 India September 7, 2007 I-485 filer with a PD of June-2005. Like you said, they do not consider country of chargeability until the case is all set to approve.
Otherwise, why would they touch a EB3-I case with PD of 2005.
I am not sure what are they looking for in FRE. I want to get out of this game now....one way or the other!
"EB Applications pending from India" is very vague, and most probably is not what we are looking for.
USCIS has indicated earlier that they don't know chargeability country until application is ready for approval, which may be true although we didn't want to believe this. Most likely until 485 application is approved birth country is not written anywhere other than the paper application. In most 485 application cases (family, EB and others), chargeability country is a just a matter of recording at approval time. At final approval time, when birth country is found to be retrogressed, application goes back to pending (or cold storage), but ready to approve. This also explains why cutoff dates have to rely purely on guess work, and move back and forth.
For proper handling of cases for retrogressed countries, USCIS/DOS really have no workable method in place.
Otherwise, why would they touch a EB3-I case with PD of 2005.
I am not sure what are they looking for in FRE. I want to get out of this game now....one way or the other!
"EB Applications pending from India" is very vague, and most probably is not what we are looking for.
USCIS has indicated earlier that they don't know chargeability country until application is ready for approval, which may be true although we didn't want to believe this. Most likely until 485 application is approved birth country is not written anywhere other than the paper application. In most 485 application cases (family, EB and others), chargeability country is a just a matter of recording at approval time. At final approval time, when birth country is found to be retrogressed, application goes back to pending (or cold storage), but ready to approve. This also explains why cutoff dates have to rely purely on guess work, and move back and forth.
For proper handling of cases for retrogressed countries, USCIS/DOS really have no workable method in place.
dresses hot scarlett johansson
raj1998
04-21 02:36 PM
Sent you a PM. please check :p.
well, you are funny and good at intimidating people and invoking them in the way you want :D
lets use the energy in positive way
well, you are funny and good at intimidating people and invoking them in the way you want :D
lets use the energy in positive way
more...
makeup Scarlett Johannson wallpapers
willwin
08-11 05:08 PM
^^^^^^
girlfriend Scarlett Johansson Wallpaper
pointlesswait
05-23 03:38 PM
> i am not berating anyone for that matter!
hairstyles Pretty-Scarlett-Johansson
aspiration
06-13 10:34 AM
As of now there are more than 8000 views for this thread. If we just take that each of us might have visited this thread 50 times.. .That would still take us to 180 odd unique visitors...
and if you look the survey..JUST 90 Calls so far.. Why there is a disconnect here/??? because we postpone and don't do our part...
If efforts fails, it is only ourselves to blame.. Platform is set and try to atleast help by sparing 10 mins of your day... Take this matter to your heart and
JUST DO IT>>>>
and if you look the survey..JUST 90 Calls so far.. Why there is a disconnect here/??? because we postpone and don't do our part...
If efforts fails, it is only ourselves to blame.. Platform is set and try to atleast help by sparing 10 mins of your day... Take this matter to your heart and
JUST DO IT>>>>
dsreedhar
04-10 03:02 PM
Sent my contribution of $100
praveen11777
08-25 12:16 PM
As per today $ conversion rate is ICICI offering 43.28 and SBI is offering 43.16,if you transffer more than $2000. So ICICI offering better rate.
Praveen.
Praveen.
No comments:
Post a Comment