willigetgc?
04-30 01:52 PM
TIER I: LIST OF KEY SENATORS FOR CIR
Senator Scott Brown (R-Massachusetts)
(202) 224-4543
Senator Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire)
(202) 224-3324
Senator Richard Lugar (R-Indiana)
(202) 224-4814
Senator Michael Enzi (R-Wyoming)
(202) 224-3424
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina)
(202) 224-5972
Senator John Ensign (R-Nevada)
(202) 224-6244
Senator Orin Hatch (R-Utah)
(202) 224-5251
Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas)
(202) 224-2934
Senator John Kyl (R-Arizona)
(202) 224-4521
Senator Mitch Mcconnell (R-Kentuky)
(202) 224-2541
Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota)
(202) 224-3244
Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri)
(202) 224-6154
Senator Jon Tester (D-Montana)
(202) 224-2644
Senator Jim Webb (D-Virginia)
(202) 224-4024
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island)
(202) 224-2921
TIER II: LIST OF KEY SENATORS SPONSORING OR CO-SPONSORING CIR BILL
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nevada)
(202) 224-3542
Senator Dick Durbin (Illinois)
(202) 224-2152
Senator Chuck Schumer (New York)
(202) 224-6542
Senator Patrick Leahy (Vermont)
(202) 224-4242
Senator Dianne Feinstein (California)
(202) 224-3841
Senator Bob Menendez (New Jersey)
(202) 224-4744
Sen. Ben Cardin (Maryland)
(202) 224-4524
All the numbers listed by Pappu are correct, and no changes need to be made.
I called both sets of Senators, and gave our stand on this immigration reform issue to each Sen. office, and here is the feedback from them:
Sen Brown: Will review the bill and will let his position known in a weeks time.
Sen Gregg: He has no position currently
Sen Lugar: Since the bill has no language yet, he would like to wait before he gives an opinion. He has previously supported immigration reform. He is continuing to meet with Sen. Schumer
Sen. Enzi: Does not support amnesty and he will let us know what his position on high skilled immigrant provisions in a week
Sen. Graham: Left message
Sen. Ensign: Has no comments, asked for NV address
Sen. Hatch: Staff read the press release regarding yesterday's framework, which states that this is partisan politics, and border enforcement has to be done first. Told him our position and asked for support
Sen. Cornyn: Could not leave message as there was high volume. will call back again. However, the message said that local offices need to be contacted.
Sen. Kyl: Has also released a press statement, did not read it, asked me to check it on the senators webpage. Took my opinion though.
Sen. McConnell: He just wanted our comments and the sen himself did not have any comment regarding immigration.
Sen. Klobucher: Has not fully reviewed what was in the frame work, took our opinion on the matter, and the staff asked for the zipcode irrespective of where you were from.
Sen. McCaskill: Their office has no opinion on the bill. She is in general support of legal immigrants. However, she wanted to see how things progress in the senate.
Sen. Tester: He opposes amnesty. took our opinion but did not want to take a stand on high skilled immigrants issue
Sen. Webb: left a message
Sen. Whitehouse: has not reviewed the framework. took my opinion.
Called Sens. Reid, Durbin, Schumer, Leahy, Feinstein, Menendez and Cardin's offices and thanked them for their support and leadership.
Senator Scott Brown (R-Massachusetts)
(202) 224-4543
Senator Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire)
(202) 224-3324
Senator Richard Lugar (R-Indiana)
(202) 224-4814
Senator Michael Enzi (R-Wyoming)
(202) 224-3424
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina)
(202) 224-5972
Senator John Ensign (R-Nevada)
(202) 224-6244
Senator Orin Hatch (R-Utah)
(202) 224-5251
Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas)
(202) 224-2934
Senator John Kyl (R-Arizona)
(202) 224-4521
Senator Mitch Mcconnell (R-Kentuky)
(202) 224-2541
Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota)
(202) 224-3244
Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri)
(202) 224-6154
Senator Jon Tester (D-Montana)
(202) 224-2644
Senator Jim Webb (D-Virginia)
(202) 224-4024
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island)
(202) 224-2921
TIER II: LIST OF KEY SENATORS SPONSORING OR CO-SPONSORING CIR BILL
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nevada)
(202) 224-3542
Senator Dick Durbin (Illinois)
(202) 224-2152
Senator Chuck Schumer (New York)
(202) 224-6542
Senator Patrick Leahy (Vermont)
(202) 224-4242
Senator Dianne Feinstein (California)
(202) 224-3841
Senator Bob Menendez (New Jersey)
(202) 224-4744
Sen. Ben Cardin (Maryland)
(202) 224-4524
All the numbers listed by Pappu are correct, and no changes need to be made.
I called both sets of Senators, and gave our stand on this immigration reform issue to each Sen. office, and here is the feedback from them:
Sen Brown: Will review the bill and will let his position known in a weeks time.
Sen Gregg: He has no position currently
Sen Lugar: Since the bill has no language yet, he would like to wait before he gives an opinion. He has previously supported immigration reform. He is continuing to meet with Sen. Schumer
Sen. Enzi: Does not support amnesty and he will let us know what his position on high skilled immigrant provisions in a week
Sen. Graham: Left message
Sen. Ensign: Has no comments, asked for NV address
Sen. Hatch: Staff read the press release regarding yesterday's framework, which states that this is partisan politics, and border enforcement has to be done first. Told him our position and asked for support
Sen. Cornyn: Could not leave message as there was high volume. will call back again. However, the message said that local offices need to be contacted.
Sen. Kyl: Has also released a press statement, did not read it, asked me to check it on the senators webpage. Took my opinion though.
Sen. McConnell: He just wanted our comments and the sen himself did not have any comment regarding immigration.
Sen. Klobucher: Has not fully reviewed what was in the frame work, took our opinion on the matter, and the staff asked for the zipcode irrespective of where you were from.
Sen. McCaskill: Their office has no opinion on the bill. She is in general support of legal immigrants. However, she wanted to see how things progress in the senate.
Sen. Tester: He opposes amnesty. took our opinion but did not want to take a stand on high skilled immigrants issue
Sen. Webb: left a message
Sen. Whitehouse: has not reviewed the framework. took my opinion.
Called Sens. Reid, Durbin, Schumer, Leahy, Feinstein, Menendez and Cardin's offices and thanked them for their support and leadership.
wallpaper 2011 Vancouver Sun Run
selvaela
07-16 09:34 AM
Hi,
Donated 10 dollar. Here are my details.( DCU allows me to release the payment only on 7/21. Sorry about that.
Confirmation No: 7YHSG-0JVVC
Donated 10 dollar. Here are my details.( DCU allows me to release the payment only on 7/21. Sorry about that.
Confirmation No: 7YHSG-0JVVC
nyte_crawler
04-25 11:33 AM
Coming in through H1 does'nt show your intention of becoming a permanent resident of this country. It only happens when the LC is applied. Although the entry date is an ingenious way, it will only create more issues. Now some one who comes in F1 can also ask for the same benefit when they move to H1, to take their entry date in F1 as their priority date. I believe the culprits are the labor substitution and the labor certification sales. Those are unfair. Stop labor substitutions, and if they need one, then use the 140 RD as the PD. That should solve most of the problems and people from using labor sub to jump the line.
2011 the Vancouver Sun Run 2011
needhelp!
09-13 02:07 PM
Just mailed out letters to nine more radio/tv/news media addresses in Texas that AILA media site didn't allow email for. I hope USPS will deliver by tomorrow??
texanmom, I did a few Houston/Austin emails as well.
texanmom, I did a few Houston/Austin emails as well.
more...
geesee
03-03 01:57 PM
I don't think EB3-I would be U for more than a month, as I keep saying this year EB3 would be getting some share of spill-over. So even if it becomes U for April that would be temporarily and it would return back in May.
Thank's
MDix
I dont know why people add signature in a forum post ?
Regards
Geesee
Thank's
MDix
I dont know why people add signature in a forum post ?
Regards
Geesee
Harivinder
09-10 02:07 PM
$100 Google Order #565447969371741
I will not be able to make it for the rally, my one-cent contribution, also trying to convience some friends to make some contributions. Also I want to make a suggestion, Please urge Congress via banners or what so ever means to take Legal Immigration and Illegal Immigration separately. We are so badly being hit by congress combining these issues.We are legal taxpaying immigrants and should be treated the same way. Not equivalent to illegal immigrants.
I will not be able to make it for the rally, my one-cent contribution, also trying to convience some friends to make some contributions. Also I want to make a suggestion, Please urge Congress via banners or what so ever means to take Legal Immigration and Illegal Immigration separately. We are so badly being hit by congress combining these issues.We are legal taxpaying immigrants and should be treated the same way. Not equivalent to illegal immigrants.
more...
hindu_king
03-04 11:56 AM
Thats ridiculous. I recently bought a home and got FHA loan from Chevy Chase Bank. To my surprise, they did not ask me a single immigration related document or any proof of legal presence. All they ever asked was a valid ID during closing, and I showed them my drivers license.
2010 the The Vancouver Sun Run.
jfredr
07-24 12:11 PM
Is it a credit card or Green card?
both are good enjoy.
both are good enjoy.
more...
rama2007
08-07 12:33 PM
one of my friends 485 check is signed and mentioned correct amount($395) but he is not written anything where he has suppossed to write department of home land security.
what are the chaces of his 485 get accepted.?
what are the chaces of his 485 get accepted.?
hair during Vancouver Sun Run.
sukhwinderd
09-12 11:04 AM
Order Details - Sep 12, 2007 11:01 AM EDT
Google Order #546380134380844
just contributed $100 .. will try to attend rally.
Google Order #546380134380844
just contributed $100 .. will try to attend rally.
more...
sam2006
07-19 01:27 AM
thank you raju
Contributed $100 yesterday.
Will contribute again next month.
Keep up the good work.
___________________________
Total Contribution So Far $175+
Contributed $100 yesterday.
Will contribute again next month.
Keep up the good work.
___________________________
Total Contribution So Far $175+
hot Vancouver+sun+run+2011+
ItIsNotFunny
10-21 11:06 AM
Issue/Background:
It seems USCIS is not following AC21 regulations in some cases � especially when underlying I140 is revoked by previous employer � and are incorrectly denying I485 applications. As we know, AC21 regulations and related guidelines, provide some relief and allow job changes without affecting the I485 application. As per these rules if the employee changes employment after 180 days of submitting I485 application, there is no need to redo I140 even-if old employer revokes the old I140.
In recent days USCIS seems to be denying lot of I485 applications � ignoring their own AC21 regulations. A few of IV volunteers (pd_recapturing, gc4me, chanduv et al) have started an effort to address this. You can get more info on this, at this thread: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21716.
This issue can affect a lot of us and it negates all the flexibility/relief that we acquired by getting EAD�s and advantages we got thru recent admin reform.
What needs to be done:
After some initial discussions and planning (thanks to pd-capturing, chandu, et al) it is decided to write letters to Ombudsman and service center heads to point out this and request them to correct it ASAP. Please participate and send letters. To succeed we need to send it in thousands.
Pasting the letter and the addresses below.
More info: (thanks to gc4me for addresses and letter template):
======================
Everyone please send the letter/email to 3 persons.
1. Ombudsman
2. Director, NSC
3. Director, TSC
======================
Ombudsman:
cisombudsman@dhs.gov
Mailing Address:
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
ATTN: Recommendations
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
=======================
Nebraska Service Center
Director: Gerard Heinauer
General Correspondence (Inquiries) (Sending applications or petitions to this address will delay their processing)
USCIS NSC
P.O. Box 82521
Lincoln, NE 68501-2521
NOTE: If using overnight delivery by any private service provider, send your package to:
USCIS
Nebraska Service Center
850 S Street
P.O. Box (Insert Correct P.O. Box Number)
Lincoln, NE 68508
Be sure to include the appropriate P.O. Box number on the shipping label.
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Suite 7000
Washington, DC 20529
or email: USCIS-COMPLAINT@DHS.GOV
=====================
Director: David Roark
General
Correspondence:
USCIS TSC
PO Box 851488
Mesquite, TX 75185-1488
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Ste 7000, Washington, DC 20529
============================
Letter
============================
Date: Today()
To
Mr. Michael Timothy Dougherty
The Ombudsman
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Re: Issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines
Dear Sir,
This is to bring your attention to the issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines.
The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) allows for a change of employer on any I-485 Adjustment of Status Application that has been pending for 180 days or more, without the need to file a new I-140 petition, provided the applicant�s new employment is in a similar/same occupation.
According to the Memo released by William R Yates on August 4th 2003, the original I-140 is valid if it is approvable and form I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days. (Attached for your reference is the memo dated August 4th 2003 from William R Yates and the follow-up memo dated May 12th 2005 with relevant sections highlighted).
Due to unreasonable delays caused by retrogression, many candidates have lawfully changed employers in accordance with the AC21 statute. Even though there is no requirement that USCIS be notified after a job change, some applicants have done so to prove that they are in compliance with this regulation. If the previous employer has withdrawn the previously approved I-140, AC21 guidelines state that if the applicant has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the applicant be sent an NOID (Notice of Intent to Deny) to deny the I-485 application or a RFE (Request for Evidence) . If the response to the NOID/RFE is timely and indicates that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, USCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485.
Over the past few months, a disturbing pattern has emerged with cases where the applicant has changed employers. USCIS has started to deny I-485applications where the underlying I-140 has been withdrawn by the previous employer without issuing an NOID or RFE. Even those applicants who have notified USCIS of change in employers have had their I-485 denied.
After the denial of I-485, the applicant has to file a MTR (Motion to reconsider) with USCIS to re-open the case. In addition to the financial burden of filing and legal fees, the applicant has to stop working because of the denial of the I-485 until the case is re-opened. This could be anywhere from a month to a few months. Needless to say, employers are unwilling to keep the job position open for such a long period and the applicant in most cases is looking at potential loss of employment. The applicant who has followed the law to the fullest extent is unfairly punished on account of USCIS not following the AC21 provisions.
This is a request for you to intervene to ensure that the AC21 regulations are followed when adjudicating an I-485 application. If the applicant notifies USCIS of a change in employment under AC21, this should be added the applicant�s physical file and electronic records. If there is no such notification and the previous employer withdraws the I-140, the applicant should be issued a NOID/RFE instead of denying the I-485 application.
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact.
Thank you in advance for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Thanks,
Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone Number
Guys,
This is one of the most serious issue we are facing in current time. Lay offs are happening left and right and on top of that employers learned that AC21 is giving troubles, they started squeezing more (I myself is partially victim of that).
We need sincere efforts sending emails to ombudsman. This will not take more than 5 minutes as NK2006 put efforts on even giving you the email template.
I sincerely urge everyone to send emails to addresses NK2006 mentioned above and even request your collegues, spouse to do so. We need volume to show our presence.
One more request, please take one more minute and make sure that you post here that you sent emails. This will give us real picture and give others motivation too!
I sent my emails (actually twice ;)).
It seems USCIS is not following AC21 regulations in some cases � especially when underlying I140 is revoked by previous employer � and are incorrectly denying I485 applications. As we know, AC21 regulations and related guidelines, provide some relief and allow job changes without affecting the I485 application. As per these rules if the employee changes employment after 180 days of submitting I485 application, there is no need to redo I140 even-if old employer revokes the old I140.
In recent days USCIS seems to be denying lot of I485 applications � ignoring their own AC21 regulations. A few of IV volunteers (pd_recapturing, gc4me, chanduv et al) have started an effort to address this. You can get more info on this, at this thread: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21716.
This issue can affect a lot of us and it negates all the flexibility/relief that we acquired by getting EAD�s and advantages we got thru recent admin reform.
What needs to be done:
After some initial discussions and planning (thanks to pd-capturing, chandu, et al) it is decided to write letters to Ombudsman and service center heads to point out this and request them to correct it ASAP. Please participate and send letters. To succeed we need to send it in thousands.
Pasting the letter and the addresses below.
More info: (thanks to gc4me for addresses and letter template):
======================
Everyone please send the letter/email to 3 persons.
1. Ombudsman
2. Director, NSC
3. Director, TSC
======================
Ombudsman:
cisombudsman@dhs.gov
Mailing Address:
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
ATTN: Recommendations
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
=======================
Nebraska Service Center
Director: Gerard Heinauer
General Correspondence (Inquiries) (Sending applications or petitions to this address will delay their processing)
USCIS NSC
P.O. Box 82521
Lincoln, NE 68501-2521
NOTE: If using overnight delivery by any private service provider, send your package to:
USCIS
Nebraska Service Center
850 S Street
P.O. Box (Insert Correct P.O. Box Number)
Lincoln, NE 68508
Be sure to include the appropriate P.O. Box number on the shipping label.
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Suite 7000
Washington, DC 20529
or email: USCIS-COMPLAINT@DHS.GOV
=====================
Director: David Roark
General
Correspondence:
USCIS TSC
PO Box 851488
Mesquite, TX 75185-1488
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Ste 7000, Washington, DC 20529
============================
Letter
============================
Date: Today()
To
Mr. Michael Timothy Dougherty
The Ombudsman
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Re: Issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines
Dear Sir,
This is to bring your attention to the issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines.
The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) allows for a change of employer on any I-485 Adjustment of Status Application that has been pending for 180 days or more, without the need to file a new I-140 petition, provided the applicant�s new employment is in a similar/same occupation.
According to the Memo released by William R Yates on August 4th 2003, the original I-140 is valid if it is approvable and form I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days. (Attached for your reference is the memo dated August 4th 2003 from William R Yates and the follow-up memo dated May 12th 2005 with relevant sections highlighted).
Due to unreasonable delays caused by retrogression, many candidates have lawfully changed employers in accordance with the AC21 statute. Even though there is no requirement that USCIS be notified after a job change, some applicants have done so to prove that they are in compliance with this regulation. If the previous employer has withdrawn the previously approved I-140, AC21 guidelines state that if the applicant has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the applicant be sent an NOID (Notice of Intent to Deny) to deny the I-485 application or a RFE (Request for Evidence) . If the response to the NOID/RFE is timely and indicates that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, USCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485.
Over the past few months, a disturbing pattern has emerged with cases where the applicant has changed employers. USCIS has started to deny I-485applications where the underlying I-140 has been withdrawn by the previous employer without issuing an NOID or RFE. Even those applicants who have notified USCIS of change in employers have had their I-485 denied.
After the denial of I-485, the applicant has to file a MTR (Motion to reconsider) with USCIS to re-open the case. In addition to the financial burden of filing and legal fees, the applicant has to stop working because of the denial of the I-485 until the case is re-opened. This could be anywhere from a month to a few months. Needless to say, employers are unwilling to keep the job position open for such a long period and the applicant in most cases is looking at potential loss of employment. The applicant who has followed the law to the fullest extent is unfairly punished on account of USCIS not following the AC21 provisions.
This is a request for you to intervene to ensure that the AC21 regulations are followed when adjudicating an I-485 application. If the applicant notifies USCIS of a change in employment under AC21, this should be added the applicant�s physical file and electronic records. If there is no such notification and the previous employer withdraws the I-140, the applicant should be issued a NOID/RFE instead of denying the I-485 application.
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact.
Thank you in advance for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Thanks,
Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone Number
Guys,
This is one of the most serious issue we are facing in current time. Lay offs are happening left and right and on top of that employers learned that AC21 is giving troubles, they started squeezing more (I myself is partially victim of that).
We need sincere efforts sending emails to ombudsman. This will not take more than 5 minutes as NK2006 put efforts on even giving you the email template.
I sincerely urge everyone to send emails to addresses NK2006 mentioned above and even request your collegues, spouse to do so. We need volume to show our presence.
One more request, please take one more minute and make sure that you post here that you sent emails. This will give us real picture and give others motivation too!
I sent my emails (actually twice ;)).
more...
house of the Vancouver Sun Run
sanprabhu
07-20 10:02 AM
Actually it was lost by only 2 votes. Only 95 Senators voted and hence 57 votes would have been enough to carry it through. Really Sad. :(
That only 57 is required is not correct. The vote needs 60 to pass the motion. If no is totaling up only 37 but if yes is 59 still then it would not pass. Also if the senator is absent then it is considered a NO vote.
That only 57 is required is not correct. The vote needs 60 to pass the motion. If no is totaling up only 37 but if yes is 59 still then it would not pass. Also if the senator is absent then it is considered a NO vote.
tattoo Vancouver+sun+run+pictures
Canadian_Dream
06-02 07:27 PM
Effective date is next fiscal year or the one following it. If you read both the sections it cleary says that.
(Read the word approved and an "or" preceding it).
or approved at the time of the effective date of this section, shall be treated as if such provision remained effective and an approved petition may serve as the basis for issuance of an immigrant visa.
In my opinion this clearly means that if you have an approved I-140 before the effective date you should be ok. All pending I-140 on the effective date which is 15 months away are most likely have to refile. That leads to two scenarios:
1. Approved I-140 with a pending I-485, these petitions will be elegible for immigrant visa whenever one is avialable, this is very clearly mentioned.
2. Approved I-140 without I-485. No clear indication of how these cases will be treaed. They MIGHT have to refile as well.
============
(d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—
32
33 (1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), the amendments
34 made by this section shall take effect on the first day of the
35 fiscal year subsequent to the fiscal year of enactment, unless
36 such date is less than 270 days after the date of enactment, in
37 which case the amendments shall take effect on the first day of
38 the following fiscal year.
39
40 (2) PENDING AND APPROVED PETITIONS AND APPLICATIONS.—Petitions
41 for an employment-based visa filed for classification under
42 section 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Immigration and Nationality
43 Act (as such provisions existed prior to the enactment of this
44 section) that were filed prior to the date of the introduction of
265
1 the [Insert title of Act] and were pending or approved at the
2 time of the effective date of this section, shall be treated as if
3 such provision remained effective and an approved petition may
4 serve as the basis for issuance of an immigrant visa. Aliens with
5 applications for a labor certification pursuant to section
6 212(a)(5)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act shall
7 preserve the immigrant visa priority date accorded by the date
8 of filing of such labor certification application.
9
The original word is "enactment date", which would be the date the bill is signed into law. The effective date will be oct, 2008.
So people who didn't get their 140 through before the president signs the bill would be screwed?
(Read the word approved and an "or" preceding it).
or approved at the time of the effective date of this section, shall be treated as if such provision remained effective and an approved petition may serve as the basis for issuance of an immigrant visa.
In my opinion this clearly means that if you have an approved I-140 before the effective date you should be ok. All pending I-140 on the effective date which is 15 months away are most likely have to refile. That leads to two scenarios:
1. Approved I-140 with a pending I-485, these petitions will be elegible for immigrant visa whenever one is avialable, this is very clearly mentioned.
2. Approved I-140 without I-485. No clear indication of how these cases will be treaed. They MIGHT have to refile as well.
============
(d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—
32
33 (1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), the amendments
34 made by this section shall take effect on the first day of the
35 fiscal year subsequent to the fiscal year of enactment, unless
36 such date is less than 270 days after the date of enactment, in
37 which case the amendments shall take effect on the first day of
38 the following fiscal year.
39
40 (2) PENDING AND APPROVED PETITIONS AND APPLICATIONS.—Petitions
41 for an employment-based visa filed for classification under
42 section 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Immigration and Nationality
43 Act (as such provisions existed prior to the enactment of this
44 section) that were filed prior to the date of the introduction of
265
1 the [Insert title of Act] and were pending or approved at the
2 time of the effective date of this section, shall be treated as if
3 such provision remained effective and an approved petition may
4 serve as the basis for issuance of an immigrant visa. Aliens with
5 applications for a labor certification pursuant to section
6 212(a)(5)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act shall
7 preserve the immigrant visa priority date accorded by the date
8 of filing of such labor certification application.
9
The original word is "enactment date", which would be the date the bill is signed into law. The effective date will be oct, 2008.
So people who didn't get their 140 through before the president signs the bill would be screwed?
more...
pictures Vancouver Sun Run 2008
pappu
09-01 09:17 AM
Everyone getting receipt notices, and not coming to the rally, (not coming to the rally -most on tracker threads), please at least consider contributing to the rally once you get your notice or FP done or get EAD!. The rally cost is huge and we can do much more if people can contribute generously.
We helped you get to the stage so that everyone can file I485s. It pains us in the core team see how our members who used to tell us all the time to at least allow them to file I485 and then they will wholeheartedly take part and support IV have turned their backs on us now. With our work and victory in Visa bulletin fiasco, we even answered people who used to ask us for our achievements before they could contribute.
Now it is your opportunity to deliver.
We helped you get to the stage so that everyone can file I485s. It pains us in the core team see how our members who used to tell us all the time to at least allow them to file I485 and then they will wholeheartedly take part and support IV have turned their backs on us now. With our work and victory in Visa bulletin fiasco, we even answered people who used to ask us for our achievements before they could contribute.
Now it is your opportunity to deliver.
dresses Vancouver+sun+run+map+2011
hpandey
03-04 01:41 PM
I am on H1 and AOS and I refinanced my house at 5% . There were no issues and no questions. Just all the usual documents - W2 , paystubs etc etc . It was with a local bank too and not with any high profile institution.
more...
makeup Vancouver+sun+run+2011+
pappu
03-12 12:39 PM
With this model can IV still claim to be a non-profit organization? It seems you are exchanging information in return of cold hard cash? :p
Being a non-profit does not mean everything is free. Even some of our profession's organizations are non-profits and they want subscription to even login to their site. We are being very generous and providing everything for free and we will continue to do so to provide free access to immigrants on our site. Only a small donor area is for donors so that such members can have easy access to information and admins.
Being a non-profit does not mean everything is free. Even some of our profession's organizations are non-profits and they want subscription to even login to their site. We are being very generous and providing everything for free and we will continue to do so to provide free access to immigrants on our site. Only a small donor area is for donors so that such members can have easy access to information and admins.
girlfriend Vancouver+sun+run+2011+
immi_seeker
09-28 10:10 PM
This is very bad . considering the fact that people have been put in to this endless wait of retrogression. FY2006 they wasted 11k visas and the whole year dates were retrogressed for most of the countries
hairstyles vancouver sun run 2011,
sam2006
07-19 12:53 AM
thank you :)
Signed up mothly contribution from july.
Atleast with the current visa bullettin change has eased the worry of a lot of people if not all. Also get the satisfaction that we are doing something to improve our situation.
Signed up mothly contribution from july.
Atleast with the current visa bullettin change has eased the worry of a lot of people if not all. Also get the satisfaction that we are doing something to improve our situation.
unseenguy
02-09 06:17 PM
Yes, you are right! The Indian parent should have given their retirement a very high priority than their kids education. There are millions of middle class parents who didn't care about their retirement but worried and planned for their kids future by spending not only money but also precious time.
I am not sure, I think you are being sarcastic to my post. If someone's dad gets cancer, whats your advice? He should bring him to US to the best cancer hospital and spend life's saving on him? Personally I have been very fortunate. My parents took care of their retirements and financial affairs as well as my education. Very lucky indeed. Despite all this, I have told my parents that I would not be able to get treatment for them in US but would provide best possible one in India. Is this being ungrateful? No. Everyones life comes to an end.
I also said that if someones parents need financial support they should make it a very clear requirement at the time of arranging marriage. Like my maternal grandmother was bedridden due to medical condition for about 10-15 years. So when her son got married, it was a precondition that she will be part of the family and that the daughter in law will have to adjust and support her. One girl (my aunt ) accepted it, and lived happily with it as her duty. So it all depends. Different people different experiences.
I am not sure, I think you are being sarcastic to my post. If someone's dad gets cancer, whats your advice? He should bring him to US to the best cancer hospital and spend life's saving on him? Personally I have been very fortunate. My parents took care of their retirements and financial affairs as well as my education. Very lucky indeed. Despite all this, I have told my parents that I would not be able to get treatment for them in US but would provide best possible one in India. Is this being ungrateful? No. Everyones life comes to an end.
I also said that if someones parents need financial support they should make it a very clear requirement at the time of arranging marriage. Like my maternal grandmother was bedridden due to medical condition for about 10-15 years. So when her son got married, it was a precondition that she will be part of the family and that the daughter in law will have to adjust and support her. One girl (my aunt ) accepted it, and lived happily with it as her duty. So it all depends. Different people different experiences.
GCwaitforever
06-20 02:44 PM
One of my friends received labor approval from Philly. His priority is October 2003, EB3, Non-RIR. Of course, my PD is from November 2001 and one other guy's is from August 2002. They were not processed, but my friend got a break from the drab BEC. Strange things happen in life. :)
No comments:
Post a Comment