ankur6ue
10-12 10:41 AM
I used the subject line: US immigration system: problems faced by legal immigrants
thanks for taking the lead on this issue.
thanks for taking the lead on this issue.
wallpaper tattoo Jeopardy funny cartoon funny cartoon caricature. a fun logo
a2006
06-12 09:17 PM
IV core,
Keep up the good work. We have seen a lot of people asking for "action","results" and "transparency" in the past without doing really anything for it .:-)
Keep up the good work. We have seen a lot of people asking for "action","results" and "transparency" in the past without doing really anything for it .:-)
kartikiran
01-22 10:26 AM
Pappu,
Thanks for the response.
Not to offend anybody. but if you take a look at the sample of this thread as you can see the topic of discussion has moved from an action item to statistics estimate.
I admire IV and all its administrators, because grassroots efforts are never easy. IV along with its admins, has definitely had done a lot of hard work to reach to this stage.
At the same time, I would appreciate all senior members, and whoever reading this to keep the discussions more as a follow-up on action items.
Irrespective of statistics and the decision-makings of USCIS, it is very evident that some form of law changes must occur to clean-up this GC process.
As step 1 is bring an awareness among senators/congressmen and including the president that there is a problem that exists. I think this must be the only focus now to bring the problem in front with all the other problems that exist right now in front of the american politicians.
Again my 2 cents.
Thanks for the response.
Not to offend anybody. but if you take a look at the sample of this thread as you can see the topic of discussion has moved from an action item to statistics estimate.
I admire IV and all its administrators, because grassroots efforts are never easy. IV along with its admins, has definitely had done a lot of hard work to reach to this stage.
At the same time, I would appreciate all senior members, and whoever reading this to keep the discussions more as a follow-up on action items.
Irrespective of statistics and the decision-makings of USCIS, it is very evident that some form of law changes must occur to clean-up this GC process.
As step 1 is bring an awareness among senators/congressmen and including the president that there is a problem that exists. I think this must be the only focus now to bring the problem in front with all the other problems that exist right now in front of the american politicians.
Again my 2 cents.
2011 funny cartoon caricature. at
uma78
11-17 12:04 PM
Look like some blood sucking A$$H0l* desi employer gave me red with the comment "Screw You".
I am glad my posting did work.
Hello Junky,
sorry to hear that someone has given you a red. I have a question, how would one know if someone had given red? It cannot see it. Thank you in advance.
Uma
I am glad my posting did work.
Hello Junky,
sorry to hear that someone has given you a red. I have a question, how would one know if someone had given red? It cannot see it. Thank you in advance.
Uma
more...
chanduv23
04-08 01:53 PM
What about non Indians? Will Indian govt welcome them to join the Indian workforce?
GoneSouth
02-07 09:48 AM
This is not new, I was advised the same by my attorneys. I have heard "internet rumors" of people successfully filing EB-2 for job descriptions such as senior software engineer and senior systems analyst, which are normally classified as job zone 4. However, I was advised by two different law firms that this is not possible. According to both attorneys I consulted, you must get a job zone 5 classification to file EB-2. Note that "information technology manager" is job zone 5, so if you're in a senior position and supervising people (e.g., a manager or even a team lead), you may be able to obtain this classification.
- gs
- gs
more...
garybanz
12-06 09:54 AM
I have not tried it myself, but a couple members did and it worked. I also know about folks receiving EADs after filing lawsuits. There is still rule of the law in this country. Try follow my instructions and see the results.
I was at USCIS this morning, followed every thing you suggested. My IO officer was actually a desi guy.
1) They completely refused to look at the received date, I had my EAD (765) receipt, but the IO said he only cares about the receipt date. I even has the print out from USCIS.gov in which they have mentioned that they will honor the date on which applications were received in the mail room but he did not budge. His argument was " That update is in the over all scheme of things, but for EAD they have specific instruction to follow only the date they entered the data in the system"
2) I was not allowed to see a supervisor, the IO did talk to the supervisor but did not let me see her.
I was at USCIS this morning, followed every thing you suggested. My IO officer was actually a desi guy.
1) They completely refused to look at the received date, I had my EAD (765) receipt, but the IO said he only cares about the receipt date. I even has the print out from USCIS.gov in which they have mentioned that they will honor the date on which applications were received in the mail room but he did not budge. His argument was " That update is in the over all scheme of things, but for EAD they have specific instruction to follow only the date they entered the data in the system"
2) I was not allowed to see a supervisor, the IO did talk to the supervisor but did not let me see her.
2010 Another funny caricature of a
belmontboy
03-15 09:56 PM
Thank you for all quick replies.
It's been about an year the case has been closed. I can't expunge it for 4 more years. The attorney said it may not be under CMT. I think even though we expunge it, in future where ever we go, if asked that ever got arrested, we need to say YES right?
My attorney says it should be OK.. I am not sure what to be done as you said it all depends on the VO
I am praying god for the silly thing have done and help me in this..
Never repeat a mistake again...
Guys, please help me if any one knew any info...
Thank you very very much!!!
When the VO asks, you would be pretty much justifying why you are "not inadmissible"
Just write down the facts that support your case, and have documents ready (like court disposition, may be a written statement from immigration criminal attorney that your conviction doesnot render you inadmissible).
While i don't know whether you did intentionally, but certain silly things like this can change somebody's life forever. I hope other wouldbe immigrants learn lesson without actually having to go through this personally.
While i have no vested interests, but money to immigration attorney is worth for such things.
Good luck
It's been about an year the case has been closed. I can't expunge it for 4 more years. The attorney said it may not be under CMT. I think even though we expunge it, in future where ever we go, if asked that ever got arrested, we need to say YES right?
My attorney says it should be OK.. I am not sure what to be done as you said it all depends on the VO
I am praying god for the silly thing have done and help me in this..
Never repeat a mistake again...
Guys, please help me if any one knew any info...
Thank you very very much!!!
When the VO asks, you would be pretty much justifying why you are "not inadmissible"
Just write down the facts that support your case, and have documents ready (like court disposition, may be a written statement from immigration criminal attorney that your conviction doesnot render you inadmissible).
While i don't know whether you did intentionally, but certain silly things like this can change somebody's life forever. I hope other wouldbe immigrants learn lesson without actually having to go through this personally.
While i have no vested interests, but money to immigration attorney is worth for such things.
Good luck
more...
RandyK
10-05 10:19 AM
Finally some positive news
hair funny cartoon caricature. Samir Nasri Funny Caricature
john2255
07-21 08:27 AM
What you should do immediately.
If anyone lives in these Senators' jurisdictions, please call their offices and thank them for sponsoring the amendment, and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
SPONSOR: Senate Amendment 2339 Sen Cornyn, John [TX],
COSPONSORS(6):
Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY]
Sen Gregg, Judd [NH]
Sen Smith, Gordon H. [OR]
Sen Sununu, John E. [NH]
Sen Coleman, Norm [MN]
Sen Voinovich, George V. [OH]
If anyone lives in Senators' jurisdictions who voted yes, please call their offices and thank them for understanding our problems and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
If you live in the jurisdiction of those who voted against the amendment, please call them and encourage them of the urgent need for similar amendments. Telephone is the best way to make your voice heard. Here is the link to the Senators' phone numbers and contact info.
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
See comments for the roll call of votes (the YEAS were the people who helped us, the NAYS were the people who hurt us).
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00266
Grouped by Home State
Alabama: (R-AL), Nay Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Nay Pryor (D-AR), Nay
California: Boxer (D-CA), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Colorado: Allard (R-CO), Yea Salazar (D-CO), Nay
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Nay Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Nay Carper (D-DE), Nay
Florida: Martinez (R-FL), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Nay Obama (D-IL), Not Voting
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Not Voting Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), Nay Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Nay Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota: Coleman (R-MN), Yea Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Yea Lott (R-MS), Not Voting
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Yea McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea Tester (D-MT), Nay
Nebraska: Hagel (R-NE), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Yea Reid (D-NV), Nay
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea Sununu (R-NH), Yea
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Domenici (R-NM), Yea
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Yea Dole (R-NC), Yea
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Nay Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Ohio: Brown (D-OH), Nay Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Oregon: Smith (R-OR), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), Nay Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Nay Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Corker (R-TN), Yea
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Nay Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Virginia: Warner (R-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Nay
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Not Voting Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Wyoming: Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea
If anyone lives in these Senators' jurisdictions, please call their offices and thank them for sponsoring the amendment, and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
SPONSOR: Senate Amendment 2339 Sen Cornyn, John [TX],
COSPONSORS(6):
Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY]
Sen Gregg, Judd [NH]
Sen Smith, Gordon H. [OR]
Sen Sununu, John E. [NH]
Sen Coleman, Norm [MN]
Sen Voinovich, George V. [OH]
If anyone lives in Senators' jurisdictions who voted yes, please call their offices and thank them for understanding our problems and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
If you live in the jurisdiction of those who voted against the amendment, please call them and encourage them of the urgent need for similar amendments. Telephone is the best way to make your voice heard. Here is the link to the Senators' phone numbers and contact info.
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
See comments for the roll call of votes (the YEAS were the people who helped us, the NAYS were the people who hurt us).
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00266
Grouped by Home State
Alabama: (R-AL), Nay Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Nay Pryor (D-AR), Nay
California: Boxer (D-CA), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Colorado: Allard (R-CO), Yea Salazar (D-CO), Nay
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Nay Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Nay Carper (D-DE), Nay
Florida: Martinez (R-FL), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Nay Obama (D-IL), Not Voting
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Not Voting Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), Nay Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Nay Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota: Coleman (R-MN), Yea Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Yea Lott (R-MS), Not Voting
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Yea McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea Tester (D-MT), Nay
Nebraska: Hagel (R-NE), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Yea Reid (D-NV), Nay
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea Sununu (R-NH), Yea
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Domenici (R-NM), Yea
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Yea Dole (R-NC), Yea
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Nay Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Ohio: Brown (D-OH), Nay Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Oregon: Smith (R-OR), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), Nay Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Nay Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Corker (R-TN), Yea
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Nay Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Virginia: Warner (R-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Nay
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Not Voting Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Wyoming: Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea
more...
jonty_11
06-28 12:26 PM
makes sense...they are expecting alot of 140/485 combine filings in July and by issuing this bulletin they have stopped people from filing 140 in PP
hot Our cartoon caricatures are a
zephyrus
10-31 06:02 PM
Did you get any response from USCIS? Is it worth trying?
Hi
I used the provisions of AC21 and changed jobs in early 2005. FOIA requests will work for your I-140. I-140 is filed by the employer on your behalf and is therefore your paperwork.
It took approximately two and half months to come through.
HTH
- zeph
Hi
I used the provisions of AC21 and changed jobs in early 2005. FOIA requests will work for your I-140. I-140 is filed by the employer on your behalf and is therefore your paperwork.
It took approximately two and half months to come through.
HTH
- zeph
more...
house funny cartoon caricature.
vin13
01-14 12:54 PM
The Employment Based Immigration section explains how they will make a task force to prevent illegal workers from being exploited. I don't see anything for legal EB workers other than this 5 year thing which will start counting after this law is passed. :mad:
It says 5 years preceding from the date this law is enacted. Does this not mean that they will look 5 years back from the date this law is enacted?
Also i do not see them say it is for illegals only...
I do not think they would make it easier for illegals than legal residents.
I am not very optimistic about this . But i would definately like to see this pass.
It says 5 years preceding from the date this law is enacted. Does this not mean that they will look 5 years back from the date this law is enacted?
Also i do not see them say it is for illegals only...
I do not think they would make it easier for illegals than legal residents.
I am not very optimistic about this . But i would definately like to see this pass.
tattoo in Cartoon or caricature
sparky_jones
10-04 03:24 PM
E-Filed Date: 8/17/2010
Service Center: TSC
Supporting Documents Received by TSC: 8/25/2010
Soft LUDs: 8/25, 8/26, 9/22, 9/27, 9/28
Approval Date: 9/27/2010
AP Received Date: 10/1/2010
Date of approval on the AP is in the future...it is the same date as the expiration of the current AP.
Service Center: TSC
Supporting Documents Received by TSC: 8/25/2010
Soft LUDs: 8/25, 8/26, 9/22, 9/27, 9/28
Approval Date: 9/27/2010
AP Received Date: 10/1/2010
Date of approval on the AP is in the future...it is the same date as the expiration of the current AP.
more...
pictures 2011 Caricature/Cartoon – Bald Man funny cartoon caricature. caricature
gc101
07-18 02:36 PM
What is your PD and EB category. This discussion won't go anywhere without that information.
PD is Mar 2005
EB is EB3.
I-140 applied in Mar 13, 2007 (not approved yet).
Appreciate your help
gc101.
PD is Mar 2005
EB is EB3.
I-140 applied in Mar 13, 2007 (not approved yet).
Appreciate your help
gc101.
dresses hot Make Free Cartoons Caricatures funny cartoon caricature. provide cartoon
BharatPremi
07-06 11:26 AM
Guys,
Here are my thoughts:
---------------------
There are Four group of people (Became current with July bulletin) who are affected and suffered.
1) The people whose applications reached to USCIS before 10:00 AM
07/02/07, i.e. before USCIS's new revision/update.
Note: Legally this group is the SAFEST one as their file reached to the
USCIS table on time while USCIS's first bulletin was in effect. Their
case is strong as far as "Law and Justice" is concerned.
2) The people whose applications reached on 07/02/07 but after USCIS's
declaration of new revision.
Note: This group can be fit in a category "Who did not receive ample
notice from USCIS for its intention to change the bulletin. And so
may be considered "Probable beneficiaries" by the judiciary
3) The people whose applications reached or will reach to USCIS from any
time between 12:00 AM 07/03/07 to 11:59 PM 07/31/07.
Note: This group will have a "Strongest" weak argument and case. Their
act of sending files perhaps may not be considered "Law-abiding" as
they have already received ample notice from USCIS and clear
statement of USCIS about "Rejecting applications upon receiving"
then also this group sent the applications.
4) The People who will not send applications at all with respect to the
USCIS's revision.
Note: In my oinion and mostly I believe in Judiciary's opinion thsi group will
be considered "Law-abiding" and who acted as per USCIS's
instruction within the periphery of respecting legal authority.
Now other points to be noted are as under:
-----------------------------------------
DOS and USCIS screwed up? Yes... Did not happen ever and now it happened , yes.. People suffered stress..expenses.. yes. Now what is stressed on is one time bulletin per month is a tradition and it is a long time tradition but probably DOS has a power to change that... It seems that there is no such law that DOS can not do that so there exactly Lawsuite filer may have a weak case. Now USCIS is supposed to follow DOS and make bulletin as per DOS's guideline and that is what USCIS did so where is the "Law-Breaking" ? USCIS acted perfectly in legal manner. Probably if Lawsuite filer decide to file the lawsuite on the basis of "Why the helll USCIS declared "All Current" at the first place" then there they have a chance to make a case strong but if they go another route like "Why USCIS revised the bulletin" then I personally do not see "much worth".
Now having said this, to me it looks like whether you file till in July or not OR whether you become plantiff or not, it should not matter. AILF and/or any other organization ethically and perhaps legally can not define "Class" narrowly to the limited group of people. If real justice is prevalent in this country judiciary should not allow any entity to define "Class" narrowly. To me "ALL affected" is the "Class" and if judiciary is considering it as a "class action" then it should consider "All affected" as a class. Now US justice system would go this way, I do not know but if it is not going that way then I would consider that as abig black loop hole in justice system itself. My guess is that if AILF would go defining "Class" narrowly, there will be some mechanism by which individually or with group you should be able to challenge that legally as well.
Now Judiciary, in my opinion may not take stand that ok this is a "Class lawsuite" and now Mr.X has become the plantiff so he would only be the beneficary if lawsuite is won. Either ALL affected should be considered for whatever the benefits come out or everybody looses it. Same argument goes for people who are not filing. By not filing they are obeying the legal instruction of government department of USA and for that they should not be punished and can not be punished by not granting any benefit to them whereas granting the benefits to the people who clearly challenged USCIS's revision by filing from 07/03 and onwards....
If USCIS is smart, it should accept all files now and create the process to have them rotted in the queue for years and that way it will be able to save its own face and limit on visa numbers will automatically send whole bunch of files for eating the dust for years.
I personally see our strong point only at have reimbursement of the money and time if "We are not getting current before one year (Validity of Medicals)
Any thoughts?
Here are my thoughts:
---------------------
There are Four group of people (Became current with July bulletin) who are affected and suffered.
1) The people whose applications reached to USCIS before 10:00 AM
07/02/07, i.e. before USCIS's new revision/update.
Note: Legally this group is the SAFEST one as their file reached to the
USCIS table on time while USCIS's first bulletin was in effect. Their
case is strong as far as "Law and Justice" is concerned.
2) The people whose applications reached on 07/02/07 but after USCIS's
declaration of new revision.
Note: This group can be fit in a category "Who did not receive ample
notice from USCIS for its intention to change the bulletin. And so
may be considered "Probable beneficiaries" by the judiciary
3) The people whose applications reached or will reach to USCIS from any
time between 12:00 AM 07/03/07 to 11:59 PM 07/31/07.
Note: This group will have a "Strongest" weak argument and case. Their
act of sending files perhaps may not be considered "Law-abiding" as
they have already received ample notice from USCIS and clear
statement of USCIS about "Rejecting applications upon receiving"
then also this group sent the applications.
4) The People who will not send applications at all with respect to the
USCIS's revision.
Note: In my oinion and mostly I believe in Judiciary's opinion thsi group will
be considered "Law-abiding" and who acted as per USCIS's
instruction within the periphery of respecting legal authority.
Now other points to be noted are as under:
-----------------------------------------
DOS and USCIS screwed up? Yes... Did not happen ever and now it happened , yes.. People suffered stress..expenses.. yes. Now what is stressed on is one time bulletin per month is a tradition and it is a long time tradition but probably DOS has a power to change that... It seems that there is no such law that DOS can not do that so there exactly Lawsuite filer may have a weak case. Now USCIS is supposed to follow DOS and make bulletin as per DOS's guideline and that is what USCIS did so where is the "Law-Breaking" ? USCIS acted perfectly in legal manner. Probably if Lawsuite filer decide to file the lawsuite on the basis of "Why the helll USCIS declared "All Current" at the first place" then there they have a chance to make a case strong but if they go another route like "Why USCIS revised the bulletin" then I personally do not see "much worth".
Now having said this, to me it looks like whether you file till in July or not OR whether you become plantiff or not, it should not matter. AILF and/or any other organization ethically and perhaps legally can not define "Class" narrowly to the limited group of people. If real justice is prevalent in this country judiciary should not allow any entity to define "Class" narrowly. To me "ALL affected" is the "Class" and if judiciary is considering it as a "class action" then it should consider "All affected" as a class. Now US justice system would go this way, I do not know but if it is not going that way then I would consider that as abig black loop hole in justice system itself. My guess is that if AILF would go defining "Class" narrowly, there will be some mechanism by which individually or with group you should be able to challenge that legally as well.
Now Judiciary, in my opinion may not take stand that ok this is a "Class lawsuite" and now Mr.X has become the plantiff so he would only be the beneficary if lawsuite is won. Either ALL affected should be considered for whatever the benefits come out or everybody looses it. Same argument goes for people who are not filing. By not filing they are obeying the legal instruction of government department of USA and for that they should not be punished and can not be punished by not granting any benefit to them whereas granting the benefits to the people who clearly challenged USCIS's revision by filing from 07/03 and onwards....
If USCIS is smart, it should accept all files now and create the process to have them rotted in the queue for years and that way it will be able to save its own face and limit on visa numbers will automatically send whole bunch of files for eating the dust for years.
I personally see our strong point only at have reimbursement of the money and time if "We are not getting current before one year (Validity of Medicals)
Any thoughts?
more...
makeup funny cartoon caricature. royalty-free Funny cartoon
krishnam70
08-15 11:52 AM
[QUOTE=oldschool;147268]Are there any implications of leaving my employer now who sponsored me for GC? I got my GC on the first week of July. I plan to leave on the 1st week of September. Thank you very much.
You can leave even before your GC comes through by invoking AC21.
Frankly, I think the 6 month period is propaganda.
its my opinion and not legal opinion.
If you already used AC21 then? how would you explain to IO. I think what matters is your explanation and there should be no reason for denial of citizenship if you are able to explain.
cheers
You can leave even before your GC comes through by invoking AC21.
Frankly, I think the 6 month period is propaganda.
its my opinion and not legal opinion.
If you already used AC21 then? how would you explain to IO. I think what matters is your explanation and there should be no reason for denial of citizenship if you are able to explain.
cheers
girlfriend cartoon and caricature
sj2273
08-20 09:09 AM
Sent emails to:
Senator Carl Levin (D- MI)
Senator Debbie A. Stabenow
Senator Carl Levin (D- MI)
Senator Debbie A. Stabenow
hairstyles funny cartoon character
kak1978
08-10 11:18 PM
May be the Law firm signed up for the bulletin email and they got it through email. Did anyone here subscribe to the email?
rkgc
10-02 12:04 AM
How about tourist visa? you can get multiple entry for 10 years, but I guess no of months you can stay in India is a question. I am applying for my son too, both of us hold Indian passport, what you guys suggest? go for OCI?
RK
RK
Openarms
04-08 12:47 PM
I am not sure about voting part of it but sure more open informative discussion always right and can draw more folks into conversation and subsequently donations for the cause.... The secretiveness does not help for our community at all, remember we are fighting for "LEGAL" immigration.
No comments:
Post a Comment