GCNaseeb
02-06 04:54 PM
Check out this:
http://www.murthy.com/news/ukmurtak.html
Also here's a thread which gives you lot of information about 3-year degree I-140 cases.
http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=196367&pp=15&page=63
http://www.murthy.com/news/ukmurtak.html
Also here's a thread which gives you lot of information about 3-year degree I-140 cases.
http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=196367&pp=15&page=63
wallpaper DISNEY CINDERELLA CASTLE WALT
Marphad
04-28 02:48 PM
My younger brother has a visa interview next week at Delhi consulate.
Some facts
-I am on h1b (came as a student in 2002)
-My Parents are currently in US. This is 3rd trip to US.
-My Sister and Brother in law are GC holder alongwith 1 GC holder kid and 1 USC kid.
-We are expecting :)
I am not sure how these facts will be seen @ visa interview by the officer as he can easily think that my younger brother is a potential immigrant.
There is one big supporting fact and that is my brother has an admit to IIM which he has to join in Jun last week. He just wants to come here for 1 month.
Anyone out here has any suggestion which might help for stamping? DS 156 I have clearly disclosed about my Sister having a GC and parents being here can be asked in interview.
Any suggestion will be highly appreciated.
Thanks.:confused:
I went through similar problem when my sister was going for visitor visa. Here are few things you need to keep in mind:
1. Binding to go back to home country
- Proof of family members back in home country
- Proof of current job or education - IIM receipt will help.
- Proof of assets in home country
2. Financial capacity
- Proof of assets in home country
- Proof of about $5-6K liquid money
- Earning / Income.
3. Not a potential immigrant
- Limit of stay - 3-4 months return ticket.
- If working, company's letter that his employment will still be valid once returned.
You don't need anything else. My best wishes.
Some facts
-I am on h1b (came as a student in 2002)
-My Parents are currently in US. This is 3rd trip to US.
-My Sister and Brother in law are GC holder alongwith 1 GC holder kid and 1 USC kid.
-We are expecting :)
I am not sure how these facts will be seen @ visa interview by the officer as he can easily think that my younger brother is a potential immigrant.
There is one big supporting fact and that is my brother has an admit to IIM which he has to join in Jun last week. He just wants to come here for 1 month.
Anyone out here has any suggestion which might help for stamping? DS 156 I have clearly disclosed about my Sister having a GC and parents being here can be asked in interview.
Any suggestion will be highly appreciated.
Thanks.:confused:
I went through similar problem when my sister was going for visitor visa. Here are few things you need to keep in mind:
1. Binding to go back to home country
- Proof of family members back in home country
- Proof of current job or education - IIM receipt will help.
- Proof of assets in home country
2. Financial capacity
- Proof of assets in home country
- Proof of about $5-6K liquid money
- Earning / Income.
3. Not a potential immigrant
- Limit of stay - 3-4 months return ticket.
- If working, company's letter that his employment will still be valid once returned.
You don't need anything else. My best wishes.
indianindian2006
09-08 08:43 PM
Hi,
I am July 2007 485 filer with approved I-140 & PD 2006.
Just to check the status of my 485 I had raised a Service Request in July. This is the reply I got today:
The status of this service request is:
Based on your request we researched the status of this case. We are actively processing this case. However, we have to perform additional review on this case and this has caused a longer processing time. If you do not receive a decision or other notice of action from us within 6 months of this letter, please call customer service at the number provided below.
Does anyone any experience on this reply? Is it a generic reply or hint towards RFE?
Please share if you have any information...Thanks!!
I got the same response for my SR today,I had opened my SR on Aug 08-08
I am July 2007 485 filer with approved I-140 & PD 2006.
Just to check the status of my 485 I had raised a Service Request in July. This is the reply I got today:
The status of this service request is:
Based on your request we researched the status of this case. We are actively processing this case. However, we have to perform additional review on this case and this has caused a longer processing time. If you do not receive a decision or other notice of action from us within 6 months of this letter, please call customer service at the number provided below.
Does anyone any experience on this reply? Is it a generic reply or hint towards RFE?
Please share if you have any information...Thanks!!
I got the same response for my SR today,I had opened my SR on Aug 08-08
2011 Cinderella Castle at Disney
sundar99
02-17 11:49 PM
My browser hung, so did a repost !
Thanks for the post, but please refrain from posting multiple identical threads
Thanks for the post, but please refrain from posting multiple identical threads
more...
augustus
07-02 03:49 PM
Congratulations. I am very happy for you. Yes, we are having a bad time but you know what your news makes me happy. After what you have been through, I think you deserve to celebrate and enjoy the American Dream. Thank you for prayers and thoughts. We need it more than ever today.
lost_in_migration
12-21 04:54 PM
http://blogs.ilw.com/joelstewart/2007/12/project-perm-au.html
In case you haven't been on this planet lately, Project Perm Audits 2007 has arrived. The blitz began with the recent closings of the Baclog Centers, apparently due to the availability of extra work force to review PERM applications.
In 2005, DOL introduced a new standard of "Zero Tolerance" electronic review which lived up to the name PERM -- "Program Electronic Review Management". During the first few years, the agency reviewed cases electronically, with little intervention from human beings. The main issues raised were regarding exactness on the PERM Form ETA 9089. Accordingly, the first PERM case to reach Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) had to be used to determine whether "Zero Tolerance" met Due Process standards, especially when the mistake was a mere typographical error and the Employer could not refile because it was outside the 180-day recruitment period. In that case, Health America, BALCA 2006-INA-1, the ALJ's decided that since there was no warning to users during the electronic filing process, "Zero Tolerance" was improper. Since then, DOL introduced warnings have been introduced to prevent such errors. All the time, observers have been waiting to see if DOL would apply delve further, and not only issue audits and decisions based based on electronic PERM filing errors.
Project PERM Audits 2007 has now brought the issue of SVP, long a sleeper, to the fore. The SVP Issue centers on the lack of accuracy in the O*Net classifications of required to obtain experience, education or training. Known as SVP (Specific Vocational Preparation), it is defined in terms of ranges which are permissible minimum requirements in labor certification applications. A Bachelor's Degree is stipulated by long-standing DOL policy to count as two years (not four, because only the last two years of the four-year program are counted as specific), a Master's Degree as four years, and a Ph.D. counts as seven years. Experience, training and other forms of education (Associate Degrees and appropriate post-secondary education) are measured in real-time. For more information look at the "Revised Handbook for Analyzing Jobs."
Formerly SVP was defined by the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, but in 2005, on the effective date of PERM (March 28, 2005), the O*Net officially the DOT. The O*Net purports to classify requirements to perform jobs as accurately as possible and at minimal, entry levels. However, many unusual changes have been noted. Some jobs in the DOT were downgraded from previous levels, so that jobs which were categorized with SVP 8 are now relegated to SVP 7. In actual fact, the entire SVP concept has been changed, where previously levels were described as "more than up to and including," they now are described as "from up to and less than." (The controversy is beyond the scope of today's blog article but will be covered in future articles.)
As a result, Inaccuracies now abound in the O*Net. To give a cogent example, we were asked to assist an attorney with preparation of a response to audit. The position offered was "Director of Human Resources." In that audit, the Employer required a Master's Degree or a Bachelor's Degree plus five years progressive experience. Previously, the position (DOT 166.117-018 aka "Personnel Manager") would have permitted those requirements, with an SVP of 8, however the O*Net lists the maximum SVP as 7 (no more than four years of education, training or experience). In other words, the DOL permits a Master's Degree, since it is equal to four years SVP, but does not permit the Bachelor's plus five.
Since we suspected that the government calculations are incorrect, we googled the search on www.monster.com and found 30 similar positions. We were amazed to see that not one single job had such low requirements. The job offers varied from Bachelor's plus Five years experience to Bachelor's plus 15 years experience.
During the ILW PERM Workshop in New York last week, a great deal of input was received from the participants, since the SVP audits are the main concern now of labor certification practitioners. Attention was given to how to answer number H-12 on the PERM form. The Regulations and operating instructions incorporate various (sometimes conflicting) concepts, references to the O*Net, instructions on the PERM form and supplemental instructions available as downloads from internet sites. Practitioners also express uncertainty about analogies (improperly drawn) with the prevailing wage analysis made by SWAs and actual industry standards. The example above on Monster proves that industry standards are in wide difference with the O*net.
The concensus of the paricipants in the PERM Workshop was that if the Employer's minimum requirements surpass those described in the O*Net, the Employer should answer "No" to question H-12, and append business necessity documentation. In actual fact, the documentation is easy to obtain, as suggested above, from the Internet and from the Employer itself. The Employer can sign a statement to that effect and provide business records. A detailed description of the job duties, documenting that the job is not entry-level would also be helpful. The PERM Rule has its own business necessity standard, similar to the pre-perm rule drawn from Information Industries, 88-INA-82 (BALCA 1989). The PERM standard is that job requirements must represent the employer�s actual minimum requirements and that they bear a reasonable relationship to the occupation and are essential to perform the job in a reasonable manner.
It is clear that according to the concensus of opinion, the best approach is not to challenge the SVP by answering "Yes" on the form (a form of civil disobedience that can be misinterpreted as lack of good faith), but to answer "No," expect an audit and be prepared to present business necessity. Although there is no resolution of the SVP issue in sight, I believe that the DOL will make some adjustment for administrative convenience. In other words, certain jobs which are clearly miscategorized in the O*Net and whose employers can easily provide business necessity are not good subjects for audits. The DOL will probably want to apply its resources to more challenging audit issues. If this occurs, applications with with "No" in H-12 may not continue to undergo the large number of audits as is current policy.
In case you haven't been on this planet lately, Project Perm Audits 2007 has arrived. The blitz began with the recent closings of the Baclog Centers, apparently due to the availability of extra work force to review PERM applications.
In 2005, DOL introduced a new standard of "Zero Tolerance" electronic review which lived up to the name PERM -- "Program Electronic Review Management". During the first few years, the agency reviewed cases electronically, with little intervention from human beings. The main issues raised were regarding exactness on the PERM Form ETA 9089. Accordingly, the first PERM case to reach Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) had to be used to determine whether "Zero Tolerance" met Due Process standards, especially when the mistake was a mere typographical error and the Employer could not refile because it was outside the 180-day recruitment period. In that case, Health America, BALCA 2006-INA-1, the ALJ's decided that since there was no warning to users during the electronic filing process, "Zero Tolerance" was improper. Since then, DOL introduced warnings have been introduced to prevent such errors. All the time, observers have been waiting to see if DOL would apply delve further, and not only issue audits and decisions based based on electronic PERM filing errors.
Project PERM Audits 2007 has now brought the issue of SVP, long a sleeper, to the fore. The SVP Issue centers on the lack of accuracy in the O*Net classifications of required to obtain experience, education or training. Known as SVP (Specific Vocational Preparation), it is defined in terms of ranges which are permissible minimum requirements in labor certification applications. A Bachelor's Degree is stipulated by long-standing DOL policy to count as two years (not four, because only the last two years of the four-year program are counted as specific), a Master's Degree as four years, and a Ph.D. counts as seven years. Experience, training and other forms of education (Associate Degrees and appropriate post-secondary education) are measured in real-time. For more information look at the "Revised Handbook for Analyzing Jobs."
Formerly SVP was defined by the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, but in 2005, on the effective date of PERM (March 28, 2005), the O*Net officially the DOT. The O*Net purports to classify requirements to perform jobs as accurately as possible and at minimal, entry levels. However, many unusual changes have been noted. Some jobs in the DOT were downgraded from previous levels, so that jobs which were categorized with SVP 8 are now relegated to SVP 7. In actual fact, the entire SVP concept has been changed, where previously levels were described as "more than up to and including," they now are described as "from up to and less than." (The controversy is beyond the scope of today's blog article but will be covered in future articles.)
As a result, Inaccuracies now abound in the O*Net. To give a cogent example, we were asked to assist an attorney with preparation of a response to audit. The position offered was "Director of Human Resources." In that audit, the Employer required a Master's Degree or a Bachelor's Degree plus five years progressive experience. Previously, the position (DOT 166.117-018 aka "Personnel Manager") would have permitted those requirements, with an SVP of 8, however the O*Net lists the maximum SVP as 7 (no more than four years of education, training or experience). In other words, the DOL permits a Master's Degree, since it is equal to four years SVP, but does not permit the Bachelor's plus five.
Since we suspected that the government calculations are incorrect, we googled the search on www.monster.com and found 30 similar positions. We were amazed to see that not one single job had such low requirements. The job offers varied from Bachelor's plus Five years experience to Bachelor's plus 15 years experience.
During the ILW PERM Workshop in New York last week, a great deal of input was received from the participants, since the SVP audits are the main concern now of labor certification practitioners. Attention was given to how to answer number H-12 on the PERM form. The Regulations and operating instructions incorporate various (sometimes conflicting) concepts, references to the O*Net, instructions on the PERM form and supplemental instructions available as downloads from internet sites. Practitioners also express uncertainty about analogies (improperly drawn) with the prevailing wage analysis made by SWAs and actual industry standards. The example above on Monster proves that industry standards are in wide difference with the O*net.
The concensus of the paricipants in the PERM Workshop was that if the Employer's minimum requirements surpass those described in the O*Net, the Employer should answer "No" to question H-12, and append business necessity documentation. In actual fact, the documentation is easy to obtain, as suggested above, from the Internet and from the Employer itself. The Employer can sign a statement to that effect and provide business records. A detailed description of the job duties, documenting that the job is not entry-level would also be helpful. The PERM Rule has its own business necessity standard, similar to the pre-perm rule drawn from Information Industries, 88-INA-82 (BALCA 1989). The PERM standard is that job requirements must represent the employer�s actual minimum requirements and that they bear a reasonable relationship to the occupation and are essential to perform the job in a reasonable manner.
It is clear that according to the concensus of opinion, the best approach is not to challenge the SVP by answering "Yes" on the form (a form of civil disobedience that can be misinterpreted as lack of good faith), but to answer "No," expect an audit and be prepared to present business necessity. Although there is no resolution of the SVP issue in sight, I believe that the DOL will make some adjustment for administrative convenience. In other words, certain jobs which are clearly miscategorized in the O*Net and whose employers can easily provide business necessity are not good subjects for audits. The DOL will probably want to apply its resources to more challenging audit issues. If this occurs, applications with with "No" in H-12 may not continue to undergo the large number of audits as is current policy.
more...
anurakt
10-13 01:22 PM
Friends,
My transfer was filed on 10/11 under premium processing. When do you think I should receive my receipt number. The company is based out of New York.
Thanks for all the answers.
My transfer was filed on 10/11 under premium processing. When do you think I should receive my receipt number. The company is based out of New York.
Thanks for all the answers.
2010 disney castle logo.
Circus123
02-14 03:45 PM
McCain has always been active abt immigration..
it was he and Ted kenndey..who tried to push the CIR..
Obama for i gather...is anti legal immigrants..he speaks what the american working class wants to hear(like a true politicain)! he will be a disaster as far as immigration reforms are concerned.
Well it is either Obama or Clinton ... There is no other choice we have ..
Select option A or B but not C(neither of the above) Now do we?
it was he and Ted kenndey..who tried to push the CIR..
Obama for i gather...is anti legal immigrants..he speaks what the american working class wants to hear(like a true politicain)! he will be a disaster as far as immigration reforms are concerned.
Well it is either Obama or Clinton ... There is no other choice we have ..
Select option A or B but not C(neither of the above) Now do we?
more...
manderson
07-14 05:38 PM
ok this may be wishful thinking. but probably not impossible....
hair Disney World
Dhundhun
03-20 04:02 PM
I think, answers are mixed and they cover two different topics Visa Revalidation and Autimatic Visa Revalidation.
Thanks Venram, I'll carry "Employment Verification Letter" also as per your recommendations.
Thanks Venram, I'll carry "Employment Verification Letter" also as per your recommendations.
more...
diptam
06-03 06:42 PM
Bank Check of $340 for the new filing fee;
Last year�s EAD Mailer;
Copy of front & back Side of Current EAD;
Two recent photographs;
Form I-765;
Copy of I-485 (AOS) receipt notice;
Copy of I-94 arrival/departure card (redundant)
Copy of passport�s biographic page; (redundant)
Copy of visa page of passport; (redundant)
Copy of driver�s license; (redundant)
For paper filing of EAD renewal for AOS cases, I gather what is needed is (i) two photos, (ii) AOS receipt, (iii) Proof of previous EAD, (iv) Check.
Did I miss something?
Last year�s EAD Mailer;
Copy of front & back Side of Current EAD;
Two recent photographs;
Form I-765;
Copy of I-485 (AOS) receipt notice;
Copy of I-94 arrival/departure card (redundant)
Copy of passport�s biographic page; (redundant)
Copy of visa page of passport; (redundant)
Copy of driver�s license; (redundant)
For paper filing of EAD renewal for AOS cases, I gather what is needed is (i) two photos, (ii) AOS receipt, (iii) Proof of previous EAD, (iv) Check.
Did I miss something?
hot Plane tickets booked, disney
gettinthere
12-02 02:19 PM
Hi
I got an RFE on my I-140, asking for evidence of 12 months experience in the form of letters from employers (NSC, EB3, Labor approved in PERM, Oct 2006)
The HR of my prior employer is not ready to give me employment letter, however, my ex-boss (to whom I reported, and who is still in that same company) has given me a letter
My questions are- (1) What exactly is "Employers" supposed to mean? Does the letter NECESSARILY have to be from HR department?
(2) The job title in my approved labor is "Systems Productivity Engineer" while on the experience letter from ex-boss, it is "Productivity Systems Engineer". Is this a problem? Does USCIS check exact match in job title?
Any help is greatly appreciated!
Thanks
I got an RFE on my I-140, asking for evidence of 12 months experience in the form of letters from employers (NSC, EB3, Labor approved in PERM, Oct 2006)
The HR of my prior employer is not ready to give me employment letter, however, my ex-boss (to whom I reported, and who is still in that same company) has given me a letter
My questions are- (1) What exactly is "Employers" supposed to mean? Does the letter NECESSARILY have to be from HR department?
(2) The job title in my approved labor is "Systems Productivity Engineer" while on the experience letter from ex-boss, it is "Productivity Systems Engineer". Is this a problem? Does USCIS check exact match in job title?
Any help is greatly appreciated!
Thanks
more...
house Walt Disney World Castle
rkm
08-15 07:16 PM
Just take an Infopass appointment ..
call1 : 08/13/08
IO told me that my name check is not clear.
call2:08/15/08
IO told that my name check is clear. But now she says my priority date as 08/31/2007 ( Which is basically the Notice date) and said as my priority date is not current it cannot be processed now.
My PD is 01/2006. Case transferred from NSC to TSC.
call1 : 08/13/08
IO told me that my name check is not clear.
call2:08/15/08
IO told that my name check is clear. But now she says my priority date as 08/31/2007 ( Which is basically the Notice date) and said as my priority date is not current it cannot be processed now.
My PD is 01/2006. Case transferred from NSC to TSC.
tattoo disney world castle logo.
howzatt
06-21 11:09 AM
Can this really happen? USCIS comes out on July 15th and says that it cannot accept any more applications.
more...
pictures cinderella-castle-bavaria
riveroaks
09-04 03:24 PM
Here's a few.
dresses When the sun sets, the castle
delhikadesi
07-24 01:43 AM
same question...hope to see an answer
when does the actual 180 day clock start?
Eg: If the 485 application was sent on July 17 - received on July 18 at Nebraska.
Does that mean on Jan 15 2008 (181 days) - one can switch jobs using portablity?
Thanks!
when does the actual 180 day clock start?
Eg: If the 485 application was sent on July 17 - received on July 18 at Nebraska.
Does that mean on Jan 15 2008 (181 days) - one can switch jobs using portablity?
Thanks!
more...
makeup days at Walt Disney World,
bklog_sufferer
03-17 02:34 PM
Completed the Survey. It took just under 10mins.
girlfriend Dada at Disney World - Florida
Kansan
06-16 11:43 AM
Hello All,
NSC processing times report dated 6/15/06 is available on AILA website. Per this report, NSC is processing EB3 I-140 applications dated 1/16/06. For the last (3) months, it was 2/20/06. The processing time has started going in the wrong direction for this category. Does anyone here have an idea as to what could have caused this change?
Thanks in advance.
NSC processing times report dated 6/15/06 is available on AILA website. Per this report, NSC is processing EB3 I-140 applications dated 1/16/06. For the last (3) months, it was 2/20/06. The processing time has started going in the wrong direction for this category. Does anyone here have an idea as to what could have caused this change?
Thanks in advance.
hairstyles Disney World Castle iPhone 4
reddy77
01-19 09:50 AM
Hi, I included the self addressed envelope, make sure you write the TO Address and From Address ..PM me if you have any questions..
Hi reddy77,
as mentioned in the consulate website, did you also include a self addressed envelope for 18.30$ (Express mail)?? or did you send an extra check for mail delivery??
thank you.
Hi reddy77,
as mentioned in the consulate website, did you also include a self addressed envelope for 18.30$ (Express mail)?? or did you send an extra check for mail delivery??
thank you.
hopefulgc
08-08 04:01 PM
An antithetical incarnation of the popular "lighten up" thread
Damn straight... this is where y'all can come bitch about how it sucks to be in AOS.
and guess what .. some loser gave me a red for starting this thread.
--- Here we go ---------
You have followed the law.
You have filed all the documents they asked for.
You have paid astronomical fees for someone to just look at your documents and state the obvious (i.e. You deserve PR)
This is Year 2... f**king thousand ....8.. the information tech age for crying out loud.
And everywhere I hear... almost everyone is in dark about what is going on.
"We have a lot of case load... You are going to need to wait"
I am thinking of starting a website where people can enter their email address and just get fake "card production ordered" emails.
That way, at least the impatience and novelty associated with getting approved will wear off and we can go back to pretending we are in a developed country.
Damn straight... this is where y'all can come bitch about how it sucks to be in AOS.
and guess what .. some loser gave me a red for starting this thread.
--- Here we go ---------
You have followed the law.
You have filed all the documents they asked for.
You have paid astronomical fees for someone to just look at your documents and state the obvious (i.e. You deserve PR)
This is Year 2... f**king thousand ....8.. the information tech age for crying out loud.
And everywhere I hear... almost everyone is in dark about what is going on.
"We have a lot of case load... You are going to need to wait"
I am thinking of starting a website where people can enter their email address and just get fake "card production ordered" emails.
That way, at least the impatience and novelty associated with getting approved will wear off and we can go back to pretending we are in a developed country.
Jaime
09-16 11:56 AM
We are thrilled to have the kids! Welcome!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment