gbof
06-14 10:37 AM
I guess I may fall victim of FBI background check. Even though, my priority date is not current yet but, it should be next couple of months based on recent EB-2 movement. We had our AOS interview last Nov and IO told us that she is going to initiate another Background check as original BC is more than two years old. In the end of April, I made an Infopass appointment out of curiosity because Background check use to be a major source of delay for many people. Service Rep on window told me that my Background check has not come back yet.. It was almost 5 months since it was ordered.. She did not elaborate on why was it pending.. She asked me couple of weird question which did not make any sense to me. I have schedule another appointment in next couple of days to find out where do I stand. I would like to keep my expectations in check as pending BC can delay it even when priority dates are current.
Can anyone on forum please provide some info on what can be done if Background check is pending over 180 days.. I can make a request to my Congressmen and ask for their help... Any suggestions will be greatly appreciated..
Thanks
I really donot believe they will do Background checks again before approvals for everybody. Can you please elaborate what was the reason for the interview and what were the weird questions -- You can give us a little flavor. -Thanks
Can anyone on forum please provide some info on what can be done if Background check is pending over 180 days.. I can make a request to my Congressmen and ask for their help... Any suggestions will be greatly appreciated..
Thanks
I really donot believe they will do Background checks again before approvals for everybody. Can you please elaborate what was the reason for the interview and what were the weird questions -- You can give us a little flavor. -Thanks
wallpaper tattoos of quotes from the
RandyK
11-06 04:20 PM
I bet C SPAN was more entertaining than the Steelers drubbing of Ravens yesterday :D
I am a Browns fan so..... you know what I mean!!
I am a Browns fan so..... you know what I mean!!
bkam
06-09 12:48 PM
"...Demand" and "right" will work up to the point in which we don't irate Americans. America has been sympathetic to immigrants in good part thanks to the capacity that America has to accomodate us here. If an excessive number of immigrants get in and that alarm citizens, I can tell you this country will become as unsympathetic to immigrants as many European countries are.
....Just be careful with the idea of "demanding" and "rights" though :)
Marlon2006,
I agree that it is very important to clear what is "rihgt", "privilege" and "symphaty". I tried to do that several times before and in order to avoid any misunderstanding have quoted below a part of one of my messages. Please read it carefully.
"I do believe that I HAVE THE RIGHT to get my LCA adjudicated in 2-3 months time (OK, make it 6 months, having in mind you are dealing with an inefficient administration).
I do believe that I HAVE THE RIGHT to know in short term (2-3 months, not 3-4 years !) if I am eligible for permanent residency.
I do believe that I HAVE THE RIGHT to know how long (if approved) will take the I-485 process.
These are clear, simple questions that require clear, simple answers. Getting these answers (NO is also an answer) in a reasonable period of time is a right, not a privilege..."
Americans have the right to determine how many immigrants they need and how to handle this issue. But we have the right to follow clear and simple rules for that process. It seems to me that the way they currently handle the H1 immigrants has a lot to do with the "Las Vegas" type of business (gambling) - shall I get my LC approved, when will I get the LC approved, shall I get a GC, when can I get the GC etc. The rules change permanently and half a million hard working people are in limbo for a decade and more. That is not fair and this is what you have to explain to the Americans.
And, btw, if the local IT "professionals" you were debating with were so great, they would not be unemployed...
....Just be careful with the idea of "demanding" and "rights" though :)
Marlon2006,
I agree that it is very important to clear what is "rihgt", "privilege" and "symphaty". I tried to do that several times before and in order to avoid any misunderstanding have quoted below a part of one of my messages. Please read it carefully.
"I do believe that I HAVE THE RIGHT to get my LCA adjudicated in 2-3 months time (OK, make it 6 months, having in mind you are dealing with an inefficient administration).
I do believe that I HAVE THE RIGHT to know in short term (2-3 months, not 3-4 years !) if I am eligible for permanent residency.
I do believe that I HAVE THE RIGHT to know how long (if approved) will take the I-485 process.
These are clear, simple questions that require clear, simple answers. Getting these answers (NO is also an answer) in a reasonable period of time is a right, not a privilege..."
Americans have the right to determine how many immigrants they need and how to handle this issue. But we have the right to follow clear and simple rules for that process. It seems to me that the way they currently handle the H1 immigrants has a lot to do with the "Las Vegas" type of business (gambling) - shall I get my LC approved, when will I get the LC approved, shall I get a GC, when can I get the GC etc. The rules change permanently and half a million hard working people are in limbo for a decade and more. That is not fair and this is what you have to explain to the Americans.
And, btw, if the local IT "professionals" you were debating with were so great, they would not be unemployed...
2011 quotes. ible quotes
forgerator
11-22 10:16 AM
All I have to say is .. do NOT bring parents or relatives to the US , period. Healthcare is pathetic and will rob you off tons of your hard-earned, precious savings. If you want to meet your parents/relatives, go to the home country but do not bring them here. I have heard far too many horror stories related to medical emergencies and the last thing I want is to put my parents in that kind of situation. In fact when my mother heard about the medical expenses here, she is terrifed to come here and wants me to come visit Pakistan instead, which I will gladly do.
more...
burnt
04-15 01:40 PM
My Application is also in Texas. I got a Soft LUD too... Seems like they are also preadjudicating
boreal
08-25 12:02 PM
I am with the same employer who sponsored GC. Until GC was approved I was with H1B visa. Is it neccessary for me to file I-9 after GC?
Yes. They would need GC copy and they would update their records.
Yes. They would need GC copy and they would update their records.
more...
gc_on_demand
06-17 04:03 PM
Do we have any agenda for EB3-I?
Participate in IV actions. Call the lawmakers
Participate in IV actions. Call the lawmakers
2010 Bible quotes give useful ible
masouds
09-17 01:49 PM
roll call going on
LINK?
LINK?
more...
nixstor
08-01 04:31 PM
cessusa,
Can you share your experience on your way to babson? Things like your GMAT Score, How long did you prepare, your work experience etc. Is it a lock step program or you can do it at your convenience? I am looking at Ross's Part time. I havent even started but thats some thing on my mind. I am neither in Ann Arbor area or NE area.
Thanks
Can you share your experience on your way to babson? Things like your GMAT Score, How long did you prepare, your work experience etc. Is it a lock step program or you can do it at your convenience? I am looking at Ross's Part time. I havent even started but thats some thing on my mind. I am neither in Ann Arbor area or NE area.
Thanks
hair ible quotes about death.
redcard
11-12 10:58 AM
Was just watching Late Edition on CNN..with Arlen Specter and Chuck Schumer.. Specter did mention that he expects the CIR to be passed in the next few weeks in the lame duck session by the house.. infact he mentioned that the conservative outgoing speaker Hastert in favour of this at this time..so house might pass this now..with the senate already passed this..
Lets see who this goes ..
Lets see who this goes ..
more...
Tito_ortiz
01-15 07:20 PM
Bush tried really hard. I believe there is no complaint about Bush when it comes to immigration. He earned that credit.
I have just seen this in CNN, is Bush talking about legal immigration?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/15/bush.legacy/index.html
I have just seen this in CNN, is Bush talking about legal immigration?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/15/bush.legacy/index.html
hot ible quotes on family.
ganguteli
04-27 11:34 AM
IV should work hard on defeating this bill. It will send a clear message to anti-immigrants even if the bill does not pass.
Just because we want our green cards does not mean we forget people on H1b or future H1Bs
Anti-immigrants do not differentiate us based on H1, L1, EAD, PD, ROW, EB3 etc. The bill is aimed at throwing all immigrants out. Period.
Just because we want our green cards does not mean we forget people on H1b or future H1Bs
Anti-immigrants do not differentiate us based on H1, L1, EAD, PD, ROW, EB3 etc. The bill is aimed at throwing all immigrants out. Period.
more...
house marriage quotes with pictures. funny marriage quotes; funny marriage quotes
bkarnik
09-17 02:13 PM
here how it will be considered:
first human--> followed by illegal immigrants-->next horses-->last and least aliens
you mean LEGAL aliens...:)
first human--> followed by illegal immigrants-->next horses-->last and least aliens
you mean LEGAL aliens...:)
tattoo ible quotes on family.
Leo07
11-01 04:25 PM
I think this will be viewed more as a blackmailing method than anything else.
Moreover, if you look at the history of past such movements( LOL ), this is 180 degrees inverse of those successful movements.
I'm a firm believer in GC success through lobbying.
Moreover, if you look at the history of past such movements( LOL ), this is 180 degrees inverse of those successful movements.
I'm a firm believer in GC success through lobbying.
more...
pictures marriage quotes with pictures.
swamy
11-02 10:09 AM
anyone seen the gig by richard pryor- a radiothon to raise funds do repatriate slaves back to africa - trust me you'll die laughing!- i'll see if its youtubed. gjoe - just let cis know of your brainwave - i'm sure their tender hearts will melt.
1) We can go back; need not pretend if we think we have the brains
2) If you go "your GC misery is over". After that "A new beginning for you and this society"
3) If you don't go back you don't lose credibility. You just prove that you want to live here no matter what. Eveyone has the right to make his choice based on what works out well for him/her
4) For those who voted "yes" I think they know what they want in life and why they are here. No matter what the conditions are here or anywhere they will make the right choices instead of expecting someone else to control their lives.
The counter point is "Lobbying is not the only path to our freedom and independence"
Like you mentioned pointing out people and there posts is not required ( if you think that is a smart threat and expect people to backoff) because everyone can search every post of the other person if they want to do so.
FOR ALL THOSE WHO VOTED YES - IF WE HAVE ENOUGH NUMBERS WE CAN CHARTER A A380 OR TWO DREAMLINERS ONE FROM THE EAST COAST AND ONE FROM THE WEST COAST WITH STOPS IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES TO DROP OFF PEOPLE. IT HELPS US, AIRBUS/BOEING AND THE "NO" SAYERS WAITING FOR THEIR GC'S. THIS WOULD BE FOR SURE A BIG EVENT IN THE HISTORY.
I am not against IV and its goals or against any views or opinions of people. It is a free world, but if we want to pay a price for that we can do so in many ways. e.g. Waiting for GC.
1) We can go back; need not pretend if we think we have the brains
2) If you go "your GC misery is over". After that "A new beginning for you and this society"
3) If you don't go back you don't lose credibility. You just prove that you want to live here no matter what. Eveyone has the right to make his choice based on what works out well for him/her
4) For those who voted "yes" I think they know what they want in life and why they are here. No matter what the conditions are here or anywhere they will make the right choices instead of expecting someone else to control their lives.
The counter point is "Lobbying is not the only path to our freedom and independence"
Like you mentioned pointing out people and there posts is not required ( if you think that is a smart threat and expect people to backoff) because everyone can search every post of the other person if they want to do so.
FOR ALL THOSE WHO VOTED YES - IF WE HAVE ENOUGH NUMBERS WE CAN CHARTER A A380 OR TWO DREAMLINERS ONE FROM THE EAST COAST AND ONE FROM THE WEST COAST WITH STOPS IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES TO DROP OFF PEOPLE. IT HELPS US, AIRBUS/BOEING AND THE "NO" SAYERS WAITING FOR THEIR GC'S. THIS WOULD BE FOR SURE A BIG EVENT IN THE HISTORY.
I am not against IV and its goals or against any views or opinions of people. It is a free world, but if we want to pay a price for that we can do so in many ways. e.g. Waiting for GC.
dresses FREE Bible Verses and Quotes
Chiser99
06-07 04:15 PM
Well the only different skin apple have made, the U2 one, had a red scrollwheel... so surely we should use their one as a guideline, and in that case be allowed to skin the wheel as well?
more...
makeup found quotes about wedding
unitednations
03-31 11:51 AM
I (and I�m sure others too) would like to know how the following works,
Employer X filed labor, 140 for their employee. Both were approved (assumption - no RFEs, etc. until now), 485 was filed for in July 2007, and remains pending.
The employee was employed with Employer X from before the labor was applied and until ~360 days after the 485 was filed, and was always paid more than the LC prevailing wage/offered salary.
In July 2008, the employee leaves employer X and joins employer Y under AC21 provisions. An AC21 letter, G-28N are submitted.
140 never gets revoked by employer X.
In Jan 2009, employer X receives an Ability to Pay RFE for another pending 140 of theirs.
At this point, employer X has 16 140s that are open (pending OR approved with 485 pending to be filed/filed and pending). Out of those 16 140s, one was for the employee that left under AC21.
When they respond to that RFE, I do understand that they could be asked to show ability to pay for all 16 140s, even for the one that doesn�t work for them anymore, because of the fact that it was never revoked.
In this case, is the employee (that left) covered or at risk? I ask this question because the employee that left submitted AC21 documentation immediately upon leaving, thus notifying the USCIS that the �ability to pay� responsibility for his case, if any at all, now lies with the new future employer. There probably isn�t any clear definition of such a situation in the law, but can such an argument ever hold up in court, and protect the employee�s AOS application from getting affected due to any ability to pay issues the old employer (X) has had AFTER the employee left them.
The only person on here that I expect to be able to give a non-speculative answer to this is UN, unless someone else has personally gone through something similar.
Long post, I know, and I hope it does get read.
Thank you.
I worked on a very big case back in 2006.
Company had 20 pending 140's which were filed in 2005
Company had 42 approved 140's
in Janaury 2006 they sent RFE on one of the cases and asked for ability to pay. Before response was sent; second rfe is received on another pending casestating ability to pay and that uscis has noted company has filed many 140's; then third rfe is received on another case asking ability to pay on all pending cases (note this was in vermont service center and at this time the whole cybersoftech issue was going on; so there was a heightened alert from vermont service center).
In preparing for the response to the 20 pending cases; we had to analyze the 42 approved cases to ensure that just in case USCIS went after those cases together with the 20 then we should be ready in this particular response to justify the 42 approved cases.
In the response we only showed the 20 pending cases and that we had ability to pay for them.
Within three weeks; USCIS sent notice of intent to revoke the approved 140's. In the notice of intent to revoke; they stated that their records showed 20 pending; 42 approved cases and 205 h-1b's filed. USCIS went through their calculations and stated that if the average salary was xxx on all these petitions then the company would have to have paid close to $15 million in salaries which was (at that time the 2004 tax returns) more then five times the revenue. USCIS also went on to state they thought the company was involved in fraudulently obtaining h-1b's and 140's.
Now; company guy talks to Shusterman and he wants $2k per case and he can only handle the immigration component and that he neeed a CPA (which was me) and the company guy should also get a criminal attorney.
Well anyways; because in the first 20 cases we thought uscis may go after the approved 140's; the financials looked the right way to support all the cases.
The response was very scientific; hire dates; priority dates; amounts people got paid before priority date; amounts paid after; dates people left the company, etc.
In the various calculations; we proved out that even with people leaving who used ac21; we still had ability to pay for them (ie., even though they were no longer there we still had the financials to pay them). Then we gave another scenario that ability to pay clock should stop once person used ac21. We then did recalculation under this scenario.
In every scenario we showed we had ability to pay. Now; we never requested USCIS to revoke the approved 140's for people who had left; in one of the scenarios we adjusted the calculation to stop showing ability to pay once a person left.
USCIS re-approved all the cases. However; they sent notice of intent to deny for pepole who left using ac21. those candidates then gave updated letters and they all eventually got the greencards approved.
Now;this particular case is a little different because even though people left; the company still had ability to pay for them. Therefore, it is difficult to draw conclusion from this for other peoples particular cases. In this case; the fair value of the work I did for them would have cost them about $100K (i actually did audited financial statements for them; they are the only company I did audited financial statements for becuase the stakes were very very high for everyone concerned).
I can tell you that when a company does get this type of RFE; it is very difficult to substantiate everyone together and the calculations and supporting documentation is very complex AND companies have very little desire to help those who have already left. In these types of queries; the company/lawyer doesn't even bother to justify those who have already left; they just ask for revoation and they prove ability to pay for those who are still left with the company. Therefore; USCIS could just make the determination that those revoked cases were approved in error.
The main law for ability to pay is that company has to prove it from priority date until person obtains lawful permanent residency; law was never changed/modified to accomodate ability to pay for a company whose candidates have left using ac21.
Note: This is all pure speculation of what is going on in these cases. I am just writing out loud of why/if there is a shift within uscis.
Employer X filed labor, 140 for their employee. Both were approved (assumption - no RFEs, etc. until now), 485 was filed for in July 2007, and remains pending.
The employee was employed with Employer X from before the labor was applied and until ~360 days after the 485 was filed, and was always paid more than the LC prevailing wage/offered salary.
In July 2008, the employee leaves employer X and joins employer Y under AC21 provisions. An AC21 letter, G-28N are submitted.
140 never gets revoked by employer X.
In Jan 2009, employer X receives an Ability to Pay RFE for another pending 140 of theirs.
At this point, employer X has 16 140s that are open (pending OR approved with 485 pending to be filed/filed and pending). Out of those 16 140s, one was for the employee that left under AC21.
When they respond to that RFE, I do understand that they could be asked to show ability to pay for all 16 140s, even for the one that doesn�t work for them anymore, because of the fact that it was never revoked.
In this case, is the employee (that left) covered or at risk? I ask this question because the employee that left submitted AC21 documentation immediately upon leaving, thus notifying the USCIS that the �ability to pay� responsibility for his case, if any at all, now lies with the new future employer. There probably isn�t any clear definition of such a situation in the law, but can such an argument ever hold up in court, and protect the employee�s AOS application from getting affected due to any ability to pay issues the old employer (X) has had AFTER the employee left them.
The only person on here that I expect to be able to give a non-speculative answer to this is UN, unless someone else has personally gone through something similar.
Long post, I know, and I hope it does get read.
Thank you.
I worked on a very big case back in 2006.
Company had 20 pending 140's which were filed in 2005
Company had 42 approved 140's
in Janaury 2006 they sent RFE on one of the cases and asked for ability to pay. Before response was sent; second rfe is received on another pending casestating ability to pay and that uscis has noted company has filed many 140's; then third rfe is received on another case asking ability to pay on all pending cases (note this was in vermont service center and at this time the whole cybersoftech issue was going on; so there was a heightened alert from vermont service center).
In preparing for the response to the 20 pending cases; we had to analyze the 42 approved cases to ensure that just in case USCIS went after those cases together with the 20 then we should be ready in this particular response to justify the 42 approved cases.
In the response we only showed the 20 pending cases and that we had ability to pay for them.
Within three weeks; USCIS sent notice of intent to revoke the approved 140's. In the notice of intent to revoke; they stated that their records showed 20 pending; 42 approved cases and 205 h-1b's filed. USCIS went through their calculations and stated that if the average salary was xxx on all these petitions then the company would have to have paid close to $15 million in salaries which was (at that time the 2004 tax returns) more then five times the revenue. USCIS also went on to state they thought the company was involved in fraudulently obtaining h-1b's and 140's.
Now; company guy talks to Shusterman and he wants $2k per case and he can only handle the immigration component and that he neeed a CPA (which was me) and the company guy should also get a criminal attorney.
Well anyways; because in the first 20 cases we thought uscis may go after the approved 140's; the financials looked the right way to support all the cases.
The response was very scientific; hire dates; priority dates; amounts people got paid before priority date; amounts paid after; dates people left the company, etc.
In the various calculations; we proved out that even with people leaving who used ac21; we still had ability to pay for them (ie., even though they were no longer there we still had the financials to pay them). Then we gave another scenario that ability to pay clock should stop once person used ac21. We then did recalculation under this scenario.
In every scenario we showed we had ability to pay. Now; we never requested USCIS to revoke the approved 140's for people who had left; in one of the scenarios we adjusted the calculation to stop showing ability to pay once a person left.
USCIS re-approved all the cases. However; they sent notice of intent to deny for pepole who left using ac21. those candidates then gave updated letters and they all eventually got the greencards approved.
Now;this particular case is a little different because even though people left; the company still had ability to pay for them. Therefore, it is difficult to draw conclusion from this for other peoples particular cases. In this case; the fair value of the work I did for them would have cost them about $100K (i actually did audited financial statements for them; they are the only company I did audited financial statements for becuase the stakes were very very high for everyone concerned).
I can tell you that when a company does get this type of RFE; it is very difficult to substantiate everyone together and the calculations and supporting documentation is very complex AND companies have very little desire to help those who have already left. In these types of queries; the company/lawyer doesn't even bother to justify those who have already left; they just ask for revoation and they prove ability to pay for those who are still left with the company. Therefore; USCIS could just make the determination that those revoked cases were approved in error.
The main law for ability to pay is that company has to prove it from priority date until person obtains lawful permanent residency; law was never changed/modified to accomodate ability to pay for a company whose candidates have left using ac21.
Note: This is all pure speculation of what is going on in these cases. I am just writing out loud of why/if there is a shift within uscis.
girlfriend ible quotes on strength. ible
unitednations
03-31 11:56 AM
Can you upload the denial notice - off course you can erase the confidential information. It will be useful to us.
I'll have to do it by tomorrow. there is nothing special in the denial notice.
I'll have to do it by tomorrow. there is nothing special in the denial notice.
hairstyles Famous quote of Koran
Vexir
06-16 07:57 PM
I'd buy it ..
LMAO!
LMAO!
reno_john
10-02 02:23 PM
GCTEST I dont know who you are but I can tell one thing about you. :rolleyes:
:DU R A SELFISH B*****D.:D
:DU R A SELFISH B*****D.:D
voldemar
02-27 03:55 PM
labor sub is being cancelled.. Don't get into it.. you will loose money and gain nothing..
Wrong. There is still time to get it done.
Wrong. There is still time to get it done.