imh1b
05-07 02:34 PM
I was able to call 8 offices during my lunch hour yesterday. I also called my local Senator's office. I will try to call more next week.
wallpaper examples of amorphous solids.
vadicherla
05-28 02:27 PM
i will contribute 50$ now
indio0617
03-09 11:13 AM
Senator Specter: Again calling on all Senators who are not in other commitees to turn up in this meeting
2011 amorphous solid examples.
jonty_11
07-06 01:31 PM
Why USCIS suddenly did this press release? Something fishy?
see now this rumor is taking steam.....this would make james WAtt proud...
I think we are onto something here.
see now this rumor is taking steam.....this would make james WAtt proud...
I think we are onto something here.
more...
vallabhu
03-09 03:45 PM
Eating away from the regular Quota does not make sense to me, all the people who get the visas after the end of quota will not count for next year. Assuming this is true the number of required visas goes down for next year? Which may be partially good news.
I don�t know, I am just guessing things here.
I don�t know, I am just guessing things here.
hsd31
09-01 01:12 PM
Aug 2000: Came here on F1
Oct 2002: MS complete, transfered to H1
Dec 2004: 1st Labor, EB3 - stuck in BEC
Mar 2007: Laid Off, labor still pending, lost PD
April 2007: New Employer, required to wait 6 months before GC process starts, missed the July Fiasco
Oct 2007: 2nd labor, EB2 - stuck in Business Requirement Audit
Oct 2008: Changed Employers, 3rd labor, EB3 - New company had other pending EB2 audit, lawyers played safe.
Never worked for a desi or consulting company. All my Employers were American and Fortune 500.
Oct 2002: MS complete, transfered to H1
Dec 2004: 1st Labor, EB3 - stuck in BEC
Mar 2007: Laid Off, labor still pending, lost PD
April 2007: New Employer, required to wait 6 months before GC process starts, missed the July Fiasco
Oct 2007: 2nd labor, EB2 - stuck in Business Requirement Audit
Oct 2008: Changed Employers, 3rd labor, EB3 - New company had other pending EB2 audit, lawyers played safe.
Never worked for a desi or consulting company. All my Employers were American and Fortune 500.
more...
hmehta
07-13 07:47 PM
I also live in So Cal, Ventura County - Thousand Oaks area. Count me in.
2010 examples of amorphous solids.
leo2606
09-28 08:37 PM
But I think franklin posted earlier that she got her GC when the priority dates are not current. And shows about 5 EB3s from India got approvals during September whos PDs are on or after 2003.Do you think USCIS might have requested the visa number for their cases when their PD was current?
They can do "wild" approvals, however, they have to do it as per September visa bulletin. IF they dont have enough approvable 485s that are as per the Sept visa bulletin and if the approvable "ready to go" cases are past the priority dates of September bulletin, then they will be sitting unapproved as they CANT do any kind of "wild" approval.
Keeping all dates current in Sept (like july, but intentionally this time around) could have made is easier on USCIS to have more choice and easily find "ready to go" cases to assign and consume all visa numbers.
They can do "wild" approvals, however, they have to do it as per September visa bulletin. IF they dont have enough approvable 485s that are as per the Sept visa bulletin and if the approvable "ready to go" cases are past the priority dates of September bulletin, then they will be sitting unapproved as they CANT do any kind of "wild" approval.
Keeping all dates current in Sept (like july, but intentionally this time around) could have made is easier on USCIS to have more choice and easily find "ready to go" cases to assign and consume all visa numbers.
more...
ras
07-05 09:26 PM
I think this is a valid question that is being asked and should be answered by IV core. Am always intrigued by our behind the scenes effort and the heck that is going on. I do not want to cross the line and judge the integrity on IV core, but would really like to know exactly what we are up to. At least we need to periodic conf calls and announcement of our efforts (and I understand there needs to be some secrecy with anti-immig watching us closely).
Though IV core has been doing a great job, with the huge member base is it really leveraging the member potential except for donations and stories? May be there should be a change in the strategy leveraging the members thoughts and putting things in perspective. Chances are a few new team members could bring new energy and strategies.
Though IV core has been doing a great job, with the huge member base is it really leveraging the member potential except for donations and stories? May be there should be a change in the strategy leveraging the members thoughts and putting things in perspective. Chances are a few new team members could bring new energy and strategies.
hair examples of amorphous solids.
makemygc
10-25 11:59 PM
I've sent the mails and strongly encourage everyone to come out and take an early action before this gets worse. Even if you are not affected right now, support the cause to make sure that you will not be affected in the future.
Also, just wanted to point out some notes that letter says that Yates memo is attached, so if you are blindly copy and pasting make sure that you attach the Memo to your email or a copy to your letter.
I would suggest OP to add the copy of yates memo and the follow up memo to the posting.
Thanks
MakeMyGC
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
Also, just wanted to point out some notes that letter says that Yates memo is attached, so if you are blindly copy and pasting make sure that you attach the Memo to your email or a copy to your letter.
I would suggest OP to add the copy of yates memo and the follow up memo to the posting.
Thanks
MakeMyGC
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
more...
lskreddy
04-30 02:41 PM
Someone by Steve King is expressing his reasons why we should not let this happen as this is a 'backdoor' way to increase the number. What a start..
hot amorphous solid examples. Amorphous Solids: Implications
BostonGCVictim
01-02 04:45 PM
This is from a guy who left after years of waiting. I don't know him personally but his prose is very powerful.
Read it here at http://tired-immigrant.blogspot.com/
Read it here at http://tired-immigrant.blogspot.com/
more...
house A glass is an amorphous; amorphous solid examples. First page example
lonedesi
08-05 12:17 PM
^^^^^
tattoo examples of amorphous solids
nixstor
03-31 08:52 PM
How insane am I? How insane are u? If it was not the USCIS, u wudn't have put ur foot into this country using ur H1B visa. U r in a foreign land and u want things happen like at the snap of ur finger? U think immigration is the only issue US has. U donno nothing about other issues the Govt is facing. If u dont like the administration...just get out. How in the world can a foreigner think about changing USCIS management process? What rights do u have? U cant even vote and u want to change the management process of a Govt body. U think u r a citizen and have all the rights. Kudos to the US Govt for making us feel at home and letting us talk like this. IV can fight upto some extent by the kind of campaigns they are hosting. But its USCIS' prerogative what they want to do. In the first place IV is fighting for Employment Based GCs. The fight which should actually be fought by Employers and above all ppl like u have the audacity to talk about the irregular management in USCIS and even going to the extent of changing it. And they took the shortest and safest way out? U think they wudn't have gotten away by NOT letting u have ur EAD now? U must be from India where there is lot of corruption. How wud u feel if US citizens came to India and propose a change in the Government. US citizens who are immigrants in India - Did u even think about it? U dont even know how to think properly. I will still say...SHAME ON U.
Are you saying that USCIS bestowed up on every EB based immigrant with H1B visas and did all of us a huge favor? The simple point is there is a need and all of us happened to be the applicants. If there was never a need, none of us would have been here, irrespective of how many applications came in. People immigrate to US because there is more predictability and accountability in all walks of life when compared to other countries. Lately that has been changing for what ever reasons in the US, while other countries are emulating US's past success formula. There is a difference between in thought process of "deserve it" or "will take what ever I am given". Its not the US government that is letting any one talk. The underpinning principles of this country that make people talk. I think people on the forum are asking for some predictability and accountability after years of mishaps. If you feel that you have no rights what so ever thats fine. It appears a bit premature to say and "We have NO RIGHTS WHATSOEVER to ask for ".
Are you saying that USCIS bestowed up on every EB based immigrant with H1B visas and did all of us a huge favor? The simple point is there is a need and all of us happened to be the applicants. If there was never a need, none of us would have been here, irrespective of how many applications came in. People immigrate to US because there is more predictability and accountability in all walks of life when compared to other countries. Lately that has been changing for what ever reasons in the US, while other countries are emulating US's past success formula. There is a difference between in thought process of "deserve it" or "will take what ever I am given". Its not the US government that is letting any one talk. The underpinning principles of this country that make people talk. I think people on the forum are asking for some predictability and accountability after years of mishaps. If you feel that you have no rights what so ever thats fine. It appears a bit premature to say and "We have NO RIGHTS WHATSOEVER to ask for ".
more...
pictures glass amorphous solid. glass
qplearn
12-18 05:46 PM
what will be will be
let's not lack in our efforts though
there are two campaigns underway:
add a member and
contribute at least $20
by Dec 31
funds and members...are the key to our success
please join us in both campaigns
Thanks!
It will help if we know exactly how much more money is demanded by our lobbyst. Obviously, the money goes primarily to them.
let's not lack in our efforts though
there are two campaigns underway:
add a member and
contribute at least $20
by Dec 31
funds and members...are the key to our success
please join us in both campaigns
Thanks!
It will help if we know exactly how much more money is demanded by our lobbyst. Obviously, the money goes primarily to them.
dresses amorphous silicon in terms
harsh
01-03 04:13 PM
Its very interesting reading everyone's stories. To me GC represents freedom. Freedom to work for whom you want to, in a field you want to, not to work for someone you don't want to. To start your own buisness, to do all those things which US is known for. This country encourages entrepreneurs and I would like to be one, one of these days :).
more...
makeup curve and solid circles)
biomd
09-09 09:13 AM
My Contribution of $100 sent in today by Google. Will be attending the 18th Rally.
C U Guys!.
C U Guys!.
girlfriend in amorphous solids?
kumar4875
09-07 02:47 PM
came to USA in jan 1999
started GC process in sept 2002 after 2001 recession
hanged on the small employer to keep the priority date
I140 is denied becuase he is irregular with the tax returns etc. during jul2008.$15000 drained.:mad:
applied with another employer in dec2008 in EB3 as he denied to file in Eb2.
thinking about relocating to India now.
started GC process in sept 2002 after 2001 recession
hanged on the small employer to keep the priority date
I140 is denied becuase he is irregular with the tax returns etc. during jul2008.$15000 drained.:mad:
applied with another employer in dec2008 in EB3 as he denied to file in Eb2.
thinking about relocating to India now.
hairstyles amorphous solid examples
lazycis
11-20 01:11 PM
Some benefits can be revoked automatically (I-140, I-485), some can be revoked only after determination is made by USCIS and a beneficiary is notified and has an opportunity to respond. EAD is one of the latter.
See e.g., 8 CFR Part 205 titled "Revocation of approval of petitions". It has two sections: 205.1 Automatic revocation and 205.2 Revocation on notice.
http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/PDFgate.cgi?WAISdocID=203798478322+8+2+0&WAISaction=retrieve
EAD is not listed in Sec. 205.1. Moreover, 8 CFR �274a.12(c) specifically lists reasons for automatic revocation. I-485 denial is not listed as such a reason. Therefore, EAD remains valid even after I-485 denial untill it expires or until USCIS director revokes it. I do not see any basis for a different legal interpretation.
See also this court of appeals (8th Cir.) decision where the court says that automatic revocation occurs only if a specific condition specified in the laws and regs is met:
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/399/399.F3d.891.04-1132.html
"The district court thought that her adoptive father's petition for immediate relative status was automatically revoked when Taylor reached age 21, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. � 205.1(a)(3)(i)(F), but the record does not appear to support that conclusion. The automatic revocation occurs only if the alien reaches age 21 before commencing her journey to the United States (which Taylor did not) or if the alien reaches age 21 before a decision on a pending application for adjustment of status becomes final (and there is no evidence in the record that Taylor ever applied for adjustment of status). See 8 C.F.R. � 205.1(a)(3). Thus, it is possible that the petition for immediate relative status was not revoked when Taylor reached age 21, but rather — if the 1984 visa petition was "currently valid" as of her 21st birthday — automatically converted to an approved petition for classification as an unmarried daughter of a citizen of the United States, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. � 204.2(i)(2). See 8 U.S.C. � 1153(a)(1). In that case, Taylor may have been legally present throughout her time in the United States."
See e.g., 8 CFR Part 205 titled "Revocation of approval of petitions". It has two sections: 205.1 Automatic revocation and 205.2 Revocation on notice.
http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/PDFgate.cgi?WAISdocID=203798478322+8+2+0&WAISaction=retrieve
EAD is not listed in Sec. 205.1. Moreover, 8 CFR �274a.12(c) specifically lists reasons for automatic revocation. I-485 denial is not listed as such a reason. Therefore, EAD remains valid even after I-485 denial untill it expires or until USCIS director revokes it. I do not see any basis for a different legal interpretation.
See also this court of appeals (8th Cir.) decision where the court says that automatic revocation occurs only if a specific condition specified in the laws and regs is met:
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/399/399.F3d.891.04-1132.html
"The district court thought that her adoptive father's petition for immediate relative status was automatically revoked when Taylor reached age 21, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. � 205.1(a)(3)(i)(F), but the record does not appear to support that conclusion. The automatic revocation occurs only if the alien reaches age 21 before commencing her journey to the United States (which Taylor did not) or if the alien reaches age 21 before a decision on a pending application for adjustment of status becomes final (and there is no evidence in the record that Taylor ever applied for adjustment of status). See 8 C.F.R. � 205.1(a)(3). Thus, it is possible that the petition for immediate relative status was not revoked when Taylor reached age 21, but rather — if the 1984 visa petition was "currently valid" as of her 21st birthday — automatically converted to an approved petition for classification as an unmarried daughter of a citizen of the United States, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. � 204.2(i)(2). See 8 U.S.C. � 1153(a)(1). In that case, Taylor may have been legally present throughout her time in the United States."
cbpds
08-23 11:44 AM
dude,
Memo always supercedes the current definition although it shoudnt as in the case of the h1 neufield memo, so you may not be right
Definition of EB-2 Advanced Degree:
------------------------------------------
Documentation, such as an official academic record showing that you have a U.S. advanced degree or a foreign equivalent degree, or an official academic record showing that you have a U.S. baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree and letters from current or former employers showing that you have at least 5 years of progressive post-baccalaureate work experience in the specialty.
Source: USCIS - Employment-Based Immigration: Second Preference EB-2 (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=816a83453d4a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCR D&vgnextchannel=816a83453d4a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60a RCRD)
Memo always supercedes the current definition although it shoudnt as in the case of the h1 neufield memo, so you may not be right
Definition of EB-2 Advanced Degree:
------------------------------------------
Documentation, such as an official academic record showing that you have a U.S. advanced degree or a foreign equivalent degree, or an official academic record showing that you have a U.S. baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree and letters from current or former employers showing that you have at least 5 years of progressive post-baccalaureate work experience in the specialty.
Source: USCIS - Employment-Based Immigration: Second Preference EB-2 (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=816a83453d4a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCR D&vgnextchannel=816a83453d4a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60a RCRD)
new_horizon
05-04 12:41 PM
Called all Senators in Tier 1
Scott Brown - Will pass message. Initially confused with illegal immigration which the senator is against.
Judd Gregg - Will pass message
Richard Lugar - Supports high skilled provisions
Michael Enzi - Will pas message. Does not know the position.
Lindsey Graham - Left message
John Ensign - Senator opposes CIR. But will convey message re. our provisions.
Orin Hatch - Left message
John Cornyn - Will pass message. No position yet
John Kyl - Will pass message
Mitch Mcconnel - Will pass message. No position yet.
Amy Klobuchar - Will pass message. No position yet.
Claire McCaskill - Left message.
Jon Tester - Will pass message. No position yet.
Jim Webb - Will pass message. No position yet.
Sheldon Whitehouse - Will pass message. Reviewing the bill.
Scott Brown - Will pass message. Initially confused with illegal immigration which the senator is against.
Judd Gregg - Will pass message
Richard Lugar - Supports high skilled provisions
Michael Enzi - Will pas message. Does not know the position.
Lindsey Graham - Left message
John Ensign - Senator opposes CIR. But will convey message re. our provisions.
Orin Hatch - Left message
John Cornyn - Will pass message. No position yet
John Kyl - Will pass message
Mitch Mcconnel - Will pass message. No position yet.
Amy Klobuchar - Will pass message. No position yet.
Claire McCaskill - Left message.
Jon Tester - Will pass message. No position yet.
Jim Webb - Will pass message. No position yet.
Sheldon Whitehouse - Will pass message. Reviewing the bill.
No comments:
Post a Comment