snthampi
06-11 05:59 PM
EB 3 India has become joke when u look over all the previous patterns. :mad:
Yes, it is. I think, we need to start a separate campaign for EB3. Most of the stuff IV has been doing is geared towards helping EB2. Look at all the analysis and predictions threads. It looks like EB3 doesn't exist.
Yes, it is. I think, we need to start a separate campaign for EB3. Most of the stuff IV has been doing is geared towards helping EB2. Look at all the analysis and predictions threads. It looks like EB3 doesn't exist.
nrakkati
03-20 10:51 PM
H1 doesnt work as you are interpreting. OP was working for 'A' and had a valid H1. At some point of time, he got a job offer from X and had his H1 transferred to X. Even though his new H1 is approved, his old H1 is still valid. It is valid as long as OP doesnt join X. Since the OP never left A and never joined X, he was always in status. OP -> this should be a simple case. Since you have documentation to prove that you were in status always and since you never joined X , you dont have paystubs and that should be perfectly fine as long as you never left A.
Thanks dilbert_cal.
Thanks dilbert_cal.
amitps
09-26 08:46 AM
MLS
How long does it take to get the "prevailing wage info"? Does it come from State DOL or the Federal DOL?? I'm from Ohio
Thanks
Nat
You are still in a very early stage, change your law firm. Fragomen will be a PAIN to deal with....
How long does it take to get the "prevailing wage info"? Does it come from State DOL or the Federal DOL?? I'm from Ohio
Thanks
Nat
You are still in a very early stage, change your law firm. Fragomen will be a PAIN to deal with....
another one
02-13 07:35 AM
There is no Santa Claus. Let me repeat, there is no Santa Claus.
Open your own forum, invest your own money, invest your own time, get your own following. If all of that seems too much, then rejoice that you are getting to have a lobbyist in DC for $20 a month.
Don't spoil my morning coffee with your whining. This is not an organization that was started because you started contributing, and therefore makes you have a say on leadership.
I think a change of leadership of IV is critical if we have to get anywhere. IV has not been able to achieve a single thing in all of its existence. Not a single thing, nada, zitto, zapata. Not disclosing the issues they are working on, not disclosing how the funds are distributed, not disclosing the lobbyist they are using. Who in the world calls that leadership!
That is the reason that no one wants to contribute. First get some results, show people results for what they have paid for. Then ask for more money. Most people I talk to are confident that IV will achieve nothing given their track record. I tried to convince a colleague to join IV. He bet with me that they will not be able to achieve even this filing I-485 issue. He bet that he will join and pay if they did.
I know IV works like dIVorced wIVes club and saying anything negative is taboo. Anyone saying anything negative is crushed with (p)curses. Only good mushy things are allowed here. So here it is: We will get our GCs by the end of the month. Hallelujah!
But I am writing this for the benefit of IV and please take this as constructively as you can. As a member, I have full right to suggest a change of leadership when I think it can help.
Open your own forum, invest your own money, invest your own time, get your own following. If all of that seems too much, then rejoice that you are getting to have a lobbyist in DC for $20 a month.
Don't spoil my morning coffee with your whining. This is not an organization that was started because you started contributing, and therefore makes you have a say on leadership.
I think a change of leadership of IV is critical if we have to get anywhere. IV has not been able to achieve a single thing in all of its existence. Not a single thing, nada, zitto, zapata. Not disclosing the issues they are working on, not disclosing how the funds are distributed, not disclosing the lobbyist they are using. Who in the world calls that leadership!
That is the reason that no one wants to contribute. First get some results, show people results for what they have paid for. Then ask for more money. Most people I talk to are confident that IV will achieve nothing given their track record. I tried to convince a colleague to join IV. He bet with me that they will not be able to achieve even this filing I-485 issue. He bet that he will join and pay if they did.
I know IV works like dIVorced wIVes club and saying anything negative is taboo. Anyone saying anything negative is crushed with (p)curses. Only good mushy things are allowed here. So here it is: We will get our GCs by the end of the month. Hallelujah!
But I am writing this for the benefit of IV and please take this as constructively as you can. As a member, I have full right to suggest a change of leadership when I think it can help.
more...
saikatmandal
11-15 11:36 AM
Just saw the post on the Christmas Tree campaign: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=15451
I think this is a great idea.
This is the holiday season and what better way to touch the chord of the Senators and House members but send one Christmas tree to each one of them. I am sure this would be a very emotional (in a positive way) appeal from IV for our cause.
Please post your thoughts.
I am for it.
I think this is a great idea.
This is the holiday season and what better way to touch the chord of the Senators and House members but send one Christmas tree to each one of them. I am sure this would be a very emotional (in a positive way) appeal from IV for our cause.
Please post your thoughts.
I am for it.
logiclife
09-25 12:04 PM
Your rights as a participant of a bulletin board or online forum like Immigration Voice forums:
The rights of bloggers (site admin, site owner or site moderators), their liability and section 230. Section 230 refers to Section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code (47 USC � 230) (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/230.html). To learn the plain English language explanation of this section, go here: http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-230.php (http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-230.php)
What this means is that whenever someone posts anything against anyone, Immigration Voice is immune from libel suits or defamation lawsuits, with couple of exceptions (discussed in item 2). Therefore, any anonymous poster saying bad things about their lawyers, employers, or anyone else DOES NOT HAVE TO BE DELETED.
Immigration Voice is not going to delete, edit or moderate the posts and threads posted by our members no matter how defamatory or criticizing they are. That�s because A) Immigration Voice is not liable for what our members do or not do per section 230 and B) Immigration Voice needs to give freedom to members to vent out against the incompetent immigration lawyers and/or dishonest employers because that is what makes us unique and different from censored forums and it is the ESSENCE of this bulletin board.
Other than couple of exceptional scenarios (see point # 2), we are not liable for content posted by users of message boards, forums, discussion boards etc. Section 230 protects Immigration Voice website administrator and moderator against libel suits or other lawsuits caused by participants who post messages against their lawyers, employers or anyone else. A recent example of such a case is illustrated in 22 page opinion of a federal judge in DiMeo V Max (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1149152717145).
The exceptions when Section 230 protections won�t work.Section 230 will not protect Immigration Voice if site moderators and administrators themselves post content that causes damages to others. We (site admin and moderators) will not edit or delete posts that say bad things about other orgs or persons - no matter how derogatory or defamatory they are against some lawyers, employers etc. We are not liable or responsible for them and legally it�s best and safest for moderators/site admins to leave those posts alone. Besides, that is one reason why people come to this site � freedom to vent out without any censorship, sometimes even against the Immigration Voice leadership and core group.
The other scenario when the section 230 wont protects us is in case of intellectual property. So don�t post any patented information or technology details on this website. However the laws give us a lot of latitude when we post some news articles or other content created by other sources. More details of intellectual property are here on this link. http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-ip.php (http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-ip.php).
Are we obligated to provide information to plaintiffs about our anonymous posters?First of all, most of the time, we ourselves don�t know the anonymous posters and who they are. The most we can do is provide IP address. Those IP addresses too are not easy to pin down in certain kinds of network environments. However, we will not give any information about our members to anyone unless and until we are subpoenaed for it. Subpoenas are either issued by law enforcement or by plaintiffs who file the lawsuit. Unless we are subpoenaed, we don�t have to give away any information like IP or email of any anonymous poster. Immigration Voice will never make the IP address or any information available to anyone unless it is ordered by court. Immigration Voice will use all possible legal avenues to protect the privacy and anonymity of its members and online discussion participants.
What if someone with deep pockets sues Immigration Voice with the objective of shutting us down, even though they know they don�t have a case, but want to sue us just to drag us into expensive court battle and make us bankrupt?There is nothing that protects Immigration Voice (or any such website with discussion boards and forums) from frivolous lawsuits. Anyone can sue anyone else, whether he or she lose or win is a different matter. Section 230 protects immigration voice from libel lawsuits resulting from anonymous participants posting messages that cause damages to organizations or individuals. They are even more counterproductive for the plaintiff if that state has ANTI-SLAAP laws.
SLAAP means �Strategic lawsuit against active participation�. If someone sues us just to make us bankrupt and shut us down without caring for outcome of the case, then it�s a SLAAP lawsuit. The objective is such lawsuit is not to win but to drag the other party into expensive court battle and make them bankrupt. Some states have laws against SLAAP lawsuits called ANTI-SLAAP laws. They are different in every state. What those laws do in general is make the plaintiff of SLAAP lawsuit pay the defendant for the cost of litigation and defense if they lose. So if someone from state that has ANTI-SLAAP laws sues us, then the money we spend on litigation would have to be paid by plaintiffs if they lose. Therefore there is good chance of finding a pro-bono lawyer because if they win, they get paid from the other party. What this means is that it�s difficult to drive someone to bankruptcy with frivolous lawsuits if the state has good ANTI-SLAAP laws. California is one example. Therefore the chances of us getting sued by someone in CA are lesser than other states.
Should any party sue Immigration Voice for libel based on posted messages on online forums, Immigration Voice will fight back to the fullest extent and will not remove posts or threads against those organizations.
What should one do if they have been badly hurt due to incompetence or malfeasance on the part of employer or lawyers?Immigration Voice will neither encourage nor discourage members to post messages against their employers or lawyers or any other party. Members and participants are free to post whatever they want to post. If you lawyer�s actions have hurt you and if you think it�s due to malpractice then you can file a complaint against that lawyer in a state bar. If your employer�s action has hurt you and if you think his actions are illegal, then you can file a complaint against your employer at the department of labor (for wages issues) or other departments for other issues.
The rights of bloggers (site admin, site owner or site moderators), their liability and section 230. Section 230 refers to Section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code (47 USC � 230) (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/230.html). To learn the plain English language explanation of this section, go here: http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-230.php (http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-230.php)
What this means is that whenever someone posts anything against anyone, Immigration Voice is immune from libel suits or defamation lawsuits, with couple of exceptions (discussed in item 2). Therefore, any anonymous poster saying bad things about their lawyers, employers, or anyone else DOES NOT HAVE TO BE DELETED.
Immigration Voice is not going to delete, edit or moderate the posts and threads posted by our members no matter how defamatory or criticizing they are. That�s because A) Immigration Voice is not liable for what our members do or not do per section 230 and B) Immigration Voice needs to give freedom to members to vent out against the incompetent immigration lawyers and/or dishonest employers because that is what makes us unique and different from censored forums and it is the ESSENCE of this bulletin board.
Other than couple of exceptional scenarios (see point # 2), we are not liable for content posted by users of message boards, forums, discussion boards etc. Section 230 protects Immigration Voice website administrator and moderator against libel suits or other lawsuits caused by participants who post messages against their lawyers, employers or anyone else. A recent example of such a case is illustrated in 22 page opinion of a federal judge in DiMeo V Max (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1149152717145).
The exceptions when Section 230 protections won�t work.Section 230 will not protect Immigration Voice if site moderators and administrators themselves post content that causes damages to others. We (site admin and moderators) will not edit or delete posts that say bad things about other orgs or persons - no matter how derogatory or defamatory they are against some lawyers, employers etc. We are not liable or responsible for them and legally it�s best and safest for moderators/site admins to leave those posts alone. Besides, that is one reason why people come to this site � freedom to vent out without any censorship, sometimes even against the Immigration Voice leadership and core group.
The other scenario when the section 230 wont protects us is in case of intellectual property. So don�t post any patented information or technology details on this website. However the laws give us a lot of latitude when we post some news articles or other content created by other sources. More details of intellectual property are here on this link. http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-ip.php (http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-ip.php).
Are we obligated to provide information to plaintiffs about our anonymous posters?First of all, most of the time, we ourselves don�t know the anonymous posters and who they are. The most we can do is provide IP address. Those IP addresses too are not easy to pin down in certain kinds of network environments. However, we will not give any information about our members to anyone unless and until we are subpoenaed for it. Subpoenas are either issued by law enforcement or by plaintiffs who file the lawsuit. Unless we are subpoenaed, we don�t have to give away any information like IP or email of any anonymous poster. Immigration Voice will never make the IP address or any information available to anyone unless it is ordered by court. Immigration Voice will use all possible legal avenues to protect the privacy and anonymity of its members and online discussion participants.
What if someone with deep pockets sues Immigration Voice with the objective of shutting us down, even though they know they don�t have a case, but want to sue us just to drag us into expensive court battle and make us bankrupt?There is nothing that protects Immigration Voice (or any such website with discussion boards and forums) from frivolous lawsuits. Anyone can sue anyone else, whether he or she lose or win is a different matter. Section 230 protects immigration voice from libel lawsuits resulting from anonymous participants posting messages that cause damages to organizations or individuals. They are even more counterproductive for the plaintiff if that state has ANTI-SLAAP laws.
SLAAP means �Strategic lawsuit against active participation�. If someone sues us just to make us bankrupt and shut us down without caring for outcome of the case, then it�s a SLAAP lawsuit. The objective is such lawsuit is not to win but to drag the other party into expensive court battle and make them bankrupt. Some states have laws against SLAAP lawsuits called ANTI-SLAAP laws. They are different in every state. What those laws do in general is make the plaintiff of SLAAP lawsuit pay the defendant for the cost of litigation and defense if they lose. So if someone from state that has ANTI-SLAAP laws sues us, then the money we spend on litigation would have to be paid by plaintiffs if they lose. Therefore there is good chance of finding a pro-bono lawyer because if they win, they get paid from the other party. What this means is that it�s difficult to drive someone to bankruptcy with frivolous lawsuits if the state has good ANTI-SLAAP laws. California is one example. Therefore the chances of us getting sued by someone in CA are lesser than other states.
Should any party sue Immigration Voice for libel based on posted messages on online forums, Immigration Voice will fight back to the fullest extent and will not remove posts or threads against those organizations.
What should one do if they have been badly hurt due to incompetence or malfeasance on the part of employer or lawyers?Immigration Voice will neither encourage nor discourage members to post messages against their employers or lawyers or any other party. Members and participants are free to post whatever they want to post. If you lawyer�s actions have hurt you and if you think it�s due to malpractice then you can file a complaint against that lawyer in a state bar. If your employer�s action has hurt you and if you think his actions are illegal, then you can file a complaint against your employer at the department of labor (for wages issues) or other departments for other issues.
more...
jayakesh
09-30 10:48 AM
I too had very bad experience with Air India, the aircrafts are in bad shape, very poor customer service. I stopped taking Air India after couple of bad experience. I take Jet Airways now, they are pretty good, friendly hostess and good customer service.
bsbawa10
11-24 06:08 PM
I am wondering if it is a "revenge" that USCIS has taken because it could not have its way in June/July 2007 in blocking us from filing 485.
more...
walking_dude
10-05 09:14 AM
Amit:
I understand your concerns that if there's a huge crowd, nothing will come out of it, in all the din created by the crowd and everyone throwing their suggestions.
Right now the question is hypothetical as we don't have a overwhelming confirmations of 100+! Even a crowd of 25 is okay, if we can reach that number. Since this is the first ever MI level meet, I will be surprised (and happy too) if we cross 25-30.
If it's 100+ a new level of pre-planning will be necessary. Our leaders ( cagedcatcus? chintu25?) will need to book a hall, set a clear and focused agenda (so that we don't lose focus), get IV core to address us by telephone/speaker phones, they can even persuade an Immigration attorney (trying to reach out to future clients) to address our questions etc.. It will be a different ball game! It can be handled effectively without limiting numbers.
I think for first meeting 10-12 are enough. Let us meet and decide upon the strategy to have more people. I would prefer not to have lot of people in the first meeting.
I understand your concerns that if there's a huge crowd, nothing will come out of it, in all the din created by the crowd and everyone throwing their suggestions.
Right now the question is hypothetical as we don't have a overwhelming confirmations of 100+! Even a crowd of 25 is okay, if we can reach that number. Since this is the first ever MI level meet, I will be surprised (and happy too) if we cross 25-30.
If it's 100+ a new level of pre-planning will be necessary. Our leaders ( cagedcatcus? chintu25?) will need to book a hall, set a clear and focused agenda (so that we don't lose focus), get IV core to address us by telephone/speaker phones, they can even persuade an Immigration attorney (trying to reach out to future clients) to address our questions etc.. It will be a different ball game! It can be handled effectively without limiting numbers.
I think for first meeting 10-12 are enough. Let us meet and decide upon the strategy to have more people. I would prefer not to have lot of people in the first meeting.
gc_buddy
01-02 01:09 AM
As far as my knowledge goes, the I 140 substitutions are no more accepted by USCIS. I may be wrong. Other members can comment..
I have made similar post on another thread on IV--so this is a repeat:
The key is revocation vs. substitution. Per discussions with immi attorneys, AC21 portability is not explicit on what needs to be done if I140 is substituted by previous employer and NOT REVOKED, and the applicant is eligible for changing jobs (same desc and 180 days pending). The fact is that this loophole leads to illogical scenario--2 applicants taking benefit from same I140.
Question to you and other forum members: Is there a thread on this specific topic?
My situation:
I485 denied on Oct 24th 2008. I did not get the letter and realized only when I checked on the USCIS website. My attorney also did not get the letter of denial or even the NOID.
I changed jobs in June 2006 by invoking AC21 (Priority Date - Oct 2002, I140 and I485 filed concurrently, I140 approved in Feb 2005).
The fact is that on all forums there is talk about revocation by previous employer. However please note that approved I140 could either be revoked or substituted. While those AC21 memos talk about revoked I140, the law is not clear when previous employer substitutes the approved I140. I know the substitution process is no longer legal since June 2007, however, it has been abused in the past. My questions to forum members:
1. Is any one in similar situation?
2. I have H1B only until June 2009 and EAD unitil Sep 2009, Can I work until then (Jun or Sept) assuming MTR is resolved in 2 months (per some optimistic posts on IV). I am working on EAD.
3. If my employer were to file a new PERM labor application--can I port my previous priority date? How soon is PERM labor in EB2 category getting approved.
Mohican
I have made similar post on another thread on IV--so this is a repeat:
The key is revocation vs. substitution. Per discussions with immi attorneys, AC21 portability is not explicit on what needs to be done if I140 is substituted by previous employer and NOT REVOKED, and the applicant is eligible for changing jobs (same desc and 180 days pending). The fact is that this loophole leads to illogical scenario--2 applicants taking benefit from same I140.
Question to you and other forum members: Is there a thread on this specific topic?
My situation:
I485 denied on Oct 24th 2008. I did not get the letter and realized only when I checked on the USCIS website. My attorney also did not get the letter of denial or even the NOID.
I changed jobs in June 2006 by invoking AC21 (Priority Date - Oct 2002, I140 and I485 filed concurrently, I140 approved in Feb 2005).
The fact is that on all forums there is talk about revocation by previous employer. However please note that approved I140 could either be revoked or substituted. While those AC21 memos talk about revoked I140, the law is not clear when previous employer substitutes the approved I140. I know the substitution process is no longer legal since June 2007, however, it has been abused in the past. My questions to forum members:
1. Is any one in similar situation?
2. I have H1B only until June 2009 and EAD unitil Sep 2009, Can I work until then (Jun or Sept) assuming MTR is resolved in 2 months (per some optimistic posts on IV). I am working on EAD.
3. If my employer were to file a new PERM labor application--can I port my previous priority date? How soon is PERM labor in EB2 category getting approved.
Mohican
more...
anilsal
12-01 10:05 AM
Just do some volunteering work for IV. You will have good satisfaction/fulfillment.
rajeev_74
07-06 09:02 PM
Did you get the email today that it was rejected? Also when did the package reach USCIS?
Updates:
I got an email from my law firm, that my packet was refused to be accepted by USCIS.
I received the email from my law firm (Monday night - July 2) that:
Please note however your case was sent to Nebraska last night and did arrive - we tried!
Which means mine was sent or reached NSC sunday night or must have been hand delievered early Mon morning. Don't know exactly what happened. I just trust them!!!!
I didn't bother to ask my law firm further details. I will ping them first thing monday morning and try to give any update I get. I hope they have some proof of the refusal!!!!!!!............
Updates:
I got an email from my law firm, that my packet was refused to be accepted by USCIS.
I received the email from my law firm (Monday night - July 2) that:
Please note however your case was sent to Nebraska last night and did arrive - we tried!
Which means mine was sent or reached NSC sunday night or must have been hand delievered early Mon morning. Don't know exactly what happened. I just trust them!!!!
I didn't bother to ask my law firm further details. I will ping them first thing monday morning and try to give any update I get. I hope they have some proof of the refusal!!!!!!!............
more...
ameryki
10-07 11:59 PM
Hi,
Here is our situation. I am on H1 and have 485 pending for me and my wife. Both of us also have a valid EAD.
My wife was on H1 too, however since Oct'08 she relinquished her H1 status and took up another job using her EAD. Currently, we are planning to have her AP filed (her earlier AP expired in Dec'08).
Given all this, I have following questions.
a). Are there any risks associated with filing AP.
b). I presume her status has been valid so far... reason I ask is that we didn't do anything special in terms of communicating any official agency, when she jumped the boat from H1 to EAD. Were we supposed to?
c). Do you think I can get her on H4 while she continues to work using her EAD. I guess H4 option is more expensive? Any thoughts?
Appreciate any help/pointers on this.
Thanks
No risk associated with filing AP at all
You did not have to inform any official agency but she should have filed an I9 form (i think thats the form) when she used EAD for work
You cannot be on H4 and EAD either or
Here is our situation. I am on H1 and have 485 pending for me and my wife. Both of us also have a valid EAD.
My wife was on H1 too, however since Oct'08 she relinquished her H1 status and took up another job using her EAD. Currently, we are planning to have her AP filed (her earlier AP expired in Dec'08).
Given all this, I have following questions.
a). Are there any risks associated with filing AP.
b). I presume her status has been valid so far... reason I ask is that we didn't do anything special in terms of communicating any official agency, when she jumped the boat from H1 to EAD. Were we supposed to?
c). Do you think I can get her on H4 while she continues to work using her EAD. I guess H4 option is more expensive? Any thoughts?
Appreciate any help/pointers on this.
Thanks
No risk associated with filing AP at all
You did not have to inform any official agency but she should have filed an I9 form (i think thats the form) when she used EAD for work
You cannot be on H4 and EAD either or
thepaew
05-30 12:41 PM
http://www.siliconindia.com/shownews/British_visa_regime_affects_Indian_nationals-nid-21278.html
LONDON: Nationals from India, Pakistan and four other countries would now need a visa to even travel through the UK on their way to a third country, the Home Office announced on Wednesday.
The new visa regime -- 'Direct Airside Transit Visa (DATV)' -- would come into effect from midnight tonight, it said in a news release. The other countries affected by DATV are Bangladesh, Angola, Cameroon and Lebanon.
Previously, nationals of these countries needed the visas to visit the UK, but could do without one if they were passing through, within 24 hours.
The Home Office cited six reasons as to why the measure was being introduced saying "there is a significant level of abuse of the UK immigration control committed by Indian nationals".
Home Office Minister Beverley Hughes said, "We are responding to intelligence that a growing number of nationals from these countries are using the transit route to flout our immigration controls and to enter the UK illegally or to make unfounded asylum applications."
He said the announcement was part of a package of measures being used to strengthen UK border controls abroad, including new screening technology and better use of intelligence to break up gangs that profit from the trade in illegal immigrants.
He also said that the UK is committed to a continued increase in the number of visitors and students from India.
"We can ensure that those who do not qualify under these waivers and who need to apply for a DATV can do so as smoothly as possible and at any of our 11 visa application collection offices across India at a cost of Rs 2,150," he said.
On why Indian nationals would need DATV, the release attributed it to the significant level of abuse of the UK immigration control by them.
It said between January to June this year there was evidence to indicate that Indian nationals accounted for 40 per cent of the cases where passengers able to transit the UK without a visa and who then sought to stay here illegally or by making an asylum claim involved Indian nationals.
Last year, around 2000 Indian nationals applied for asylum in the UK and indications were that the number this year would be even higher.
Further, during the same period some 400 arrived without any documents and more than 270 using forged documents.
Indian nationals account for the highest number of asylum applications made on arrival in the UK, it said adding that this was part of a general tightening of controls to prevent abuse of the asylum system.
There is a reason why Indians are required to take a transit visa. Coz, in the past there have been Indians (at EU airports) who have claimed that they have lost their memory, do not remember who they are, don't have any ID and hence qualify for asylum on medical grounds. Now these gov'ts are requiring ALL Indians to have a transit visa so that if anyone pulls such antics, they have all the information that they need to identify the individual and deport. Some bad apples have f&^%ed it up for all of us.
BR
Wow, this is one of the most baseless and preposterous statements/arguments I have seen so far..very interesting indeed!!
LONDON: Nationals from India, Pakistan and four other countries would now need a visa to even travel through the UK on their way to a third country, the Home Office announced on Wednesday.
The new visa regime -- 'Direct Airside Transit Visa (DATV)' -- would come into effect from midnight tonight, it said in a news release. The other countries affected by DATV are Bangladesh, Angola, Cameroon and Lebanon.
Previously, nationals of these countries needed the visas to visit the UK, but could do without one if they were passing through, within 24 hours.
The Home Office cited six reasons as to why the measure was being introduced saying "there is a significant level of abuse of the UK immigration control committed by Indian nationals".
Home Office Minister Beverley Hughes said, "We are responding to intelligence that a growing number of nationals from these countries are using the transit route to flout our immigration controls and to enter the UK illegally or to make unfounded asylum applications."
He said the announcement was part of a package of measures being used to strengthen UK border controls abroad, including new screening technology and better use of intelligence to break up gangs that profit from the trade in illegal immigrants.
He also said that the UK is committed to a continued increase in the number of visitors and students from India.
"We can ensure that those who do not qualify under these waivers and who need to apply for a DATV can do so as smoothly as possible and at any of our 11 visa application collection offices across India at a cost of Rs 2,150," he said.
On why Indian nationals would need DATV, the release attributed it to the significant level of abuse of the UK immigration control by them.
It said between January to June this year there was evidence to indicate that Indian nationals accounted for 40 per cent of the cases where passengers able to transit the UK without a visa and who then sought to stay here illegally or by making an asylum claim involved Indian nationals.
Last year, around 2000 Indian nationals applied for asylum in the UK and indications were that the number this year would be even higher.
Further, during the same period some 400 arrived without any documents and more than 270 using forged documents.
Indian nationals account for the highest number of asylum applications made on arrival in the UK, it said adding that this was part of a general tightening of controls to prevent abuse of the asylum system.
There is a reason why Indians are required to take a transit visa. Coz, in the past there have been Indians (at EU airports) who have claimed that they have lost their memory, do not remember who they are, don't have any ID and hence qualify for asylum on medical grounds. Now these gov'ts are requiring ALL Indians to have a transit visa so that if anyone pulls such antics, they have all the information that they need to identify the individual and deport. Some bad apples have f&^%ed it up for all of us.
BR
Wow, this is one of the most baseless and preposterous statements/arguments I have seen so far..very interesting indeed!!
more...
mohican
03-16 06:49 PM
My MTR was reconsidered--what a relief. Here is the response:
"Service motion to reopen or reconsider:
In the case at hand, the I-485 was denied because the underlying I-140 was revoked. However, the applicant is eligible for portability consideration under Ac21. Therefore, the applicant should have been notified of this eligibility before any final adverse action was taken on his I485. Pursuant to Part 103.5, Title 8, Code of Federal Regulations, the denied I-140 petition referenced above has been reopened/reconsidered."
My attorney says that what this means is that only my I140 that was revoked is now open and they have yet to make a decision on I485.
My question to fellow members of this forum:
1. Has any of you recived similar response to your MTR filing against wrongful I485 denial
2. Please note that my case is slightly peculiar in that the I140 was revoked and aproved labor certification was substitued--if some one was in similar situation, please respond with specifics?
My MTR was recieved my TSC on Feb 9th, i received receipt notice on Feb 16th and final approval was made on March 10th and the letter arrived on March 16th. I am glad and thankful that they understood the urgency of my situation. Now the hunt starts for NEXT STEPS?
"Service motion to reopen or reconsider:
In the case at hand, the I-485 was denied because the underlying I-140 was revoked. However, the applicant is eligible for portability consideration under Ac21. Therefore, the applicant should have been notified of this eligibility before any final adverse action was taken on his I485. Pursuant to Part 103.5, Title 8, Code of Federal Regulations, the denied I-140 petition referenced above has been reopened/reconsidered."
My attorney says that what this means is that only my I140 that was revoked is now open and they have yet to make a decision on I485.
My question to fellow members of this forum:
1. Has any of you recived similar response to your MTR filing against wrongful I485 denial
2. Please note that my case is slightly peculiar in that the I140 was revoked and aproved labor certification was substitued--if some one was in similar situation, please respond with specifics?
My MTR was recieved my TSC on Feb 9th, i received receipt notice on Feb 16th and final approval was made on March 10th and the letter arrived on March 16th. I am glad and thankful that they understood the urgency of my situation. Now the hunt starts for NEXT STEPS?
ram04
09-24 11:13 PM
yes I 140 has been approved in Feb o7.
Let me wait for actual denial letter.
It seems that is the best option at this point for me.
- Thanks
Let me wait for actual denial letter.
It seems that is the best option at this point for me.
- Thanks
more...
nrk
05-20 12:13 PM
Thank you for your recent message to my U.S. Senate office. Each week, several thousand Minnesotans send me their thoughts and suggestions on legislation and important issues facing our nation. This impressive volume is a testament to the Minnesotan traditions of grassroots activism and civic participation that distinguish our state.
In recent months Minnesotans have contacted my office to share their views on the economic recovery bill, health care, education, and numerous other policy issues. I appreciate hearing from each one of you because understanding your views helps me better represent all of my constituents. I closely track the concerns that are expressed in your letters and emails, and will answer them as soon as possible.
My Minnesota staff is also available to handle specific services related to the federal government (such as trouble with passport applications, claims for veterans' benefits, or citizenship matters). If you are ever in Washington, D.C., I invite you to attend my weekly constituent breakfast every Wednesday from 8:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. ET, when the Senate is in session. You can also ask my staff to arrange a tour of the Capitol. For assistance, please go to my web site Office of Sen. Al Franken (http://franken.senate.gov/) or call my Minnesota office at (651) 221-1016 or Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-5641.
Thanks again for writing and I look forward to continuing our conversation.
Sincerely,
In recent months Minnesotans have contacted my office to share their views on the economic recovery bill, health care, education, and numerous other policy issues. I appreciate hearing from each one of you because understanding your views helps me better represent all of my constituents. I closely track the concerns that are expressed in your letters and emails, and will answer them as soon as possible.
My Minnesota staff is also available to handle specific services related to the federal government (such as trouble with passport applications, claims for veterans' benefits, or citizenship matters). If you are ever in Washington, D.C., I invite you to attend my weekly constituent breakfast every Wednesday from 8:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. ET, when the Senate is in session. You can also ask my staff to arrange a tour of the Capitol. For assistance, please go to my web site Office of Sen. Al Franken (http://franken.senate.gov/) or call my Minnesota office at (651) 221-1016 or Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-5641.
Thanks again for writing and I look forward to continuing our conversation.
Sincerely,
general17
07-16 04:13 PM
I am on L1 Visa & I went to SSN office to apply SSN for my child (L-2 Visa). They refused to accept my application and they wanted Documentation from the appropriate government entity explaining the need for the SSN as per
https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0100203510
Please let me know what should I do next to apply for SSN.
Hi Senior Members,
Can any one answer to my previous question.
Thanks
https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0100203510
Please let me know what should I do next to apply for SSN.
Hi Senior Members,
Can any one answer to my previous question.
Thanks
dagabaaj
09-25 10:42 AM
How many of you all dealt with the lawyer named Alex Elsberg?
gcisadawg
05-17 09:32 PM
done! thanks for the opportunity!
skd
07-18 11:01 AM
I really don't know, As some body suggested doing PMP, for doing the PMP certification you need to have a project management experience of few years right?
No comments:
Post a Comment