BECsufferer
08-27 03:56 PM
11411 E. Jefferson Ave. Detroit.
If you schedule an infopass, the address will be their.
How long was wait? ... I reached 4 mins before so total was 5 mins.
If you schedule an infopass, the address will be their.
How long was wait? ... I reached 4 mins before so total was 5 mins.
wallpaper Disney Wall-E Desktop
abingc
08-19 12:46 PM
- Received 2 Yr EAD expiring July 2010
- Current EAD expires in Oct 2008
- 140 Still Pending
- EB2 I, Feb 07 PD
- Current EAD expires in Oct 2008
- 140 Still Pending
- EB2 I, Feb 07 PD
lostinbeta
10-02 02:46 PM
Kirupa has a hidden Inspirtation section on his site. You can find the wallpapers page here....
http://www.kirupa.com/gallery/wallpapers.asp
http://www.kirupa.com/gallery/wallpapers.asp
2011 Cinderella Wallpaper - Disney
nosightofgc
11-02 12:13 PM
What was the status on USCIS online system when you got an RFE? The reason I am asking is today my status changed to "Document Mailed to the Applicant". Not sure whether this is an approval or RFE. Of course will know in few days.
Thanks
Thanks
more...
royus77
07-01 03:23 PM
Since AILF has already issued a preliminary notice about a class action law suit if USCIS rejects applications under a revised bulletin this is a preliminary poll on how many of us would join the law suit? I for one will join the law suit. Understand that you will have to reveal all details about yourself and application in the lawsuit and those details will be transparent to DOS and USCIS.
Can you reveal the userid in the reults .....i would like to see who ever voted to support infact have their profiles updated::rolleyes:
Can you reveal the userid in the reults .....i would like to see who ever voted to support infact have their profiles updated::rolleyes:
mzdial
March 20th, 2004, 11:43 PM
Thanks for reminding me of the loss. I was sitting about ten rows up screaming. I saw you there, you must not of heard me yelling. Hehehe..
-- Matt
-- Matt
more...
helpfriends
04-15 11:23 AM
L1A non-immigrant visa. Thank you
2010 disney wallpaper, disney free
samcam
05-19 12:40 PM
welcome to our newest member anindya1234!
more...
saxx
01-26 05:05 AM
Perlin circles man, that's great.
hair Disney Wallpapers
Ann Ruben
07-23 11:37 PM
The AC21 determination of whether a new job is in "the same or similar occupation" is made based on a comparison of the new job duties and those set forth on the original labor certification application. Job titles are not controlling. So, you need to have a copy of your original LC application and then compare the job description it contains to the duties of the new position.
USCIS has not provide much guidance on what will or will not qualify as the "same or similar" occupational classification. What little guidance exists comes from a 2005 memo to Service Centers from Michael Aytes:
"Question 3. What is “same or similar” occupational classification for purposes of I-140 portability?
Answer: When making a determination if the new employment is the “same or similar” occupational classification in comparison to the employment in the initial I-140, adjudicators should consider the following factors:
A. Description of the job duties contained in the ETA 750A or the initial I-140 and the job duties of the new employment to determine if they are the “same or similar” occupational classification.
B. The DOT code and/or SOC code assigned to the initial I-140 employment for petitions that have a certified ETA 750A or consider what DOT and/or SOC code is appropriate for the position for an initial I-140 that did not require a certified ETA 750A. Then consider the DOT code and/or SOC code, whichever is appropriate for the new position to make a determination of “same or similar” occupational classification.
C. A substantial discrepancy between the previous and the new wage. (See Question 5 of this section for further clarification).
Question 5. Should service centers or district officers use a difference in the wage offered on the approved labor certification and initial I-140, and the new employment as basis for denial in adjustment portability cases?
Answer: No. As noted above the relevant inquiry is if the new position is the same or similar occupational classification to the alien’s I-140 employment. A difference in the wage offered on the approved labor certification, initial I-140 and the new employment cannot be used as a basis of a denial. However, a substantial discrepancy between the previous and the new wage may be taken into consideration as a factor in determining if the new employment is 'same or similar.'"
The bottom line is that in order to establish that your new position is in the same or similar occupational classification, you must first compare the specific job duties described in the original application for labor certification to the specific job duties of the new position. Nothing from USCIS specifically addresses what percentage of identical job duties would be required, but the closer to 100% the better. Job titles do not matter, job duties do. Next, you need to find the DOT USDOL/Office of Administrative Law Judges Home Page and/or SOC Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) System codes written on your original LC/I-140 and compare the occupational descriptions for those codes to the job duties of your new position. USCIS has never indicated what percentage of identical/similar job duties will suffice in either of the comparisons. Most likely it must be more than 50%, and the closer to 100% the better. Finally, a substantial difference in salary is not determinative, but, in a close case may lead to a denial. To combat this, reference can be made to the DOL's Online Wage Library FLCDataCenter.com current wage survey for the occupation. If the new salary is within the range indicated for the original SOC occupation, you can make a strong argument that the increase is due to the passage of time and not to a change in occupational classification.
USCIS has not provide much guidance on what will or will not qualify as the "same or similar" occupational classification. What little guidance exists comes from a 2005 memo to Service Centers from Michael Aytes:
"Question 3. What is “same or similar” occupational classification for purposes of I-140 portability?
Answer: When making a determination if the new employment is the “same or similar” occupational classification in comparison to the employment in the initial I-140, adjudicators should consider the following factors:
A. Description of the job duties contained in the ETA 750A or the initial I-140 and the job duties of the new employment to determine if they are the “same or similar” occupational classification.
B. The DOT code and/or SOC code assigned to the initial I-140 employment for petitions that have a certified ETA 750A or consider what DOT and/or SOC code is appropriate for the position for an initial I-140 that did not require a certified ETA 750A. Then consider the DOT code and/or SOC code, whichever is appropriate for the new position to make a determination of “same or similar” occupational classification.
C. A substantial discrepancy between the previous and the new wage. (See Question 5 of this section for further clarification).
Question 5. Should service centers or district officers use a difference in the wage offered on the approved labor certification and initial I-140, and the new employment as basis for denial in adjustment portability cases?
Answer: No. As noted above the relevant inquiry is if the new position is the same or similar occupational classification to the alien’s I-140 employment. A difference in the wage offered on the approved labor certification, initial I-140 and the new employment cannot be used as a basis of a denial. However, a substantial discrepancy between the previous and the new wage may be taken into consideration as a factor in determining if the new employment is 'same or similar.'"
The bottom line is that in order to establish that your new position is in the same or similar occupational classification, you must first compare the specific job duties described in the original application for labor certification to the specific job duties of the new position. Nothing from USCIS specifically addresses what percentage of identical job duties would be required, but the closer to 100% the better. Job titles do not matter, job duties do. Next, you need to find the DOT USDOL/Office of Administrative Law Judges Home Page and/or SOC Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) System codes written on your original LC/I-140 and compare the occupational descriptions for those codes to the job duties of your new position. USCIS has never indicated what percentage of identical/similar job duties will suffice in either of the comparisons. Most likely it must be more than 50%, and the closer to 100% the better. Finally, a substantial difference in salary is not determinative, but, in a close case may lead to a denial. To combat this, reference can be made to the DOL's Online Wage Library FLCDataCenter.com current wage survey for the occupation. If the new salary is within the range indicated for the original SOC occupation, you can make a strong argument that the increase is due to the passage of time and not to a change in occupational classification.
more...
kirupa
10-27 06:42 PM
Added :)
You should see at least a few hour delay for this is a manual process haha.
You should see at least a few hour delay for this is a manual process haha.
hot Screenshots Disney Wallpapers:
pappu
12-23 12:37 AM
REMINIDNG EVERYONE ABOUT THE MEETING THIS SUNDAY IN STAMFORD MALL..... PLEASE PM ME FOR THE CONTACT PHONE NUMBER ......
Thanks Anurakt.
Im bumping up your thread and hoping for many members to show up in your Tri-state chapter meeting.
Thanks Anurakt.
Im bumping up your thread and hoping for many members to show up in your Tri-state chapter meeting.
more...
house Disney Wallpaper is the
pranju
05-25 05:43 PM
My passport is expiring next year how early i can apply my renewal,
I want to go to india to get my visa stamped, i donot want to get it stamped in my old passport.
Any idea?
I want to go to india to get my visa stamped, i donot want to get it stamped in my old passport.
Any idea?
tattoo wallpaper cartoon disney.
neerajkandhari
05-25 08:16 PM
Same here got RFE via email on 20 May
Will Know by this week (hopefully) what they are asking for
Will Know by this week (hopefully) what they are asking for
more...
pictures Disney Villains wallpaper
OlgaJ
May 25th, 2005, 06:01 AM
I think the starkness of the Cherry Creek Reservoir area makes it difficult to capture its charm. (I lived 1-2 miles away from there for 24 years.) If I still lived there, I would be concentrating more on the cloud formations (which you don't see in too many places) when using the 17-85 lens. I would also take a couple of shots of the same scene, one metered for the sky and another for the shadow areas and blend them in PS.
Olga
Olga
dresses Free Disney Wallpaper
Ivyleaf
10-20 04:10 PM
right on i got a vote!
btw, GJ phat. no shame in being beaten by an chick. (at least if shes nekkid) :P
btw, GJ phat. no shame in being beaten by an chick. (at least if shes nekkid) :P
more...
makeup Carros cars wallpapers disney
caforum2
06-19 07:32 AM
EAD has nothing to do with status. He is in legal status as long as his I-485 is filed and waiting to be decided by USCIS, even if his non immigrant visa expired. EAD is work permit and he can't work based on EAD filing but only on approved ead.
girlfriend Belle Wallpaper - Disney
seemashah
02-21 04:17 PM
Hi:
I was working for Company A from 2000 to 2004. Company A applied for my GC in 2002. However, the company was not doing well until I left it. It was not paying me the salary which came out in PW. Company A continued with my GC processing and I filed for I140 and 485 last year in June. Now received the following RFE for I140:
Please submit documentary evidence that you, the petitioning employer, have the financial
ability to pay the wage/salary you offered the beneficiary. This evidence must show that you
have this financial capability on the date you fied the ETA with the Department of Labor and
cover up until the visa is issued. The petitioner may submit evidence that their net income is
equal to or greater than the proffered wage, evidence that the petitioner's net current assets
are equal to or greater than the proffered wage, or evidence that the petitioner not only is
employing the beneficiary but also has paid or is currently paying the proffered wage. The
service wil also consider copies of audited annual reports of the employer, or copies of
audited financial statements of the employer. Evidence is needed for 2002-2003.
Does anyone have some idea how to get the audited financial statements or audited annual reports?. I know that the company never had any audited reports. I had submitted the bank statements of the company and the tax returns with my I140. However, it seems that they want the audited reports. The company was not doing well in 2002/2003. However, it is doing well now. So any input will be highly appreciated.
I was working for Company A from 2000 to 2004. Company A applied for my GC in 2002. However, the company was not doing well until I left it. It was not paying me the salary which came out in PW. Company A continued with my GC processing and I filed for I140 and 485 last year in June. Now received the following RFE for I140:
Please submit documentary evidence that you, the petitioning employer, have the financial
ability to pay the wage/salary you offered the beneficiary. This evidence must show that you
have this financial capability on the date you fied the ETA with the Department of Labor and
cover up until the visa is issued. The petitioner may submit evidence that their net income is
equal to or greater than the proffered wage, evidence that the petitioner's net current assets
are equal to or greater than the proffered wage, or evidence that the petitioner not only is
employing the beneficiary but also has paid or is currently paying the proffered wage. The
service wil also consider copies of audited annual reports of the employer, or copies of
audited financial statements of the employer. Evidence is needed for 2002-2003.
Does anyone have some idea how to get the audited financial statements or audited annual reports?. I know that the company never had any audited reports. I had submitted the bank statements of the company and the tax returns with my I140. However, it seems that they want the audited reports. The company was not doing well in 2002/2003. However, it is doing well now. So any input will be highly appreciated.
hairstyles Desktop Images » Walt Disney
lazycis
02-14 04:42 PM
What a fabulous ruling this is.
One question for Lazycis:
# (3) actually reads "(3) may not, without USCIS initiating notice and comment procedures, be used to delay action on Plaintiffs petitions for naturalization, particularly because Plaintiffs have already undergone a name check in order to achieve LPR status and will clear the “fingerprint check” described in the Memorandum of January 25, 2008.10 The fingerprint check will show whether an LPR who is applying for naturalization has had any contact with the criminal justice system that would warrant denial of the petition."
As far as I can tell even (1) and (2) only apply to Naturalization applicants.
So the question of the hour is: are (1) and (2) true for AOS cases? I am asking this question because to argue a case for compelling recapture you need an AOS version of Baylson's ruling + the Galvez-Howerton decision (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=223315&postcount=121). Only then can you say that there was affirmative misconduct in 2003 and hence compel recapture.
Great ruling. The analysis is totally applicable to AOS. Moreover, the government admitted that it was wrong in recent memo.
"In the context of removal proceedings, ICE has determined that FBI fingerprint checks and Interagency Border Inspection Services (IBIS) checks are the required checks for purposes of the applicable regulations."
Wait a minute, isn't immigration judge able to grant AOS in removal proceedings? It means that the DHS acknowledges that it wrongfully interpreted regulations for all these years and that name check is not required by law (at least for AOS) as we were saying all along!
I love also this part: "in the unlikely event that FBI name checks reveal actionable information".
As judge Baylson pointed out, "name check" is nowhere to found in laws and regs.
One question for Lazycis:
# (3) actually reads "(3) may not, without USCIS initiating notice and comment procedures, be used to delay action on Plaintiffs petitions for naturalization, particularly because Plaintiffs have already undergone a name check in order to achieve LPR status and will clear the “fingerprint check” described in the Memorandum of January 25, 2008.10 The fingerprint check will show whether an LPR who is applying for naturalization has had any contact with the criminal justice system that would warrant denial of the petition."
As far as I can tell even (1) and (2) only apply to Naturalization applicants.
So the question of the hour is: are (1) and (2) true for AOS cases? I am asking this question because to argue a case for compelling recapture you need an AOS version of Baylson's ruling + the Galvez-Howerton decision (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=223315&postcount=121). Only then can you say that there was affirmative misconduct in 2003 and hence compel recapture.
Great ruling. The analysis is totally applicable to AOS. Moreover, the government admitted that it was wrong in recent memo.
"In the context of removal proceedings, ICE has determined that FBI fingerprint checks and Interagency Border Inspection Services (IBIS) checks are the required checks for purposes of the applicable regulations."
Wait a minute, isn't immigration judge able to grant AOS in removal proceedings? It means that the DHS acknowledges that it wrongfully interpreted regulations for all these years and that name check is not required by law (at least for AOS) as we were saying all along!
I love also this part: "in the unlikely event that FBI name checks reveal actionable information".
As judge Baylson pointed out, "name check" is nowhere to found in laws and regs.
EkAurAaya
10-18 06:02 PM
And dont forget, some of the anti-immigrants think that July bulletin was amnesty and that 320,000 people got amnesty.
For them
immigration = "amnesty"
:D
For them
immigration = "amnesty"
:D
setpit_gc
08-14 09:19 AM
ok. Any other suggestions?.
No comments:
Post a Comment