file485
05-23 07:44 AM
Friends
I have a labor approved in Civil/Contruction job skills with PD Oct 2003 and my date is current now. However I am currently on a IT company H1-to be specific 'Business Analyst'.
will there be a problem being now on a IT company H1 and filing for 485 with the Civil/Contruction approved labor..?
PLEASE LET ME KNOW...
I have a labor approved in Civil/Contruction job skills with PD Oct 2003 and my date is current now. However I am currently on a IT company H1-to be specific 'Business Analyst'.
will there be a problem being now on a IT company H1 and filing for 485 with the Civil/Contruction approved labor..?
PLEASE LET ME KNOW...
wallpaper %IMG_DESC_1%
Devils_Advocate
03-10 09:34 AM
No, the idea is; if you cry for gold you will atleast get silver. When the point is raised that people have been living here legally, paying taxes, SS, owning houses etc etc for 10 years!! what more is actually needed for citizenship?? The idea is to highlight that legal residents (many of them) have been here for ever!! 10 years is almost 15% of an average life span!! If only this thing is highlighted in some strong news papers. Isn't this protectionism at its worst. US is complaining about labor laws in China???? What the heck is this here??? You pay taxes and SS and medicare etc for 10 years and then you are asked to leave??????????? Isn't this slavery??? Either take of the requirement that workers on visas have to pay the required SS / medicare etc or assume responsibility for having taken their hard earned money and let them in as soon as possible into the society.
Giving an "expedited citizenship" is not like giving a stimulus check.
Over here if you cry for gold you wont get silver you'll get laughed out, see the context of the situation then apply relevant metaphors.
Yes if the point of this fruitless exercise is to "raise awareness" then its fine coz it might just do that and nothing else, but then hope you do know the difference between being "famous" and "infamous".
Again once you guys get your "expedited citizenship" please join the congress and change laws for all of us, and while you're at it change a law that requires the president to be US born so one of you can become the president as well :), since you know, changing laws is so easy in this country ;)
Giving an "expedited citizenship" is not like giving a stimulus check.
Over here if you cry for gold you wont get silver you'll get laughed out, see the context of the situation then apply relevant metaphors.
Yes if the point of this fruitless exercise is to "raise awareness" then its fine coz it might just do that and nothing else, but then hope you do know the difference between being "famous" and "infamous".
Again once you guys get your "expedited citizenship" please join the congress and change laws for all of us, and while you're at it change a law that requires the president to be US born so one of you can become the president as well :), since you know, changing laws is so easy in this country ;)
meridiani.planum
12-06 06:40 PM
I am a multiple filer too, my I-485 application filed in early June was approved last week. I hope this gives some reason for optimism for us multiple filers. Good luck to everyone. BTW: I am still a contributing member and will continue to hang out at IV.
congratulations! So you had the second I-485 still pending when teh first one got approved? Did you get any RFE about it from USCIS or were you asked to withdraw one of the petitions?
congratulations! So you had the second I-485 still pending when teh first one got approved? Did you get any RFE about it from USCIS or were you asked to withdraw one of the petitions?
2011 %IMG_DESC_2%
coopheal
08-08 09:21 AM
I am the later...
This is my last post in this regards.
Solution of frustration is not destructive thinking which you are doing. Grow up�.
May be you might have supported previous IV campaigns. I urge you to keep supporting them instead of going anything crazy like what you are planning.
Finally if you have reasons to believe some firms are gaming the system then report them. That is American way of doing things.
This is my last post in this regards.
Solution of frustration is not destructive thinking which you are doing. Grow up�.
May be you might have supported previous IV campaigns. I urge you to keep supporting them instead of going anything crazy like what you are planning.
Finally if you have reasons to believe some firms are gaming the system then report them. That is American way of doing things.
more...
vikki76
10-22 11:21 AM
My coworker and his spouse got both physical card and CPO mail yesterday on the same day itself . His PD is Jan 2005, EB-2 India and Nebraska service center.
punjabi77
09-09 03:42 PM
called Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) 202-225-3001.. The rep told me that Congressman is supporting the bill.
more...
amaruns
07-09 06:53 PM
Sending flowers was a way to register our protest. That I believe is being accomplished. USCIS forwarding them to injured service men is OK with me.
2010 %IMG_DESC_3%
bomber
06-29 07:11 PM
You are absolutely right. We visit Mr Oh's website several times a day to get the latest on immigration. We should credit him for being the first in alerting us about everything. If in fact USCIS comes up with a statement rejecting all aplpications filed after a certain date, I'm sure there would be thousands who would be saved by Mr. Oh's timely warning.
I dont know why everybody started to spit on ohio law firm. They just pointed out some news that they got from AILA, right? Lets hope its just a rumor and USCIS doesn't proceed with this revised thing. I am pretty sure that wont happen. Dont worry guys, but dont blame everything on ohio firm. I saw this on several other law firms too.
I dont know why everybody started to spit on ohio law firm. They just pointed out some news that they got from AILA, right? Lets hope its just a rumor and USCIS doesn't proceed with this revised thing. I am pretty sure that wont happen. Dont worry guys, but dont blame everything on ohio firm. I saw this on several other law firms too.
more...
alias
08-07 12:15 PM
No thats not what I am saying. Let me repeat what I am saying and this comes out of the draft I am working with a lawyer
The interpretation of the intent of the law by USCIS is flawed and should be reconsidered given the enormous backlogs in various categories.
1. If the people are allowed to move between the categories it will just move the backlog from one line to another penalizing the ones already in that line.
2. It does not provides an equal opportunity to the people already in that line to move to other category who are patiently waiting for their turn.
3. The porting is subject to gaming and the people who know how to work the system will be the most benefitted by this.
4. It will also eleminate any potential for the spill of visa numbers from Eb2 to Eb3 category as Eb2 itself will be backlogged
It should be noted that the immigration benefits are associated with a job requirements and not a person's qualifications. Changing a GC category should not be allowed except in certain extraordinary circumstances and through appropriate changes in the law.
Mpadap, your arguments are valid but not pertinent to what I am trying to do. If a person becomes elligible , he/she must be allowed to apply for the positions matching his qualifications. Only thing is that he should not benefit from the portability of PD.
your gramar buddy, This thread is getting funny ...
The interpretation of the intent of the law by USCIS is flawed and should be reconsidered given the enormous backlogs in various categories.
1. If the people are allowed to move between the categories it will just move the backlog from one line to another penalizing the ones already in that line.
2. It does not provides an equal opportunity to the people already in that line to move to other category who are patiently waiting for their turn.
3. The porting is subject to gaming and the people who know how to work the system will be the most benefitted by this.
4. It will also eleminate any potential for the spill of visa numbers from Eb2 to Eb3 category as Eb2 itself will be backlogged
It should be noted that the immigration benefits are associated with a job requirements and not a person's qualifications. Changing a GC category should not be allowed except in certain extraordinary circumstances and through appropriate changes in the law.
Mpadap, your arguments are valid but not pertinent to what I am trying to do. If a person becomes elligible , he/she must be allowed to apply for the positions matching his qualifications. Only thing is that he should not benefit from the portability of PD.
your gramar buddy, This thread is getting funny ...
hair %IMG_DESC_4%
aadimanav
01-03 12:56 AM
Part 2 continued....
USCIS delays have become so excessive in this arena that many foreign nationals have sought relief in federal court. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA), which governs federal agency actions and decisions, requires that an agency resolve a matter presented to it within a "reasonable" time frame. See 8 U.S.C. 555(b). Using the APA, foreign nationals have argued that waiting for two or more years for a decision on an immigration application is "unreasonable" under the statute. The cases are divided, but a majority of courts have agreed that making a foreign national wait years and years just for a decision on his or her application is unreasonable. As a result, many judges have ordered the FBI and USCIS to complete pending name check cases within 60 or 90 days where a foreign national has been waiting for two or more years. Some judges have noted that security concerns are not to be taken lightly, but this only reinforces the fact that such issues should be resolved in a matter of weeks as opposed to years.
The success or failure of litigation in this arena ultimately turns on the court's reading of a jurisdiction-stripping provision embedded in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the Real ID Act of 2005. The INA precludes judicial review of any "decision or action" of the USCIS that is "specified [under INA] to be in the discretion" of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). In defending challenges to delayed applications, the U.S. Attorney's office has argued that the adjudication of a green card application, including the pace of adjudication, is committed to the sole discretion of the USCIS, because the INA specifies that a decision to approve or deny a green card application is within the discretion of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1255(a).
None of the circuit courts have ruled on this issue, but the relationship between USCIS delay and the role of the judiciary has become a "national judicial debate" at the district court level. See Saleem v. Keisler , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80044 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 26, 2007). Some courts have bought the government's argument, holding that a discretionary "action" includes every interim action taken along the way leading up to an ultimate decision on an application. See Safadi v. Howard , 466 F.Supp. 2d 696, 699 (E.D. Vir. 2006). Under this theory, a stalled name check is simply action along the way to a final decision. The majority of courts have rejected this reading of the statute, holding that USCIS' discretion only applies to the ultimate decision on an application, not the pace of its adjudication. As one court stated, "it would require Orwellian twisting of the word ["action"] to conclude that it means a failure to adjudicate." Saleem v. Keisler, supra. Similarly, U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell recognized that the INA grants discretion to the USCIS to grant or deny a green card application, but "national security does not require that it also have absolute discretion to delay such an application to Dickensian lengths." Cao v. Upchurch , 496 F.Supp. 2d 569, 574 (E.D. Pa 2007). Put simply, "there is a difference between the [USCIS'] discretion over how to resolve an application and the [USCIS'] discretion over whether it resolves an application." Singh v. Still , 470 F. Supp. 2d 1064, 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
The U.S. Attorney's office has also argued that the USCIS is not required to make a decision on green card or naturalization applications since the INA does not specify a time frame for the agency's decision. See Assadzadeh v. Mueller , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80915 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2007). The government's argument is based on Norton v. So. Utah Wilderness Alliance , 542 U.S. 55 (2004), where the U.S. Supreme Court held that a plaintiff can succeed in compelling an agency to act under the APA if and only if the action sought to be compelled is a "discrete action" that the agency is "legally required" to take. Under the government's theory, the USCIS cannot be compelled to act where its organic statute fails to require it to make a decision. But, under Norton , an agency's regulation with the force of law can create a legal duty. Arguably, the USCIS is legally required to act on applications presented to it, as its own regulations provide that it inform applicants of its decisions. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (green card applications); 8 C.F.R. 316.14(b)(1) (naturalization applications). Most judges in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania appear to accept this argument. For example, in Kaplan v. Chertoff , 481 F. Supp. 2d 370, 399 (E.D. Pa. 2007), Judge Eduardo Robreno held that the USCIS has a duty to adjudicate green card and naturalization applications, based, in part, on the agency's own regulations.
Once a court determines that its jurisdiction is not stripped under the INA, it usually faces little difficulty finding a cause of action under the APA. Of course, determining whether an agency has acted unreasonably is a fact-intensive inquiry, but the government's position does not look promising where the USCIS has failed to perform three distinct background checks for two or more years without any indication of special circumstances. See, e.g., Saleem v. Keisler, supra . The government has argued that flagging agency resources are to blame, but many courts find little sympathy for such posturing. In addressing the issue of agency resources, one court stated that the USCIS should take its complaints up with Congress. See Liang v. Attorney General , 07-cv-2349-CW (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2007). "The executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those duties have been met." Id . Even factoring in flagging appropriations, the court held that a two-and-a-half-year delay is unreasonable as a matter of law. Id .
With more than 340,000 cases in the name check backlog, it is not clear when some foreign nationals will ever have their cases resolved at the agency level. At least with the advantageous decisions handed down from the federal district courts, foreign nationals have the hope of going into court to request an expeditious resolution to their name checks. In the majority of situations, it appears that litigation is the only option, but at least an option exists.
Please email the author at gforney@wolfblock.com with questions about this article.
USCIS delays have become so excessive in this arena that many foreign nationals have sought relief in federal court. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA), which governs federal agency actions and decisions, requires that an agency resolve a matter presented to it within a "reasonable" time frame. See 8 U.S.C. 555(b). Using the APA, foreign nationals have argued that waiting for two or more years for a decision on an immigration application is "unreasonable" under the statute. The cases are divided, but a majority of courts have agreed that making a foreign national wait years and years just for a decision on his or her application is unreasonable. As a result, many judges have ordered the FBI and USCIS to complete pending name check cases within 60 or 90 days where a foreign national has been waiting for two or more years. Some judges have noted that security concerns are not to be taken lightly, but this only reinforces the fact that such issues should be resolved in a matter of weeks as opposed to years.
The success or failure of litigation in this arena ultimately turns on the court's reading of a jurisdiction-stripping provision embedded in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the Real ID Act of 2005. The INA precludes judicial review of any "decision or action" of the USCIS that is "specified [under INA] to be in the discretion" of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). In defending challenges to delayed applications, the U.S. Attorney's office has argued that the adjudication of a green card application, including the pace of adjudication, is committed to the sole discretion of the USCIS, because the INA specifies that a decision to approve or deny a green card application is within the discretion of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1255(a).
None of the circuit courts have ruled on this issue, but the relationship between USCIS delay and the role of the judiciary has become a "national judicial debate" at the district court level. See Saleem v. Keisler , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80044 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 26, 2007). Some courts have bought the government's argument, holding that a discretionary "action" includes every interim action taken along the way leading up to an ultimate decision on an application. See Safadi v. Howard , 466 F.Supp. 2d 696, 699 (E.D. Vir. 2006). Under this theory, a stalled name check is simply action along the way to a final decision. The majority of courts have rejected this reading of the statute, holding that USCIS' discretion only applies to the ultimate decision on an application, not the pace of its adjudication. As one court stated, "it would require Orwellian twisting of the word ["action"] to conclude that it means a failure to adjudicate." Saleem v. Keisler, supra. Similarly, U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell recognized that the INA grants discretion to the USCIS to grant or deny a green card application, but "national security does not require that it also have absolute discretion to delay such an application to Dickensian lengths." Cao v. Upchurch , 496 F.Supp. 2d 569, 574 (E.D. Pa 2007). Put simply, "there is a difference between the [USCIS'] discretion over how to resolve an application and the [USCIS'] discretion over whether it resolves an application." Singh v. Still , 470 F. Supp. 2d 1064, 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
The U.S. Attorney's office has also argued that the USCIS is not required to make a decision on green card or naturalization applications since the INA does not specify a time frame for the agency's decision. See Assadzadeh v. Mueller , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80915 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2007). The government's argument is based on Norton v. So. Utah Wilderness Alliance , 542 U.S. 55 (2004), where the U.S. Supreme Court held that a plaintiff can succeed in compelling an agency to act under the APA if and only if the action sought to be compelled is a "discrete action" that the agency is "legally required" to take. Under the government's theory, the USCIS cannot be compelled to act where its organic statute fails to require it to make a decision. But, under Norton , an agency's regulation with the force of law can create a legal duty. Arguably, the USCIS is legally required to act on applications presented to it, as its own regulations provide that it inform applicants of its decisions. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (green card applications); 8 C.F.R. 316.14(b)(1) (naturalization applications). Most judges in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania appear to accept this argument. For example, in Kaplan v. Chertoff , 481 F. Supp. 2d 370, 399 (E.D. Pa. 2007), Judge Eduardo Robreno held that the USCIS has a duty to adjudicate green card and naturalization applications, based, in part, on the agency's own regulations.
Once a court determines that its jurisdiction is not stripped under the INA, it usually faces little difficulty finding a cause of action under the APA. Of course, determining whether an agency has acted unreasonably is a fact-intensive inquiry, but the government's position does not look promising where the USCIS has failed to perform three distinct background checks for two or more years without any indication of special circumstances. See, e.g., Saleem v. Keisler, supra . The government has argued that flagging agency resources are to blame, but many courts find little sympathy for such posturing. In addressing the issue of agency resources, one court stated that the USCIS should take its complaints up with Congress. See Liang v. Attorney General , 07-cv-2349-CW (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2007). "The executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those duties have been met." Id . Even factoring in flagging appropriations, the court held that a two-and-a-half-year delay is unreasonable as a matter of law. Id .
With more than 340,000 cases in the name check backlog, it is not clear when some foreign nationals will ever have their cases resolved at the agency level. At least with the advantageous decisions handed down from the federal district courts, foreign nationals have the hope of going into court to request an expeditious resolution to their name checks. In the majority of situations, it appears that litigation is the only option, but at least an option exists.
Please email the author at gforney@wolfblock.com with questions about this article.
more...
sri1309
09-12 07:41 PM
All,
I will once again be writing and sending posters to all the reps. This is one of our chances where we can get closest. If we miss this then there will be lots of uncertainity. Imagine we already missed it. See how desperate all can get.
We have some time, Lets all spend considerable time this weekend, get bigger charts, use lots of good eye catching color, make our voices heard. Spend considderable time this weekend on this, please. Together we all can make a difference. Please do your best and spread this across your friends also who are waiting or have got their greencards. This one thing sucked up so much energy from so many here. Please support EB2 and EB3. How does one get these greens. I never got any.. :(.
Sri.
I will once again be writing and sending posters to all the reps. This is one of our chances where we can get closest. If we miss this then there will be lots of uncertainity. Imagine we already missed it. See how desperate all can get.
We have some time, Lets all spend considerable time this weekend, get bigger charts, use lots of good eye catching color, make our voices heard. Spend considderable time this weekend on this, please. Together we all can make a difference. Please do your best and spread this across your friends also who are waiting or have got their greencards. This one thing sucked up so much energy from so many here. Please support EB2 and EB3. How does one get these greens. I never got any.. :(.
Sri.
hot %IMG_DESC_5%
eb3_nepa
07-10 09:30 AM
USCIS and or DOS don't quiet yet understand the full implications of this flower campaign. They still are feigning ignorance or adamant in their analysis of the july fiasco.
Untill this flower campaign is further carried by major newspapers, we still cannot declare full victory.
Yes, USCIS chief fully knows that flowers were sent as a token of protest and they will not know the full impact untill they see them.
I am telling you guys, the USCIS is gonna SERIOUSLY think "Lets keep screwing these guys and getting free stuff AND free publicity"
Untill this flower campaign is further carried by major newspapers, we still cannot declare full victory.
Yes, USCIS chief fully knows that flowers were sent as a token of protest and they will not know the full impact untill they see them.
I am telling you guys, the USCIS is gonna SERIOUSLY think "Lets keep screwing these guys and getting free stuff AND free publicity"
more...
house %IMG_DESC_17%
gc_wow
09-24 08:50 PM
Rose Ball,
What do you think will EB2 I will get stuck in March 2005 for the rest of USCIS year untill September? I think Quarterly spill over is the name of the game now.
What do you think will EB2 I will get stuck in March 2005 for the rest of USCIS year untill September? I think Quarterly spill over is the name of the game now.
tattoo %IMG_DESC_6%
anotherone
01-29 06:41 PM
your ad shows a company that has advertised for no EAD, GC h1b etc., which is legal, AFAIK.
It is not a small difference, but not interviewing someone based on whatever is probably their prerogative (even this may have certain limitations like -you cannot say "no women" et6c.,), visa status is not considered a protected class... again AFAIK. They probably cannot say no GC, but CAN say only citizens because of some clearance required etc.,
This is different from getting someone through the interview loop, making an offer and THEN saying sorry we ont hire you now because of EAD. That is BS. As for saying no to H1B, we have all been there, a company that does not want to sponsor cannot be MADE to do it.
I was asking for a list of companies that have refused to work with EADs and have been cited for it or fined etc.,
It is not a small difference, but not interviewing someone based on whatever is probably their prerogative (even this may have certain limitations like -you cannot say "no women" et6c.,), visa status is not considered a protected class... again AFAIK. They probably cannot say no GC, but CAN say only citizens because of some clearance required etc.,
This is different from getting someone through the interview loop, making an offer and THEN saying sorry we ont hire you now because of EAD. That is BS. As for saying no to H1B, we have all been there, a company that does not want to sponsor cannot be MADE to do it.
I was asking for a list of companies that have refused to work with EADs and have been cited for it or fined etc.,
more...
pictures %IMG_DESC_7%
alterego
01-25 01:36 AM
There are a few praises about Jet Airways in previous posts.
Let me set the record straight. They have miles to go before they start claiming themselves as "world class" international airline.
I was on vacation past 2.5 weeks to India and here is my experience.
Regarding Jet Airways poor customer service:
On return, my Jet Airways flight from Rajkot (Gujarat) to Mumbai was delayed by 2 hours. Its only a 55 minute flight from Rajkot to Mumbai. Because of this, my connection of Delta airlines from Mumbai to New York was missed. Delta gave me a seat on plane the next day. Same flight - but a day after. So now, I was stuck in Mumbai, with huge luggage for 24 hours. I asked Delta for Hotel accomodation. They said, its not their fault and its Jet Airways fault and I should ask them for Hotel.
I went to Jet Airways customer service in Mumbai airport. They said that they cant find a single room in Mumbai due to some exhibition/conference going on at the time. A major international airline, shooting for stars, cant find a Hotel room in a city as big as Mumbai. Frustrated, I went to a government agency office (IATA I think) and they said that they dont have anything nearby, but can arrange something 30 kilometers away, and it was a sub-standard hotel and room. I paid out of my own pocket and stayed there a night. It was Rs 2000 (about $50) for this hotel plus taxi.
The next day, before boarding Delta flight, I went to Jet Airways office again and told them that I found a hotel room on my own and see if they can re-imburse me for the hotel expenses. If they had paid themselves in Hyatt or Grand Meridian outside airport, it would have been more anyways. The manager of Jet Airways said that they cannot do it and I should scan the reciepts and my boarding pass and email customersupport at jetairways.
An hour before this happened, the office didnt even have anyone in charge in office (at about 7:00 PM). The agent said, the manager isnt here. I asked, "who's in charge", and she said "No one is in charge right now, you have to come back at 8:00 when manager comes in".
What I am saying is, Jet Airways has miles to go before it can take pride. Just starting flights to Newark, Chicago doesnt make it a great airline. Neither does good food. Treat customers well, and atleast do a better job than government offices when it comes to locating hotel rooms for stranded passengers who are stranded due to their fault.
Mumbai Airport security harrassment :
My flight was just past midnight and I checked out of hotel at noon. (I had to). With 12 hours and nothing to do, I headed to Mumbai airport. At the airport, they dont let you inside the building unless you are a passenger. The security guard at the door said that I need to come back at 9:00 PM and I cant go into the airport right now as my flight is at night. I told him that I am not coming to airport to enjoy the lounge and I am stranded due to missed airline connection. He didnt listen. I was sitting outside the building until about 8:00 PM with all luggage.
Now I understand that security is important, but what's the point in stopping someone and letting them inside only 4 hours prior. Because if there is a nefarious person planning something bad, what can he/she do in 10 hours that he/she cant do in 4 hours. How does it enhance security by limiting the presence of passengers inside airport? Well, you cant argue with knuckleheads.
Inside airport, I ran into a German lady and a guy from Netherlands and both of them were in the airport since the afternoon. They said they argued and they were let in. Basically, the Indian security forces at the airport wont argue with Europeans and will let them inside the airport but will go extra lengths to harrass people that they are comfortable harrassing - their own people.
So we can ignore London airport. Fine. Are we also going to ignore Mumbai airport now?
The best way to avoid harrassment is to stand up and fight it. Because avoiding this airport and that airline is not going to cut it.
Interesting to read all these experiences.
Let me share mine in Mumbai, although it was a couple of years ago.
I was born in India but have a foreign passport. When you are leaving the country they have an officer interview you. I am not sure why, but it is quite unusual, kind of like an exit interview I guess. I have not seen that anywhere else.
Anyway the guy asked all sorts of detailed questions, and then finally asked me how much Rupees cash I have with me. I told him I'm not exactly sure, but about 1000Rs(about 20 dollars at that time). He told me the limit was 800Rs for foreigners leaving India and told me it was illegal to take Indian Rupees out of the country and asked me to take out my wallet and count it, when I counted it, it turned out I had 1400 Rs in my wallet. Then he became quite irate and condescending and asked me what I do for a living, I told him I am a doctor, then he went on insulting me, asking whether I would say that a patients temperature was 104 if it was 101! I told him that is not relevant here. He got angrier and told me he will have to confiscate that money. I told him 1400 Rs is not that much money and I could spend it in the departure lounge before I left. He was livid. He asked me to hand over the Indian currency. I was not quite sure what to do, but I sure as hell knew I did not want this scumbag to have that money. So I turned around and gave the balance above 800Rs to another passenger in line next to me and said take it as a gift from a stranger. That pushed him over the edge, he started yelling in Hindi. I told him I do not speak Hindi, that seemed to upset him even more. By this time other passengers were aware of what was going on as well and were objecting as well. He was fuming and walked away from his desk yelling and shouting in Hindi and his supervisor came to take over. He asked what the issue was and I explained it to him. He waved me by and moved on to the next passenger.
Later that passenger, came up to me in the departure lounge and returned the money I gave her. We started chatting, and I asked her to join me in the restaurant as our flight was 3 hrs away so we went to the restaurant and spent it all in the departure lounge on a meal and a couple of drinks and the tip.
They need to improve things and get rid of these morons in those airports. Perhaps they need to pay them realistic salaries and then make them more accountable. They don't realize it and perhaps care even less, but they represent India's image and brand every day in the eyes of visitors and travellers alike.
Let me set the record straight. They have miles to go before they start claiming themselves as "world class" international airline.
I was on vacation past 2.5 weeks to India and here is my experience.
Regarding Jet Airways poor customer service:
On return, my Jet Airways flight from Rajkot (Gujarat) to Mumbai was delayed by 2 hours. Its only a 55 minute flight from Rajkot to Mumbai. Because of this, my connection of Delta airlines from Mumbai to New York was missed. Delta gave me a seat on plane the next day. Same flight - but a day after. So now, I was stuck in Mumbai, with huge luggage for 24 hours. I asked Delta for Hotel accomodation. They said, its not their fault and its Jet Airways fault and I should ask them for Hotel.
I went to Jet Airways customer service in Mumbai airport. They said that they cant find a single room in Mumbai due to some exhibition/conference going on at the time. A major international airline, shooting for stars, cant find a Hotel room in a city as big as Mumbai. Frustrated, I went to a government agency office (IATA I think) and they said that they dont have anything nearby, but can arrange something 30 kilometers away, and it was a sub-standard hotel and room. I paid out of my own pocket and stayed there a night. It was Rs 2000 (about $50) for this hotel plus taxi.
The next day, before boarding Delta flight, I went to Jet Airways office again and told them that I found a hotel room on my own and see if they can re-imburse me for the hotel expenses. If they had paid themselves in Hyatt or Grand Meridian outside airport, it would have been more anyways. The manager of Jet Airways said that they cannot do it and I should scan the reciepts and my boarding pass and email customersupport at jetairways.
An hour before this happened, the office didnt even have anyone in charge in office (at about 7:00 PM). The agent said, the manager isnt here. I asked, "who's in charge", and she said "No one is in charge right now, you have to come back at 8:00 when manager comes in".
What I am saying is, Jet Airways has miles to go before it can take pride. Just starting flights to Newark, Chicago doesnt make it a great airline. Neither does good food. Treat customers well, and atleast do a better job than government offices when it comes to locating hotel rooms for stranded passengers who are stranded due to their fault.
Mumbai Airport security harrassment :
My flight was just past midnight and I checked out of hotel at noon. (I had to). With 12 hours and nothing to do, I headed to Mumbai airport. At the airport, they dont let you inside the building unless you are a passenger. The security guard at the door said that I need to come back at 9:00 PM and I cant go into the airport right now as my flight is at night. I told him that I am not coming to airport to enjoy the lounge and I am stranded due to missed airline connection. He didnt listen. I was sitting outside the building until about 8:00 PM with all luggage.
Now I understand that security is important, but what's the point in stopping someone and letting them inside only 4 hours prior. Because if there is a nefarious person planning something bad, what can he/she do in 10 hours that he/she cant do in 4 hours. How does it enhance security by limiting the presence of passengers inside airport? Well, you cant argue with knuckleheads.
Inside airport, I ran into a German lady and a guy from Netherlands and both of them were in the airport since the afternoon. They said they argued and they were let in. Basically, the Indian security forces at the airport wont argue with Europeans and will let them inside the airport but will go extra lengths to harrass people that they are comfortable harrassing - their own people.
So we can ignore London airport. Fine. Are we also going to ignore Mumbai airport now?
The best way to avoid harrassment is to stand up and fight it. Because avoiding this airport and that airline is not going to cut it.
Interesting to read all these experiences.
Let me share mine in Mumbai, although it was a couple of years ago.
I was born in India but have a foreign passport. When you are leaving the country they have an officer interview you. I am not sure why, but it is quite unusual, kind of like an exit interview I guess. I have not seen that anywhere else.
Anyway the guy asked all sorts of detailed questions, and then finally asked me how much Rupees cash I have with me. I told him I'm not exactly sure, but about 1000Rs(about 20 dollars at that time). He told me the limit was 800Rs for foreigners leaving India and told me it was illegal to take Indian Rupees out of the country and asked me to take out my wallet and count it, when I counted it, it turned out I had 1400 Rs in my wallet. Then he became quite irate and condescending and asked me what I do for a living, I told him I am a doctor, then he went on insulting me, asking whether I would say that a patients temperature was 104 if it was 101! I told him that is not relevant here. He got angrier and told me he will have to confiscate that money. I told him 1400 Rs is not that much money and I could spend it in the departure lounge before I left. He was livid. He asked me to hand over the Indian currency. I was not quite sure what to do, but I sure as hell knew I did not want this scumbag to have that money. So I turned around and gave the balance above 800Rs to another passenger in line next to me and said take it as a gift from a stranger. That pushed him over the edge, he started yelling in Hindi. I told him I do not speak Hindi, that seemed to upset him even more. By this time other passengers were aware of what was going on as well and were objecting as well. He was fuming and walked away from his desk yelling and shouting in Hindi and his supervisor came to take over. He asked what the issue was and I explained it to him. He waved me by and moved on to the next passenger.
Later that passenger, came up to me in the departure lounge and returned the money I gave her. We started chatting, and I asked her to join me in the restaurant as our flight was 3 hrs away so we went to the restaurant and spent it all in the departure lounge on a meal and a couple of drinks and the tip.
They need to improve things and get rid of these morons in those airports. Perhaps they need to pay them realistic salaries and then make them more accountable. They don't realize it and perhaps care even less, but they represent India's image and brand every day in the eyes of visitors and travellers alike.
dresses %IMG_DESC_12%
WaldenPond
01-02 02:45 PM
Excellent suggestions & ideas Leo. You have summed up well where we are headed. The some of the arguments you mentioned above are really very good. We will definitely use them when talking to lawmakers. With regard to the problem with the attached file, I just sent you a private message.
Thanks,
-WP
Thanks,
-WP
more...
makeup %IMG_DESC_9%
gcnirvana
06-21 12:40 PM
Its just sad that when it comes to processing immigration applications, we are too many. But when it comes to contributions or calling senators and sending emails, WE ARE TOO FEW :confused:
Yes it is serious.....and given how many people are raring to go.....it islikely...
As I have said before......we r just too many!!!!
Yes it is serious.....and given how many people are raring to go.....it islikely...
As I have said before......we r just too many!!!!
girlfriend %IMG_DESC_14%
bobopotato
05-22 08:20 AM
Would anyone be able to advise if I can travel out of the country after I've filed the 485 if I have an approved I-797 approval notice (for H-1B) but old H-1B stamp in pp has already expired?
If I travel out and then get the H-1B visa stamp at an outside consulate, I would be able to travel back in, but would I have considered have abandoned the 485 application? (since I travelled out without a valid H-1B stamp in pp)??
Can I travel out even before my AP arrives? Or does having an AP make a difference? I would prefer to stay on H-1B status since you never know what happens to the 140/485 application.
Thanks for the help guys.
If I travel out and then get the H-1B visa stamp at an outside consulate, I would be able to travel back in, but would I have considered have abandoned the 485 application? (since I travelled out without a valid H-1B stamp in pp)??
Can I travel out even before my AP arrives? Or does having an AP make a difference? I would prefer to stay on H-1B status since you never know what happens to the 140/485 application.
Thanks for the help guys.
hairstyles %IMG_DESC_11%
GC4US
10-06 01:28 AM
Hello everybody,
I was just wondering why only the people (Eb2-I) with priority dates from 2004 get their I-485 approved? why dont people from 2001, 2002, 2003 dont get their I-485 approved?.....just curious to see how does it work?
I was just wondering why only the people (Eb2-I) with priority dates from 2004 get their I-485 approved? why dont people from 2001, 2002, 2003 dont get their I-485 approved?.....just curious to see how does it work?
Jerrome
09-24 04:37 PM
All the calculations are based on the following assumptions
a)Number of EB2(ROW) Labor approval from PERM would be in the range of thousands, say maximum 5000.
The reasons are
1) Increased Audit and backlog built by PERM system
2) Bad Economy.
b) Spillover to EB2 would benefit india more than China.
But even if 50% of pending PERM are cleared this year then the # of EB2 would be more.
So every EB2 should pray that the PERM system should work in the same pace for next 1 year.
But, woudn't the 75% of 140K quota for next two years be consumed by ROW applicants who are about to apply. Becoz they are current wouldn't the VISA number go to them..
All the above calculations I guess are assuming that the entire 140K will be given the pending 485 application..May be I am missing something.
a)Number of EB2(ROW) Labor approval from PERM would be in the range of thousands, say maximum 5000.
The reasons are
1) Increased Audit and backlog built by PERM system
2) Bad Economy.
b) Spillover to EB2 would benefit india more than China.
But even if 50% of pending PERM are cleared this year then the # of EB2 would be more.
So every EB2 should pray that the PERM system should work in the same pace for next 1 year.
But, woudn't the 75% of 140K quota for next two years be consumed by ROW applicants who are about to apply. Becoz they are current wouldn't the VISA number go to them..
All the above calculations I guess are assuming that the entire 140K will be given the pending 485 application..May be I am missing something.
ski_dude12
09-28 12:13 PM
What part do you want interpreted? It says in plain simple english that it is wating to be assigned to an officer.
You can take an infopass to find out if your case is pre-adjudicated, prints/name check are clear.
Hi ,
My priority date is March 26th 2006 and current for month of September.
I created a SR on 09/14 and got the following response today.
"
Service records indicate that your application is pending and waiting assignment to an officer. You will be notified when a decision has been made or if additional information is needed. If you do not receive a decision or other notice of action from us within 60 days from the date of this letter, please contact customer service to complete another service request
"
I would appreciate if someone can interpret the message.
-kanchiru
You can take an infopass to find out if your case is pre-adjudicated, prints/name check are clear.
Hi ,
My priority date is March 26th 2006 and current for month of September.
I created a SR on 09/14 and got the following response today.
"
Service records indicate that your application is pending and waiting assignment to an officer. You will be notified when a decision has been made or if additional information is needed. If you do not receive a decision or other notice of action from us within 60 days from the date of this letter, please contact customer service to complete another service request
"
I would appreciate if someone can interpret the message.
-kanchiru
