EB3_SEP04
06-11 12:49 PM
I wouldn't worry about this.. this bill is in embyonic stage, hundreds of such ridiculous bills are persented each years and they never make it to either house or senate floors for voting. Remember US politicians all the time "propose" or "talk about" such crazy bills to make happy the crazy segment of voters in their constituency and to make a buzz in the media. This is nothing more than Rakhi sawant accusing Mika of kissing. Nothing is going to happen without the full fledge CIR. Anyone believes the country which gives amnesty to illegals every 10-15 years will take such a nasty step and hurt itself ? Just watch in the months ahead what happens to AZ law or rather it's (non)implementation.
wallpaper Wallpapers Wood - QwickStep
alterego
07-04 08:31 PM
Everyone blaming CIS/DOS needs to understand some basics behind this mess. Before going to conclude anything, first, one should read all the ombudsman reports for last 3 or 4 years. Former INS or current USCIS’s functions and operations were not questionable and not known to public till ombudsman office was established. Ombudsman has helped customers and keep helping to improve efficiency of CIS. Ombudsman main concern (or goal) have been over the 4 years are
1. Primarily reducing backlogs in any application type particularly 485 and timely approval of any application.
2. Abolish the need for interim benefits like EAD, AP etc. If they approve 485 in 6 months, then most of us do not require EAD and AP.
3. Reduce the wastage of EB visas, as unused EB visas can not be carried over to next year (use it or lose it). Since 1992, about 200,000 EB visas were lost permanently. In 2003 alone, they issued only 64,000 EB visas and lost 88,000.
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Now lets come to July Visa bulletin mess.
Because of tight holding of visa cutoff dates for EB3 and EB2 for the first 8 months of 2007 (From Oct 2006 to May 2007) USCIS approved only 66,000 485s. For the next 4 months they have about 60K to 70K numbers available. If they approve the pending 485s with slower speed or old cut off dates, there is a potential estimated loss of 40,000 EB visas by Sep 2007. Thats why, based on ombudsman recommendation, DOS moved considerably the cut off date for June. When they took inventory in May, there are about 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications were pending due to non-availability of visa numbers. The “documentarily qualified 485 applications” mean the application filed long time back and processed by USCIS and cleared the FBI name and criminal check, and found eligible for green card. Apart from 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications, there is thousands of 485 applications (documentarily not yet qualified) pending due to name check. When DOS checked with USCIS they found only 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications (in all EB categories put together) are pending. However, the available visas are more than 40,000 (60to 70K). Then they made with out consulting properly with USCIS they made “current” for all EB categories. This is how they determine “current” or “over-subscribed” and how they establish cutoff dates.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered “Current.”
Whenever the total of documentarily qualified applicants in a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for the particular month, the category is considered to be “oversubscribed” and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories “current” for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories “current” ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of “current” there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making “current” for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as “current” in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
Excellent analysis and reccomendations. I feel that a visa number should be assigned at the point of 485 filing. If there is a problem it can be returned to the pool. That will be the least disruptive way to allot numbers in a timely fashion. In the end, that is likely to be the change that will come out of this.
This way, it will offer prospective applicants a more clear viewpoint of what they are up against when they consider their immigration options. i.e if you know you will have to wait 10 yrs to file an AOS even if you have an approved immigrant petition ala the family based immigrants, your plans would be different. You might not feel the wait worthwhile or even if you do, you do it fully aware of the consequences, 10 yrs exploitative employer on h1b etc.
If you notice, the level of hubris and cry is less in family based immigration even though the waits are longer. Atleast they know before they apply!
Your last point about a visa recapture is on the money. It is the least disruptive and easiest of the possible changes for current EB applicants in the current hostile atmosphere. It comes across as a rectification of USCIS inefficiency rather than a request for more immigration, which the public has clearly rejected at this time. If we can get 100-150K visas recaptured, this will greatly help EVERYONE in the EB queue for various reasons. It will buy us the 1-2 yrs needed before immigration is seriously addressed again. It will help those waiting to file 485 to file, those in 485 to have a hope to get out etc. It will help heavily retrogressed countries to keep getting more visas than the annual caps etc. I think that is something everyone can agree on as well.
1. Primarily reducing backlogs in any application type particularly 485 and timely approval of any application.
2. Abolish the need for interim benefits like EAD, AP etc. If they approve 485 in 6 months, then most of us do not require EAD and AP.
3. Reduce the wastage of EB visas, as unused EB visas can not be carried over to next year (use it or lose it). Since 1992, about 200,000 EB visas were lost permanently. In 2003 alone, they issued only 64,000 EB visas and lost 88,000.
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Now lets come to July Visa bulletin mess.
Because of tight holding of visa cutoff dates for EB3 and EB2 for the first 8 months of 2007 (From Oct 2006 to May 2007) USCIS approved only 66,000 485s. For the next 4 months they have about 60K to 70K numbers available. If they approve the pending 485s with slower speed or old cut off dates, there is a potential estimated loss of 40,000 EB visas by Sep 2007. Thats why, based on ombudsman recommendation, DOS moved considerably the cut off date for June. When they took inventory in May, there are about 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications were pending due to non-availability of visa numbers. The “documentarily qualified 485 applications” mean the application filed long time back and processed by USCIS and cleared the FBI name and criminal check, and found eligible for green card. Apart from 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications, there is thousands of 485 applications (documentarily not yet qualified) pending due to name check. When DOS checked with USCIS they found only 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications (in all EB categories put together) are pending. However, the available visas are more than 40,000 (60to 70K). Then they made with out consulting properly with USCIS they made “current” for all EB categories. This is how they determine “current” or “over-subscribed” and how they establish cutoff dates.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered “Current.”
Whenever the total of documentarily qualified applicants in a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for the particular month, the category is considered to be “oversubscribed” and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories “current” for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories “current” ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of “current” there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making “current” for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as “current” in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
Excellent analysis and reccomendations. I feel that a visa number should be assigned at the point of 485 filing. If there is a problem it can be returned to the pool. That will be the least disruptive way to allot numbers in a timely fashion. In the end, that is likely to be the change that will come out of this.
This way, it will offer prospective applicants a more clear viewpoint of what they are up against when they consider their immigration options. i.e if you know you will have to wait 10 yrs to file an AOS even if you have an approved immigrant petition ala the family based immigrants, your plans would be different. You might not feel the wait worthwhile or even if you do, you do it fully aware of the consequences, 10 yrs exploitative employer on h1b etc.
If you notice, the level of hubris and cry is less in family based immigration even though the waits are longer. Atleast they know before they apply!
Your last point about a visa recapture is on the money. It is the least disruptive and easiest of the possible changes for current EB applicants in the current hostile atmosphere. It comes across as a rectification of USCIS inefficiency rather than a request for more immigration, which the public has clearly rejected at this time. If we can get 100-150K visas recaptured, this will greatly help EVERYONE in the EB queue for various reasons. It will buy us the 1-2 yrs needed before immigration is seriously addressed again. It will help those waiting to file 485 to file, those in 485 to have a hope to get out etc. It will help heavily retrogressed countries to keep getting more visas than the annual caps etc. I think that is something everyone can agree on as well.
gc_on_demand
11-12 03:24 PM
Under the regulation No reference to Calendar year. It mentions explicitly calendar quarter.
Immigration and Nationality Act: Section ACT 202 - Numerical Limitation to any single foreign state under Sec. 202. [8 U.S.C. 1152]
(3) Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter.
(5) 2/ RULES FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS
(A) EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
(B) LIMITING FALL ACROSS FOR CERTAIN COUNTRIES SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION (e)- In the case of a foreign state or dependent area to which subsection (e) applies, if the total number of visas issued under section 203(b) exceeds the maximum number of visas that may be made available to immigrants of the state or area under section 203(b)consistent with subsection (e) (determined without regard to this paragraph),in applying subsection (e) all visas shall be deemed to have been required for the classes of aliens specified in section 203(b).
Isn't there a limit of 27% of visas per quarter per country per calendar year ? If that limit is there then who will take precedence ? Quarterly Spill over or that limit ?
To me I think DOS is doing 27% quota limit for first 3 quarters then they are doing spill over so there is no quarterly spill. What if they will show us that there is a limit per quarter in law and they have to follow it. Is it something like deadlock. that trying to follow one law breaks another one.
What if we end up getting response that there is some action needed from Lawmakers to correct law..
just random thoughts.
Immigration and Nationality Act: Section ACT 202 - Numerical Limitation to any single foreign state under Sec. 202. [8 U.S.C. 1152]
(3) Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter.
(5) 2/ RULES FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS
(A) EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
(B) LIMITING FALL ACROSS FOR CERTAIN COUNTRIES SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION (e)- In the case of a foreign state or dependent area to which subsection (e) applies, if the total number of visas issued under section 203(b) exceeds the maximum number of visas that may be made available to immigrants of the state or area under section 203(b)consistent with subsection (e) (determined without regard to this paragraph),in applying subsection (e) all visas shall be deemed to have been required for the classes of aliens specified in section 203(b).
Isn't there a limit of 27% of visas per quarter per country per calendar year ? If that limit is there then who will take precedence ? Quarterly Spill over or that limit ?
To me I think DOS is doing 27% quota limit for first 3 quarters then they are doing spill over so there is no quarterly spill. What if they will show us that there is a limit per quarter in law and they have to follow it. Is it something like deadlock. that trying to follow one law breaks another one.
What if we end up getting response that there is some action needed from Lawmakers to correct law..
just random thoughts.
2011 wood-floor-wallpapers 6855
va_217
01-18 11:24 AM
same happened to me in Elpaso airport longtime back, I guess when you are coming from Mexico they do that.
but no questions asked it was normal
thanks
but no questions asked it was normal
thanks
more...
ebizash
06-11 10:23 AM
Sent to IL lawmakers.
Forwarded to a few friends.
Forwarded to a few friends.
saravanaraj.sathya
03-10 03:02 PM
There is nothing to worry. You should be fine. IT does not really depend on your specific skills. If you move to another position as systems analyst with diferent technical skills it should not matter. So long as you are in the same/similar occupation as defined in ONET job code.
Ve fun
Guru's
I have a small doubt on AC -21 especially the same / similar interpretation. in Perm Application there are two places where there is job description. One is Section H field 11 ( Job Opportunity/ job duties) and other one is Section F field 2 ( Prevailing Wage/ SOC code) now both define what the job is the Section H is company specific and Section F is list of USCIS codes under which this particular job falls as subset.
The question is will USCIS judge using section F or Section H for same/ similar interpretation because Section F is pretty Generic and as long as you are in same field it works example in IT if you were say DBA and now data modeler or Systems Analyst or coder they are pretty much same. Here is an example of one such code
15-1051 Computer Systems Analysts
Analyze science, engineering, business, and all other data processing problems for application to electronic data processing systems. Analyze user requirements, procedures, and problems to automate or improve existing systems and review computer system capabilities, workflow, and scheduling limitations. May analyze or recommend commercially available software. Exclude persons working primarily as "Engineers" (17-2011 through 17-2199), "Mathematicians" (15-2021), or "Scientists" (19-1011 through 19-3099). May supervise computer programmers.
But in case they try to interpret Section H is it very complex and has specific tools that can get outdated or obselete with time. So it will be difficult to do an Ac -21 with that Example if they mention SQL Server or Ab-Initio in section H and now you take a full time in company using Oracle or Informatica will that cause an issue?
Ve fun
Guru's
I have a small doubt on AC -21 especially the same / similar interpretation. in Perm Application there are two places where there is job description. One is Section H field 11 ( Job Opportunity/ job duties) and other one is Section F field 2 ( Prevailing Wage/ SOC code) now both define what the job is the Section H is company specific and Section F is list of USCIS codes under which this particular job falls as subset.
The question is will USCIS judge using section F or Section H for same/ similar interpretation because Section F is pretty Generic and as long as you are in same field it works example in IT if you were say DBA and now data modeler or Systems Analyst or coder they are pretty much same. Here is an example of one such code
15-1051 Computer Systems Analysts
Analyze science, engineering, business, and all other data processing problems for application to electronic data processing systems. Analyze user requirements, procedures, and problems to automate or improve existing systems and review computer system capabilities, workflow, and scheduling limitations. May analyze or recommend commercially available software. Exclude persons working primarily as "Engineers" (17-2011 through 17-2199), "Mathematicians" (15-2021), or "Scientists" (19-1011 through 19-3099). May supervise computer programmers.
But in case they try to interpret Section H is it very complex and has specific tools that can get outdated or obselete with time. So it will be difficult to do an Ac -21 with that Example if they mention SQL Server or Ab-Initio in section H and now you take a full time in company using Oracle or Informatica will that cause an issue?
more...
prioritydate
12-20 04:30 PM
Your PD is Dec, 2004. Why you think you'll get RFE for not working during 2001?
I am not sure about that. So, are you saying that they don't care what my status was before applying my GC?
I am not sure about that. So, are you saying that they don't care what my status was before applying my GC?
2010 Wood Wallpaper - iPad
.soulty
03-19 11:02 PM
moved it, status closed now.. ;)
more...
h1techSlave
03-17 02:15 PM
I have listened to a couple of speaches by Bernake in NPR. Basically that guy is completely in the blank on how to handle the economy. He simply says, we are in this mess, because the lendors were very lenient. Fed measures such as interest rate cut and pumping money into the banking system is causing the dollar to fall thus further weakening the economy.
I say, we all write to Bernake that some 10, 000 immigrants will buy homes if we all get a GC. 100, 000 may or may not buy a home, but let us just polish the numbers a little bit. 10,000 * 300,000 (average home price) = 1 million billion dollars :D. Actually the total figure is 3 billion $$; enough to give a massive jolt to the sagging economy. I think we should also write to Wall Street journal and all major news paper organizations about this.
In America, people gets recognized when they offers a solution for a problem faced by the country. Whiners are (who write to Bush or Senators) do not get noticed nor are respected.
I say, we all write to Bernake that some 10, 000 immigrants will buy homes if we all get a GC. 100, 000 may or may not buy a home, but let us just polish the numbers a little bit. 10,000 * 300,000 (average home price) = 1 million billion dollars :D. Actually the total figure is 3 billion $$; enough to give a massive jolt to the sagging economy. I think we should also write to Wall Street journal and all major news paper organizations about this.
In America, people gets recognized when they offers a solution for a problem faced by the country. Whiners are (who write to Bush or Senators) do not get noticed nor are respected.
hair wood wallpapers. wood
abracadabra102
02-09 04:45 PM
They wasted 580 EB3 India visas last year (2009).
Total available EB3 India GC Visas per year: 2802
Used: 2222
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV_2.pdf
A third of 7% is the upper limit for EB3 I. They can issue fewer Visas based on demand from other countries. Having said that, South Korea and Philippines got more than their fair share. There may be some reason for this.
Total available EB3 India GC Visas per year: 2802
Used: 2222
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV_2.pdf
A third of 7% is the upper limit for EB3 I. They can issue fewer Visas based on demand from other countries. Having said that, South Korea and Philippines got more than their fair share. There may be some reason for this.
more...
GCStatus
09-18 12:01 AM
You cornered me? On what basis? You throw insult and that is your definition for cornered? Is there any logical argument that prove that I am wrong and you are right? Grow up and don't poison this thread with your pointless insults
Omg, easy. This is embarrassing. You completely took it out of context. Its all good ok, its all good.
Omg, easy. This is embarrassing. You completely took it out of context. Its all good ok, its all good.
hot Backgrounds , Wood
wellwisher02
04-23 08:10 PM
All,
Opened my email this morning to see the card production ordered email (time stamp in my inbox reads 2:15 am PST 4/23/08); the approval date was 4/23/08.
Been in meetings all day so not even a chance to call anyone about it.
Yay!
Good luck to all my fellow sufferers!
Googler
-------------
Hearty Congrats on turning 'Green'!
Opened my email this morning to see the card production ordered email (time stamp in my inbox reads 2:15 am PST 4/23/08); the approval date was 4/23/08.
Been in meetings all day so not even a chance to call anyone about it.
Yay!
Good luck to all my fellow sufferers!
Googler
-------------
Hearty Congrats on turning 'Green'!
more...
house Wood Wallpaper
lc1978
02-16 03:41 PM
You just made a payment of $ 100.00
Your receipt number for this payment is: 4704-4941-3704-4919.
All the best
Your receipt number for this payment is: 4704-4941-3704-4919.
All the best
tattoo wood wallpaper. wood wallpaper
Lasantha
03-07 10:26 AM
Is it true that in some cases after you file for AC21, CIS would send a RFE for the financial details of the new company (to stablish that the new company can pay you - company tax details).
I think I heard this on the last IV attorney conference call with Attorney Prashanti. So if that's is true, what if the company does not want to send this kind of confidential information to a third party attorney (your attorney)?
Or if the company is a big one they may not want to help you with these details at all. You know, they may not want to be bothered with that sort of hassle.
Have any of you heard of a case where CIS asked for ability to pay supporting information for AC21?
I think I heard this on the last IV attorney conference call with Attorney Prashanti. So if that's is true, what if the company does not want to send this kind of confidential information to a third party attorney (your attorney)?
Or if the company is a big one they may not want to help you with these details at all. You know, they may not want to be bothered with that sort of hassle.
Have any of you heard of a case where CIS asked for ability to pay supporting information for AC21?
more...
pictures wood Desktop Wallpaper
kumar1
03-16 05:56 PM
I am impressed to see that our buddy Infinite_Patience_GC is not using F** words today. Good job!
Infinite_Patience_GC,
Though I don't like your language and attitude, you have a valid point. I honestly feel that those who have used labor substitution should not get their green cards earlier than me.
Infinite_Patience_GC,
Though I don't like your language and attitude, you have a valid point. I honestly feel that those who have used labor substitution should not get their green cards earlier than me.
dresses logo wood iPhone wallpaper
vdlrao
07-19 12:11 AM
We need a realistic estimate of how many applications are pending with PD in 2004. Another thing to bear in mind is the conversion from EB3->EB2. That is also going to hinder the movement of EB2. There are a lot of people trying to use that route.
Yes there would be definetely jumpings from EB3 India to EB2 India. But having allotment of 10 times more of VISA numbers for EB2 India, I presume time is very near by for EB2 India to be current.
Yes there would be definetely jumpings from EB3 India to EB2 India. But having allotment of 10 times more of VISA numbers for EB2 India, I presume time is very near by for EB2 India to be current.
more...
makeup Backgrounds , Black , Wood
ajthakur
07-14 07:18 PM
Why does the attorney have to be very competent if its a simple AC 21 case? I know people have applied for AC21 on their own. Will an attorney do something different? He will also send the same set of dcouments that I will? Pleaes help me here. I am not sure whether I should spend thousands of dollars on an attorney for something I could have done myself.
ajthakur,
Bottomline you need a competent attorney for answering this RFE and invoking AC-21.
ajthakur,
Bottomline you need a competent attorney for answering this RFE and invoking AC-21.
girlfriend apple-wallpaper-wood
franklin
07-02 11:16 PM
I strongly believe that the little funds that IV receives should be used for more productive means than spending even more money on a website.
Maintaining a website that multiple people go to isn't going to get us very far at all, other than answering the same question multiple times. Using that money to pay for a lobbying firm, or trips to DC, or media coverage is way more productive and is far more likely to get actual results.
Maintaining a website that multiple people go to isn't going to get us very far at all, other than answering the same question multiple times. Using that money to pay for a lobbying firm, or trips to DC, or media coverage is way more productive and is far more likely to get actual results.
hairstyles wood-ackgrounds-for-websites.
sunnymit
07-12 04:58 PM
Thanks KartiKiran and spicy_guy...
ezee
10-16 04:37 PM
Don't you think we should be more clear in requesting information per specific country instead of lumping China and India together for EB-2 and others for EB-3? Also will it be too much to request pending applications by month/quarter instead of year?
We probably want the report in this format? This is just a suggestion.
|[indent]|EB2 - China |EB-2 India |EB-3 China |EB-3 India |EB-3 Mexico |EB-3 Phillipines |EB-3 Rest|
2001-Q1
2001-Q2
2001-Q3
2001-Q4
2002-Q1
2002-Q2
2002-Q3
2002-Q4
2003-Q1
2003-Q2
2003-Q3
2003-Q4
2004-Q1
2004-Q2
2004-Q3
2004-Q4
2005-Q1
2005-Q2
2005-Q3
2005-Q4
2006-Q1
2006-Q2
2006-Q3
2006-Q4
2007-Q1
2007-Q2
2007-Q3
2007-Q4
2008-Q1
2008-Q2
2008-Q3
2008-Q4
We probably want the report in this format? This is just a suggestion.
|[indent]|EB2 - China |EB-2 India |EB-3 China |EB-3 India |EB-3 Mexico |EB-3 Phillipines |EB-3 Rest|
2001-Q1
2001-Q2
2001-Q3
2001-Q4
2002-Q1
2002-Q2
2002-Q3
2002-Q4
2003-Q1
2003-Q2
2003-Q3
2003-Q4
2004-Q1
2004-Q2
2004-Q3
2004-Q4
2005-Q1
2005-Q2
2005-Q3
2005-Q4
2006-Q1
2006-Q2
2006-Q3
2006-Q4
2007-Q1
2007-Q2
2007-Q3
2007-Q4
2008-Q1
2008-Q2
2008-Q3
2008-Q4
Hermione
09-26 11:13 AM
No problem. I just wanted to encourage everyone with a strong feeling on H1 increase to post on the CNN site.
I'm sorry if I sounded like a hypocrite. My interpretation was not to participate in FSB debate for PR visas as the debate was concentrated on H1-B visas.
I support H1-B's and please continue in the debate for H1-B's.
I'm sorry if I sounded like a hypocrite. My interpretation was not to participate in FSB debate for PR visas as the debate was concentrated on H1-B visas.
I support H1-B's and please continue in the debate for H1-B's.