pointlesswait
11-17 03:49 PM
why cant they spell out the damn rule.. instead of leaving it out for speculations...
insane!
insane!
wallpaper irthday quotes for oyfriend.
pyaradesi
02-03 09:28 PM
Folks,
I am not a naysayer, I think the IV core team has done a great job of giving a voice to us.
But, there are a few questions that I am not convinced myself:
1. why remove per country quota just for EB, why not family based immigration as well?
2. what will happen after removing per country limits, what kind of numbers are we looking at? how many new PRs? What is the impact on the country,economic, social, cultural, I do care about the USA.
3. By asking legislators to remove these per country quota limits, isn't this a paradigm shift in thinking?
When I, a guy impacted by this EB backlog am not convinced, how the heck are we going to make a case to some congressman/woman? We should definitely move away from this snobbish view that EB folks are better than others, or that the USA needs the EB folks more than EB folks need the USA.
That said, I do believe that we have a humanitarian case for folks like us who are already in the queue. Educating congress about the path taken by the average EB immigrant would help. At the end of the day human life is human life even it is it Indian.
I am not a naysayer, I think the IV core team has done a great job of giving a voice to us.
But, there are a few questions that I am not convinced myself:
1. why remove per country quota just for EB, why not family based immigration as well?
2. what will happen after removing per country limits, what kind of numbers are we looking at? how many new PRs? What is the impact on the country,economic, social, cultural, I do care about the USA.
3. By asking legislators to remove these per country quota limits, isn't this a paradigm shift in thinking?
When I, a guy impacted by this EB backlog am not convinced, how the heck are we going to make a case to some congressman/woman? We should definitely move away from this snobbish view that EB folks are better than others, or that the USA needs the EB folks more than EB folks need the USA.
That said, I do believe that we have a humanitarian case for folks like us who are already in the queue. Educating congress about the path taken by the average EB immigrant would help. At the end of the day human life is human life even it is it Indian.
BharatPremi
10-25 11:38 AM
My PD: 07/2*/2003 EB3:INDIA:RIR
2011 happy birthday boyfriend
Macaca
09-26 10:38 AM
There is a non-profit organization (like Business & Media Institute (http://www.businessandmedia.org/about/about.aspx)) that reports on wrong media reports. They have lot of reports on Lou Dobbs.
The details were posted in one of the many Lou Dobbs Threads. I can not find it.
If anyone can find it please post details of the organization and send email to this organization also.
The details were posted in one of the many Lou Dobbs Threads. I can not find it.
If anyone can find it please post details of the organization and send email to this organization also.
more...
Imigrait
07-11 05:28 PM
Can you provide the source of this info? a link or something?
Here's your link
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4252.html
Look at Section E. I have also pasted the text below.
E. EMPLOYMENT SECOND PREFERENCE VISA AVAILABILITY
There have been questions raised regarding the way numbers have been provided to the China and India in the Employment Second preference categories beginning in April. Section 202(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act states that if total demand for visas in an Employment preference category is insufficient to use all available visa numbers in that category in a calendar quarter, then the unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limit. (For example: If the second preference annual limit were 40,000, number use by �All Other Countries� were estimated to be only 25,000, and the China/India combined number use based on their per-country limits were 6,000, then there would be 9,000 numbers unused. Those 9,000 numbers could then be made available to China and India applicants without regard to their per-country limits.)
Based on the informaiton available, it was been determined that the demand from �All Other Countries� for Second preference numbers, plus the amount of numbers available under China and India Second preference per-country limit, would be insufficient to utilize all available numbers under the annual limit for this category. Therefore, pursuant to Section 202(a)(5) of the Act, the unused numbers have been made available to China and India Second preference applicants. Since Section 203(e)(1) of the Act requires that such unused numbers be made available strictly in priority date order, the China and India applicants have been subject to the identical cut-off date. As there are more Employment Second preference applicants from India and the Indian applicants may have earlier priority dates, it is likely that Indian applicants will receive a larger portion of the available numbers than Chinese applicants.
It should be noted that the Employment Second preference category is "Current" for all countries except China and India. If at any point it appears that demand from �All Other Countries� would utilize all available numbers, then an adjustment would be made to the China/India cut-off date. Therefore, providing the unused numbers to China and India in no way disadvantages applicants from any other country, and helps to insure that the worldwide annual limit can be reached.
Here's your link
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4252.html
Look at Section E. I have also pasted the text below.
E. EMPLOYMENT SECOND PREFERENCE VISA AVAILABILITY
There have been questions raised regarding the way numbers have been provided to the China and India in the Employment Second preference categories beginning in April. Section 202(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act states that if total demand for visas in an Employment preference category is insufficient to use all available visa numbers in that category in a calendar quarter, then the unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limit. (For example: If the second preference annual limit were 40,000, number use by �All Other Countries� were estimated to be only 25,000, and the China/India combined number use based on their per-country limits were 6,000, then there would be 9,000 numbers unused. Those 9,000 numbers could then be made available to China and India applicants without regard to their per-country limits.)
Based on the informaiton available, it was been determined that the demand from �All Other Countries� for Second preference numbers, plus the amount of numbers available under China and India Second preference per-country limit, would be insufficient to utilize all available numbers under the annual limit for this category. Therefore, pursuant to Section 202(a)(5) of the Act, the unused numbers have been made available to China and India Second preference applicants. Since Section 203(e)(1) of the Act requires that such unused numbers be made available strictly in priority date order, the China and India applicants have been subject to the identical cut-off date. As there are more Employment Second preference applicants from India and the Indian applicants may have earlier priority dates, it is likely that Indian applicants will receive a larger portion of the available numbers than Chinese applicants.
It should be noted that the Employment Second preference category is "Current" for all countries except China and India. If at any point it appears that demand from �All Other Countries� would utilize all available numbers, then an adjustment would be made to the China/India cut-off date. Therefore, providing the unused numbers to China and India in no way disadvantages applicants from any other country, and helps to insure that the worldwide annual limit can be reached.
ghost
08-12 07:30 AM
I feel frustrated at some peoples' unwillingness to admit that EB3 needs IV's help now more than ever. They are saying that nothing much can be done for EB3, as INS merely corrected its wrong interpretation in visa allocation
But, if we are all willing to put our hearts and minds to it we can surely come up with new ideas that will help our cause. Surely, laws are written so that justice can happen. So if justice is not happening, the law would have some answer, somewhere.
Let me put forward my idea.
The INA language says that until EB2 is not current, there will be no spillover to EB3. Agreed. But I would contend that this statement is on a year to year basis. That is, if in the year 2002 (for example) all EB2 has been satisfied, then the spillovers should go to year 2002 EB3.
Is this something IV can point out and fight for? Can EB3 members put their money and efforts in this direction? Let me know if this sounds worthwhile
Unsolicited advice - Let's put a small amount as a deposit before we begin these efforts - 6 USD per week for 6 months (signing up for 25 USD per month for 6 months)...I did it and took me 5 minutes, now I am more dedicated to this effort than ever before and am sure that this dedication will have a positive impact on our future efforts...thanks for reading!
But, if we are all willing to put our hearts and minds to it we can surely come up with new ideas that will help our cause. Surely, laws are written so that justice can happen. So if justice is not happening, the law would have some answer, somewhere.
Let me put forward my idea.
The INA language says that until EB2 is not current, there will be no spillover to EB3. Agreed. But I would contend that this statement is on a year to year basis. That is, if in the year 2002 (for example) all EB2 has been satisfied, then the spillovers should go to year 2002 EB3.
Is this something IV can point out and fight for? Can EB3 members put their money and efforts in this direction? Let me know if this sounds worthwhile
Unsolicited advice - Let's put a small amount as a deposit before we begin these efforts - 6 USD per week for 6 months (signing up for 25 USD per month for 6 months)...I did it and took me 5 minutes, now I am more dedicated to this effort than ever before and am sure that this dedication will have a positive impact on our future efforts...thanks for reading!
more...
feedfront
10-13 01:53 PM
Hi,
The response to my RFE reached USCIS on 10/12 at 9 am and I haven't got any online status update as of now - 10/13 1 pm EST. Should I be worried or does it generally take them some time to update their records. Just want to make sure that the RFE reached USCIS since the due date for RFE response is coming up soon.
Thanks.
If you have doc that response to RFE reached USCIS on time, then do not worry about it. It may take time to update record.
The response to my RFE reached USCIS on 10/12 at 9 am and I haven't got any online status update as of now - 10/13 1 pm EST. Should I be worried or does it generally take them some time to update their records. Just want to make sure that the RFE reached USCIS since the due date for RFE response is coming up soon.
Thanks.
If you have doc that response to RFE reached USCIS on time, then do not worry about it. It may take time to update record.
2010 love quotes for a oyfriend. Love Quotes For Your Boyfriend
GC_ki_daud
10-16 09:55 AM
At the risk of sounding Naive.....Want to clarify...:confused:
Who and how do we get the letter notarized .
Does the letter need to have any of our personal case details i.e reciept number etc.
Who and how do we get the letter notarized .
Does the letter need to have any of our personal case details i.e reciept number etc.
more...
alias
09-10 01:25 PM
Would the Sys Admin know if you've done that? :D
Nope, you are simply transporting RTSP video data on port 80, to them it should be like any other web traffic.
Nope, you are simply transporting RTSP video data on port 80, to them it should be like any other web traffic.
hair 2010 Sweet Love Quotes For Your Boyfriend. sweet love happy birthday
logiclife
12-21 10:28 PM
You should've thought about this that whole year that you were goofin' off! Why are you bringing this up at this late juncture, anyway? Your PD is Dec, 2004. What makes you your petition will trigger an RFE for not working during 2001? You raise a very perplexing and contradicting query...
Hey, take it easy big guy/gal.
You are acting as if instead of being gainfully employed, he was sitting around and playing golf or something and that put him out of status.
Go easy on the judging part, coz you could be goofing off for a while too and if you are goofing off for a while, its not like after a week of goofing off, you are going to throw in the towel and take the next plane back home. In a country that has employed and harbored 11 million illegals, who dont even have a passport, those who are legally present and 'goofing off' for a while between 2 legitimate jobs that require excrutiating process of h1 sponsorship are the least of anyone's problems. In fact, the section 245(k) says that it is OK to goof off as long as goofing off is less than 180 days. And if the goofing off was before your last entry into usa, it doesnt even matter, regardless of whether it was less than 180 or more than 180 days. If US CONGRESS legitimizes, who are you to be the bigger judge.
IF the economy tanks, then a lot of us will be 'goofing off' in 2008 and 2009.
When someone is 'goofing off', that someone is concerned about paying the rent, managing to buy groceries and borrowing money off of credit cards to pay the bill, and during the 'goofing off' people dont sit by on a bench and think..."hmm...what will happen when I file my 485 and will this 'goofing off' hurt me at the time".
Hey, take it easy big guy/gal.
You are acting as if instead of being gainfully employed, he was sitting around and playing golf or something and that put him out of status.
Go easy on the judging part, coz you could be goofing off for a while too and if you are goofing off for a while, its not like after a week of goofing off, you are going to throw in the towel and take the next plane back home. In a country that has employed and harbored 11 million illegals, who dont even have a passport, those who are legally present and 'goofing off' for a while between 2 legitimate jobs that require excrutiating process of h1 sponsorship are the least of anyone's problems. In fact, the section 245(k) says that it is OK to goof off as long as goofing off is less than 180 days. And if the goofing off was before your last entry into usa, it doesnt even matter, regardless of whether it was less than 180 or more than 180 days. If US CONGRESS legitimizes, who are you to be the bigger judge.
IF the economy tanks, then a lot of us will be 'goofing off' in 2008 and 2009.
When someone is 'goofing off', that someone is concerned about paying the rent, managing to buy groceries and borrowing money off of credit cards to pay the bill, and during the 'goofing off' people dont sit by on a bench and think..."hmm...what will happen when I file my 485 and will this 'goofing off' hurt me at the time".
more...
imh1b
03-12 02:47 PM
Kumar123 is either a woman in late 30s not able to get married and thus so bitchy. Or a man who is frustrated in life, dominated by his woman and so taking it out on IV.:D:D
Chill man. !
At least you are EB2. Think about people in EB3.
Chill man. !
At least you are EB2. Think about people in EB3.
hot happy birthday quotes for oyfriend. Happy Birthday Boyfriend Card
pmb76
03-18 04:58 PM
Link is here: http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4285&page=26
Ron Gotcher said on his reply to some readers questions:
The mystery is solved. I have corresponded with Charlie Oppenheim in the Visa Office. He confirmed that the 27% limit does apply. He explained that during this fiscal year, the CIS consumed an unusually large number of Indian EB2 visas, thus making the category unavailable despite a retrogression in the cuoff date which was intended to hold number use within the limit.
He said that based on his discussions with the CIS, he was informed that the CIS did not feel that the current amount of pending Indian first preference demand would be insufficient to use all available numbers under the limit. Therefore, he allowed some of those numbers to fall down into Indian second preference.
So, the Indian second preference numbers used to establish a cutoff date for April are coming from left over Indian first preference, not worldwide numbers.
__________________
Your statement about 27% limit holding does not make sense ! As per the visa bulletin if numbers are not filled up in a particular category they will go to unsubscribed countries. Here is the excerpt from the April Visa bulletin:
D. INDIA EMPLOYMENT SECOND PREFERENCE VISA AVAILABILITY
Section 202(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides that if total demand will be insufficient to use all available numbers in a particular Employment preference category in a calendar quarter, then the unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual �per-country� limit. It has been determined that based on the current level of demand being received, primarily by Citizenship and Immigration Services Offices, there would be otherwise unused numbers in the Employment Second preference category. As a result, numbers have once again become available to the India Employment Second preference category. The rate of number use in the Employment Second preference category will continue to be monitored, and it may be necessary to make adjustments should the level of demand increase substantially.
Ron Gotcher said on his reply to some readers questions:
The mystery is solved. I have corresponded with Charlie Oppenheim in the Visa Office. He confirmed that the 27% limit does apply. He explained that during this fiscal year, the CIS consumed an unusually large number of Indian EB2 visas, thus making the category unavailable despite a retrogression in the cuoff date which was intended to hold number use within the limit.
He said that based on his discussions with the CIS, he was informed that the CIS did not feel that the current amount of pending Indian first preference demand would be insufficient to use all available numbers under the limit. Therefore, he allowed some of those numbers to fall down into Indian second preference.
So, the Indian second preference numbers used to establish a cutoff date for April are coming from left over Indian first preference, not worldwide numbers.
__________________
Your statement about 27% limit holding does not make sense ! As per the visa bulletin if numbers are not filled up in a particular category they will go to unsubscribed countries. Here is the excerpt from the April Visa bulletin:
D. INDIA EMPLOYMENT SECOND PREFERENCE VISA AVAILABILITY
Section 202(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides that if total demand will be insufficient to use all available numbers in a particular Employment preference category in a calendar quarter, then the unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual �per-country� limit. It has been determined that based on the current level of demand being received, primarily by Citizenship and Immigration Services Offices, there would be otherwise unused numbers in the Employment Second preference category. As a result, numbers have once again become available to the India Employment Second preference category. The rate of number use in the Employment Second preference category will continue to be monitored, and it may be necessary to make adjustments should the level of demand increase substantially.
more...
house emo love poems for a oyfriend
signifer123
02-16 01:02 PM
Lol only one person i know of said they were giving up man, i just have to replan my look for mine
tattoo Happy Birthday Quotes For Your
nk2006
04-03 05:56 PM
?? A new bill in senate to reform H1B ???
I was just watching LuDobb's show on CNN and saw a clip on a proposed bill (being prepared by Sen.Durbin and another whose name I forgot) to revamp/reform H1B program. From the brief discussion, got the impression that the bill is more concentrated on controlling the h1B program with more checks and rules etc. Obviously Dobbs liked it - not sure if there are any other measures in that bill. Also not sure why another bill if CIR/STRIVE act is in works which is supposed to cover all immigration issues. Anyone else saw any related news elsewhere?
Also saw this article (sorry if its already discussed somewhere):
http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/04/03/HNsenateh1bbill_1.html
I was just watching LuDobb's show on CNN and saw a clip on a proposed bill (being prepared by Sen.Durbin and another whose name I forgot) to revamp/reform H1B program. From the brief discussion, got the impression that the bill is more concentrated on controlling the h1B program with more checks and rules etc. Obviously Dobbs liked it - not sure if there are any other measures in that bill. Also not sure why another bill if CIR/STRIVE act is in works which is supposed to cover all immigration issues. Anyone else saw any related news elsewhere?
Also saw this article (sorry if its already discussed somewhere):
http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/04/03/HNsenateh1bbill_1.html
more...
pictures irthday quotes for a
boreal
08-22 01:36 AM
I am not sure why you guys are so harsh when someone is asking for guidance and help. If you have lot of time please go after the antis...there are lot of websites to rant your farustartion. If you can not give any useful information...please refrain from posting. It just gives very bad light.
Advising someone who is clearly illegal and to top it, feels entitled to a Green card, you guys are giving quite a lot of fodder to the same antis...so please stop this as well!
Advising someone who is clearly illegal and to top it, feels entitled to a Green card, you guys are giving quite a lot of fodder to the same antis...so please stop this as well!
dresses cute irthday quotes for
stldude
07-11 02:23 PM
PD is May 2003, I-140 allready approved
485 sent on July 02 ( missed the boat by a day).
485 sent on July 02 ( missed the boat by a day).
more...
makeup cute irthday quotes for
eb3retro
03-10 01:40 AM
I am a july 2nd filer and have changed job 2 times in the past one month and I have no intention to let know USCIS because
a) There is no mandatory law that states that we should do it.
b) I personally feel that sending AC21 documents will trigger an RFE for sure,(in the other case, there are chances that u may not get this).
c) Lawyer is asking for $1500 for doing nothing on this.
d) I am prepared to deal with the RFE if it comes thru.
All of the above I did for changing my 7 year old employer who exactly knew that I cannot change job and kept me in the same position for 7 years even though I was exemplary in my job performance.
a) There is no mandatory law that states that we should do it.
b) I personally feel that sending AC21 documents will trigger an RFE for sure,(in the other case, there are chances that u may not get this).
c) Lawyer is asking for $1500 for doing nothing on this.
d) I am prepared to deal with the RFE if it comes thru.
All of the above I did for changing my 7 year old employer who exactly knew that I cannot change job and kept me in the same position for 7 years even though I was exemplary in my job performance.
girlfriend Cute Birthday Quotes For
hara_patta_for_rico
07-09 07:05 PM
I came across this law about the departmental control of numerical limitations, and I'd appreciate it if you all could post your interpretations of the same.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
Clause B is not the only thing. In any quarter they are not supposed to issue any more than 27% of 140,000(100%) = 37800. according to Clause A. After June 15th they issued 140,000 - 66000 = 74000. What about the last quarter quota of 37800? Where did it go? It was not supposed to be used before July.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
Clause B is not the only thing. In any quarter they are not supposed to issue any more than 27% of 140,000(100%) = 37800. according to Clause A. After June 15th they issued 140,000 - 66000 = 74000. What about the last quarter quota of 37800? Where did it go? It was not supposed to be used before July.
hairstyles HAPPY BIRTHDAY BOYFRIEND
gc_on_demand
02-12 02:47 PM
Waste of time : So many people and so many minutes.
Waste of space on site : IV lost some space because of this thread.
Marketing gain : That immi business So many people visited their site when they came on IV and saw this sizzling thread about visa wastage.
Decide yourself who won and who lost...
Waste of space on site : IV lost some space because of this thread.
Marketing gain : That immi business So many people visited their site when they came on IV and saw this sizzling thread about visa wastage.
Decide yourself who won and who lost...
nandakumar
10-22 05:37 PM
I faxed the FOIA request.
desi3933
03-11 11:49 AM
Don't put words in my mouth.
Now you want me to give you reply which you will understand. The SledgeHammer or Mirage way. About the link, read from the top don't just read one post.
>> Now you want me to give you reply which you will understand.
[COLOR=Black]
Thanks for using such "polite" language.
------------------------------------------------------
I think it is in our interest to punish the first insult; because an insult unpunished is the parent of many others. -- Thomas Jefferson to John Jay, 1785
Now you want me to give you reply which you will understand. The SledgeHammer or Mirage way. About the link, read from the top don't just read one post.
>> Now you want me to give you reply which you will understand.
[COLOR=Black]
Thanks for using such "polite" language.
------------------------------------------------------
I think it is in our interest to punish the first insult; because an insult unpunished is the parent of many others. -- Thomas Jefferson to John Jay, 1785
0 comments:
Post a Comment