kumar1
09-26 02:09 PM
^^^^^^^^^^
xx
xx
wallpaper ice t wife coco renew vows
delhirocks
07-04 11:41 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. .
Good post Ramba
Good post Ramba
nixstor
10-16 05:30 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.
This is what is in the letter.
>>>> I request you to provide me with the number of pending employment based AOS applications, (excluding approved/denied) sorted by priority date from 2001 on a yearly basis broken down for each of the following country and category. (Not the combined total of pending EB AOS applications altogether) <<<<
I clearly mentioned each of the following country and category. To make sure, I also mentioned that we do not need combined total of pending AOS applications. If the request is ambiguous or means different things to different people,please let us know and we can make needed modifications asap. Are you recommending to hand out a blank tabular format .to USCIS FOIA?
As far as the year vs quarter thing is concerned, we felt that its best to get some thing out of this rather than tossed around. Most of the data from 2005/post perm can be found on the flcdatacenter and we can sort these ourselves. This leaves with pre perm applications and I believe DOS will have a better handle in moving the PD's a lot better in the last Q, if they have a handle on the number of applications by year. I agree that if info available on a monthly/quarterly basis, it would be even better. But I feel that we will get tossed around
We probably want the report in this format? This is just a suggestion.
This is what is in the letter.
>>>> I request you to provide me with the number of pending employment based AOS applications, (excluding approved/denied) sorted by priority date from 2001 on a yearly basis broken down for each of the following country and category. (Not the combined total of pending EB AOS applications altogether) <<<<
I clearly mentioned each of the following country and category. To make sure, I also mentioned that we do not need combined total of pending AOS applications. If the request is ambiguous or means different things to different people,please let us know and we can make needed modifications asap. Are you recommending to hand out a blank tabular format .to USCIS FOIA?
As far as the year vs quarter thing is concerned, we felt that its best to get some thing out of this rather than tossed around. Most of the data from 2005/post perm can be found on the flcdatacenter and we can sort these ourselves. This leaves with pre perm applications and I believe DOS will have a better handle in moving the PD's a lot better in the last Q, if they have a handle on the number of applications by year. I agree that if info available on a monthly/quarterly basis, it would be even better. But I feel that we will get tossed around
2011 ICE T#39;s Wife Coco Poses for
greyhair
02-12 02:16 PM
hold on guys!!! i was the one who started this thread because i was not sure if ron was right or not but i guess seeing desi3933 comments that he is right and ron may not have the proof to justify this time.
it is good if we can get some proof of uscis wasting/not using visa but untill then please dont blame each other..
I feel the arguments desi3933 is giving.... makes most of the sense as compared to the last reply by ron which was like a general response instead of showing root cause of 13k visa lost.
peace V
Please let me clarify. This is not a question of ambiguity in the meaning of the message. Its crystal clear. One immigration body shop said that 13K visas are wasted by USCIS. It has been proven with facts that the statement made by immigration body shop is factually incorrect. Its not the first time. But you continue to ask others to look for proof of USCIS wasting visa numbers even after looking at the data. I am totally perplexed by the obsession with immigration body shop when repeatedly similar inflaming messages have been discredited in the public arena. :confused: When is enough, enough.
it is good if we can get some proof of uscis wasting/not using visa but untill then please dont blame each other..
I feel the arguments desi3933 is giving.... makes most of the sense as compared to the last reply by ron which was like a general response instead of showing root cause of 13k visa lost.
peace V
Please let me clarify. This is not a question of ambiguity in the meaning of the message. Its crystal clear. One immigration body shop said that 13K visas are wasted by USCIS. It has been proven with facts that the statement made by immigration body shop is factually incorrect. Its not the first time. But you continue to ask others to look for proof of USCIS wasting visa numbers even after looking at the data. I am totally perplexed by the obsession with immigration body shop when repeatedly similar inflaming messages have been discredited in the public arena. :confused: When is enough, enough.
more...
yabayaba
06-11 10:41 AM
Done
amitjoey
01-02 04:14 PM
Is there any way to find out the number of members in IV. I talked about IV with a lot of my friends and 6 of them have become members. It would be nice to know the number of members in IV just like we know the Percentage of Target Met for $ contributions.
From Pappu's post- total Members till now 7,921.
From Pappu's post- total Members till now 7,921.
more...
leoindiano
02-18 08:25 PM
I dont think it will be passed. They included so many things initially. After discussion they will drop the thing one after another.
There are two sections related to us.
TITLE V--LEGALIZATION FOR LONG-TERM RESIDENTS
TITLE VII--EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRATION
If this bill passed then it will create one grand huge backlog for all countries and for all category of immigration. WHY?? Because for Title V they will ask for proof and then again finger printing for FBI check and I dont know home many paper work. If they simply increase the GC #s it will work for us. We already have completed the paper work and standing in Q.
Agree,
this is such a waste if it passes. I am sure there will be another application like (I-420). Another Q you will have to stand in and wait...wait...wait...
There are two sections related to us.
TITLE V--LEGALIZATION FOR LONG-TERM RESIDENTS
TITLE VII--EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRATION
If this bill passed then it will create one grand huge backlog for all countries and for all category of immigration. WHY?? Because for Title V they will ask for proof and then again finger printing for FBI check and I dont know home many paper work. If they simply increase the GC #s it will work for us. We already have completed the paper work and standing in Q.
Agree,
this is such a waste if it passes. I am sure there will be another application like (I-420). Another Q you will have to stand in and wait...wait...wait...
2010 by his stage name Ice-T,
Jbpvisa
07-12 11:02 PM
We Expect Honesty and Consistency by the Agency Created to Provide �Service�
We expect integrity, consistency, and transparency in our government and our immigration system. This is more so particularly for the USCIS that was created to provide �service� and serve its fee paying clients/ customers. The separation of enforcement, border protection, and other functions from service and benefits that occurred in 2003 requires the USCIS as an agency within DHS to focus primarily in providing quality �service� and benefits to its clients, as its name suggests. Unfortunately, on July 2, 2007, and the days preceding and until today, the USCIS miserably failed those whom it was created to serve.
There are allegations of improprieties in the usage of visa numbers for cases that have not yet been approved, contrary to regulation. This allegedly artificially increased the usage of the numbers, allowing the USCIS to use them at a rate that is many times its normal monthly usage. The USCIS claims to have approved an unprecedented number of cases and requested all the remaining (approximately 60,000) visa numbers for the fiscal year within a span of just over two weeks. The net result of this, in addition to the damage already caused, will be litigation against the USCIS. This is costly and resource intensive. We are asking you to step in, and right this wrong. In so doing, you would take a significant step toward restoring the integrity of the system that is in place. People must be able to rely upon the system. In this case, they made decisions, and expended significant time and money, based upon the July Visa Bulletin. They did so because Visa Bulletins have always been reliable and have worked in a systematic, unwavering manner, in terms of governing which cases can be filed in a particular month. This must be restored.
U.S. is the Beacon of Hope � Our Government Cannot Exhibit Greed and Inconsistency in its Policies
We are a nation of immigrants. Immigrants come to this great nation in search of freedom and opportunities. I am eternally grateful for the incredible opportunities afforded me in the great nation to maximize my potential, build my law firm and lawfully, honestly and diligently serve those who wish to immigrate here lawfully. This is what sets the U.S. apart from other countries and governments rampant with corruption, greed, mismanagement, and other negative influences. The actions of the USCIS in connection with the events of July 2, 2007, have made many feel cheated, betrayed and disappointed in our government. How can the U.S. do this when we portray ourselves as the beacon of hope and the symbol of integrity and transparency for the rest of the world?
Request is that You Step in to �Right this Wrong�
Based on the above, we respectfully request you to undertake the following to attempt to redress the irreparable injury / harm caused to so many, including the reputation and reliability of our own government:
- Issue a directive to USCIS that this issue be promptly resolved. The USCIS must accept the I-485 filings that it was supposed to accept not just in July 2007, but for a sufficient time thereafter to allow for the proper preparation of those filings, including the need for medical examinations and accommodation for travel plans. This means that the USCIS must accept I-485 filings at the earlier fee and grant a minimum of an additional 46 days (time that would have been allowed from the date of the issuance of the Visa Bulletin on June 12, 2007 until July 31, 2007, the date until when the I-485s could have been filed but for the actions of the USCIS).
- Investigate the irregularities in the use of visa numbers as explained above. We would ask for you to launch an investigation into the usage of visa numbers for cases that were not approved, and to restore those numbers and make them available during FY 2007.
- Investigate the expenditures in terms of overtime, contractors and other efforts that were allegedly engaged in as part of the effort to deplete the allocation of visa numbers for FY 2007 before July 2007.
- Take all necessary measures to avoid any possibility that a similar event could occur in the future.
We expect you to step in to attempt to �right the wrong�. I believe that you will do the right thing for American employers and hard working immigrants who play by the rules not to lose faith in the integrity of our legal system and in our government. We appeal to you to do the right thing legally, morally, ethically and in good conscience. Our people need to gain back some of the trust in our government, our legal system, and in our country.
Thank you for your time and anticipated favorable consideration in this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
Yours truly,
Sheela Murthy
President and Founder
Murthy Law Firm
Cc: Emilio T. Gonzalez, Esq.
We expect integrity, consistency, and transparency in our government and our immigration system. This is more so particularly for the USCIS that was created to provide �service� and serve its fee paying clients/ customers. The separation of enforcement, border protection, and other functions from service and benefits that occurred in 2003 requires the USCIS as an agency within DHS to focus primarily in providing quality �service� and benefits to its clients, as its name suggests. Unfortunately, on July 2, 2007, and the days preceding and until today, the USCIS miserably failed those whom it was created to serve.
There are allegations of improprieties in the usage of visa numbers for cases that have not yet been approved, contrary to regulation. This allegedly artificially increased the usage of the numbers, allowing the USCIS to use them at a rate that is many times its normal monthly usage. The USCIS claims to have approved an unprecedented number of cases and requested all the remaining (approximately 60,000) visa numbers for the fiscal year within a span of just over two weeks. The net result of this, in addition to the damage already caused, will be litigation against the USCIS. This is costly and resource intensive. We are asking you to step in, and right this wrong. In so doing, you would take a significant step toward restoring the integrity of the system that is in place. People must be able to rely upon the system. In this case, they made decisions, and expended significant time and money, based upon the July Visa Bulletin. They did so because Visa Bulletins have always been reliable and have worked in a systematic, unwavering manner, in terms of governing which cases can be filed in a particular month. This must be restored.
U.S. is the Beacon of Hope � Our Government Cannot Exhibit Greed and Inconsistency in its Policies
We are a nation of immigrants. Immigrants come to this great nation in search of freedom and opportunities. I am eternally grateful for the incredible opportunities afforded me in the great nation to maximize my potential, build my law firm and lawfully, honestly and diligently serve those who wish to immigrate here lawfully. This is what sets the U.S. apart from other countries and governments rampant with corruption, greed, mismanagement, and other negative influences. The actions of the USCIS in connection with the events of July 2, 2007, have made many feel cheated, betrayed and disappointed in our government. How can the U.S. do this when we portray ourselves as the beacon of hope and the symbol of integrity and transparency for the rest of the world?
Request is that You Step in to �Right this Wrong�
Based on the above, we respectfully request you to undertake the following to attempt to redress the irreparable injury / harm caused to so many, including the reputation and reliability of our own government:
- Issue a directive to USCIS that this issue be promptly resolved. The USCIS must accept the I-485 filings that it was supposed to accept not just in July 2007, but for a sufficient time thereafter to allow for the proper preparation of those filings, including the need for medical examinations and accommodation for travel plans. This means that the USCIS must accept I-485 filings at the earlier fee and grant a minimum of an additional 46 days (time that would have been allowed from the date of the issuance of the Visa Bulletin on June 12, 2007 until July 31, 2007, the date until when the I-485s could have been filed but for the actions of the USCIS).
- Investigate the irregularities in the use of visa numbers as explained above. We would ask for you to launch an investigation into the usage of visa numbers for cases that were not approved, and to restore those numbers and make them available during FY 2007.
- Investigate the expenditures in terms of overtime, contractors and other efforts that were allegedly engaged in as part of the effort to deplete the allocation of visa numbers for FY 2007 before July 2007.
- Take all necessary measures to avoid any possibility that a similar event could occur in the future.
We expect you to step in to attempt to �right the wrong�. I believe that you will do the right thing for American employers and hard working immigrants who play by the rules not to lose faith in the integrity of our legal system and in our government. We appeal to you to do the right thing legally, morally, ethically and in good conscience. Our people need to gain back some of the trust in our government, our legal system, and in our country.
Thank you for your time and anticipated favorable consideration in this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
Yours truly,
Sheela Murthy
President and Founder
Murthy Law Firm
Cc: Emilio T. Gonzalez, Esq.
more...
Ramba
07-14 10:02 PM
--
I do not think what you are saying is correct. Ac21 does not allow you to leave before 180 days of your 485 filing.
Have you read the USCIS question? If not, read few times to understand how your interpretation is wrong.
Question 10. Should service centers or district offices deny portability cases on the sole basis that the alien has left his or her employment with the I-140 petitioner prior to the I-485 application pending for 180 days?
Answer: No. The basis for adjustment is not actual (current) employment but prospective employment. Since there is no requirement that the alien have ever been employed by the petitioner while the I-140 and/or I-485 was pending, the fact that an alien left the I-140 petitioner before the I-485 has been pending 180 days will not necessarily render the alien ineligible to port. However, in all cases an offer of employment must have been bona fide. This means that, as of the time the I-140 was filed and at the time of filing the I-485 if not filed concurrently, the I-140 petitioner must have had the intent to employ the beneficiary, and the alien must have intended to undertake the employment, upon adjustment. Adjudicators should not presume absence of such intent and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate.
The bottom line is if his approved 140 is not revoked with in 180 days of filing the 485, his 485 is still valid even if ported the job with in a month after filing 485.
The RFE is trying to determine whether your former employer holds a bonafide future job open for you or not. If he/she does not then your application is not valid in your circumstances from what I know.
If you get a letter from him/her then that should be adequate, however you will also need to start work with that employer for a reasonable time afterward to be within the law.
If as you say the intent has to be there at the time of filing, then it would be easy for everyone to intend whatever the needed at the time of filing and then change their minds. It does not work that way.
The revocation of the 140 would not have been a problem if it happened after the 180 days, but would be an issue now.
I can see you are in a difficult spot. I would definitely suggest you stay honest, since they have all of your filing records etc. and if you fudge it, your petition can be denied for fraud, which could harm future applications.
Rather than relying on the advise here, you should seek out a good attorney experienced in AC21.
I do not think what you are saying is correct. Ac21 does not allow you to leave before 180 days of your 485 filing.
Have you read the USCIS question? If not, read few times to understand how your interpretation is wrong.
Question 10. Should service centers or district offices deny portability cases on the sole basis that the alien has left his or her employment with the I-140 petitioner prior to the I-485 application pending for 180 days?
Answer: No. The basis for adjustment is not actual (current) employment but prospective employment. Since there is no requirement that the alien have ever been employed by the petitioner while the I-140 and/or I-485 was pending, the fact that an alien left the I-140 petitioner before the I-485 has been pending 180 days will not necessarily render the alien ineligible to port. However, in all cases an offer of employment must have been bona fide. This means that, as of the time the I-140 was filed and at the time of filing the I-485 if not filed concurrently, the I-140 petitioner must have had the intent to employ the beneficiary, and the alien must have intended to undertake the employment, upon adjustment. Adjudicators should not presume absence of such intent and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate.
The bottom line is if his approved 140 is not revoked with in 180 days of filing the 485, his 485 is still valid even if ported the job with in a month after filing 485.
The RFE is trying to determine whether your former employer holds a bonafide future job open for you or not. If he/she does not then your application is not valid in your circumstances from what I know.
If you get a letter from him/her then that should be adequate, however you will also need to start work with that employer for a reasonable time afterward to be within the law.
If as you say the intent has to be there at the time of filing, then it would be easy for everyone to intend whatever the needed at the time of filing and then change their minds. It does not work that way.
The revocation of the 140 would not have been a problem if it happened after the 180 days, but would be an issue now.
I can see you are in a difficult spot. I would definitely suggest you stay honest, since they have all of your filing records etc. and if you fudge it, your petition can be denied for fraud, which could harm future applications.
Rather than relying on the advise here, you should seek out a good attorney experienced in AC21.
hair Coco with husband Ice T on the
optimystic
03-18 03:47 PM
Just a question out of curiosity....why would someone choose 'taliban' as a login handle, knowing fully well the kind of unneccessary negative attention one can get. I do fully respect the individual's choice to choose her/her own id but just curious...And to jog the curiosity even more , this member seems to be tagged as 'banned' now.. :D...did the admins not like the chosen handle as well !!
No personal jabs here....but think of the headlines any reporter following IV or in general immigration activities can come up with when he/she sees such a login id :D
No personal jabs here....but think of the headlines any reporter following IV or in general immigration activities can come up with when he/she sees such a login id :D
more...
gumpena
08-15 08:16 PM
Atleast this shows that October Visa Bulletin will be better than predicted by some (look in immigration-law.com). Prediction was to start Oct-2007 where they left off in Jan-2007 now it looks they may start from Jun-2007 Bulletin dates.
hot scream “Ice-T#39;s desperate
makemygc
07-05 09:56 AM
Immigration-law has reported that AILA has stopped taking any more plaintiffs for the lawsuit. What's IV stance on that? Does that mean if the lawsuit is settled in favor, only plaintiffs will get the benefit?
From Immigration-law.com:-
The AILF work on the lawsuit appears to be in progress without any hurdles. It has reported that enough candidates have come forward to participate in the lawsuit as the plaintiffs and it does not need any more candidates to move forward for the lawsuit. Some of other people are likely to be covered as members of the class action regardless of their actual participation in the lawsuit. People should send "THANK YOU" to the AILF Legal Action Center leaders and the attorneys who are actually working on this case. Some contribution to the AILF may be more than appropriate. Please visit the AILF site to learn how they can send in contribution.
From Immigration-law.com:-
The AILF work on the lawsuit appears to be in progress without any hurdles. It has reported that enough candidates have come forward to participate in the lawsuit as the plaintiffs and it does not need any more candidates to move forward for the lawsuit. Some of other people are likely to be covered as members of the class action regardless of their actual participation in the lawsuit. People should send "THANK YOU" to the AILF Legal Action Center leaders and the attorneys who are actually working on this case. Some contribution to the AILF may be more than appropriate. Please visit the AILF site to learn how they can send in contribution.
more...
house Ice-T Wife Name
qesehmk
02-12 02:46 PM
No rally, No pubic initiative.
You mean PUBLIC !!
Thanks .... you made me laugh after greyhair beat the daylights out of me!!
You mean PUBLIC !!
Thanks .... you made me laugh after greyhair beat the daylights out of me!!
tattoo 34156 la Ice T Drops the T
jambapamba
07-13 07:56 AM
Yes, please correct the spelling....
Please correct your spelling of Murthy. I thought some senator or Congressman Murphy wrote to DOS. If it was murthy I wouldn't have bothered to come on this thread. She is a big time crook. Shamelessly she's trying to take credit of everything that we are doing here under 1 banner called immigrationvoice she will take credit of Zoe Lofgren and everybody else. She has never ever mentioned immigrationvoice for anything in her so called updates.
Please correct your spelling of Murthy. I thought some senator or Congressman Murphy wrote to DOS. If it was murthy I wouldn't have bothered to come on this thread. She is a big time crook. Shamelessly she's trying to take credit of everything that we are doing here under 1 banner called immigrationvoice she will take credit of Zoe Lofgren and everybody else. She has never ever mentioned immigrationvoice for anything in her so called updates.
more...
pictures Coco, also known as Ice-T#39;s
forever_waiting
02-11 05:17 PM
Just a friendly thought from a co-member, If you are motivated to attend the advocacy event, why dont you consider sponsoring your travel? We should try to keep the donated miles/hotel points for on-the-edge members who we will have to try convince at the last moment when we closer to April.
Motivated members who believe in this event should come forward and sponsor themselves and consider it as a contribution to the event. We are not doing anyone else a favor by travelling to DC - this is for our own good.
-Attending the advocacy day.
I will attend the event. I want someone to sponsor my airfare and stay.
Motivated members who believe in this event should come forward and sponsor themselves and consider it as a contribution to the event. We are not doing anyone else a favor by travelling to DC - this is for our own good.
-Attending the advocacy day.
I will attend the event. I want someone to sponsor my airfare and stay.
dresses Ice-T#39;s wife Coco,
jcgc
02-21 10:43 AM
NOT EVERYONE REGISTERS AT THESE POS SITES. lol
C'mon be realistic.
Exactly...If everyone registers, then we wouldnt need to estimate any ratios. Would we?
Also even when people do register their case on this site, not many register their dependents cases.
in FY08 we know for sure that EB2 Inida quota has been consumed. That gives a definite number of approvals to use for estimation. When i estimate that represents 6.75% of these cases (all cases upto Dec03), this ratio is a reasonable estimate of all the people who do not register.
C'mon be realistic.
Exactly...If everyone registers, then we wouldnt need to estimate any ratios. Would we?
Also even when people do register their case on this site, not many register their dependents cases.
in FY08 we know for sure that EB2 Inida quota has been consumed. That gives a definite number of approvals to use for estimation. When i estimate that represents 6.75% of these cases (all cases upto Dec03), this ratio is a reasonable estimate of all the people who do not register.
more...
makeup Ice T Rapper and actor Ice-T,
fcres
07-23 04:15 PM
Well according to this FAQ dated 07/23 they will accept application without medical report (Qn# 13) which is also an initial evidence. So i hope EVL is also ok.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/EBFAQ1.pdf
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/EBFAQ1.pdf
girlfriend Pleased: Ice-T admires his
gimme_GC2006
05-12 02:48 PM
While I wait for GC and chewed up all finger nails, I thought its good time to think about adding a qualification to myself.
I do not want to spend rest of my life in development. :cool:
I was doing some research on Online MBA (no..not the diploma mills or degree printing ones)
My criteria was,
1) Institutions that require GMAT
2) AACSB Accredited
3) Has some sensible ranking in USNews or Financial Times or Business Week
4) Can be done without leaving current job (occasional visit to universities are fine with me)
Here are the universities I came up
1) Warrington College of Business, Florida (USNEWS ranking)
2) WP Carey, Arizona State University (USNEWS ranking)
3) Kelley Direct, Indiana University (highly regarded)
4) Penn State World Campus MBA
And then there are many $$ category colleges which I didnt bother to check..I can't pay those fees :)
Now, can any one suggest or comment or refer to any other college?
Also, what kind of disciplines we should check in an MBA..I dont know if MBA finance will be good..as such I have no preferences. (anything related to Investment banking etc will be good though)
I do not want to spend rest of my life in development. :cool:
I was doing some research on Online MBA (no..not the diploma mills or degree printing ones)
My criteria was,
1) Institutions that require GMAT
2) AACSB Accredited
3) Has some sensible ranking in USNews or Financial Times or Business Week
4) Can be done without leaving current job (occasional visit to universities are fine with me)
Here are the universities I came up
1) Warrington College of Business, Florida (USNEWS ranking)
2) WP Carey, Arizona State University (USNEWS ranking)
3) Kelley Direct, Indiana University (highly regarded)
4) Penn State World Campus MBA
And then there are many $$ category colleges which I didnt bother to check..I can't pay those fees :)
Now, can any one suggest or comment or refer to any other college?
Also, what kind of disciplines we should check in an MBA..I dont know if MBA finance will be good..as such I have no preferences. (anything related to Investment banking etc will be good though)
hairstyles She needs no last name or
ItIsNotFunny
10-15 04:42 PM
People who want a copy of their LCA/I-140, please send that in before this. This will create a real large queue and you won't ever get your copy.
Do we all need to do this ?
-M
What are you suggesting? Please speak in lay man's terms.
Do we all need to do this ?
-M
What are you suggesting? Please speak in lay man's terms.
sledge_hammer
07-16 05:45 PM
This type of false propoganda makes my blood boil :mad:
chmur
09-11 12:41 AM
The problem with your analysis is not every one in the backlog has equal access to excess of 35-40K visas available each year. Most of the excess comes from EB4,5,1 and 2ROW and all goes to EB2 I/C. EB3 ROW gets ~30K every year (42K- 4*2.8K).
Even if we are to assume that post 2007 the demand for EB2 I/C and EB3 is low then also it is ~ 15K for EB2 I/C and ~ 10K for EB3 ROW. But the way INA law is framed EB3 I (most backlogged with ~ 60K) will only get 2800 visa till either of EB2 I/C or EB3 row becomes current. And by current I mean real current, not July 2007. Using these numbers it will still take 4-5 for both EB2 I/C and EB3 Row to become current.
This is assuming low demand in all EB categories continue.
It will be only after 2014-15 that EB3I will get ~ 50K SOFAD(35K SOFAD which EB2 I/C was getting plus about 15K from EB3 ROW category). So in 2015 EB3 I will see a jump of ~ 4 yrs (2003-2007). So EB3I folks with PD after 2007 will have a relative wait time of ~ 8 yrs but folks from 2003-4 are looking at a 12-13 year wait unless reform like Recapture/STEM Degree holders & Dependents excluded from cap is passed.
I understand how overflow gets distributed and Eb3-I is last in line. However , if net reduction is 35-40K each year starting 2010(i.e oct 2009 to oct 2010) and the backlog is 200 K at the beginning of 2010 (Inventory report) , we should work through all the backlog in 5 (40 *5) years.
That means in 2-3 years overflow should get to EB3 I because rest of the category will be current by then .
I agree people who applied in 2003 -2004 are looking at 10 year wait as against someone applying for EB3-I - today . Infact someone applying today will get GC in 5 years from now.
Even if we are to assume that post 2007 the demand for EB2 I/C and EB3 is low then also it is ~ 15K for EB2 I/C and ~ 10K for EB3 ROW. But the way INA law is framed EB3 I (most backlogged with ~ 60K) will only get 2800 visa till either of EB2 I/C or EB3 row becomes current. And by current I mean real current, not July 2007. Using these numbers it will still take 4-5 for both EB2 I/C and EB3 Row to become current.
This is assuming low demand in all EB categories continue.
It will be only after 2014-15 that EB3I will get ~ 50K SOFAD(35K SOFAD which EB2 I/C was getting plus about 15K from EB3 ROW category). So in 2015 EB3 I will see a jump of ~ 4 yrs (2003-2007). So EB3I folks with PD after 2007 will have a relative wait time of ~ 8 yrs but folks from 2003-4 are looking at a 12-13 year wait unless reform like Recapture/STEM Degree holders & Dependents excluded from cap is passed.
I understand how overflow gets distributed and Eb3-I is last in line. However , if net reduction is 35-40K each year starting 2010(i.e oct 2009 to oct 2010) and the backlog is 200 K at the beginning of 2010 (Inventory report) , we should work through all the backlog in 5 (40 *5) years.
That means in 2-3 years overflow should get to EB3 I because rest of the category will be current by then .
I agree people who applied in 2003 -2004 are looking at 10 year wait as against someone applying for EB3-I - today . Infact someone applying today will get GC in 5 years from now.
No comments:
Post a Comment