Ennada
12-10 09:11 AM
and EB2-India by a month; yaaaaay :)
Looking at the way they moved the dates last year, we can expect reasonable movements only in April VB. Strictly based on last year's trend, we could see dates reaching 2005 in April and possibly 2007 in August.
Looking at the way they moved the dates last year, we can expect reasonable movements only in April VB. Strictly based on last year's trend, we could see dates reaching 2005 in April and possibly 2007 in August.
wallpaper Haircuts for face shapes
njboy
09-26 11:49 AM
here we are busy trashing each other, while in the cnn artile, everyone has joined together and is bashing us...
http://fsbfeatures.blogs.fsb.com/2007/09/25/should-the-us-grant-more-h-1b-visas/#comments
I have not seen a single person say positive things about the h1-b program. Instead of infighting here, can we all go there and try to justify the need for skilled labor? Everyone seems to say..they should hire from US...but they forget that there is noone in US to hire. This one sided bashing by anti-immigrants/ racists will only damage our position.
http://fsbfeatures.blogs.fsb.com/2007/09/25/should-the-us-grant-more-h-1b-visas/#comments
I have not seen a single person say positive things about the h1-b program. Instead of infighting here, can we all go there and try to justify the need for skilled labor? Everyone seems to say..they should hire from US...but they forget that there is noone in US to hire. This one sided bashing by anti-immigrants/ racists will only damage our position.
achu
06-10 05:53 PM
sent email. thanks.
2011 we are round face shapes start
aps
08-09 12:20 AM
:rolleyes:I mailed my I-485 application on July30 and it is delivered on next day.
My lawyer send me the I-485 froms before the july 30, 07 y revision and i used those forms for filing. But, FAQ3 released by uscis today states that we have to use the form version dated �7/30/07 Y�. . WHAT IS THIS? Do i have to resend the application again? More over i do not see difference between these two forms.
I have copied the question from faq3. It is the first question.
Q33: When filing an EB I-485 using the old fee, what version of the I-485 form do we use?
A33: The current I-485 form version dated �7/30/07 Y� should be used.
Please explain if you have any idea about this.
My lawyer send me the I-485 froms before the july 30, 07 y revision and i used those forms for filing. But, FAQ3 released by uscis today states that we have to use the form version dated �7/30/07 Y�. . WHAT IS THIS? Do i have to resend the application again? More over i do not see difference between these two forms.
I have copied the question from faq3. It is the first question.
Q33: When filing an EB I-485 using the old fee, what version of the I-485 form do we use?
A33: The current I-485 form version dated �7/30/07 Y� should be used.
Please explain if you have any idea about this.
more...
CT_Green
12-27 09:03 AM
I have a home mortgage and also a 529 for my daughter. The H1 approval notice is good enough. I guess one just needs to look around for other options.
ita
09-10 12:33 PM
You can post. Just type the messages on the left hand side panel.
Got it. Thank you.
Got it. Thank you.
more...
chanduv23
05-26 04:40 PM
There is a rule that you are suppossed to carry your passport all the times if you are on a visa.
Border patrol has the right to ask you for documents.
Fines are like $100 or so - not quite sure.
I was once driving on Adirondocks and was stopped by the border patrol. I showed my dirver's license but they wanted to see the visa. We waited there for sometime as they validated us on their computer and then let us go - they were friendly and suggested that it is always good to carry documents.
Border patrol has the right to ask you for documents.
Fines are like $100 or so - not quite sure.
I was once driving on Adirondocks and was stopped by the border patrol. I showed my dirver's license but they wanted to see the visa. We waited there for sometime as they validated us on their computer and then let us go - they were friendly and suggested that it is always good to carry documents.
2010 face shapequot;, quot;turkish men
willIWill
11-11 06:01 PM
Questions about Quarterly Spill Over with respect to Yearly Country Limit.
Since we are on this Topic, Do any IV Users know or can point links to articles/statute for the following questions to gain a better understanding ?
- Is the ‘Yearly per Country Quota’ broken down and established for every Quarter? I.e. 1/4th of the 7% yearly limit
- So if assuming the quarterly Country quota holds and the USCIS does the spillover to the over subscribed countries in one quarter.
Then for the next quarter what numbers will they assess for the quota count? Is it just the standard quarterly limit or the ‘quarterly limit + the spill over that they did the previous quarter’? And what if that exceeds the 7% yearly limit and how will they proceed forward from there.
Thanks.
Since we are on this Topic, Do any IV Users know or can point links to articles/statute for the following questions to gain a better understanding ?
- Is the ‘Yearly per Country Quota’ broken down and established for every Quarter? I.e. 1/4th of the 7% yearly limit
- So if assuming the quarterly Country quota holds and the USCIS does the spillover to the over subscribed countries in one quarter.
Then for the next quarter what numbers will they assess for the quota count? Is it just the standard quarterly limit or the ‘quarterly limit + the spill over that they did the previous quarter’? And what if that exceeds the 7% yearly limit and how will they proceed forward from there.
Thanks.
more...
desi3933
03-10 01:43 PM
This is turning out to be TRUE.
Past week, I made this comment and some people made fun of it. But, it's turning out to be true. They are now fully focusing on EB3 and I think they will continue to do untill they finish all Eb3. Once they reached last quarter then they will make EB2-I/C current and distribute those spill-over visas across EB. They don't have to make EB3-ROW current to give some spill-over to EB3-I. What ever will be left at the end of quarter will be spilled across EB's.
I am expecting lot of REDs on this one.
Thanks,
MDix
>> Once they reached last quarter then they will make EB2-I/C current and distribute those spill-over visas across EB.
Would you mind explaining two "they" here? Whom you are referring to?
Hint: This is a trap question.
Past week, I made this comment and some people made fun of it. But, it's turning out to be true. They are now fully focusing on EB3 and I think they will continue to do untill they finish all Eb3. Once they reached last quarter then they will make EB2-I/C current and distribute those spill-over visas across EB. They don't have to make EB3-ROW current to give some spill-over to EB3-I. What ever will be left at the end of quarter will be spilled across EB's.
I am expecting lot of REDs on this one.
Thanks,
MDix
>> Once they reached last quarter then they will make EB2-I/C current and distribute those spill-over visas across EB.
Would you mind explaining two "they" here? Whom you are referring to?
Hint: This is a trap question.
hair Men#39;s hairstyles are simple
WillIWin?
07-24 12:24 PM
This is my law firm. Seems like they have submitted many applications (140 + 485 concurrently) WITHOUT the employment offer letter.
Anyone else with this firm ? Also I see that there are people who have already sent in their 485 applications. My 2 cents:
- Dont send in multiple 485s (with the same underlying I-140. Multiple 485s with multiple I-140s is fine). Higher chances of rejection than just a missing employment letter.
- If your lawyer is a relatively reputable firm, then chances are that they have done this in the past and have not had any issues. So chances are they know what they are doing.
Anyone else with this firm ? Also I see that there are people who have already sent in their 485 applications. My 2 cents:
- Dont send in multiple 485s (with the same underlying I-140. Multiple 485s with multiple I-140s is fine). Higher chances of rejection than just a missing employment letter.
- If your lawyer is a relatively reputable firm, then chances are that they have done this in the past and have not had any issues. So chances are they know what they are doing.
more...
yagw
07-13 12:03 PM
yikes !!! so looks like I have to wait then... anyways I was happy for a few moments till I saw this message :)
Sorry for bringing the bad news. You will be current in next bulletin so cheer up!!!
Sorry for bringing the bad news. You will be current in next bulletin so cheer up!!!
hot face shapequot;, quot;turkish men
acecupid
05-26 04:49 PM
While on the way back from White Mountains in NH, our car was stopped on I-93 south by the US border patrol. They were stopping every single vehicle to question. They had over a dozen Govt vehicles with 40-50 people in uniform. My buddy was driving.
Officer : Sir what is your status in the US ?
Buddy: I am on L1 visa
I: H1B
buddy's wife: L2
my wife: H4
officer: is anyone US citizen ?
I: my son is (he was sitting in the car seat)
Officer: (to my buddy) Is your visa still valid ?
Buddy: yes
officer: do you have documents to prove your status?
buddy: i have some papers in my bag which in the the trunk
officer: can you show me?
(buddy got out showed him tax papers and answered some questions)
officer: did they not tell you you are supposed to carry your papers while travelling?
buddy: I came over a year ago so i don't remember
officer: I am letting you go, but i could have fined you $2000; $500 for each pasenger with no papers.
I was so pissed off by this experience, clearly they are doing this to harrase immigrants. theoratically even if I am going for a walk i am supposed to carry immigration papers because a border patrol officer, in theory, could asks me for my papers ?
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/immigration_Border_flyer.pdf
I have decided that if anyone ask me such a stupid question again inside the US and i am just going to remain silent even if that means they detain me for some time.
I think they let you off easy... sometimes they hassle immigrants a lot. I had one such experience close to the canadian border in northern minnesota. My friends and myself were asked to step out of the car at gun point and the whole car was searched inside out like a bomb squad. They detained us for 3 hrs since some of our papers were back in the hotel and couple of my friends had left their papers back home in wisconsin. They escorted us to the hotel, me driving the car and my friends locked up in the border security vehicle behind me. They checked my passport at the hotel and let my friends off with a strict warning.
Officer : Sir what is your status in the US ?
Buddy: I am on L1 visa
I: H1B
buddy's wife: L2
my wife: H4
officer: is anyone US citizen ?
I: my son is (he was sitting in the car seat)
Officer: (to my buddy) Is your visa still valid ?
Buddy: yes
officer: do you have documents to prove your status?
buddy: i have some papers in my bag which in the the trunk
officer: can you show me?
(buddy got out showed him tax papers and answered some questions)
officer: did they not tell you you are supposed to carry your papers while travelling?
buddy: I came over a year ago so i don't remember
officer: I am letting you go, but i could have fined you $2000; $500 for each pasenger with no papers.
I was so pissed off by this experience, clearly they are doing this to harrase immigrants. theoratically even if I am going for a walk i am supposed to carry immigration papers because a border patrol officer, in theory, could asks me for my papers ?
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/immigration_Border_flyer.pdf
I have decided that if anyone ask me such a stupid question again inside the US and i am just going to remain silent even if that means they detain me for some time.
I think they let you off easy... sometimes they hassle immigrants a lot. I had one such experience close to the canadian border in northern minnesota. My friends and myself were asked to step out of the car at gun point and the whole car was searched inside out like a bomb squad. They detained us for 3 hrs since some of our papers were back in the hotel and couple of my friends had left their papers back home in wisconsin. They escorted us to the hotel, me driving the car and my friends locked up in the border security vehicle behind me. They checked my passport at the hotel and let my friends off with a strict warning.
more...
house hairstyles face shape
Canuck
02-14 08:10 PM
This is the exact reason why USCIS has a country quota system ensuring ROW folks do not have to compete with OVERSUBSCRIBED countries.
What WILL NOT happen? - Removal of per country quota for EB Visas!!
Why are you in favour of per country quotas, having been born in an oversubscribed country? Are you a glutton for punishment? Do you enjoy waiting 6 years more than an equally qualified counterpart from another country who moves onto bigger and better jobs while you rot in the same position and pay grade for years?
Per country rationing is discriminatory for EB migration. The best jobs should go to the best people, regardless of national origin, race, or religion - this basic principle is enshrined in employment law, but when it comes to EB migration, it is disregarded! It is not about "giving everyone an equal chance" - this is not a charity, this is a business, and in business, only the best and the brightest get those jobs.
What WILL NOT happen? - Removal of per country quota for EB Visas!!
Why are you in favour of per country quotas, having been born in an oversubscribed country? Are you a glutton for punishment? Do you enjoy waiting 6 years more than an equally qualified counterpart from another country who moves onto bigger and better jobs while you rot in the same position and pay grade for years?
Per country rationing is discriminatory for EB migration. The best jobs should go to the best people, regardless of national origin, race, or religion - this basic principle is enshrined in employment law, but when it comes to EB migration, it is disregarded! It is not about "giving everyone an equal chance" - this is not a charity, this is a business, and in business, only the best and the brightest get those jobs.
tattoo 2010 est hairstyle for round
Lasantha
03-19 01:30 PM
Thanks for the info!!
I called USCIS this morning and the lady took 3 mnute to explain me why the delay was happening. She mentioned that they will conduct a sweep on Fri Apr 4th to determine the I-485 cases in light of new visa bulletin and that cases will be assigned to IOs by Mon Apr 14th.
Not that I believe on help desk type of info with their primary job is get the caller off the phone but I have to admit that she was polite.
I will call again on Apr 4th and keep the forum updated.
I called USCIS this morning and the lady took 3 mnute to explain me why the delay was happening. She mentioned that they will conduct a sweep on Fri Apr 4th to determine the I-485 cases in light of new visa bulletin and that cases will be assigned to IOs by Mon Apr 14th.
Not that I believe on help desk type of info with their primary job is get the caller off the phone but I have to admit that she was polite.
I will call again on Apr 4th and keep the forum updated.
more...
pictures Men#39;s hairstyles
nixstor
03-18 05:17 PM
I can use some help if I am missing some things here.
Snip from 202 a 5 (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid|SLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination|act202a&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1435)
(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.
Paragraph in the above corresond to each category. So paragraph 1 is EB1. Paragraph 2 is EB2 and so on. So the translation is what the VB exactly said.
What does 203 (b) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 say?
Define EB1-EB5 categories. Find it here (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/DocView/slbid/1/2/15?hilite=).
I posted the same Q on Ron Gotcher's forum this afternoon and my post did not go through to be moderated (I got the message that the post was submitted and will be posted after moderator approves it) or the mod chose not to post it.
Snip from 202 a 5 (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid|SLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination|act202a&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1435)
(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.
Paragraph in the above corresond to each category. So paragraph 1 is EB1. Paragraph 2 is EB2 and so on. So the translation is what the VB exactly said.
What does 203 (b) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 say?
Define EB1-EB5 categories. Find it here (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/DocView/slbid/1/2/15?hilite=).
I posted the same Q on Ron Gotcher's forum this afternoon and my post did not go through to be moderated (I got the message that the post was submitted and will be posted after moderator approves it) or the mod chose not to post it.
dresses Hairstyles for Oval Face Shape
nixstor
07-04 08:56 PM
Excellent analysis but it does have flaws
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.
We all understand this and what you are saying, But What is in law is more important than OB's recommendations. First of all the office of OB might not have recommended to pass on any name checks. It might have advised to some how expedite them. More over, I dont think that they take the annual report seriously. We know how many times DOS officials and USCIS officials testify before congress. Why don't they tell congress that in order to clear backlogs
a) They need FBI to expedite name checks (they might have testified about this)
b) They need to recapture visa numbers (AFAIK, they never did this because your case is not pending unless you filed for AOS/485. We are not a part of the back log)
Their biggest problem now is if all of us file for 485, we will continue to be the back log for ever on the back of USCIS for ages to come unless recapture occurs. What ever be the number 200K or 700K, they simply dont want it.
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.
I am sure you might have read this from murthy's website (http://www.murthy.com/news/n_dosebn.html) or not, but DOS/CA/VO officials shared this piece with them. As per the above article, final quarter quota should not open until Jul 2nd. I understand that agencies can implement and interpret certain stuff, but you cannot interpret and implement one thing on Jun 13th and another on Jul 2nd. If its written into law, that the quarterly allocation is a must, USCIS is in violation and DOS/CA/VO as well for not policing them of visa number usage.
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.
Understood, if they can clear 60K cases in 18 days, I doubt they will have any issues clearing them in 90 days. It goes back to the point of us becoming the biggest hump on USCIS
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.
I think we all agree that there was no need to make every category current given that we know how many will become eligible for 485 filing. How ever, The OB's office will be pretty pissed if they use him as the trump card. Also, I got the annual report from OB's office in email on Jun 12th 07. VB came out on 14th? What you are saying is USCIS has worked over night to analyze OB's report or they had access to OB's report 15-20 days ahead. Everything points to me that there was a lack of communication between the two agencies on an issue with huge stakes.
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.
We need to do both as the success is not guaranteed in either situation. I do not know if AILF will win the law suit. On the other side, Senators like Kennedy who control immigration issues will not give a damn in the current situation. If the issue gets to a point where USCIS & DOS officials testify before congress, the root problem will be solved. If we just win the lawsuit and get in, USCIS is only going to sulk us for 10 years in the name of security check.In the end, We should be able to portray the whole situation as if USCIS has been put in a ugly predicament to utilize visa numbers under the arcane laws. Bashing DOS & USCIS left and right now is not of any use in the long run.
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.
We all understand this and what you are saying, But What is in law is more important than OB's recommendations. First of all the office of OB might not have recommended to pass on any name checks. It might have advised to some how expedite them. More over, I dont think that they take the annual report seriously. We know how many times DOS officials and USCIS officials testify before congress. Why don't they tell congress that in order to clear backlogs
a) They need FBI to expedite name checks (they might have testified about this)
b) They need to recapture visa numbers (AFAIK, they never did this because your case is not pending unless you filed for AOS/485. We are not a part of the back log)
Their biggest problem now is if all of us file for 485, we will continue to be the back log for ever on the back of USCIS for ages to come unless recapture occurs. What ever be the number 200K or 700K, they simply dont want it.
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.
I am sure you might have read this from murthy's website (http://www.murthy.com/news/n_dosebn.html) or not, but DOS/CA/VO officials shared this piece with them. As per the above article, final quarter quota should not open until Jul 2nd. I understand that agencies can implement and interpret certain stuff, but you cannot interpret and implement one thing on Jun 13th and another on Jul 2nd. If its written into law, that the quarterly allocation is a must, USCIS is in violation and DOS/CA/VO as well for not policing them of visa number usage.
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.
Understood, if they can clear 60K cases in 18 days, I doubt they will have any issues clearing them in 90 days. It goes back to the point of us becoming the biggest hump on USCIS
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.
I think we all agree that there was no need to make every category current given that we know how many will become eligible for 485 filing. How ever, The OB's office will be pretty pissed if they use him as the trump card. Also, I got the annual report from OB's office in email on Jun 12th 07. VB came out on 14th? What you are saying is USCIS has worked over night to analyze OB's report or they had access to OB's report 15-20 days ahead. Everything points to me that there was a lack of communication between the two agencies on an issue with huge stakes.
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.
We need to do both as the success is not guaranteed in either situation. I do not know if AILF will win the law suit. On the other side, Senators like Kennedy who control immigration issues will not give a damn in the current situation. If the issue gets to a point where USCIS & DOS officials testify before congress, the root problem will be solved. If we just win the lawsuit and get in, USCIS is only going to sulk us for 10 years in the name of security check.In the end, We should be able to portray the whole situation as if USCIS has been put in a ugly predicament to utilize visa numbers under the arcane laws. Bashing DOS & USCIS left and right now is not of any use in the long run.
more...
makeup hair Round Face Shape
dagabaaj
09-28 04:39 PM
Politics is a dirty game and to win one must get hands into the mud to beat the heck out these guys. Durbin and Grassley are not the only ones. They are the most vocal ones. Why are we hurting? Because we have been silent for way too long. It is said that the crying baby gets the most milk. We do need to raise our voice. I think in another thread Mark pointed out that we can raise our voice but be civil about it and that is what differentiates us from the rest.
The point here is that, is the EU a greener pasture than the US?
IMHO, No. Language barrier is an issue. Newer countries that have been communist in the past are still struggling to keep up with their richer cousins. There are major racial differences since historically the countries have not been immigrant friendly. Econimically the gains are minimal.
The only plus is that one stands to grow with the growth of the countries themselves. On a personal level I think I missed th boat of growth in India and now it seems futile to attempt to jump ship which I have already done once by coming here.
The point here is that, is the EU a greener pasture than the US?
IMHO, No. Language barrier is an issue. Newer countries that have been communist in the past are still struggling to keep up with their richer cousins. There are major racial differences since historically the countries have not been immigrant friendly. Econimically the gains are minimal.
The only plus is that one stands to grow with the growth of the countries themselves. On a personal level I think I missed th boat of growth in India and now it seems futile to attempt to jump ship which I have already done once by coming here.
girlfriend long face shapes with Mens
cool_guy_onnet1
02-21 10:31 AM
From ,
1. In Fy08, there were 189 EB2 India approvals.
2. Assume annual quota for Eb2 India is X (Correct me if i'm wrong but i think this equates to 2800?)
3. So 189 approvals = 2800 actual approvals. A ratio of 6.75%.
Upto Dec31, 03, there are still about 330 or so pending Eb2 India cases. Using the 6.75% representation, it would mean that there are about 4900 Eb2 India cases pending.
NOT EVERYONE REGISTERS AT THESE POS SITES. lol
C'mon be realistic.
1. In Fy08, there were 189 EB2 India approvals.
2. Assume annual quota for Eb2 India is X (Correct me if i'm wrong but i think this equates to 2800?)
3. So 189 approvals = 2800 actual approvals. A ratio of 6.75%.
Upto Dec31, 03, there are still about 330 or so pending Eb2 India cases. Using the 6.75% representation, it would mean that there are about 4900 Eb2 India cases pending.
NOT EVERYONE REGISTERS AT THESE POS SITES. lol
C'mon be realistic.
hairstyles face shapes. A lot
gc28262
04-10 10:04 AM
The biggest surprise is EB3 Mexico. It just turned to U. How is that possible??
Can this happen to EB3-I India as well??
In April bulletin EB3 Mexico was at 01-JUL-02. Mexico used up all its quota and turned U. That means there were lot of applicants whose PD was before 01-JUL-02.
As for India EB3, same logic applies. Right now India EB3 is at 01-OCT-01. If there are enough people with PD before 01-OCT-01 to use up the quota, it can turn U in the next bulletin. Otherwise it could inch couple of weeks forward.
Can this happen to EB3-I India as well??
In April bulletin EB3 Mexico was at 01-JUL-02. Mexico used up all its quota and turned U. That means there were lot of applicants whose PD was before 01-JUL-02.
As for India EB3, same logic applies. Right now India EB3 is at 01-OCT-01. If there are enough people with PD before 01-OCT-01 to use up the quota, it can turn U in the next bulletin. Otherwise it could inch couple of weeks forward.
amsgc
03-16 04:51 PM
It is good to see a sensible post in a long time.
Last Nov. I had gone for my biometrics and met this Chinese guy whose EB2 PD was somewhere in Jun 06 (EB2 China at the time was Jan 06). He was very confident that he will be current in a few months, and just rejected my efforts to recruit him (for IV). Well, it is now a few months later and the EB2 China PD is Dec 03. Unfortunately, because of the arbitrary movement in the visa bulletin, many people seem to think that their PD will be current soon. The truth of the matter is that the number of people in line (w/ or w/o labor sub, pd porting etc) is just very large. So, even if your PD becomes current, there is a slim chance that it will be adjudicated, and you will get the visa number assigned to your case, before the dates fall back again. Only a handful of very lucky people will get the GC, but for the majority, the frustration will continue.
The only way is to lobby congress for increasing the 140k cap. If they are not willing, then recapture numbers, exempt dependents etc. If even that is not acceptable this year then atleast lobby for admin fixes in the IV agenda - such as 3 yr. ead/ap, ability to file when PD is not current, and relax the AC21 rule further regarding proof of a valid job offer at the time of adjudication.
most people who filed LC in 2004/2005 before PERM got approvals in 2006 and 2007 and have only got a chance to apply for 485 in July VB. There are 10s of thousands of such people with that LC and EB2-India. When was the opportunity to get approval?
without an administrative fix, and with the current levels of demand and supply I would say its NIL. It needs to be a mistake...
Also, with H1 quota possibly going up this year or next, expect even more demand, and the dates will probably not be current for atleast a decade. The demand is going to go up (more H1s filing for greencards) and supply remaining the same (140k + country-limits etc)
Last Nov. I had gone for my biometrics and met this Chinese guy whose EB2 PD was somewhere in Jun 06 (EB2 China at the time was Jan 06). He was very confident that he will be current in a few months, and just rejected my efforts to recruit him (for IV). Well, it is now a few months later and the EB2 China PD is Dec 03. Unfortunately, because of the arbitrary movement in the visa bulletin, many people seem to think that their PD will be current soon. The truth of the matter is that the number of people in line (w/ or w/o labor sub, pd porting etc) is just very large. So, even if your PD becomes current, there is a slim chance that it will be adjudicated, and you will get the visa number assigned to your case, before the dates fall back again. Only a handful of very lucky people will get the GC, but for the majority, the frustration will continue.
The only way is to lobby congress for increasing the 140k cap. If they are not willing, then recapture numbers, exempt dependents etc. If even that is not acceptable this year then atleast lobby for admin fixes in the IV agenda - such as 3 yr. ead/ap, ability to file when PD is not current, and relax the AC21 rule further regarding proof of a valid job offer at the time of adjudication.
most people who filed LC in 2004/2005 before PERM got approvals in 2006 and 2007 and have only got a chance to apply for 485 in July VB. There are 10s of thousands of such people with that LC and EB2-India. When was the opportunity to get approval?
without an administrative fix, and with the current levels of demand and supply I would say its NIL. It needs to be a mistake...
Also, with H1 quota possibly going up this year or next, expect even more demand, and the dates will probably not be current for atleast a decade. The demand is going to go up (more H1s filing for greencards) and supply remaining the same (140k + country-limits etc)
sashidhar_gundimeda
07-02 08:14 PM
Confirmation Number: 34850160M9463882Y.
Thanks and keep up the good work - Sashi
Thanks and keep up the good work - Sashi
No comments:
Post a Comment