zuhail
03-10 03:49 PM
Of all 4 the proposals made by vbkris77,
I would just stick with one and only one:
RE-CAPTURING VISA NUMBERS.
If we add any other item like re validating H1B inside US,accountability for USCIS etc, the message would bound to get lost. It will get bogged down by the details of implementing the other proposals. The devil is always in the details.
I think we need to stick to single target of visa re-capturing (with no mention of the word H1B in the legislation). There should be no crap about H1B workers stealing jobs nor granting pardon for illegals. Visa re-capture is for educated foreign-born professionals currently employed in US.
Many ask if this is the right time. When will be the right time?. Are we asking anything that has not been already granted by the law?. These past visa numbers have been already approved by the law but not used by the USCIS.
The time is RIGHT NOW.
It is interesting why IV team is not taking up this one item and start fund raising.
May be the team has some valid reasons for not doing so. I could only guess.
But waiting for the right time to take up this agenda of re-capturing visa numbers is not a valid reason. That is totally hopeless.
I would just stick with one and only one:
RE-CAPTURING VISA NUMBERS.
If we add any other item like re validating H1B inside US,accountability for USCIS etc, the message would bound to get lost. It will get bogged down by the details of implementing the other proposals. The devil is always in the details.
I think we need to stick to single target of visa re-capturing (with no mention of the word H1B in the legislation). There should be no crap about H1B workers stealing jobs nor granting pardon for illegals. Visa re-capture is for educated foreign-born professionals currently employed in US.
Many ask if this is the right time. When will be the right time?. Are we asking anything that has not been already granted by the law?. These past visa numbers have been already approved by the law but not used by the USCIS.
The time is RIGHT NOW.
It is interesting why IV team is not taking up this one item and start fund raising.
May be the team has some valid reasons for not doing so. I could only guess.
But waiting for the right time to take up this agenda of re-capturing visa numbers is not a valid reason. That is totally hopeless.
wallpaper sarah-michelle-gellar-maxim2.
pcs
07-02 07:42 PM
I put in $100 today to fight for our cause
venky08
08-15 04:27 PM
yes but they will start processing the applications based on the receipt dates. so if a guy applied last year, he gets priority over last month's people. (that is assuming that his priority dates were current last year from him to apply!)
also they will need to do fingerprinting etc. and shall pass the FBI check before they get to final stage of adjudication. that would take 6 more months. so they should look at the bulletin at that time to see if they are eligible. dont get excited about these dates - they are not that helpful for the last month filers.
What do these dates mean? If they are dates for who can apply in Sept, then all (those who could) have filed their AOS in July/August. Do they mean that in Sept 07 USCIS will be approving GC for those within these dates?
also they will need to do fingerprinting etc. and shall pass the FBI check before they get to final stage of adjudication. that would take 6 more months. so they should look at the bulletin at that time to see if they are eligible. dont get excited about these dates - they are not that helpful for the last month filers.
What do these dates mean? If they are dates for who can apply in Sept, then all (those who could) have filed their AOS in July/August. Do they mean that in Sept 07 USCIS will be approving GC for those within these dates?
2011 Sarah Michelle Gellar at quot;The
greencard_fever
07-28 05:08 PM
only a fool of the nth order can say that india will benefit from this nuclear treaty!
I am not saying that India will be benefit from with this N-deal. I was said if so then how? read it properly...by the way i don’t have any info on this deal and looks like you have more info. can you please tell me and other IV members who is not aware of this deal that how India will not get the benefit and how bad it will effect our great nations growing economy and Nuclear power?
I am not saying that India will be benefit from with this N-deal. I was said if so then how? read it properly...by the way i don’t have any info on this deal and looks like you have more info. can you please tell me and other IV members who is not aware of this deal that how India will not get the benefit and how bad it will effect our great nations growing economy and Nuclear power?
more...
coolmanasip
03-07 11:54 AM
Please read my scrap carefully.....I did say that you need a letter from the company stating that they will employ you on a full time permenant position upon receiving your green card!.....However, you do not need any other support like ability to pay, labor certifications, etc.
polapragada
02-18 07:37 PM
I hope it will become law...
But my mind says NO way!!!
But my mind says NO way!!!
more...
rpulipati
10-31 10:18 AM
This poll people are the most affected in the retrogression and I can see that 700 people has voted so far.
Official number may be much large, x2, x3 or x10.
Without no law change, we will be here for years to come.
Support IV.
Official number may be much large, x2, x3 or x10.
Without no law change, we will be here for years to come.
Support IV.
2010 vaseline-sarah-michelle-gellar
pappu
07-23 10:36 PM
May be I asked you same question before.
What is the best way to send to CIS when receipt notice is not received yet.
When you said reject, what do you mean?
Will CIS reject before issuing RN or after issuing RN?
- Which receipt notice? 140?
- I meant denial.
- After issuing RN and later during adjucation process.
What is the best way to send to CIS when receipt notice is not received yet.
When you said reject, what do you mean?
Will CIS reject before issuing RN or after issuing RN?
- Which receipt notice? 140?
- I meant denial.
- After issuing RN and later during adjucation process.
more...
desi3933
02-11 12:27 PM
Check this link
Report of the Visa Office 2009 Table of Contents (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/statistics/statistics_4594.html)
Point V and part 2
the numbers come around 137000 ( which is 3000 ) Short of 140,000 ( I think the actual number will be 140,000 + Spill over FB Visas from 2008 If any )
Thanks
Read again.
Point V and part 2 covers only eb1 thru eb4 only.
Employment based visa numbers 140,000 is for eb1 thru eb5.
As mentioned in my previous post in this thread, for FY2008 family based numbers are totally used, so there were no unused numbers for employment based FY2009 numbers.
______________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
Report of the Visa Office 2009 Table of Contents (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/statistics/statistics_4594.html)
Point V and part 2
the numbers come around 137000 ( which is 3000 ) Short of 140,000 ( I think the actual number will be 140,000 + Spill over FB Visas from 2008 If any )
Thanks
Read again.
Point V and part 2 covers only eb1 thru eb4 only.
Employment based visa numbers 140,000 is for eb1 thru eb5.
As mentioned in my previous post in this thread, for FY2008 family based numbers are totally used, so there were no unused numbers for employment based FY2009 numbers.
______________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
hair Sarah Michelle Gellar
harsh
12-12 02:05 PM
I agree. Who or which department of USCIS has the authority to decide they will disallow concurrent 140/485 filing? If that department has the authority to make such a decision they probably have the authority to
1. allow filing of 485 without visa number availability,
2. allow people to start their name check process once 140 is cleared while everyone is waiting for priority dates to become current.
There should be a way to find out who in USCIS comes up with these new rule suggestions. Where do all the proposed rule changes published? At the USCIS press release? May be the actual press release has some information. There has got be to a way to find out from either press department or someone who or what part of USCIS makes these suggestions and then may be we can make send them our auggestions.
1. allow filing of 485 without visa number availability,
2. allow people to start their name check process once 140 is cleared while everyone is waiting for priority dates to become current.
There should be a way to find out who in USCIS comes up with these new rule suggestions. Where do all the proposed rule changes published? At the USCIS press release? May be the actual press release has some information. There has got be to a way to find out from either press department or someone who or what part of USCIS makes these suggestions and then may be we can make send them our auggestions.
more...
abhijitp
07-25 05:25 PM
If you see the letter and spirit of clause in the said notification, an employment letter is not required and adjudicator has to send RFE if he feels required. File with latest paystubs. If RFE sent to you , then again file latest paystub to show that you was in employment with that employer from the date of filing 485 petition and for at least another 6-7 months further to that date.
Having looked at older posts (here or other threads) by Pappu and others, I think although adjudicator will usually send an RFE there is no guarantee it won't be outright rejected. Secondly, in which application form/ press release etc is ANYTHING AT ALL mentioned about paystubs? On the other hand, the I-485 applocation form instructions clearly say the employment letter is required.
Having looked at older posts (here or other threads) by Pappu and others, I think although adjudicator will usually send an RFE there is no guarantee it won't be outright rejected. Secondly, in which application form/ press release etc is ANYTHING AT ALL mentioned about paystubs? On the other hand, the I-485 applocation form instructions clearly say the employment letter is required.
hot sarah michelle gellar awards
desi chala usa
09-18 02:32 PM
Reading the posts about the economy has just shown me how ignorant many of the IV members are.
The economy is just going through it's ~10-year cycle. While it is a concern, it is NOT the end of the world. It just strenghtens USA's position in the world. Once again, it has proved that "if USA sneezes, the world catches the cold". The 10-years economic cycle follows a kind of Darwin's Law of the Fittest. The firms that are bubbled up get washed away, the economy cleans up and rebounds back. The 1990s saw it, the year ~2001 saw it with the dot.com burst and ~2009-2010 is seeing it with the mortgage burst.
While it is each one's perogative as to what you want to invest into (good time to buy stocks, or buy gold), another thing to understand is FDIC does NOT insure just 100K per account in each bank. There are multiple ways to increase this insurance to over $2 million in the same bank by opening different type of accounts or having different beneficiaries. Consult your bank for details.
No amount of govt. intervention can change the economy. It has it's own mind and will take it's own course.
There is no need to panic, pack and run.
Let the economy go through it's colon flush.
Please do not forget during 2001 - 2002 how many H1b friends packed and run away......Please think in terms of H1b people.....245(i) is saving you only up to 180 days.....if the person is crossing 180 days means he is all set for next 10 years to come back to U.S.A.
The economy is just going through it's ~10-year cycle. While it is a concern, it is NOT the end of the world. It just strenghtens USA's position in the world. Once again, it has proved that "if USA sneezes, the world catches the cold". The 10-years economic cycle follows a kind of Darwin's Law of the Fittest. The firms that are bubbled up get washed away, the economy cleans up and rebounds back. The 1990s saw it, the year ~2001 saw it with the dot.com burst and ~2009-2010 is seeing it with the mortgage burst.
While it is each one's perogative as to what you want to invest into (good time to buy stocks, or buy gold), another thing to understand is FDIC does NOT insure just 100K per account in each bank. There are multiple ways to increase this insurance to over $2 million in the same bank by opening different type of accounts or having different beneficiaries. Consult your bank for details.
No amount of govt. intervention can change the economy. It has it's own mind and will take it's own course.
There is no need to panic, pack and run.
Let the economy go through it's colon flush.
Please do not forget during 2001 - 2002 how many H1b friends packed and run away......Please think in terms of H1b people.....245(i) is saving you only up to 180 days.....if the person is crossing 180 days means he is all set for next 10 years to come back to U.S.A.
more...
house Sarah Michelle Gellar will
needhelp!
11-14 01:26 PM
Couple of days back I got the receipt. I'll post the number soon.
tattoo Sarah Michelle Gellar,
arunmohan
06-06 05:22 PM
Enjoy your green life. We don't know when we will see approval for EB3 India.
more...
pictures for Sarah Michelle Gellar,
thesparky007
02-17 06:15 PM
kirupa.com
uhhh, look at the post in the very first part of the thread i set up this (http://%0ahttp://www.gamedev.net/community/fo...topic_id=202348) link for a list of a bunch of 3d programs varying from free to over 5k
cool
thx man!
uhhh, look at the post in the very first part of the thread i set up this (http://%0ahttp://www.gamedev.net/community/fo...topic_id=202348) link for a list of a bunch of 3d programs varying from free to over 5k
cool
thx man!
dresses sarah michelle gellar maxim
ronhira
02-08 08:33 PM
Frankly I think that this lawyer is just posting provocative material to make himself popular. He has made many predictions and number of "useful" analysis in the past, most of which were found to be untrue. I used to read his posts until recently I figured out that the analysis was unreliable. This is just my opinion.
agree 100%
agree 100%
more...
makeup Sarah Michelle Gellar
immigrationsri
06-26 06:25 PM
Hi,
I am on H1B visa for the past 2.5 years and my current visa expires on 30th Sept 2010. When i approached my company for visa extension, i was told that based on management decision they are changing my visa from H1 to L1. I have a question on this one. If i proceed with this process and in the mean time i get a job offer from different company in US that is ready for H1 transfer and extension, Is it valid? Can i continue to work on my H1 for remaining years? If this is not a valid case and i need to continue with L1 only (with current employer), Will my number of years to work in US be reduced?
Please treat these questions as urgent ones and kindly reply.
Thanks in Advance.
Regards,
Sri
I am on H1B visa for the past 2.5 years and my current visa expires on 30th Sept 2010. When i approached my company for visa extension, i was told that based on management decision they are changing my visa from H1 to L1. I have a question on this one. If i proceed with this process and in the mean time i get a job offer from different company in US that is ready for H1 transfer and extension, Is it valid? Can i continue to work on my H1 for remaining years? If this is not a valid case and i need to continue with L1 only (with current employer), Will my number of years to work in US be reduced?
Please treat these questions as urgent ones and kindly reply.
Thanks in Advance.
Regards,
Sri
girlfriend Sarah Michelle Gellar
another one
07-16 05:29 PM
their Vancouver center to achievements of NumbersUSA and Lou Dobbs. We really need to let the world know that programmers guild, NuumbersUSA and Lou Dobbs has declared a war against middle class, and it will now lead to an impact on Seattle's economy. Heard that some people would be selling houses or drinking less coffee.
hairstyles 1999 sarah michelle gellar
deepimpact
09-11 01:39 PM
And one thing that has not got enough press here is , how the EB3-ROW has got significant overflow in the last two months though EB2- I/C are no where near current. Per common understanding , they should not get a single overflow till EB2 is current .
Street Justice ??
EB3-ROW Pending per Aug 2009 I-485 Inventory ~ 63K
The EB3-ROW Demand for October 2010 ~ 45K.
So actually backlog reduction for EB3 ROW has just been 18 K (much less than the 30K they should get). I don't see where you are seeing the overflow.
The total Pending in Aug 2009 was
EB2 ALL- 75K. EB3 all -151K . So total ~ 225K
The demand data today is EB2 = 34K(this is only I/C, no ROW demand)
Demand for EB3 = 136K.
So even though reduction in backlog is significant (225K- 170K =55K). It is not going to all categories evenly.
And unless USCIS comes up with a smarter way to determine demand data other than counting pending I-485, once this demand goes to zero they will have to advance EB2 I/C dates. Now they can be smart and advance it by 6 months to not open up floodgates and test the post 2007 demand, or just follow the rule blindly that supply > demand and the category is current. Either way, the law prevents any spillover from a category unless it is current and EB2 I/C is not getting current in 2-3 years.
I also want to believe like you that the hidden demand post 2007 for EB2I/C + EB3 ROW is as low as possible. And we won't know about the exact number till USCIS does a better job of reporting approved I-140 by country.
Street Justice ??
EB3-ROW Pending per Aug 2009 I-485 Inventory ~ 63K
The EB3-ROW Demand for October 2010 ~ 45K.
So actually backlog reduction for EB3 ROW has just been 18 K (much less than the 30K they should get). I don't see where you are seeing the overflow.
The total Pending in Aug 2009 was
EB2 ALL- 75K. EB3 all -151K . So total ~ 225K
The demand data today is EB2 = 34K(this is only I/C, no ROW demand)
Demand for EB3 = 136K.
So even though reduction in backlog is significant (225K- 170K =55K). It is not going to all categories evenly.
And unless USCIS comes up with a smarter way to determine demand data other than counting pending I-485, once this demand goes to zero they will have to advance EB2 I/C dates. Now they can be smart and advance it by 6 months to not open up floodgates and test the post 2007 demand, or just follow the rule blindly that supply > demand and the category is current. Either way, the law prevents any spillover from a category unless it is current and EB2 I/C is not getting current in 2-3 years.
I also want to believe like you that the hidden demand post 2007 for EB2I/C + EB3 ROW is as low as possible. And we won't know about the exact number till USCIS does a better job of reporting approved I-140 by country.
grinch
02-27 11:17 AM
eilsoe,
I'm wondering how you made that curved bench. My bench, is just like straight, like most are, but did you manually adjust the cv's into a curve, or is their a technique?
If you could explain, it'd help alot.
And could you guys reccomend some good (free) texture websites?
I'm wondering how you made that curved bench. My bench, is just like straight, like most are, but did you manually adjust the cv's into a curve, or is their a technique?
If you could explain, it'd help alot.
And could you guys reccomend some good (free) texture websites?
Ramba
07-09 07:44 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.
I feel that they did not violate any clause. Till June 30 which is end of third quarter, they are authorized to approve (3*27%*140K) 113,400. However they approved only 66,400 till May 31. That yields about 47,000 for June alone(10%+any number not used in previous months). The reamining visas are eligible for Jul 1, which is 13,000. Put together June and July1, it comes 60,000. Therefore they did not violate any law. This makes only 126,000. The remaining number was splitted for Consular processing.
my 2 cents...
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.
I feel that they did not violate any clause. Till June 30 which is end of third quarter, they are authorized to approve (3*27%*140K) 113,400. However they approved only 66,400 till May 31. That yields about 47,000 for June alone(10%+any number not used in previous months). The reamining visas are eligible for Jul 1, which is 13,000. Put together June and July1, it comes 60,000. Therefore they did not violate any law. This makes only 126,000. The remaining number was splitted for Consular processing.
my 2 cents...
No comments:
Post a Comment