nonimmi
02-21 01:52 PM
yes, you can unless your eb3 I140 has been revoked for fraud or misrepresentation of facts.
Good info.
My attorney said EB3->EB2 is not possible now. Can you please post some link for this and pm me some attorney you may know have done this before.
Good info.
My attorney said EB3->EB2 is not possible now. Can you please post some link for this and pm me some attorney you may know have done this before.
wallpaper Miami Heat wins the 2011 NBA
singhsa3
03-03 05:54 PM
Just sent a message to David Merkel, inviting him to view this thread david.merkel@gmail.com. Any one that can take our cause is relevan to us.
ajthakur
07-15 02:52 AM
I spoke with the immigration guy at my ex employers place. My 140 was indeed revoked. He doesnt know the date when it was revoked. He is certain the 140 sponsoring employer is willing to employ me. This means I can get an Employment Verification Letter from him.
Will this cause a concern with USCIS as
1. This company applies for 140
2. Revokes an approved 140 when employee quits
3. Is again willing to offer the job
Should I take AC21 route instead as I have an offer with the company B.
Will this cause a concern with USCIS as
1. This company applies for 140
2. Revokes an approved 140 when employee quits
3. Is again willing to offer the job
Should I take AC21 route instead as I have an offer with the company B.
2011 Chicago Bulls 1996 NBA Champs
pappu
03-10 04:11 PM
I think we should take visa re-capture as high priority once we clear FOIA issue. Whats your opinion?
We have already made it a priority. This funding drive is happening after many months. I do not recollect having an IV drive in a long time. Thanks for leading the thread and making members active.
We have already made it a priority. This funding drive is happening after many months. I do not recollect having an IV drive in a long time. Thanks for leading the thread and making members active.
more...
indianindian2006
04-23 06:34 PM
Congratulations Googler
gonecrazyonh4
03-20 12:36 AM
I am on H4 for the past 2years and this year I am trying to move to H1. The problem here is no big company responds to my resume.(Mine is not a cooked up resume. I have 6 years of experience and a lot of certifications). The only calls I get is from desi consulting firms. No US staffing firm nor BIG US firm sponsors H1s for first timers like me in US as we don't have US experience. They get their jobs done through consultants on Corp-Corp basis. Sometimes I am getting depressed seeing all this. May be I think I am forced now to go to a consulting firm to get my H1b because they are the only people who sponsor H1s in April to work in October which is 8 months from now. The system has to be revamped otherwise this system is going to exploit a lot of people like me. I cannot wait till we get a green card or work permit because it looks like it is a million years away from now. One thing I understood is that H4 dependents have no rights in this country and they talk about human rights violations elsewhere.
I agree with the points raised in the above post. If H4 dependents are given the right to work in this country things would be so much better and the wait for green card would not be so very tiresome. Not allowing H4's to work and making them completely dependent on H1B spouse is indeed a human right violation.As an H4 I have no identity in this country and the system makes me a complete dependent. (Please do not mail me back saying - If I am smart I can get an H1B, I am smart enough to work and contribute to this economy its just that my expertise may not fall under the tech/shortage skill category).
Employers are taking advantage of employees because the current immigration process supports such exploitation. This exploitation is prevalent among both with Indian and Non Indian Firms in different manner.
Also for whatever reason a number of people whose spouse is already working on H1B tends to discourage others from filing H1B for their H4spouses.I also see a similar trend where all those who has a green card wants the immigration law to be more ruthless to new GC applicants.If you look at the employment history of many among us you would find that they have come through the route of desi consulting firms fulling agreeing to the deal since they wanted the H1B at any cost.
I am not commending or supporting the Desi/other consulting firms or supporting the violation of law or ethics. Rather I want to point out that till the immigration process is revamped these practices will continue and each one of us has to take a route based on our individual circumstances.
I agree with the points raised in the above post. If H4 dependents are given the right to work in this country things would be so much better and the wait for green card would not be so very tiresome. Not allowing H4's to work and making them completely dependent on H1B spouse is indeed a human right violation.As an H4 I have no identity in this country and the system makes me a complete dependent. (Please do not mail me back saying - If I am smart I can get an H1B, I am smart enough to work and contribute to this economy its just that my expertise may not fall under the tech/shortage skill category).
Employers are taking advantage of employees because the current immigration process supports such exploitation. This exploitation is prevalent among both with Indian and Non Indian Firms in different manner.
Also for whatever reason a number of people whose spouse is already working on H1B tends to discourage others from filing H1B for their H4spouses.I also see a similar trend where all those who has a green card wants the immigration law to be more ruthless to new GC applicants.If you look at the employment history of many among us you would find that they have come through the route of desi consulting firms fulling agreeing to the deal since they wanted the H1B at any cost.
I am not commending or supporting the Desi/other consulting firms or supporting the violation of law or ethics. Rather I want to point out that till the immigration process is revamped these practices will continue and each one of us has to take a route based on our individual circumstances.
more...
yabadaba
09-26 10:53 AM
my email:
Sir/ Ma'am,
Is this article a systematic effort on the part of CNN to propagandize the Dobbs doctrine of immigrant bashing?
We rallied and marched for relief from the permanent residency process (green cards as you call them) and not for an increase in H1B.
Shame on you for these blatant lies and misinformation campaign that seems to be part of your agenda.
Thanks
Sir/ Ma'am,
Is this article a systematic effort on the part of CNN to propagandize the Dobbs doctrine of immigrant bashing?
We rallied and marched for relief from the permanent residency process (green cards as you call them) and not for an increase in H1B.
Shame on you for these blatant lies and misinformation campaign that seems to be part of your agenda.
Thanks
2010 Chicago Bulls 2011 Nba Mvp
GCAmigo
12-27 06:55 PM
So you were in Amsterdam for 1 day. ;) Did you visit any of the legal hesh bars? (Just kiddin).
all the stranded formed a group & wnet around the city.. so didn't get he chnace to venture out.. we did go thru' the 'main' area though.. & yes that evening Hooland lost their Worldcup soccer game too..
all the stranded formed a group & wnet around the city.. so didn't get he chnace to venture out.. we did go thru' the 'main' area though.. & yes that evening Hooland lost their Worldcup soccer game too..
more...
sabudanawada
03-20 09:34 AM
Tens of thousands? :eek:you kidding me? where did you get that number from? Please explain your logic/source or refrain from making unwarranted assumptions.
If they have made the priority date to 2003 now, what that should tell us is that they suspect only a few thousand applications pending before that deadline.
NO, no way.
There are tens of thousands of EB2 India applicants from 2000 to 2002. Add labor substituters, EB2 converters, and you'll be lucky to see EB-2 India at even Dec 2002. Most likely within a few weeks of Apr, all EB-2 India visas will get used up. Keep in mind the new EB-2 numbers are from EB-1 India flowover. So it's going to last even less time than Oct-Nov last year.
If they have made the priority date to 2003 now, what that should tell us is that they suspect only a few thousand applications pending before that deadline.
NO, no way.
There are tens of thousands of EB2 India applicants from 2000 to 2002. Add labor substituters, EB2 converters, and you'll be lucky to see EB-2 India at even Dec 2002. Most likely within a few weeks of Apr, all EB-2 India visas will get used up. Keep in mind the new EB-2 numbers are from EB-1 India flowover. So it's going to last even less time than Oct-Nov last year.
hair Rose of the Chicago Bulls.
svbp007
02-24 01:53 PM
Hi, I hope somebody helps in my dilemma.
I am currently on an L1A visa. I heard that my main office (where I am now working) is closing the foreign office where I come from. Based on L1 requirements and facts, it states that once the subsidiary closes, my L1 becomes invalid. Given this, the company is willing to sponsor my green card as soon as possible. It will probably still take a year before the subsidiary officially closes. What are my options? If they have to close the company while my green card is being process, would it be cancelled ?
Thanks.
There should not be a problem with your L1. It was a requirement to get L1...not to stay on L1. Given that L1 is a dual intent category...it does not make sense either.
I know directly of a case where the company from which a colleague came from India was sold to another company ....but because in the preceding 3 years the Indian company was an affiliate...it was OK.
What L1 requirements are you talking about ?...is there any rule that you saw that states that if the subsidiary closes L1 becomes invalid?...can you provide that link/info ?
I am currently on an L1A visa. I heard that my main office (where I am now working) is closing the foreign office where I come from. Based on L1 requirements and facts, it states that once the subsidiary closes, my L1 becomes invalid. Given this, the company is willing to sponsor my green card as soon as possible. It will probably still take a year before the subsidiary officially closes. What are my options? If they have to close the company while my green card is being process, would it be cancelled ?
Thanks.
There should not be a problem with your L1. It was a requirement to get L1...not to stay on L1. Given that L1 is a dual intent category...it does not make sense either.
I know directly of a case where the company from which a colleague came from India was sold to another company ....but because in the preceding 3 years the Indian company was an affiliate...it was OK.
What L1 requirements are you talking about ?...is there any rule that you saw that states that if the subsidiary closes L1 becomes invalid?...can you provide that link/info ?
more...
Ramba
07-04 07:25 PM
Everyone blaming CIS/DOS needs to understand some basics behind this mess. Before going to conclude anything, first, one should read all the ombudsman reports for last 3 or 4 years. Former INS or current USCIS�s functions and operations were not questionable and not known to public till ombudsman office was established. Ombudsman has helped customers and keep helping to improve efficiency of CIS. Ombudsman main concern (or goal) have been over the 4 years are
1. Primarily reducing backlogs in any application type particularly 485 and timely approval of any application.
2. Abolish the need for interim benefits like EAD, AP etc. If they approve 485 in 6 months, then most of us do not require EAD and AP.
3. Reduce the wastage of EB visas, as unused EB visas can not be carried over to next year (use it or lose it). Since 1992, about 200,000 EB visas were lost permanently. In 2003 alone, they issued only 64,000 EB visas and lost 88,000.
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Now lets come to July Visa bulletin mess.
Because of tight holding of visa cutoff dates for EB3 and EB2 for the first 8 months of 2007 (From Oct 2006 to May 2007) USCIS approved only 66,000 485s. For the next 4 months they have about 60K to 70K numbers available. If they approve the pending 485s with slower speed or old cut off dates, there is a potential estimated loss of 40,000 EB visas by Sep 2007. Thats why, based on ombudsman recommendation, DOS moved considerably the cut off date for June. When they took inventory in May, there are about 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications were pending due to non-availability of visa numbers. The �documentarily qualified 485 applications� mean the application filed long time back and processed by USCIS and cleared the FBI name and criminal check, and found eligible for green card. Apart from 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications, there is thousands of 485 applications (documentarily not yet qualified) pending due to name check. When DOS checked with USCIS they found only 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications (in all EB categories put together) are pending. However, the available visas are more than 40,000 (60to 70K). Then they made with out consulting properly with USCIS they made �current� for all EB categories. This is how they determine �current� or �over-subscribed� and how they establish cutoff dates.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered �Current.�
Whenever the total of documentarily qualified applicants in a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for the particular month, the category is considered to be �oversubscribed� and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories �current� for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories �current� ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of �current� there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making �current� for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as �current� in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
1. Primarily reducing backlogs in any application type particularly 485 and timely approval of any application.
2. Abolish the need for interim benefits like EAD, AP etc. If they approve 485 in 6 months, then most of us do not require EAD and AP.
3. Reduce the wastage of EB visas, as unused EB visas can not be carried over to next year (use it or lose it). Since 1992, about 200,000 EB visas were lost permanently. In 2003 alone, they issued only 64,000 EB visas and lost 88,000.
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Now lets come to July Visa bulletin mess.
Because of tight holding of visa cutoff dates for EB3 and EB2 for the first 8 months of 2007 (From Oct 2006 to May 2007) USCIS approved only 66,000 485s. For the next 4 months they have about 60K to 70K numbers available. If they approve the pending 485s with slower speed or old cut off dates, there is a potential estimated loss of 40,000 EB visas by Sep 2007. Thats why, based on ombudsman recommendation, DOS moved considerably the cut off date for June. When they took inventory in May, there are about 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications were pending due to non-availability of visa numbers. The �documentarily qualified 485 applications� mean the application filed long time back and processed by USCIS and cleared the FBI name and criminal check, and found eligible for green card. Apart from 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications, there is thousands of 485 applications (documentarily not yet qualified) pending due to name check. When DOS checked with USCIS they found only 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications (in all EB categories put together) are pending. However, the available visas are more than 40,000 (60to 70K). Then they made with out consulting properly with USCIS they made �current� for all EB categories. This is how they determine �current� or �over-subscribed� and how they establish cutoff dates.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered �Current.�
Whenever the total of documentarily qualified applicants in a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for the particular month, the category is considered to be �oversubscribed� and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories �current� for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories �current� ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of �current� there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making �current� for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as �current� in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
hot Chicago Bulls Championships
shreekhand
05-14 12:28 AM
Unfortunately one needs to have a GC or be a USC in order to be eliglible for FAFSA or any federal financial aid.
more...
house 2011 NBA Champions!
Jaime
09-11 02:48 PM
Come on guys! Make up your minds and attend the rally! You still have time! We'll help you! LET'S GO!!! Let's make history!!!
tattoo Chicago Bulls
waitingmygc
04-09 06:00 PM
In this visa bulletin there is reasonable movement in family category. So, its not fair to conclude USCIS is not working.
more...
pictures 2011 NBA Championship
BharatPremi
04-07 04:32 PM
Hi,
I was going through the flatcenter PERM data for year 2004.
In the Coulm Last_sig_Event, some of data rows have value
'Received Regional Office'.
Anyboay has an idea what does this mean?.
Regards,
Alex
Yes, Once upon a time there was a zoo (When I was young and trapped into this zoo) with a name "labor processing". That zoo was divided in two trails. One trail of that labor zoo was called "State processing" and other was called "regional processing". Once the GC animal is waited long enough in "State processing" trail then it used to see the another trail "Regional Processing". There was no way to escape from the zoo via "State processing" trail. Once GC animal is entered into "Regional Processing" trail then again it had to wait a long and if got lucky at some day used to get a chance to escape from that zoo and go to the another zoo "I-140" processing with a mark "labor approved" embarked on the forehead of the animal. After many years, under the careful inspection of the authority of the zoo, it was found that there is a population surge in the stuck animals so zoo keeper decided to create a new zoo "Backlog centers"... And from then onwards you know the rest story...:)
I was going through the flatcenter PERM data for year 2004.
In the Coulm Last_sig_Event, some of data rows have value
'Received Regional Office'.
Anyboay has an idea what does this mean?.
Regards,
Alex
Yes, Once upon a time there was a zoo (When I was young and trapped into this zoo) with a name "labor processing". That zoo was divided in two trails. One trail of that labor zoo was called "State processing" and other was called "regional processing". Once the GC animal is waited long enough in "State processing" trail then it used to see the another trail "Regional Processing". There was no way to escape from the zoo via "State processing" trail. Once GC animal is entered into "Regional Processing" trail then again it had to wait a long and if got lucky at some day used to get a chance to escape from that zoo and go to the another zoo "I-140" processing with a mark "labor approved" embarked on the forehead of the animal. After many years, under the careful inspection of the authority of the zoo, it was found that there is a population surge in the stuck animals so zoo keeper decided to create a new zoo "Backlog centers"... And from then onwards you know the rest story...:)
dresses Michael Jordan and the Chicago
bank_king2003
04-09 05:08 PM
there we go again..... becoz visa bulletin dates did no move.... all of a sudden it means uscis/dos is not doing their job?..... get a grip of u'r self.....
my date if 7th feb-05 & its just days away for over an year.... but i know that blaming uscis/dos won't do a shit for anyone..... becoz that's not where the problem is..... now don't throw bullshit at me.... saying uscis is not efficient blah blah blah..... if uscis is allocating 140K gc per year, that's good enough...... becoz its a wrong goal to setup 100% efficiency with uscis..... we all don't work with our employer 100% becoz we spend time scanning the web..... y do we expect uscis to work 100%....... for me uscis is doing their job if they allocate 140k gc per year...... period..... now stop this non-sense of blaming uscis/dos becoz that sets a wrong target..... the blame/fault for vb and backlog lies with the congress..... the least we can do is identify the source of the problem...... we do people here keep beating down on uscis & dos...... y r we do dumb.....
and all these questions is totally a waste of time...... in the end lets say u get 100% efficiency, what will it get u..... 7 more green cards for a backlog of 1 million..... how stupid is it to get totally blinded by this misguided meaningless talk for 7 visas for a million headless chickens.....
lets continue talking about uscis/dos..... who is next...:mad:
Gud u let out ur frustration. U r gud for that only as i see u comparing our effeciency with USCIS. i know ur gray matter now !!!
my date if 7th feb-05 & its just days away for over an year.... but i know that blaming uscis/dos won't do a shit for anyone..... becoz that's not where the problem is..... now don't throw bullshit at me.... saying uscis is not efficient blah blah blah..... if uscis is allocating 140K gc per year, that's good enough...... becoz its a wrong goal to setup 100% efficiency with uscis..... we all don't work with our employer 100% becoz we spend time scanning the web..... y do we expect uscis to work 100%....... for me uscis is doing their job if they allocate 140k gc per year...... period..... now stop this non-sense of blaming uscis/dos becoz that sets a wrong target..... the blame/fault for vb and backlog lies with the congress..... the least we can do is identify the source of the problem...... we do people here keep beating down on uscis & dos...... y r we do dumb.....
and all these questions is totally a waste of time...... in the end lets say u get 100% efficiency, what will it get u..... 7 more green cards for a backlog of 1 million..... how stupid is it to get totally blinded by this misguided meaningless talk for 7 visas for a million headless chickens.....
lets continue talking about uscis/dos..... who is next...:mad:
Gud u let out ur frustration. U r gud for that only as i see u comparing our effeciency with USCIS. i know ur gray matter now !!!
more...
makeup Best Case Scenario - Champions
agaudi
11-13 12:10 PM
The are playing with all of us, At this point after almost 10 years of following the law in order to get a GC I guess that is better to be undocumented. They at least can swith jobs or do other things, not paying lawyers USICS fees taxes etc etc. We are prisoners in this broken immigration system. the other day I called USCIS to see why my and my family's apps haven't been processed yet. They said they will review my case. 5 days later I got three identical e mails telling me they are ACTIVELY working on our cases! Can you believe that? I'm tired of all of this and I want to do whatever it takes to finish with this, I think I can produce more for me, my family and this country, but I'm loosing my youth in this battle. Tell me what to do and I'll do it.
girlfriend With 2011 Champions Patch
desi3933
01-31 05:53 PM
In case of a dependant 485 there is no requirement to be paid on EAD.
For AOS status, there is no requirement for person to be paid on EAD. It does not matter whether I-485 is for primary or dependent beneficiary.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
For AOS status, there is no requirement for person to be paid on EAD. It does not matter whether I-485 is for primary or dependent beneficiary.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
hairstyles to the Chicago Bulls for
vivekm1309
07-28 12:53 PM
Guys, IV is an immigration related forum, if your religious sentiments are hurt by a picture on beer bottle, please take it to the pertinent forum. ( why create a ruckus here ?)
I am sure that VHP, RSS or whatever orgs are having their forums to hear these kind of greivances.
Why do we need to divert the attention of this forum to any issues it is not supposed to look at ?
I am scared of Red dots but this fear doesnot stop me form requesting sanity in the discussions.
I am sure that VHP, RSS or whatever orgs are having their forums to hear these kind of greivances.
Why do we need to divert the attention of this forum to any issues it is not supposed to look at ?
I am scared of Red dots but this fear doesnot stop me form requesting sanity in the discussions.
GCNirvana007
10-10 09:55 PM
It is unreasonable to carry a passport at all times when you are living here. What happens if you leave it behind in the grocery store by mistake or leave it in the cab or something? I think the issue reported by the OP is more relevant close to the border. Nobody asks for your passport in Vegas or Denver.
Which part you didnt understand?
Once you enter USA, doesnt matter Vegas or Denver, you need to carry documents with you. Thats LAW. They dont stop everybody but if they do, we are answerable to them.
Its similar to speeding. For a 55 miles speed limit, usually cops dont stop if you drive 70. However they are legally entitled to fine you if you drive 56. Its LAW.
Now if you leave it by mistake, thats not their problem, you got to deal with it.
Which part you didnt understand?
Once you enter USA, doesnt matter Vegas or Denver, you need to carry documents with you. Thats LAW. They dont stop everybody but if they do, we are answerable to them.
Its similar to speeding. For a 55 miles speed limit, usually cops dont stop if you drive 70. However they are legally entitled to fine you if you drive 56. Its LAW.
Now if you leave it by mistake, thats not their problem, you got to deal with it.
transpass
04-10 12:07 PM
Here are the details for last year and years before:
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
Thanks Kondur. That was a very good presentation of the numbers. I very much appreciate it.
Now,
1. Why did EB1 last year needed spillover visas, although it was current all the time? If a category is current, isn't that it has less demand than allocated numbers?
2. As per May bulletin, EB4 might need a cut off. So we cannot expect any spillover from EB4. So that is clear. Now the spillover chances are from EB5, EB2 ROW and EB1(?). I am including EB1 because, given the current economy over the past year, should there be a better possibility of more spillover from EB2 ROW and EB1 compared to last year?
3. Also why are the total EB numbers different in different fiscal years (e.g., 141020 in FY2009, 162949 in FY 2008 and 154497 in FY2007)? In FYs 2007 and 2008 did the extra visas come from Family based while it did not for FY 2009? If so, why is it so?
4. Based on Pending 485 data of March 2010, I barely see few hundred EB4s. And hardly considerable number of EB1s. What's going on? If we go by this data, we should be getting good chunk of spillover numbers...
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Green%20Card/Green%20Card%20Through%20a%20Job/Employment%20Based%20I-485%20Pending%20Inventory-Total%203-8-2010.pdf
Thanks,
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
Thanks Kondur. That was a very good presentation of the numbers. I very much appreciate it.
Now,
1. Why did EB1 last year needed spillover visas, although it was current all the time? If a category is current, isn't that it has less demand than allocated numbers?
2. As per May bulletin, EB4 might need a cut off. So we cannot expect any spillover from EB4. So that is clear. Now the spillover chances are from EB5, EB2 ROW and EB1(?). I am including EB1 because, given the current economy over the past year, should there be a better possibility of more spillover from EB2 ROW and EB1 compared to last year?
3. Also why are the total EB numbers different in different fiscal years (e.g., 141020 in FY2009, 162949 in FY 2008 and 154497 in FY2007)? In FYs 2007 and 2008 did the extra visas come from Family based while it did not for FY 2009? If so, why is it so?
4. Based on Pending 485 data of March 2010, I barely see few hundred EB4s. And hardly considerable number of EB1s. What's going on? If we go by this data, we should be getting good chunk of spillover numbers...
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Green%20Card/Green%20Card%20Through%20a%20Job/Employment%20Based%20I-485%20Pending%20Inventory-Total%203-8-2010.pdf
Thanks,
No comments:
Post a Comment