vssanka
03-17 12:06 PM
EB3-India
PD: Mar 2005
EAD-AP approved, FP done
PD: Mar 2005
EAD-AP approved, FP done
wallpaper abraham lincoln famous.
McGuffin
02-14 07:15 PM
I'm in.
dixie
08-03 01:25 PM
if there is diff emails with diff content it will be better. it will show diversity. even though we all will say the same thing.
on second thoughts i feel lou dobbs is unlikely to change his opinion even if 1K people send him mails. send it anyways to all other cnn anchors so that IV can get some coverage on cnn.
I feel sending anything to Lou Dobbs will only be counter-productive. We dont know for sure where he stands on EB visas, but the H1-B increase component in the SKIL bill is gauranteed to make him growl like a rabid dog. He is sure to paint it as an american-worker replacement bill.No coverage is better than coverage for numbersusa's point of view.
on second thoughts i feel lou dobbs is unlikely to change his opinion even if 1K people send him mails. send it anyways to all other cnn anchors so that IV can get some coverage on cnn.
I feel sending anything to Lou Dobbs will only be counter-productive. We dont know for sure where he stands on EB visas, but the H1-B increase component in the SKIL bill is gauranteed to make him growl like a rabid dog. He is sure to paint it as an american-worker replacement bill.No coverage is better than coverage for numbersusa's point of view.
2011 famous abraham lincoln quotes.
ajthakur
07-14 06:44 PM
I dont remember that. I saw my online profile with USCIS just now. There is a LUD for yesterday 07/13/2008 on my 140 approved in 2006.
Do you see any LUD change on your I-140 after you changed employers?
Do you see any LUD change on your I-140 after you changed employers?
more...
CSPAvictim
07-09 06:30 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.
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.
anurakt
01-17 03:54 PM
THIS IS THE BEST INVESTMENT OF YOUR LIFE, PUT 20$ / MONTH AND SEE IF IT MAKES YOUR LIFE BETTER !! GUYS JUST THINK OF THE LIFE U MAY GET ONCE YOU GET GC.... ALL SAID , DO YOU THINK I AM A FOOL CONTRBUTING SO MUCH MONEY FOR FUN.... ALL THOSE WHO THINK THAT IF ANY FRAUD EXIST , LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING , BY THE END OF THE YEAR I WOULD HAVE CONTRIBUTED AROUND $2700 TO IV AND I SWEAR TO GOD IF I FIND THAT IV IS NOT A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION , I WILL SUE IV..... SO GET UP GUYS AND THINK THINK THINK.... THIS IS THE LAST YEAR FOR SOMETHING TO HAPPEN OR MY PREDICTION IS THAT IV WON'T EXISTS .... SO JUST DO IT
more...
andy garcia
01-26 09:40 AM
I had trouble sifting through all that data and figuring out what that was all about.
Could you give the specific report that you used for these numbers. And, if possible, any hints on how you arrived at the data below. I would appreciate that.
Thanks....
FISCAL ------ Employment ------- EB3
YEAR ----- Total ---- INDIA | Total --- India
2000 ----- 111,024 | 15888 | 51,711 | -5567 :IV FY 2000 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2000%20table%20V.pdf)
2001 ----- 186,536 | 41720 | 90,274 | 16405 :IV FY 2001 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2001%20table%20V.pdf)
2002 ----- 171,583 | 41919 | 87,574 | 17428 :IV FY 2002 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2002%20table%20V.pdf)
2003 ----- -83,020 | 20818 | 47,354 | 10680 :IV FY 2003 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2003%20table%20V.pdf)
2004 ----- 157,107 | 39496 | 88,114 | 19962 :IV FY 2004 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY04tableV.pdf)
2005 ----- 242,335 | 47160 |122,130 | 23399 :IV FY 2005 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY05tableV.pdf)
6 yr total - 951,605| 207001| 487,157| 93441
Annual Avg --------- 34500 | -------- 15574
If this trend would have continued. There should not be any MAJOR retrogression problem, but if you remember from the Nov 05 VB. The warning was very clear:
During FY due to anticipated heavy demand, the AC21 provisions are not expected to apply, and the amount of Employment numbers available to any single country will be subject to the 7% cap. It is anticipated that the addition of unused FY-2005 Family numbers and the remaining AC21 numbers to the 140,000 annual minimum will result in an FY-2006 annual Employment limit of 152,000. This will mean an Employment per-country limit for FY-2006 of approximately 10,650.
To illustrate the effect of the reduced per-county limitation during FY-2006 on the oversubscribed countries, it should be noted that during FY-2005 India used approximately 47,175 Employment numbers.
If you plug this number into your analysis the result might be a couple of years of advance for your predictions.
andy
Could you give the specific report that you used for these numbers. And, if possible, any hints on how you arrived at the data below. I would appreciate that.
Thanks....
FISCAL ------ Employment ------- EB3
YEAR ----- Total ---- INDIA | Total --- India
2000 ----- 111,024 | 15888 | 51,711 | -5567 :IV FY 2000 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2000%20table%20V.pdf)
2001 ----- 186,536 | 41720 | 90,274 | 16405 :IV FY 2001 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2001%20table%20V.pdf)
2002 ----- 171,583 | 41919 | 87,574 | 17428 :IV FY 2002 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2002%20table%20V.pdf)
2003 ----- -83,020 | 20818 | 47,354 | 10680 :IV FY 2003 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2003%20table%20V.pdf)
2004 ----- 157,107 | 39496 | 88,114 | 19962 :IV FY 2004 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY04tableV.pdf)
2005 ----- 242,335 | 47160 |122,130 | 23399 :IV FY 2005 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY05tableV.pdf)
6 yr total - 951,605| 207001| 487,157| 93441
Annual Avg --------- 34500 | -------- 15574
If this trend would have continued. There should not be any MAJOR retrogression problem, but if you remember from the Nov 05 VB. The warning was very clear:
During FY due to anticipated heavy demand, the AC21 provisions are not expected to apply, and the amount of Employment numbers available to any single country will be subject to the 7% cap. It is anticipated that the addition of unused FY-2005 Family numbers and the remaining AC21 numbers to the 140,000 annual minimum will result in an FY-2006 annual Employment limit of 152,000. This will mean an Employment per-country limit for FY-2006 of approximately 10,650.
To illustrate the effect of the reduced per-county limitation during FY-2006 on the oversubscribed countries, it should be noted that during FY-2005 India used approximately 47,175 Employment numbers.
If you plug this number into your analysis the result might be a couple of years of advance for your predictions.
andy
2010 education quotes by famous
PD_Dec2002
07-05 12:22 PM
Just my $0.02:
I understand the frustration for IV to gather funds when it has so many members. But it's possible that IV has that many members because it is a free site.
If this becomes a paid site, you might see the number of members dwindle, and that's not a good idea because even if members don't financially contribute to IV, they do offer their perspectives/opinions/feedback/critique and help others. Those who want to financially contribute to IV will do so whether IV is a free or a paid site.
IMHO, it would be a mistake to make IV a paid site thinking that this will force members to financially contribute. Sure IV forums helped a lot with finding information about I-485 applications, but people have been filing I-485s on their own even before IV was in existence. Which is not to say, IV has no value, but I hope you see where I am going with this....if members don't want to contribute, then they won't. They will go to other forums like they used to before IV was in existence...which will be a step down, but at least they are holding on to their $20 or howmuchever.
Before replying to this, please read my disclaimer below. I have to add it given the fact how hot-headed/short-tempered members have been in the last few days where they will flame someone just because their opinions differ.
Thanks,
Jayant
Disclaimer: These are my opinions. You don't have to agree with them. If you disagree, just ignore them. I am not interested in justifying myself about anything that you might have to say. I would, however, welcome a civil and a healthy discussion.
I understand the frustration for IV to gather funds when it has so many members. But it's possible that IV has that many members because it is a free site.
If this becomes a paid site, you might see the number of members dwindle, and that's not a good idea because even if members don't financially contribute to IV, they do offer their perspectives/opinions/feedback/critique and help others. Those who want to financially contribute to IV will do so whether IV is a free or a paid site.
IMHO, it would be a mistake to make IV a paid site thinking that this will force members to financially contribute. Sure IV forums helped a lot with finding information about I-485 applications, but people have been filing I-485s on their own even before IV was in existence. Which is not to say, IV has no value, but I hope you see where I am going with this....if members don't want to contribute, then they won't. They will go to other forums like they used to before IV was in existence...which will be a step down, but at least they are holding on to their $20 or howmuchever.
Before replying to this, please read my disclaimer below. I have to add it given the fact how hot-headed/short-tempered members have been in the last few days where they will flame someone just because their opinions differ.
Thanks,
Jayant
Disclaimer: These are my opinions. You don't have to agree with them. If you disagree, just ignore them. I am not interested in justifying myself about anything that you might have to say. I would, however, welcome a civil and a healthy discussion.
more...
GCBy3000
01-16 11:55 AM
pls update your profile so that we can confirm.
Update your signature also with your pledge. This will help a lot when others see these kind of signatures. It is all psychological factor to make members feel confident about IV and to make them realize they are not the only one who contributes often.
Every member has the potential to contribute. It is not a million dollar per month. But how to make them to realize the importance and to make them feel comfortable with IV to contribute matters the most. Adding up your pledge in the signature is a most important for this one.
Update your signature also with your pledge. This will help a lot when others see these kind of signatures. It is all psychological factor to make members feel confident about IV and to make them realize they are not the only one who contributes often.
Every member has the potential to contribute. It is not a million dollar per month. But how to make them to realize the importance and to make them feel comfortable with IV to contribute matters the most. Adding up your pledge in the signature is a most important for this one.
hair famous abraham lincoln quotes.
Jaime
09-11 05:26 PM
You've worked hard for what you have! VERY HARD!!!! Remember the grueling exams and study back home to be the best and get to the U.S. Remember your sufferin, hard study and hard work once in the U.S. to be the best and contribute to this country!
Don't let the Reverse Brain Drain suck you in!!!!
Don't let the Reverse Brain Drain suck you in!!!!
more...
va_il
12-27 01:53 PM
Munna Bhai
I talked to Atty Murthy's office about the same issue. They said that
they had couple of experience where I140 revoked. But USCIS honored
the original PD. But atty says that its kinda grey area. They could insist
that if I140 is revoked, new PD could be your change of employement date.
It depends on the officer . Some of them could honor PD. Some of them insist to the newer PD. Or some other officer may flip a coin and chose one. It will all depend on your luck.
good luck
babu
Does this mean a person with EAD has some risk moving to another job even after 6 months if old employer revokes I140?
I talked to Atty Murthy's office about the same issue. They said that
they had couple of experience where I140 revoked. But USCIS honored
the original PD. But atty says that its kinda grey area. They could insist
that if I140 is revoked, new PD could be your change of employement date.
It depends on the officer . Some of them could honor PD. Some of them insist to the newer PD. Or some other officer may flip a coin and chose one. It will all depend on your luck.
good luck
babu
Does this mean a person with EAD has some risk moving to another job even after 6 months if old employer revokes I140?
hot dresses dresses famous lincoln quotes. famous abraham
ronhira
03-12 12:24 PM
So now only paid people get access to information. Why don't you start contributing now?
I am not on any side and seriously want atleast the bashing stopped. But don't want some piece of jerk doing this for sake of passing time. I would consider Ron Hira a better candidate to counter bashing. He is paid (thats what it shows on his status as "donor").
More, I sincerely don't believe that paid employee of competitor can do this. 2 reasons:
1. By any kind of conversation, site gets more traffic. Thats exactly competitors don't want.
2. This could lead to serious legal issue and opposites can lose their shirts.
I think the people on opposite sites are some old finger burnt people from IV itself like Kumar. Think what Kumar will do if he is banned from IV today for harsh bashing!
gckaMara.... i love u for volunteering me for doing something.... not sure what..... but that's ok.....
btw.... greyhair is just giving excuses...... but u look like someone who cares.... y r u not a donor....
I am not on any side and seriously want atleast the bashing stopped. But don't want some piece of jerk doing this for sake of passing time. I would consider Ron Hira a better candidate to counter bashing. He is paid (thats what it shows on his status as "donor").
More, I sincerely don't believe that paid employee of competitor can do this. 2 reasons:
1. By any kind of conversation, site gets more traffic. Thats exactly competitors don't want.
2. This could lead to serious legal issue and opposites can lose their shirts.
I think the people on opposite sites are some old finger burnt people from IV itself like Kumar. Think what Kumar will do if he is banned from IV today for harsh bashing!
gckaMara.... i love u for volunteering me for doing something.... not sure what..... but that's ok.....
btw.... greyhair is just giving excuses...... but u look like someone who cares.... y r u not a donor....
more...
house famous abraham lincoln quotes.
Jerrome
07-13 08:30 AM
Let us see the approvals trend till october. I am guessing the PD will move back to MID 2005 or 2004 by October for EB-2 India.
tattoo abraham lincoln quotes
biomd
10-12 02:26 PM
PD Aug 2006
I 140 Filed in June 2007. Pending @ TSC
I 485 Filed on 10th Aug 2007
FP Notice received.
I 140 Filed in June 2007. Pending @ TSC
I 485 Filed on 10th Aug 2007
FP Notice received.
more...
pictures Famous-Abraham-Lincoln-Quotes
coopheal
03-10 08:34 PM
Hello,
I strongly suggest that we focus our time and efforts on a single and achievable target in this calendar year 2009.
Recapturing unused visa numbers from the last two decades would help us eliminate the retrogression issue. Other changes like Comprehensive Immigration Reform, Eliminating per country limits etc would require a leap of faith in the political process and it is unlikely to be achieved in this calendar year. The economy, unemployment rates, health care etc are bound to dominate the legislative agenda this year.
I suggest writing a petition or letter to the White House and the administrative offices strongly urging them to recapture the unused visa numbers.
I think we should follow the KISS ("Keep it Simple, Stupid") Principle to achieve this target.
If we add any other immigration provisions, it would increase the complexity of the legislation and it is bound to fail.
Could the administrators of this forum please consider my suggestion of focusing on recapturing the visa numbers and assign this task the highest priority.
....
If you are even remotely seriously about what you are taking update your profile.
I strongly suggest that we focus our time and efforts on a single and achievable target in this calendar year 2009.
Recapturing unused visa numbers from the last two decades would help us eliminate the retrogression issue. Other changes like Comprehensive Immigration Reform, Eliminating per country limits etc would require a leap of faith in the political process and it is unlikely to be achieved in this calendar year. The economy, unemployment rates, health care etc are bound to dominate the legislative agenda this year.
I suggest writing a petition or letter to the White House and the administrative offices strongly urging them to recapture the unused visa numbers.
I think we should follow the KISS ("Keep it Simple, Stupid") Principle to achieve this target.
If we add any other immigration provisions, it would increase the complexity of the legislation and it is bound to fail.
Could the administrators of this forum please consider my suggestion of focusing on recapturing the visa numbers and assign this task the highest priority.
....
If you are even remotely seriously about what you are taking update your profile.
dresses tattoo Abraham Lincoln (16th
coopheal
12-10 09:28 AM
EB3-India moved for 15 days. This sucks.
A movement of 15 days in EB3-I is a good movement. Big movement in EB3 without law change is not possible.
FOIA for number of cases per country/category will disclose where we stand but this movement also assures me that we are really past Apr 01 syndrome.
A movement of 15 days in EB3-I is a good movement. Big movement in EB3 without law change is not possible.
FOIA for number of cases per country/category will disclose where we stand but this movement also assures me that we are really past Apr 01 syndrome.
more...
makeup famous abraham lincoln quotes. famous abraham lincoln quotes.
Ramba
07-15 10:54 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.
If your ex-employer already revoked I-140, how can he give employment verification letter now? He is saying that he is no-longer intend to employ you in the revokation , on the other hand he is giving offer letter now. It is contradictory; it will appear to CIS that you & your employer is doing fradulant practice. If the I-140 was already revoked, then there is no use from it, unless if it is revoked after 180 days of your 485 pending. If it is revoked after 180 days, you can use your new employment to port the job based on AC21 to keep the 485 valid. Otherwise forget it.
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.
If your ex-employer already revoked I-140, how can he give employment verification letter now? He is saying that he is no-longer intend to employ you in the revokation , on the other hand he is giving offer letter now. It is contradictory; it will appear to CIS that you & your employer is doing fradulant practice. If the I-140 was already revoked, then there is no use from it, unless if it is revoked after 180 days of your 485 pending. If it is revoked after 180 days, you can use your new employment to port the job based on AC21 to keep the 485 valid. Otherwise forget it.
girlfriend famous abraham lincoln quotes.
k3GC
11-10 10:06 PM
IV has people on the national advisory board that include the previous USCIS ombudsman, what is their take on this? I have not seen any thoughts from such experts that support this organization on this issue of quarterly spillover
hairstyles Abraham Lincoln quote mousepad
senthil1
04-04 11:43 AM
It is true. But either Corporate America or Lawyers does not want to address the issues raised by Unions or anti immigrants. They want free ride and does not care about working class. No bold leadership in congress to address both sides issues. Congress members are siding with any one of two groups. Everyone knows that compromise will easily pass. But compromise will not give free ride to any group. Basically moderate H1b and GC increase with protection to US workers without wage pressurw will get most of the congress support. Even with illegal immigration also it is easy to pass if they give citizenship to existing people and allow more workers with complete protection to US workers without wage pressure will get most of congress support.
I think it is true coporate america will not allow it to go through, but it is also true that any bill faverable to the H1B and or GC will also have the same death
as this one , do not underestimate the anti - immigration and unions clout
on democrats, if corporate america wants H1B increase it will come at a price,
more no free rides for corporate america as well.
that is the reason why we see stalemate for any kind of immigration bill, neither side is able to push anything.
thanks
I think it is true coporate america will not allow it to go through, but it is also true that any bill faverable to the H1B and or GC will also have the same death
as this one , do not underestimate the anti - immigration and unions clout
on democrats, if corporate america wants H1B increase it will come at a price,
more no free rides for corporate america as well.
that is the reason why we see stalemate for any kind of immigration bill, neither side is able to push anything.
thanks
kate123
02-04 11:28 AM
well said.
Some questions to those who are supporting country cap.
Why not put a country cap on foreign students’ visas since many of them get into the green card line eventually?
Why not put a country cap on H1B visas since many of them get into the green card line eventually?
Why not put a country cap on labor certifications?
Why not put a country cap on I-140s?
Why not impose a country cap at the port of entry?
Why not put a country cap on visitors’ visas?
Why not put a country cap on business visas?
Why not put a country cap on US trade with other countries?
Why not put a country cap on amount of US $ reserves that each country can have?
Why not put a country cap on children that foreigners in the US can bear?
Why not put a country cap on the foreigners’ earnings in the US?
.
.
.
And the list can go on.
Putting country cap on greens cards serves a hidden racist agenda of not letting the people of one particular ethnic group grow in number and become strong.
Some questions to those who are supporting country cap.
Why not put a country cap on foreign students’ visas since many of them get into the green card line eventually?
Why not put a country cap on H1B visas since many of them get into the green card line eventually?
Why not put a country cap on labor certifications?
Why not put a country cap on I-140s?
Why not impose a country cap at the port of entry?
Why not put a country cap on visitors’ visas?
Why not put a country cap on business visas?
Why not put a country cap on US trade with other countries?
Why not put a country cap on amount of US $ reserves that each country can have?
Why not put a country cap on children that foreigners in the US can bear?
Why not put a country cap on the foreigners’ earnings in the US?
.
.
.
And the list can go on.
Putting country cap on greens cards serves a hidden racist agenda of not letting the people of one particular ethnic group grow in number and become strong.
satyasrd
09-09 02:10 PM
Almost everyone I know these days applies in the EB2 category. If the gates open and EB2 is made current, I think it's in the best interest for EB3 to pack their bags and go home.
Just my 2 cents
Just my 2 cents
