DesiGuy
09-11 11:12 AM
hadn't the "subcommittee" already approved the bill and then it was presented to the "full committee".
maybe once the subcommittee approves, the bill is ready to go to the house for voting?
getting confusing, guru's please clarify.
maybe once the subcommittee approves, the bill is ready to go to the house for voting?
getting confusing, guru's please clarify.
wallpaper %IMG_DESC_1%
andycool
03-16 02:04 PM
141,020 visa numbers used in FY2009
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV.pdf
Look at the last page.
The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is 140,000. So the usage was actually more.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
Hello Desi,
"Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by documentarily qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation, that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may require the establishment of an earlier cut-off date than that which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
Furthermore, Section 202(a)(2) reads, �2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed seven percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or two percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.� The seven percent per-country limit specified in INA 202(a)(2) is considered to be for both Family-sponsored and Employment-based numbers combined.
Allocation of visa numbers under Section 202(e) is accomplished as follows:
1. If based on historical patterns or current demand it appears that during a fiscal year number use by aliens chargeable to a particular country will exceed the per-country numerical limit for both the Family and Employment preferences combined, that country would be considered oversubscribed. Both the Family and Employment preferences would be subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1).
2. Sometimes during a fiscal year it may become apparent that because of a lack of demand in the Family preferences, number use by aliens chargeable to an oversubscribed country will be well within the per-country numerical limit. In such case the excess Family numbers would be made available to the Employment preferences subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1). Each of the first three Employment categories would receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and each of the Fourth and Fifth preference categories 7.1%. (Fall-across would likewise apply if an oversubscribed country lacked sufficient demand in the Employment preferences but had excess demand in the Family preferences.)
If a foreign state other than an oversubscribed country has little Family preference demand but considerable Employment preference demand, the otherwise unused Family numbers fall across to Employment (and vice versa) for purposes of that foreign state�s annual numerical limit. For example, in FY-2009 South Korea used a grand total of 15,899 Family and Employment preference numbers, of which 1,688 were Family numbers and 14,211 were Employment numbers. This grand total was well within the FY-2009 per-country numerical limit of 25,620 Family and Employment numbers combined, so South Korea was not oversubscribed. The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.
This is from April Visa Bulletin , according to this S korea got 14,211 visas from FB ( spill over from FB - EB) then dont you think the total EB visas issued in 2009 should be around 150000 instead of 141000....
I am little confused...
your comment will be greatly appreciated ;)
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV.pdf
Look at the last page.
The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is 140,000. So the usage was actually more.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
Hello Desi,
"Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by documentarily qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation, that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may require the establishment of an earlier cut-off date than that which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
Furthermore, Section 202(a)(2) reads, �2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed seven percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or two percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.� The seven percent per-country limit specified in INA 202(a)(2) is considered to be for both Family-sponsored and Employment-based numbers combined.
Allocation of visa numbers under Section 202(e) is accomplished as follows:
1. If based on historical patterns or current demand it appears that during a fiscal year number use by aliens chargeable to a particular country will exceed the per-country numerical limit for both the Family and Employment preferences combined, that country would be considered oversubscribed. Both the Family and Employment preferences would be subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1).
2. Sometimes during a fiscal year it may become apparent that because of a lack of demand in the Family preferences, number use by aliens chargeable to an oversubscribed country will be well within the per-country numerical limit. In such case the excess Family numbers would be made available to the Employment preferences subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1). Each of the first three Employment categories would receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and each of the Fourth and Fifth preference categories 7.1%. (Fall-across would likewise apply if an oversubscribed country lacked sufficient demand in the Employment preferences but had excess demand in the Family preferences.)
If a foreign state other than an oversubscribed country has little Family preference demand but considerable Employment preference demand, the otherwise unused Family numbers fall across to Employment (and vice versa) for purposes of that foreign state�s annual numerical limit. For example, in FY-2009 South Korea used a grand total of 15,899 Family and Employment preference numbers, of which 1,688 were Family numbers and 14,211 were Employment numbers. This grand total was well within the FY-2009 per-country numerical limit of 25,620 Family and Employment numbers combined, so South Korea was not oversubscribed. The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.
This is from April Visa Bulletin , according to this S korea got 14,211 visas from FB ( spill over from FB - EB) then dont you think the total EB visas issued in 2009 should be around 150000 instead of 141000....
I am little confused...
your comment will be greatly appreciated ;)
Caliber
03-12 08:56 AM
To understand what IV has done, all you have to do is, open your eyes
2011 %IMG_DESC_2%
gckabayega
03-17 12:52 PM
Does anyone know how many applicants convereted from EB3 to EB2 ?
I wish a lot convereted, that is the only releief for us. I filed my I-485 in July 2007....it is pathetic to wait so long.
I wish a lot convereted, that is the only releief for us. I filed my I-485 in July 2007....it is pathetic to wait so long.
more...
sodh
07-23 04:15 PM
I don't know. Whole thing is confused. My lawyer is so confident and we applied with out, lets see...
Employment verification letter is the proof that you are still employed with the employer who filed your GC, Employment offer letter is that the same employer from whom you got your gc approved and your I-140 approved has an employment offer after the USCIS approves your GC. Hope this helps.
Employment verification letter is the proof that you are still employed with the employer who filed your GC, Employment offer letter is that the same employer from whom you got your gc approved and your I-140 approved has an employment offer after the USCIS approves your GC. Hope this helps.
msgrewal81
02-19 12:20 PM
well said Jaime...We should support this bill..
Read this carefully before you comment here:
"fingerprints for information relating to criminal, national security, or other law enforcement actions that would render the alien ineligible for adjustment of status under this section".
This is just to verify if the guys is in database for any criminal activity. ofcourse they will not give an illegal guy a GC if they have his record in database for criminal activity in US. This is just a formal requirement to keep illegal law brokers out because there are thousands illegals who came here from southern border and have committed crimes. There are some even in the America's Top 10 Wanted list. My uncles(came illegally here) went through all criminal checks by FBI for breaking any law,when Reagan gave amnesty for >5 years. Same criminal checks were done on illegals when Clinton helped legalalization of illegals. Fingerprints, etc are just for other criminal history check not to check if the person crossed the border illegally, ofcouse he did and broke the law: that's the whole point for him being illegal.
In fact >5year rule has been a standard to give immigration to illegals as is clear by Reagan amnesty. If 5 year rule is not for illegals, then what do you think is there in this bill for 11 million illegals. Itn't that logical. Infact main purpose of this bill is to fix illegal immigrants not legals. If you think >5 years rule is just for legals, you need to read history books, read text carefully and be more logical: not blinded by desire to get your own GC if you are here >5years.
Either way: I never said we should oppose the 5 year requirement. I just said that rules for "Legal <5 years" should be easier than rules for "illegal>5" years and please don't propagate false rumors here that this bill is just for legals in a blind desire for your own GC.
Read this carefully before you comment here:
"fingerprints for information relating to criminal, national security, or other law enforcement actions that would render the alien ineligible for adjustment of status under this section".
This is just to verify if the guys is in database for any criminal activity. ofcourse they will not give an illegal guy a GC if they have his record in database for criminal activity in US. This is just a formal requirement to keep illegal law brokers out because there are thousands illegals who came here from southern border and have committed crimes. There are some even in the America's Top 10 Wanted list. My uncles(came illegally here) went through all criminal checks by FBI for breaking any law,when Reagan gave amnesty for >5 years. Same criminal checks were done on illegals when Clinton helped legalalization of illegals. Fingerprints, etc are just for other criminal history check not to check if the person crossed the border illegally, ofcouse he did and broke the law: that's the whole point for him being illegal.
In fact >5year rule has been a standard to give immigration to illegals as is clear by Reagan amnesty. If 5 year rule is not for illegals, then what do you think is there in this bill for 11 million illegals. Itn't that logical. Infact main purpose of this bill is to fix illegal immigrants not legals. If you think >5 years rule is just for legals, you need to read history books, read text carefully and be more logical: not blinded by desire to get your own GC if you are here >5years.
Either way: I never said we should oppose the 5 year requirement. I just said that rules for "Legal <5 years" should be easier than rules for "illegal>5" years and please don't propagate false rumors here that this bill is just for legals in a blind desire for your own GC.
more...
coolgc
07-12 04:22 PM
Hope, they move further in next month's bulletin.
2010 %IMG_DESC_3%
coopheal
04-10 09:54 PM
In April bulletin EB3 Mexico was at 01-JUL-02. Mexico used up all its quota and turned U. That means there were lot of applicants whose PD was before 01-JUL-02.
As for India EB3, same logic applies. Right now India EB3 is at 01-OCT-01. If there are enough people with PD before 01-OCT-01 to use up the quota, it can turn U in the next bulletin. Otherwise it could inch couple of weeks forward.
and what is your point?
As for India EB3, same logic applies. Right now India EB3 is at 01-OCT-01. If there are enough people with PD before 01-OCT-01 to use up the quota, it can turn U in the next bulletin. Otherwise it could inch couple of weeks forward.
and what is your point?
more...
ZigZag
07-12 05:51 PM
Sorry to say this but 1st March is not considered. Hopefully your PD will be current in next Sep 2010 bulletin. Good Luck!
That may not be true. I had read somewhere (in this forum) that DOS sets up cut-off dates as 01, 08, 14, and 22, and 01 includes from 1st to 7th, 08 includes 8th to 13th, and so on and so forth.
Come August 1st, who knows, (strange are the ways USCIS works) his file may be the first one to be picked up and approved before those of March 05 guys, some of whom are still waiting, like Pitha etal.
That may not be true. I had read somewhere (in this forum) that DOS sets up cut-off dates as 01, 08, 14, and 22, and 01 includes from 1st to 7th, 08 includes 8th to 13th, and so on and so forth.
Come August 1st, who knows, (strange are the ways USCIS works) his file may be the first one to be picked up and approved before those of March 05 guys, some of whom are still waiting, like Pitha etal.
hair %IMG_DESC_4%
jfredr
06-12 10:26 AM
Kyl: CIR can be finished in a few days
Sen. Kyl (R-Az), one of the architects of the Senate�s CIR announced today that the Senate CIR can be finished in a few days. On CNN this morning he mentioned that the Senate Republican leadership is crafting a few necessary amendments and will take them to the Majority Leader. It is expected that the Cantwell amendment, albeit in a revised form, will be one of the amendments. The NY Times has a similar report.
Sen. Kyl (R-Az), one of the architects of the Senate�s CIR announced today that the Senate CIR can be finished in a few days. On CNN this morning he mentioned that the Senate Republican leadership is crafting a few necessary amendments and will take them to the Majority Leader. It is expected that the Cantwell amendment, albeit in a revised form, will be one of the amendments. The NY Times has a similar report.
more...
abhijitp
03-23 07:34 PM
I am from bay area, CA and would like to travel to DC to participate in the advocacy effort! If there is a group traveling from here, I want to get in touch with you. Please let me know. Thanks!
We can help you! Please check your PM
We can help you! Please check your PM
hot %IMG_DESC_5%
virtual44
07-05 03:45 PM
Nothing comes for free, you have to work and contribute. It is a collective effort and we all should share financial, and other responsibilities to acheive our common goals.
We can achieve them sooner by contributing as little as 20 dollars and encouraging the core group, volunteers and allowing them to concentrate on goals of the organization and not worry about how they will pay for the lobbying and law firms at the end of the every month.
We can achieve them sooner by contributing as little as 20 dollars and encouraging the core group, volunteers and allowing them to concentrate on goals of the organization and not worry about how they will pay for the lobbying and law firms at the end of the every month.
more...
house %IMG_DESC_17%
spicy_guy
07-27 05:29 PM
Guys (and guns),
Need a suggestion on finding a job!
My friend has a master degree in India and worked in India for 6 months in Seimens before coming to US. Now she has EAD and would like to start working. Its been 3 years she left India and been idle.
She would like to start as a fresher / jr in IT though she has little experience.
When I asked a couple of guys, they suggested to approach Desi consulting companies.
From what I heard, they train and put up some fake exp and then apply for jobs (and of course need to sign a contract). But she doesn't like that.
I know a lot of people are in this situ too. I believe some of you have been here for a long time and have dealt with desi and US consulting companies. Some of you guys have good insight into these matters as well.
So what do you guys suggest?
Approaching Desi co is a good idea? or try for a full time employment with some US cos?
I was told that Desi cos know tricks of the trade. Not sure how true this is.
Or US consulting companies?
(I don't see so many job openings for freshers / juniors. Very very limited.)
Need a suggestion on finding a job!
My friend has a master degree in India and worked in India for 6 months in Seimens before coming to US. Now she has EAD and would like to start working. Its been 3 years she left India and been idle.
She would like to start as a fresher / jr in IT though she has little experience.
When I asked a couple of guys, they suggested to approach Desi consulting companies.
From what I heard, they train and put up some fake exp and then apply for jobs (and of course need to sign a contract). But she doesn't like that.
I know a lot of people are in this situ too. I believe some of you have been here for a long time and have dealt with desi and US consulting companies. Some of you guys have good insight into these matters as well.
So what do you guys suggest?
Approaching Desi co is a good idea? or try for a full time employment with some US cos?
I was told that Desi cos know tricks of the trade. Not sure how true this is.
Or US consulting companies?
(I don't see so many job openings for freshers / juniors. Very very limited.)
tattoo %IMG_DESC_6%
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
more...
pictures %IMG_DESC_7%
alterego
06-08 07:09 PM
Nobody should get red for expressing their thought!! So if at all I give you some, it would be only green!
coming to your point: Even in the thread you referenced to, I have posted a comment "Mr. Oppenheim's statements do not add up...his statements logically contradict each other (well you can not expect LOGIC from USCIS). and so the exact scenario will only be clarified with VB, date movements and finally, their year end statistics".
Accordingly, moving the EB2 I and C together, they have proven that "they are getting ready to spill over". Moreover, EB2 China has used up "its own quota" and will need spill over to move. EB2 ROW on the other had has not used up "its own quota" and will not need spill over (as it is current and not together with India and china). So any spill over from EB1 will come to EB2 India and China (effectively only to India). And if EB2 ROW does not use up their remaining numbers (which they have not so far) during the rest of fiscal year they will also spill to EB2 India.
Agree with your logic. However, if there is anything about the USCIS/State Dep't we have learnt over the last 2 yrs, they and their rules/logic is inconsistent at best and idiotic at worst. When someone picks and chooses which guidelines they follow at different times, and interpret the rules in such a haphazard manner, predicting anything in this regard is about as accurate as predicting the weather on the day I get my green card.
coming to your point: Even in the thread you referenced to, I have posted a comment "Mr. Oppenheim's statements do not add up...his statements logically contradict each other (well you can not expect LOGIC from USCIS). and so the exact scenario will only be clarified with VB, date movements and finally, their year end statistics".
Accordingly, moving the EB2 I and C together, they have proven that "they are getting ready to spill over". Moreover, EB2 China has used up "its own quota" and will need spill over to move. EB2 ROW on the other had has not used up "its own quota" and will not need spill over (as it is current and not together with India and china). So any spill over from EB1 will come to EB2 India and China (effectively only to India). And if EB2 ROW does not use up their remaining numbers (which they have not so far) during the rest of fiscal year they will also spill to EB2 India.
Agree with your logic. However, if there is anything about the USCIS/State Dep't we have learnt over the last 2 yrs, they and their rules/logic is inconsistent at best and idiotic at worst. When someone picks and chooses which guidelines they follow at different times, and interpret the rules in such a haphazard manner, predicting anything in this regard is about as accurate as predicting the weather on the day I get my green card.
dresses %IMG_DESC_12%
praveenat11
09-24 01:31 PM
Hi,
Appreciate ur quick response.
so i need to get the affidavit from notary signed that it is a true translation from telugu to english so this is a replacement of English DOB Certificate.
Appreciate ur quick response.
so i need to get the affidavit from notary signed that it is a true translation from telugu to english so this is a replacement of English DOB Certificate.
more...
makeup %IMG_DESC_9%
good idea
09-09 03:58 PM
I would like to see all EB3 AS DONORS.
I have read so many posts in the past where senior members have clearly said that their is nothing possible for EB3 alone and if something is possible it would be for EB.
(as per calculator, I am going to get my GC in 2030) Would contribution of all EB3 help them in any way?
I have read so many posts in the past where senior members have clearly said that their is nothing possible for EB3 alone and if something is possible it would be for EB.
(as per calculator, I am going to get my GC in 2030) Would contribution of all EB3 help them in any way?
girlfriend %IMG_DESC_14%
newuser
04-20 08:41 PM
Anyone from West Coast?
hairstyles %IMG_DESC_11%
meimmi
03-10 04:25 PM
Yes, for e-file you need to send the supporting docs by mail. In my case, I sent the copy of I-485 ASC biometrics notice which has mention of the receipt # and A # as proof of my AOS pending, copy of I-94, copy of the e-filing confirmation (Printout). You do not need to send photo as that will be taken during fingerprinting. The separate fingerprint is needed for e-file only. They take print of 1 finger. If you send your EAD papers with I-485, the 485 fingerprnt covers all I think. I do not think we need to go for fingerprint again for EAD renewal, though with USCIS that may be possible. ;)
StarSun
02-17 09:50 AM
Who is IV?
You and I = WE.
You and I = WE.
a_yaja
04-04 09:10 AM
I hope not. If they ban bodyshops the cap will never run out.
And people in Real companies will be able to get the visas.
There are many business models and you need to be aware of how each model works. There are a lot of companies, banks, insurance companies, even small and medium manufacturing companies that hire contractors for developing IT applications. They remain contractors for a reason - once the application has been developed - the contractors turn over the application to the company for maintenance and enhancements. A small percentage of contractors stay on and become permanant employees - but others move on. It would not be cost efficient for those companies to hire all developers as FTEs - the cost associated with benifits, taxes, 401K, etc are much more costly than having a contractor. Ofcourse, they can lay-off the employees after the project is completed - but what would that do to their reputation? Any company that follows a "hire-and-fire" policy cannot survive long.
Let me give you a simple real life analogy. Let us say that you have a decent family sized car that you and your family use on a daily basis. Then let us say you want to go on a vacation with your friends family. What would you do in this case? Would you go out and buy a mini-van? Or would you rent one?
And people in Real companies will be able to get the visas.
There are many business models and you need to be aware of how each model works. There are a lot of companies, banks, insurance companies, even small and medium manufacturing companies that hire contractors for developing IT applications. They remain contractors for a reason - once the application has been developed - the contractors turn over the application to the company for maintenance and enhancements. A small percentage of contractors stay on and become permanant employees - but others move on. It would not be cost efficient for those companies to hire all developers as FTEs - the cost associated with benifits, taxes, 401K, etc are much more costly than having a contractor. Ofcourse, they can lay-off the employees after the project is completed - but what would that do to their reputation? Any company that follows a "hire-and-fire" policy cannot survive long.
Let me give you a simple real life analogy. Let us say that you have a decent family sized car that you and your family use on a daily basis. Then let us say you want to go on a vacation with your friends family. What would you do in this case? Would you go out and buy a mini-van? Or would you rent one?
