coopheal
02-09 01:07 PM
See USCIS has also predicted EB3-I PD to be in Jan/Feb of 2002 by End Sep.
This is consistent with what USCIS's release data says as well.
It is available on wiki at EB3 Movement Tracking - Immigration Wiki (http://immigrationvoice.org/wiki/index.php/EB3_Movement_Tracking)
Cumulative count till Feb 2002 is 2349. So in rest of the year (9 months since Dec data release) all these people should get visas. If they do not get again there is something wrong.
This is consistent with what USCIS's release data says as well.
It is available on wiki at EB3 Movement Tracking - Immigration Wiki (http://immigrationvoice.org/wiki/index.php/EB3_Movement_Tracking)
Cumulative count till Feb 2002 is 2349. So in rest of the year (9 months since Dec data release) all these people should get visas. If they do not get again there is something wrong.
wallpaper older Pokémon audience.
furiouspride
08-10 01:59 PM
I would be more than happy to help with whatever ideas you have on mind. Even if IV decides to create an exclusive EB3 fund, count me in for any monetary contribution.
srkamath
07-03 10:18 PM
Country-wise caps are clearly not a sensible way to retain the best talent in the world in the US. The purpose of the EB visa program is to get the best contributors to the US economy mostly when and where Americans are not available. The EB immigration system is not a socialist entitlement program for prospective immigrants from China, India or the ROW. The program must be fair to the US, fairness (or lack thereof) to all qualified prospective immigrants is a consequence not the intent of the law.
The sad truth is that, no matter how sensible that argument is - a large section of people will not understand that or will choose to distort it out of fears such as losing their perceived entitlement - simply put many will simply refuse to buy it. Therefore, if we wish to pursue this issue we need a middle ground proposal.
Here's an amendment that strikes middle ground ......
For a given year, to estimate the demand, first calculate from the last three years data, the average number (percentage) of visas charged to each country under EB1, 2 & 3. For any country that was charged more than an average of 7% of the visas in the last three years, limit the visa allocation in the first quarter to 7%. In the second and third quarters, limit the allocation to the actual average percentage for the last three years. In the last quarter, remove all such country-wise limits to ensure maximum usage.
I'm no legislative expert, but after reading the text of the law at http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558 dbe (chapter 1 - Selection System) , it is my understanding that the law already permits something very close what i have proposed. It is up to the executive branch to change their policy here - this seems like a classic case for an Executive Order.
Any thoughts / comments?
The sad truth is that, no matter how sensible that argument is - a large section of people will not understand that or will choose to distort it out of fears such as losing their perceived entitlement - simply put many will simply refuse to buy it. Therefore, if we wish to pursue this issue we need a middle ground proposal.
Here's an amendment that strikes middle ground ......
For a given year, to estimate the demand, first calculate from the last three years data, the average number (percentage) of visas charged to each country under EB1, 2 & 3. For any country that was charged more than an average of 7% of the visas in the last three years, limit the visa allocation in the first quarter to 7%. In the second and third quarters, limit the allocation to the actual average percentage for the last three years. In the last quarter, remove all such country-wise limits to ensure maximum usage.
I'm no legislative expert, but after reading the text of the law at http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558 dbe (chapter 1 - Selection System) , it is my understanding that the law already permits something very close what i have proposed. It is up to the executive branch to change their policy here - this seems like a classic case for an Executive Order.
Any thoughts / comments?
2011 Are you a boy or a girl?
idlinginc
04-09 03:40 PM
Hello Everyone,
I have created google group for NJ Chapter and there are four members in this group so far. If you can send me your email ID then I will let you join..
Varsha: I will see if I can change ownership of group to you. It is much easier to communicate through emails then looking at chapter posting..
Thank you
ak27
Dear ak27,
Could you post the groups URL so that I can join?
Best Regards.
I have created google group for NJ Chapter and there are four members in this group so far. If you can send me your email ID then I will let you join..
Varsha: I will see if I can change ownership of group to you. It is much easier to communicate through emails then looking at chapter posting..
Thank you
ak27
Dear ak27,
Could you post the groups URL so that I can join?
Best Regards.
more...
andycool
09-10 02:33 PM
What are the hopes for EB3-I?
ZERO
Till we spend our time in predictions and tracking, till the time we stop jumping the gun in calling for lawsuits, till the time we stop interpreting the INA to find a smoking gun, till the time we stop calling names for USCIS and DOS, till the time we stop blaming 245(i), till the time we stop engaging in eb2 v/s eb3 fight, till the time we stop fighting with each other over irrelevant things, till the time we stop creating these stupid polls, till the time we stop engaging in "number crunching" whatever that means, until that time there is ZERO hope for Eb3-I. Once we stop wasting our time on all these irrelevant things, we will then start spending our time on more meaningful things like speaking with the members of Congress. Then, and only then, there will be a chance of anything good happening for EB3-I.
Port to EB-2 ......
ZERO
Till we spend our time in predictions and tracking, till the time we stop jumping the gun in calling for lawsuits, till the time we stop interpreting the INA to find a smoking gun, till the time we stop calling names for USCIS and DOS, till the time we stop blaming 245(i), till the time we stop engaging in eb2 v/s eb3 fight, till the time we stop fighting with each other over irrelevant things, till the time we stop creating these stupid polls, till the time we stop engaging in "number crunching" whatever that means, until that time there is ZERO hope for Eb3-I. Once we stop wasting our time on all these irrelevant things, we will then start spending our time on more meaningful things like speaking with the members of Congress. Then, and only then, there will be a chance of anything good happening for EB3-I.
Port to EB-2 ......
ncrtpMay2004
11-11 09:33 AM
Anything possible in the lame duck session.
more...
mjadala
03-17 02:48 PM
My PD is Nov 2004. Filed 485 in July 2007.
2010 Pokemon Black. The white
leoindiano
03-17 10:19 AM
EB2 India PD came only up till April 2004 before it retrogressed. There is no way anybody whose PD is between April to Sept 2004 could have applied before July 2007. They might have applied only in July 2007 when USCIS made EB2 PD current by mistake.
Before retrogression started in "October 2005 Bulletin, Nov 2005 effective", there are quite a few people who applied for I-485 and had PD upto sept 2004. Those cases are approved. I know couple of cases myself.
Before retrogression started in "October 2005 Bulletin, Nov 2005 effective", there are quite a few people who applied for I-485 and had PD upto sept 2004. Those cases are approved. I know couple of cases myself.
more...
desidude
09-26 11:47 AM
I just sent an email to the editor... hope these mails open their eyes and they repost the correct article... :D
hair Parasol Girl): pokemon Diamond
.jpg "And maybe the girls will be")
immigrant2007
07-29 10:21 AM
The issue with not filing green card is ,even if it is written in offer letter..The lawyer can always come and say ' We tried our best to apply for your grene card. But we could not demonstrate that we could not find american citizens with minimum requirements.'
A promise is a promise whether verbal or written.
In this matter desi consultancies are far better.
I know you are not going to like my reply...but written is a written issue. Desi consultancies and body shops have thier own issue. Infact they exploited the system and candidates to the core.
Having things documented is the best way. If a company had to play fould it can do it anytime (even on verbal). I also learned the hard way. While writing we can still refere outside lawyers (of our choice)
A promise is a promise whether verbal or written.
In this matter desi consultancies are far better.
I know you are not going to like my reply...but written is a written issue. Desi consultancies and body shops have thier own issue. Infact they exploited the system and candidates to the core.
Having things documented is the best way. If a company had to play fould it can do it anytime (even on verbal). I also learned the hard way. While writing we can still refere outside lawyers (of our choice)
more...
SunnySurya
07-28 11:24 AM
I am a hindu but I also want to present anothere extrem point of view..
PS: I DON'T like the tone of his blog..
http://www.thoughts.com/truth/blog/oh-you-hindu-awake-16869/
PS: I DON'T like the tone of his blog..
http://www.thoughts.com/truth/blog/oh-you-hindu-awake-16869/
hot in Pokemon Black amp; White
nixstor
07-03 12:38 PM
There have been cases of folks using L1 A Visa. Big outsourcing companies (US & Indian- Does not matter) routinely file for L1 A (intra company transferee - Managerial) when the person is clearly not performing managerial job. Once on L1 A, folks can file for EB1 and get a GC very soon as it is mostly current. I have seen cases in the past like this. I do not know the status now, as DOL is coming down heavily with audits on PERM applicants. This is one area where only deserving people need to be awarded. This post is not to blame anyone, but people do use this Grey area I suppose to their benefit.
AFAIK, this does not work for people who are already in the US. One has to work in their native or different county to be eligible for the EB1 managerial position here. Some one might have sneaked away this way at some time. But this is definitely not happening on a large scale as EB1 is current for all countries for quite some time. If a lot of folks are getting away, EB1 cannot be current for long time.
AFAIK, this does not work for people who are already in the US. One has to work in their native or different county to be eligible for the EB1 managerial position here. Some one might have sneaked away this way at some time. But this is definitely not happening on a large scale as EB1 is current for all countries for quite some time. If a lot of folks are getting away, EB1 cannot be current for long time.
more...
house Girl Pokemon Trainers
hpandey
04-09 05:41 PM
On the same note, Kumarc123, it is hard to see them working with 2001 EB3-India category for more than 5 years. 245(i) or not...still 5 years...how about that.
Anyway, my point is let us leave predictions. USCIS gave their predictions way back in their Jan 2010 bulletin. Maybe we all should stick with what dates they gave us than we trying to predict.
Now another venting, more calculations, more uproar everything will continue for 1 more week from our members...:rolleyes:
I completely agree with you . For five years EB3 is stuck in 2001 that means people who came here 10 years back are still waiting. Something needs to be done by someone somewhere but I guess no one has any idea who can ( except the congress ) .
All of my friends about 10-15 of them who came with me in 2000-2001 timeframe got their GC's and their citizenships in EB3 ( none in EB2 ) and I am still hanging .
I wonder what was that which made their application go by light speed and my application go into a blackhole :)
Anyway, my point is let us leave predictions. USCIS gave their predictions way back in their Jan 2010 bulletin. Maybe we all should stick with what dates they gave us than we trying to predict.
Now another venting, more calculations, more uproar everything will continue for 1 more week from our members...:rolleyes:
I completely agree with you . For five years EB3 is stuck in 2001 that means people who came here 10 years back are still waiting. Something needs to be done by someone somewhere but I guess no one has any idea who can ( except the congress ) .
All of my friends about 10-15 of them who came with me in 2000-2001 timeframe got their GC's and their citizenships in EB3 ( none in EB2 ) and I am still hanging .
I wonder what was that which made their application go by light speed and my application go into a blackhole :)
tattoo pokemon black and white.
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.
more...
pictures not the pokemon black and
singhsa3
08-13 03:57 PM
I think thats AC21 recapture thing...
From sept visa bulletin http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4328.html section E.
We have 22704 FB visa overflow to EB for year 2008.
From sept visa bulletin http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4328.html section E.
We have 22704 FB visa overflow to EB for year 2008.
dresses She has 7 pokemon.
venky321
08-22 09:36 AM
Seriously, why are you giving OP such a hard time? She only came here looking for help.
I am not sure if she is illegal or not, but atleast you could have told her that politely instead of taunting her with it.
OP, just so you know, the majority of the posters here have to endure long long waits for their US green cards, greater than 10 years sometimes. Because of that they tend to become hyper sensitive when it comes to immigration matters, especially when they think someone is stepping out of line and trying to manipulate the system. Dont mean to imply at all , thats what you are doing.
Your case is too complicated and I haven't come across such a scenario; I'd suggest talking to an attorney; while it might be expensive, some attorneys might be willing to talk to you free for a few minutes, for a basic consultation. Atleast you may find out if you are legal or not.
I am not sure if she is illegal or not, but atleast you could have told her that politely instead of taunting her with it.
OP, just so you know, the majority of the posters here have to endure long long waits for their US green cards, greater than 10 years sometimes. Because of that they tend to become hyper sensitive when it comes to immigration matters, especially when they think someone is stepping out of line and trying to manipulate the system. Dont mean to imply at all , thats what you are doing.
Your case is too complicated and I haven't come across such a scenario; I'd suggest talking to an attorney; while it might be expensive, some attorneys might be willing to talk to you free for a few minutes, for a basic consultation. Atleast you may find out if you are legal or not.
more...
makeup female trainer from Black and
sc3
10-16 01:49 PM
yesterday some one left a red saying "go and sleep in your bedroom or something like that" :D,
(which I find hilarious..because I don't exactly sleep on my couch :D:D)
then some left a green saying "nullifying red".
folks, I didn't leave a red for anyone (who cares abt them anyways)...don't assume immediately that I reacted.
giving either reds or greens will not impact anyone's gc process..or change their PDs!
Like itsnotfunny says, if you agree/disagree say it so. gave itsnotfunny a green to nullify the red.
let me reiterate though, that I am completely opposed to flower campaign because once bitten, twice shy.
USCIS has lot of autonomy and there is every likely of a repeat i.e july 07 part 2 as a reaction to gandhigiri part 2
instead focus on other avenues, there is an excellent thread on FOIA in addition to the other avenues
First: Disabuse yourself of the notion that Gandhigiri had anything to do with the backtrack of the July 07 fiasco. There were other more pressing (and effective) organizations that helped reverse the situation.
Second: What happened (the flood of applications) were definitely caused by an ill thought Visa bulletin, but USCIS had no control over the massive amount of applications that they had to deal with. Even commercial operations (amazon etc) break down when overloaded. So to put extensive blame on USCIS for the "reaction" (I assume you are talking about the backlogs) is not right.
(which I find hilarious..because I don't exactly sleep on my couch :D:D)
then some left a green saying "nullifying red".
folks, I didn't leave a red for anyone (who cares abt them anyways)...don't assume immediately that I reacted.
giving either reds or greens will not impact anyone's gc process..or change their PDs!
Like itsnotfunny says, if you agree/disagree say it so. gave itsnotfunny a green to nullify the red.
let me reiterate though, that I am completely opposed to flower campaign because once bitten, twice shy.
USCIS has lot of autonomy and there is every likely of a repeat i.e july 07 part 2 as a reaction to gandhigiri part 2
instead focus on other avenues, there is an excellent thread on FOIA in addition to the other avenues
First: Disabuse yourself of the notion that Gandhigiri had anything to do with the backtrack of the July 07 fiasco. There were other more pressing (and effective) organizations that helped reverse the situation.
Second: What happened (the flood of applications) were definitely caused by an ill thought Visa bulletin, but USCIS had no control over the massive amount of applications that they had to deal with. Even commercial operations (amazon etc) break down when overloaded. So to put extensive blame on USCIS for the "reaction" (I assume you are talking about the backlogs) is not right.
girlfriend Pokemon is one if the biggest
nixstor
03-18 05:17 PM
I can use some help if I am missing some things here.
Snip from 202 a 5 (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid|SLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination|act202a&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1435)
(A) EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
Paragraph in the above corresond to each category. So paragraph 1 is EB1. Paragraph 2 is EB2 and so on. So the translation is what the VB exactly said.
What does 203 (b) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 say?
Define EB1-EB5 categories. Find it here (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/DocView/slbid/1/2/15?hilite=).
I posted the same Q on Ron Gotcher's forum this afternoon and my post did not go through to be moderated (I got the message that the post was submitted and will be posted after moderator approves it) or the mod chose not to post it.
Snip from 202 a 5 (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid|SLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination|act202a&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1435)
(A) EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
Paragraph in the above corresond to each category. So paragraph 1 is EB1. Paragraph 2 is EB2 and so on. So the translation is what the VB exactly said.
What does 203 (b) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 say?
Define EB1-EB5 categories. Find it here (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/DocView/slbid/1/2/15?hilite=).
I posted the same Q on Ron Gotcher's forum this afternoon and my post did not go through to be moderated (I got the message that the post was submitted and will be posted after moderator approves it) or the mod chose not to post it.
hairstyles With Pokemon Black and White
AirWaterandGC
07-15 03:39 PM
Talk to an attorney soon then.
I have been given a month to respond for this RFE. I dont have to provide any paystubs. Also the guy who told me that my 140 was revoked doesnt have first hand information. He is just an employee of the company. He is involved when company applies for H-1B's, 140's EAD, AP. He is never involved in revocation cases. I am trying to get a hold of the owner to see if I can get some facts about my 140.
I have no intention of doing any fraud. I will present a letter from my ex employer in case he hasnt revoked the 140. In case he did, I will send a letter from my current employer.
I plan to speak with a competent attorney once I know for sure the 140 revocation history.
I have been given a month to respond for this RFE. I dont have to provide any paystubs. Also the guy who told me that my 140 was revoked doesnt have first hand information. He is just an employee of the company. He is involved when company applies for H-1B's, 140's EAD, AP. He is never involved in revocation cases. I am trying to get a hold of the owner to see if I can get some facts about my 140.
I have no intention of doing any fraud. I will present a letter from my ex employer in case he hasnt revoked the 140. In case he did, I will send a letter from my current employer.
I plan to speak with a competent attorney once I know for sure the 140 revocation history.
ndale
07-24 02:19 PM
Did you call TSC about the status? Somebody got their receipt numbers today by calling NSC. (looks like package Reached NSC on 06/23/2007 and Notice Date is 07/24/2007)
Can you give the phone number for NSC?
thx
Can you give the phone number for NSC?
thx
sanju
09-11 12:05 PM
wow..they resume discussions on sept 18th?
There is a slight correction, they will resume 4 hours break time on sept 18th.
There is a slight correction, they will resume 4 hours break time on sept 18th.
No comments:
Post a Comment