nozerd
09-30 10:14 AM
I have done a lot of research on this :::
A good option is if you try and get a job in Detroit, MI. You can then live across the border in Windsor, ON and commute daily between Canada and US.Windsor is basically suburb of Detroit right across from Detroit river ex like Mumbai and Navi Mumbai, Hyderabad and Secundrabad etc.
This way you get best of both worlds
1) You keep H1B visa and US GC going.
2) You earn in US $ and can avail of US job opportunity.
3) You can earn time towards maintaining Canadian PR and Canadian Citizenship.
Disadvantage
1) This option is limited to getting a job/transfer in Detroit Metro area.
2) Some days there may be delay at border if US is on high alert, so you need to be conservative and add time for border inspection to your commute.
3) You have to file taxes in both US and Canada (but its not double taxes).
A good option is if you try and get a job in Detroit, MI. You can then live across the border in Windsor, ON and commute daily between Canada and US.Windsor is basically suburb of Detroit right across from Detroit river ex like Mumbai and Navi Mumbai, Hyderabad and Secundrabad etc.
This way you get best of both worlds
1) You keep H1B visa and US GC going.
2) You earn in US $ and can avail of US job opportunity.
3) You can earn time towards maintaining Canadian PR and Canadian Citizenship.
Disadvantage
1) This option is limited to getting a job/transfer in Detroit Metro area.
2) Some days there may be delay at border if US is on high alert, so you need to be conservative and add time for border inspection to your commute.
3) You have to file taxes in both US and Canada (but its not double taxes).
wallpaper Emma watson 2011 MTV Movie
smisachu
06-16 03:58 PM
On the Mark:)
I am waiting in the line as well for GC or to be sent back home and personally, I want everyone to get their GC and don't agree with dilipcr. Kind of off-topic but I made this observation:
IMHO simsachu's reasoning is sound.
Your example is not the same as simsachu's. simsachu assumes there are way more "bad" fish compared to the good one's in the population. Hence you need to catch more fish to come across a "good" one.
You assume the opposite (there are very few bad fish) and hence come to the conclusion that catching more fish would net you more bad fish (but way more "good" fish as well) as well. But given your assumption, it is puzzling why you want to have lesser number of GC's (if indeed that is what you are advocating, I haven't read all the messages in the thread) when you assume there are way more "good" candidates than bad.
I am waiting in the line as well for GC or to be sent back home and personally, I want everyone to get their GC and don't agree with dilipcr. Kind of off-topic but I made this observation:
IMHO simsachu's reasoning is sound.
Your example is not the same as simsachu's. simsachu assumes there are way more "bad" fish compared to the good one's in the population. Hence you need to catch more fish to come across a "good" one.
You assume the opposite (there are very few bad fish) and hence come to the conclusion that catching more fish would net you more bad fish (but way more "good" fish as well) as well. But given your assumption, it is puzzling why you want to have lesser number of GC's (if indeed that is what you are advocating, I haven't read all the messages in the thread) when you assume there are way more "good" candidates than bad.
paskal
07-17 12:58 PM
Is it accurate to say that new way of allocating spill over visas effectively acheive same effect as eliminiating country limits?
this is not correct. ROW continues to get preference.
what has changed is that for a while USCIS chose to interpret the law in a way that gave EB2 GC numbers (the law mandated 28.6%) to EB3 ROW rather than spill them over the EB2 I/C. now they have corrected that and EB2 numbers (which include any spillover from EB1) are first used in EB2 ie category numbers are given priority.
so the bonus advantage that EB3 ROW got for 1-2 years has been withdrawn. however with EB3 retrogressed and with EB2 I/C retrogressed, EB3 ROW continues to get all EB3 numbers except the 7% each for the retrogressed nation states.
i would also like to know where the 20K number is coming from if anyone has a source please share it.
this is not correct. ROW continues to get preference.
what has changed is that for a while USCIS chose to interpret the law in a way that gave EB2 GC numbers (the law mandated 28.6%) to EB3 ROW rather than spill them over the EB2 I/C. now they have corrected that and EB2 numbers (which include any spillover from EB1) are first used in EB2 ie category numbers are given priority.
so the bonus advantage that EB3 ROW got for 1-2 years has been withdrawn. however with EB3 retrogressed and with EB2 I/C retrogressed, EB3 ROW continues to get all EB3 numbers except the 7% each for the retrogressed nation states.
i would also like to know where the 20K number is coming from if anyone has a source please share it.
2011 Titles: 2011 MTV Movie Awards
maximus777
08-21 12:46 AM
SRK also equally crap to talk about...so lets give this thread rest to peace..
Agreed
Agreed
more...
indiancitizen77
08-28 09:56 PM
Thanks for the advice and insight about the situation in Canada. Much appreciate your input.
tikka
07-03 11:28 PM
Totally agree!
Digg is about how fast the story becomes popular.. even though we had large number of diggs with previous stories, it wasnt fast enough.
Lets all digg this...NOW! FAST!
PLEASE HURRY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://digg.com/politics/USCIS_Visa_scandal
http://digg.com/politics/Rep_Lofgren_Issues_Statement_on_Updated_Visa_Bulle tin
http://digg.com/politics/U_S_Withdraws_Offer_of_60_000_Job_Based_Visas_Ange ring_Immigration_Lawyer/who
Digg is about how fast the story becomes popular.. even though we had large number of diggs with previous stories, it wasnt fast enough.
Lets all digg this...NOW! FAST!
PLEASE HURRY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://digg.com/politics/USCIS_Visa_scandal
http://digg.com/politics/Rep_Lofgren_Issues_Statement_on_Updated_Visa_Bulle tin
http://digg.com/politics/U_S_Withdraws_Offer_of_60_000_Job_Based_Visas_Ange ring_Immigration_Lawyer/who
more...
mallu
02-15 10:42 PM
...I do not foresee my Jan 2003 EB-2 India PD becoming current any time soon. ....
Why ? You got the number of EB2 India cases pending that have PD before yours ?
Why ? You got the number of EB2 India cases pending that have PD before yours ?
2010 tom felton 2011 mtv movie
conchshell
09-23 08:27 AM
Nixtor, this idea is worth trying. If people who are buyinh house can be exempted from the VB quota, this will free up extra visas and will help those people who will not buy a house.
more...
WeldonSprings
09-15 04:36 PM
Hello Sachug 22,
Where are you getting numbers for EB2 India for 2005 to be 10000, when total labor approved for 2005 were just 6133 (for all countries).
Thanks,
WeldonSprings.
2004 2000
2005 10000
2006 13000
2007(july) 5000
Here are my Estimate of pending EB2 India case for give years
<=2004 2000
2005 10000
2006 13000
2007(july) 5000
==============
Total 30000
==============
This number is very close to Ron Gocthers number prediction a few months back (minus sept approvals).
Collaboration on visa quota data/analysis - Page 6 - Immigration Information Discussion Forum (http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/general-immigration-questions/8419-collaboration-on-visa-quota-data-analysis-6.html)
Pending as of 15 July 2009 145000
EB2 50000
EB3 94000
EB2India (2.4/3.5 EB2) 35714
We can use the LCA number and come close these numbers as well
2005
EB2 India LCA for 2005 = RIR (3000) + PERM (60% of 7290) ~ 7400
Assuming 20% abandon applicant we get = 5900
1.2 dependent per applicant give ~ 13000 I-485 applicantions
Assuming 10% approved in 2008 and 10% rejected/abandon I-485 and 5% cross-charageability we get => pending 10000 pending I-485 application for 2005
2006
India PERM applications = 18000
EB2 India PERM applications (60%) = 10800
Assuming 20% abandon applicant we get = 8640
1.2 dependent per applicant give ~ 19000 I-485 applicantions
Assuming 10% approved in 2008 and 10% rejected/abandon I-485 and 10% cross-charageability we get => pending 13000 pending I-485 application for 2006
So if we see spillover of more than 30K the date will move beyond July 2007.
Where are you getting numbers for EB2 India for 2005 to be 10000, when total labor approved for 2005 were just 6133 (for all countries).
Thanks,
WeldonSprings.
2004 2000
2005 10000
2006 13000
2007(july) 5000
Here are my Estimate of pending EB2 India case for give years
<=2004 2000
2005 10000
2006 13000
2007(july) 5000
==============
Total 30000
==============
This number is very close to Ron Gocthers number prediction a few months back (minus sept approvals).
Collaboration on visa quota data/analysis - Page 6 - Immigration Information Discussion Forum (http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/general-immigration-questions/8419-collaboration-on-visa-quota-data-analysis-6.html)
Pending as of 15 July 2009 145000
EB2 50000
EB3 94000
EB2India (2.4/3.5 EB2) 35714
We can use the LCA number and come close these numbers as well
2005
EB2 India LCA for 2005 = RIR (3000) + PERM (60% of 7290) ~ 7400
Assuming 20% abandon applicant we get = 5900
1.2 dependent per applicant give ~ 13000 I-485 applicantions
Assuming 10% approved in 2008 and 10% rejected/abandon I-485 and 5% cross-charageability we get => pending 10000 pending I-485 application for 2005
2006
India PERM applications = 18000
EB2 India PERM applications (60%) = 10800
Assuming 20% abandon applicant we get = 8640
1.2 dependent per applicant give ~ 19000 I-485 applicantions
Assuming 10% approved in 2008 and 10% rejected/abandon I-485 and 10% cross-charageability we get => pending 13000 pending I-485 application for 2006
So if we see spillover of more than 30K the date will move beyond July 2007.
hair Tom Felton
gagbag
07-11 12:55 PM
http://www.ilw.com/articles/2007,0710-lee.shtm
more...
katrina
02-01 02:34 PM
US news has covered a book by David Heenan -- "Flight Capital" that essentially deals with the fact that high powered immigrants are leaving this country -- for whatever reason -- and how its bad for America. BAD FOR AMERICA. forget about it being bad of GC aspirants. ITS BAD FOR AMERICA. And we have one of america's own high powered former CEO saying that
http://www.flight-capital.com/
This man has no vested interested in talking about this. Obviously he does not need a GC and he is not on H1. He makes our case. How anti-immigration congressional measure are hurting America as a nation as much as it hurts aspiring immigrants.
This is an independent non-partisan source who can be quoted in our cause.
http://www.greatandhra.com/business/greencard_usa.html
and there is another good article with the same topic.
Check out this article in the Wall Street Journal - by Gary Becker, a Nobel Price Winner..alas this administration in immune to such logic
Give Us Your Skilled Masses
By GARY S. BECKER
November 30, 2005; Page A18
With border security and proposals for a guest-worker program back on the front page, it is vital that the U.S. -- in its effort to cope with undocumented workers -- does not overlook legal immigration. The number of people allowed in is far too small, posing a significant problem for the economy in the years ahead. Only 140,000 green cards are issued annually, with the result that scientists, engineers and other highly skilled workers often must wait years before receiving the ticket allowing them to stay permanently in the U.S.
An alternate route for highly skilled professionals -- especially information technology workers -- has been temporary H-1B visas, good for specific jobs for three years with the possibility of one renewal. But Congress foolishly cut the annual quota of H-1B visas in 2003 from almost 200,000 to well under 100,000. The small quota of 65,000 for the current fiscal year that began on Oct. 1 is already exhausted!
This is mistaken policy. The right approach would be to greatly increase the number of entry permits to highly skilled professionals and eliminate the H-1B program, so that all such visas became permanent. Skilled immigrants such as engineers and scientists are in fields not attracting many Americans, and they work in IT industries, such as computers and biotech, which have become the backbone of the economy. Many of the entrepreneurs and higher-level employees in Silicon Valley were born overseas. These immigrants create jobs and opportunities for native-born Americans of all types and levels of skills.
So it seems like a win-win situation. Permanent rather than temporary admissions of the H-1B type have many advantages. Foreign professionals would make a greater commitment to becoming part of American culture and to eventually becoming citizens, rather than forming separate enclaves in the expectation they are here only temporarily. They would also be more concerned with advancing in the American economy and less likely to abscond with the intellectual property of American companies -- property that could help them advance in their countries of origin.
Basically, I am proposing that H-1B visas be folded into a much larger, employment-based green card program with the emphasis on skilled workers. The annual quota should be multiplied many times beyond present limits, and there should be no upper bound on the numbers from any single country. Such upper bounds place large countries like India and China, with many highly qualified professionals, at a considerable and unfair disadvantage -- at no gain to the U.S.
* * *
To be sure, the annual admission of a million or more highly skilled workers such as engineers and scientists would lower the earnings of the American workers they compete against. The opposition from competing American workers is probably the main reason for the sharp restrictions on the number of immigrant workers admitted today. That opposition is understandable, but does not make it good for the country as a whole.
Doesn't the U.S. clearly benefit if, for example, India's government spends a lot on the highly esteemed Indian Institutes of Technology to train scientists and engineers who leave to work in America? It certainly appears that way to the sending countries, many of which protest against this emigration by calling it a "brain drain."
Yet the migration of workers, like free trade in goods, is not a zero sum game, but one that usually benefits the sending and the receiving country. Even if many immigrants do not return home to the nations that trained them, they send back remittances that are often sizeable; and some do return to start businesses.
Experience shows that countries providing a good economic and political environment can attract back many of the skilled men and women who have previously left. Whether they return or not, they gain knowledge about modern technologies that becomes more easily incorporated into the production of their native countries.
Experience also shows that if America does not accept greatly increased numbers of highly skilled professionals, they might go elsewhere: Canada and Australia, to take two examples, are actively recruiting IT professionals.
Since earnings are much higher in the U.S., many skilled immigrants would prefer to come here. But if they cannot, they may compete against us through outsourcing and similar forms of international trade in services. The U.S. would be much better off by having such skilled workers become residents and citizens -- thus contributing to our productivity, culture, tax revenues and education rather than to the productivity and tax revenues of other countries.
* * *
I do, however, advocate that we be careful about admitting students and skilled workers from countries that have produced many terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. My attitude may be dismissed as religious "profiling," but intelligent and fact-based profiling is essential in the war against terror. And terrorists come from a relatively small number of countries and backgrounds, unfortunately mainly of the Islamic faith. But the legitimate concern about admitting terrorists should not be allowed, as it is now doing, to deny or discourage the admission of skilled immigrants who pose little terrorist threat.
Nothing in my discussion should be interpreted as arguing against the admission of unskilled immigrants. Many of these individuals also turn out to be ambitious and hard-working and make fine contributions to American life. But if the number to be admitted is subject to political and other limits, there is a strong case for giving preference to skilled immigrants for the reasons I have indicated.
Other countries, too, should liberalize their policies toward the immigration of skilled workers. I particularly think of Japan and Germany, both countries that have rapidly aging, and soon to be declining, populations that are not sympathetic (especially Japan) to absorbing many immigrants. These are decisions they have to make. But America still has a major advantage in attracting skilled workers, because this is the preferred destination of the vast majority of them. So why not take advantage of their preference to come here, rather than force them to look elsewhere?
Mr. Becker, the 1992 Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor of Economics and Sociology at the University of Chicago and the Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.
http://www.flight-capital.com/
This man has no vested interested in talking about this. Obviously he does not need a GC and he is not on H1. He makes our case. How anti-immigration congressional measure are hurting America as a nation as much as it hurts aspiring immigrants.
This is an independent non-partisan source who can be quoted in our cause.
http://www.greatandhra.com/business/greencard_usa.html
and there is another good article with the same topic.
Check out this article in the Wall Street Journal - by Gary Becker, a Nobel Price Winner..alas this administration in immune to such logic
Give Us Your Skilled Masses
By GARY S. BECKER
November 30, 2005; Page A18
With border security and proposals for a guest-worker program back on the front page, it is vital that the U.S. -- in its effort to cope with undocumented workers -- does not overlook legal immigration. The number of people allowed in is far too small, posing a significant problem for the economy in the years ahead. Only 140,000 green cards are issued annually, with the result that scientists, engineers and other highly skilled workers often must wait years before receiving the ticket allowing them to stay permanently in the U.S.
An alternate route for highly skilled professionals -- especially information technology workers -- has been temporary H-1B visas, good for specific jobs for three years with the possibility of one renewal. But Congress foolishly cut the annual quota of H-1B visas in 2003 from almost 200,000 to well under 100,000. The small quota of 65,000 for the current fiscal year that began on Oct. 1 is already exhausted!
This is mistaken policy. The right approach would be to greatly increase the number of entry permits to highly skilled professionals and eliminate the H-1B program, so that all such visas became permanent. Skilled immigrants such as engineers and scientists are in fields not attracting many Americans, and they work in IT industries, such as computers and biotech, which have become the backbone of the economy. Many of the entrepreneurs and higher-level employees in Silicon Valley were born overseas. These immigrants create jobs and opportunities for native-born Americans of all types and levels of skills.
So it seems like a win-win situation. Permanent rather than temporary admissions of the H-1B type have many advantages. Foreign professionals would make a greater commitment to becoming part of American culture and to eventually becoming citizens, rather than forming separate enclaves in the expectation they are here only temporarily. They would also be more concerned with advancing in the American economy and less likely to abscond with the intellectual property of American companies -- property that could help them advance in their countries of origin.
Basically, I am proposing that H-1B visas be folded into a much larger, employment-based green card program with the emphasis on skilled workers. The annual quota should be multiplied many times beyond present limits, and there should be no upper bound on the numbers from any single country. Such upper bounds place large countries like India and China, with many highly qualified professionals, at a considerable and unfair disadvantage -- at no gain to the U.S.
* * *
To be sure, the annual admission of a million or more highly skilled workers such as engineers and scientists would lower the earnings of the American workers they compete against. The opposition from competing American workers is probably the main reason for the sharp restrictions on the number of immigrant workers admitted today. That opposition is understandable, but does not make it good for the country as a whole.
Doesn't the U.S. clearly benefit if, for example, India's government spends a lot on the highly esteemed Indian Institutes of Technology to train scientists and engineers who leave to work in America? It certainly appears that way to the sending countries, many of which protest against this emigration by calling it a "brain drain."
Yet the migration of workers, like free trade in goods, is not a zero sum game, but one that usually benefits the sending and the receiving country. Even if many immigrants do not return home to the nations that trained them, they send back remittances that are often sizeable; and some do return to start businesses.
Experience shows that countries providing a good economic and political environment can attract back many of the skilled men and women who have previously left. Whether they return or not, they gain knowledge about modern technologies that becomes more easily incorporated into the production of their native countries.
Experience also shows that if America does not accept greatly increased numbers of highly skilled professionals, they might go elsewhere: Canada and Australia, to take two examples, are actively recruiting IT professionals.
Since earnings are much higher in the U.S., many skilled immigrants would prefer to come here. But if they cannot, they may compete against us through outsourcing and similar forms of international trade in services. The U.S. would be much better off by having such skilled workers become residents and citizens -- thus contributing to our productivity, culture, tax revenues and education rather than to the productivity and tax revenues of other countries.
* * *
I do, however, advocate that we be careful about admitting students and skilled workers from countries that have produced many terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. My attitude may be dismissed as religious "profiling," but intelligent and fact-based profiling is essential in the war against terror. And terrorists come from a relatively small number of countries and backgrounds, unfortunately mainly of the Islamic faith. But the legitimate concern about admitting terrorists should not be allowed, as it is now doing, to deny or discourage the admission of skilled immigrants who pose little terrorist threat.
Nothing in my discussion should be interpreted as arguing against the admission of unskilled immigrants. Many of these individuals also turn out to be ambitious and hard-working and make fine contributions to American life. But if the number to be admitted is subject to political and other limits, there is a strong case for giving preference to skilled immigrants for the reasons I have indicated.
Other countries, too, should liberalize their policies toward the immigration of skilled workers. I particularly think of Japan and Germany, both countries that have rapidly aging, and soon to be declining, populations that are not sympathetic (especially Japan) to absorbing many immigrants. These are decisions they have to make. But America still has a major advantage in attracting skilled workers, because this is the preferred destination of the vast majority of them. So why not take advantage of their preference to come here, rather than force them to look elsewhere?
Mr. Becker, the 1992 Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor of Economics and Sociology at the University of Chicago and the Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.
hot Tom Felton `thought about
JunRN
09-23 02:15 AM
Asking for exemption from quota will cause this proposal to fail. My suggestion:
Of the 10,000 available visas per year for EB5, only about 3k to 4k are being used. How about if one buy a house and give a minimum $100,000 cash payment (not credit in US), he will get a temporary greencard from the EB5 visa pool. If after 2 years, the house is occupied and owned by the same person without problems with credit, he will get a permanent GC. This is on top of meeting the requirements of the category he is in.
Sorry for bringing EB5 in my comments.
This is just my opinion.
Of the 10,000 available visas per year for EB5, only about 3k to 4k are being used. How about if one buy a house and give a minimum $100,000 cash payment (not credit in US), he will get a temporary greencard from the EB5 visa pool. If after 2 years, the house is occupied and owned by the same person without problems with credit, he will get a permanent GC. This is on top of meeting the requirements of the category he is in.
Sorry for bringing EB5 in my comments.
This is just my opinion.
more...
house MTV Movie Awards 2011 Best
jayleno
07-22 12:07 PM
Dont you think you took it too far? I dont think you make much sense. There it is, since you asked for my opinion.
Smile - I can prove this is a relevant topic ..how..
Some of these jokers (Quikstar..Amway) have filed GC in EB2 and Eb3 which is illegal, someday states Like Arizona will declare that anyone looking like us should be checked for Amway membership and deported
Profiling is an issue and because of some jokers we all may have to go thru scrutiny.
We should ask USCIS to check all GC applicants name in Amway database and if found USCIS needs to send them to Mexico (because illegal)..
We should write to senators... your opinion on this? ( this way Indiancommunity can be clean and fight for legal hardworking people in immigration policy)
Smile - I can prove this is a relevant topic ..how..
Some of these jokers (Quikstar..Amway) have filed GC in EB2 and Eb3 which is illegal, someday states Like Arizona will declare that anyone looking like us should be checked for Amway membership and deported
Profiling is an issue and because of some jokers we all may have to go thru scrutiny.
We should ask USCIS to check all GC applicants name in Amway database and if found USCIS needs to send them to Mexico (because illegal)..
We should write to senators... your opinion on this? ( this way Indiancommunity can be clean and fight for legal hardworking people in immigration policy)
tattoo images tom felton 2011 mtv
apb
09-24 02:36 AM
brilliant idea...if some of us are able to get off the queue and give more visa numbers to others waiting helps everybody. Along with US homes being sold could add some value. Hats off to nixtor.
more...
pictures 2010 2011 Tom Felton - 2011
HumHongeKamiyab
09-29 11:42 AM
Hi there,
I also used automatic revalidation about 3 months back.. Dont worry, The immigration officer there knows all the rules. FYI, I went by car from rainbow bridge. While comming back officer just asked me normal questions such as "Where are you from ? " and "When are you flying back to Houston ?". Thats about it..
--HumHongeKamiyab
I also used automatic revalidation about 3 months back.. Dont worry, The immigration officer there knows all the rules. FYI, I went by car from rainbow bridge. While comming back officer just asked me normal questions such as "Where are you from ? " and "When are you flying back to Houston ?". Thats about it..
--HumHongeKamiyab
dresses hot the 2011 MTV Movie Awards!
thepaew
12-14 04:30 PM
Well Said - I feel that this discussion is counterproductive. In my opinion (I am no lawyer but I feel strongly about this), there is no constitutional remedy available. The only accomplishment may be that we alienate non-Indian members.
I know what I am about to say will trigger a lot of reaction and some resentment, but it has to be said on behalf of those who are not Indian. I think the per country limit is to ensure that people of all nationalities and races have an equal opportunity to obtain a green card and to ensure that no one nationality, group, or even sector (i.e. IT) monopolizes the so few visas that are available. In fact, in the visa lottery, countries become excluded when the number of immigrants from them reach a certain point, so we are lucky they do not do that in the Employment-based system!
I think that by wanting to remove the per country limit so more Indians can avail of the green card quota is both asking for "special treatment" and a slap in the face for all the non-Indian IV members. The more I read the threads on this site, the more I feel that this organization is geared just to one ethnic group. I am sure that Indians probably make up the majority of members, but the founders of IV (I hope) did not want this organization to become one-sided! Please be considerate of ALL members and try to come up with suggestions that would benefit ALL members!!!:mad:
I know what I am about to say will trigger a lot of reaction and some resentment, but it has to be said on behalf of those who are not Indian. I think the per country limit is to ensure that people of all nationalities and races have an equal opportunity to obtain a green card and to ensure that no one nationality, group, or even sector (i.e. IT) monopolizes the so few visas that are available. In fact, in the visa lottery, countries become excluded when the number of immigrants from them reach a certain point, so we are lucky they do not do that in the Employment-based system!
I think that by wanting to remove the per country limit so more Indians can avail of the green card quota is both asking for "special treatment" and a slap in the face for all the non-Indian IV members. The more I read the threads on this site, the more I feel that this organization is geared just to one ethnic group. I am sure that Indians probably make up the majority of members, but the founders of IV (I hope) did not want this organization to become one-sided! Please be considerate of ALL members and try to come up with suggestions that would benefit ALL members!!!:mad:
more...
makeup and tom felton 2011.
kumar1
07-13 04:27 PM
I'm tired and extremely frustrated. Maybe this country does NOT need
an experience special education teacher nor a registered nurse (my husband), who studied here but cannot work because of unavailability of visa/green card.
Starting today, I will explore the possibility of moving to Canada. Could anyone direct me on how to start?
Google "Canada Immigration"... very first link that you get will be very useful.
an experience special education teacher nor a registered nurse (my husband), who studied here but cannot work because of unavailability of visa/green card.
Starting today, I will explore the possibility of moving to Canada. Could anyone direct me on how to start?
Google "Canada Immigration"... very first link that you get will be very useful.
girlfriend 2011 MTV Movie Awards
jhaalaa
01-14 01:19 PM
Ombudsman discussed the RFE rates on page 18 figure 7 of the following document:
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/cisomb_annual_report_2009.pdf
H1b RFE rates
Year VSC CSC
2006 12.7 07.1
2007 11.4 11.0
2008 11.8 11.6
It would be interesting to see the new RFE rates, as this memo gets actioned at USCIS.
Best Wishes for all.
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/cisomb_annual_report_2009.pdf
H1b RFE rates
Year VSC CSC
2006 12.7 07.1
2007 11.4 11.0
2008 11.8 11.6
It would be interesting to see the new RFE rates, as this memo gets actioned at USCIS.
Best Wishes for all.
hairstyles 2010 2011 Tom Felton Emma
Wendyzhu77
07-16 06:24 PM
You should know that processing day means NOTHING! If you are after that, it doesn't mean your case will not be processed. If you are before that, it doesn't mean your case has been processed.
So surprised there are still lots of people keeping an eye on processing day. That's totally useless piece of information.
So surprised there are still lots of people keeping an eye on processing day. That's totally useless piece of information.
jasmin45
09-04 07:11 PM
My...
Did you guys let ChanduV23 go of the hook? :D:D:D.. I see him hanging in here..;)
May be you tried and mud didn't stick on him han?
Long weekend is ahead folks.. go easy on each other:) have a wonderful labor day...
Did you guys let ChanduV23 go of the hook? :D:D:D.. I see him hanging in here..;)
May be you tried and mud didn't stick on him han?
Long weekend is ahead folks.. go easy on each other:) have a wonderful labor day...
samay
07-28 04:12 PM
Question for Lawyer or Senior Members of Forum:
Dear Sir/Madam,
I myself is currently in H1B and my wife on H4. We both have EAD and AP which we�re never activated since we had our H1 and H4 and my wife has not started working.
She should be starting work very soon and hence we would like to renew her EAD and AP. Also as part of her new job she needs to travel oustide US. So the question I had is whether she can travel outside US on her currenty valid AP with the application for renewal of AP/EAD in processing with USCIS.
Thank You All for Your Help
/COLOR]
Regards,
Josh
[COLOR="Blue"]
Yes -so long as the AP is still valid.
Dear Sir/Madam,
I myself is currently in H1B and my wife on H4. We both have EAD and AP which we�re never activated since we had our H1 and H4 and my wife has not started working.
She should be starting work very soon and hence we would like to renew her EAD and AP. Also as part of her new job she needs to travel oustide US. So the question I had is whether she can travel outside US on her currenty valid AP with the application for renewal of AP/EAD in processing with USCIS.
Thank You All for Your Help
/COLOR]
Regards,
Josh
[COLOR="Blue"]
Yes -so long as the AP is still valid.
No comments:
Post a Comment