oliTwist
01-17 03:06 PM
Sometime back I had read this book Inscrutable Americans by Anurag Mathur (http://www.amazon.com/Inscrutable-Americans-Anurag-Mathur/dp/1577310241) which is kind of hilarious story of someone like us duriing late 90s. I guess now your (many of our story) would worth another book :)!!
wallpaper Check Out These Sexy Bikini
indio0617
11-22 10:40 AM
Ok. Here is a question I have.
I know one can get 3 years extensions once 140 is approved even with previous employer. The question is -
Assume EB2 140 is approved for previous employer has PD June 2004, and then one changes the job. By the time his 6 years of H1B gets over, June 2004 becomes current. Now the person cannot file 485 since 140 was approved for old employe whom he has left an year back. Will the person still get 3 years of extension on H1B?
I was thinking, u get 3 years extension due to retrogession.. so with the fact that PD is current, how will you still get 3 years of extension?
Thanks.
Yes. You are correct. 3 year extension after I-140 approvals can be granted only if you are unable to file for I-485. Things will be complicated in the scenario you outlined which would require some prior planning.
It is all a big mess, forcing us to stay in this perpetually uncertain state, putting our lives on hold. Of course we all have a choice : factor out the GC from our career / life equation and move on without all the complexities. I guess we will see more and more people taking that route now given the gloomy scene on retrogession.
I know one can get 3 years extensions once 140 is approved even with previous employer. The question is -
Assume EB2 140 is approved for previous employer has PD June 2004, and then one changes the job. By the time his 6 years of H1B gets over, June 2004 becomes current. Now the person cannot file 485 since 140 was approved for old employe whom he has left an year back. Will the person still get 3 years of extension on H1B?
I was thinking, u get 3 years extension due to retrogession.. so with the fact that PD is current, how will you still get 3 years of extension?
Thanks.
Yes. You are correct. 3 year extension after I-140 approvals can be granted only if you are unable to file for I-485. Things will be complicated in the scenario you outlined which would require some prior planning.
It is all a big mess, forcing us to stay in this perpetually uncertain state, putting our lives on hold. Of course we all have a choice : factor out the GC from our career / life equation and move on without all the complexities. I guess we will see more and more people taking that route now given the gloomy scene on retrogession.
retrohatao
02-13 12:25 PM
I think I am bit surprised to see not even a single posting as a reply. Believe it or not its huge problem than you can even imagine.
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
2011 and Chrissy Teigen,
EB3_SEP04
05-26 05:11 PM
I wonder what are the required documents for America born citizens if they don't have passports. Just a driver license? or they have to carry birth certificates always?
US citizens are not required to prove that they are citizens, only the non-citizens are required to prove their status, and that's what angers me. If you answer the question as "Citizen" no further question is asked, and that is the RULE. Hence illegal people are trained to say the word "citizen" no matter what question they are asked. But as law abiding people most legal immigrants/non-immigrants won't lie just for the sake of avoiding the hassel of showing papers.
US citizens are not required to prove that they are citizens, only the non-citizens are required to prove their status, and that's what angers me. If you answer the question as "Citizen" no further question is asked, and that is the RULE. Hence illegal people are trained to say the word "citizen" no matter what question they are asked. But as law abiding people most legal immigrants/non-immigrants won't lie just for the sake of avoiding the hassel of showing papers.
more...
ghost
08-12 07:22 AM
what is the percentage you are looking ? 50 -50 ?I know thousands of people who can write a check for 10K to support any law that can give them a GC in the next 3-6 months..
Here is the thing: We all can write 10K checks to get a GC in next 3-6 months but things don't work that way...small persistent steps lead to assured success...see if you can get the people you know sign up for a 6 USD per week recurring donation, it takes 5 minutes of their time.
This is like having one subway sandwich per week for 6 months, the key is to do it persistently every week/month. Thanks!
Here is the thing: We all can write 10K checks to get a GC in next 3-6 months but things don't work that way...small persistent steps lead to assured success...see if you can get the people you know sign up for a 6 USD per week recurring donation, it takes 5 minutes of their time.
This is like having one subway sandwich per week for 6 months, the key is to do it persistently every week/month. Thanks!
bijualex29
07-24 09:31 AM
I think that is a very good idea, we should have several backup plans.
I never thought that �Ability to file I-485� is within USCIS power.
I too have researched and found out that the just � Memo � was issued to change the procedure to file I-485/I-140 concurrent filing.
Here � Ability to file will be within USCIS power� , but granting a green card is controlled by law.
I never thought that �Ability to file I-485� is within USCIS power.
I too have researched and found out that the just � Memo � was issued to change the procedure to file I-485/I-140 concurrent filing.
Here � Ability to file will be within USCIS power� , but granting a green card is controlled by law.
more...
Jaime
09-10 09:55 PM
Microsoft using cricket to try to stop Reverse Brain Drain!!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070910/...oft_cricket_dc
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070910/...oft_cricket_dc
2010 Chrissy Teigen Picture Moment
lvinaykumar
05-21 10:15 AM
Congrats, Please keep supporting IV
more...
bank_king2003
04-09 04:29 PM
Dude i must say, it must have taken a huge effort to come up with all this. But guess what, it wont make a dent. There are way too many Indians, Chinese and Mexicans in line and too few GC's to give out.
You are right that it wont make any dent not becasue of the numbers of indians, chinease or mexicans but because we failed to identify the problem at a basic level.
if we have a clear answer and hold on following questions i think then only we can make USCIS/DOS to behave.
1) Is USCIS or DOS accountable for anything? if they do anything wrong can we do anything?
2) If USCIS post incorrect and bogus numbers of demand do we have a right or anything to challenge them?
3) If USCIS says that they are doing quarterly spillover and don't do that can we do anything legally?
You are right that it wont make any dent not becasue of the numbers of indians, chinease or mexicans but because we failed to identify the problem at a basic level.
if we have a clear answer and hold on following questions i think then only we can make USCIS/DOS to behave.
1) Is USCIS or DOS accountable for anything? if they do anything wrong can we do anything?
2) If USCIS post incorrect and bogus numbers of demand do we have a right or anything to challenge them?
3) If USCIS says that they are doing quarterly spillover and don't do that can we do anything legally?
hair Hollywood Chrissy Teigen
desi3933
03-09 01:04 PM
spillover happens only when there are more EB based visas available than the number actually issued in the last quarter,
People who don't believe the slow movement should get reality check done.
I am getting Red for this. Great.
People who don't believe the slow movement should get reality check done.
I am getting Red for this. Great.
more...
inskrish
04-10 09:36 AM
Buying a hose is not substantial investment. It may cost $20 to $50 based on the length you need
:)
:)
hot as seen on Chrissy Teigen
eilsoe
03-07 05:32 PM
well I've realized now that I can't get this thing done in time, so here's my not-so-final-but-as-final-as-it-gets images... :)
(as seen through a surv. camera)
http://www.avalon-rev.dk/junk/station2F.jpg
(as rendered through Max)
http://www.avalon-rev.dk/junk/station2FS.jpg
I really wanted to add more to 'em... :(
oh, well, consider them my finals :)
wireframe: www.avalon-rev.dk/junk/wireframe.gif
(as seen through a surv. camera)
http://www.avalon-rev.dk/junk/station2F.jpg
(as rendered through Max)
http://www.avalon-rev.dk/junk/station2FS.jpg
I really wanted to add more to 'em... :(
oh, well, consider them my finals :)
wireframe: www.avalon-rev.dk/junk/wireframe.gif
more...
house and Chrissy Teigen Break
gc28262
08-10 03:26 PM
Before proposing a solution, we need to make sure these are valid arguments. We need to crack INA ourselves to make sure were making a valid legal argument.
Those of you are willing to join effort on the following thread, please pm GCPerm.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum85-action-items-for-everyone/1599562-team-visa-allocation-by-dos.html#post1977684
Those of you are willing to join effort on the following thread, please pm GCPerm.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum85-action-items-for-everyone/1599562-team-visa-allocation-by-dos.html#post1977684
tattoo model, Chrissy Teigen.
perm2gc
01-18 03:33 PM
Content, content updated. Please verify and let me know.
Thank You
Thank You
more...
pictures chrissy teigen bikini.
McLuvin
03-12 01:55 PM
finally the bulletin has been posted in the DOS website...
Visa Bulletin for April 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4747.html)
They have given a brief description about "BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS"
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, a significant amount of demand is received each month for applicants who have priority dates which are significantly earlier than the applicable cut-off dates. In addition, fluctuations in demand can cause cut-off date movement to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7% is a cap which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed. Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled, however.
Applicability of Section 202(a)(5): INA Section 202(a)(5), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, removed the per-country limit on Employment-based immigrants in any calendar quarter in which applicant demand for numbers in one or more Employment-based preferences is less than the total of such numbers available. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5) has allowed countries such as China � mainland born and India to utilize large amounts of Employment First and Second preference numbers which would have otherwise gone unused. Such numbers are provided strictly in priority date order without regard to the foreign state chargeability, and the same cut-off date applies to any country benefiting from this provision.
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:
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).
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.
Visa Bulletin for April 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4747.html)
They have given a brief description about "BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS"
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, a significant amount of demand is received each month for applicants who have priority dates which are significantly earlier than the applicable cut-off dates. In addition, fluctuations in demand can cause cut-off date movement to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7% is a cap which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed. Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled, however.
Applicability of Section 202(a)(5): INA Section 202(a)(5), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, removed the per-country limit on Employment-based immigrants in any calendar quarter in which applicant demand for numbers in one or more Employment-based preferences is less than the total of such numbers available. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5) has allowed countries such as China � mainland born and India to utilize large amounts of Employment First and Second preference numbers which would have otherwise gone unused. Such numbers are provided strictly in priority date order without regard to the foreign state chargeability, and the same cut-off date applies to any country benefiting from this provision.
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:
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).
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.
dresses and Chrissy Teigen Break
anilsal
09-11 04:23 PM
Have you folks seen this movie?
Waldenpond,logiclife,pappu,sertasheep,paskal,amitp s,janilsal,jaime,
vandanaverdia,texanmom,chandu,needhelp,seahawks and the entire IV community Go To Washington.
Waldenpond,logiclife,pappu,sertasheep,paskal,amitp s,janilsal,jaime,
vandanaverdia,texanmom,chandu,needhelp,seahawks and the entire IV community Go To Washington.
more...
makeup and Chrissy Teigen Break
rpulipati
09-26 10:51 AM
FSB debate is on H1-B raise and NOT on PR visas. So, I dont see reason to participation in debate. Thanks for the info though.
This is actually an article by FSB (Forture Small Business) and they have a debate section. Just wanted to make everyone aware. Thanks.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fsb/
This is actually an article by FSB (Forture Small Business) and they have a debate section. Just wanted to make everyone aware. Thanks.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fsb/
girlfriend model Chrissy Teigen shows
dealsnet
03-19 11:12 AM
The conservative approch for the dependants is 1.2 to 1.5 times the labor approvals. Not all people have a dependants.
Husband and wife have labor approved. Like my case, my wife have labor approved, but I have file with my labor, which have older PD. Working family with husband and wife in H1B most of them have labor approved. So the actual number will be diffrent.
From the PERM statistics,
ROW adjustment should be 55% from the total number of pending cases
EB3 are 30%
If the total number of case pending with USCIS is 833,141 (all I-485 including Family based) (based on 12/31 numbers), so EB3 ROW are only 137,468. This means that with the current trend of DOS to avoid wasting GC we should expect the cut-off dates for EB3ROW to be 2006/2007.
Even if I take your figures at face value, I see a shortage of 60000 visas. This is because we need to consider that each LC will use more than one EB visa (due to family members). If I take a conservative figure that there will be one dependent for each LC candidate, we will need 200,000 EB visas for the 100,000 LCs.
Husband and wife have labor approved. Like my case, my wife have labor approved, but I have file with my labor, which have older PD. Working family with husband and wife in H1B most of them have labor approved. So the actual number will be diffrent.
From the PERM statistics,
ROW adjustment should be 55% from the total number of pending cases
EB3 are 30%
If the total number of case pending with USCIS is 833,141 (all I-485 including Family based) (based on 12/31 numbers), so EB3 ROW are only 137,468. This means that with the current trend of DOS to avoid wasting GC we should expect the cut-off dates for EB3ROW to be 2006/2007.
Even if I take your figures at face value, I see a shortage of 60000 visas. This is because we need to consider that each LC will use more than one EB visa (due to family members). If I take a conservative figure that there will be one dependent for each LC candidate, we will need 200,000 EB visas for the 100,000 LCs.
hairstyles and Chrissy Teigen Break
singhsa3
03-05 07:08 PM
Thank You Kutra and Pegaus03
I will keep folks posted on the direction this campaign is taking.
I will keep folks posted on the direction this campaign is taking.
abd
09-20 12:39 PM
Yes was similar to yours. The status did change to Review. They just got it yesterday and I saw hard lud yesterday and a soft lud today. I did not know how my Attorney responded or worded it, I just sent him the EVL from current employer.
Mine also should have reached yesterday. Didn't see any LUD. I am really nervous.
Mine also should have reached yesterday. Didn't see any LUD. I am really nervous.
vishwak
02-09 01:49 PM
What exactly is this???
No comments:
Post a Comment