Now for the rest of this year the EB2 queues for China and India are merged. Visa allocations will be solely based on Priority date. So for example if India has many priority dates that are before China's, India may end up getting more visa allocations. The same holds true if China has earlier priority dates than India does. That's how I inderstood it and I thought I would try to explain it to some who did not. Otherwise sorry for stating the obvious.
Read the Sec 202 a 5 I posted in 1st page and corresponding links. It clearly says that the left over visa numbers under each category in every Q can be assigned with out country limits. Is there any one who is reading it other wise (or) Is there any text in the bill I am possibly missing?
Read the Sec 202 a 5 I posted in 1st page and corresponding links. It clearly says that the left over visa numbers under each category in every Q can be assigned with out country limits. Is there any one who is reading it other wise (or) Is there any text in the bill I am possibly missing?
wallpaper The View vs. Justin Beiber
Yes, I have this feeling already. Now, what happens if someone switches jobs using AC-21 and then this RFE is received? You have to submit the NEW employment / offer letter right? So how does this help the current employer to stop you from switching jobs?
I think its arguable. The 6 months clock is defined by law. After that even if they issue an RFE on the old employer, assumption is ofcourse that your with a new employer, you can send the new employer's offer letter / AC21 invoked. so it shouldn't be an issue. USCIS can ask about the offer letter from the old employer as intial evidence, so have it available and send it later + new employment letter.
I think its arguable. The 6 months clock is defined by law. After that even if they issue an RFE on the old employer, assumption is ofcourse that your with a new employer, you can send the new employer's offer letter / AC21 invoked. so it shouldn't be an issue. USCIS can ask about the offer letter from the old employer as intial evidence, so have it available and send it later + new employment letter.
When we file I485 its with Department of States and not USCIS which is part of Department of Home Land Security. In my opinion it is DOS who has to agree filing I 485 even if visa number not available.
How can we contact with Department of State about this rule. Can we meet with rule making department or its officers and see what they say about it ??
There should be someway or they are enough rights to change or make new rule. Like they decide everymonth visa numbers ?? what do you guys think ??
thx.
How can we contact with Department of State about this rule. Can we meet with rule making department or its officers and see what they say about it ??
There should be someway or they are enough rights to change or make new rule. Like they decide everymonth visa numbers ?? what do you guys think ??
thx.
2011 Justin Beiber Hairstyle
Sorry if this is offtopic but can someone explain to me who banned me and why? I didn't write anything offensive or abusive, and I didn't insult anybody. I was just discussing the issues I read in another forum.
If it is my handle, you don't like, well my name is Tawlibann Foggs (it is Celtic name, and quite rare but I like it). My friends call me Taliban jokingly (I know it may not be funny to all of you, and I didn't like it at first, but I can't stop people), so that's why the handle was 'taliban'. I hope that answers your questions, and I mean no harm to anyone.
I thought this forum was open to everybody to express their opinions and discuss relevant issues without insulting others. If you're going to keep banning me, please just let me know that I'm not welcome, and I'll leave. I thought Immigration Voice and its forum was open to all EB immigrants. I was even intending to become a contributing member, but now I'm kind of lost. Am I not supposed to post here? Is there something I missed?
If it is my handle, you don't like, well my name is Tawlibann Foggs (it is Celtic name, and quite rare but I like it). My friends call me Taliban jokingly (I know it may not be funny to all of you, and I didn't like it at first, but I can't stop people), so that's why the handle was 'taliban'. I hope that answers your questions, and I mean no harm to anyone.
I thought this forum was open to everybody to express their opinions and discuss relevant issues without insulting others. If you're going to keep banning me, please just let me know that I'm not welcome, and I'll leave. I thought Immigration Voice and its forum was open to all EB immigrants. I was even intending to become a contributing member, but now I'm kind of lost. Am I not supposed to post here? Is there something I missed?
I attended the meeting and was there until 6:30 pm - The latinos were present in full strength, and some were distributing handouts to oppose the STRIVE bill.
The banners put up by illegal immigrants were more prominent than the lone banner which one of our members had brought. One banner was for the bill and another against the bill.
Our members asked a few questions, but the majority were posed from the illegal immigrant community and was about raids, deportation, family etc. Regardless, Title V is what matters to us and if the bill passes, Title V passes so we must support the bill as this is the only bill other than SKIL which addresses issues facing legal immigrants. In case the bill runs into a roadblock I hope the congressman can take Title V out of the bill and introduce a new bill for legal immigrants.
The Congressman also said he has the support of 180 democrats in the House and it takes 218 members to get the bill passed. He requested us to call local republican congressmen/women & get their support for the bill.
Note that this bill also allows u to file ead/485 even if a visa number is not available by paying an extra $500.
Check this link for the title 5 text
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1645
The banners put up by illegal immigrants were more prominent than the lone banner which one of our members had brought. One banner was for the bill and another against the bill.
Our members asked a few questions, but the majority were posed from the illegal immigrant community and was about raids, deportation, family etc. Regardless, Title V is what matters to us and if the bill passes, Title V passes so we must support the bill as this is the only bill other than SKIL which addresses issues facing legal immigrants. In case the bill runs into a roadblock I hope the congressman can take Title V out of the bill and introduce a new bill for legal immigrants.
The Congressman also said he has the support of 180 democrats in the House and it takes 218 members to get the bill passed. He requested us to call local republican congressmen/women & get their support for the bill.
Note that this bill also allows u to file ead/485 even if a visa number is not available by paying an extra $500.
Check this link for the title 5 text
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1645
- Is it possible to change your employer and port your PD after the I140 is
approved?
- I know that the Complete process of labour ect.. needs to be restarted but
what if the previous I140/labour is revoked by the previous employer (Can
the previous employer do that ?)
- Can the above be done when the person is on their 8th year H1 extenstion?
approved?
- I know that the Complete process of labour ect.. needs to be restarted but
what if the previous I140/labour is revoked by the previous employer (Can
the previous employer do that ?)
- Can the above be done when the person is on their 8th year H1 extenstion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by god_bless_you
SO if USCIS wants to make a new rule of filing I485 for the one whose I 140 is cleared and priority date is not current, It CAN DO That RULE Right?
We do not need any Congress approval for that Right?
If so can we explore this option??
Yes, I was wondering the same thing.
The only plausible explanation for requiring congress' approval, that I am able to come up with, is that we bundled many requests along with the request for concurrent processing of 140/485, like additional visa numbers etc., which I think are not in the hands of USCIS.
We would need congress approval to increase visa numbers, etc. But for changing the rule to allow concurrent 140/485 processing is probably within the jurisdiction of the USCIS.
Originally Posted by god_bless_you
SO if USCIS wants to make a new rule of filing I485 for the one whose I 140 is cleared and priority date is not current, It CAN DO That RULE Right?
We do not need any Congress approval for that Right?
If so can we explore this option??
Yes, I was wondering the same thing.
The only plausible explanation for requiring congress' approval, that I am able to come up with, is that we bundled many requests along with the request for concurrent processing of 140/485, like additional visa numbers etc., which I think are not in the hands of USCIS.
We would need congress approval to increase visa numbers, etc. But for changing the rule to allow concurrent 140/485 processing is probably within the jurisdiction of the USCIS.
2010 The View vs. Justin Beiber
/\/\/\/\
Guies,
Dr. Emilio Gonz�lez Ask USCIS is over, we were hoping atleast we get a mention in this chat, but like everywhere we do not even get a mention, thats our plight.
That was the reason we were requesting IV to set up some kind of webfax to USCIS director, atleast he would be aware of the retrogression issue, then we can build our case from there.
But any way it is a waste of time.
---
It would be better to focus our energies in a directed fashion on some core issues that have been identified by the core team. Media, Senators, House members and other have become familiar with our issues. Will it be worthwhile to add these new provisons that might dilute our original charter? Let us address the key causes e.g. few immigrant visas, family counted towards visa numbers, re-capture past visas, increase immigrant visas etc.
Dr. Emilio Gonz�lez Ask USCIS is over, we were hoping atleast we get a mention in this chat, but like everywhere we do not even get a mention, thats our plight.
That was the reason we were requesting IV to set up some kind of webfax to USCIS director, atleast he would be aware of the retrogression issue, then we can build our case from there.
But any way it is a waste of time.
---
It would be better to focus our energies in a directed fashion on some core issues that have been identified by the core team. Media, Senators, House members and other have become familiar with our issues. Will it be worthwhile to add these new provisons that might dilute our original charter? Let us address the key causes e.g. few immigrant visas, family counted towards visa numbers, re-capture past visas, increase immigrant visas etc.
hair justin beiber 5 31 Justin
i am going to have to sadly bow out of this . got a lil done but don't have the time. have fun everyone
Guys, this looks good. It is NOT for illegal aliens. Paragraphs (c) and (d) state that the alien must be admissible as an immigrant (i.e. not have broken the law by being an illegal), read paragraph (d) here:
"(d) Security and Law Enforcement Clearances- The alien, if over 15 years of age, shall submit fingerprints in accordance with procedures established by the Secretary of Homeland Security. Such fingerprints shall be submitted to relevant Federal agencies to be checked against existing databases 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. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide a process for challenging the accuracy of matches that result in a finding of ineligibility for adjustment of status."
Read the "or other law enforcement actions that would render the alien ineligible for adjustment of status under this section"....so, anyone who broke the law by entering the country illegally would NOT be eligible.
So, stop sending those letters opposing this bill, and instead let's support it!!
well said Jaime...We should support this bill..
"(d) Security and Law Enforcement Clearances- The alien, if over 15 years of age, shall submit fingerprints in accordance with procedures established by the Secretary of Homeland Security. Such fingerprints shall be submitted to relevant Federal agencies to be checked against existing databases 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. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide a process for challenging the accuracy of matches that result in a finding of ineligibility for adjustment of status."
Read the "or other law enforcement actions that would render the alien ineligible for adjustment of status under this section"....so, anyone who broke the law by entering the country illegally would NOT be eligible.
So, stop sending those letters opposing this bill, and instead let's support it!!
well said Jaime...We should support this bill..
hot Justin Beiber Gets a New Hair
I am glad you posted this.
I will put the numbers in the excel spreadsheet and see what comes out.
But these might give more sensible results than the preposterous wait times that we were getting.
If the average depletion rate for India is 34K per annum, then the wait times would look a lot better I think.
I am assuming that these numbers include the dependents. So, if 34K adjustment of status were awareded, then, roughly speaking, there were 17K primary applicants, and 17K dependents? Am I correct?
Also, for the accumulation rate, when we say that 65K H-1 visas are given out annually, I am assuming that does not include the dependents. Am I right??
FISCAL ------ Employment ------- EB3
YEAR ----- Total ---- INDIA | Total --- India
2000 ----- 111,024 | 15888 | 51,711 | -5567 :IV FY 2000 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2000%20table%20V.pdf)
2001 ----- 186,536 | 41720 | 90,274 | 16405 :IV FY 2001 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2001%20table%20V.pdf)
2002 ----- 171,583 | 41919 | 87,574 | 17428 :IV FY 2002 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2002%20table%20V.pdf)
2003 ----- -83,020 | 20818 | 47,354 | 10680 :IV FY 2003 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2003%20table%20V.pdf)
2004 ----- 157,107 | 39496 | 88,114 | 19962 :IV FY 2004 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY04tableV.pdf)
2005 ----- 242,335 | 47160 |122,130 | 23399 :IV FY 2005 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY05tableV.pdf)
6 yr total - 951,605| 207001| 487,157| 93441
Annual Avg --------- 34500 | -------- 15574
If this trend would have continued. There should not be any MAJOR retrogression problem, but if you remember from the Nov 05 VB. The warning was very clear:
During FY due to anticipated heavy demand, the AC21 provisions are not expected to apply, and the amount of Employment numbers available to any single country will be subject to the 7% cap. It is anticipated that the addition of unused FY-2005 Family numbers and the remaining AC21 numbers to the 140,000 annual minimum will result in an FY-2006 annual Employment limit of 152,000. This will mean an Employment per-country limit for FY-2006 of approximately 10,650.
To illustrate the effect of the reduced per-county limitation during FY-2006 on the oversubscribed countries, it should be noted that during FY-2005 India used approximately 47,175 Employment numbers.
If you plug this number into your analysis the result might be a couple of years of advance for your predictions.
andy
I will put the numbers in the excel spreadsheet and see what comes out.
But these might give more sensible results than the preposterous wait times that we were getting.
If the average depletion rate for India is 34K per annum, then the wait times would look a lot better I think.
I am assuming that these numbers include the dependents. So, if 34K adjustment of status were awareded, then, roughly speaking, there were 17K primary applicants, and 17K dependents? Am I correct?
Also, for the accumulation rate, when we say that 65K H-1 visas are given out annually, I am assuming that does not include the dependents. Am I right??
FISCAL ------ Employment ------- EB3
YEAR ----- Total ---- INDIA | Total --- India
2000 ----- 111,024 | 15888 | 51,711 | -5567 :IV FY 2000 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2000%20table%20V.pdf)
2001 ----- 186,536 | 41720 | 90,274 | 16405 :IV FY 2001 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2001%20table%20V.pdf)
2002 ----- 171,583 | 41919 | 87,574 | 17428 :IV FY 2002 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2002%20table%20V.pdf)
2003 ----- -83,020 | 20818 | 47,354 | 10680 :IV FY 2003 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2003%20table%20V.pdf)
2004 ----- 157,107 | 39496 | 88,114 | 19962 :IV FY 2004 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY04tableV.pdf)
2005 ----- 242,335 | 47160 |122,130 | 23399 :IV FY 2005 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY05tableV.pdf)
6 yr total - 951,605| 207001| 487,157| 93441
Annual Avg --------- 34500 | -------- 15574
If this trend would have continued. There should not be any MAJOR retrogression problem, but if you remember from the Nov 05 VB. The warning was very clear:
During FY due to anticipated heavy demand, the AC21 provisions are not expected to apply, and the amount of Employment numbers available to any single country will be subject to the 7% cap. It is anticipated that the addition of unused FY-2005 Family numbers and the remaining AC21 numbers to the 140,000 annual minimum will result in an FY-2006 annual Employment limit of 152,000. This will mean an Employment per-country limit for FY-2006 of approximately 10,650.
To illustrate the effect of the reduced per-county limitation during FY-2006 on the oversubscribed countries, it should be noted that during FY-2005 India used approximately 47,175 Employment numbers.
If you plug this number into your analysis the result might be a couple of years of advance for your predictions.
andy
house Justin Beiber - Never Say
I mean tax everyone equally. During this tough economy time, consider everyone and not the middle class or upper class or lower class.
Equally- That is tough to define. Equally as a percentage of their income/earnings? Rich don't even have 'income' to pay the income tax. They probably are paying 5 or10% of their earnings, while you and me pay 30+% of our income.
Equally- That is tough to define. Equally as a percentage of their income/earnings? Rich don't even have 'income' to pay the income tax. They probably are paying 5 or10% of their earnings, while you and me pay 30+% of our income.
tattoo Images BILLETS JUSTIN BEIBER
Sent.
pictures cartoon justin beiber
So, basically anyone laid off on I485 pending without a job is accumulating "out of status" days.That's your opinion?
No. This is NOT what I said.
Filing for I-485 covers out of status covers in most cases and it does not cover out of status from last admission to the date of I-485 filing.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
No. This is NOT what I said.
Filing for I-485 covers out of status covers in most cases and it does not cover out of status from last admission to the date of I-485 filing.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
dresses Justin Beiber Hair Sold
I believe passing any law to make Immigrants life easy wont help Politicians in 2010 elections.
I remember Senator John cornyn did try to do some thing about it, but democrat Senators, Republican house was against it. That was before pre- recession. Now with 9.7% unemployment ..Politicians cannot do anything. Anything can happen only on USCIS budget side. Either they have to make Visa Current , new applications & Dollars. Or e rising FEES, Which they did it.
I remember Senator John cornyn did try to do some thing about it, but democrat Senators, Republican house was against it. That was before pre- recession. Now with 9.7% unemployment ..Politicians cannot do anything. Anything can happen only on USCIS budget side. Either they have to make Visa Current , new applications & Dollars. Or e rising FEES, Which they did it.
makeup The first Anti-Justin beiber
Yup in the same boat :D, hopefully we will cross the gate this time
I am also in the same boat. Current after 2 years. My buddies with similar PD got lucky in 2008. Will have to wait till August to test mine. Congrats to all those got current and good luck to all those waiting. Hopefully dates will move forward in some reasonable order from now on. Thanks.
I am also in the same boat. Current after 2 years. My buddies with similar PD got lucky in 2008. Will have to wait till August to test mine. Congrats to all those got current and good luck to all those waiting. Hopefully dates will move forward in some reasonable order from now on. Thanks.
girlfriend Posts Related to Justin Beiber
ateast we have laws here to protect us from racism and hatred, i dont have personal experience but my cousin who lived 3 yrs in middle east and 2 yrs in europe and currently living in US says US is better than those countries to live.
so lets fix the system for us and live peacefully.
so lets fix the system for us and live peacefully.
hairstyles Justin Beiber Flips Off
Thanks. Any input in this tough time is really appreciated. All I am trying to get is , any clue , any information to see the light at the end of this Long Dark Tunnel of EB-3.
The OFFICIAL answer to you question Is there any chance for similar movement for EB3 ??can only be available in the Oct Visa bulletin under EMPLOYMENT THIRD PREFERENCE VISA AVAILABILITY section....
The OFFICIAL answer to you question Is there any chance for similar movement for EB3 ??can only be available in the Oct Visa bulletin under EMPLOYMENT THIRD PREFERENCE VISA AVAILABILITY section....
Time and again I am telling. EB 3 problem is due to 245(i) cases. Once 245(i) primaries are over, their dependent will come into the picture, who are waiting back home. All 245(i) cases have PD before April 2001. For time being, EB3 I or Mexico move beyond April 01 but again retrogress back to the April 01 when cases are accumulate at CP. This is the reason why EB3 I and Mexico is not moving since last many years.
If some one is not convince with me, request under FOIA
1. How many cases filed under 245(i) in India, Mexico, and ROW
2. How many cases filed under I 824 Follow to Join since 2007?
I agree with your observations except the point that it will retrogress again to 2001.
As dates have moved beyond April 2001, I don't believe there will be any more 245(i) s coming into the queue. Dependents of 245(i) applicants would have a PD of Apr 2001 or before. They already got their GCs by now. 245(i) applicants would have filed for their dependents already. If these 245(i) applicants file for relatives, they WON'T have 2001 PD.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
If some one is not convince with me, request under FOIA
1. How many cases filed under 245(i) in India, Mexico, and ROW
2. How many cases filed under I 824 Follow to Join since 2007?
I agree with your observations except the point that it will retrogress again to 2001.
As dates have moved beyond April 2001, I don't believe there will be any more 245(i) s coming into the queue. Dependents of 245(i) applicants would have a PD of Apr 2001 or before. They already got their GCs by now. 245(i) applicants would have filed for their dependents already. If these 245(i) applicants file for relatives, they WON'T have 2001 PD.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Sorry about the generalization. I was refering to Senthil1 kind of folks, not folks like you. Thanks for all the support. My friend got a green card as recently as a month back, he struggled for a long time before he got one, I asked him if he wants to come for the rally and he told me "MRRRRRRRR I GOT MY GREEN CARD, YOU ARE ASKING THE WRONG PERSON FOR THE RALLY" and the same person told me "SOMETHING MUST HAPPEN TO THESE ROTTEN CONSULTING COMPANIES, THEY ARE RUINING THE SYSTEM" he got his GC from a small consulting company and after getting his GC he says these companies must not exist - he wants to shut thee door behind him
Those Asian Americans who are against new Asian immigrants, which include some of my relatives, sadly to tell you, are just helping White Americans in this fight. It is their wish and their passion. But if White Americans don't want it, they will have no chance of getting their voices heard. Not all White Americans are against immigration. But there is a big percentage of White Americans who are either fiercely against it or do not want it. I can hardly find any White American who says he or she wants more immigrants. And a small percentage of White Americans are fiercely against immigration. They would curse at anyone who they think is a new immigrant at any opportunity they have.
Those Asian Americans who are against new Asian immigrants, which include some of my relatives, sadly to tell you, are just helping White Americans in this fight. It is their wish and their passion. But if White Americans don't want it, they will have no chance of getting their voices heard. Not all White Americans are against immigration. But there is a big percentage of White Americans who are either fiercely against it or do not want it. I can hardly find any White American who says he or she wants more immigrants. And a small percentage of White Americans are fiercely against immigration. They would curse at anyone who they think is a new immigrant at any opportunity they have.
