Following is Ron`s observation
.
There is an error in the initial explanation of the quota. As I read this analysis, they are suggesting that the single state limit is 25,620 - irrespective of whether the visas are issued in family or employment based. This suggests that a country with heavy family based demand, but light employment based demand, could use more than 7% of the EB or FB quota as long as they remained under 25,620 overall. This is wrong. The 7% limit applies independently to FB and EB. A country could have no demand in one area, and enormous demand in the other and the side with the excessive demand would still be limited to 7% of that quota - not 7% of the combined quota.
Also, I think that their estimates for China and India EB2 are too pessimistic.
__________________
What? too pessimistic or too optimistic?
.
There is an error in the initial explanation of the quota. As I read this analysis, they are suggesting that the single state limit is 25,620 - irrespective of whether the visas are issued in family or employment based. This suggests that a country with heavy family based demand, but light employment based demand, could use more than 7% of the EB or FB quota as long as they remained under 25,620 overall. This is wrong. The 7% limit applies independently to FB and EB. A country could have no demand in one area, and enormous demand in the other and the side with the excessive demand would still be limited to 7% of that quota - not 7% of the combined quota.
Also, I think that their estimates for China and India EB2 are too pessimistic.
__________________
What? too pessimistic or too optimistic?
wallpaper view large. Philadelphia
Gotta love this system...
Two years ago; Grassley sent a questionnaire to the top 10 Indian outsourcing companies of how they use non immigrant visas.
They did not have any legal obligation to answer his query. They answered his questions by non answering it.
Grassley then starts to increase the rhetoric and starts pressuring uscis/dol to start investigations.
uscis/dol start investigatin and denying cases and study it and find fraud.
now; Grassley is getting his way and starting to change policy.
Nascom senses game is over and come begging which is exactly what grassley wanted in the first place.
At the end; he will get these guys to agree to tough measures (ie., lca requirements for L-1; tougher measures on h-1b, etc.
See how Microsoft answered differently when they got the query and compare to these guys.
This system created in USA has a way of making you conform to their behaviour willingly or through long and painful way. Looks like they had to learn through long and painful way.
It is called desi mentality. Unless the ass is set on fire - Desi folks don't realize the importance of such things.
Two years ago; Grassley sent a questionnaire to the top 10 Indian outsourcing companies of how they use non immigrant visas.
They did not have any legal obligation to answer his query. They answered his questions by non answering it.
Grassley then starts to increase the rhetoric and starts pressuring uscis/dol to start investigations.
uscis/dol start investigatin and denying cases and study it and find fraud.
now; Grassley is getting his way and starting to change policy.
Nascom senses game is over and come begging which is exactly what grassley wanted in the first place.
At the end; he will get these guys to agree to tough measures (ie., lca requirements for L-1; tougher measures on h-1b, etc.
See how Microsoft answered differently when they got the query and compare to these guys.
This system created in USA has a way of making you conform to their behaviour willingly or through long and painful way. Looks like they had to learn through long and painful way.
It is called desi mentality. Unless the ass is set on fire - Desi folks don't realize the importance of such things.
Can you please let me know if you applied for AP online and what supporting documents you had mailed.
Applied for EAD on Aug 30th, Receipt notice was on Sep 3rd and Got email yesterday saying card production ordered. Nebraska Service center.
Now waiting for AP to be approved. Applied on Aug 30th. Receipt notice on 3rd Sep, LUD on 10th Sep.. Texas service center. Thinking it should not be long.
Applied for EAD on Aug 30th, Receipt notice was on Sep 3rd and Got email yesterday saying card production ordered. Nebraska Service center.
Now waiting for AP to be approved. Applied on Aug 30th. Receipt notice on 3rd Sep, LUD on 10th Sep.. Texas service center. Thinking it should not be long.
2011 wallpapers amp; iPod Touch
Folks,
I agree 100% with the previous post person.
I myself am a PMP. It is very easy to do one, you need to have the right project mgmt experience (PMI may audit it) and you need to prepare for few months and you can clear it easily.
But the question is, more than the exam it is the practical experience, sometimes this job can be so frustrating and you feel like a sandwich being hit on both sides.
If you already have a PM experience and you dont have the certification, definetly go for it, it is worth the spending.
Again remember it expires in 3 yrs , you got to keep renewing your PDUs to stay current... its not like MCSD or MCAD which is for life long...
I agree 100% with the previous post person.
I myself am a PMP. It is very easy to do one, you need to have the right project mgmt experience (PMI may audit it) and you need to prepare for few months and you can clear it easily.
But the question is, more than the exam it is the practical experience, sometimes this job can be so frustrating and you feel like a sandwich being hit on both sides.
If you already have a PM experience and you dont have the certification, definetly go for it, it is worth the spending.
Again remember it expires in 3 yrs , you got to keep renewing your PDUs to stay current... its not like MCSD or MCAD which is for life long...
Case Rejected because of Incorrect Fee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am asking this question in this thread as i dont know how to start new thread.
Hi
My spouse's employer had applied for H1 this year and he got a receipt number. But the check has not been encashed. Now when I checked the status in website it says the following:
------------
Application Type: I129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER
Current Status: Case Rejected because of Incorrect Fee
On April 30, 2008, we determined that this I129 PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER was not properly filed because you submitted incorrect fee. Therefore, we have rejected your case and returned it to you with all supporting materials, along with the fee. Please follow the instructions on the notice to submit the case with correct fee.
------------
Employer is yet to get the documents back. He checked his records and says there is no mistake from their side including fee...
The question here is:
1. what does case rejection means? - Is it end of it or can it be reapplied with correct fee/ other supporting docs, it at all thats the case
2. If there is no mistake from employer side in filing,and if it is a kind of adminstrative mistake from USCIS side, can it be resubmitted?
I am confused...
Appreciate your inputs
Thanks
NH123,
can you pls. open a New Thread and post your Query please. This Thread is used for a different reason.
Thanks!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am asking this question in this thread as i dont know how to start new thread.
Hi
My spouse's employer had applied for H1 this year and he got a receipt number. But the check has not been encashed. Now when I checked the status in website it says the following:
------------
Application Type: I129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER
Current Status: Case Rejected because of Incorrect Fee
On April 30, 2008, we determined that this I129 PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER was not properly filed because you submitted incorrect fee. Therefore, we have rejected your case and returned it to you with all supporting materials, along with the fee. Please follow the instructions on the notice to submit the case with correct fee.
------------
Employer is yet to get the documents back. He checked his records and says there is no mistake from their side including fee...
The question here is:
1. what does case rejection means? - Is it end of it or can it be reapplied with correct fee/ other supporting docs, it at all thats the case
2. If there is no mistake from employer side in filing,and if it is a kind of adminstrative mistake from USCIS side, can it be resubmitted?
I am confused...
Appreciate your inputs
Thanks
NH123,
can you pls. open a New Thread and post your Query please. This Thread is used for a different reason.
Thanks!
"(b) Worldwide Level of Employment-Based Immigrants- Section 201(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151(d)) is amended to read as follows:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(d) Worldwide Level of Employment-Based Immigrants-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(1) IN GENERAL- The worldwide level of employment-based immigrants under this subsection for a fiscal year is equal to the sum of--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(A) 140,000;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(B) the number computed under paragraph (2); andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(C) the number computed under paragraph (3).CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(2) UNUSED VISA NUMBERS FROM PREVIOUS FISCAL YEAR- The number computed under this paragraph for a fiscal year is the difference, if any, between--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(A) the worldwide level of employment-based immigrant visas established for the previous fiscal year; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(B) the number of visas issued under section 203(b), subject to this subsection, during the previous fiscal year.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(3) UNUSED VISA NUMBERS FROM FISCAL YEARS 1992 THROUGH 2007- The number computed under this paragraph is the difference, if any, between--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(A) the difference, if any, between--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(i) the sum of the worldwide levels of employment-based immigrant visas established for each of fiscal years 1992 through 2007; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(ii) the number of visas issued under section 203(b), subject to this subsection, during such fiscal years; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(B) the number of unused visas from fiscal years 1992 through 2007 that were issued after fiscal year 2007 under section 203(b), subject to this subsection.’.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(c) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect on the date which is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
"
The same bill text can be verified here:http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-1085
I think his post was based on the summary on the site.
"OpenCongress Summary:
This legislation would reform the family-based immigration system and speed up the process for family members of legal immigrants to secure visas. Specifically, it would reclassify spouses and children of legal immigrants as immediate relatives, raise the per-country family-sponsored immigration limits from 7 percent to 10 percent of total admissions, recapture visas that went unused in previous years due to bureaucratic errors, allow widows and spouses to remain eligible for visas after the death of a sponsoring family member, and more."
‘(d) Worldwide Level of Employment-Based Immigrants-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(1) IN GENERAL- The worldwide level of employment-based immigrants under this subsection for a fiscal year is equal to the sum of--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(A) 140,000;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(B) the number computed under paragraph (2); andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(C) the number computed under paragraph (3).CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(2) UNUSED VISA NUMBERS FROM PREVIOUS FISCAL YEAR- The number computed under this paragraph for a fiscal year is the difference, if any, between--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(A) the worldwide level of employment-based immigrant visas established for the previous fiscal year; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(B) the number of visas issued under section 203(b), subject to this subsection, during the previous fiscal year.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(3) UNUSED VISA NUMBERS FROM FISCAL YEARS 1992 THROUGH 2007- The number computed under this paragraph is the difference, if any, between--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(A) the difference, if any, between--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(i) the sum of the worldwide levels of employment-based immigrant visas established for each of fiscal years 1992 through 2007; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(ii) the number of visas issued under section 203(b), subject to this subsection, during such fiscal years; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(B) the number of unused visas from fiscal years 1992 through 2007 that were issued after fiscal year 2007 under section 203(b), subject to this subsection.’.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(c) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect on the date which is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
"
The same bill text can be verified here:http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-1085
I think his post was based on the summary on the site.
"OpenCongress Summary:
This legislation would reform the family-based immigration system and speed up the process for family members of legal immigrants to secure visas. Specifically, it would reclassify spouses and children of legal immigrants as immediate relatives, raise the per-country family-sponsored immigration limits from 7 percent to 10 percent of total admissions, recapture visas that went unused in previous years due to bureaucratic errors, allow widows and spouses to remain eligible for visas after the death of a sponsoring family member, and more."
Hi Guys,
I am EB2 I with a priority date of April 2006 (Direct labor applied and approved from employer A, I 140 applied and approved from Employer A, Filed 485 from Employer A itself)
Moved to Employer B using EAD in 2009 January. (Almost after 18 months after getting EAD)
10/15/2009 i called the TSC and asked the representative to know whether my case is pre approved or not. the representative told me that he does not have any of that data and opening a SR will let us know. i opened one SR on the same day.
I got a mail just now, with the following text in it.
"The status of your request is
Your case is on hold because your appear to be inadmissible under the current law
Rather than denying your application based on inadmissibility, we are placing your case on hold while the Department of Homeland security considers additional exercises of the security of Homeland security discretionary exemption authority.
Such an exercise of the exemption authority might allow us to approve the case."
What does this mean, any one has some idea about it.
This is very strange. However, I would like to know the reason that prompted you to inquire about your case status. What was the status that was showing on-line? Is it "application received and pending", the same usual statement?
I am EB2 I with a priority date of April 2006 (Direct labor applied and approved from employer A, I 140 applied and approved from Employer A, Filed 485 from Employer A itself)
Moved to Employer B using EAD in 2009 January. (Almost after 18 months after getting EAD)
10/15/2009 i called the TSC and asked the representative to know whether my case is pre approved or not. the representative told me that he does not have any of that data and opening a SR will let us know. i opened one SR on the same day.
I got a mail just now, with the following text in it.
"The status of your request is
Your case is on hold because your appear to be inadmissible under the current law
Rather than denying your application based on inadmissibility, we are placing your case on hold while the Department of Homeland security considers additional exercises of the security of Homeland security discretionary exemption authority.
Such an exercise of the exemption authority might allow us to approve the case."
What does this mean, any one has some idea about it.
This is very strange. However, I would like to know the reason that prompted you to inquire about your case status. What was the status that was showing on-line? Is it "application received and pending", the same usual statement?
2010 wallpapers ipod. ipod touch
Note that after marriage, the GC for spouse needs to be filed under FB category which has a backlog of 4-5 years
F1, b1 and b2 visas are not dual intent (requires non-immigrant intent). On all forms you need to mention the visa status of all relatives who are in the US. So watch for that.
H1, L1 are dual intent visas. Pending I130 does not affect L1 or H1 visa approval since these visas are dual intent. This is usually the safest option.
Follow to join (Consular processing) helps if you were married before the 485 approval.
F1, b1 and b2 visas are not dual intent (requires non-immigrant intent). On all forms you need to mention the visa status of all relatives who are in the US. So watch for that.
H1, L1 are dual intent visas. Pending I130 does not affect L1 or H1 visa approval since these visas are dual intent. This is usually the safest option.
Follow to join (Consular processing) helps if you were married before the 485 approval.
don't you think they will face problems in 140 if their education doesn't match that in labour... its not as easy as you told..
jumping the line part i understood. but the first part of your quote is not true...
You are right, they will face problems in 140 and they do.But you know what, thats why we have lawyers & education eval agencies , if you pay them they can make any degree or exp look like , anything else.
I know a guy who had BSC & got a sub labour , he had got many RFEs in his 140 , I don't know what happend in the end , but what I feel is, some of them can still trick the system.
jumping the line part i understood. but the first part of your quote is not true...
You are right, they will face problems in 140 and they do.But you know what, thats why we have lawyers & education eval agencies , if you pay them they can make any degree or exp look like , anything else.
I know a guy who had BSC & got a sub labour , he had got many RFEs in his 140 , I don't know what happend in the end , but what I feel is, some of them can still trick the system.
hair wallpapers for ipod touch
So jsb if congressman and Ombudsman doesnt work either is there anything which will work ? Can one actually go physically to the Service Center and ask to speak to the PRO (Public relations officer) or something ?
I have heard on this forum someone doing that, i.e. flying to Texas and asking to meet those who matter. Initially they did not entertain him, but eventually he succeeded. It costs nothing trying via the Ombudsman route, may be a bit if a hassle via the Congressman route. You should try both. Mention your situation, clearly bringing out the anomally. Ask if you are cleared on all fronts and your PD is current what is holding up. It might work....Best of luck.
I have heard on this forum someone doing that, i.e. flying to Texas and asking to meet those who matter. Initially they did not entertain him, but eventually he succeeded. It costs nothing trying via the Ombudsman route, may be a bit if a hassle via the Congressman route. You should try both. Mention your situation, clearly bringing out the anomally. Ask if you are cleared on all fronts and your PD is current what is holding up. It might work....Best of luck.
IV friends,
Sub: Immigrant requiring info on Maternity insurance.
I need information about maternity insurance** in Texas (in particular Dallas). Your help and advice is highly appreciated.
What are your inputs on Maternity Advantage, I got this information from Pregnancy Insurance.org
Also please provide me info, if any, on hospitals which provides maternity insurance.
Any thoughs, suggestions, guidance, & information would be considered helpful is highly appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
Thanks,
Shamu
** for pregnant with individual health insurance which does not cover maternity.
Sub: Immigrant requiring info on Maternity insurance.
I need information about maternity insurance** in Texas (in particular Dallas). Your help and advice is highly appreciated.
What are your inputs on Maternity Advantage, I got this information from Pregnancy Insurance.org
Also please provide me info, if any, on hospitals which provides maternity insurance.
Any thoughs, suggestions, guidance, & information would be considered helpful is highly appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
Thanks,
Shamu
** for pregnant with individual health insurance which does not cover maternity.
hot ackground-for-ipod-touch-
But the text in the I-131 instructions is contradicting what you said.
If you have current AP, you can travel while your AP renewal is pending. AP renewal will be from the date when your current AP expire.
If you have current AP, you can travel while your AP renewal is pending. AP renewal will be from the date when your current AP expire.
house ipod touch wallpaper,
Why doesn't someone introduce Lou to Mike Moore? :D
tattoo wallpaper for ipod touch.
It means, if at all they have any doubts, they may issue RFE, but if you have a good relationship in responding to those RFEs using company letters etc, there is no problem. Good relation means, employer has to suppprt you always in case of any RFE, thats it. He needs stand on your side. Then there is no problem. But if he won't stand on your side, then it is a problem. So, thats why relation with employer is very important when on H1 or EB.
Thanks for finding the link. I remember reading it some time in the past, but couldn't find it.
dpp, Please read through my wifes case above and in your 'opinion', will there be a problem?
Thanks for finding the link. I remember reading it some time in the past, but couldn't find it.
dpp, Please read through my wifes case above and in your 'opinion', will there be a problem?
pictures iPhone wallpaper and iPod
I have been resisting reading this thread until now. Had a gut feeling that something with such an idiotic title cannot have anything meaningful. Anyway, just read this and couldn't help rolling on the floor!
So basically this crackpot "rajakannan" files in June and tries to con everyone into applying on July 31st, thus ensuring two things (IMHO):
1. USCIS won't delay sending his EAD and AP due to deluge of I-485 applications.
2. In case the dates retrogress middle of the month (mid-July) due to large volumes of I-485s from people (from other countries or those who don't visit here), then that reduces additional backlog for his case.
Good job, "rajakannan", you have only managed to insult your intelligence by starting this thread. Members/Visitors here have noble intentions and hearts of gold not to wish bad things for your I-485.
Crawl back under your mushroom and don't ever come here again.
Thanks,
Jayant
So basically this crackpot "rajakannan" files in June and tries to con everyone into applying on July 31st, thus ensuring two things (IMHO):
1. USCIS won't delay sending his EAD and AP due to deluge of I-485 applications.
2. In case the dates retrogress middle of the month (mid-July) due to large volumes of I-485s from people (from other countries or those who don't visit here), then that reduces additional backlog for his case.
Good job, "rajakannan", you have only managed to insult your intelligence by starting this thread. Members/Visitors here have noble intentions and hearts of gold not to wish bad things for your I-485.
Crawl back under your mushroom and don't ever come here again.
Thanks,
Jayant
dresses iPod Touch/iPhone Wallpapers
E-Filed: May 30th, 2008
FP: June 28th, 2008
EAD Status: Pending:mad:
FP: June 28th, 2008
EAD Status: Pending:mad:
makeup 3G / iTouch Wallpapers
Yes and any one who feels bad can take admission and complete MS. It takes 3-4 semesters any ways.
girlfriend iPhone wallpaper and iPod
Guys - why is the Hike in immigration fees conciding with strong opposition to funding of the Iraq War.....These funds may well go to Iraq....as Bush is not able to garner support for additional funding from congress.
hairstyles Wallpapers and iPod Touch
Thanks friend. I do hope your prayers work for me. But I still find it strange that if someone has a pending I-485 through consular processing route, then he/she can't get a visitor visa no matter what? What if it is a medical crisis? Family reunion issues? This sure sucks. I will check with some lawyer on this.
And lastly what you detect as arrogance is my plain talking style. Did I make personal attack on anyone? no, right? Life is like a game of chess. Make the move which makes the best sense at any stage. What is the point in thinking about past moves?
I do respect your views and To me, life is little more "serious business and it deserves due respect than entertainment aspect of a game" :) I hope you would respect other's views on life too.
And lastly what you detect as arrogance is my plain talking style. Did I make personal attack on anyone? no, right? Life is like a game of chess. Make the move which makes the best sense at any stage. What is the point in thinking about past moves?
I do respect your views and To me, life is little more "serious business and it deserves due respect than entertainment aspect of a game" :) I hope you would respect other's views on life too.
There is a post at ImmigrationPortal by a guy claiming that IV's ability to hire lobbyists is bogus! I would like this guy's questions anwered here as well as at his post on the "EB Retrogression - HOT News" thread http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=204685 if possible!
These are the posts by the user hadron:
For anyone intending to 'vote with their wallet', please keep the following in mind:
- Only US citizens are allowed to contribute to political campaigns (it is even illegal to give money to a citizen friend and have him contribute as a straw-man)
- there are regulations regarding political action committees (PAC) controlled by 'agents of a foreign power'
While I appreciate the enthusiasm of the folks setting up IV.com (and I have no reason to doubt the sincerity and honesty of their efforts), I don't see a whole lot on the groups website dealing with the legal aspects noted above.
And then when I posted:
A lot of foreign governments and entities legally employ lobbyists in Washington. They are merely getting your voice heard by the people's representatives!
I am not a US Civics expert, but neither can be everybody else here!
hadron, just because somebody is Board-certified in one field of Medicine does not make them experts in everything else!
Please expound your expert views on how to win this battle, and we will follow you if that is the better way! Otherwise, please remember that those who forget the lessons of history (i.e. S 1932 defeat) will have to see them repeated!
This was what he posted:
Correct, and they are very careful to be registered with the secretary of state as a PAC or public interest lobbying organization. As you point out I am certainly not an expert on the law in this area, but before you start collecting a lot of money, make sure you have competent advice from someone who is (I looked into registering an immigration related PAC a year ago, after realizing the red-tape and political minefields involved I decided not to do so).
Quote:
Please expound your expert views on how to win this battle, and we will follow you if that is the better way!
I actually don't know how to do that.
The reality is, in washington there are two things that open the door of a lawmakers office to a lobbyist:
- a check from the PAC aligned with his cause
- evidence that he represents measurable share of voting citizens in the home district of the representative or senator
And do you see the problem here?
You guys can't legally contribute to political campaigns and you don't represent voting citizens. So, having a lobbyist might be a first step, but it doesn't mean that your cause will be heard.
Our main ally in the immigration arena is the US chamber of commerce. They are spending considerable money on advocating for employment based immigration reform (their main thrust however is getting access to unskilled workers, either through a guest worker program or through legalization. in a secondary way they are interested in higher H1b quotas to get access to cheap professionals, fixing retrogression is not very high on their agenda). Have you talked to other organizations classically on our side yet ?
Quote:
Otherwise, please remember that those who forget the lessons of history (i.e. S 1932 defeat) will have to see them repeated!
Please, save me the melodramatics.
Immigration bills get introduced by the dozen every year, most of them don't even make it into committee (but every time one gets introduced, people here on this board get all excited that finally 'relief is here'.) Even if a coalition of influential senators picks up the issue, there is no guarantee that it will go anywhere.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is last post:
I am not angry at anyone, and I don't think that any of my posts can be misconstrued to convey that impression.
I think it is a good idea to start (another) lobbying organization for immigrant rights as the existing ones have a interests very different from us. All the latino groups are only interested in family immigration and legalization of illegals, employment based immigration is only a little blip on their radar screen. Industry on the other hand has their own agenda, again not one coinciding with our issues.
I just think that some of the people involved in IV.com are taking step2 before they have taken step1. They have a nice website (no big suprise with a project run by IT professionals) and are already soliciting contributions, but some aspects of it make me wonder about the level of professionalism involved.
So as apparently some of the founders of this organization are present on this board, I would like the following questions answered:
- what is the legal form of your non-profit organization ?
- is this entity registered in any state, if yes in which ?
- who is registered as the owner of the organizations bank account ?
- what is the structure of the organization ? Do you have dues paying members, is there a board of directors, trustees ??
- who are the officers of the organization ?
Collecting contributions and spending them on political influence activities without making sure that all legal requirements are fulfilled is a dangerous endeavour. I hope you have everything set up the right way so you don't run afoul of the law (fixing retrogression is not going to do you any good if you are fighting a federal wire-fraud indictment at the time of your adjustment interview).
Also, if you want to collect significant contributions, you have to instill some trust into the donors that their money will be used for the intended cause and can't be siphoned off by a member of the organization.
So, before anyone decides to attack me personally, please come back with answers to these questions (or better, put them on the website for any potential contributor to see).
There will always be naysayers for everything! But I would like to clarify if IV can legally get representation from QGA, provided we do get the money collected? That will be the critical difference between our previous efforts and IV!!!
Admin / moderators please answer!
These are the posts by the user hadron:
For anyone intending to 'vote with their wallet', please keep the following in mind:
- Only US citizens are allowed to contribute to political campaigns (it is even illegal to give money to a citizen friend and have him contribute as a straw-man)
- there are regulations regarding political action committees (PAC) controlled by 'agents of a foreign power'
While I appreciate the enthusiasm of the folks setting up IV.com (and I have no reason to doubt the sincerity and honesty of their efforts), I don't see a whole lot on the groups website dealing with the legal aspects noted above.
And then when I posted:
A lot of foreign governments and entities legally employ lobbyists in Washington. They are merely getting your voice heard by the people's representatives!
I am not a US Civics expert, but neither can be everybody else here!
hadron, just because somebody is Board-certified in one field of Medicine does not make them experts in everything else!
Please expound your expert views on how to win this battle, and we will follow you if that is the better way! Otherwise, please remember that those who forget the lessons of history (i.e. S 1932 defeat) will have to see them repeated!
This was what he posted:
Correct, and they are very careful to be registered with the secretary of state as a PAC or public interest lobbying organization. As you point out I am certainly not an expert on the law in this area, but before you start collecting a lot of money, make sure you have competent advice from someone who is (I looked into registering an immigration related PAC a year ago, after realizing the red-tape and political minefields involved I decided not to do so).
Quote:
Please expound your expert views on how to win this battle, and we will follow you if that is the better way!
I actually don't know how to do that.
The reality is, in washington there are two things that open the door of a lawmakers office to a lobbyist:
- a check from the PAC aligned with his cause
- evidence that he represents measurable share of voting citizens in the home district of the representative or senator
And do you see the problem here?
You guys can't legally contribute to political campaigns and you don't represent voting citizens. So, having a lobbyist might be a first step, but it doesn't mean that your cause will be heard.
Our main ally in the immigration arena is the US chamber of commerce. They are spending considerable money on advocating for employment based immigration reform (their main thrust however is getting access to unskilled workers, either through a guest worker program or through legalization. in a secondary way they are interested in higher H1b quotas to get access to cheap professionals, fixing retrogression is not very high on their agenda). Have you talked to other organizations classically on our side yet ?
Quote:
Otherwise, please remember that those who forget the lessons of history (i.e. S 1932 defeat) will have to see them repeated!
Please, save me the melodramatics.
Immigration bills get introduced by the dozen every year, most of them don't even make it into committee (but every time one gets introduced, people here on this board get all excited that finally 'relief is here'.) Even if a coalition of influential senators picks up the issue, there is no guarantee that it will go anywhere.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is last post:
I am not angry at anyone, and I don't think that any of my posts can be misconstrued to convey that impression.
I think it is a good idea to start (another) lobbying organization for immigrant rights as the existing ones have a interests very different from us. All the latino groups are only interested in family immigration and legalization of illegals, employment based immigration is only a little blip on their radar screen. Industry on the other hand has their own agenda, again not one coinciding with our issues.
I just think that some of the people involved in IV.com are taking step2 before they have taken step1. They have a nice website (no big suprise with a project run by IT professionals) and are already soliciting contributions, but some aspects of it make me wonder about the level of professionalism involved.
So as apparently some of the founders of this organization are present on this board, I would like the following questions answered:
- what is the legal form of your non-profit organization ?
- is this entity registered in any state, if yes in which ?
- who is registered as the owner of the organizations bank account ?
- what is the structure of the organization ? Do you have dues paying members, is there a board of directors, trustees ??
- who are the officers of the organization ?
Collecting contributions and spending them on political influence activities without making sure that all legal requirements are fulfilled is a dangerous endeavour. I hope you have everything set up the right way so you don't run afoul of the law (fixing retrogression is not going to do you any good if you are fighting a federal wire-fraud indictment at the time of your adjustment interview).
Also, if you want to collect significant contributions, you have to instill some trust into the donors that their money will be used for the intended cause and can't be siphoned off by a member of the organization.
So, before anyone decides to attack me personally, please come back with answers to these questions (or better, put them on the website for any potential contributor to see).
There will always be naysayers for everything! But I would like to clarify if IV can legally get representation from QGA, provided we do get the money collected? That will be the critical difference between our previous efforts and IV!!!
Admin / moderators please answer!
Hello IV and its core members,
I am one of the members of the forum and suffering due to the severe retrogression of EB visas. I highly appreciate IV�s effort to bring some legislative relief to address the severe backlogs in EB visas. I too participated in all IVs campaign in urging the law makers to bring some relief for this crisis. However, I have some concern here; about the method followed U.S DOS in allocating EB visas particularly in EB2 category for India and China. I am worried whether U.S DOS is violating the INA 202 (a), by suspending AC21 provision that eliminates country quota in EB categories. If they are violating by mistake, it is our responsibility to notify/clarify with them or we need to understand the law clearly. This is very important. Because, even if 110th congress passes SKIL bill, if DOS violates the AC21 law then it will not help applicants from oversubscribed countries (India and China). Here is my analysis based on following facts.
The cutoff date for EB2 India has moved just 7 days since last 9 months. However EB2 �Row has been current. EB2- ROW has never retrogressed before. EB3 ROW has seen considerable movement in last 9 months.
There may be four possible separate or combination of following reasons for the freeze of cutoff dates for India in EB2 at Jan 2003.
1. The backlog elimination effort of DOL pumped massive approved labor certificates from BEC. There may be tons of EB2 applicants from India and China with PD in the year 2001 and 2002 might have applied 485s based on recent approvals from BEC. However I doubt that. Because, in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003, EB3 India and China were �current�. No body cared about filing EB2 labor certification till the later part of 2004. Most lawyers preferred to file EB3 as it was easy, and there were no difference between EB3 and EB2 at that time. First ever indication for EB3 retrogression was issued by DOS only in later part of 2004. I doubt so many people have filed EB2-labor till 2003, keeping in mind that EB3 will retrogress in 2004 or future. Traditionally EB2 has been less demanding compare to EB1 and EB3.
2. Perhaps, there may be a huge demand by ROW (Due to PERM) to consume all the 86% of visa numbers in EB2 category in every month that prompts DOS to allocate only 7% to India and China. I doubt this too, because India and China itself consume about 60% of EB2 visas.
3. There may be lot of EB3 Indians and Chinese with PD 2001 and 2002 porting their PD from EB3 to EB2 by filing new LC and EB2-I-140. This may escalate the demand. However, how many will do this? How many employers will to do this �favor� for their employees? A real US employer/big corporations will not do double time work for an employee. Only consulting/staffing companies will do this. I think this may be a small group (or may not be?).
4. There may be another possible reason. There may be something wrong with U.S.DOS in allocating visa numbers in EB2 category, as per section 202 (a) of current INA. They may be issuing only 2800 (7% of 40,000) visas to India and China in EB2 and redirecting unused EB2 numbers to EB3 category. They may be imposing hard country cap in EB2 (Suspending AC21 law as per their VB Nov 2005). There is a large room for this speculation, due to the pattern of cutoff date movement in EB2 category. This is just a speculation. This argument/speculation is valid if DOS has issued less than 40,000 EB2 visas in FY 2006 as mandated by the law, and issued those numbers (40,000 minus actually issued) to EB3-ROW. In my view, it violates section 203 (b) (2) of the INA. One has to wait till they release statistics for FY 2006, to see how many EB2 visas are issued in that FY.
Here is some detailed analysis that says why it violates the law.
Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 203 a and b of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets numbers for each preference categories with in FB and EB.
Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320. This section also explains how to handle unused numbers with respect to country quota.
Even before AC21 rule enacted in 2000, there was no �hard� country cap as per INA then. Here is the section of INA before year 2000, describes how to allocate unused visas, if overall/total demand for FB an EB visas are less than supply*.
INA 202 (a) (3)
�Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a-Family category) and (b-Employment category) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter�.
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
After 2000 (After AC21) the following law was added to INA in the section 202.
INA 202 (a) (5) (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.
As per my simple interpretation of above AC21 rule, DOS should allocate unused visas by ROW �EB2 (ROW- countries other than India and China in EB2 category) for the first two months of any calendar quarter to over-subscribed countries (India & China) at the third month of that calendar quarter. They should not allocate to lower Preference category (EB3), if demand is more in higher preference category (EB2) to consume all the visa numbers in that preference category. They should allocate visas to all the documentarily qualified applicants in that (EB2) preference category, irrespective of country of birth. If they followed this rule/law, there may be a considerable movement in cut-off dates for India and China in Dec 2005, Mar, June and Sep of 2006 in EB2 (last month of each calendar quarter in a fiscal year). We have not witnessed such movement in last 1.5 years. No one knows how DOS is allocating numbers. They may be allocating only 7% visas to India and China in EB2 category very strictly, every month, and allocating unused numbers to EB3 category, by suspending AC21 law as indicated in their Nov 2005 Visa Bulletin. If they do so, it is against the law, at least in my interpretation of AC21 rule that eliminates country quota in EB categories.
DOS can not interpret above AC21 rule that eliminates per country limit applies �totally� to all EB categories put together, not by individual preference categories. I.e. If they say they will issue more than 2,800 visas to EB2- India per year (more than 7% of 40,000), provided overall demand for EB visas are less than 140,000. If they interpret the law like this, then there is no need for section 202(a) (5) (A) due to AC21 law. The law before AC21 {i.e. section 202 (a) (3)} itself address the elimination of country quota in both FB and EB category*. Then, section 202(a) (5) (A) is a duplicate wording of section 202(a) (3). So, this section of AC21 law becomes a redundant/duplicate law. Then, there is no meaning of employment �preference� category if they interpret �totally or overall worldwide demand�. In other words, a non-Indian/Chinese restaurant cook (EB3) is more preferred than a NIW PhDs (EB2) from India or China. Is it the intend of the congress when enacting AC21 law in removing per country limitation in EB category? Is it the American Competitiveness in 21st century? I highly doubt that.
Now it is the time to ask US DOS, how they are allocating visa number in EB2 category. If DOS interpreting the law differently, then we need to ask the law makers (Congress) what is their original intension behind the section 202(a)(5)(A) when they drafted the AC21 law in 2000 and how it is differ from 202 (a) (3).
Perhaps Core IV team can initiate to discuss/consult this issue with an immigration lawyer and place an enquiry with DOS or Law makers, if needed.
(*Note: DOS do not mix FB and EB categories for visa number allocation/calculation to meet the per country limit. They keep both in separate track to meet separately the 7% limit)
I am one of the members of the forum and suffering due to the severe retrogression of EB visas. I highly appreciate IV�s effort to bring some legislative relief to address the severe backlogs in EB visas. I too participated in all IVs campaign in urging the law makers to bring some relief for this crisis. However, I have some concern here; about the method followed U.S DOS in allocating EB visas particularly in EB2 category for India and China. I am worried whether U.S DOS is violating the INA 202 (a), by suspending AC21 provision that eliminates country quota in EB categories. If they are violating by mistake, it is our responsibility to notify/clarify with them or we need to understand the law clearly. This is very important. Because, even if 110th congress passes SKIL bill, if DOS violates the AC21 law then it will not help applicants from oversubscribed countries (India and China). Here is my analysis based on following facts.
The cutoff date for EB2 India has moved just 7 days since last 9 months. However EB2 �Row has been current. EB2- ROW has never retrogressed before. EB3 ROW has seen considerable movement in last 9 months.
There may be four possible separate or combination of following reasons for the freeze of cutoff dates for India in EB2 at Jan 2003.
1. The backlog elimination effort of DOL pumped massive approved labor certificates from BEC. There may be tons of EB2 applicants from India and China with PD in the year 2001 and 2002 might have applied 485s based on recent approvals from BEC. However I doubt that. Because, in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003, EB3 India and China were �current�. No body cared about filing EB2 labor certification till the later part of 2004. Most lawyers preferred to file EB3 as it was easy, and there were no difference between EB3 and EB2 at that time. First ever indication for EB3 retrogression was issued by DOS only in later part of 2004. I doubt so many people have filed EB2-labor till 2003, keeping in mind that EB3 will retrogress in 2004 or future. Traditionally EB2 has been less demanding compare to EB1 and EB3.
2. Perhaps, there may be a huge demand by ROW (Due to PERM) to consume all the 86% of visa numbers in EB2 category in every month that prompts DOS to allocate only 7% to India and China. I doubt this too, because India and China itself consume about 60% of EB2 visas.
3. There may be lot of EB3 Indians and Chinese with PD 2001 and 2002 porting their PD from EB3 to EB2 by filing new LC and EB2-I-140. This may escalate the demand. However, how many will do this? How many employers will to do this �favor� for their employees? A real US employer/big corporations will not do double time work for an employee. Only consulting/staffing companies will do this. I think this may be a small group (or may not be?).
4. There may be another possible reason. There may be something wrong with U.S.DOS in allocating visa numbers in EB2 category, as per section 202 (a) of current INA. They may be issuing only 2800 (7% of 40,000) visas to India and China in EB2 and redirecting unused EB2 numbers to EB3 category. They may be imposing hard country cap in EB2 (Suspending AC21 law as per their VB Nov 2005). There is a large room for this speculation, due to the pattern of cutoff date movement in EB2 category. This is just a speculation. This argument/speculation is valid if DOS has issued less than 40,000 EB2 visas in FY 2006 as mandated by the law, and issued those numbers (40,000 minus actually issued) to EB3-ROW. In my view, it violates section 203 (b) (2) of the INA. One has to wait till they release statistics for FY 2006, to see how many EB2 visas are issued in that FY.
Here is some detailed analysis that says why it violates the law.
Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 203 a and b of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets numbers for each preference categories with in FB and EB.
Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320. This section also explains how to handle unused numbers with respect to country quota.
Even before AC21 rule enacted in 2000, there was no �hard� country cap as per INA then. Here is the section of INA before year 2000, describes how to allocate unused visas, if overall/total demand for FB an EB visas are less than supply*.
INA 202 (a) (3)
�Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a-Family category) and (b-Employment category) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter�.
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
After 2000 (After AC21) the following law was added to INA in the section 202.
INA 202 (a) (5) (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.
As per my simple interpretation of above AC21 rule, DOS should allocate unused visas by ROW �EB2 (ROW- countries other than India and China in EB2 category) for the first two months of any calendar quarter to over-subscribed countries (India & China) at the third month of that calendar quarter. They should not allocate to lower Preference category (EB3), if demand is more in higher preference category (EB2) to consume all the visa numbers in that preference category. They should allocate visas to all the documentarily qualified applicants in that (EB2) preference category, irrespective of country of birth. If they followed this rule/law, there may be a considerable movement in cut-off dates for India and China in Dec 2005, Mar, June and Sep of 2006 in EB2 (last month of each calendar quarter in a fiscal year). We have not witnessed such movement in last 1.5 years. No one knows how DOS is allocating numbers. They may be allocating only 7% visas to India and China in EB2 category very strictly, every month, and allocating unused numbers to EB3 category, by suspending AC21 law as indicated in their Nov 2005 Visa Bulletin. If they do so, it is against the law, at least in my interpretation of AC21 rule that eliminates country quota in EB categories.
DOS can not interpret above AC21 rule that eliminates per country limit applies �totally� to all EB categories put together, not by individual preference categories. I.e. If they say they will issue more than 2,800 visas to EB2- India per year (more than 7% of 40,000), provided overall demand for EB visas are less than 140,000. If they interpret the law like this, then there is no need for section 202(a) (5) (A) due to AC21 law. The law before AC21 {i.e. section 202 (a) (3)} itself address the elimination of country quota in both FB and EB category*. Then, section 202(a) (5) (A) is a duplicate wording of section 202(a) (3). So, this section of AC21 law becomes a redundant/duplicate law. Then, there is no meaning of employment �preference� category if they interpret �totally or overall worldwide demand�. In other words, a non-Indian/Chinese restaurant cook (EB3) is more preferred than a NIW PhDs (EB2) from India or China. Is it the intend of the congress when enacting AC21 law in removing per country limitation in EB category? Is it the American Competitiveness in 21st century? I highly doubt that.
Now it is the time to ask US DOS, how they are allocating visa number in EB2 category. If DOS interpreting the law differently, then we need to ask the law makers (Congress) what is their original intension behind the section 202(a)(5)(A) when they drafted the AC21 law in 2000 and how it is differ from 202 (a) (3).
Perhaps Core IV team can initiate to discuss/consult this issue with an immigration lawyer and place an enquiry with DOS or Law makers, if needed.
(*Note: DOS do not mix FB and EB categories for visa number allocation/calculation to meet the per country limit. They keep both in separate track to meet separately the 7% limit)
