greyhair
02-11 12:40 PM
The visa numbers reported as used for FY 2009 is 141,020 from http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09...ort_TableV.pdf
This was the response i got from Ron Gotcher.
"The employment based category is entitled to use the "unused" family based numbers from the previous year. Last year, the quota for EB was the base of 140,000, plus another 13,000 shifted over from FB. Unfortunately, the CIS failed once again to approve enough cases to use up the entire available quota."
If this is true, we have lost a lot of visas last year.
Now with aprox. 10,000 visas shifted from FB, we should hope they use about 150,000 (140,000 + 10,000) this year.
Is there a way to confirm this? We got to do something to resolve this problem
There is a huge backlog in FB category. How come there are 13,000 unused visas in FB. If any immigration business shop is so confident about their assertion, why do they not file a lawsuit on CIS. Why are they posting these messages on different forums? Do they just want to gain visibility? It seems that its better business practice is to write random statements like 'CIS failed again' without having the willingness to do something about CIS failure. Aren't there clients with pending 485 of this immigration shop. As their lawyer and with fiduciary duty towards his clients, if he is so confident of CIS failure, why is he not filing a lawsuit on CIS to guard the interest of his clients.
This was the response i got from Ron Gotcher.
"The employment based category is entitled to use the "unused" family based numbers from the previous year. Last year, the quota for EB was the base of 140,000, plus another 13,000 shifted over from FB. Unfortunately, the CIS failed once again to approve enough cases to use up the entire available quota."
If this is true, we have lost a lot of visas last year.
Now with aprox. 10,000 visas shifted from FB, we should hope they use about 150,000 (140,000 + 10,000) this year.
Is there a way to confirm this? We got to do something to resolve this problem
There is a huge backlog in FB category. How come there are 13,000 unused visas in FB. If any immigration business shop is so confident about their assertion, why do they not file a lawsuit on CIS. Why are they posting these messages on different forums? Do they just want to gain visibility? It seems that its better business practice is to write random statements like 'CIS failed again' without having the willingness to do something about CIS failure. Aren't there clients with pending 485 of this immigration shop. As their lawyer and with fiduciary duty towards his clients, if he is so confident of CIS failure, why is he not filing a lawsuit on CIS to guard the interest of his clients.
wallpaper Dancing in the Rain - 311640
reedandbamboo
09-14 02:03 PM
Hi,
This is for EAD Renewal (I-765)
I was working on H1 till May 08 now I am working on EAD
What should I write in column 15.(Current Immigration Status) in I-765 form
When I was on H1 in 2007, during first time EAD appliaction I filled with H1B
Please advice.
Thanks
JSQUARE
I have the same question.
This is for EAD Renewal (I-765)
I was working on H1 till May 08 now I am working on EAD
What should I write in column 15.(Current Immigration Status) in I-765 form
When I was on H1 in 2007, during first time EAD appliaction I filled with H1B
Please advice.
Thanks
JSQUARE
I have the same question.
vavs16
12-28 07:18 PM
Hi guys
If anyone here is enrolling at ONLINE program in U of South Dakota,please let me know
I am enrolling in there soon - it is accredited :)
Thanks a ton
If anyone here is enrolling at ONLINE program in U of South Dakota,please let me know
I am enrolling in there soon - it is accredited :)
Thanks a ton
2011 Dancing in the rain: Life is
ndbhatt
02-18 07:00 PM
Sorry guys, I misread somewhere.:D
What about illegal immigrants with < 5years. I think these senators will leave the overall problem unsolved.
What about legal immigrants with < 5years :confused:
What about illegal immigrants with < 5years. I think these senators will leave the overall problem unsolved.
What about legal immigrants with < 5years :confused:
more...
vik352
07-01 11:35 PM
I talked to my Professor where I did my masters and he agreed to sign the online petition. He is one of top researchers in his field. Imagine if we can get signatures from such great . Professors, outstanding Scientists, CEO's and Directors of big companies, Journalists (like the one who wrote nice article in Washington post about legal immigration) and probably Bill Gates. This would create great attention for our cause. They are lots of people out there who support legal immigration and its time to bring them together and show it to the world in a petition.
If anyone thinks this is a good idea, can you just leave a message saying that you support it. At least we know how many people are interested in this forum.
If anyone thinks this is a good idea, can you just leave a message saying that you support it. At least we know how many people are interested in this forum.
vivekm1309
06-12 10:04 AM
Here is a link ...that does talk about issues related to legal immigration ...IV is also mentioned in this article
http://www.ibnlive.com/news/world/06_2007/bush-gives-indian-immigrants-hope-42746.html
http://www.ibnlive.com/news/world/06_2007/bush-gives-indian-immigrants-hope-42746.html
more...
nat23
06-12 03:01 PM
I think the whole discussion can be summed up in the following manner: The CIR in its present form does more harm to us than good. If we can manage to get a favourable amendment attached then we are in good shape else we are in trouble.
People might approach the issue in different ways:some might want to take a chance and work on it to get an admendment and some might not want to support it fearing an amendment wont be possible.
People might approach the issue in different ways:some might want to take a chance and work on it to get an admendment and some might not want to support it fearing an amendment wont be possible.
2010 from Rain#39;s 3rd album Thanks
WAIT_FOR_EVER_GC
06-10 06:39 PM
Me and 10 of my friends at work have sent the email.
My wife and the wife's of friends have sent too.
My wife and the wife's of friends have sent too.
more...
thomachan72
07-28 04:45 PM
Hi all,
I am not sure whether I should add this over here or not but I could not resist and I don't know any other way.
I went to a wine shop and was shocked to see cartoon of Ganesha used on the bottle of India Pale Beer. I am not a religious person but this thing made me nervous. Please let me know how this can be protested.
Thanks
A lot of people act as if their God / Gods need their protection. My friends think about that before getting upset about these issues. Do the Gods really need your protection? or is it just your ego thats being hurt? Would Ganesha (in this case) be hurt by being on the beer bottle? Does the picture infact resemble him? has anybody seen Ganesha? I mean, this is 21st century and we have to think rationally before becoming sentimental over these issues. So long as you get hurt over these there will be people to insult you. Believe me my friend no human can ever hurt / insult a God (if there is infact one). so why bother? Maintain your personal relationship with Ganesha in your prayer and let him deal with such insults in his way. The only reality you will ever know is your neighbuor. Live and let others live life to the fullest and dont let religion / religious idease dictate your attitude towards this world. next time you see the beer, buy it and drink it if you enjoy alcoholic beverages.
I am not sure whether I should add this over here or not but I could not resist and I don't know any other way.
I went to a wine shop and was shocked to see cartoon of Ganesha used on the bottle of India Pale Beer. I am not a religious person but this thing made me nervous. Please let me know how this can be protested.
Thanks
A lot of people act as if their God / Gods need their protection. My friends think about that before getting upset about these issues. Do the Gods really need your protection? or is it just your ego thats being hurt? Would Ganesha (in this case) be hurt by being on the beer bottle? Does the picture infact resemble him? has anybody seen Ganesha? I mean, this is 21st century and we have to think rationally before becoming sentimental over these issues. So long as you get hurt over these there will be people to insult you. Believe me my friend no human can ever hurt / insult a God (if there is infact one). so why bother? Maintain your personal relationship with Ganesha in your prayer and let him deal with such insults in his way. The only reality you will ever know is your neighbuor. Live and let others live life to the fullest and dont let religion / religious idease dictate your attitude towards this world. next time you see the beer, buy it and drink it if you enjoy alcoholic beverages.
hair dance quotes about passion.
ajthakur
07-14 08:07 PM
Thanks rajuseattle. I am first going to try find out whether my previous employer did revoke the 140. In case he didnt i am safe. In case he did, when he did it is the key.
One more thing AC-21 is not a formal USCIS form which one can fill in and send it over to USCIS, its just a letter wherein you or your legal representative informs USCIS about the change in employment, be it a job promotion with same employer or u switching the Job using the AC-21 provisions.
As explained earlier in this forum, 180 day rule interpretation is solely USCIS's descretion, if USCIS adjudicator who is working on your case accepts your new EVL and approves your case you are good to go, but for some reason the adjudicator keeps sending more RFE then you will need someone who can answer them in a legal language and thats where attorney services comes in handy.
I am hoping for the best for you that once they see your new EVL, they are satisfied and sends you GC.
One more thing AC-21 is not a formal USCIS form which one can fill in and send it over to USCIS, its just a letter wherein you or your legal representative informs USCIS about the change in employment, be it a job promotion with same employer or u switching the Job using the AC-21 provisions.
As explained earlier in this forum, 180 day rule interpretation is solely USCIS's descretion, if USCIS adjudicator who is working on your case accepts your new EVL and approves your case you are good to go, but for some reason the adjudicator keeps sending more RFE then you will need someone who can answer them in a legal language and thats where attorney services comes in handy.
I am hoping for the best for you that once they see your new EVL, they are satisfied and sends you GC.
more...
sirinme
10-21 02:45 PM
I just sent mine.
- sirinme
- sirinme
hot gene kelly dancing in the rain
Macaca
01-30 07:03 PM
Asking employees to pay for H1 costs is not legal. It would be in violations of CFR.
Is this a new rule? I have paid for my H1 with a check to INS (before name changed to USCIS). I think everyone else paid for H1 with pay check to INS. I was also supposed to pay for (non-company) lawyer fees for GC.
Is this a new rule? I have paid for my H1 with a check to INS (before name changed to USCIS). I think everyone else paid for H1 with pay check to INS. I was also supposed to pay for (non-company) lawyer fees for GC.
more...
house hair Royalty Free Rain Clipart
feedfront
10-11 11:38 AM
Status changed to 'Your Case Status: Request for Evidence Response Review'.
Hope it will be completed in a week :)
Hope it will be completed in a week :)
tattoo Dancing in the Rain
zuhail
03-10 03:49 PM
Of all 4 the proposals made by vbkris77,
I would just stick with one and only one:
RE-CAPTURING VISA NUMBERS.
If we add any other item like re validating H1B inside US,accountability for USCIS etc, the message would bound to get lost. It will get bogged down by the details of implementing the other proposals. The devil is always in the details.
I think we need to stick to single target of visa re-capturing (with no mention of the word H1B in the legislation). There should be no crap about H1B workers stealing jobs nor granting pardon for illegals. Visa re-capture is for educated foreign-born professionals currently employed in US.
Many ask if this is the right time. When will be the right time?. Are we asking anything that has not been already granted by the law?. These past visa numbers have been already approved by the law but not used by the USCIS.
The time is RIGHT NOW.
It is interesting why IV team is not taking up this one item and start fund raising.
May be the team has some valid reasons for not doing so. I could only guess.
But waiting for the right time to take up this agenda of re-capturing visa numbers is not a valid reason. That is totally hopeless.
I would just stick with one and only one:
RE-CAPTURING VISA NUMBERS.
If we add any other item like re validating H1B inside US,accountability for USCIS etc, the message would bound to get lost. It will get bogged down by the details of implementing the other proposals. The devil is always in the details.
I think we need to stick to single target of visa re-capturing (with no mention of the word H1B in the legislation). There should be no crap about H1B workers stealing jobs nor granting pardon for illegals. Visa re-capture is for educated foreign-born professionals currently employed in US.
Many ask if this is the right time. When will be the right time?. Are we asking anything that has not been already granted by the law?. These past visa numbers have been already approved by the law but not used by the USCIS.
The time is RIGHT NOW.
It is interesting why IV team is not taking up this one item and start fund raising.
May be the team has some valid reasons for not doing so. I could only guess.
But waiting for the right time to take up this agenda of re-capturing visa numbers is not a valid reason. That is totally hopeless.
more...
pictures To Dance In The Rain” and
silibili
06-10 04:40 PM
done
dresses Dancing in the rain - from the
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.
more...
makeup wallpaper dance sing quote
desi3933
02-11 07:40 PM
If someone port their EB3 i-485 to EB2, say somebody who's PD is in 2002.
Does his Visa number go waste or it will be re-used for another case.
this is with presumption that the cases are pre-adjudicated
Visa number is considered used only when I-485 is approved or immigrant visa is approved at US consulate.
Visa number is NOT allocated if I-485 is pre-adjudicated. Pre-adjudicated means that application can be approved but due to lack of visa number it must wait.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
Does his Visa number go waste or it will be re-used for another case.
this is with presumption that the cases are pre-adjudicated
Visa number is considered used only when I-485 is approved or immigrant visa is approved at US consulate.
Visa number is NOT allocated if I-485 is pre-adjudicated. Pre-adjudicated means that application can be approved but due to lack of visa number it must wait.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
girlfriend out these dance moves.
manishcp
09-26 10:02 AM
I did send E-mail
hairstyles Dancing in the rain
.soulty
03-19 11:02 PM
moved it, status closed now.. ;)
malaGCPahije
03-17 10:53 AM
Nov 2004. EB3 - I
Dhundhun
07-12 09:28 PM
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20141
Somebody with Nov05 PD tried to renew EAD and was given a 3 month EAD.......
Use of "01" instead of "10" has been common mistake by USCIS. I came across couple of such cases. This is typo error and they will fix it.
Somebody with Nov05 PD tried to renew EAD and was given a 3 month EAD.......
Use of "01" instead of "10" has been common mistake by USCIS. I came across couple of such cases. This is typo error and they will fix it.