abc
12-13 03:36 PM
I am planning to forget GC and move on with new company.
For new company to file EB2 based on BS + 6 years experience. What kind of experience letter we will need from old company.
AS you know desi companies dont give experience letters, how do people manage to show old experiences and file for EB2 in new company ?
For new company to file EB2 based on BS + 6 years experience. What kind of experience letter we will need from old company.
AS you know desi companies dont give experience letters, how do people manage to show old experiences and file for EB2 in new company ?
wallpaper jennifer aniston hairstyles
abhijitp
03-05 02:34 PM
Many of them during the letters campaign, and most are ready to buy a home within a year of getting their green cards!
On ther other hand I personally know a very highly educated guy (IITBombay, MS then PhD in Electrical Eng- with a specialization in wireless tech) who got his EB GC 2-3 years too late... by that time the tech boom was over but the housing boom had already begun... so he decided to wait a few more years. Now he feels bad about the whole thing, and wonders if he should have bought a home when he was on H1B-- even if it would be frought with risk! That way, he would have been a millionaire today-- just like his friends who got their GCs and bought homes well in time.
8 years later, the history is repeating itself.
500,000+ people are patiently waiting in the EB GC queue... and chances are they will helplessly watch as home prices hit the bottom, and then rebound a few years later.
Some of them might decide to take the plunge and buy a home to take advantage of the low prices. However, many of them may be simply denied this chance becasuse their future is tied to a plastic card that has to be renewed every year!
Singhsa, sorry cannot help you right now with the media... maybe you can try getting help from the IV-media team?
On ther other hand I personally know a very highly educated guy (IITBombay, MS then PhD in Electrical Eng- with a specialization in wireless tech) who got his EB GC 2-3 years too late... by that time the tech boom was over but the housing boom had already begun... so he decided to wait a few more years. Now he feels bad about the whole thing, and wonders if he should have bought a home when he was on H1B-- even if it would be frought with risk! That way, he would have been a millionaire today-- just like his friends who got their GCs and bought homes well in time.
8 years later, the history is repeating itself.
500,000+ people are patiently waiting in the EB GC queue... and chances are they will helplessly watch as home prices hit the bottom, and then rebound a few years later.
Some of them might decide to take the plunge and buy a home to take advantage of the low prices. However, many of them may be simply denied this chance becasuse their future is tied to a plastic card that has to be renewed every year!
Singhsa, sorry cannot help you right now with the media... maybe you can try getting help from the IV-media team?
eilsoe
03-08 04:24 PM
right, march 10th :lol:
sorry.. had my head somewhere else at the time... :sure:
sorry.. had my head somewhere else at the time... :sure:
2011 Jennifer Aniston Hair Looks In
mirage
02-03 10:38 AM
I spoke to Congresswoman Zoe Logfren's staff few days, back and they specifically pointed out on the country quota issue. I'm sure lot of lawmakers are aware about this issue, I wan to give it a try, guys who think it is an unfair system, please PM me, this is my own initiative so no there is no arguement on whether IV supports this or not...
more...
anilsal
12-13 12:09 PM
Let's give them some time. It may be a topic that require some research, information-gathering. This is an entirely new strategy we are discussing, no surprise if they don't get back with an immediate answer. I'm sure they are analyzing the idea.
I am sure that the IV core has already explored this option. We need some kind of feedback from them.
===============
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
- Mohandas Gandhi
Slogan of the Linux community
I am sure that the IV core has already explored this option. We need some kind of feedback from them.
===============
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
- Mohandas Gandhi
Slogan of the Linux community
amitjoey
01-18 11:45 AM
Guys, this is the time to show the core group that we are a bunch of people thankful that there is IV to help us fight this fight.
We need to stand united and raise awareness and sign up for the $20minimum a month recurring contribution.
I understand that some of you do intend to contribute and have contributed generously in the past,
But here are some mindsets, All of us fall in these 4 mindsets.
1) you probably think "why should I sign up for a monthly recurring contribution program". I am a generous contributor and I contribute almost monthly anyways.
2) I have contributed enough.
3) I will contribute if I feel like, when I see something comming out of this effort.
4) I do not have to contribute.
If you are in category 1).I can tell you, I understand because I have been a generous contributer in the past. But guys, the reason I signed up for a monthly recurring contribution is that it helps IV know that 'X' amount of funds are guaranted every month, this way they can plan better.
Category 2) Contributed enough - Okay why dont just sign up for a minimum amount of $20/month once more. What is enough is not enough.
Category 3) This has been discussed, I do not want to talk about this category of members.
Category 4) Again - No Comments-
Lets show the core team that all of us fall in the first 2 categories.
The last thing we want the core to do is bite their fingers over funds. We do not want the core to get stressed out over funds. They have enough real work to do already.
Inspite of being a serious team player, and a generous contributor it took me two days to sign up for the recurring monthly contribution program, so I give all of the ones that have not set up a monthly recurring contribution benefit of doubt. But this is our last chance, I urge you to be one of the 1000 people we need for this effort.
We need to stand united and raise awareness and sign up for the $20minimum a month recurring contribution.
I understand that some of you do intend to contribute and have contributed generously in the past,
But here are some mindsets, All of us fall in these 4 mindsets.
1) you probably think "why should I sign up for a monthly recurring contribution program". I am a generous contributor and I contribute almost monthly anyways.
2) I have contributed enough.
3) I will contribute if I feel like, when I see something comming out of this effort.
4) I do not have to contribute.
If you are in category 1).I can tell you, I understand because I have been a generous contributer in the past. But guys, the reason I signed up for a monthly recurring contribution is that it helps IV know that 'X' amount of funds are guaranted every month, this way they can plan better.
Category 2) Contributed enough - Okay why dont just sign up for a minimum amount of $20/month once more. What is enough is not enough.
Category 3) This has been discussed, I do not want to talk about this category of members.
Category 4) Again - No Comments-
Lets show the core team that all of us fall in the first 2 categories.
The last thing we want the core to do is bite their fingers over funds. We do not want the core to get stressed out over funds. They have enough real work to do already.
Inspite of being a serious team player, and a generous contributor it took me two days to sign up for the recurring monthly contribution program, so I give all of the ones that have not set up a monthly recurring contribution benefit of doubt. But this is our last chance, I urge you to be one of the 1000 people we need for this effort.
more...
sbabunle
01-09 05:04 PM
This thread's been silent..whats going on fellas.... Are you guys finding out new forums, new websites to post....... We have to meet our 10K membership......
2010 volume from limp hair.
chetanjumani
04-23 11:03 PM
Congrats Googler.
Enjoy your GC
Enjoy your GC
more...
Googler
04-24 11:48 AM
Thank you all for the warm response. I appreciate it and wish the same for absolutely all of you. I hope my heated discussions with various officials about TSC's lack of action will clear some logjam for everyone else who is current but still waiting.
hair styles with long straight
gimme_GC2006
03-09 12:25 PM
and then june....then july....and so on and so forth visa bullietins......:D
I dont see anything good happening this year..duh :confused::confused:
I dont see anything good happening this year..duh :confused::confused:
more...
waitnwatch
07-28 04:10 PM
Its amazing how the self proclaimed defenders of Hinduism think that the religion is so fragile. Last I checked Hinduism is known to be >5000 years old, withstood countless aggressors/forced conversions for over 1000s of years, absorbed various cultures and ethnicities to remain one of the dominant religions in the world.
Its asinine to think that the religion/culture that withstood Aurangzeb will be diminished by a freakin IPA.
It is my view that folks who get offended by something as trivial as this, are reflecting their own insecurities or even their lack of faith in something they have been led to believe in.
There is an excellent article on Hinduism and why and how it has survived over the millenia by Amartya Sen. This is one of many excellent articles which are compiled in a book titled "The Argumentative India". If you get a chance please read this article and, even better, the whole book.
There is a lot of information about India's history and culture (with references) and might help throw some light on this discussion of gods on a toilet seat or beer bottle.
I also see a business opportunity from this discussion--caps with Ganesha embroidered on them - would sell like hot cakes! :)
Its asinine to think that the religion/culture that withstood Aurangzeb will be diminished by a freakin IPA.
It is my view that folks who get offended by something as trivial as this, are reflecting their own insecurities or even their lack of faith in something they have been led to believe in.
There is an excellent article on Hinduism and why and how it has survived over the millenia by Amartya Sen. This is one of many excellent articles which are compiled in a book titled "The Argumentative India". If you get a chance please read this article and, even better, the whole book.
There is a lot of information about India's history and culture (with references) and might help throw some light on this discussion of gods on a toilet seat or beer bottle.
I also see a business opportunity from this discussion--caps with Ganesha embroidered on them - would sell like hot cakes! :)
hot Sedu Hair Styles
alisa
01-20 02:15 AM
Man....
You guys (from India) are in a really really terrible situation.
First column shows the year. Second one estimates applicants for GC from India. Third (Years to Clear) one divides backlog by 10000 to estimate the number of years needed too clear that backlog, assuming 10000 visa numbers released per year. Fourth (Year cleared) adds that number to the Year column to give the year you can get your GC. Finally, assuming that AC21 added a year's worth of supply of visa numbers, a year is taken out from the final estimate.
Also dependents are not included in the calculations. Send them back.
Here is how I estimated backlogs. Backlogs for 2001 and 2002 are taken from jungalee43 posting.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=1265#post1265
For years 2003 and forward,
a) 65000 applicants for H-1 assumed
b) 40 percent of these assumed to be Indians (26000)
c) 75 % of these 26000 assumed to have applied for and made it past the I-140 stage, i.e. 19500 added annually since 2003.
d) Each year, 10000 visa numbers allotted to Indians. (Assumption: Indians don't have any dependents. If you want to include dependents, 2001 backlog clears in 2023, and 2006 backlog clears in 2055)
Here are the results.
Year Backlog YTC YC AC21
2001 123194 12.3194 2012 2011
2002 160274 16.0274 2016 2015
2003 169774 16.9774 2016 2015
2004 179274 17.9274 2020 2019
2005 188774 18.8774 2020 2019
2006 198274 19.8274 2024 2023
2007 207774 20.7774 2024 2023
2008 217274 21.7274 2028 2027
2009 226774 22.6774 2028 2027
2010 236274 23.6274 2032 2031
Feel free to improve on this.
I had posted this statistics last year on IV. I had done good research to arrive at these figures. I hope the figures will open eyes of people who are bestowed with 'blissful ignorance'.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=1265#post1265
You guys (from India) are in a really really terrible situation.
First column shows the year. Second one estimates applicants for GC from India. Third (Years to Clear) one divides backlog by 10000 to estimate the number of years needed too clear that backlog, assuming 10000 visa numbers released per year. Fourth (Year cleared) adds that number to the Year column to give the year you can get your GC. Finally, assuming that AC21 added a year's worth of supply of visa numbers, a year is taken out from the final estimate.
Also dependents are not included in the calculations. Send them back.
Here is how I estimated backlogs. Backlogs for 2001 and 2002 are taken from jungalee43 posting.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=1265#post1265
For years 2003 and forward,
a) 65000 applicants for H-1 assumed
b) 40 percent of these assumed to be Indians (26000)
c) 75 % of these 26000 assumed to have applied for and made it past the I-140 stage, i.e. 19500 added annually since 2003.
d) Each year, 10000 visa numbers allotted to Indians. (Assumption: Indians don't have any dependents. If you want to include dependents, 2001 backlog clears in 2023, and 2006 backlog clears in 2055)
Here are the results.
Year Backlog YTC YC AC21
2001 123194 12.3194 2012 2011
2002 160274 16.0274 2016 2015
2003 169774 16.9774 2016 2015
2004 179274 17.9274 2020 2019
2005 188774 18.8774 2020 2019
2006 198274 19.8274 2024 2023
2007 207774 20.7774 2024 2023
2008 217274 21.7274 2028 2027
2009 226774 22.6774 2028 2027
2010 236274 23.6274 2032 2031
Feel free to improve on this.
I had posted this statistics last year on IV. I had done good research to arrive at these figures. I hope the figures will open eyes of people who are bestowed with 'blissful ignorance'.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=1265#post1265
more...
house Jennifer Aniston#39;s Hairstyle
GreenLantern
02-15 09:19 PM
Jesus man, that is sick!
I don't think I can keep up with you guys.
I don't think I can keep up with you guys.
tattoo Jennifer Aniston
Ramba
07-04 07:25 PM
Everyone blaming CIS/DOS needs to understand some basics behind this mess. Before going to conclude anything, first, one should read all the ombudsman reports for last 3 or 4 years. Former INS or current USCIS�s functions and operations were not questionable and not known to public till ombudsman office was established. Ombudsman has helped customers and keep helping to improve efficiency of CIS. Ombudsman main concern (or goal) have been over the 4 years are
1. Primarily reducing backlogs in any application type particularly 485 and timely approval of any application.
2. Abolish the need for interim benefits like EAD, AP etc. If they approve 485 in 6 months, then most of us do not require EAD and AP.
3. Reduce the wastage of EB visas, as unused EB visas can not be carried over to next year (use it or lose it). Since 1992, about 200,000 EB visas were lost permanently. In 2003 alone, they issued only 64,000 EB visas and lost 88,000.
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Now lets come to July Visa bulletin mess.
Because of tight holding of visa cutoff dates for EB3 and EB2 for the first 8 months of 2007 (From Oct 2006 to May 2007) USCIS approved only 66,000 485s. For the next 4 months they have about 60K to 70K numbers available. If they approve the pending 485s with slower speed or old cut off dates, there is a potential estimated loss of 40,000 EB visas by Sep 2007. Thats why, based on ombudsman recommendation, DOS moved considerably the cut off date for June. When they took inventory in May, there are about 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications were pending due to non-availability of visa numbers. The �documentarily qualified 485 applications� mean the application filed long time back and processed by USCIS and cleared the FBI name and criminal check, and found eligible for green card. Apart from 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications, there is thousands of 485 applications (documentarily not yet qualified) pending due to name check. When DOS checked with USCIS they found only 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications (in all EB categories put together) are pending. However, the available visas are more than 40,000 (60to 70K). Then they made with out consulting properly with USCIS they made �current� for all EB categories. This is how they determine �current� or �over-subscribed� and how they establish cutoff dates.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered �Current.�
Whenever the total of documentarily qualified applicants in a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for the particular month, the category is considered to be �oversubscribed� and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories �current� for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories �current� ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of �current� there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making �current� for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as �current� in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
1. Primarily reducing backlogs in any application type particularly 485 and timely approval of any application.
2. Abolish the need for interim benefits like EAD, AP etc. If they approve 485 in 6 months, then most of us do not require EAD and AP.
3. Reduce the wastage of EB visas, as unused EB visas can not be carried over to next year (use it or lose it). Since 1992, about 200,000 EB visas were lost permanently. In 2003 alone, they issued only 64,000 EB visas and lost 88,000.
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Now lets come to July Visa bulletin mess.
Because of tight holding of visa cutoff dates for EB3 and EB2 for the first 8 months of 2007 (From Oct 2006 to May 2007) USCIS approved only 66,000 485s. For the next 4 months they have about 60K to 70K numbers available. If they approve the pending 485s with slower speed or old cut off dates, there is a potential estimated loss of 40,000 EB visas by Sep 2007. Thats why, based on ombudsman recommendation, DOS moved considerably the cut off date for June. When they took inventory in May, there are about 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications were pending due to non-availability of visa numbers. The �documentarily qualified 485 applications� mean the application filed long time back and processed by USCIS and cleared the FBI name and criminal check, and found eligible for green card. Apart from 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications, there is thousands of 485 applications (documentarily not yet qualified) pending due to name check. When DOS checked with USCIS they found only 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications (in all EB categories put together) are pending. However, the available visas are more than 40,000 (60to 70K). Then they made with out consulting properly with USCIS they made �current� for all EB categories. This is how they determine �current� or �over-subscribed� and how they establish cutoff dates.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered �Current.�
Whenever the total of documentarily qualified applicants in a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for the particular month, the category is considered to be �oversubscribed� and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories �current� for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories �current� ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of �current� there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making �current� for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as �current� in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
more...
pictures Jennifer Aniston#39;s Honey
varshadas
02-18 01:12 PM
Himanshu,
Thank you very much for your appreciation. We are glad to help to get us all out of this mess.
Rajeev, Sanjay, Hemal. Shekhar and Ajay, were you able to get in touch with your local Congressmen, if not, please do so.
Thanks,
Varsha
Thank you very much for your appreciation. We are glad to help to get us all out of this mess.
Rajeev, Sanjay, Hemal. Shekhar and Ajay, were you able to get in touch with your local Congressmen, if not, please do so.
Thanks,
Varsha
dresses I love Jennifer Aniston and
keshtwo
07-09 04:40 PM
I hope this lawsuit fails. Looking ahead this lawsuit, if it succeeds might do us more damage than good. Law of unintended consequences states that something can happen we haven't thought of.
Supposing, if lawsuit goes ahead and wins, one outcome might be - USCIS might start adhering to strict interpretation of 7% per country, or curtail spillovers drastically. Then we are in deep shit.
Supposing, if lawsuit goes ahead and wins, one outcome might be - USCIS might start adhering to strict interpretation of 7% per country, or curtail spillovers drastically. Then we are in deep shit.
more...
makeup jennifer aniston long
gimme_GC2006
03-09 03:54 PM
If your kids were born in the US then maybe they will be able to file for you by then and that will be definitely faster than EB-3. :D
looks like that is Plan B :D:D
looks like that is Plan B :D:D
girlfriend Jennifer Aniston long hair
qesehmk
02-11 07:31 PM
So, according to you, what happens when no action is taken for assigned visa number?
What matters is number of visas used. Have you looked at the numbers?
I actually was saying I agreed w you. Read my post again... I was trying to say a few things over and above...
Aside from that, I have questioned Ron's correctness on this particular issue well before you produced that data.
Also if people somehow do not want to pay attention to facts then so be it.. Why be rude?
What matters is number of visas used. Have you looked at the numbers?
I actually was saying I agreed w you. Read my post again... I was trying to say a few things over and above...
Aside from that, I have questioned Ron's correctness on this particular issue well before you produced that data.
Also if people somehow do not want to pay attention to facts then so be it.. Why be rude?
hairstyles Jennifer Aniston
nomi
12-11 02:28 PM
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.
greenlight
08-17 04:15 PM
A1: If you have an approved I-140 for the earlier PD, the answer is yes.
A2: You do not have to refile 485. Apply for PERM and get a new 140 for this PERM substituting your earlier PD. Now you will have an EB2 I-140 with the 2004 PD. There is an option to replace the 140 for an already filed 485. Just do that and you are all set.
Thanks for your response. ;)
So will AOD processing for EB-2 be a lot faster than EB-3 as long as I capture the PD of 12/04?
A2: You do not have to refile 485. Apply for PERM and get a new 140 for this PERM substituting your earlier PD. Now you will have an EB2 I-140 with the 2004 PD. There is an option to replace the 140 for an already filed 485. Just do that and you are all set.
Thanks for your response. ;)
So will AOD processing for EB-2 be a lot faster than EB-3 as long as I capture the PD of 12/04?
nixstor
10-16 05:30 PM
Don't you think we should be more clear in requesting information per specific country instead of lumping China and India together for EB-2 and others for EB-3? Also will it be too much to request pending applications by month/quarter instead of year?
We probably want the report in this format? This is just a suggestion.
This is what is in the letter.
>>>> I request you to provide me with the number of pending employment based AOS applications, (excluding approved/denied) sorted by priority date from 2001 on a yearly basis broken down for each of the following country and category. (Not the combined total of pending EB AOS applications altogether) <<<<
I clearly mentioned each of the following country and category. To make sure, I also mentioned that we do not need combined total of pending AOS applications. If the request is ambiguous or means different things to different people,please let us know and we can make needed modifications asap. Are you recommending to hand out a blank tabular format .to USCIS FOIA?
As far as the year vs quarter thing is concerned, we felt that its best to get some thing out of this rather than tossed around. Most of the data from 2005/post perm can be found on the flcdatacenter and we can sort these ourselves. This leaves with pre perm applications and I believe DOS will have a better handle in moving the PD's a lot better in the last Q, if they have a handle on the number of applications by year. I agree that if info available on a monthly/quarterly basis, it would be even better. But I feel that we will get tossed around
We probably want the report in this format? This is just a suggestion.
This is what is in the letter.
>>>> I request you to provide me with the number of pending employment based AOS applications, (excluding approved/denied) sorted by priority date from 2001 on a yearly basis broken down for each of the following country and category. (Not the combined total of pending EB AOS applications altogether) <<<<
I clearly mentioned each of the following country and category. To make sure, I also mentioned that we do not need combined total of pending AOS applications. If the request is ambiguous or means different things to different people,please let us know and we can make needed modifications asap. Are you recommending to hand out a blank tabular format .to USCIS FOIA?
As far as the year vs quarter thing is concerned, we felt that its best to get some thing out of this rather than tossed around. Most of the data from 2005/post perm can be found on the flcdatacenter and we can sort these ourselves. This leaves with pre perm applications and I believe DOS will have a better handle in moving the PD's a lot better in the last Q, if they have a handle on the number of applications by year. I agree that if info available on a monthly/quarterly basis, it would be even better. But I feel that we will get tossed around
No comments:
Post a Comment