vin13
11-11 12:14 PM
We can all send a copy to the ombudsmand and DOS.
I will be discussing this with my congressperson in a couple of weeks. Can any of you contact your congressperson and have them help you regarding quarterly spillover? Use the draft to take to your local congressman.
The draft letter looks good. I think, we should also send a copy or new letter to the Ombudsman and to the DOS (as DOS is also involved in how many visas are released).
That way we do not get pushed around.
Good work.
Gaurav
I will be discussing this with my congressperson in a couple of weeks. Can any of you contact your congressperson and have them help you regarding quarterly spillover? Use the draft to take to your local congressman.
The draft letter looks good. I think, we should also send a copy or new letter to the Ombudsman and to the DOS (as DOS is also involved in how many visas are released).
That way we do not get pushed around.
Good work.
Gaurav
wallpaper Oshani Dias Sri Lankan Model
nixstor
10-16 05:59 PM
I personally think there is a possible ambiguity in the request (especially since we are dealing with a government agency). So we should probably bullet point the data we need at least and if people don't think there is any harm in putting in a table for the format of data needed that will make things very clear. I agree with you that breakdown of quarter/month is probably not needed and might actually hurt our chances of getting the answer within reasonable amount of time.
Hear ya. Even though its repetitive,for the sake of clarity and to avoid ambiguity/frivolous answer, I have updated the document in google docs and the attachment by one of our other member prabhu.
Thanks for your feedback.
Hear ya. Even though its repetitive,for the sake of clarity and to avoid ambiguity/frivolous answer, I have updated the document in google docs and the attachment by one of our other member prabhu.
Thanks for your feedback.
Sheetal_MA
03-10 09:55 AM
Both 1A and 2A category for Family Based (sons, daughters, spouse - of citizens and green card holders) has better dates (15th Aug 02, 15th Aug 2004) than EB-2 India, and EB-3 India.
This is so preposterous, words cannot even begin to describe this absurdity.
So those of us who have been in U.S. for almost a decade, have been contributing to this society, and have held our life in constant limbo, are being given a lower priority than those who are still back in their own country and living a happy life and who can now immigrate to U.S. based on family immigration.
Do the lawmakers have no common sense left atall??
Do you fully realize your statement about the 2A category which is for spouses and children of green card holders? That means that if someone got a green card (whether through the family or EB category), they have to wait 5+ years to reunite with their spouse and children. At least those with H1B can bring their spouse into the country right away.
I have been lurking on this forum to understand the plight of EB immigrants and the posts the last few weeks have confirmed my belief that the problem exist because a lot of people came to the US from 1999-2006 and want to stay here permanently. The EB immigration system was fine before then; thus, the problem is supply/demand, not the immigration policies.
This is so preposterous, words cannot even begin to describe this absurdity.
So those of us who have been in U.S. for almost a decade, have been contributing to this society, and have held our life in constant limbo, are being given a lower priority than those who are still back in their own country and living a happy life and who can now immigrate to U.S. based on family immigration.
Do the lawmakers have no common sense left atall??
Do you fully realize your statement about the 2A category which is for spouses and children of green card holders? That means that if someone got a green card (whether through the family or EB category), they have to wait 5+ years to reunite with their spouse and children. At least those with H1B can bring their spouse into the country right away.
I have been lurking on this forum to understand the plight of EB immigrants and the posts the last few weeks have confirmed my belief that the problem exist because a lot of people came to the US from 1999-2006 and want to stay here permanently. The EB immigration system was fine before then; thus, the problem is supply/demand, not the immigration policies.
2011 Sri Lanka Hot Models
anukcs
09-26 09:53 AM
I sent a message
more...
vdlrao
06-09 02:58 AM
"It has been necessary to retrogress the Mexico Family First and Third preference cut-off dates, as well as the China Employment Second preference cut-off date for July to keep visa issuances within those annual category numerical limits. "
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4512.html
This seems to be that the Spill Over Hasnt Occured Yet for this year.
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4512.html
This seems to be that the Spill Over Hasnt Occured Yet for this year.
Macaca
07-17 10:26 AM
One of their fax letters is below, which is a complete mis-representation of truth - look at point #2.
Please post URL
Please post URL
more...
chnaveen
01-16 03:32 PM
signed up for $20 per month though paypal.
2010 Hot And Sexy Sri Lankan Model
pappu
07-24 10:56 AM
I will try to dig out the actual memo. But this is from the oh law firm page:
---
06/17/2007: Flexible RFE/NOID Response Time Rule and Advisory for July EB-485 Filing
* As we advised earlier, the USCIS published a new rule that allows the USCIS to have more discredtion and control over the two issues: One is shortening of the timeframe for responses to RFE from previous 12 weeks to any period of time which they see fit. The second rule is their authority to either reject or deny petitions or applications without issuing RFE where "initial evidence" is missing in the filing. Previously, the so-called Yates memo indirectly required the agency to avoid rejection and denial with a recommend to issue RFEs as much as possible. This part of the Yates memo is overridden by the new rule who took effect yesterday, June 16, 2007. It is thus likely that the Service Centers will more aggressively reject or deny the I-485 applications where the "initial evidence" are missing in the filing packet. It is thus very important that people understand the definition of "initial evidence." The initial evidence varies between the nonimmigrant and immigrant proceedings and for that matter, each type of proceedings. The immigration regulation lists in details the initial evidence. However, the instructions sheets to each petition or application lists the initial evidence that are required for filing. Accordingly, beginning from today, people may want to read the instruction sheet for I-485 form carefully to learn the list of initial evidence and not to miss omitting these evidence in filing I-485 applications.
* One of the initial evidence which is listed is the sealed I-693, the Medical Examination results completed and sealed by the USCIS designated civil surgeons who examined the applicants per the immigration rules. As we reported yesterday, attorneys asked the USCIS authorities to accept I-485 applications without the medical result, but their answer was that they were taking it under advicement but as it stands now, the sealed medical report would be required as initial evidence, accoring to the USCIS authorities who were present at the AILA Annual Conference in Orlando. We understand that in some areas, there are a huge backlog in the physician's clinics for such medical examination. However, people can shop around the authorized physicians in much broader areas. For instance, people usually were asked to schedule such medical examination in the local "district" office where the applicants resided. The definition of "district office" has been broaden lately. Former district offices have been turned into field offices of a district office. Accordingly, people can schedule the medical examination through a physician located outside of their residence if the area falls under the jurisdiction of "district" even if it is outside the jurisdiction of "field office."
---
---
06/17/2007: Flexible RFE/NOID Response Time Rule and Advisory for July EB-485 Filing
* As we advised earlier, the USCIS published a new rule that allows the USCIS to have more discredtion and control over the two issues: One is shortening of the timeframe for responses to RFE from previous 12 weeks to any period of time which they see fit. The second rule is their authority to either reject or deny petitions or applications without issuing RFE where "initial evidence" is missing in the filing. Previously, the so-called Yates memo indirectly required the agency to avoid rejection and denial with a recommend to issue RFEs as much as possible. This part of the Yates memo is overridden by the new rule who took effect yesterday, June 16, 2007. It is thus likely that the Service Centers will more aggressively reject or deny the I-485 applications where the "initial evidence" are missing in the filing packet. It is thus very important that people understand the definition of "initial evidence." The initial evidence varies between the nonimmigrant and immigrant proceedings and for that matter, each type of proceedings. The immigration regulation lists in details the initial evidence. However, the instructions sheets to each petition or application lists the initial evidence that are required for filing. Accordingly, beginning from today, people may want to read the instruction sheet for I-485 form carefully to learn the list of initial evidence and not to miss omitting these evidence in filing I-485 applications.
* One of the initial evidence which is listed is the sealed I-693, the Medical Examination results completed and sealed by the USCIS designated civil surgeons who examined the applicants per the immigration rules. As we reported yesterday, attorneys asked the USCIS authorities to accept I-485 applications without the medical result, but their answer was that they were taking it under advicement but as it stands now, the sealed medical report would be required as initial evidence, accoring to the USCIS authorities who were present at the AILA Annual Conference in Orlando. We understand that in some areas, there are a huge backlog in the physician's clinics for such medical examination. However, people can shop around the authorized physicians in much broader areas. For instance, people usually were asked to schedule such medical examination in the local "district" office where the applicants resided. The definition of "district office" has been broaden lately. Former district offices have been turned into field offices of a district office. Accordingly, people can schedule the medical examination through a physician located outside of their residence if the area falls under the jurisdiction of "district" even if it is outside the jurisdiction of "field office."
---
more...
smartboy75
07-11 01:17 PM
Thanks for your post. Is there any chance for any or Significant movement like this in EB-3. Now it's about time for EB-3 to move ahead. We have been trying for Bills every year, without any luck. Why is it so difficult for any movement in EB-3, which is stuck in 2001 and not moving ahead. It is really frustrating. EB-3 I is really suffering the most. Is there any solution for that ?
____________________
Phone calls to CHC Members
Written Letters to President & IV
Attended DC Rally
Contributed to IV
PD: October 2003, EB-3
The OFFICIAL answer to you question Is there any chance for similar movement for EB3 ??can only be available in the Oct Visa bulletin under EMPLOYMENT THIRD PREFERENCE VISA AVAILABILITY section....
____________________
Phone calls to CHC Members
Written Letters to President & IV
Attended DC Rally
Contributed to IV
PD: October 2003, EB-3
The OFFICIAL answer to you question Is there any chance for similar movement for EB3 ??can only be available in the Oct Visa bulletin under EMPLOYMENT THIRD PREFERENCE VISA AVAILABILITY section....
hair Sri+lankan+models+and+
nixstor
07-04 09:44 PM
Please stop posting this on every thread. In one line you are just spamming. We all visit Attorney Oh's website often. He does not need any publicity
immigration-law.com
07/04/2007: Status and Issues Involving July 2007 485 Fiasco
* The AILF work on the lawsuit appears to be in progress without any hurdles. It has reported that enough candidates have come forward to participate in the lawsuit as the plaintiffs and it does not need any more candidates to move forward for the lawsuit. Some of other people are likely to be covered as members of the class action regardless of their actual participation in the lawsuit. People should send "THANK YOU" to the AILF Legal Action Center leaders and the attorneys who are actually working on this case. Some contribution to the AILF may be more than appropriate. Please visit the AILF site to learn how they can send in contribution.
#
# We have been asked by the readers to report the alleged conspiracy theory. We declined to do it. However, people may want to know potential issues that should be answered and explored. We will discuss these issues on following hypotehtical premises:
* Presumption of Facts: (1) The I-485 applications have been experiencing a tremendous backlog lately. (2) The causes for the backlog have been known to be delays in the security checks. Some of these applicants have sought a relief in federal courts in the form of mandamus actions. (3) Allegedly, the USCIS pull together local and Service Center employees and pull out pending I-485 cases which were older than six months in backlog, working overtime and during the weekend right before July 1, 2007. This is an assumption at this point. (4) As evidenced by the revised Visa Bulletin, apparently these employees contacted "en mass" the DOS to request the visa numbers for these pending I-485 cases, which the DOS reported in the release of the revised VB turned out exceeding 60,000. (5) The rule requires that the USCIS approves I-485 cases "prior to" to contacting and requesting a visa number. (6) The current USCIS policy and procedure also require that I-485 applications be adjudicated and approved "only after" the completion of clearance of the security checks.
* Issue I: Hypothetically, what happens if the USCIS takes out the visa number before they obtain the security clearace?
o Answer I: Obviously it would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: It will constitue a serious security lapse, compromising the homeland security.
* Issue II: Hypothetically, what hppens if the USCIS requests and takes out the visa numbers prior to adjudication and approval of the pending I-485 applications?
o Answer I: It is evident that the USCIS would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: There could be two probable consequences affecting the backlog I-485 applicants and the new July Visa Bulletin eligible I-485 applicants, shoud the hypothetical facts develop. (1) The backlog I-485 applicants who have been issued I-485 approval notices should not be affected by the fiasco, albeit the potential revocation of the I-485 approvals. In most cases, revocation of the approved I-485 requires the time-consuming immigration court proceedings, assuming that the USCIS has a sufficient cause of action which may be questionable in this case. (2) The backlog I-485 applicants who have yet to receive the approval notice and the USCIS has yet to adjudicate and approve the application might be vulnerable in that the USCIS might be required to return the visa numbers for these cases as there was an error. Hypothetically, these numbers could be returned to the State Department and based on these returned number, the State Department might be required to revise the July Visa Bulletin again.
immigration-law.com
07/04/2007: Status and Issues Involving July 2007 485 Fiasco
* The AILF work on the lawsuit appears to be in progress without any hurdles. It has reported that enough candidates have come forward to participate in the lawsuit as the plaintiffs and it does not need any more candidates to move forward for the lawsuit. Some of other people are likely to be covered as members of the class action regardless of their actual participation in the lawsuit. People should send "THANK YOU" to the AILF Legal Action Center leaders and the attorneys who are actually working on this case. Some contribution to the AILF may be more than appropriate. Please visit the AILF site to learn how they can send in contribution.
#
# We have been asked by the readers to report the alleged conspiracy theory. We declined to do it. However, people may want to know potential issues that should be answered and explored. We will discuss these issues on following hypotehtical premises:
* Presumption of Facts: (1) The I-485 applications have been experiencing a tremendous backlog lately. (2) The causes for the backlog have been known to be delays in the security checks. Some of these applicants have sought a relief in federal courts in the form of mandamus actions. (3) Allegedly, the USCIS pull together local and Service Center employees and pull out pending I-485 cases which were older than six months in backlog, working overtime and during the weekend right before July 1, 2007. This is an assumption at this point. (4) As evidenced by the revised Visa Bulletin, apparently these employees contacted "en mass" the DOS to request the visa numbers for these pending I-485 cases, which the DOS reported in the release of the revised VB turned out exceeding 60,000. (5) The rule requires that the USCIS approves I-485 cases "prior to" to contacting and requesting a visa number. (6) The current USCIS policy and procedure also require that I-485 applications be adjudicated and approved "only after" the completion of clearance of the security checks.
* Issue I: Hypothetically, what happens if the USCIS takes out the visa number before they obtain the security clearace?
o Answer I: Obviously it would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: It will constitue a serious security lapse, compromising the homeland security.
* Issue II: Hypothetically, what hppens if the USCIS requests and takes out the visa numbers prior to adjudication and approval of the pending I-485 applications?
o Answer I: It is evident that the USCIS would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: There could be two probable consequences affecting the backlog I-485 applicants and the new July Visa Bulletin eligible I-485 applicants, shoud the hypothetical facts develop. (1) The backlog I-485 applicants who have been issued I-485 approval notices should not be affected by the fiasco, albeit the potential revocation of the I-485 approvals. In most cases, revocation of the approved I-485 requires the time-consuming immigration court proceedings, assuming that the USCIS has a sufficient cause of action which may be questionable in this case. (2) The backlog I-485 applicants who have yet to receive the approval notice and the USCIS has yet to adjudicate and approve the application might be vulnerable in that the USCIS might be required to return the visa numbers for these cases as there was an error. Hypothetically, these numbers could be returned to the State Department and based on these returned number, the State Department might be required to revise the July Visa Bulletin again.
more...
Macaca
07-01 11:28 AM
http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/Oppenheim070606.pdf
Testimony of Charles Oppenheim, Chief, Immigrant Control and Reporting Division, Visa Services Office, U.S. Department of State, June 6, 2007.
Are you aware of a similar document that explains
country caps.
conditions that lead to initial retrogression. That is, from current to settingcurrent dates. This is what happened in Oct 2005 and will happen now when all dates are current. This is different from VB's that reset existing current dates.
Spencer HSU, Washington Post likes to rape USCIS. We can send him our issues if July VB is reset in the middle.
Testimony of Charles Oppenheim, Chief, Immigrant Control and Reporting Division, Visa Services Office, U.S. Department of State, June 6, 2007.
Are you aware of a similar document that explains
country caps.
conditions that lead to initial retrogression. That is, from current to settingcurrent dates. This is what happened in Oct 2005 and will happen now when all dates are current. This is different from VB's that reset existing current dates.
Spencer HSU, Washington Post likes to rape USCIS. We can send him our issues if July VB is reset in the middle.
hot models,sri lankan models
franklin
09-19 11:40 PM
Whilst in general a name change does sound like a good idea, we have spent a lot of time and money making sure that Immigration Voice as an organization is known.
It makes no sense to through that away
It makes no sense to through that away
more...
house Srilankan Hottest Model Judy
bpratap
02-11 07:35 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
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
tattoo Hot and Beautiful Sri Lankan
spicy_guy
07-12 05:46 PM
Does anyone have the list of latest set documents required to file for 485.... can you plzzzz email/post it here... thanks
can it be done without the help of an attorney...????
Its YOUR application to USCIS. You don't need an attorney.
Go to USCIS and search for docs required.
can it be done without the help of an attorney...????
Its YOUR application to USCIS. You don't need an attorney.
Go to USCIS and search for docs required.
more...
pictures Srilankan Models From Colombo
Administrator2
06-11 01:35 PM
If you really believe that this bogus bill will become a Law, then also see the real picture, that is why I posted the other Ifs.
This Bill is titled as "Employ America Act". By having the GC, you are not an American. If you do not know the rule here it is, GC is a "Privilege", and it is not a "Right". So if this Bill passes all these people with alerady having GC will also need to pack their Bags and Go. That is the reality, dude.
So again and again do not fall over it. If you respond to this Bill, and Vote "No" against it, you are trying to send wrong messages to the originators of the bill, that we are scared. Why you guys are making everyone scared, when there is nothing to be scared about.
Look I don't want to say this to you but I am left with no other choice. When CEOs such as Steve Ballmer and John Chambers are personally calling the Senators because they think this amendment is a real threat, it will be least of our worries what opponents would think about us getting scared. We are not scared, we are simply making our voices heard. If we were scared we won't be doing this.
Now, you have no freaking clue of what is going on behind the scenes, this is your third post in this forum and all these posts in opposition to our action item which we are coordinating with other coalition partners. Why do you think you know more than the folks who are right now speaking with the Senators?
This Bill is titled as "Employ America Act". By having the GC, you are not an American. If you do not know the rule here it is, GC is a "Privilege", and it is not a "Right". So if this Bill passes all these people with alerady having GC will also need to pack their Bags and Go. That is the reality, dude.
So again and again do not fall over it. If you respond to this Bill, and Vote "No" against it, you are trying to send wrong messages to the originators of the bill, that we are scared. Why you guys are making everyone scared, when there is nothing to be scared about.
Look I don't want to say this to you but I am left with no other choice. When CEOs such as Steve Ballmer and John Chambers are personally calling the Senators because they think this amendment is a real threat, it will be least of our worries what opponents would think about us getting scared. We are not scared, we are simply making our voices heard. If we were scared we won't be doing this.
Now, you have no freaking clue of what is going on behind the scenes, this is your third post in this forum and all these posts in opposition to our action item which we are coordinating with other coalition partners. Why do you think you know more than the folks who are right now speaking with the Senators?
dresses represented Sri Lanka at
kaisersose
08-17 10:06 AM
hi everyone,
I want to get feedback about the possibility of pursuing PERM for EB2 and still capture my PD for EB3. Here is my situation.
I am a South Korean with PD in Dec. 04 on EB3. I filed I-485 along with EAD & AP on 7/25/07.
I recently got a master's degree in another field, and my current job can hire me in a different position.
Q1. If I ask my employer to file PERM on EB2 for the new position requiring the master's degree, I should be able to capture the PD (12/04) for my EB3, right?
Q2. Based on the september visa bulletin, should I wait on the EB-3 AOD application to be processed or would it be faster to switch to EB-2 and refile I-485? Please explain why.
Thanks.
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.
I want to get feedback about the possibility of pursuing PERM for EB2 and still capture my PD for EB3. Here is my situation.
I am a South Korean with PD in Dec. 04 on EB3. I filed I-485 along with EAD & AP on 7/25/07.
I recently got a master's degree in another field, and my current job can hire me in a different position.
Q1. If I ask my employer to file PERM on EB2 for the new position requiring the master's degree, I should be able to capture the PD (12/04) for my EB3, right?
Q2. Based on the september visa bulletin, should I wait on the EB-3 AOD application to be processed or would it be faster to switch to EB-2 and refile I-485? Please explain why.
Thanks.
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.
more...
makeup Muthu Imesha- Srilankan Model
tooclose
07-13 10:54 AM
Mar 1 2006 - Mar 7 2006 --> will be processed when cutoff date is Mar 08 2006.
Well its a no-brainer that Mar 1-7 would be processed if Mar 8 is the cut off date. It makes me think twice when they have the clause about Mar 1 - 7 if 1st is the cut-off date.
We will get to know early next month. Good luck to all !!!
Well its a no-brainer that Mar 1-7 would be processed if Mar 8 is the cut off date. It makes me think twice when they have the clause about Mar 1 - 7 if 1st is the cut-off date.
We will get to know early next month. Good luck to all !!!
girlfriend Hot Sri Lankan Model Nilushi
desi chala usa
09-18 02:32 PM
Reading the posts about the economy has just shown me how ignorant many of the IV members are.
The economy is just going through it's ~10-year cycle. While it is a concern, it is NOT the end of the world. It just strenghtens USA's position in the world. Once again, it has proved that "if USA sneezes, the world catches the cold". The 10-years economic cycle follows a kind of Darwin's Law of the Fittest. The firms that are bubbled up get washed away, the economy cleans up and rebounds back. The 1990s saw it, the year ~2001 saw it with the dot.com burst and ~2009-2010 is seeing it with the mortgage burst.
While it is each one's perogative as to what you want to invest into (good time to buy stocks, or buy gold), another thing to understand is FDIC does NOT insure just 100K per account in each bank. There are multiple ways to increase this insurance to over $2 million in the same bank by opening different type of accounts or having different beneficiaries. Consult your bank for details.
No amount of govt. intervention can change the economy. It has it's own mind and will take it's own course.
There is no need to panic, pack and run.
Let the economy go through it's colon flush.
Please do not forget during 2001 - 2002 how many H1b friends packed and run away......Please think in terms of H1b people.....245(i) is saving you only up to 180 days.....if the person is crossing 180 days means he is all set for next 10 years to come back to U.S.A.
The economy is just going through it's ~10-year cycle. While it is a concern, it is NOT the end of the world. It just strenghtens USA's position in the world. Once again, it has proved that "if USA sneezes, the world catches the cold". The 10-years economic cycle follows a kind of Darwin's Law of the Fittest. The firms that are bubbled up get washed away, the economy cleans up and rebounds back. The 1990s saw it, the year ~2001 saw it with the dot.com burst and ~2009-2010 is seeing it with the mortgage burst.
While it is each one's perogative as to what you want to invest into (good time to buy stocks, or buy gold), another thing to understand is FDIC does NOT insure just 100K per account in each bank. There are multiple ways to increase this insurance to over $2 million in the same bank by opening different type of accounts or having different beneficiaries. Consult your bank for details.
No amount of govt. intervention can change the economy. It has it's own mind and will take it's own course.
There is no need to panic, pack and run.
Let the economy go through it's colon flush.
Please do not forget during 2001 - 2002 how many H1b friends packed and run away......Please think in terms of H1b people.....245(i) is saving you only up to 180 days.....if the person is crossing 180 days means he is all set for next 10 years to come back to U.S.A.
hairstyles Nadeesha Alahapperuma Sri
alex99
10-12 09:01 PM
Thanks
sunny1000
07-24 11:26 PM
The below is the answer I got from my attorney.
"You are right in stating there should be a employer letter, which would be required if we are filing the I-485 with an approved I-140. It would not be required if it is filed currently with the I-140, which is submitted with the employer letter."
"You are right in stating there should be a employer letter, which would be required if we are filing the I-485 with an approved I-140. It would not be required if it is filed currently with the I-140, which is submitted with the employer letter."
Hassan11
03-19 01:43 PM
pmb76,
that was not my statement. if you read my post, you will understand that I clearly was quoting Ron Gotcher. I even put a link to that message where I got that quote from his forum. so in the future, you can say maybe Ron wasn't right instead.
Your statement about 27% limit holding does not make sense ! As per the visa bulletin if numbers are not filled up in a particular category they will go to unsubscribed countries. Here is the excerpt from the April Visa bulletin:
D. INDIA EMPLOYMENT SECOND PREFERENCE VISA AVAILABILITY
Section 202(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides that if total demand will be insufficient to use all available numbers in a particular Employment preference category in a calendar quarter, then the unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual �per-country� limit. It has been determined that based on the current level of demand being received, primarily by Citizenship and Immigration Services Offices, there would be otherwise unused numbers in the Employment Second preference category. As a result, numbers have once again become available to the India Employment Second preference category. The rate of number use in the Employment Second preference category will continue to be monitored, and it may be necessary to make adjustments should the level of demand increase substantially.
that was not my statement. if you read my post, you will understand that I clearly was quoting Ron Gotcher. I even put a link to that message where I got that quote from his forum. so in the future, you can say maybe Ron wasn't right instead.
Your statement about 27% limit holding does not make sense ! As per the visa bulletin if numbers are not filled up in a particular category they will go to unsubscribed countries. Here is the excerpt from the April Visa bulletin:
D. INDIA EMPLOYMENT SECOND PREFERENCE VISA AVAILABILITY
Section 202(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides that if total demand will be insufficient to use all available numbers in a particular Employment preference category in a calendar quarter, then the unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual �per-country� limit. It has been determined that based on the current level of demand being received, primarily by Citizenship and Immigration Services Offices, there would be otherwise unused numbers in the Employment Second preference category. As a result, numbers have once again become available to the India Employment Second preference category. The rate of number use in the Employment Second preference category will continue to be monitored, and it may be necessary to make adjustments should the level of demand increase substantially.
No comments:
Post a Comment