scorpion00
06-08 06:02 PM
so no spill over from EB2 ROW which is current ,to India and China EB2.
I guess many folks were having high hopes for this in the last quarter.
I guess many folks were having high hopes for this in the last quarter.
wallpaper %IMG_DESC_1%
abd
09-14 05:00 PM
Looks like contacting senator/congressman is pissing off the IOs and they are issuing the RFEs. I wish now that I did not do either of these. But unfortunately I did so I guess I need to bear the consequences. So I should just expect RFE now. I know quiet a few people who wrote to Senators and got RFEs. I guess people in Jul/Aug really overwhelmed the TSC with Senator calls and now we have to face their wrath.
I didn't do anything. I was patiently waiting for my turn. It seems they picked my case for approval and sent RFE because of I-129 revoke which is standard process.
I didn't do anything. I was patiently waiting for my turn. It seems they picked my case for approval and sent RFE because of I-129 revoke which is standard process.
ttguy
08-15 04:08 PM
I think we will GC sooner than anticipated. I think those who filed in July/Aug will get in three/four years. Just a rough estimate. Any one agrees with me?
2011 %IMG_DESC_2%
gcbeku
08-10 03:35 PM
I think this is a brilliant idea and might even fly esp because it still preserves USCIS/DOS EB caste system while providin some relief to the EB3s.
While porting is still an option, it is in EB3 filers' interest to push forward on this idea.
I feel frustrated at some peoples' unwillingness to admit that EB3 needs IV's help now more than ever. They are saying that nothing much can be done for EB3, as INS merely corrected its wrong interpretation in visa allocation
But, if we are all willing to put our hearts and minds to it we can surely come up with new ideas that will help our cause. Surely, laws are written so that justice can happen. So if justice is not happening, the law would have some answer, somewhere.
Let me put forward my idea.
The INA language says that until EB2 is not current, there will be no spillover to EB3. Agreed. But I would contend that this statement is on a year to year basis. That is, if in the year 2002 (for example) all EB2 has been satisfied, then the spillovers should go to year 2002 EB3.
Is this something IV can point out and fight for? Can EB3 members put their money and efforts in this direction? Let me know if this sounds worthwhile
While porting is still an option, it is in EB3 filers' interest to push forward on this idea.
I feel frustrated at some peoples' unwillingness to admit that EB3 needs IV's help now more than ever. They are saying that nothing much can be done for EB3, as INS merely corrected its wrong interpretation in visa allocation
But, if we are all willing to put our hearts and minds to it we can surely come up with new ideas that will help our cause. Surely, laws are written so that justice can happen. So if justice is not happening, the law would have some answer, somewhere.
Let me put forward my idea.
The INA language says that until EB2 is not current, there will be no spillover to EB3. Agreed. But I would contend that this statement is on a year to year basis. That is, if in the year 2002 (for example) all EB2 has been satisfied, then the spillovers should go to year 2002 EB3.
Is this something IV can point out and fight for? Can EB3 members put their money and efforts in this direction? Let me know if this sounds worthwhile
more...
newuser
10-20 01:27 PM
Faxed
GCBy3000
12-27 09:44 AM
I have been in different states and this drivers licence rule differ substantially. California / florida strictly goes with your H1b validity date. For H4, it is much more difficult and my wife did not get it in CA but somehow managed ot get it in FL. When I moved to wisconsin, they gave me 3+years over my H1b validity date and also for my wife. The entire DMV process took us 5 mins whereas in FL, we stood in line from morining 3 am till evening 5pm and eventually got appointment for next day. When I asked about this in WI DMV, they said Wisconsin does not follow this and they are not aware of this.
If financial institutions are following govt regulations, does it mean that Govt mandated this against h1b? One of those gimmicks where a H1b is subject to difficulty like obtaining driver lisence etc...is this the same gimmick to legally give hardship to h1b?
If financial institutions are following govt regulations, does it mean that Govt mandated this against h1b? One of those gimmicks where a H1b is subject to difficulty like obtaining driver lisence etc...is this the same gimmick to legally give hardship to h1b?
more...
gc_chahiye
09-24 01:11 PM
Hi,
I have a EAD L2 Based valid till 2009. I havent worked in US till now after getting EAD. Now I have to travel to India for a Month. What will be the procedure to retain my EAD after I come back to US after 30 day.
Please Guide Me
Mahesh
you dont have to do anything. Based on your L2 petition you will get an I-94
valid till 2009. Since your EAD is unexpired, you can continue working once you come back. EAD is authorization to work, completely unrelated to your travel to India and back. What exactly are you worried about?
I have a EAD L2 Based valid till 2009. I havent worked in US till now after getting EAD. Now I have to travel to India for a Month. What will be the procedure to retain my EAD after I come back to US after 30 day.
Please Guide Me
Mahesh
you dont have to do anything. Based on your L2 petition you will get an I-94
valid till 2009. Since your EAD is unexpired, you can continue working once you come back. EAD is authorization to work, completely unrelated to your travel to India and back. What exactly are you worried about?
2010 %IMG_DESC_3%
shivaz90
07-13 11:44 AM
Reading through this thread I find this intense debate about the value and intentions of Murthy's letter.
Let's first deal with the value part: This letter could be from any one of us or anybody else from Timbuktu. Why does this letter have any special significance except that the DHS secretary may read it because Murthy and the secretary are alumni of the same institution (see how carefully this part is added to the letter for our consumption). Now this feeds into the intention part. Even if Murthy wrote a letter to the DHS Secretary why did she have to publicize it on her website (except for the gullible among us to take notice). Generally publicized letters have value if they are from some influential policy maker or lawmaker. In this case Murthy is neither and so her letter does not add or subtract any value to this debate. So we are left with the question of who gains by publicizing this letter. Your guess is as good as mine.
Ultimately I am left wondering why this thread was started in the first place except to garner cheap publicity. Do we really have so much time on our hands?
"Why does Murthy publicize such a letter?" - well it means that she has a client base who needs to know what she is doing in her capacity as thier attorney. Second - there are thousands of Murthy.com members who are neither her client nor her well wishers - but who go to her site to find what is going on latest in the world of Immigration. Not to discredit anyone's effort in this issue - ask any immigrant or potential immigrant into this country about immigration related question, I can guarantee you that they have gained almost all thier knowledge about the process from Murthy.com site. Intended or unintended - the message to DHS is welcome, particularly at this time, be it from whoever.
Anyone who has been a regular murthy.com visitor knows that her site consists of all her interactions with all the Agency people and government officials regarding immigration. Its called the "Internet". People post stuff - period! If it is meant to garner attention, yes, people will post messages. Its far better than a bunch of goof balls posting in youtube about thier experience with coke and spearmint. Please come out of the caves - people.
Let's first deal with the value part: This letter could be from any one of us or anybody else from Timbuktu. Why does this letter have any special significance except that the DHS secretary may read it because Murthy and the secretary are alumni of the same institution (see how carefully this part is added to the letter for our consumption). Now this feeds into the intention part. Even if Murthy wrote a letter to the DHS Secretary why did she have to publicize it on her website (except for the gullible among us to take notice). Generally publicized letters have value if they are from some influential policy maker or lawmaker. In this case Murthy is neither and so her letter does not add or subtract any value to this debate. So we are left with the question of who gains by publicizing this letter. Your guess is as good as mine.
Ultimately I am left wondering why this thread was started in the first place except to garner cheap publicity. Do we really have so much time on our hands?
"Why does Murthy publicize such a letter?" - well it means that she has a client base who needs to know what she is doing in her capacity as thier attorney. Second - there are thousands of Murthy.com members who are neither her client nor her well wishers - but who go to her site to find what is going on latest in the world of Immigration. Not to discredit anyone's effort in this issue - ask any immigrant or potential immigrant into this country about immigration related question, I can guarantee you that they have gained almost all thier knowledge about the process from Murthy.com site. Intended or unintended - the message to DHS is welcome, particularly at this time, be it from whoever.
Anyone who has been a regular murthy.com visitor knows that her site consists of all her interactions with all the Agency people and government officials regarding immigration. Its called the "Internet". People post stuff - period! If it is meant to garner attention, yes, people will post messages. Its far better than a bunch of goof balls posting in youtube about thier experience with coke and spearmint. Please come out of the caves - people.
more...
pappu
07-03 06:01 PM
If anyone has any questions we will be happy to talk to them.
hair %IMG_DESC_4%
GC_1000Watt
03-12 02:39 PM
Here we are again "Mentally" bruised and beaten by yet another VB.
USCIS talk about some unknown cases in district offices..tomorrow they will say they have more pending unknown cases at some local attorney general office. And then we have no spillover happening, just asking for a disastorus wastage of visa in the last quarter. That's all ridiculous and making a mockery out of us.
Wish I had the power and money to pull USCIS in court and ask them to actually clear the scene to all of us.
Can "IV" in some way provide us with the "Power" to question USCIS and publish the answer in public? If the answer is Yes, then I am sure many people can contribute for the cause.
USCIS talk about some unknown cases in district offices..tomorrow they will say they have more pending unknown cases at some local attorney general office. And then we have no spillover happening, just asking for a disastorus wastage of visa in the last quarter. That's all ridiculous and making a mockery out of us.
Wish I had the power and money to pull USCIS in court and ask them to actually clear the scene to all of us.
Can "IV" in some way provide us with the "Power" to question USCIS and publish the answer in public? If the answer is Yes, then I am sure many people can contribute for the cause.
more...
varshadas
01-24 10:33 PM
Let us have a conf call on 01/27/07 at 10.00 AM. I will post the conference details soon.
Thanks,
Varsha
Thanks,
Varsha
hot %IMG_DESC_5%
pappu
02-11 08:44 PM
141,020 visa numbers used in FY2009
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV.pdf
Look at the last page.
The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is 140,000. So the usage was actually more.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
Good to see your post. :) Your posts are very helpful and educational to IV members Thank you.
If someone thinks visas are being wasted please send us the proof and IV will take action.
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV.pdf
Look at the last page.
The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is 140,000. So the usage was actually more.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
Good to see your post. :) Your posts are very helpful and educational to IV members Thank you.
If someone thinks visas are being wasted please send us the proof and IV will take action.
more...
house %IMG_DESC_17%
sanjeev_2004
06-30 09:33 PM
In my opinion July 9th onward is the best time to send 485 packages to USCIS. But this is only my opinion and understanding and every one is free to do any thing with their own decisions or with help of their attorney.
Most of the time my many decisions didn’t proven to be good in past as for as my GC processing goes. So please take your own decision yourself and dont be stressed.
Most of the time my many decisions didn’t proven to be good in past as for as my GC processing goes. So please take your own decision yourself and dont be stressed.
tattoo %IMG_DESC_6%
vin13
02-12 07:40 AM
I think it is important to understand and read what is being said. The information was not claimed to be true or false. The message was conveyed based on the information given. Now, everyone is free to evaluate and give their opinion on the information. There is no need to go for a personal attack.
more...
pictures %IMG_DESC_7%
srikondoji
12-27 09:13 AM
Hi all,
By the end of the day, i will post an article in two different websites. However, there is another idea, i want throw in here, which can bring much more publicity and coverage.
Did anybody hear the services of 'Press Release'? Iam sure few members here know about it.
Look here for more details http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=press+release
The cost will be in the range of $100 to $400 which includes article writeup and release of the news item to 100's of publishers and we can even choose the location/region where these publications can occur. It can include news papers and or web only releases. Most of such releases have got wide distribution including nytimes/washingtonpost, google news, yahoo news and other indian news papers.
Should we give this a try?
Thanks
By the end of the day, i will post an article in two different websites. However, there is another idea, i want throw in here, which can bring much more publicity and coverage.
Did anybody hear the services of 'Press Release'? Iam sure few members here know about it.
Look here for more details http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=press+release
The cost will be in the range of $100 to $400 which includes article writeup and release of the news item to 100's of publishers and we can even choose the location/region where these publications can occur. It can include news papers and or web only releases. Most of such releases have got wide distribution including nytimes/washingtonpost, google news, yahoo news and other indian news papers.
Should we give this a try?
Thanks
dresses %IMG_DESC_12%
nomi
12-13 10:25 AM
Count me and 2 more members with me....lets have a plan..and execute it.
Would some one will take control to make letter ready which we need to send to USCIS and I will work to get info about USCIS office and fax number ??
Please let me know who will make this fax letter ready ??
thx.
Would some one will take control to make letter ready which we need to send to USCIS and I will work to get info about USCIS office and fax number ??
Please let me know who will make this fax letter ready ??
thx.
more...
makeup %IMG_DESC_9%
vbkris77
04-10 12:28 PM
What you said is absolutely true. EB1 Last year and the year before saw lot more approvals than usual. My reasoning is that even though EB1 was current for all along, they never really approved I140s to give them GC. So In the overall clearing of I140s, CIS cleared lot more EB1 cases and became approved during last 2 years. If you look at the I140 completion in the dash board, it will be very much clear that the completions came down to 4 digits for each month from 5 digits. Receipts continued to be less than 5K per month.
This year, we may see a big dip in EB1 cases and larger EB2 spillover. EB4 spillover is ruled out after this bulletin.
Here are the details for last year and years before:
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
This year, we may see a big dip in EB1 cases and larger EB2 spillover. EB4 spillover is ruled out after this bulletin.
Here are the details for last year and years before:
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
girlfriend %IMG_DESC_14%
Ramba
03-17 11:08 AM
Between 2001 and 2004 all EB catagories were current for all countries (thanks to AC21 visa recapture). No one, (particularly Indians) cared about EB3 and EB2, till DOS indicated in Dec 2004 visa bulliton that EB3 India will retrogress in Jan 2005. Till that point (dec 2004) most of the labor filed are EB3 (75% is EB3 and 25% may be EB2). After Jan 2005, the filings were reverse. After Jan 2005, everyone tried to file EB2, unless they are not absolutly qualified for EB2. Till recent months, DOL was very liberal in approving LC with EB2 qualifications. Now it is difficult. Therefore EB2 India will move fast till Dec-2004 (unless most EB3 guys did not convert to EB2, by PD porting). After DEC-2004 it will be very-very slow.
hairstyles %IMG_DESC_11%
alisa
01-19 06:15 PM
Thanks jungalee43...
Bumping up this thread.
BTW, this is the best we have got so far. If anyone can improve on this, please let me know. I will look into this in detail later. An online tool that shows a person how screwed up they are (or are not) due to retrogression should also be helpful.
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
Bumping up this thread.
BTW, this is the best we have got so far. If anyone can improve on this, please let me know. I will look into this in detail later. An online tool that shows a person how screwed up they are (or are not) due to retrogression should also be helpful.
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
Nikith77
03-12 08:57 AM
Why is this info no in the USCIS web site.
abhijitp
03-03 06:48 PM
Instead of criticizing the idea, please submit your votes!
Only 300 odd people sent flowers to the USCIS and we know it worked. This site has a lot of one time visitors so don't expect 25000 votes, but it does not mean this idea is crappy. Heck, I want to buy a house myself, but I cannot even think about borrowing 300k+ when I may be asked to leave the country on a day's notice (remember no time between jobs when you are on H1B).
Only 300 odd people sent flowers to the USCIS and we know it worked. This site has a lot of one time visitors so don't expect 25000 votes, but it does not mean this idea is crappy. Heck, I want to buy a house myself, but I cannot even think about borrowing 300k+ when I may be asked to leave the country on a day's notice (remember no time between jobs when you are on H1B).
No comments:
Post a Comment