PresidentO
11-13 02:28 AM
Spill over does not need to happen every Q. It is purely based on demand and supply. If the visa office sees demand go south ( read really really south) and do not expect the demand to pick up for the rest of the year, yeah then the visa office will move the dated forward using spill over. if the demand is enough, meaning categories that are current are just using fine and CIS has enough backlogs VO does not move dates.
The most pre cautious option is (esp now that there are a shit load of pre adjudicated cases) is to leave the numbers for categories that are current until the final Q and then move the dates so that all current categories got a best shot at the visa number before it goes to the retrogressed. The visa office is pretty savvy and the numbers we saw from USCIS might be way off the real numbers the visa office sees and assigns a visa number for. Based on last 3 years, it seems that the DOS/VO knows the importance of visa numbers.
if you are talking lawsuit because you are frustrated, yeah vent it out. But if you are really serious go ahead and check the INA act and verify whether the INA act actually talks about quarterly allocation. Come up with the ground work, have a point and then think about lawsuit. No point in hallucinating.
Just an F Y I, I havent read all 5 pages of this thread
The most pre cautious option is (esp now that there are a shit load of pre adjudicated cases) is to leave the numbers for categories that are current until the final Q and then move the dates so that all current categories got a best shot at the visa number before it goes to the retrogressed. The visa office is pretty savvy and the numbers we saw from USCIS might be way off the real numbers the visa office sees and assigns a visa number for. Based on last 3 years, it seems that the DOS/VO knows the importance of visa numbers.
if you are talking lawsuit because you are frustrated, yeah vent it out. But if you are really serious go ahead and check the INA act and verify whether the INA act actually talks about quarterly allocation. Come up with the ground work, have a point and then think about lawsuit. No point in hallucinating.
Just an F Y I, I havent read all 5 pages of this thread
wallpaper %IMG_DESC_1%
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.
saimrathi
07-05 01:45 PM
Please make this a paid website, and see how many stick around.. the results will make it clear as to what it should be.. but if you do have members quitting the message boards, they will probably not return..
Instead of debating on this trivial issue, why not spread the word about the VB fiasco to the media etc...
Instead of debating on this trivial issue, why not spread the word about the VB fiasco to the media etc...
2011 %IMG_DESC_2%
veerug
07-04 12:31 AM
I have great respect for some of the core members i know. They have done lot of work to make this forum successful. But i always think that you can increase participation if you make things more clear and take comments in a positive way.
I am sure many guest members or other frequent visitors to IV website get the impression that there is always a fund drive for something or the other on the IV Website homepage and there is always a target amount which never seems to be met.
I understand that there are expenses to maintain the website etc, but here we are talking about fund drive for lawsuit. Sometimes I wonder what will happen if you can not collect $5000 so will you wait to file a lawsuit until you collect $5000? May it will be too late then. What if you collect only say $4000? How do you decide these arbitrary numbers?
Are you planning for a separate litigation from that of AILF? How will you complement the effort by AILF with money?
Hey, who am I to ask these questions! These are some of the questions on behalf of hundreds of members who need to know more to actively participate to make it a success. There is no reason you should take it in a negative way.
Veeru
I will sleep less stupid tonight!!
I am sure many guest members or other frequent visitors to IV website get the impression that there is always a fund drive for something or the other on the IV Website homepage and there is always a target amount which never seems to be met.
I understand that there are expenses to maintain the website etc, but here we are talking about fund drive for lawsuit. Sometimes I wonder what will happen if you can not collect $5000 so will you wait to file a lawsuit until you collect $5000? May it will be too late then. What if you collect only say $4000? How do you decide these arbitrary numbers?
Are you planning for a separate litigation from that of AILF? How will you complement the effort by AILF with money?
Hey, who am I to ask these questions! These are some of the questions on behalf of hundreds of members who need to know more to actively participate to make it a success. There is no reason you should take it in a negative way.
Veeru
I will sleep less stupid tonight!!
more...
aroranuj
10-16 06:50 PM
Notarized & mailed my FOIA letter today...
logiclife
01-31 02:05 PM
If one gets an H-1B approval now (Jan/Feb), can he start working right away? Or does he have to wait till the start of fiscal year, October?
The H1 approval will have the validity dates that begin on Oct 1 2007, which means that she cannot work before that.
The H1 approval will have the validity dates that begin on Oct 1 2007, which means that she cannot work before that.
more...
Jbpvisa
07-12 11:01 PM
http://www.murthy.com/chertoff_murthy.html
July 12, 2007
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Michael Chertoff, Esq.
Secretary
Department of Homeland Security
RE: USCIS Decision to Reject I-485 Filings
Dear Mr. Chertoff:
It was a pleasure and an honor to meet with you and to share my views during your panel discussion at the Harvard Worldwide Congress June 15, 2007 in Washington, D.C. I understand and appreciate that the responsibility vested in you as the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is no simple task. We applaud your service to our nation. After meeting with you personally and speaking with you, I am more convinced than ever that you will do the right thing for our country and for the people you serve, both in terms of securing our nation and in being the leader of the DHS, with over 20 federal agencies reporting to you, including the USCIS.
Purpose of this Letter
I am writing to you at this time to address recent actions by the USCIS to refuse to accept I-485 adjustment of status filing during July 2007 that are having significant impact upon the reliability of the legal immigration system in this country, as well as impacting legal foreign nationals and the many U.S. businesses that rely upon the work they perform.
USCIS Decision Contradicts its Long Standing Procedure
In contradiction of its own long standing policy and procedure, we understand that the USCIS, through its Director Gonzalez, contacted the U.S. Department of State (DOS) and requested or required the DOS to issue a �revised� Visa Bulletin on July 2, 2007. The USCIS then used the revised Bulletin to refuse to accept I-485 filings. This decision deprives thousands of foreign nationals, and their families, of the rights and privileges that are attendant to the I-485 filing.
These Highly Skilled Professionals Followed All the Rules and Believe in the American Dream
These professionals and their employers have played by our established immigration laws and rules. The vast majority of these thousands of potential applicants has a U.S. employer corporation, university or other business as a sponsor for permanent resident status. The exceptions from an employer are for those who are considered of �extraordinary ability� or whose work is in our �national interest.� Many of these applicants have completed their Bachelor�s, Master�s and/or PhD programs from U.S. universities. They believe in the opportunities of this great nation and strive to achieve the American Dream by following all the rules, working hard, paying taxes, and striving to do the right thing. They believe in this country, and rely upon our systems, our government, and our processes. Unfortunately, on July 2, 2007, we let them down. The USCIS abandoned its own system and long standing practices. This happened through manipulation of the use of visa numbers, insisting upon the issuance of a "revised visa bulletin," and instituting the USCIS policy of rejecting every employment-based I-485 that could have been filed during the month of July 2007.
USCIS Decision Denies Substantive and Procedural Rights to Highly Skilled Workers and Their Employers - Many of Whom Have Already Suffered and Will Suffer Further Harm/ Injury
Not only does the USCIS' action harm the individuals and employers involved, it undermines the reliability of our entire employment-based immigration system. The unexpected decision of the USCIS to refuse to accept any I-485 filings denies both substantive and procedural due process rights to would be applicants across the U.S. All of these applicants are employment based (EB) applicants who are primarily highly skilled professionals or experienced workers, that the U.S. seeks in high demand areas, including: science, technology, medicine, research, business, academia, and education.
The harm in not accepting the filings in July 2007 goes beyond mere delay. In reliance upon the July Visa Bulletin, starting in mid-June 2007, these applicants took the steps necessary to prepare their filings and made decisions in reliance upon the USCIS accepting their filings during July 2007. In order to be present in the U.S., as required for these filings, many applicants and their families canceled travel plans abroad or arranged to return to the U.S. on short notice missing family weddings and other important life events. They undertook medical examinations and paid for the required tests which must accompany the I-485 filings. (The USCIS had refused to waive this requirement even temporarily.) They hired lawyers to process their paperwork; they arranged to obtain documents from abroad on an expedited basis, involving foreign lawyers and foreign governments, all at a significant cost. They made employment and other strategic immigration related decisions to be able to process their I-485s for them and their families. Some canceled visa appointments at the consulates, or withdrew other immigration filings, all in reliance upon the USCIS accepting I-485 filings during July 2007.
The applicants and their employers lose the rights and privileges that accompany the filing of the I-485. These include eligibility for the Employment Authorization Document (EAD) and Advanced Parole (AP), thus eliminating the need for the individuals and their employers to make the filings necessary to maintain a non-immigrant, temporary status. These same ancillary benefits also apply to dependant family members. Most importantly, those that have not filed I-485s are not eligible for "portability" benefits under the �American Competitiveness in the Twenty First Century Act� of Oct. 2000 or �AC21� as it is sometimes referred to. This ineligibility for AC21 portability forces career stagnation. This is to the detriment of the individual as well as their sponsoring employer. Under AC21 portability, employers can promote and/or relocate employees to positions that are the same or similar job classifications as the positions for which they were initially sponsored. Individuals can utilize these provisions for career advancement, and for entrepreneurship. Given that the green card process often spans many years, AC21 portability allows the necessary flexibility to permit the case to continue, to accommodate changes in the sponsoring employer's needs as well as opportunities that are specific to the beneficiary.
The list of stories of individuals and families harmed by the USCIS decision is endless. We have for example, many spouses who will now be separated potentially for years on end, as one received a green card during the USCIS' June "rush," while the other is now ineligible to file.
The USCIS decision also created a burden on U.S. employers. Further delays in the green card process mean that, at best, U.S. employers have to continue to file temporary petitions to keep their workforce in the U.S. legally; at worst, it jeopardizes the availability of this needed highly educated and skilled workforce.
USCIS Motive is to Collect Millions of Additional Filing Fees
Many are baffled by the USCIS decision to reject I-485 filings in July, and its use of the �revised� Visa Bulletin as an excuse. The suspected motive is the collection of the substantially higher filing fees that will be generated after July 27, 2007. This entire incident sends the wrong message about our government, our policies and our legal system reeking of greed and inconsistency. Even the appearance of such impropriety undermines our system.
.................
continue
July 12, 2007
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Michael Chertoff, Esq.
Secretary
Department of Homeland Security
RE: USCIS Decision to Reject I-485 Filings
Dear Mr. Chertoff:
It was a pleasure and an honor to meet with you and to share my views during your panel discussion at the Harvard Worldwide Congress June 15, 2007 in Washington, D.C. I understand and appreciate that the responsibility vested in you as the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is no simple task. We applaud your service to our nation. After meeting with you personally and speaking with you, I am more convinced than ever that you will do the right thing for our country and for the people you serve, both in terms of securing our nation and in being the leader of the DHS, with over 20 federal agencies reporting to you, including the USCIS.
Purpose of this Letter
I am writing to you at this time to address recent actions by the USCIS to refuse to accept I-485 adjustment of status filing during July 2007 that are having significant impact upon the reliability of the legal immigration system in this country, as well as impacting legal foreign nationals and the many U.S. businesses that rely upon the work they perform.
USCIS Decision Contradicts its Long Standing Procedure
In contradiction of its own long standing policy and procedure, we understand that the USCIS, through its Director Gonzalez, contacted the U.S. Department of State (DOS) and requested or required the DOS to issue a �revised� Visa Bulletin on July 2, 2007. The USCIS then used the revised Bulletin to refuse to accept I-485 filings. This decision deprives thousands of foreign nationals, and their families, of the rights and privileges that are attendant to the I-485 filing.
These Highly Skilled Professionals Followed All the Rules and Believe in the American Dream
These professionals and their employers have played by our established immigration laws and rules. The vast majority of these thousands of potential applicants has a U.S. employer corporation, university or other business as a sponsor for permanent resident status. The exceptions from an employer are for those who are considered of �extraordinary ability� or whose work is in our �national interest.� Many of these applicants have completed their Bachelor�s, Master�s and/or PhD programs from U.S. universities. They believe in the opportunities of this great nation and strive to achieve the American Dream by following all the rules, working hard, paying taxes, and striving to do the right thing. They believe in this country, and rely upon our systems, our government, and our processes. Unfortunately, on July 2, 2007, we let them down. The USCIS abandoned its own system and long standing practices. This happened through manipulation of the use of visa numbers, insisting upon the issuance of a "revised visa bulletin," and instituting the USCIS policy of rejecting every employment-based I-485 that could have been filed during the month of July 2007.
USCIS Decision Denies Substantive and Procedural Rights to Highly Skilled Workers and Their Employers - Many of Whom Have Already Suffered and Will Suffer Further Harm/ Injury
Not only does the USCIS' action harm the individuals and employers involved, it undermines the reliability of our entire employment-based immigration system. The unexpected decision of the USCIS to refuse to accept any I-485 filings denies both substantive and procedural due process rights to would be applicants across the U.S. All of these applicants are employment based (EB) applicants who are primarily highly skilled professionals or experienced workers, that the U.S. seeks in high demand areas, including: science, technology, medicine, research, business, academia, and education.
The harm in not accepting the filings in July 2007 goes beyond mere delay. In reliance upon the July Visa Bulletin, starting in mid-June 2007, these applicants took the steps necessary to prepare their filings and made decisions in reliance upon the USCIS accepting their filings during July 2007. In order to be present in the U.S., as required for these filings, many applicants and their families canceled travel plans abroad or arranged to return to the U.S. on short notice missing family weddings and other important life events. They undertook medical examinations and paid for the required tests which must accompany the I-485 filings. (The USCIS had refused to waive this requirement even temporarily.) They hired lawyers to process their paperwork; they arranged to obtain documents from abroad on an expedited basis, involving foreign lawyers and foreign governments, all at a significant cost. They made employment and other strategic immigration related decisions to be able to process their I-485s for them and their families. Some canceled visa appointments at the consulates, or withdrew other immigration filings, all in reliance upon the USCIS accepting I-485 filings during July 2007.
The applicants and their employers lose the rights and privileges that accompany the filing of the I-485. These include eligibility for the Employment Authorization Document (EAD) and Advanced Parole (AP), thus eliminating the need for the individuals and their employers to make the filings necessary to maintain a non-immigrant, temporary status. These same ancillary benefits also apply to dependant family members. Most importantly, those that have not filed I-485s are not eligible for "portability" benefits under the �American Competitiveness in the Twenty First Century Act� of Oct. 2000 or �AC21� as it is sometimes referred to. This ineligibility for AC21 portability forces career stagnation. This is to the detriment of the individual as well as their sponsoring employer. Under AC21 portability, employers can promote and/or relocate employees to positions that are the same or similar job classifications as the positions for which they were initially sponsored. Individuals can utilize these provisions for career advancement, and for entrepreneurship. Given that the green card process often spans many years, AC21 portability allows the necessary flexibility to permit the case to continue, to accommodate changes in the sponsoring employer's needs as well as opportunities that are specific to the beneficiary.
The list of stories of individuals and families harmed by the USCIS decision is endless. We have for example, many spouses who will now be separated potentially for years on end, as one received a green card during the USCIS' June "rush," while the other is now ineligible to file.
The USCIS decision also created a burden on U.S. employers. Further delays in the green card process mean that, at best, U.S. employers have to continue to file temporary petitions to keep their workforce in the U.S. legally; at worst, it jeopardizes the availability of this needed highly educated and skilled workforce.
USCIS Motive is to Collect Millions of Additional Filing Fees
Many are baffled by the USCIS decision to reject I-485 filings in July, and its use of the �revised� Visa Bulletin as an excuse. The suspected motive is the collection of the substantially higher filing fees that will be generated after July 27, 2007. This entire incident sends the wrong message about our government, our policies and our legal system reeking of greed and inconsistency. Even the appearance of such impropriety undermines our system.
.................
continue
2010 %IMG_DESC_3%
sanju
01-09 01:21 PM
Can you please share with me PM some of these companies as I am lookin for a h1b sponsorer for someone i know who has done masters here.... and is fresher... not that he wants to put fake.... he is ready to get a entry level salary and state that he graduated out of school and is a fresher..... just that he wants someone to do his h1b...
Sure, no problem, you can call this number (202) 224-2152 and ask for Dick Durbin. Speak to him and explain him the whole situation, he maybe able to arrange to file h1b for you, sorry I meant your "someone". :rolleyes:
.
Sure, no problem, you can call this number (202) 224-2152 and ask for Dick Durbin. Speak to him and explain him the whole situation, he maybe able to arrange to file h1b for you, sorry I meant your "someone". :rolleyes:
.
more...
like_watching_paint_dry
03-16 12:18 AM
I agree with you completely ! I wish and pray Interfilers and labor substitution applicants rot in hell.
I'm right there with you on labor substitution, but I would not really blame interfilers that much.
Though one thing that I would like to see USCIS do is allow people to port EB3 priority date to EB2 only if they were eligible for EB2 as of that priority date. i.e. If you did not have a Masters or 5 years exp. as of June 2002 and so you filed EB3 and have a June 2002 EB3 PD, you should not be allowed to claim June 2002 EB2 priority date based today based on the experience or masters degree as of today. Allowing that does not sound fair to a say a June 2003 PD EB2 person who was eligible for EB2 as of June 2003 and filed EB2.
I'm right there with you on labor substitution, but I would not really blame interfilers that much.
Though one thing that I would like to see USCIS do is allow people to port EB3 priority date to EB2 only if they were eligible for EB2 as of that priority date. i.e. If you did not have a Masters or 5 years exp. as of June 2002 and so you filed EB3 and have a June 2002 EB3 PD, you should not be allowed to claim June 2002 EB2 priority date based today based on the experience or masters degree as of today. Allowing that does not sound fair to a say a June 2003 PD EB2 person who was eligible for EB2 as of June 2003 and filed EB2.
hair %IMG_DESC_4%
Sakthisagar
06-11 11:01 AM
See below what Anti Immigrants are doing. Each and everyone visits this site should sign what IV have given the link
The following makes no sense it is utter non-sense.
COMPANIES LAYING-OFF THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN WORKERS DON�T NEED GUEST WORKERS
Please Support the Sanders-Grassley Employ America Amendment to the Tax Extenders bill
Dear Colleague:
Since the recession started in December of 2007, nearly 8 million Americans have lost their jobs and the unemployment rate has nearly doubled. In total, 15 million Americans are officially unemployed, another 8.8 million Americans are working part-time only because they cannot find a full-time job, and more than one million workers have given up looking for work altogether.
With the unemployment rate still unacceptably high and millions of people looking for a job, we have a responsibility to ensure that companies do not use temporary visa programs to replace American workers with cheaper labor from overseas.
Therefore, during the consideration of the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act, we will be offering an amendment that would prohibit companies which have announced mass lay-offs over the past year from hiring guest workers, unless they can prove that their overall employment will not be reduced as a result of these lay-offs.
At a time when millions of Americans are out of work, the notion that we need to import labor from abroad because there are not enough qualified, willing or able American workers in this country rings hollow.
Recently, some of the very companies that have hired tens of thousands of guest-workers from overseas have announced large scale lay-offs of American workers. The high-tech industry, a major employer of H-1B guest workers, has announced over 330,000 job cuts since 2008. The construction industry, a major employer of H-2B guest-workers, has laid-off 1.9 million workers since December of 2007.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, signed into law last February, included a provision to prevent companies receiving assistance through the Troubled Asset Relief Program from replacing laid-off American workers with guest-workers from overseas.
The Employ America Act expands upon this provision to prevent any company engaged in a mass lay-off of American workers from importing cheaper labor from abroad through temporary guest-worker programs. Those companies that are truly facing labor shortages would not be impacted by this legislation and could continue to obtain employer-sponsored visas. Only companies that are laying-off a large number of Americans would be barred from importing foreign workers through guest worker programs.
If you would like to co-sponsor this amendment, please have your staff contact Warren Gunnels in Sen. Sanders� office at 8-6358 or Kathy Nuebel Kovarik in Sen. Grassley's office at 4-3744.
Sincerely
The following makes no sense it is utter non-sense.
COMPANIES LAYING-OFF THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN WORKERS DON�T NEED GUEST WORKERS
Please Support the Sanders-Grassley Employ America Amendment to the Tax Extenders bill
Dear Colleague:
Since the recession started in December of 2007, nearly 8 million Americans have lost their jobs and the unemployment rate has nearly doubled. In total, 15 million Americans are officially unemployed, another 8.8 million Americans are working part-time only because they cannot find a full-time job, and more than one million workers have given up looking for work altogether.
With the unemployment rate still unacceptably high and millions of people looking for a job, we have a responsibility to ensure that companies do not use temporary visa programs to replace American workers with cheaper labor from overseas.
Therefore, during the consideration of the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act, we will be offering an amendment that would prohibit companies which have announced mass lay-offs over the past year from hiring guest workers, unless they can prove that their overall employment will not be reduced as a result of these lay-offs.
At a time when millions of Americans are out of work, the notion that we need to import labor from abroad because there are not enough qualified, willing or able American workers in this country rings hollow.
Recently, some of the very companies that have hired tens of thousands of guest-workers from overseas have announced large scale lay-offs of American workers. The high-tech industry, a major employer of H-1B guest workers, has announced over 330,000 job cuts since 2008. The construction industry, a major employer of H-2B guest-workers, has laid-off 1.9 million workers since December of 2007.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, signed into law last February, included a provision to prevent companies receiving assistance through the Troubled Asset Relief Program from replacing laid-off American workers with guest-workers from overseas.
The Employ America Act expands upon this provision to prevent any company engaged in a mass lay-off of American workers from importing cheaper labor from abroad through temporary guest-worker programs. Those companies that are truly facing labor shortages would not be impacted by this legislation and could continue to obtain employer-sponsored visas. Only companies that are laying-off a large number of Americans would be barred from importing foreign workers through guest worker programs.
If you would like to co-sponsor this amendment, please have your staff contact Warren Gunnels in Sen. Sanders� office at 8-6358 or Kathy Nuebel Kovarik in Sen. Grassley's office at 4-3744.
Sincerely
more...
qesehmk
02-11 03:03 PM
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV.pdf
Family based visa used for FY2009 = 215,343
Family based immigrant visa numbers = 226,000
Unused visa = 10,567
available for employment based visa numbers for FY2010.
*********
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY08-AR-TableV.pdf
Family based visa used for FY2008 = 226,105
Family based immigrant visa numbers = 226,000
Unused visa = ZERO
available for employment based visa numbers for FY2009.
Always go by the facts.
___________________
Not a legal advice.
I agree. I tried to see if there is a way FB category in 2009 might have received a spillover from EB. But thats almost impossible given EB is severely backlogged.
Another way to verify unused 13K in 2009 EB would be to check 2010 FB limit. If there were unused visas from EB in 2009 then they go back to FB in 2010.
Finally, per Ron unused is not same as wasted. Unused is unassigned. Wasted is .... assigned but action is not taken to close the case. If that is the case then wasted visas won't be available .... neither inside or outside category. It is frightening to think that with so many preadjudicated cases USCIS might be wasting visas! I don't believe this .... but if true ... it is outrageous.
Family based visa used for FY2009 = 215,343
Family based immigrant visa numbers = 226,000
Unused visa = 10,567
available for employment based visa numbers for FY2010.
*********
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY08-AR-TableV.pdf
Family based visa used for FY2008 = 226,105
Family based immigrant visa numbers = 226,000
Unused visa = ZERO
available for employment based visa numbers for FY2009.
Always go by the facts.
___________________
Not a legal advice.
I agree. I tried to see if there is a way FB category in 2009 might have received a spillover from EB. But thats almost impossible given EB is severely backlogged.
Another way to verify unused 13K in 2009 EB would be to check 2010 FB limit. If there were unused visas from EB in 2009 then they go back to FB in 2010.
Finally, per Ron unused is not same as wasted. Unused is unassigned. Wasted is .... assigned but action is not taken to close the case. If that is the case then wasted visas won't be available .... neither inside or outside category. It is frightening to think that with so many preadjudicated cases USCIS might be wasting visas! I don't believe this .... but if true ... it is outrageous.
hot %IMG_DESC_5%
EB3_SEP04
05-26 06:41 PM
I haven't heard anything like this (yes random checks I seen by cops in NJ) but not searching all cars on a highway and then verifying if everyone is legal and harassing them if they have not carried their immigration papers.
I read long ago after 9/11 that law enforcements used this tactic to jail folks who were suspected terrorists but if they are using this to discourage immigration (legal immigrants) it would be a real shame.
where are these commands coming from its not like one county suddenly gets up and starts doing random inspection, their must be a higher authority who is making these rules
I think the law/rule was passed/enacted in late 2008 by prev govt to make some psychos happy. It is a big problem in AZ and CA where these people routinely get in the commercial buses and ask everyone's status. so ACLU posted signs in buses telling people their rights. see my OP.
I read long ago after 9/11 that law enforcements used this tactic to jail folks who were suspected terrorists but if they are using this to discourage immigration (legal immigrants) it would be a real shame.
where are these commands coming from its not like one county suddenly gets up and starts doing random inspection, their must be a higher authority who is making these rules
I think the law/rule was passed/enacted in late 2008 by prev govt to make some psychos happy. It is a big problem in AZ and CA where these people routinely get in the commercial buses and ask everyone's status. so ACLU posted signs in buses telling people their rights. see my OP.
more...
house %IMG_DESC_17%
alex99
07-11 07:35 PM
EB3 PERM
Labor Filed: August 27th 2006
I-140 filed at NSC on 12th November
Still waiting for approval
Sent 485 App to NSC on July 2nd....
Regards,
Alex
Labor Filed: August 27th 2006
I-140 filed at NSC on 12th November
Still waiting for approval
Sent 485 App to NSC on July 2nd....
Regards,
Alex
tattoo %IMG_DESC_6%
varshadas
02-05 08:02 PM
I can accomodate one more at the most. Three people are enough. More than that is a crowd. Hemal and the one other person who can make it, please go through the slide put up under Resources-> Meet the lawmakers drive. We have to prepare before we meet the Congressmen.
Things to do before we meet the Congressmen:
1> Research on Congressmen on his community efforts.
2> Read the slides.
3> Have a meeting between us to discuss what and how we are going to present the material to him.
Hemal, please distribute the flyers to as many people as possible and in whatever locations you can. I will send you an updated copy soon.
Thanks,
Varsha
Things to do before we meet the Congressmen:
1> Research on Congressmen on his community efforts.
2> Read the slides.
3> Have a meeting between us to discuss what and how we are going to present the material to him.
Hemal, please distribute the flyers to as many people as possible and in whatever locations you can. I will send you an updated copy soon.
Thanks,
Varsha
more...
pictures %IMG_DESC_7%
sanjaymk
07-17 12:58 PM
Hello All-
Looks like they are monitoring this website and they have removed it now. There is no misunderstanding here, I copied and pasted it from their website so the question of mis-understanding doesn't arise.
It doesn't matter because they would have sent that fax to the Senators before and the senators would have a copy of that fax.
I am trying to write a strong letter to dis-credit that organization and their smear tactics and false propoganda. If nothing, then I would like to use the lettter posted by one of the posters here as a webfax and send the fax to the senators.
Kindly, don't assume that they removed point #2 so they could be let off, what happens if they add something like this in the future and nobody notices it.
Ideally, we should ask them to expose their membership accounts so that their lie of having 455000 volunteers is proved a blatant lie.
Thanks,
Sanjay.
Looks like they are monitoring this website and they have removed it now. There is no misunderstanding here, I copied and pasted it from their website so the question of mis-understanding doesn't arise.
It doesn't matter because they would have sent that fax to the Senators before and the senators would have a copy of that fax.
I am trying to write a strong letter to dis-credit that organization and their smear tactics and false propoganda. If nothing, then I would like to use the lettter posted by one of the posters here as a webfax and send the fax to the senators.
Kindly, don't assume that they removed point #2 so they could be let off, what happens if they add something like this in the future and nobody notices it.
Ideally, we should ask them to expose their membership accounts so that their lie of having 455000 volunteers is proved a blatant lie.
Thanks,
Sanjay.
dresses %IMG_DESC_12%
coolmanasip
03-13 10:34 AM
I believe you can get an interim EAD from local USCIS office once the application has been pending for 3 months...
more...
makeup %IMG_DESC_9%
coopheal
02-09 01:07 PM
See USCIS has also predicted EB3-I PD to be in Jan/Feb of 2002 by End Sep.
This is consistent with what USCIS's release data says as well.
It is available on wiki at EB3 Movement Tracking - Immigration Wiki (http://immigrationvoice.org/wiki/index.php/EB3_Movement_Tracking)
Cumulative count till Feb 2002 is 2349. So in rest of the year (9 months since Dec data release) all these people should get visas. If they do not get again there is something wrong.
This is consistent with what USCIS's release data says as well.
It is available on wiki at EB3 Movement Tracking - Immigration Wiki (http://immigrationvoice.org/wiki/index.php/EB3_Movement_Tracking)
Cumulative count till Feb 2002 is 2349. So in rest of the year (9 months since Dec data release) all these people should get visas. If they do not get again there is something wrong.
girlfriend %IMG_DESC_14%
JunRN
08-19 04:03 AM
To understand the Visa bulletin, one must first understand that it is not the USCIS that computes or post VB, it is the DOS. DOS also considers those undergoing consular processing. In this case, the dates are in favor of those doing CP as we all know that most of those who are qualified to apply for AOS have already applied.
Retrogression is a CP-friendly event.
Retrogression is a CP-friendly event.
hairstyles %IMG_DESC_11%
ganguteli
04-03 12:26 PM
Hello there,
Please contact me at fermion_boson@ymail.com if you are interested to take part in efforts to re-capture unused visa numbers for EB categories.
Let's do this NOW.
"To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield" --Lord Tennyson in "Ulysses"
Dude complete your profile first if you want to be taken seriously.
I would be hesitant to write to some anonymous email id.
Please contact me at fermion_boson@ymail.com if you are interested to take part in efforts to re-capture unused visa numbers for EB categories.
Let's do this NOW.
"To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield" --Lord Tennyson in "Ulysses"
Dude complete your profile first if you want to be taken seriously.
I would be hesitant to write to some anonymous email id.
sat0207
04-27 03:16 PM
from USCIS website check this link http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/public...ecks_42506.pdf
onemorecame
11-08 09:59 AM
Did you receive physical card?
yes i got my physical card, what about you bro? did you got approval?
yes i got my physical card, what about you bro? did you got approval?
No comments:
Post a Comment