axp817
01-30 01:31 PM
Sorry to hear about your plight, what do you plan to do if the RFE is for employment verification?
Please do keep us updated, it will help other members in similar situations out, and you might find some useful advice as well.
Good luck.
Please do keep us updated, it will help other members in similar situations out, and you might find some useful advice as well.
Good luck.
wallpaper %IMG_DESC_1%
stucklabor
07-24 12:42 PM
It all depend how we interpret the law.
Here is the arguement by stuck labor
"INA: ACT 245 - ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS OF NONIMMIGRANT TO THAT OF PERSON ADMITTED FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE
(a) The status of an alien who was inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States 1/ or the status of any other alien having an approved petition for classification under subparagraph (A)(iii), (A)(iv), (B)(ii), or (B)(iii) of section 204(a)(1) or may be adjusted by the Attorney General, in his discretion and under such regulations as he may prescribe, to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if
(3) an immigrant visa is immediately available to him at the time his application is filed."
BUT
The above is applicable for adjustment of status only not for filing of 485.
Here the case in point is to argue for filing 485, not for adjusting of status even VISA numbers are not available. It is not mentioned anywhere in the act that the 485 petition cannot be filed. It is worth to give a try with USCIS. The present law does not mention anything about filing and we can take advantage of that.
The law is the law, there is no room for interpretation. We cannot file for Adjustment of Status using form I-485 without visa number availability. Remember that I-485 is the form name that you use to apply for Adjustment of Status. When you file I-485, you are filing for Adjustment of Status.
Please think through your ideas before posting them.
Just as a FYI and anticipating arguments that may arise, EAD is available by law to Adjustment of Status applicants and others - such as students on OPT etc - and the law specifically says who may get EAD.
I will not respond to any further arguments on this thread that are on the lines of "Let us get USCIS to reinterpret the law, let us file I-485 and not call it an Adjustment of Status application, let us lobby USCIS to get EADs without filing for Adjustment of Status etc".
In response to the posts by rpatel, valabor etc - there is ZERO potential in pursuing this directly with USCIS. IV will not and should not waste any time in this effort.
Here is the arguement by stuck labor
"INA: ACT 245 - ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS OF NONIMMIGRANT TO THAT OF PERSON ADMITTED FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE
(a) The status of an alien who was inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States 1/ or the status of any other alien having an approved petition for classification under subparagraph (A)(iii), (A)(iv), (B)(ii), or (B)(iii) of section 204(a)(1) or may be adjusted by the Attorney General, in his discretion and under such regulations as he may prescribe, to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if
(3) an immigrant visa is immediately available to him at the time his application is filed."
BUT
The above is applicable for adjustment of status only not for filing of 485.
Here the case in point is to argue for filing 485, not for adjusting of status even VISA numbers are not available. It is not mentioned anywhere in the act that the 485 petition cannot be filed. It is worth to give a try with USCIS. The present law does not mention anything about filing and we can take advantage of that.
The law is the law, there is no room for interpretation. We cannot file for Adjustment of Status using form I-485 without visa number availability. Remember that I-485 is the form name that you use to apply for Adjustment of Status. When you file I-485, you are filing for Adjustment of Status.
Please think through your ideas before posting them.
Just as a FYI and anticipating arguments that may arise, EAD is available by law to Adjustment of Status applicants and others - such as students on OPT etc - and the law specifically says who may get EAD.
I will not respond to any further arguments on this thread that are on the lines of "Let us get USCIS to reinterpret the law, let us file I-485 and not call it an Adjustment of Status application, let us lobby USCIS to get EADs without filing for Adjustment of Status etc".
In response to the posts by rpatel, valabor etc - there is ZERO potential in pursuing this directly with USCIS. IV will not and should not waste any time in this effort.
McLuvin
03-12 01:55 PM
finally the bulletin has been posted in the DOS website...
Visa Bulletin for April 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4747.html)
They have given a brief description about "BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS"
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, a significant amount of demand is received each month for applicants who have priority dates which are significantly earlier than the applicable cut-off dates. In addition, fluctuations in demand can cause cut-off date movement to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7% is a cap which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed. Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled, however.
Applicability of Section 202(a)(5): INA Section 202(a)(5), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, removed the per-country limit on Employment-based immigrants in any calendar quarter in which applicant demand for numbers in one or more Employment-based preferences is less than the total of such numbers available. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5) has allowed countries such as China � mainland born and India to utilize large amounts of Employment First and Second preference numbers which would have otherwise gone unused. Such numbers are provided strictly in priority date order without regard to the foreign state chargeability, and the same cut-off date applies to any country benefiting from this provision.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by documentarily qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation, that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may require the establishment of an earlier cut-off date than that which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
Furthermore, Section 202(a)(2) reads, �2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed seven percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or two percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.� The seven percent per-country limit specified in INA 202(a)(2) is considered to be for both Family-sponsored and Employment-based numbers combined.
Allocation of visa numbers under Section 202(e) is accomplished as follows:
If based on historical patterns or current demand it appears that during a fiscal year number use by aliens chargeable to a particular country will exceed the per-country numerical limit for both the Family and Employment preferences combined, that country would be considered oversubscribed. Both the Family and Employment preferences would be subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1).
Sometimes during a fiscal year it may become apparent that because of a lack of demand in the Family preferences, number use by aliens chargeable to an oversubscribed country will be well within the per-country numerical limit. In such case the excess Family numbers would be made available to the Employment preferences subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1). Each of the first three Employment categories would receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and each of the Fourth and Fifth preference categories 7.1%. (Fall-across would likewise apply if an oversubscribed country lacked sufficient demand in the Employment preferences but had excess demand in the Family preferences.)
If a foreign state other than an oversubscribed country has little Family preference demand but considerable Employment preference demand, the otherwise unused Family numbers fall across to Employment (and vice versa) for purposes of that foreign state�s annual numerical limit. For example, in FY-2009 South Korea used a grand total of 15,899 Family and Employment preference numbers, of which 1,688 were Family numbers and 14,211 were Employment numbers. This grand total was well within the FY-2009 per-country numerical limit of 25,620 Family and Employment numbers combined, so South Korea was not oversubscribed. The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.
Visa Bulletin for April 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4747.html)
They have given a brief description about "BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS"
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, a significant amount of demand is received each month for applicants who have priority dates which are significantly earlier than the applicable cut-off dates. In addition, fluctuations in demand can cause cut-off date movement to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7% is a cap which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed. Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled, however.
Applicability of Section 202(a)(5): INA Section 202(a)(5), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, removed the per-country limit on Employment-based immigrants in any calendar quarter in which applicant demand for numbers in one or more Employment-based preferences is less than the total of such numbers available. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5) has allowed countries such as China � mainland born and India to utilize large amounts of Employment First and Second preference numbers which would have otherwise gone unused. Such numbers are provided strictly in priority date order without regard to the foreign state chargeability, and the same cut-off date applies to any country benefiting from this provision.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by documentarily qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation, that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may require the establishment of an earlier cut-off date than that which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
Furthermore, Section 202(a)(2) reads, �2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed seven percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or two percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.� The seven percent per-country limit specified in INA 202(a)(2) is considered to be for both Family-sponsored and Employment-based numbers combined.
Allocation of visa numbers under Section 202(e) is accomplished as follows:
If based on historical patterns or current demand it appears that during a fiscal year number use by aliens chargeable to a particular country will exceed the per-country numerical limit for both the Family and Employment preferences combined, that country would be considered oversubscribed. Both the Family and Employment preferences would be subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1).
Sometimes during a fiscal year it may become apparent that because of a lack of demand in the Family preferences, number use by aliens chargeable to an oversubscribed country will be well within the per-country numerical limit. In such case the excess Family numbers would be made available to the Employment preferences subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1). Each of the first three Employment categories would receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and each of the Fourth and Fifth preference categories 7.1%. (Fall-across would likewise apply if an oversubscribed country lacked sufficient demand in the Employment preferences but had excess demand in the Family preferences.)
If a foreign state other than an oversubscribed country has little Family preference demand but considerable Employment preference demand, the otherwise unused Family numbers fall across to Employment (and vice versa) for purposes of that foreign state�s annual numerical limit. For example, in FY-2009 South Korea used a grand total of 15,899 Family and Employment preference numbers, of which 1,688 were Family numbers and 14,211 were Employment numbers. This grand total was well within the FY-2009 per-country numerical limit of 25,620 Family and Employment numbers combined, so South Korea was not oversubscribed. The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.
2011 %IMG_DESC_2%
Legal_In_A_Limbo
03-07 11:27 AM
In my husband's case we dont have that much time.
Here what our plan is:-
1. Self file G-28.
2. Follow up with an infopass appt. with in a month.
Rest god willing. What ever is going to happen will happen. No one can stop it from happening.
Here what our plan is:-
1. Self file G-28.
2. Follow up with an infopass appt. with in a month.
Rest god willing. What ever is going to happen will happen. No one can stop it from happening.
more...
hpandey
05-26 04:43 PM
While on the way back from White Mountains in NH, our car was stopped on I-93 south by the US border patrol. They were stopping every single vehicle to question. They had over a dozen Govt vehicles with 40-50 people in uniform. My buddy was driving.
Officer : Sir what is your status in the US ?
Buddy: I am on L1 visa
I: H1B
buddy's wife: L2
my wife: H4
officer: is anyone US citizen ?
I: my son is (he was sitting in the car seat)
Officer: (to my buddy) Is your visa still valid ?
Buddy: yes
officer: do you have documents to prove your status?
buddy: i have some papers in my bag which in the the trunk
officer: can you show me?
(buddy got out showed him tax papers and answered some questions)
officer: did they not tell you you are supposed to carry your papers while travelling?
buddy: I came over a year ago so i don't remember
officer: I am letting you go, but i could have fined you $2000; $500 for each pasenger with no papers.
I was so pissed off by this experience, clearly they are doing this to harrase immigrants. theoratically even if I am going for a walk i am supposed to carry immigration papers because a border patrol officer, in theory, could asks me for my papers ?
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/immigration_Border_flyer.pdf
I have decided that if anyone ask me such a stupid question again inside the US and i am just going to remain silent even if that means they detain me for some time.
Yes I also saw this while going to NH this weekend. Crazy people I would say . Didn't seem logical to me seeing them blocking the whole highway. Maybe they were looking for someone or had a genuine reason for doing it in such a manner since stopping one or two happens all the time but they were really doing it to a lot of people.
Officer : Sir what is your status in the US ?
Buddy: I am on L1 visa
I: H1B
buddy's wife: L2
my wife: H4
officer: is anyone US citizen ?
I: my son is (he was sitting in the car seat)
Officer: (to my buddy) Is your visa still valid ?
Buddy: yes
officer: do you have documents to prove your status?
buddy: i have some papers in my bag which in the the trunk
officer: can you show me?
(buddy got out showed him tax papers and answered some questions)
officer: did they not tell you you are supposed to carry your papers while travelling?
buddy: I came over a year ago so i don't remember
officer: I am letting you go, but i could have fined you $2000; $500 for each pasenger with no papers.
I was so pissed off by this experience, clearly they are doing this to harrase immigrants. theoratically even if I am going for a walk i am supposed to carry immigration papers because a border patrol officer, in theory, could asks me for my papers ?
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/immigration_Border_flyer.pdf
I have decided that if anyone ask me such a stupid question again inside the US and i am just going to remain silent even if that means they detain me for some time.
Yes I also saw this while going to NH this weekend. Crazy people I would say . Didn't seem logical to me seeing them blocking the whole highway. Maybe they were looking for someone or had a genuine reason for doing it in such a manner since stopping one or two happens all the time but they were really doing it to a lot of people.
gc_chahiye
06-03 06:30 AM
check with your company attorneys, this is serious stuff.
From what I understand:
> 1) I need to maintain 1 year gap between the day I left US ( 6-Jan-07 ) and
> the day I'm going to enter US so that I can stay in US for another 6 years on
> H1-B. Is my understanding correct?
correct. Technically your company can file a PERM LC right now, and you can start in October (so the year after, you can get an H1 extension based on this LC), however its much much better for you to maintain this gap and start a new H1 (its easier to change jobs when you are not dependent on extensions: you get 6 full years)
> 2) Is it OK to go for VISA staming before 6-Jan-08?
yes, stamping does not matter. You can get that done anytime though its recommended to get it done close (30-60 days) to your date of travel. If you get it done now, and travel on Jan 7th, make sure you carry an updated offer letter from your company in the US, reconfirming that the position is still open for you.
From what I understand:
> 1) I need to maintain 1 year gap between the day I left US ( 6-Jan-07 ) and
> the day I'm going to enter US so that I can stay in US for another 6 years on
> H1-B. Is my understanding correct?
correct. Technically your company can file a PERM LC right now, and you can start in October (so the year after, you can get an H1 extension based on this LC), however its much much better for you to maintain this gap and start a new H1 (its easier to change jobs when you are not dependent on extensions: you get 6 full years)
> 2) Is it OK to go for VISA staming before 6-Jan-08?
yes, stamping does not matter. You can get that done anytime though its recommended to get it done close (30-60 days) to your date of travel. If you get it done now, and travel on Jan 7th, make sure you carry an updated offer letter from your company in the US, reconfirming that the position is still open for you.
more...
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
2010 %IMG_DESC_3%
sri1309
09-11 07:48 AM
I am in for this. Is this something that can be a planned effort rather than a impulsive exercise?
I think we should -
1) Wait till this session of the Congress gets over.
2) Form a work group that will chalk out the plan (of efforts).
3) Execute the planned efforts.
Efforts could include things like -
1) Discussing the proposal with supporting Senators like Zoe Lofgren.
2) Making conscious efforts to publicize our woes and genuine issues / conditions.
3) Quantify the benefits of our presence - in evidence of a quantified evidence, idiots like Loo Dog, etc. can't refute that much.
4) Talk to organizations like Lazaras (or some org.) form a more cosmopolitan group including Chinese and others as well.
5) Letter campaign in mass to all Congressmen's offices telling them the sad story about waiting for 8-10 years.
6) Any other efforts that CORE comes up with.
Planned & focused efforts always yield desired results... I believe so.
Others, please chime in.
-A.
It can be planned effort easily if Core team supports us. Otherwise, all of us will be airing our views, but where will the strength come. Even if 50-100 people join hands here, thats not a good #. We need a very big #. Thats possible if a campaign is started by somebody like IV and list it in the headlines section and direct us all to a target.
How do I create a new thread, pls let me know.
Lets wait for 5882, not upset any one.. Once thats done, based on outcome, its Lets shoot for Citizenship.
Thanks,
Sri.
I think we should -
1) Wait till this session of the Congress gets over.
2) Form a work group that will chalk out the plan (of efforts).
3) Execute the planned efforts.
Efforts could include things like -
1) Discussing the proposal with supporting Senators like Zoe Lofgren.
2) Making conscious efforts to publicize our woes and genuine issues / conditions.
3) Quantify the benefits of our presence - in evidence of a quantified evidence, idiots like Loo Dog, etc. can't refute that much.
4) Talk to organizations like Lazaras (or some org.) form a more cosmopolitan group including Chinese and others as well.
5) Letter campaign in mass to all Congressmen's offices telling them the sad story about waiting for 8-10 years.
6) Any other efforts that CORE comes up with.
Planned & focused efforts always yield desired results... I believe so.
Others, please chime in.
-A.
It can be planned effort easily if Core team supports us. Otherwise, all of us will be airing our views, but where will the strength come. Even if 50-100 people join hands here, thats not a good #. We need a very big #. Thats possible if a campaign is started by somebody like IV and list it in the headlines section and direct us all to a target.
How do I create a new thread, pls let me know.
Lets wait for 5882, not upset any one.. Once thats done, based on outcome, its Lets shoot for Citizenship.
Thanks,
Sri.
more...
gc_lover
07-18 11:29 AM
I think next time any one of us talks to USCIS, we should ask this question as to "Whether they have generated any rejection notices for apps received on July 2 2007 and have they mailed them".....my attorney says so far they have not received any rejection notices for apps filed on July 2 2007.
I checked with someone who has hired Rajiv Khanna and they said the same thing to him. So far, they have not generated any rejection notice for any application filed on and after July 2nd. Since this came from Rajiv Khanna I would think that it's some what credible information.
We will just have to wait and see till our checks get cashed!
I checked with someone who has hired Rajiv Khanna and they said the same thing to him. So far, they have not generated any rejection notice for any application filed on and after July 2nd. Since this came from Rajiv Khanna I would think that it's some what credible information.
We will just have to wait and see till our checks get cashed!
hair %IMG_DESC_4%
sagar_nyc
06-10 02:07 PM
This is correct. EAD is based on pending 485 in most of our case. that's it.
what the heck r u talking. i just renewed my EAD myself, no employment letter, no pay slip, no crap. Don't blabber if you dont know the details.
what the heck r u talking. i just renewed my EAD myself, no employment letter, no pay slip, no crap. Don't blabber if you dont know the details.
more...
laborchic
09-19 10:47 AM
The reason there were so many placards was - we were expecting atleast 10000 people to show up and with the kind of poor response we got, we were expecting atleast 5000 and thats why there was 700 banners ordered.
If we had the magic figure 10000, the impact could have been marvellous. The banner count would have been appropriate
With 1500 to 2000 - every individual had a banner or a placard or a flag.
Mark's speech was hillarious - but had very strong messages - THESE ARE THINGS THAT NEED SPECIAL SKILLS - AND MARK PULLED IT THROUGH EXTREMELY WELL. Mark is a pround member of the Tri State Chapter and his contributions towards the cause are amazing
Robert Sun (LIA) - was good. Well he was praising Indians and CHinese. Nothing wrong - but yes can be more comprehensive in nature.
We had people from all nationalities - and a lot of people seem to be silent supporters of IV - very passionate about this organization.
Jay was at his best - He took on Lou Dobbs - Which was the best part.
The only lesson I would say that we must learn is - low numbers - YES. The turnout should have been atleast 10000 - though 2000 is good. Just proves how selfish those free riders are who can let down your own community who are helping you.
I was part of the rally... I am proud of IV and everyone who attended it..WHAT tri-state chapter are you talking about ?? How many people are enrolled in it and how many showed up for the rally???
If we had the magic figure 10000, the impact could have been marvellous. The banner count would have been appropriate
With 1500 to 2000 - every individual had a banner or a placard or a flag.
Mark's speech was hillarious - but had very strong messages - THESE ARE THINGS THAT NEED SPECIAL SKILLS - AND MARK PULLED IT THROUGH EXTREMELY WELL. Mark is a pround member of the Tri State Chapter and his contributions towards the cause are amazing
Robert Sun (LIA) - was good. Well he was praising Indians and CHinese. Nothing wrong - but yes can be more comprehensive in nature.
We had people from all nationalities - and a lot of people seem to be silent supporters of IV - very passionate about this organization.
Jay was at his best - He took on Lou Dobbs - Which was the best part.
The only lesson I would say that we must learn is - low numbers - YES. The turnout should have been atleast 10000 - though 2000 is good. Just proves how selfish those free riders are who can let down your own community who are helping you.
I was part of the rally... I am proud of IV and everyone who attended it..WHAT tri-state chapter are you talking about ?? How many people are enrolled in it and how many showed up for the rally???
hot %IMG_DESC_5%
Jaime
09-10 02:02 PM
Guys, you have to move to Florida. When my wife and son were on H4 they were paying in-state tuition.
this is copied from the catalog of the school:
The following categories will be considered as Florida residents for tuition purposes:
Active duty members of the armed forces stationed in Florida, or whose home of record is in Florida, and their dependents.
Full-time instructional and administrative personnel employed by a public educational institution and their dependents
Qualified beneficiaries under the Florida Pre-Paid Postsecondary Expense Program.
In addition the following nonimmigrant categories are eligible to establish Florida residency: A, E, G, H-1, H-4, I, K, L, N, 0-1, O-3, R, and NATO I-7.
Others as permitted by state statute or rule
Nice! Too bad we're not allowed to move!
this is copied from the catalog of the school:
The following categories will be considered as Florida residents for tuition purposes:
Active duty members of the armed forces stationed in Florida, or whose home of record is in Florida, and their dependents.
Full-time instructional and administrative personnel employed by a public educational institution and their dependents
Qualified beneficiaries under the Florida Pre-Paid Postsecondary Expense Program.
In addition the following nonimmigrant categories are eligible to establish Florida residency: A, E, G, H-1, H-4, I, K, L, N, 0-1, O-3, R, and NATO I-7.
Others as permitted by state statute or rule
Nice! Too bad we're not allowed to move!
more...
house %IMG_DESC_17%
sdudeja
10-25 12:58 PM
My PD is May 21, 2007
tattoo %IMG_DESC_6%
vagish
04-04 10:22 AM
You will notice that there is not a single provision here that protects the rights of H1B workers and saves them from exploitation.
There is not a single provision to punish employers who exploit H1Bs.
Even with other immigration bills you will see there is not a single provision in these immigrtaion bills that punishes employers that hire illegal aliens. Thus all immigration laws being made never punish any US citizen breaking the law by employing an illegal alien or paying low salary or exploiting an H1B.
Even with the current law, have you seen how many employers have been punished for employing illegal aliens. Do you know the penalty for getting caught. It is a mere $500 and nothing else. And you will be surprised to know that not even 100 employers have been fined last year. And only 2 H1B employers were punished after being sued by employees. No H1B employer was caught and punished for exploiting any employee. The laws are being made to favor US employers and to punish immigrants.
I am surprised that nobody is noticing this.
the laws are there , but only on the books, they don't fund them for enforcement.
Also some laws are very week and needs to be changed.
I think general american public is getting to know more about it as everyday
passess with immigration debate. I think in the future if they pass any law
it will come with heavy enforcement and also the provisions like hiking h1B and
green card numbers, both will go hand in hand , there will be some controvercial provisions for both sides .
There is not a single provision to punish employers who exploit H1Bs.
Even with other immigration bills you will see there is not a single provision in these immigrtaion bills that punishes employers that hire illegal aliens. Thus all immigration laws being made never punish any US citizen breaking the law by employing an illegal alien or paying low salary or exploiting an H1B.
Even with the current law, have you seen how many employers have been punished for employing illegal aliens. Do you know the penalty for getting caught. It is a mere $500 and nothing else. And you will be surprised to know that not even 100 employers have been fined last year. And only 2 H1B employers were punished after being sued by employees. No H1B employer was caught and punished for exploiting any employee. The laws are being made to favor US employers and to punish immigrants.
I am surprised that nobody is noticing this.
the laws are there , but only on the books, they don't fund them for enforcement.
Also some laws are very week and needs to be changed.
I think general american public is getting to know more about it as everyday
passess with immigration debate. I think in the future if they pass any law
it will come with heavy enforcement and also the provisions like hiking h1B and
green card numbers, both will go hand in hand , there will be some controvercial provisions for both sides .
more...
pictures %IMG_DESC_7%
HV000
03-18 09:54 PM
Common Guys. Let's focus on the topic of this thread...
dresses %IMG_DESC_12%
pitha
02-21 04:05 PM
I agree with you but I am not frustrated but pointing out the realities. See what happenned to labor substitution. People misused it and the end result is there in no labor substitution any more. The way people are misusing eb2 it is just a matter of time when it would be almost impossible to get eb2 even for genuine job requirement. USCIS and DOL know what happenning with EB2 and they will crack down.
pitha...while i bear the frustration of the doors slamming on my face in october 2005 (eb2 was current prior to that) for the sheer fact that i had an incompetent attorney during the initial days when my LC process started.....i would not go far as saying that the porters have "cheated" the system.
The law via Chintakuntla provided that a person with a bachelors degree and 5 years experience is equal to an advanced degree holder.
All the porters are doing is following the law. Its frustrating to people like you and me, but its their right. If i was in their position and the law allowed me to take advantage of a provision of this nature, I would gladly take it.
pitha...while i bear the frustration of the doors slamming on my face in october 2005 (eb2 was current prior to that) for the sheer fact that i had an incompetent attorney during the initial days when my LC process started.....i would not go far as saying that the porters have "cheated" the system.
The law via Chintakuntla provided that a person with a bachelors degree and 5 years experience is equal to an advanced degree holder.
All the porters are doing is following the law. Its frustrating to people like you and me, but its their right. If i was in their position and the law allowed me to take advantage of a provision of this nature, I would gladly take it.
more...
makeup %IMG_DESC_9%
jonty_11
06-30 11:47 PM
Thx IV for workingon yet another pressing issue..
Continue the good work! v r with u!!
Continue the good work! v r with u!!
girlfriend %IMG_DESC_14%
Macaca
04-04 10:49 AM
We already have a campaign to call legislators. Please call the legisltaors and inform them about these issues. Thanks!
hairstyles %IMG_DESC_11%
wait4ever
09-26 10:16 AM
Enough Said - correction required.
delhiguy
07-04 08:03 PM
Excellent
I agree with you 100 % , I believe having excessive media coverage and lawsuits , would bring the GC number and process in the open , and most americans would oppose the GC as they oppose H1B.
If i was a american i would surely be happy with USCIS/DOS creating so much trouble for the immigrants to my country , who i believe are taking my job.
Everyone blaming CIS/DOS needs to understand some basics behind this mess. Before going to conclude anything, first, one should read all the ombudsman reports for last 3 or 4 years. Former INS or current USCIS�s functions and operations were not questionable and not known to public till ombudsman office was established. Ombudsman has helped customers and keep helping to improve efficiency of CIS. Ombudsman main concern (or goal) have been over the 4 years are
1. Primarily reducing backlogs in any application type particularly 485 and timely approval of any application.
2. Abolish the need for interim benefits like EAD, AP etc. If they approve 485 in 6 months, then most of us do not require EAD and AP.
3. Reduce the wastage of EB visas, as unused EB visas can not be carried over to next year (use it or lose it). Since 1992, about 200,000 EB visas were lost permanently. In 2003 alone, they issued only 64,000 EB visas and lost 88,000.
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Now lets come to July Visa bulletin mess.
Because of tight holding of visa cutoff dates for EB3 and EB2 for the first 8 months of 2007 (From Oct 2006 to May 2007) USCIS approved only 66,000 485s. For the next 4 months they have about 60K to 70K numbers available. If they approve the pending 485s with slower speed or old cut off dates, there is a potential estimated loss of 40,000 EB visas by Sep 2007. Thats why, based on ombudsman recommendation, DOS moved considerably the cut off date for June. When they took inventory in May, there are about 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications were pending due to non-availability of visa numbers. The �documentarily qualified 485 applications� mean the application filed long time back and processed by USCIS and cleared the FBI name and criminal check, and found eligible for green card. Apart from 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications, there is thousands of 485 applications (documentarily not yet qualified) pending due to name check. When DOS checked with USCIS they found only 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications (in all EB categories put together) are pending. However, the available visas are more than 40,000 (60to 70K). Then they made with out consulting properly with USCIS they made �current� for all EB categories. This is how they determine �current� or �over-subscribed� and how they establish cutoff dates.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered �Current.�
Whenever the total of documentarily qualified applicants in a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for the particular month, the category is considered to be �oversubscribed� and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories �current� for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories �current� ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of �current� there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making �current� for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as �current� in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
I agree with you 100 % , I believe having excessive media coverage and lawsuits , would bring the GC number and process in the open , and most americans would oppose the GC as they oppose H1B.
If i was a american i would surely be happy with USCIS/DOS creating so much trouble for the immigrants to my country , who i believe are taking my job.
Everyone blaming CIS/DOS needs to understand some basics behind this mess. Before going to conclude anything, first, one should read all the ombudsman reports for last 3 or 4 years. Former INS or current USCIS�s functions and operations were not questionable and not known to public till ombudsman office was established. Ombudsman has helped customers and keep helping to improve efficiency of CIS. Ombudsman main concern (or goal) have been over the 4 years are
1. Primarily reducing backlogs in any application type particularly 485 and timely approval of any application.
2. Abolish the need for interim benefits like EAD, AP etc. If they approve 485 in 6 months, then most of us do not require EAD and AP.
3. Reduce the wastage of EB visas, as unused EB visas can not be carried over to next year (use it or lose it). Since 1992, about 200,000 EB visas were lost permanently. In 2003 alone, they issued only 64,000 EB visas and lost 88,000.
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Now lets come to July Visa bulletin mess.
Because of tight holding of visa cutoff dates for EB3 and EB2 for the first 8 months of 2007 (From Oct 2006 to May 2007) USCIS approved only 66,000 485s. For the next 4 months they have about 60K to 70K numbers available. If they approve the pending 485s with slower speed or old cut off dates, there is a potential estimated loss of 40,000 EB visas by Sep 2007. Thats why, based on ombudsman recommendation, DOS moved considerably the cut off date for June. When they took inventory in May, there are about 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications were pending due to non-availability of visa numbers. The �documentarily qualified 485 applications� mean the application filed long time back and processed by USCIS and cleared the FBI name and criminal check, and found eligible for green card. Apart from 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications, there is thousands of 485 applications (documentarily not yet qualified) pending due to name check. When DOS checked with USCIS they found only 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications (in all EB categories put together) are pending. However, the available visas are more than 40,000 (60to 70K). Then they made with out consulting properly with USCIS they made �current� for all EB categories. This is how they determine �current� or �over-subscribed� and how they establish cutoff dates.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered �Current.�
Whenever the total of documentarily qualified applicants in a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for the particular month, the category is considered to be �oversubscribed� and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories �current� for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories �current� ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of �current� there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making �current� for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as �current� in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
roseball
07-09 03:55 PM
Yes, you are right that we cannot sue anyone for working harder. I agree with that part too.
I didnt say they broke the "law" by processing several thousands of cases. What they did is broke their own "regulations" by approving applications with incomplete security/back ground checks.....In the current environment the country is in, this could be a very serious issue. Well again they can argue that regulations can be moulded/twisted to their liking.....
From Oct 2006 - June 2007 USCIS only used 80k of 140k immigrant numbers available and by the end of June, they consumed all of the 140k quota.....There were cases where 485s were approved on 2nd and 3rd of July.....They made a complete mockery of their own regulations is alloting visa numbers as they like....
I didnt say they broke the "law" by processing several thousands of cases. What they did is broke their own "regulations" by approving applications with incomplete security/back ground checks.....In the current environment the country is in, this could be a very serious issue. Well again they can argue that regulations can be moulded/twisted to their liking.....
From Oct 2006 - June 2007 USCIS only used 80k of 140k immigrant numbers available and by the end of June, they consumed all of the 140k quota.....There were cases where 485s were approved on 2nd and 3rd of July.....They made a complete mockery of their own regulations is alloting visa numbers as they like....
No comments:
Post a Comment