vdlrao
07-21 11:43 PM
vdlrao, Thanks for the great analysis.
I am using DOS visa statistics and I arrived at EB quota numbers for 2008 as 162,707. There were 22,707 unused FB visa's in 2007 based on the DOS visa statistics @ http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/statistics/statistics_1476.html
Typically the actual EB quota for the FY is revised in the September bulletin. I am not sure if DOS has already taken into account the new EB quota number for the Aug bulletin. If they hadn't taken into account the new quota number then we should see some forward movement in the Sep bulletin.
However the 28,795 AC-21 recaptured visa's U are talking about has already been used in 2002, please take a look at the below mentioned link for details regarding the usage of those visa's.
http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2003%20AppD.pdf
All the AC-21 recaptured visa's has been used by now.
mpadapa, I am getting 31,100 unused Family Based Visas for 2007 fiscal year from
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/LPR_FR_2007.pdf
.
DHS bulletin is not updated correctly like Employment Based AC21 VISAS? Please let me know.
I am using DOS visa statistics and I arrived at EB quota numbers for 2008 as 162,707. There were 22,707 unused FB visa's in 2007 based on the DOS visa statistics @ http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/statistics/statistics_1476.html
Typically the actual EB quota for the FY is revised in the September bulletin. I am not sure if DOS has already taken into account the new EB quota number for the Aug bulletin. If they hadn't taken into account the new quota number then we should see some forward movement in the Sep bulletin.
However the 28,795 AC-21 recaptured visa's U are talking about has already been used in 2002, please take a look at the below mentioned link for details regarding the usage of those visa's.
http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2003%20AppD.pdf
All the AC-21 recaptured visa's has been used by now.
mpadapa, I am getting 31,100 unused Family Based Visas for 2007 fiscal year from
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/LPR_FR_2007.pdf
.
DHS bulletin is not updated correctly like Employment Based AC21 VISAS? Please let me know.
wallpaper %IMG_DESC_1%
vdlrao
07-15 10:54 PM
vdlrao,
True Eb2 will move and would not retrogress taking the new FY as a whole..but it becoming current by next Oct is a bit far fetched.
Remember in the first quarter of FY07 EB2 was U with all 01, 02, 03, and Jan-Mar 04 (mostly 03 as 01 and 02 were current for long and didn't have many in the labor backlog centers) used all the numbers. With several EB2's issued during the fiasco + 1st and 3rd quarter and into the 4th quarter, we are now slowly seeing everything till Mar 04 cleared up. It took almost a year to have 03 cleared up.
And you guess is 04-08 would get cleared in another year :p hard to believe!
04-08 would get cleared in another year ? : u may be righ IntheMoment. In 05 there are very less cases.
so there are 06 and 07 & 08. I presume even thugh it wont be current then the PD will be 1 or 1 and half year delay.
True Eb2 will move and would not retrogress taking the new FY as a whole..but it becoming current by next Oct is a bit far fetched.
Remember in the first quarter of FY07 EB2 was U with all 01, 02, 03, and Jan-Mar 04 (mostly 03 as 01 and 02 were current for long and didn't have many in the labor backlog centers) used all the numbers. With several EB2's issued during the fiasco + 1st and 3rd quarter and into the 4th quarter, we are now slowly seeing everything till Mar 04 cleared up. It took almost a year to have 03 cleared up.
And you guess is 04-08 would get cleared in another year :p hard to believe!
04-08 would get cleared in another year ? : u may be righ IntheMoment. In 05 there are very less cases.
so there are 06 and 07 & 08. I presume even thugh it wont be current then the PD will be 1 or 1 and half year delay.
abhijitp
02-12 06:36 PM
No matter which side you are on, the quota system sucks. Period.
1) Once you start receiving benefits out of being born in a particular country/ race/ sex/ religion, a notion of "entitlement" quickly builds up within you. This adversely affects your ability to perform, for you just don't have to work hard enough!
2) If you are punished for being born in a particular country/ race/ sex/ religion, you have no incentive to perform, as you won't get what you deserve no matter how hard you work!
How about this... during every Olympics, most number of Gold Medals are won by Americans. Now imagine a rule that prevents more than 7% of all Gold Medals going to people born in any one country. How does that sound?
I will myself hate it if athletes from India (who haven't won anything in the Olympics till date) started winning gold medals simply because other countries cannot receive more than 7%!
Of course, removing country caps will face opposition, but it should still happen, just because it is the right thing!
1) Once you start receiving benefits out of being born in a particular country/ race/ sex/ religion, a notion of "entitlement" quickly builds up within you. This adversely affects your ability to perform, for you just don't have to work hard enough!
2) If you are punished for being born in a particular country/ race/ sex/ religion, you have no incentive to perform, as you won't get what you deserve no matter how hard you work!
How about this... during every Olympics, most number of Gold Medals are won by Americans. Now imagine a rule that prevents more than 7% of all Gold Medals going to people born in any one country. How does that sound?
I will myself hate it if athletes from India (who haven't won anything in the Olympics till date) started winning gold medals simply because other countries cannot receive more than 7%!
Of course, removing country caps will face opposition, but it should still happen, just because it is the right thing!
2011 %IMG_DESC_2%
gonecrazyonh4
11-11 01:50 PM
While Pre-approved labor is ok, the priority date of the original applicant should NOT transfer over to the beneficiary of the substituted labor. The injustice is there.
yes, I agree, but that is what is happening.With a subsitute labor you get to keep the old PD.
yes, I agree, but that is what is happening.With a subsitute labor you get to keep the old PD.
more...
mirage
04-16 07:46 AM
Most sickening part was UPA leaders only concentrated on abusing, denying and accusing. They never told the voters if they did any work in last 5 years. I know there wasn't a lot to tell but still the whole campaign is kind of useless...and the role of media is amazing, they just covered 5 people Maino Antonia, Rahul Gandhi, Priyanka Gandhi, Advani & Modi as if nobody else exist in the country. Priyanka Gandhi wakes up every 5 years during elections and media runs after...How sick a country we are ???
CADude
02-13 01:15 AM
it's classic problem of supply demand and least resistance path.
USCIS provides 3K/each category Visa# per country. What ever USCIS will do you can't fit 200K application in 9K/annum visa#.
Last 3 years(since dec 2005) - EB3 India PD is beyond May 08 2001 only for three months and EB2 is enjoying the benefits of GC. Anyone noticed. NONE. So what happened, many EB3 choosen for convert to EB2 path. Now EB2 India is U so many guys degree with PhD, etc trying for EB1. It human nature and nothing wrong with it. Everyone wants GC ASAP.
So bottomline, Demand is very high compare to Supply. unless USCIS get significant visa# nothing will change.
USCIS provides 3K/each category Visa# per country. What ever USCIS will do you can't fit 200K application in 9K/annum visa#.
Last 3 years(since dec 2005) - EB3 India PD is beyond May 08 2001 only for three months and EB2 is enjoying the benefits of GC. Anyone noticed. NONE. So what happened, many EB3 choosen for convert to EB2 path. Now EB2 India is U so many guys degree with PhD, etc trying for EB1. It human nature and nothing wrong with it. Everyone wants GC ASAP.
So bottomline, Demand is very high compare to Supply. unless USCIS get significant visa# nothing will change.
more...
PSReddy
09-05 04:27 PM
Go see your own posts AH.....
U Need to alteast learn how to hide your true identity......MOTHER FUCKER...
This too funny with 15 pages and nothing to achieve. No immigration realted issues.
Reddy: This is my first post. Do not degrade ourselves for some filthy discussion. You are degrading every one here and you are EB2. Can you justify why do you have to be in EB2 while using such words?
In doubt, do not suspect the entire village, just ask your neighbor or you can ask your father who your Biological father is. Why do you think True Facts is your Bio father?
U Need to alteast learn how to hide your true identity......MOTHER FUCKER...
This too funny with 15 pages and nothing to achieve. No immigration realted issues.
Reddy: This is my first post. Do not degrade ourselves for some filthy discussion. You are degrading every one here and you are EB2. Can you justify why do you have to be in EB2 while using such words?
In doubt, do not suspect the entire village, just ask your neighbor or you can ask your father who your Biological father is. Why do you think True Facts is your Bio father?
2010 %IMG_DESC_3%
shiankuraaf
09-14 11:40 PM
This a very optimistic prediction....
i think .. most with PD of jan 2005 and earlier will get their GC ..thus in OCT VB the dates will pull back a bit..maybe mid 2004...so first qtr will be bad news for anyone with a PD after jan 2005,...but the 2nd and 3rd qtr.. the dates will be definitely be in mid 2006.
my 1/4 cent
What I expect is, with the pre-adjudication USCIS has the approvable numbers in hand and all the Visa numbers for the 1 st quarter will be released and consumed immediatly by the pre-adjudicated cases and then in Nov bulletin it will be 'U' and again in Dec it would move couple of weeks or most probably a month to consume the querterly spill over if that exists. I do not think there will be any retro for EB2 India in coming 2 quarters unless there are too many new labour approvals giving chance to file AOS with later PDs or EB3 to EB2 porting.
My 1 cent.
i think .. most with PD of jan 2005 and earlier will get their GC ..thus in OCT VB the dates will pull back a bit..maybe mid 2004...so first qtr will be bad news for anyone with a PD after jan 2005,...but the 2nd and 3rd qtr.. the dates will be definitely be in mid 2006.
my 1/4 cent
What I expect is, with the pre-adjudication USCIS has the approvable numbers in hand and all the Visa numbers for the 1 st quarter will be released and consumed immediatly by the pre-adjudicated cases and then in Nov bulletin it will be 'U' and again in Dec it would move couple of weeks or most probably a month to consume the querterly spill over if that exists. I do not think there will be any retro for EB2 India in coming 2 quarters unless there are too many new labour approvals giving chance to file AOS with later PDs or EB3 to EB2 porting.
My 1 cent.
more...
Pineapple
12-14 02:16 PM
I agree with alterego.
There is another compelling argument against taking the lawsuit way, even if assuming there is a case to be made, and we have plenty of money. (The first is unclear, the second is a firm no, but let us assume anyway for the sake or argument)
One of the reasons why Roe v Wade, 34 years on, is still a controversial decision today is the fact that the US is probably unique in the world in the sense that a constitutionality argument was used to decide public policy.
In Europe, as in other parts of the world, abortion was considered as a health issue, and handled via legislation and health care guidelines.
But because it was a constitutionality issue in US, and enforced from the bench, a significant portion of the populace felt left out of the decision making process, which stimulated a simmering opposition and entrenched the main actors of the "culture wars", which persist to this day.
There is significant debate even among liberals whether Roe V Wade has helped or harmed the liberal cause, and if knowing what we know, there could have been another approach to achieve the same end.
In a nutshell, approaching the courts is a double edged sword. There may be some strategic gains in the short term, but the long term impact is unclear and unpredictable. A legislative approach might be slower and incremental, but it is less risky.
Think of lobbying as polite negotiation.
Think of Supreme court case as picking a fist fight, in which we are badly out numbered.
Once you have started a fist fight it is much harder to negotiate, especially from a loosing position.
This is exactly correct. It is not the question of right or wrong here. That is what gets folks so upset on this thread, they feel since their viewpoint s right then.......... Most neutral observers like mbartosik can see this as unjust and there may be many in the US as well, however certainly not the majority. However, there are many ways in which this could backfire. One example is the recently seen debate over illegal immigration and the turn in public sentiment. Truth be told, if someone did something wrong 12 yrs ago(crossed the fence), now is married to a US citizen and has 3 US children, what do you do with them? What about the 3yr old who was brought to the USA by their parents and knows no other system? Perhaps a few years ago joe public would have given them a pass, no more, the debate has become so nasty that positions have been hardened to the point that reason does not prevail. Another reason has something to do with the perceived sense of entitlement Americans sensed in the illegal immigrant community(of course fanned by Lou Dobbs and his ilk). These are complex issues and generally you will get a lot further appealing to someones sense of fairness than explaining how you are entitled to something and will take it from them if it is not given to you.
There is another compelling argument against taking the lawsuit way, even if assuming there is a case to be made, and we have plenty of money. (The first is unclear, the second is a firm no, but let us assume anyway for the sake or argument)
One of the reasons why Roe v Wade, 34 years on, is still a controversial decision today is the fact that the US is probably unique in the world in the sense that a constitutionality argument was used to decide public policy.
In Europe, as in other parts of the world, abortion was considered as a health issue, and handled via legislation and health care guidelines.
But because it was a constitutionality issue in US, and enforced from the bench, a significant portion of the populace felt left out of the decision making process, which stimulated a simmering opposition and entrenched the main actors of the "culture wars", which persist to this day.
There is significant debate even among liberals whether Roe V Wade has helped or harmed the liberal cause, and if knowing what we know, there could have been another approach to achieve the same end.
In a nutshell, approaching the courts is a double edged sword. There may be some strategic gains in the short term, but the long term impact is unclear and unpredictable. A legislative approach might be slower and incremental, but it is less risky.
Think of lobbying as polite negotiation.
Think of Supreme court case as picking a fist fight, in which we are badly out numbered.
Once you have started a fist fight it is much harder to negotiate, especially from a loosing position.
This is exactly correct. It is not the question of right or wrong here. That is what gets folks so upset on this thread, they feel since their viewpoint s right then.......... Most neutral observers like mbartosik can see this as unjust and there may be many in the US as well, however certainly not the majority. However, there are many ways in which this could backfire. One example is the recently seen debate over illegal immigration and the turn in public sentiment. Truth be told, if someone did something wrong 12 yrs ago(crossed the fence), now is married to a US citizen and has 3 US children, what do you do with them? What about the 3yr old who was brought to the USA by their parents and knows no other system? Perhaps a few years ago joe public would have given them a pass, no more, the debate has become so nasty that positions have been hardened to the point that reason does not prevail. Another reason has something to do with the perceived sense of entitlement Americans sensed in the illegal immigrant community(of course fanned by Lou Dobbs and his ilk). These are complex issues and generally you will get a lot further appealing to someones sense of fairness than explaining how you are entitled to something and will take it from them if it is not given to you.
hair %IMG_DESC_4%
fairman
08-16 12:26 PM
.....
Mamooty.. who is he?
One Mallu actor ( got national award etc.)
Mamooty.. who is he?
One Mallu actor ( got national award etc.)
more...
logiclife
12-14 04:58 PM
I know what I am about to say will trigger a lot of reaction and some resentment, but it has to be said on behalf of those who are not Indian. I think the per country limit is to ensure that people of all nationalities and races have an equal opportunity to obtain a green card and to ensure that no one nationality, group, or even sector (i.e. IT) monopolizes the so few visas that are available. In fact, in the visa lottery, countries become excluded when the number of immigrants from them reach a certain point, so we are lucky they do not do that in the Employment-based system!
I think that by wanting to remove the per country limit so more Indians can avail of the green card quota is both asking for "special treatment" and a slap in the face for all the non-Indian IV members. The more I read the threads on this site, the more I feel that this organization is geared just to one ethnic group. I am sure that Indians probably make up the majority of members, but the founders of IV (I hope) did not want this organization to become one-sided! Please be considerate of ALL members and try to come up with suggestions that would benefit ALL members!!!:mad:
Well, I agree with your argument when it comes to diversity lottery visas. Or Family based visas. Because those green cards are not given based on any merit, education or employability of an individual. They are just given away to anyone whose relatives sponsor (family based) or whose country doesnt send enough immigrants here in USA and add those country's citizens adds diversity.
However, in employment based immigration, 140,000 green cards are given each year because those 140,000 individuals have been sponsored by their employers for a job for which no US citizen is willing qualified and able to do and the employer finds it worth it to go thru hassles of dealing with immigration in order to retain this employee. The employers dont care whether the employee is Indian, Chinese, Brit or South African. The government too, is not giving this green card because someone is Indian or chinese. The employer wants individual to fill a position, the government agrees to it - up to 140,000 a year - and that's where it ends. Therefore, in such benefit, where the ONE AND ONLY REASON for green card is EMPLOYMENT, why should employee A born in India wait for 10 years but employee B born in South Afria wait for 2 years even though the reason for both employee A and employee B for getting the greencard is the same - EMPLOYMENT.
Are you saying , based on your theory that there should be 7% per country limits in hiring too - that all these corporations, when they hire non-citizens, should keep one country's immigrant workers capped at 7% ? Should Microsoft, Cisco and Oracle fill all jobs and sponsor all greencard at rate of 7 % per country? Are you also going to complain that there are too many Indians in Microsoft and large software corporations and Indians have "monopolized" that profession? Or that Vietnamese and chinese have monopolized the nail-salon and dry-cleaning business? Do you even know what a monopoly is?
By the way, if the congressional intent was the keep diversity intact even in employment based immigration, then how come there is no per-country ceiling on H1 and L1? On H1 there is no per-country ceiling. So its ok to be disproportionate when you bring people into the country from outside (using H1/L1), but when the same bunch of people apply for green cards, there are different queues for different countries and your wait time depends on where you were born? What kind of nonsense is that?
All due respect, your argument is baseless and stems from the fact that you love the idea that you are personally benefitting by being in ROW.
There are plenty of ROW members who have supported the idea of removal of per-country ceilings, who have walked with me to congressional offices asking for parity and who have marched in DC.
I think that by wanting to remove the per country limit so more Indians can avail of the green card quota is both asking for "special treatment" and a slap in the face for all the non-Indian IV members. The more I read the threads on this site, the more I feel that this organization is geared just to one ethnic group. I am sure that Indians probably make up the majority of members, but the founders of IV (I hope) did not want this organization to become one-sided! Please be considerate of ALL members and try to come up with suggestions that would benefit ALL members!!!:mad:
Well, I agree with your argument when it comes to diversity lottery visas. Or Family based visas. Because those green cards are not given based on any merit, education or employability of an individual. They are just given away to anyone whose relatives sponsor (family based) or whose country doesnt send enough immigrants here in USA and add those country's citizens adds diversity.
However, in employment based immigration, 140,000 green cards are given each year because those 140,000 individuals have been sponsored by their employers for a job for which no US citizen is willing qualified and able to do and the employer finds it worth it to go thru hassles of dealing with immigration in order to retain this employee. The employers dont care whether the employee is Indian, Chinese, Brit or South African. The government too, is not giving this green card because someone is Indian or chinese. The employer wants individual to fill a position, the government agrees to it - up to 140,000 a year - and that's where it ends. Therefore, in such benefit, where the ONE AND ONLY REASON for green card is EMPLOYMENT, why should employee A born in India wait for 10 years but employee B born in South Afria wait for 2 years even though the reason for both employee A and employee B for getting the greencard is the same - EMPLOYMENT.
Are you saying , based on your theory that there should be 7% per country limits in hiring too - that all these corporations, when they hire non-citizens, should keep one country's immigrant workers capped at 7% ? Should Microsoft, Cisco and Oracle fill all jobs and sponsor all greencard at rate of 7 % per country? Are you also going to complain that there are too many Indians in Microsoft and large software corporations and Indians have "monopolized" that profession? Or that Vietnamese and chinese have monopolized the nail-salon and dry-cleaning business? Do you even know what a monopoly is?
By the way, if the congressional intent was the keep diversity intact even in employment based immigration, then how come there is no per-country ceiling on H1 and L1? On H1 there is no per-country ceiling. So its ok to be disproportionate when you bring people into the country from outside (using H1/L1), but when the same bunch of people apply for green cards, there are different queues for different countries and your wait time depends on where you were born? What kind of nonsense is that?
All due respect, your argument is baseless and stems from the fact that you love the idea that you are personally benefitting by being in ROW.
There are plenty of ROW members who have supported the idea of removal of per-country ceilings, who have walked with me to congressional offices asking for parity and who have marched in DC.
hot %IMG_DESC_5%
grupak
12-13 01:40 PM
"Fairness or not is not the issue. Question is can it be challenged in a court? "
--I guess fairness is the issue and that is what you are asking for by challenging the court.
"As an unrelated side note, the current quota system is something that has evolved from past policies some of which was used to restrict citizens of certain countries."
--To some extent,there is truth to what you said. And it is there prerogative. There could be many geopolitical,societal, economic and national security reasons behind who they restrict and who they allow.
The OP was whether the country quota is constitutional. My interest was to find out if the current laws and regulations are violated by the country quota.
As lazycis pointed out, SC seems to uphold the current situation.
I was not looking into arguing in a court whether a particular regulation is fair or not. The law is what it is (what I or you consider fair or unfair is immaterial), question was : Is the law being implemented or not? Seems like it is.
To change the law, we as IV are lobbying and meeting lawmakers already.
Unless a constitutional lawyer says otherwise, I see no reason to pursue the country quota in a court, considering lazycis post.
--I guess fairness is the issue and that is what you are asking for by challenging the court.
"As an unrelated side note, the current quota system is something that has evolved from past policies some of which was used to restrict citizens of certain countries."
--To some extent,there is truth to what you said. And it is there prerogative. There could be many geopolitical,societal, economic and national security reasons behind who they restrict and who they allow.
The OP was whether the country quota is constitutional. My interest was to find out if the current laws and regulations are violated by the country quota.
As lazycis pointed out, SC seems to uphold the current situation.
I was not looking into arguing in a court whether a particular regulation is fair or not. The law is what it is (what I or you consider fair or unfair is immaterial), question was : Is the law being implemented or not? Seems like it is.
To change the law, we as IV are lobbying and meeting lawmakers already.
Unless a constitutional lawyer says otherwise, I see no reason to pursue the country quota in a court, considering lazycis post.
more...
house %IMG_DESC_17%
hatighora
01-05 05:00 PM
Why amway cannot sell brand products that you get at walmart and other stores. What is stopping amway from having a partnership with these companies and sell quality products?
tattoo %IMG_DESC_6%
eastindia
07-26 02:18 PM
I have been to just one of their meetings in bay area and found it to be a bit childish and full of fake people, people trying hard to portray themselve to be your best friend when in reality they are not
It is a selfish world and nobody is your true or best friend. Amway or no Amway.
It is a selfish world and nobody is your true or best friend. Amway or no Amway.
more...
pictures %IMG_DESC_7%
ita
04-20 05:02 PM
Congress was against NRI voting rights.They even said that if voting rights were to be given to NRI' then it should be given first to Indians in Gulf and other Muslim countries.It's anybody's guess why?
Forget about voting rights to NRIs if congress gets power another time they are going to introduce reservations in Defense.No system in India into which reservations have been introduced stayed strong.This wold be ultimate insult and a death blow to the country.
Like Muslims in Gujarat that have realized that Congress would keep them along with others in the country in poverty after taking their votes, hope all the other Muslims in the country realize it soon.Unfortunate thing is people who are self proclaimed cream of the top,that can think clearly and people who listen to this cream of the top are playing into the deceit of this party
Guys,
Poll is ok, but what about our voting rights? Many countries allow citizens to use proxy vote / vote by mail to exercise their rights... I remember that there was a bill in 2006 on the floor of parlement to allow this for NRI's and Congress party was dead against such a bill due to some reason... Not sure what happened after that...
Its rediculous that about a million folks in this country and many more around the world, (I believe 30 million or so NRI's in total) are deprived of their fundamental contitutional right to vote, well a small portion compared to total population. Its unfortunate.
Forget about voting rights to NRIs if congress gets power another time they are going to introduce reservations in Defense.No system in India into which reservations have been introduced stayed strong.This wold be ultimate insult and a death blow to the country.
Like Muslims in Gujarat that have realized that Congress would keep them along with others in the country in poverty after taking their votes, hope all the other Muslims in the country realize it soon.Unfortunate thing is people who are self proclaimed cream of the top,that can think clearly and people who listen to this cream of the top are playing into the deceit of this party
Guys,
Poll is ok, but what about our voting rights? Many countries allow citizens to use proxy vote / vote by mail to exercise their rights... I remember that there was a bill in 2006 on the floor of parlement to allow this for NRI's and Congress party was dead against such a bill due to some reason... Not sure what happened after that...
Its rediculous that about a million folks in this country and many more around the world, (I believe 30 million or so NRI's in total) are deprived of their fundamental contitutional right to vote, well a small portion compared to total population. Its unfortunate.
dresses %IMG_DESC_12%
mheggade
07-23 01:14 PM
Reply to sumagiri's post
This kind of statements are used just to bluff the congress. Bear in mind 140k is the quota and may not be the target. Looks like they did it again (I mean bluff DOS and Congress) and DOS had no choice to move the dates so that overseas visa post can consume the remaining visa.
This kind of statements are used just to bluff the congress. Bear in mind 140k is the quota and may not be the target. Looks like they did it again (I mean bluff DOS and Congress) and DOS had no choice to move the dates so that overseas visa post can consume the remaining visa.
more...
makeup %IMG_DESC_9%
tikka
07-04 07:39 AM
http://indiapost.com/article/immigration/597/
On July 1, 2007, the Visa Numbers in the Employment-based Second and Third Preferences will become current. The USCIS Service Centers in Nebraska and Texas will be deluged with Adjustment of Status (Form I-485) applications.
An update on AILA Infonet expresses concern that the USCIS may start rejecting I-485 filings before July 31, 2007 even though, historically, applicants have had the benefit of the whole month to file before the State Department announces retrogression for the following month.
In fact, the cut-off date for the "Other Worker" was October 1, 2001 in the June 2007 Visa Bulletin. Yet, the USCIS began rejecting I-485 filings under the Other Worker category with priority dates of October 1, 2001 or earlier when the agency was informed by the State Department that the visa allocation for this category had been exhausted on June 5, 2007.
AILA believes that the rejection policy is contrary to the regulation at 8 CFR �245.1(g) (1), and has urged USCIS to reverse its policy, which it has refused to do so. In any event, June 2007 is almost over, and even if USCIS reverses its erroneous policy later in July, would it still be able to accept I-485 applications that were due in June 2007? In July 2007, the Other Worker category becomes Unavailable.
Regarding the "Current" dates in July 2007, the AILA Update indicates that USCIS has approximately 40,000 visas remaining in all employment-based categories for 2007, and that USCIS already has far more than that number of I-485 applications in the backlog queue ready for approval. Remember that there was a similar deluge of I-485 filings prior to the earlier retrogression of October 1, 2005.
If these have already been pre-approved, they will exhaust the supply of existing immigrant visas and there is a likelihood that USCIS may start rejecting I-485 filings before the month of July is over. AILA has not yet predicted the exact date in July when this will happen. Despite the rush to file, one cannot underscore the importance of filing complete I-485 applications. If the I-485 does not contain the medical examination report, it will get rejected as the document is considered "initial evidence."
The same applies to birth certificates, marriage certificates and other essential documents. It is also important to file with the correct filing fees for the I-485 ($325 + $70 for the biometrics fee). The accompanying I-765 application for temporary employment authorization is $180 and the I-131 application for Advance Parole is $180. It is also important to make full and truthful disclosure of any unauthorized unemployment on the Form G-325A.
Some may have worked after their F-1 OPT had expired and others may have been involved in self-employment home businesses. The fact that an applicant has worked without authorization for short periods of time should not render him or her ineligible to file for Adjustment of Status. Section 245(k) of the Immigration and Nationality Act protects status violations up to 180 days from the last lawful admission into the United States.
For example, if an applicant worked without authorization between October and December 2006, and then left the United States and entered on January 1, 2007 in H-1B status, so long as this individual has not violated status for more than 180 days since January 1, 2007, he or she would still be eligible to file the I-485. For those with longer periods of status violations, Section 245(i) may also render them eligible to file an I-485.
To be eligible under Section 245(i), the applicant must have been the beneficiary of a labor certification or employment or family-based immigrant visa petition (Form I-140 or Form I-130) prior to April 30, 2001. If the filing was between January 15, 1998 and April 30, 2001, he or she must also establish physical presence in the US as of December 21, 2000.
If one is filing under Section 245(i), the I-485 must be accompanied by Supplement A and an additional penalty fee of $1,000. Finally, it is also important to disclose criminal arrests and convictions, however minor. Of course, those who have a criminal record must seek the advice of an attorney prior to filing the I-485.
While not all minor arrests or convictions will lead to inadmissibility, some may and it is important to find out whether the applicant is eligible for a waiver. If one is filing an I-140 concurrently with the I-485, note that the USCIS announced on June 28, 2007 that it was temporarily suspending premium processing for 30 days from July 2, 2007 due to the heavy rush in applications.
Cyrus D. Mehta
On July 1, 2007, the Visa Numbers in the Employment-based Second and Third Preferences will become current. The USCIS Service Centers in Nebraska and Texas will be deluged with Adjustment of Status (Form I-485) applications.
An update on AILA Infonet expresses concern that the USCIS may start rejecting I-485 filings before July 31, 2007 even though, historically, applicants have had the benefit of the whole month to file before the State Department announces retrogression for the following month.
In fact, the cut-off date for the "Other Worker" was October 1, 2001 in the June 2007 Visa Bulletin. Yet, the USCIS began rejecting I-485 filings under the Other Worker category with priority dates of October 1, 2001 or earlier when the agency was informed by the State Department that the visa allocation for this category had been exhausted on June 5, 2007.
AILA believes that the rejection policy is contrary to the regulation at 8 CFR �245.1(g) (1), and has urged USCIS to reverse its policy, which it has refused to do so. In any event, June 2007 is almost over, and even if USCIS reverses its erroneous policy later in July, would it still be able to accept I-485 applications that were due in June 2007? In July 2007, the Other Worker category becomes Unavailable.
Regarding the "Current" dates in July 2007, the AILA Update indicates that USCIS has approximately 40,000 visas remaining in all employment-based categories for 2007, and that USCIS already has far more than that number of I-485 applications in the backlog queue ready for approval. Remember that there was a similar deluge of I-485 filings prior to the earlier retrogression of October 1, 2005.
If these have already been pre-approved, they will exhaust the supply of existing immigrant visas and there is a likelihood that USCIS may start rejecting I-485 filings before the month of July is over. AILA has not yet predicted the exact date in July when this will happen. Despite the rush to file, one cannot underscore the importance of filing complete I-485 applications. If the I-485 does not contain the medical examination report, it will get rejected as the document is considered "initial evidence."
The same applies to birth certificates, marriage certificates and other essential documents. It is also important to file with the correct filing fees for the I-485 ($325 + $70 for the biometrics fee). The accompanying I-765 application for temporary employment authorization is $180 and the I-131 application for Advance Parole is $180. It is also important to make full and truthful disclosure of any unauthorized unemployment on the Form G-325A.
Some may have worked after their F-1 OPT had expired and others may have been involved in self-employment home businesses. The fact that an applicant has worked without authorization for short periods of time should not render him or her ineligible to file for Adjustment of Status. Section 245(k) of the Immigration and Nationality Act protects status violations up to 180 days from the last lawful admission into the United States.
For example, if an applicant worked without authorization between October and December 2006, and then left the United States and entered on January 1, 2007 in H-1B status, so long as this individual has not violated status for more than 180 days since January 1, 2007, he or she would still be eligible to file the I-485. For those with longer periods of status violations, Section 245(i) may also render them eligible to file an I-485.
To be eligible under Section 245(i), the applicant must have been the beneficiary of a labor certification or employment or family-based immigrant visa petition (Form I-140 or Form I-130) prior to April 30, 2001. If the filing was between January 15, 1998 and April 30, 2001, he or she must also establish physical presence in the US as of December 21, 2000.
If one is filing under Section 245(i), the I-485 must be accompanied by Supplement A and an additional penalty fee of $1,000. Finally, it is also important to disclose criminal arrests and convictions, however minor. Of course, those who have a criminal record must seek the advice of an attorney prior to filing the I-485.
While not all minor arrests or convictions will lead to inadmissibility, some may and it is important to find out whether the applicant is eligible for a waiver. If one is filing an I-140 concurrently with the I-485, note that the USCIS announced on June 28, 2007 that it was temporarily suspending premium processing for 30 days from July 2, 2007 due to the heavy rush in applications.
Cyrus D. Mehta
girlfriend %IMG_DESC_14%
at0474
12-14 05:41 PM
What if only few countries ONLY can supply the required skilled labor sufficiently and no other countries countries can?
Then the numbers get distributed among those few countries that produces required skilled labor. To some extent, I thought this is already happening!!:rolleyes:
Then the numbers get distributed among those few countries that produces required skilled labor. To some extent, I thought this is already happening!!:rolleyes:
hairstyles %IMG_DESC_11%
hopefulgc
02-13 02:58 PM
where are the govt. sources talking to us know....?
How much do we really care about the govt. sources when our dates there is a wait of 7 years .. . the dates are in 2001 for heaven's sake.
I feel like a battered housewife who does not want to step up to her husband 's abuse hoping that one day he would come home and not not beat her up, just come home, ignore her and go to bed and let her be.
Waiting for 3 yr EAD reforms is like begging for peanuts. we outta swing for the fences. If we outta beg.. lets aim higher... RECAPTURE.
Going into Lawsuit will not do a penny for our
fate. I heard the same that Khanna lost the lawsuit > but in our case even the settlement i dont think will arise. Better do what we are doing , lets find success in what we are doing right now and spend that money in support of letter campaign . Lets evaluate the results once we are done through this process. Please be noted , that when AILA wanted to Sue to USCIS there has been lot of discussion on who could come out of shadows also since money was given out by AILA some ppl came forward i bet if its a million dollar ppl wont reach that mark.
And look at repurcussions before doing that , as ppl have already mentioned no GOVT sources will talk to us . Remember the way ppl could file EAD's was not due to AILA threatening. I dont see a basis for the case first of all , Just it caused mental tension ppl due to laziness of agency you can sue USCIS ? Then every person ever dealt with USCIS should sue them right ? COme on guys. Some ppl might jump on me but think of these issues Just saying i am up for 100$ or 200$ is not sufficient enough for Law Suit.
I am not saying whether we should or shouldnt do Lawsuit but we need to have options carefully evaluated , all funds ready assuming its gonna go for 2 years and we have ppl whom we can bank on for those 2 years and we should stil continue IV what we are doing and IV shouldnt file this lawsuit.
How much do we really care about the govt. sources when our dates there is a wait of 7 years .. . the dates are in 2001 for heaven's sake.
I feel like a battered housewife who does not want to step up to her husband 's abuse hoping that one day he would come home and not not beat her up, just come home, ignore her and go to bed and let her be.
Waiting for 3 yr EAD reforms is like begging for peanuts. we outta swing for the fences. If we outta beg.. lets aim higher... RECAPTURE.
Going into Lawsuit will not do a penny for our
fate. I heard the same that Khanna lost the lawsuit > but in our case even the settlement i dont think will arise. Better do what we are doing , lets find success in what we are doing right now and spend that money in support of letter campaign . Lets evaluate the results once we are done through this process. Please be noted , that when AILA wanted to Sue to USCIS there has been lot of discussion on who could come out of shadows also since money was given out by AILA some ppl came forward i bet if its a million dollar ppl wont reach that mark.
And look at repurcussions before doing that , as ppl have already mentioned no GOVT sources will talk to us . Remember the way ppl could file EAD's was not due to AILA threatening. I dont see a basis for the case first of all , Just it caused mental tension ppl due to laziness of agency you can sue USCIS ? Then every person ever dealt with USCIS should sue them right ? COme on guys. Some ppl might jump on me but think of these issues Just saying i am up for 100$ or 200$ is not sufficient enough for Law Suit.
I am not saying whether we should or shouldnt do Lawsuit but we need to have options carefully evaluated , all funds ready assuming its gonna go for 2 years and we have ppl whom we can bank on for those 2 years and we should stil continue IV what we are doing and IV shouldnt file this lawsuit.
shiankuraaf
07-14 09:39 PM
My dependents are out of US for almost 5 months for now and they have AP approved before they left US and they are planning to come to US in couple of weeks from now on AP. Our PD is going to be current in Aug08. Is this OK to be out of US for this much time when AOS is pending? Staying out of US for this long would effect their AOS processing in any way?
angelfire76
05-29 09:24 PM
still ppl feel pulling others lag would get them GC - this commnity can never be united!:confused:
You are not getting the point. We are not pulling others down, they are pushing us down.
It's not a subtle difference.
You are not getting the point. We are not pulling others down, they are pushing us down.
It's not a subtle difference.
No comments:
Post a Comment