arunmohan
02-04 02:12 PM
For people who don't know, Country Cap goes by Country of Birth , not country of citizenship...So if you are born in India but now you are canadian Citizen, you will still be counted as Indian for EB based Green Card allocation, isn't this a blatent racist agenda. I have a letter from Congresswoman Zoe Logfren's office, which clearly says 'I will work on removing arbitrary country quota on employement based Green Cards', we just need to pursue her...
I sent you a PM.
I sent you a PM.
wallpaper quotes on change. best
mirage
02-03 01:21 PM
Do you only do what IV support ? Did I say anywhere I want IV o endorse it ? Didn't we have these discussions over and over before? and the admins telling us to stop because IV goals are set and will not change?
If you just want to argue and waste time, lookup previous threads discussing this and you'll have enough reading material for weeks to come.
If you just want to argue and waste time, lookup previous threads discussing this and you'll have enough reading material for weeks to come.
waitin_toolong
10-03 01:52 PM
that is the only ption to continue L status..but remember u can not use h1b ..and u have to apply again for h1b in next year quota....
wrong there, once counted against cap she is exempt for 6 years. she can use this approval if working for same employe get it stamped and enter on H1 any time. Or apply for COS with any other employer sponsoring H1.
To answer the original questions only two options.
1) depart and reeneter using L1
2) apply for COS (but a long process)
wrong there, once counted against cap she is exempt for 6 years. she can use this approval if working for same employe get it stamped and enter on H1 any time. Or apply for COS with any other employer sponsoring H1.
To answer the original questions only two options.
1) depart and reeneter using L1
2) apply for COS (but a long process)
2011 famous quotes on change.
Sakthisagar
06-11 10:39 AM
no need to worry about this proposal, as some one said this is a proposal like thousands of bills gone inside the whirl wind of politics in Senate and Congress, but as a precaution, IV warned everyone to sign this and send it to senators so they are extra aware of this situation. discussing on this is a waste of time. because this not even a burning issue and no one can pass and amendment without making aware of all the Senators.
Grassley is always against H1B and the latest Jan 8th memo is because of his push. but this proposal of his will not work out. and H1B memo is currently sued in the court.
Folks, Please do not get extra alarmed ont his stupid proposal.
Grassley is always against H1B and the latest Jan 8th memo is because of his push. but this proposal of his will not work out. and H1B memo is currently sued in the court.
Folks, Please do not get extra alarmed ont his stupid proposal.
more...
angelfire76
02-13 09:28 PM
Dude you pay taxes for all the facilities that you are enjoying in this country.... nothing is free here.
We are not eligible for unemployment, Medicare, Social security benefits, in-state tuition (have to verify this), Federal student aid and many more available to GC holders and US Citizens. As far as infrastructure is concerned, it's minimal at best with little to no public transport in most cities (unlike Europe). As IRS doesn't distinguish between citizens and non-citizens we pay the same amount of taxes, but see very little benefit from them.
Can you update your profile or are you one of those FB guys who troll here to give us crap? :rolleyes:
We are not eligible for unemployment, Medicare, Social security benefits, in-state tuition (have to verify this), Federal student aid and many more available to GC holders and US Citizens. As far as infrastructure is concerned, it's minimal at best with little to no public transport in most cities (unlike Europe). As IRS doesn't distinguish between citizens and non-citizens we pay the same amount of taxes, but see very little benefit from them.
Can you update your profile or are you one of those FB guys who troll here to give us crap? :rolleyes:
addsf345
12-10 03:31 PM
With all the porting nonsense going on eb2 will move backward and eb3 will inch forward slowly. We might end up with eb2 and eb3 in 2002. congrats to all the people who ported, the only thing you accomplished is you made sure eb2 does not progress (it does not mean you have have moved forward by porting, it just means that you have made sure you have prevented original eb2 guys from getting green card), the people who ported wont gain any benefit but they will make it worse for everyone, they have to file a second i140 which will take at least another 1 year to clear and after 1 year when the ported 140's clear the eb2 will go back to 2002. You have also accomplished another great feat, DOL is going to make it impossible to file eb2 in IT jobs so even genuine people are screwed. Before people start giving red dots and justifying there porting I have an message for you, your behavior is no different from the people who did labor substitution, the end result was DOL ended labor substitution and the result of all this porting is DOL has made it impossible to get eb2 even for genuine cases. Just because others are doing it does not mean you can do it, obviously it is wrong therefore dol removed labor substitution and now dol is making it impossible to get eb2 for IT jobs even for genuine cases. 90 % of people doing this porting are desi consulting employees, they wine and complain about desi consulting companies as blood suckers (justifiably) but they themselves are bloodsuckers on the EB2 community by doing this eb3 to eb2 porting.
stop crying, our real problem is unfair country quota & retrogression. Help IV fight for our common goals.
I can't help but think about this story after reading your post.
A fox, upon failing to find a way to reach grapes hanging high up on a vine, retreated and said: "The grapes are sour anyway!" The moral is stated as "It is easy to despise what you cannot get". ;)
stop crying, our real problem is unfair country quota & retrogression. Help IV fight for our common goals.
I can't help but think about this story after reading your post.
A fox, upon failing to find a way to reach grapes hanging high up on a vine, retreated and said: "The grapes are sour anyway!" The moral is stated as "It is easy to despise what you cannot get". ;)
more...
desi3933
07-09 04:42 PM
Certainty is related to belief not reality. It still means the name check was not completed. The law does not say they "when you are certain that the FBI name check can be cleared..please allot a visa."
Would you mind quoting the actual law then?
Does every I-485 need FBI approval or just background check? How do you know that it needs FBI Name Check for all cases. Quote the law please.
Would you mind quoting the actual law then?
Does every I-485 need FBI approval or just background check? How do you know that it needs FBI Name Check for all cases. Quote the law please.
2010 barack obama quotes on change.
rck4evr
09-10 02:03 PM
I found another link. Not sure if its the right one ?
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN_wm.aspx
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN_wm.aspx
more...
greyhair
02-08 06:01 PM
Frankly I think that this lawyer is just posting provocative material to make himself popular. He has made many predictions and number of "useful" analysis in the past, most of which were found to be untrue. I used to read his posts until recently I figured out that the analysis was unreliable. This is just my opinion.
hair quotes about change in
battineni
07-13 11:05 AM
Thanks for the information. I believe I have to wait for another month to get any updates from the Sep visa bulletin or wait till same time next year since my PD is Mar-06.
Congrats to all to have received it and good luck to those who have become current !
TooClose,
Don't worry you will get it soon....!!
I'm waiting for these dates from long longgggggg time....:-((
Congrats to all to have received it and good luck to those who have become current !
TooClose,
Don't worry you will get it soon....!!
I'm waiting for these dates from long longgggggg time....:-((
more...
ramus
07-03 06:25 AM
Lets contribute... We have big day ahead of us..
hot quotes about change. quotes
trueguy
08-27 12:44 PM
As per this link and comments by the Director of USCIS-
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21175
Though we still have challenges to overcome, USCIS is currently showing improvements as a result of process improvements. As of April 25, 2008, USCIS had adjudicated over 65 percent of its FY 2008 target for employment-based visas. With five months to go in FY 2008, this is a strong start. We plan to continue implementing process improvements and new reporting mechanisms for managing these important applications.
I485 Receipt I485 Pending I485-processed FB I-485 EB I-485
Oct-07 237915 842231 50548 42500 8048
Nov-07 51773 845691 48313 42500 5813
Dec-07 35020 833141 47570 42500 5070
Jan-08 35771 813238 55674 42500 13174
Feb-08 38210 787516 63932 42500 21432
Mar-08 43548 762938 68126 42500 25626
Apr-08 50951 742597 71292 42500 28792
May-08 45357 739934 48020 42500 5520
* Data from USCIS months processing report
** Oct 07 Receipt number changed from 137915 to 237915 (just looked incorrect)
** FB is flat (730k-220k CP / 12 months)
We have 113475 EB I-485 processed until May 08 (in 8 months), if we take 80% acceptance rate the number of visa used will be 90780 and if we use 90% acceptance rate USCIS may have used 102127 visas.
June processing numbers are available
I485 Receipt I485 Pending I485-processed FB I-485 EB I-485
June-08 46024 740969 44989 42500 2489
It seems that in FY-2008-Total number of Employment Visas approved were-
Till April 2008=>8048 (Oct'07) + 5813(Nov'07) + 5070(Dec'07) +13174(Jan'08) + 21432(Feb'08) + 25626(Mar'08) + 28792(Apr'08) + 5520(May'08) + 2489(Jun'08) = 115964 (till Jun'08) out of 162704 for 2008.
Also, till April 2008, they had used=> 107955 which is 66% of 162,794.
So, the above comment by the Director of USCIS that till April 08, they had used 65% of the Fiscal 2008 quota is correct.
My guess in July and August is that they have used around 11000.
So liberally there are still 35000 unused visas for Sept. 08 and conservatively around 22000 for Sept. 08.
Do you have this statistics for Jul'2007, Aug'2007,Sep'2007. It will be interesting to know how many I-485 they recieved during Jul'2007 fiasco.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21175
Though we still have challenges to overcome, USCIS is currently showing improvements as a result of process improvements. As of April 25, 2008, USCIS had adjudicated over 65 percent of its FY 2008 target for employment-based visas. With five months to go in FY 2008, this is a strong start. We plan to continue implementing process improvements and new reporting mechanisms for managing these important applications.
I485 Receipt I485 Pending I485-processed FB I-485 EB I-485
Oct-07 237915 842231 50548 42500 8048
Nov-07 51773 845691 48313 42500 5813
Dec-07 35020 833141 47570 42500 5070
Jan-08 35771 813238 55674 42500 13174
Feb-08 38210 787516 63932 42500 21432
Mar-08 43548 762938 68126 42500 25626
Apr-08 50951 742597 71292 42500 28792
May-08 45357 739934 48020 42500 5520
* Data from USCIS months processing report
** Oct 07 Receipt number changed from 137915 to 237915 (just looked incorrect)
** FB is flat (730k-220k CP / 12 months)
We have 113475 EB I-485 processed until May 08 (in 8 months), if we take 80% acceptance rate the number of visa used will be 90780 and if we use 90% acceptance rate USCIS may have used 102127 visas.
June processing numbers are available
I485 Receipt I485 Pending I485-processed FB I-485 EB I-485
June-08 46024 740969 44989 42500 2489
It seems that in FY-2008-Total number of Employment Visas approved were-
Till April 2008=>8048 (Oct'07) + 5813(Nov'07) + 5070(Dec'07) +13174(Jan'08) + 21432(Feb'08) + 25626(Mar'08) + 28792(Apr'08) + 5520(May'08) + 2489(Jun'08) = 115964 (till Jun'08) out of 162704 for 2008.
Also, till April 2008, they had used=> 107955 which is 66% of 162,794.
So, the above comment by the Director of USCIS that till April 08, they had used 65% of the Fiscal 2008 quota is correct.
My guess in July and August is that they have used around 11000.
So liberally there are still 35000 unused visas for Sept. 08 and conservatively around 22000 for Sept. 08.
Do you have this statistics for Jul'2007, Aug'2007,Sep'2007. It will be interesting to know how many I-485 they recieved during Jul'2007 fiasco.
more...
house dresses quotes about change in
paskal
07-03 09:13 PM
If this is true, then everyone who thinks this is unfair must write letters to USCIS, Ombudsman, WH etc
USCIS does not read our forums and will not take action from a forum post.
If you see something wrong, and you feel strongly about it, Do not let it happen.
In hindsight I think we should have done it for labor substitution too.
nixstor, you right of course. i was not comparing it to labor sub, just pointing out that there are a myriad of loopholes. the EB1C is hardly meant for employees already here- sending them out and bringing them back is legal- yet its very much a loophole being exploited. in many cases - again just my anecdotal observation, the position is not just a fake manager- yet the position is not the real "concept" of a multinational manager either. i have seen attorneys in big corporate firms getting EB1c by this method.
i do believe though that over time USCIS has become aware of this activity. A little skimming of EB1c posts on reveals a great deal of new scrutiny for the EB1c 1-140 petitions. The same is true when an entirely new employee is being brought in. they are asking a lot of questions on company structures, hierarchy and individual roles and responsibilities....
USCIS does not read our forums and will not take action from a forum post.
If you see something wrong, and you feel strongly about it, Do not let it happen.
In hindsight I think we should have done it for labor substitution too.
nixstor, you right of course. i was not comparing it to labor sub, just pointing out that there are a myriad of loopholes. the EB1C is hardly meant for employees already here- sending them out and bringing them back is legal- yet its very much a loophole being exploited. in many cases - again just my anecdotal observation, the position is not just a fake manager- yet the position is not the real "concept" of a multinational manager either. i have seen attorneys in big corporate firms getting EB1c by this method.
i do believe though that over time USCIS has become aware of this activity. A little skimming of EB1c posts on reveals a great deal of new scrutiny for the EB1c 1-140 petitions. The same is true when an entirely new employee is being brought in. they are asking a lot of questions on company structures, hierarchy and individual roles and responsibilities....
tattoo tattoo quotes on change for
eb2_mumbai
02-09 01:31 PM
Why am I not suprised with this news?
I think it is self evident that even though there is some spill over I think large number of visa's are getting wasted. Else last year we should have seen better movement than just wrapping up 2004. In 2008 there were so many people with 2005 & 2006 PD who were approved. I think it was either inefficiency on part of USCIS or a go slow directive from the administation that has caused visa wastage.
I think it is self evident that even though there is some spill over I think large number of visa's are getting wasted. Else last year we should have seen better movement than just wrapping up 2004. In 2008 there were so many people with 2005 & 2006 PD who were approved. I think it was either inefficiency on part of USCIS or a go slow directive from the administation that has caused visa wastage.
more...
pictures quotes on change
lazycis
12-21 10:03 PM
lazycis,
According to 245(k), does it mean that "unauthorized stay" (or stay with expired I-94) of more than 1 year is wiped out if a nonimmigrant went out of the country, entered back with a new I-94 and maintained legal status ever since? He/she should not have any problems in adjusting status with 485?
I like your insight into immigration policies and the way you express them.
Thanks.
8 USC 1182(a)(9)(B) Aliens unlawfully present
(ii) Construction of unlawful presence For purposes of this paragraph, an alien is deemed to be unlawfully present in the United States if the alien is present in the United States after the expiration of the period of stay authorized by the Attorney General or is present in the United States without being admitted or paroled.
Unlawful presence is different from out of status.
The period for unlawful presence begins on:
1) The expiration date* of the visa "status" document (I-94 Arrival/Departure Card), or
2) status violation, determined by an immigration judge, or
3) status violation, determined by the USCIS during the course of adjudicating a benefit application.
245(k) allows up to 180 days of "out of status".
If a person overstays (expired I-94) more than one year, leaves and re-enters within 10 years, it will be a problem for I-485 (if the USCIS finds about it, of course). More likely it will result in removal proceedings and permanent bar to reentry to the US. The only exception is if that person has an immediate relative who is a US citizen (see 8 USC 1255(i)).
So the moral of the story is to never leave the US until you get a green card if you accumulated more than 180 days of unlawful presence.
However if a person left and was allowed to re-enter, there is a chance that a person did not accumulated unlawful presence to trigger re-entry ban. Refer to this CIS memo for details regarding "period of authorized stay".
http://www.mnllp.com/GOVbcisnOOSunlawful0403.pdf
According to 245(k), does it mean that "unauthorized stay" (or stay with expired I-94) of more than 1 year is wiped out if a nonimmigrant went out of the country, entered back with a new I-94 and maintained legal status ever since? He/she should not have any problems in adjusting status with 485?
I like your insight into immigration policies and the way you express them.
Thanks.
8 USC 1182(a)(9)(B) Aliens unlawfully present
(ii) Construction of unlawful presence For purposes of this paragraph, an alien is deemed to be unlawfully present in the United States if the alien is present in the United States after the expiration of the period of stay authorized by the Attorney General or is present in the United States without being admitted or paroled.
Unlawful presence is different from out of status.
The period for unlawful presence begins on:
1) The expiration date* of the visa "status" document (I-94 Arrival/Departure Card), or
2) status violation, determined by an immigration judge, or
3) status violation, determined by the USCIS during the course of adjudicating a benefit application.
245(k) allows up to 180 days of "out of status".
If a person overstays (expired I-94) more than one year, leaves and re-enters within 10 years, it will be a problem for I-485 (if the USCIS finds about it, of course). More likely it will result in removal proceedings and permanent bar to reentry to the US. The only exception is if that person has an immediate relative who is a US citizen (see 8 USC 1255(i)).
So the moral of the story is to never leave the US until you get a green card if you accumulated more than 180 days of unlawful presence.
However if a person left and was allowed to re-enter, there is a chance that a person did not accumulated unlawful presence to trigger re-entry ban. Refer to this CIS memo for details regarding "period of authorized stay".
http://www.mnllp.com/GOVbcisnOOSunlawful0403.pdf
dresses quotes about change in life.
Hassan11
03-18 01:00 PM
Link is here: http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4285&page=26
Ron Gotcher said on his reply to some readers questions:
The mystery is solved. I have corresponded with Charlie Oppenheim in the Visa Office. He confirmed that the 27% limit does apply. He explained that during this fiscal year, the CIS consumed an unusually large number of Indian EB2 visas, thus making the category unavailable despite a retrogression in the cuoff date which was intended to hold number use within the limit.
He said that based on his discussions with the CIS, he was informed that the CIS did not feel that the current amount of pending Indian first preference demand would be insufficient to use all available numbers under the limit. Therefore, he allowed some of those numbers to fall down into Indian second preference.
So, the Indian second preference numbers used to establish a cutoff date for April are coming from left over Indian first preference, not worldwide numbers.
__________________
Ron Gotcher said on his reply to some readers questions:
The mystery is solved. I have corresponded with Charlie Oppenheim in the Visa Office. He confirmed that the 27% limit does apply. He explained that during this fiscal year, the CIS consumed an unusually large number of Indian EB2 visas, thus making the category unavailable despite a retrogression in the cuoff date which was intended to hold number use within the limit.
He said that based on his discussions with the CIS, he was informed that the CIS did not feel that the current amount of pending Indian first preference demand would be insufficient to use all available numbers under the limit. Therefore, he allowed some of those numbers to fall down into Indian second preference.
So, the Indian second preference numbers used to establish a cutoff date for April are coming from left over Indian first preference, not worldwide numbers.
__________________
more...
makeup Change Quotes; Change Quotes
rajmehrotra
09-11 10:56 AM
http://www.asianjournal.com/?c=201&a=29863
"In a move to fix America�s broken immigration system, the House Subcommittee on Immigration approved H.R. 5882, a bipartisan legislation introduced by Representatives Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and James Sensenbrenner (R-WI)."
"In a move to fix America�s broken immigration system, the House Subcommittee on Immigration approved H.R. 5882, a bipartisan legislation introduced by Representatives Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and James Sensenbrenner (R-WI)."
girlfriend inspirational quotes on change
Abhinaym
08-11 10:13 AM
It's out now EB2 I and C are 08JAN05.
Visa Bulletin September 2009 (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4558.html)
Visa Bulletin September 2009 (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4558.html)
hairstyles quotes.php?qChange+Quotes
msp1976
12-21 09:28 AM
Please take time to write to the New Jersey Senators this holiday season to encourage them to take up the immigration legislation
Lautenberg, Frank R.- (D - NJ) Class II
324 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3224
Web Form: http://lautenberg.senate.gov/contact/
Menendez, Robert- (D - NJ) Class I
502 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4744
Web Form: http://menendez.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm
Lautenberg, Frank R.- (D - NJ) Class II
324 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3224
Web Form: http://lautenberg.senate.gov/contact/
Menendez, Robert- (D - NJ) Class I
502 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4744
Web Form: http://menendez.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm
kondur_007
04-10 03:44 PM
Thanks Kondur. That was a very good presentation of the numbers. I very much appreciate it.
Now,
1. Why did EB1 last year needed spillover visas, although it was current all the time? If a category is current, isn't that it has less demand than allocated numbers?
2. As per May bulletin, EB4 might need a cut off. So we cannot expect any spillover from EB4. So that is clear. Now the spillover chances are from EB5, EB2 ROW and EB1(?). I am including EB1 because, given the current economy over the past year, should there be a better possibility of more spillover from EB2 ROW and EB1 compared to last year?
3. Also why are the total EB numbers different in different fiscal years (e.g., 141020 in FY2009, 162949 in FY 2008 and 154497 in FY2007)? In FYs 2007 and 2008 did the extra visas come from Family based while it did not for FY 2009? If so, why is it so?
4. Based on Pending 485 data of March 2010, I barely see few hundred EB4s. And hardly considerable number of EB1s. What's going on? If we go by this data, we should be getting good chunk of spillover numbers...
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Green%20Card/Green%20Card%20Through%20a%20Job/Employment%20Based%20I-485%20Pending%20Inventory-Total%203-8-2010.pdf
Thanks,
Here is what I think; possible answers/comments. I am not an expert but am thinking following:
1. Any category being "current" is based on "DOS's guesstimate" based on demand numbers they receive and so it is never "perfect". So yes, you are true that technically EB1 should be retrogressed "slightly", but considering the small number of spillover (now called fall down numbers) it used, it may not have been able to be predicted prior to the end of fiscal year.
2. That is the biggest hope and assumption that there will be more fall down from EB5 and EB1 due to "economy". Caveat is, more and more people are trying to switch to "current" categories and so actual usage may not be commensurate with "economy". We have never been given any "usage data". So everything is a pure guess on this front. Looking at data, I honestly do not see any difference in number of EB1 cases from 2008-2009-2010.
3. Yes, it is due to "spillover" from Family based category. (This is where DOS is using the word "spillover" and any visa number that go from one EB to another EB category, they all it "fall across" and "fall down"). These numbers used to be higher before and now lower as they are more efficient in using as many numbers as possible for a particular category.
4. Pending 485 data is extremely deceptive for "current" categories. Look at the approval timeframe of EB2 ROW or EB1 cases; majority of them are approved before ever counted as "pending". Remember. "pending cases" DO NOT reflect "usage".
The main thing missing in all these is the "USAGE", this should be a very easy information that can be made available by DOS, but they have not. If I had one "wish" to get one piece of info; would be this: "number of visa used in each category every month and YTD". Without that info, no prediction of spillover/fall down-across is ever possible.
Now,
1. Why did EB1 last year needed spillover visas, although it was current all the time? If a category is current, isn't that it has less demand than allocated numbers?
2. As per May bulletin, EB4 might need a cut off. So we cannot expect any spillover from EB4. So that is clear. Now the spillover chances are from EB5, EB2 ROW and EB1(?). I am including EB1 because, given the current economy over the past year, should there be a better possibility of more spillover from EB2 ROW and EB1 compared to last year?
3. Also why are the total EB numbers different in different fiscal years (e.g., 141020 in FY2009, 162949 in FY 2008 and 154497 in FY2007)? In FYs 2007 and 2008 did the extra visas come from Family based while it did not for FY 2009? If so, why is it so?
4. Based on Pending 485 data of March 2010, I barely see few hundred EB4s. And hardly considerable number of EB1s. What's going on? If we go by this data, we should be getting good chunk of spillover numbers...
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Green%20Card/Green%20Card%20Through%20a%20Job/Employment%20Based%20I-485%20Pending%20Inventory-Total%203-8-2010.pdf
Thanks,
Here is what I think; possible answers/comments. I am not an expert but am thinking following:
1. Any category being "current" is based on "DOS's guesstimate" based on demand numbers they receive and so it is never "perfect". So yes, you are true that technically EB1 should be retrogressed "slightly", but considering the small number of spillover (now called fall down numbers) it used, it may not have been able to be predicted prior to the end of fiscal year.
2. That is the biggest hope and assumption that there will be more fall down from EB5 and EB1 due to "economy". Caveat is, more and more people are trying to switch to "current" categories and so actual usage may not be commensurate with "economy". We have never been given any "usage data". So everything is a pure guess on this front. Looking at data, I honestly do not see any difference in number of EB1 cases from 2008-2009-2010.
3. Yes, it is due to "spillover" from Family based category. (This is where DOS is using the word "spillover" and any visa number that go from one EB to another EB category, they all it "fall across" and "fall down"). These numbers used to be higher before and now lower as they are more efficient in using as many numbers as possible for a particular category.
4. Pending 485 data is extremely deceptive for "current" categories. Look at the approval timeframe of EB2 ROW or EB1 cases; majority of them are approved before ever counted as "pending". Remember. "pending cases" DO NOT reflect "usage".
The main thing missing in all these is the "USAGE", this should be a very easy information that can be made available by DOS, but they have not. If I had one "wish" to get one piece of info; would be this: "number of visa used in each category every month and YTD". Without that info, no prediction of spillover/fall down-across is ever possible.
same_old_guy
07-09 04:38 PM
newbee7 is right.
Either the security clearance/FBI name check was COMPLETE or NOT. There is nothing as "would-be-done-shortly-for-sure" !
Bottom-line, if it can be proved in a court of law that USCIS approved cases without security clearance, there is a solid ground for the suit. It's against the law and it undermines the national security concerns.
Second, USCIS working in bad faith when they rushed to allocate all the quota just to avoid new I-485 applications. It clearly has "intentional" written all over it.
Third, I saw somewhere an excerpt from INA law that there is a limit on how many visa number can be allocated in a month. As per that clause, USCIS broke the law.
Fourth, there is a solid ground to sue USCIS for the expense to say the least. People has to pay a whole lot of things including lawyer, medical, photo etc. Time and effort spent on that is no less.
Either the security clearance/FBI name check was COMPLETE or NOT. There is nothing as "would-be-done-shortly-for-sure" !
Bottom-line, if it can be proved in a court of law that USCIS approved cases without security clearance, there is a solid ground for the suit. It's against the law and it undermines the national security concerns.
Second, USCIS working in bad faith when they rushed to allocate all the quota just to avoid new I-485 applications. It clearly has "intentional" written all over it.
Third, I saw somewhere an excerpt from INA law that there is a limit on how many visa number can be allocated in a month. As per that clause, USCIS broke the law.
Fourth, there is a solid ground to sue USCIS for the expense to say the least. People has to pay a whole lot of things including lawyer, medical, photo etc. Time and effort spent on that is no less.