jonty_11
07-09 06:36 PM
I came across this law about the departmental control of numerical limitations, and I'd appreciate it if you all could post your interpretations of the same.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
text in bold has a GREY area....'plus remaining balance from previous months.'
They can always say the additional approvals were left over from previous months...
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
text in bold has a GREY area....'plus remaining balance from previous months.'
They can always say the additional approvals were left over from previous months...
wallpaper Ejercicios para la columna
slowwin
07-23 07:56 AM
now that the Small Business lending program has passed the 60 vote threshold, they would be putting Amndt. to it for vote. any idea, when sanders Amndt. will be vote on ?:mad:
rakesh_one
03-07 11:47 AM
Guys....like everyone else I have been doing exhaustive research on this subject for last month or so.....I have resigned this week from my job and have decided to use AC21...... following are answers to some of your questions...
New Employer support - There is no need for the new employer to support the GC process.....After you file 485, the process is yours as an individual and not of any employer....All you are saying is that my I-140 was once approved with some employer and USCIS took forever (read more than 180 days) to give me my green card......so as long as your job is in the same profession (read occupational classification) you are okay....so NO, the new employer does not need to support the process....all they have to say in the employement verification letter is that we intend to hire this person on permenant basis after getting his Green Card...... Please read Yates Memo of 2005 and it will tell you all there is to know about AC21.....
Lawyer Support and Expenses------- I can imagine lawyers trying to make whatever case for asking whatever ammount of money for AC21 as that is a new business area for them?----- I do not think you need a lawyer for this.....there are plenty of letters on the net that show the template....also, if you are sure your employer is not going to revoke the I-140 then you are not even required to send the letter untill if and when USCIS asks for employement verification letter.....
As per charges from RK and Murthy...
Rajiv Khanna - $3000 for primary +$1000 per dependent
Murthy - $2000....
I have done some exhaustive research on this AC21 crap and have decided to change the employment......
You are wrong. New Employer has to support GC.
Since GC is for future employment, there should be an employer willing to hire you on the day 1 you got your GC. AC 21 helps you to transfer the burdon from one employer to other. In most cases, by providing an employement letter for a permanent job in the same or similar job, it is kind of implied that the new employer has assumed that burdon without themselves knowing it. It would help your case, if the new employer explicitly say that they acknowledge your pending 485 and would assure USCIS that they have a job up on approval 485.
New Employer support - There is no need for the new employer to support the GC process.....After you file 485, the process is yours as an individual and not of any employer....All you are saying is that my I-140 was once approved with some employer and USCIS took forever (read more than 180 days) to give me my green card......so as long as your job is in the same profession (read occupational classification) you are okay....so NO, the new employer does not need to support the process....all they have to say in the employement verification letter is that we intend to hire this person on permenant basis after getting his Green Card...... Please read Yates Memo of 2005 and it will tell you all there is to know about AC21.....
Lawyer Support and Expenses------- I can imagine lawyers trying to make whatever case for asking whatever ammount of money for AC21 as that is a new business area for them?----- I do not think you need a lawyer for this.....there are plenty of letters on the net that show the template....also, if you are sure your employer is not going to revoke the I-140 then you are not even required to send the letter untill if and when USCIS asks for employement verification letter.....
As per charges from RK and Murthy...
Rajiv Khanna - $3000 for primary +$1000 per dependent
Murthy - $2000....
I have done some exhaustive research on this AC21 crap and have decided to change the employment......
You are wrong. New Employer has to support GC.
Since GC is for future employment, there should be an employer willing to hire you on the day 1 you got your GC. AC 21 helps you to transfer the burdon from one employer to other. In most cases, by providing an employement letter for a permanent job in the same or similar job, it is kind of implied that the new employer has assumed that burdon without themselves knowing it. It would help your case, if the new employer explicitly say that they acknowledge your pending 485 and would assure USCIS that they have a job up on approval 485.
2011 Ejercicios de Espalda
grinch
02-16 09:34 PM
I tend to sterr away from nurbs and use polygons exclusively...most 3d packages now (max, maya, xsi, lightwave, etc.) have really improved upon polygonal modeling, having added features such as subdivision surfaces (or sub'd's). This is great for any type of model, whether it be architectural or organic. Some people argue that Sub D's have rendered nurbs obsolete (no pun intended). I personally use XSI, but this is a new standard modeling method that can be applied to almost any program. Google the term, and see if there are any good tuts out there for your program.
In a nutshell, Sub D's allow you to work on a low density object, while in real-time, a virtual high resolution copy of that object is updated. The beauty of this lies in the ability to create organic nurbslike objects) with very little work, with even more accurate results than what can be achieved with nurbs. On the flipside, almost all architectural/structural modeling should be built with polys in the first place. I hope that helps, and if you need any more pointers about Sub D's, let me know.
Ah I understand. I mean, I try using polugons for more basic modeling, but you see, my father is product designer, (uses alias studio 9x) and uses only NURBS. So when he actually has time, he'll expplain nurbs and whatnot...
But I understand, and more tips would be Oh so great!
In a nutshell, Sub D's allow you to work on a low density object, while in real-time, a virtual high resolution copy of that object is updated. The beauty of this lies in the ability to create organic nurbslike objects) with very little work, with even more accurate results than what can be achieved with nurbs. On the flipside, almost all architectural/structural modeling should be built with polys in the first place. I hope that helps, and if you need any more pointers about Sub D's, let me know.
Ah I understand. I mean, I try using polugons for more basic modeling, but you see, my father is product designer, (uses alias studio 9x) and uses only NURBS. So when he actually has time, he'll expplain nurbs and whatnot...
But I understand, and more tips would be Oh so great!
more...
DDD
03-11 12:04 AM
pretty cool grinch....gotta work on your lighting a bit...:beam:.
smuggymba
06-11 08:57 AM
sent to TX senators.
more...
anjs
10-25 11:36 AM
My PD is Febraury 2004
anjs
anjs
2010 Ejercicios para dolor en la
sriramkalyan
06-10 12:48 PM
May be we should do some thing dramatic. Like sending letter to Canadian Government, here we are 1000 skilled people with extensive experience and International degrees. Collectively we going to bring in $1 million or more. Can you expedite our Permanent residency!!
All US senators know that EB immigrants are going through Hell hole of USCIS. They are unable to do anything about it.
All US senators know that EB immigrants are going through Hell hole of USCIS. They are unable to do anything about it.
more...
srkamath
07-20 01:26 PM
Here you go - conversion should not impact this as the number of LC approvals remains the same:
Here are all the LC approvals for India in the last seven years.
Year, Total LC Approved, Total India
2007 85112 24573
2006 79782 22298
2005 6133 1350
2004 43582 No Info
2003 62912 No Info
2002 79784 No Info
2001 77921 No Info
2000 70204 No Info
Lets assume about 25% of pre-PERM LCs are India based on post-PERM data. Thus for fiscal 2004 (Oct 2003 thru Sep 2004) the total LC number is 43,852. Assume 25% of that to be India based on PERM data. That gives about 11,000 India LCs in 2004 alone (All EB categories combined). If you assume an average of 2.5 dependents then the number of visas required for all India EB categories for 2004 is 27,500 (11,000*2.5). The regular quota for EB2 and EB3 combined is only about 9,800. That means 17,700 visas have to come from somewhere. I dont think those many visas are remaining for this year. Be prepared to see FIFO thrown under the bus and approvals with PDs that are all over the place. Please critique this analysis without piling on. Thoughts?
delax,
There is a mistake in your numbers, thousands of cases applied for in 2005 were approved in 2006.
If you look at the 2006 PERM Data Sheet, there are 7290 Approved, India cases with receipt dates in the year 2005.
I'm assuming PD = PERM Receipt Date (correct me if i'm wrong)
Similarly for 2006 in the 2007 tables.
Therefore there are ~ 8700 - EB1, EB2, EB3 cases in 2005 and not 1350.
Here are all the LC approvals for India in the last seven years.
Year, Total LC Approved, Total India
2007 85112 24573
2006 79782 22298
2005 6133 1350
2004 43582 No Info
2003 62912 No Info
2002 79784 No Info
2001 77921 No Info
2000 70204 No Info
Lets assume about 25% of pre-PERM LCs are India based on post-PERM data. Thus for fiscal 2004 (Oct 2003 thru Sep 2004) the total LC number is 43,852. Assume 25% of that to be India based on PERM data. That gives about 11,000 India LCs in 2004 alone (All EB categories combined). If you assume an average of 2.5 dependents then the number of visas required for all India EB categories for 2004 is 27,500 (11,000*2.5). The regular quota for EB2 and EB3 combined is only about 9,800. That means 17,700 visas have to come from somewhere. I dont think those many visas are remaining for this year. Be prepared to see FIFO thrown under the bus and approvals with PDs that are all over the place. Please critique this analysis without piling on. Thoughts?
delax,
There is a mistake in your numbers, thousands of cases applied for in 2005 were approved in 2006.
If you look at the 2006 PERM Data Sheet, there are 7290 Approved, India cases with receipt dates in the year 2005.
I'm assuming PD = PERM Receipt Date (correct me if i'm wrong)
Similarly for 2006 in the 2007 tables.
Therefore there are ~ 8700 - EB1, EB2, EB3 cases in 2005 and not 1350.
hair Ciertos ejercicios físicos o
sangmami
07-18 11:52 AM
called uscis to ask when july 2 filers are likely to get receipt notice.She said because of the load of apps expected it might take about 4 to 6 wks.I hope july 2 filers don t have to pay huge penalty for filing on the very ifirst eligible day:( (something to worry about till this journey ends i guess):(
more...
senthil1
04-04 03:20 PM
Your argument may be true only some extent. If you keep on asking more H1b and GC without meaningful reform of H1b then it won't sell in the congress and they will try to keep staus quo and you have to wait years to get gc. How do you resolve the problem of Cap reached within few days? Will congress accept unlimited H1bs? What is the solution for this?
Open your eyes and look clearly. This bill is designed to put an end to any competition for middle aged racist engineers afraid of competition from people who fit the profile of the membership of IV. Some members on the forum seem to think that this bill contain provisions to protect H-1b workers, but that is not true. This bill is designed to mean that current workers on H-1 are taking away American jobs as the protection proposed by the bill were not there when most of the forum members came on H1b. This bill was written by Ron Hira and IEEE. If nothing else then we need to understand that Ron Hira et al, are not in love with any of us. They represent middle aged racist engineers in US who are scared of competition and globalization. So please stop day dreaming and expecting that this bill would have anything to protect/benefit green card applicants. I understand/share the frustration with body-shoppers/consulting companies. Why whine about consulting companies and, work for them at the same time. If you are so good then why don't you switch jobs. Accenture, PWC, D&T, Bearing Point, Oracle consulting etc. also do consulting, what about them. Supporting this or any other bill from Sen. Grassley is suicidal. It�s acting like the 90% of ignorant Republican base, who earn less than 30K/yr and still support the party that oppose welfare reform and give tax breaks to the richest.
Taking out frustration on consulting companies doesn�t help us. If the green card process would work in the intended manner, none of us will be beholden to the employer. And there will be no room for frustration. Any employer would take advantage of such loopholes in the process where employee is beholden to the employer. But the thing is, employers or consulting companies did not create the currently broken green card process, neither did they create the backlog. The lawmakers, who did not attend to the immigration system for more than a decade, are responsible for the current system. And organizations like IEEE are responsible for opposing any meaningful reform on H1B/green card issues. Now they are using the situation to their advantage by tainting a pictures if we all the people in US, waiting for their green cards, should not have been in US if the system proposed by the bill was in place. And it is astonishing to see people calling to support a bill wihtout knowing its contents. So why blame our problems on consulting companies? You think IEEE drafted this bill for people who match the profile of IV members? This bill was has been drafted with the objective to secure the position of middle aged racist engineers, who do not want to upgrade their skills and who are scared of young minds ready to compete and learn new things.
Open your eyes and look clearly. This bill is designed to put an end to any competition for middle aged racist engineers afraid of competition from people who fit the profile of the membership of IV. Some members on the forum seem to think that this bill contain provisions to protect H-1b workers, but that is not true. This bill is designed to mean that current workers on H-1 are taking away American jobs as the protection proposed by the bill were not there when most of the forum members came on H1b. This bill was written by Ron Hira and IEEE. If nothing else then we need to understand that Ron Hira et al, are not in love with any of us. They represent middle aged racist engineers in US who are scared of competition and globalization. So please stop day dreaming and expecting that this bill would have anything to protect/benefit green card applicants. I understand/share the frustration with body-shoppers/consulting companies. Why whine about consulting companies and, work for them at the same time. If you are so good then why don't you switch jobs. Accenture, PWC, D&T, Bearing Point, Oracle consulting etc. also do consulting, what about them. Supporting this or any other bill from Sen. Grassley is suicidal. It�s acting like the 90% of ignorant Republican base, who earn less than 30K/yr and still support the party that oppose welfare reform and give tax breaks to the richest.
Taking out frustration on consulting companies doesn�t help us. If the green card process would work in the intended manner, none of us will be beholden to the employer. And there will be no room for frustration. Any employer would take advantage of such loopholes in the process where employee is beholden to the employer. But the thing is, employers or consulting companies did not create the currently broken green card process, neither did they create the backlog. The lawmakers, who did not attend to the immigration system for more than a decade, are responsible for the current system. And organizations like IEEE are responsible for opposing any meaningful reform on H1B/green card issues. Now they are using the situation to their advantage by tainting a pictures if we all the people in US, waiting for their green cards, should not have been in US if the system proposed by the bill was in place. And it is astonishing to see people calling to support a bill wihtout knowing its contents. So why blame our problems on consulting companies? You think IEEE drafted this bill for people who match the profile of IV members? This bill was has been drafted with the objective to secure the position of middle aged racist engineers, who do not want to upgrade their skills and who are scared of young minds ready to compete and learn new things.
hot y dolores de espalda
Pagal
07-02 01:45 AM
It will only take less then 1 minute of your time to click this link ImmigrationVoice.org - Advocacy -- OPPOSE the Sanders-Grassley-Harkin amendment S.AMDT.4319 in bill H.R.4213 which severely hurts Competitiveness, Innovation and creating jobs in America (http://immigrationvoice.capwiz.com/immigrationvoice/issues/alert/?alertid=15130466)
Hello,
Done...this is a neat tool! Makes advocacy fast and efficient!
Hello,
Done...this is a neat tool! Makes advocacy fast and efficient!
more...
house ejercicios para la espalda.
chanduv23
09-10 10:40 AM
The live updates are now available on IV chat.
Please logon to
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/misc.php?do=cchatbox
Please logon to
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/misc.php?do=cchatbox
tattoo Los ejercicios
gc_lover
07-24 01:46 PM
Can anyone confirm if the files are actually being transferred from Nebraska to Texas? Why is the compliance date for Texas 10/26 and for Nebraska it's 8/1.
Why would files be transferred from NSC to TSC. Didn't USCIS issue instructions to file everything at NSC. Life is getting more complicated each day.
Why would files be transferred from NSC to TSC. Didn't USCIS issue instructions to file everything at NSC. Life is getting more complicated each day.
more...
pictures Click para agrandar
srikondoji
12-27 09:13 AM
Hi all,
By the end of the day, i will post an article in two different websites. However, there is another idea, i want throw in here, which can bring much more publicity and coverage.
Did anybody hear the services of 'Press Release'? Iam sure few members here know about it.
Look here for more details http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=press+release
The cost will be in the range of $100 to $400 which includes article writeup and release of the news item to 100's of publishers and we can even choose the location/region where these publications can occur. It can include news papers and or web only releases. Most of such releases have got wide distribution including nytimes/washingtonpost, google news, yahoo news and other indian news papers.
Should we give this a try?
Thanks
By the end of the day, i will post an article in two different websites. However, there is another idea, i want throw in here, which can bring much more publicity and coverage.
Did anybody hear the services of 'Press Release'? Iam sure few members here know about it.
Look here for more details http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=press+release
The cost will be in the range of $100 to $400 which includes article writeup and release of the news item to 100's of publishers and we can even choose the location/region where these publications can occur. It can include news papers and or web only releases. Most of such releases have got wide distribution including nytimes/washingtonpost, google news, yahoo news and other indian news papers.
Should we give this a try?
Thanks
dresses El objetivo de este ejercicio
GCScrewed
07-04 11:06 AM
Paskal,
It is possible that EB1 C might become unavailable, because you might be looking at it more closer than I am. But I still find it hard to believe that an MNC will just create a phony Managerial position for every Joe Bloggs, an abuse similar to Labor substitution and satellite offices in states where labor processing was fast etc. Lets say an MNC really promoted some one to a position that qualifies for EB1, moves him out and moves him back, it is still by the book and can't be compared to labor sub, which were sold for money. Labor sub by itself is NO crime irrespective of what we think. The rampant abuse of it caused the demise. Same rule applies to some one who goes out and comes back as its all by the rules and no abuse is involved. In responding to the OP, My intention was to say that MNC's do not go to such an extent of creating a Managerial position that do not exist or have an employee do the same work in the name of managerial position. Some companies might have abused it in such way on few occasions, but thats definitely NOT a practice as rampant as Labor Sub's once was. If that were true and as easy as depicted, A lot of people & companies would have done it, by now. We don't need to teach the gamers. They are a step ahead in getting things done, if there is a way.
Given the severe backlog of EB2 and EB3, some people will find ways to outsmart the system so that they can get the greencards sooner. If those loopholes are not plugged now, it will make a mess just as Labor Sub once did.
I think we should pursue a goal that benefit everyone in the backlogs... not just a specific types, say I, C vs ROW; EB1 vs. EB2 vs. EB3; STEM vs. Non-STEM; Schedule A vs. Non-Schedule A; Healthcare vs. Non-Healthcare; IT vs. Non-IT. The only cause which will get everyone on the same page and therefore is worth pursuing is to recapture unused #s so that all people in the backlogs can go through the pipeline quickly. Of course, all the government agencies, esp. USCIS, must be held accountable for processing cases in a consistent and orderly way. This may be another goal IV should pursue. Just my opinion.
It is possible that EB1 C might become unavailable, because you might be looking at it more closer than I am. But I still find it hard to believe that an MNC will just create a phony Managerial position for every Joe Bloggs, an abuse similar to Labor substitution and satellite offices in states where labor processing was fast etc. Lets say an MNC really promoted some one to a position that qualifies for EB1, moves him out and moves him back, it is still by the book and can't be compared to labor sub, which were sold for money. Labor sub by itself is NO crime irrespective of what we think. The rampant abuse of it caused the demise. Same rule applies to some one who goes out and comes back as its all by the rules and no abuse is involved. In responding to the OP, My intention was to say that MNC's do not go to such an extent of creating a Managerial position that do not exist or have an employee do the same work in the name of managerial position. Some companies might have abused it in such way on few occasions, but thats definitely NOT a practice as rampant as Labor Sub's once was. If that were true and as easy as depicted, A lot of people & companies would have done it, by now. We don't need to teach the gamers. They are a step ahead in getting things done, if there is a way.
Given the severe backlog of EB2 and EB3, some people will find ways to outsmart the system so that they can get the greencards sooner. If those loopholes are not plugged now, it will make a mess just as Labor Sub once did.
I think we should pursue a goal that benefit everyone in the backlogs... not just a specific types, say I, C vs ROW; EB1 vs. EB2 vs. EB3; STEM vs. Non-STEM; Schedule A vs. Non-Schedule A; Healthcare vs. Non-Healthcare; IT vs. Non-IT. The only cause which will get everyone on the same page and therefore is worth pursuing is to recapture unused #s so that all people in the backlogs can go through the pipeline quickly. Of course, all the government agencies, esp. USCIS, must be held accountable for processing cases in a consistent and orderly way. This may be another goal IV should pursue. Just my opinion.
more...
makeup Para evitar lesiones
andycool
03-16 02:04 PM
141,020 visa numbers used in FY2009
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV.pdf
Look at the last page.
The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is 140,000. So the usage was actually more.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
Hello Desi,
"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:
1. 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).
2. 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.
This is from April Visa Bulletin , according to this S korea got 14,211 visas from FB ( spill over from FB - EB) then dont you think the total EB visas issued in 2009 should be around 150000 instead of 141000....
I am little confused...
your comment will be greatly appreciated ;)
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV.pdf
Look at the last page.
The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is 140,000. So the usage was actually more.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
Hello Desi,
"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:
1. 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).
2. 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.
This is from April Visa Bulletin , according to this S korea got 14,211 visas from FB ( spill over from FB - EB) then dont you think the total EB visas issued in 2009 should be around 150000 instead of 141000....
I am little confused...
your comment will be greatly appreciated ;)
girlfriend alguna lámina más para
inskrish
08-16 12:59 AM
September bulletin was out today..Wondering why there was no thread yet on IV..EB2 india shows visa number available with a cutoff date of APRIL 2004
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3761.html
Sorry, you are late to the party.:)
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3761.html
Sorry, you are late to the party.:)
hairstyles Este ejercicio trabaja, cuando
bobzibub
03-18 10:45 PM
Nixstor did explained his actions and I concur... Controversial handles should be banned... Handle "TALIBAN" was banned and same member opened new handle "TAWLIBANN" saying his name is Tawlibann Foggs...
Anyway we should close this issue.. I do find tawlibann's posts decent and non-offensive.. Only thing is we need to practice some respect to the communitity when chosing a handle... Its just not this.. there could be potentially other offensive handles.. So I'd say there should be a step/check in registration process to monitor/regulate handles... You won't like any handle offending your religious beliefs, dis-respecting your nation or humanity itself...
Just my 2 cents... We should stop this discussion and focus on immigration issues...
:D
Anyway we should close this issue.. I do find tawlibann's posts decent and non-offensive.. Only thing is we need to practice some respect to the communitity when chosing a handle... Its just not this.. there could be potentially other offensive handles.. So I'd say there should be a step/check in registration process to monitor/regulate handles... You won't like any handle offending your religious beliefs, dis-respecting your nation or humanity itself...
Just my 2 cents... We should stop this discussion and focus on immigration issues...
:D
Buran
02-15 01:33 PM
http://www.workpermit.com/news/2007-05-16/us/h-1b-visa-outsourcing-abuse-investigation.htm
After the stunning demand for the H-1B visa this year, people began to investigate the problem. Congress and the White House are trying to craft major immigration reform this year, and an understanding of the situation is critical.
What has been noticed is that between 70% and 80% of the H-1B visas granted in 2006 went to India-based outsourcing firms. Employees of these firms were not being hired to work for U.S. businesses but, rather, to effectively study how U.S. businesses operate and to determine their needs and methods.
After the stunning demand for the H-1B visa this year, people began to investigate the problem. Congress and the White House are trying to craft major immigration reform this year, and an understanding of the situation is critical.
What has been noticed is that between 70% and 80% of the H-1B visas granted in 2006 went to India-based outsourcing firms. Employees of these firms were not being hired to work for U.S. businesses but, rather, to effectively study how U.S. businesses operate and to determine their needs and methods.
Slave_2k
10-12 02:55 PM
The information that we are trying to capture is already with IV. It will be nice if they can actually come up with a neat report on that. What say guys?