texanmom
09-26 11:46 AM
I just got a call from Eilene Zimmerman regarding the article and she promised me that she is working on fixing the error soon
If we make a big enough noise, perhaps we can get CNN to write an article focusing on our issues. Please continue to press for changes.
If we make a big enough noise, perhaps we can get CNN to write an article focusing on our issues. Please continue to press for changes.
wallpaper lack ops ps3 wallpaper. lack
nixstor
07-05 12:42 PM
Just my $0.02:
I understand the frustration for IV to gather funds when it has so many members. But it's possible that IV has that many members because it is a free site.
>> Are you saying that we as a IV community do not have any responsibility for the funds or any other important issue excluding pin point specific personal situation questions? <<
If this becomes a paid site, you might see the number of members dwindle, and that's not a good idea because even if members don't financially contribute to IV, they do offer their perspectives/opinions/feedback/critique and help others. Those who want to financially contribute to IV will do so whether IV is a free or a paid site.
>> Can you please be more specific about what kind of perspectives, idead , opinions that can be helpful to others ? The so called helpful perspectives lack hte basic perspective that this is a community effort and lets do our part. How many called a senator's office or a congress man's office? How many sent email to media? Those who will pay will always pay. Thats why we might never win, because a segment of IV community is not stronger than the whole IV community <<
IMHO, it would be a mistake to make IV a paid site thinking that this will force members to financially contribute. Sure IV forums helped a lot with finding information about I-485 applications, but people have been filing I-485s on their own even before IV was in existence. Which is not to say, IV has no value, but I hope you see where I am going with this....if members don't want to contribute, then they won't. They will go to other forums like they used to before IV was in existence...which will be a step down, but at least they are holding on to their $20 or howmuchever.
>> Forcing? Are you serious? Would we work for some one for free? We are helping ourselves, working for ourselves. There is absolutely no sense of "ourselves" in your wording. Forcing?? You realized that every one is worried about it but dont do a jack about it. Instead of encouraging people to contribute, you are using terms like forcing. I filed my 485 myself and I have gotten a lot of help from people on IV. I dont understand how losing a bunch of people will be the biggest loss on the face of earth. <<
Before replying to this, please read my disclaimer below. I have to add it given the fact how hot-headed/short-tempered members have been in the last few days where they will flame someone just because their opinions differ.
Thanks,
Jayant
Disclaimer: These are my opinions. You don't have to agree with them. If you disagree, just ignore them. I am not interested in justifying myself about anything that you might have to say. I would, however, welcome a civil and a healthy discussion.
Jayant,
I totally understand what you are saying. We have to streamline our energy and you can see a lot of people are hot right now. Do not consider my response as an intention to flame you. I am concerned that we are not going in the right direction. The media drive threads and the funding threads go out of the home page in one sec. Why? 3 or 4 people has to keep on bumping those threads. When will that stop?
I understand the frustration for IV to gather funds when it has so many members. But it's possible that IV has that many members because it is a free site.
>> Are you saying that we as a IV community do not have any responsibility for the funds or any other important issue excluding pin point specific personal situation questions? <<
If this becomes a paid site, you might see the number of members dwindle, and that's not a good idea because even if members don't financially contribute to IV, they do offer their perspectives/opinions/feedback/critique and help others. Those who want to financially contribute to IV will do so whether IV is a free or a paid site.
>> Can you please be more specific about what kind of perspectives, idead , opinions that can be helpful to others ? The so called helpful perspectives lack hte basic perspective that this is a community effort and lets do our part. How many called a senator's office or a congress man's office? How many sent email to media? Those who will pay will always pay. Thats why we might never win, because a segment of IV community is not stronger than the whole IV community <<
IMHO, it would be a mistake to make IV a paid site thinking that this will force members to financially contribute. Sure IV forums helped a lot with finding information about I-485 applications, but people have been filing I-485s on their own even before IV was in existence. Which is not to say, IV has no value, but I hope you see where I am going with this....if members don't want to contribute, then they won't. They will go to other forums like they used to before IV was in existence...which will be a step down, but at least they are holding on to their $20 or howmuchever.
>> Forcing? Are you serious? Would we work for some one for free? We are helping ourselves, working for ourselves. There is absolutely no sense of "ourselves" in your wording. Forcing?? You realized that every one is worried about it but dont do a jack about it. Instead of encouraging people to contribute, you are using terms like forcing. I filed my 485 myself and I have gotten a lot of help from people on IV. I dont understand how losing a bunch of people will be the biggest loss on the face of earth. <<
Before replying to this, please read my disclaimer below. I have to add it given the fact how hot-headed/short-tempered members have been in the last few days where they will flame someone just because their opinions differ.
Thanks,
Jayant
Disclaimer: These are my opinions. You don't have to agree with them. If you disagree, just ignore them. I am not interested in justifying myself about anything that you might have to say. I would, however, welcome a civil and a healthy discussion.
Jayant,
I totally understand what you are saying. We have to streamline our energy and you can see a lot of people are hot right now. Do not consider my response as an intention to flame you. I am concerned that we are not going in the right direction. The media drive threads and the funding threads go out of the home page in one sec. Why? 3 or 4 people has to keep on bumping those threads. When will that stop?
kicca
09-28 02:21 PM
just found this interesting link about doing business in the world
http://www.doingbusiness.org/economyrankings/
it's on worldbank.org
http://www.doingbusiness.org/economyrankings/
it's on worldbank.org
2011 tattoo lack ops ps3 wallpaper. lack ops ps3 wallpaper. lack ops ps3
jonty_11
12-10 11:48 AM
at which point it will be alottery again ..until dates move back to the stone age..in August 2009
more...
eeezzz
02-15 03:08 PM
Exactly, And how many from South America? 30% of the population is going to be hispanic by 2050.
Perhaps your number is not based on legal immigration. It might reach this number if you add up the illegal ones, and that is why the gov. is building the walls to stop them enter at borders and try to find the illegal ones and send them out.
Perhaps your number is not based on legal immigration. It might reach this number if you add up the illegal ones, and that is why the gov. is building the walls to stop them enter at borders and try to find the illegal ones and send them out.
thomachan72
07-29 02:50 PM
Great post.
Thanks abracadabra for agreeing to the point. It is really funny isn't it, when you notice people fighting over God's? Just the thought of fighting to support your God shows that you really dont belive in his/her strength or you dont really know what God is!! If thats the case, how would that power qualify to be GOD?? Whether it is in Inda/pakisthan/middle east/africa, wherever people fight to save their God/gods are just fighting to avoid confronting their own insecurity:-) What is the difference between me getting insulted on seeing Ganeshas picture on a beer bottle or Jesus's picture on the toilet seat and a circle with two dots as eyes on a person's BUTT, which he claims to represent ME (thomas)? Ofcourse I know that the circle with 2 dotts on his BUTT doesn't represent me so is the same about Ganesha / Jesus. Who has seen these folks?? The big truth is NOBODY!! EVER!! Imagine how would I look if I stood around crying like a baby, when the guy walks around with his BUTT exposed showing the circle with two dotts claiming that it acurately represents me?? Ganesha, Jesus, Allah and Krishna are all laughing. Laughing not at the person who shows off as insulting them, but actually (ironically) at us who stand around crying about that. Belive me this is true!! we had a conference call last night and all three of them were laughing :D:D:D
Thanks abracadabra for agreeing to the point. It is really funny isn't it, when you notice people fighting over God's? Just the thought of fighting to support your God shows that you really dont belive in his/her strength or you dont really know what God is!! If thats the case, how would that power qualify to be GOD?? Whether it is in Inda/pakisthan/middle east/africa, wherever people fight to save their God/gods are just fighting to avoid confronting their own insecurity:-) What is the difference between me getting insulted on seeing Ganeshas picture on a beer bottle or Jesus's picture on the toilet seat and a circle with two dots as eyes on a person's BUTT, which he claims to represent ME (thomas)? Ofcourse I know that the circle with 2 dotts on his BUTT doesn't represent me so is the same about Ganesha / Jesus. Who has seen these folks?? The big truth is NOBODY!! EVER!! Imagine how would I look if I stood around crying like a baby, when the guy walks around with his BUTT exposed showing the circle with two dotts claiming that it acurately represents me?? Ganesha, Jesus, Allah and Krishna are all laughing. Laughing not at the person who shows off as insulting them, but actually (ironically) at us who stand around crying about that. Belive me this is true!! we had a conference call last night and all three of them were laughing :D:D:D
more...
ramus
07-02 06:50 AM
It is just 7 a.m. too early to say anything..
So far so good, hope we are on the same note rest of the week.
So far so good, hope we are on the same note rest of the week.
2010 lack ops ps3 wallpapers
andycool
07-12 04:56 PM
E. APPLICABILITY OF INA SECTION 202(a)(5)(A)AS IT RELATES TO THE ALLOCATION OF �OTHERWISE UNUSED� NUMBERS
INA Section 202(a)(5)(A), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act (AC21), provides that if total demand will be insufficient to use all available numbers in a particular Employment preference category in a calendar quarter, then the otherwise unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limits. This provision helps to assure that all available Employment preference numbers may be used. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5)(A) has occasionally allowed oversubscribed countries such as China-mainland born and India to utilize large quantities of Employment First and Second preference numbers that would have otherwise gone unused.
For example, let us assume that 11,600 Employment Second preference numbers are available in a calendar quarter. There is heavy Employment Second preference demand by China-mainland born and India applicants; however, each country is oversubscribed and would ordinarily be limited to about 800 of the available numbers due to the prorating provisions of INA Section 202(e). Applicants from other countries that have not yet reached their per-country limit have reported a total demand of 6,500 numbers. After taking the worldwide demand into account, it is determined that as a result of the China-mainland born and India per-country limits only 8,100 of the total available Employment Second preference numbers would be used in that quarter. In this instance, the otherwise unused 3,500 numbers could then be made available to China-mainland born and India regardless of their per-country limits. Should that occur, the same cut-off date would be applied to each country, since numbers must be provided strictly in priority date order regardless of chargeability. In this instance, greater number use by one country would indicate a higher rate of demand by applicants from that country with earlier priority dates.
According to this there should be a quarterly spillover ...:confused: but it looks like spillover is happening only in last quarter :D
INA Section 202(a)(5)(A), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act (AC21), provides that if total demand will be insufficient to use all available numbers in a particular Employment preference category in a calendar quarter, then the otherwise unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limits. This provision helps to assure that all available Employment preference numbers may be used. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5)(A) has occasionally allowed oversubscribed countries such as China-mainland born and India to utilize large quantities of Employment First and Second preference numbers that would have otherwise gone unused.
For example, let us assume that 11,600 Employment Second preference numbers are available in a calendar quarter. There is heavy Employment Second preference demand by China-mainland born and India applicants; however, each country is oversubscribed and would ordinarily be limited to about 800 of the available numbers due to the prorating provisions of INA Section 202(e). Applicants from other countries that have not yet reached their per-country limit have reported a total demand of 6,500 numbers. After taking the worldwide demand into account, it is determined that as a result of the China-mainland born and India per-country limits only 8,100 of the total available Employment Second preference numbers would be used in that quarter. In this instance, the otherwise unused 3,500 numbers could then be made available to China-mainland born and India regardless of their per-country limits. Should that occur, the same cut-off date would be applied to each country, since numbers must be provided strictly in priority date order regardless of chargeability. In this instance, greater number use by one country would indicate a higher rate of demand by applicants from that country with earlier priority dates.
According to this there should be a quarterly spillover ...:confused: but it looks like spillover is happening only in last quarter :D
more...
rajuseattle
07-14 07:48 PM
One more thing AC-21 is not a formal USCIS form which one can fill in and send it over to USCIS, its just a letter wherein you or your legal representative informs USCIS about the change in employment, be it a job promotion with same employer or u switching the Job using the AC-21 provisions.
As explained earlier in this forum, 180 day rule interpretation is solely USCIS's descretion, if USCIS adjudicator who is working on your case accepts your new EVL and approves your case you are good to go, but for some reason the adjudicator keeps sending more RFE then you will need someone who can answer them in a legal language and thats where attorney services comes in handy.
I am hoping for the best for you that once they see your new EVL, they are satisfied and sends you GC.
As explained earlier in this forum, 180 day rule interpretation is solely USCIS's descretion, if USCIS adjudicator who is working on your case accepts your new EVL and approves your case you are good to go, but for some reason the adjudicator keeps sending more RFE then you will need someone who can answer them in a legal language and thats where attorney services comes in handy.
I am hoping for the best for you that once they see your new EVL, they are satisfied and sends you GC.
hair wallpaper lack ops wallpaper
abhishek101
06-15 11:36 AM
as a 501(3)(C) organization immigration voice has is limited in its efforts to contribute for any cause, while it can spend a max of 30 % (lawyers please comment) on Advocacy but it cannot do political campaigns openly, if people want to contribute and defeat Sen Grassley they need a 501(4) type of non profit.
more...
Ramba
03-17 11:08 AM
Between 2001 and 2004 all EB catagories were current for all countries (thanks to AC21 visa recapture). No one, (particularly Indians) cared about EB3 and EB2, till DOS indicated in Dec 2004 visa bulliton that EB3 India will retrogress in Jan 2005. Till that point (dec 2004) most of the labor filed are EB3 (75% is EB3 and 25% may be EB2). After Jan 2005, the filings were reverse. After Jan 2005, everyone tried to file EB2, unless they are not absolutly qualified for EB2. Till recent months, DOL was very liberal in approving LC with EB2 qualifications. Now it is difficult. Therefore EB2 India will move fast till Dec-2004 (unless most EB3 guys did not convert to EB2, by PD porting). After DEC-2004 it will be very-very slow.
hot Call Of Duty Black Ops Theme.
gc28262
03-03 06:01 PM
Why are we just looking for 3 year EAD. We need GC !
more...
house tattoo lack ops wallpaper ps3.
vin13
11-11 04:12 PM
Pappu has already informed that with the limited resources they are not currently considering to actively persue regarding Quarterly Spillover.
So for now, we need to do what we can by ourselves.
So for now, we need to do what we can by ourselves.
tattoo house ps3, lack ops wallpaper
dotnetguru
04-07 12:23 PM
Sure I will give the link..
I know its not fake..because I have 3 people on our floor who came from a visit..who saw these kind of things happening right in front of them (and my friends were GCs so I guess they themselves were left alone).
first of all cut this BS. citizens and GC holders have different queues at POE and all visa people have different queues.how the hell ur friends heard the officers questions.do they have snake ears or what.use ur common sense.
i came recently on march 20th and how come i did not see when there were 50 desis in the visa's queues.stop these rumours.
i went to sbi when i was in india. that sbi manager came to know this and he was telling about that.i thought it might be a rumour but it still gave me couple of sleepless nights.see how fast this BS is spreading.
I know its not fake..because I have 3 people on our floor who came from a visit..who saw these kind of things happening right in front of them (and my friends were GCs so I guess they themselves were left alone).
first of all cut this BS. citizens and GC holders have different queues at POE and all visa people have different queues.how the hell ur friends heard the officers questions.do they have snake ears or what.use ur common sense.
i came recently on march 20th and how come i did not see when there were 50 desis in the visa's queues.stop these rumours.
i went to sbi when i was in india. that sbi manager came to know this and he was telling about that.i thought it might be a rumour but it still gave me couple of sleepless nights.see how fast this BS is spreading.
more...
pictures tattoo lack ops ps3
onemorecame
10-22 10:21 AM
Can you please post your timeline here?
RFE : Sep 10 2010,
RFE Received : Oct 01 2010
RFE Repelied : Oct 07 2010
Case approved : Oct 20 2010
Hope this will help
RFE : Sep 10 2010,
RFE Received : Oct 01 2010
RFE Repelied : Oct 07 2010
Case approved : Oct 20 2010
Hope this will help
dresses lack ops zombies kino der
meridiani.planum
03-16 11:15 PM
i just don't see what the fuss is about. people from india usually waited 5-6 years for a GC historically, and it's about the same, give or take one year, even now. so i don't see why 4 years of wait after i-485 is being made out to be such a big deal only NOW.......????
its not a 4 year wait you @#$$%!#$!!! From your mails here you seem to be simply trolling for, and collecting red dots (& doing a good job of it).
If your PD is EB2/EB3 India 2006 or 2007 its gonna be a 10 year wait. Atleast.
Dates have not been so badly retrogressed, ever (7 years for EB3 India!). Demand has never been so high, ever. Lots of things have led to this HUGE backlog of demand (namechecks, LC delays, increased H1 quotas in 2000/01/02, increased use of L1). The IN queue has never been this long, by an order of magnitude, and the OUT queue has remained the same for decades. We are screwed unless there are some admin fixes.
its not a 4 year wait you @#$$%!#$!!! From your mails here you seem to be simply trolling for, and collecting red dots (& doing a good job of it).
If your PD is EB2/EB3 India 2006 or 2007 its gonna be a 10 year wait. Atleast.
Dates have not been so badly retrogressed, ever (7 years for EB3 India!). Demand has never been so high, ever. Lots of things have led to this HUGE backlog of demand (namechecks, LC delays, increased H1 quotas in 2000/01/02, increased use of L1). The IN queue has never been this long, by an order of magnitude, and the OUT queue has remained the same for decades. We are screwed unless there are some admin fixes.
more...
makeup lack ops wallpaper.
alisa
01-27 09:25 AM
I am glad you posted this.
I will put the numbers in the excel spreadsheet and see what comes out.
But these might give more sensible results than the preposterous wait times that we were getting.
If the average depletion rate for India is 34K per annum, then the wait times would look a lot better I think.
I am assuming that these numbers include the dependents. So, if 34K adjustment of status were awareded, then, roughly speaking, there were 17K primary applicants, and 17K dependents? Am I correct?
Also, for the accumulation rate, when we say that 65K H-1 visas are given out annually, I am assuming that does not include the dependents. Am I right??
FISCAL ------ Employment ------- EB3
YEAR ----- Total ---- INDIA | Total --- India
2000 ----- 111,024 | 15888 | 51,711 | -5567 :IV FY 2000 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2000%20table%20V.pdf)
2001 ----- 186,536 | 41720 | 90,274 | 16405 :IV FY 2001 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2001%20table%20V.pdf)
2002 ----- 171,583 | 41919 | 87,574 | 17428 :IV FY 2002 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2002%20table%20V.pdf)
2003 ----- -83,020 | 20818 | 47,354 | 10680 :IV FY 2003 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2003%20table%20V.pdf)
2004 ----- 157,107 | 39496 | 88,114 | 19962 :IV FY 2004 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY04tableV.pdf)
2005 ----- 242,335 | 47160 |122,130 | 23399 :IV FY 2005 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY05tableV.pdf)
6 yr total - 951,605| 207001| 487,157| 93441
Annual Avg --------- 34500 | -------- 15574
If this trend would have continued. There should not be any MAJOR retrogression problem, but if you remember from the Nov 05 VB. The warning was very clear:
During FY due to anticipated heavy demand, the AC21 provisions are not expected to apply, and the amount of Employment numbers available to any single country will be subject to the 7% cap. It is anticipated that the addition of unused FY-2005 Family numbers and the remaining AC21 numbers to the 140,000 annual minimum will result in an FY-2006 annual Employment limit of 152,000. This will mean an Employment per-country limit for FY-2006 of approximately 10,650.
To illustrate the effect of the reduced per-county limitation during FY-2006 on the oversubscribed countries, it should be noted that during FY-2005 India used approximately 47,175 Employment numbers.
If you plug this number into your analysis the result might be a couple of years of advance for your predictions.
andy
I will put the numbers in the excel spreadsheet and see what comes out.
But these might give more sensible results than the preposterous wait times that we were getting.
If the average depletion rate for India is 34K per annum, then the wait times would look a lot better I think.
I am assuming that these numbers include the dependents. So, if 34K adjustment of status were awareded, then, roughly speaking, there were 17K primary applicants, and 17K dependents? Am I correct?
Also, for the accumulation rate, when we say that 65K H-1 visas are given out annually, I am assuming that does not include the dependents. Am I right??
FISCAL ------ Employment ------- EB3
YEAR ----- Total ---- INDIA | Total --- India
2000 ----- 111,024 | 15888 | 51,711 | -5567 :IV FY 2000 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2000%20table%20V.pdf)
2001 ----- 186,536 | 41720 | 90,274 | 16405 :IV FY 2001 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2001%20table%20V.pdf)
2002 ----- 171,583 | 41919 | 87,574 | 17428 :IV FY 2002 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2002%20table%20V.pdf)
2003 ----- -83,020 | 20818 | 47,354 | 10680 :IV FY 2003 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2003%20table%20V.pdf)
2004 ----- 157,107 | 39496 | 88,114 | 19962 :IV FY 2004 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY04tableV.pdf)
2005 ----- 242,335 | 47160 |122,130 | 23399 :IV FY 2005 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY05tableV.pdf)
6 yr total - 951,605| 207001| 487,157| 93441
Annual Avg --------- 34500 | -------- 15574
If this trend would have continued. There should not be any MAJOR retrogression problem, but if you remember from the Nov 05 VB. The warning was very clear:
During FY due to anticipated heavy demand, the AC21 provisions are not expected to apply, and the amount of Employment numbers available to any single country will be subject to the 7% cap. It is anticipated that the addition of unused FY-2005 Family numbers and the remaining AC21 numbers to the 140,000 annual minimum will result in an FY-2006 annual Employment limit of 152,000. This will mean an Employment per-country limit for FY-2006 of approximately 10,650.
To illustrate the effect of the reduced per-county limitation during FY-2006 on the oversubscribed countries, it should be noted that during FY-2005 India used approximately 47,175 Employment numbers.
If you plug this number into your analysis the result might be a couple of years of advance for your predictions.
andy
girlfriend dresses Black Ops – Weapons
snathan
04-13 11:58 AM
I urge everyone to read the donor forum...we need more people to work on couple of issues and fixes. Please become a donor and take part in this...if you are serious to fix these issues.
hairstyles Look at Black Ops on the PS3,
immigrant2007
02-19 12:20 PM
in case someone has already raised tis point then please pardon my ignorance.
Not sure if anyone came across this in the same bill, for all those who will benefit by 5 year cluse they will be beneift but at the same time they will be excluded from the annual numerical limitation quota that means PD dates moving rapidly for as early as all who were here on 20-FEB-2004 (if the bill is passed today which we all know wont happen). So I guess not bad in giving it a shot for raising support for it
BTW did anyone also looked at the exact text
"It is 5 year of continuous physical presence"
My question and doubt is how different is it from "5 year of legal presence v/s physical presence". People who didnt go to homeland for vacation are less than 10%.
Not sure if anyone came across this in the same bill, for all those who will benefit by 5 year cluse they will be beneift but at the same time they will be excluded from the annual numerical limitation quota that means PD dates moving rapidly for as early as all who were here on 20-FEB-2004 (if the bill is passed today which we all know wont happen). So I guess not bad in giving it a shot for raising support for it
BTW did anyone also looked at the exact text
"It is 5 year of continuous physical presence"
My question and doubt is how different is it from "5 year of legal presence v/s physical presence". People who didnt go to homeland for vacation are less than 10%.
2ndJuly
09-11 11:53 AM
Here is the info from NumbersUSA:
Vote on Foreign-Worker Bills Postponed Amid Growing Opposition
Updated Thursday, September 11, 2008, 10:00 AM
The House Judiciary Committee yesterday postponed consideration of bills containing massive foreign worker increases (H.R. 5882 and H.R. 5924) after the committee's debate stalled during discussions on the armed forces amnesty bill (H.R. 6020). The committee is expected to resume consideration of all three bills on September 18
Vote on Foreign-Worker Bills Postponed Amid Growing Opposition
Updated Thursday, September 11, 2008, 10:00 AM
The House Judiciary Committee yesterday postponed consideration of bills containing massive foreign worker increases (H.R. 5882 and H.R. 5924) after the committee's debate stalled during discussions on the armed forces amnesty bill (H.R. 6020). The committee is expected to resume consideration of all three bills on September 18
WAIT_FOR_EVER_GC
06-10 06:39 PM
Me and 10 of my friends at work have sent the email.
My wife and the wife's of friends have sent too.
My wife and the wife's of friends have sent too.