rajuram
10-25 09:38 PM
Reason: All of us(between 2002-4) were rotting in BEC for years...BEC just
vomited us out between Jan 2007 to September 07.
Lets get for another round of rotting
vomited us out between Jan 2007 to September 07.
Lets get for another round of rotting
wallpaper cristiano ronaldo 2011
like_watching_paint_dry
11-18 11:38 AM
How long can we keep our career on hold..
I have decided to switch with a better job and restart with PERM. Anyway, EB3/2003 PD is no GOLD.
Even if some law gets passed in 2007. With new EB2, I will get GC may be max 1/2 years later.
What do you think?
You guys won't believe how glad I am to read a few posts here where some people are standing up for themselves and refusing to take bullshit from certain lousy employers. This will send a message to those kinds of employers that they can't use the immigration system and treat employees like shit while continuing to profit from these hard-working people.
abc, just one suggestion for you. If you can, hold off until your I-140 gets approved. Once that happens, your 2003 priority date will stick and you can take it with you ( USCIS internal I-140 adjudication manual for your reference ... http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrel...h22_091206R.pdf )
I wish you all the best with your life.
lwpd
I have decided to switch with a better job and restart with PERM. Anyway, EB3/2003 PD is no GOLD.
Even if some law gets passed in 2007. With new EB2, I will get GC may be max 1/2 years later.
What do you think?
You guys won't believe how glad I am to read a few posts here where some people are standing up for themselves and refusing to take bullshit from certain lousy employers. This will send a message to those kinds of employers that they can't use the immigration system and treat employees like shit while continuing to profit from these hard-working people.
abc, just one suggestion for you. If you can, hold off until your I-140 gets approved. Once that happens, your 2003 priority date will stick and you can take it with you ( USCIS internal I-140 adjudication manual for your reference ... http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrel...h22_091206R.pdf )
I wish you all the best with your life.
lwpd
abhijitp
03-05 02:34 PM
Many of them during the letters campaign, and most are ready to buy a home within a year of getting their green cards!
On ther other hand I personally know a very highly educated guy (IITBombay, MS then PhD in Electrical Eng- with a specialization in wireless tech) who got his EB GC 2-3 years too late... by that time the tech boom was over but the housing boom had already begun... so he decided to wait a few more years. Now he feels bad about the whole thing, and wonders if he should have bought a home when he was on H1B-- even if it would be frought with risk! That way, he would have been a millionaire today-- just like his friends who got their GCs and bought homes well in time.
8 years later, the history is repeating itself.
500,000+ people are patiently waiting in the EB GC queue... and chances are they will helplessly watch as home prices hit the bottom, and then rebound a few years later.
Some of them might decide to take the plunge and buy a home to take advantage of the low prices. However, many of them may be simply denied this chance becasuse their future is tied to a plastic card that has to be renewed every year!
Singhsa, sorry cannot help you right now with the media... maybe you can try getting help from the IV-media team?
On ther other hand I personally know a very highly educated guy (IITBombay, MS then PhD in Electrical Eng- with a specialization in wireless tech) who got his EB GC 2-3 years too late... by that time the tech boom was over but the housing boom had already begun... so he decided to wait a few more years. Now he feels bad about the whole thing, and wonders if he should have bought a home when he was on H1B-- even if it would be frought with risk! That way, he would have been a millionaire today-- just like his friends who got their GCs and bought homes well in time.
8 years later, the history is repeating itself.
500,000+ people are patiently waiting in the EB GC queue... and chances are they will helplessly watch as home prices hit the bottom, and then rebound a few years later.
Some of them might decide to take the plunge and buy a home to take advantage of the low prices. However, many of them may be simply denied this chance becasuse their future is tied to a plastic card that has to be renewed every year!
Singhsa, sorry cannot help you right now with the media... maybe you can try getting help from the IV-media team?
2011 Cristiano Ronaldo 2011
sapota
08-15 05:21 PM
wonder what that means for India-China EB2 in the October Bulletin. Will the retrogression be back to Jan 07 dates?:confused:
Doubt that it will go back from here. There will be new visa numbers available in Oct 07. So it should only move forward IMO.
Doubt that it will go back from here. There will be new visa numbers available in Oct 07. So it should only move forward IMO.
more...
yadavnay
07-23 09:16 AM
Yes you can work on h1B , but you need to file for a change of status , which normally take 2-3 months in normal processing and 15 days if you file premium. Ask your H1b employer to file for the change of staus under premium.
Please note that once your status is changed you can no longer continue on L1A. Mine was the same case and I followed the same steps some year back.
Thanx
Please note that once your status is changed you can no longer continue on L1A. Mine was the same case and I followed the same steps some year back.
Thanx
ajthakur
07-14 06:41 PM
You are correct. I joined the new employer on H1 B transfer. I didnt use AC21(ead)to work for my new employer.
Nowhere in this post, do I see the fact that the OP used AC21 when he moved in August 2007.
Does not AC21 come in when you have used EAD to move instead of a H1 transfer?
In my understanding, by doing a H1 transfer rather than invoking AC21, the OP preserved the status of the original petition unless the employer revoked the I140 for fraud. If that's the case, shouldn't the RFE be worded differently?
If that's not the case, all the OP has to do is craft a response to the RFE with an Employment Verification Letter from his current employer attesting to the similar nature of job etc.. and move forward.
Either way, an attorney would be the safest bet..
Nowhere in this post, do I see the fact that the OP used AC21 when he moved in August 2007.
Does not AC21 come in when you have used EAD to move instead of a H1 transfer?
In my understanding, by doing a H1 transfer rather than invoking AC21, the OP preserved the status of the original petition unless the employer revoked the I140 for fraud. If that's the case, shouldn't the RFE be worded differently?
If that's not the case, all the OP has to do is craft a response to the RFE with an Employment Verification Letter from his current employer attesting to the similar nature of job etc.. and move forward.
Either way, an attorney would be the safest bet..
more...
Jbpvisa
07-12 11:02 PM
We Expect Honesty and Consistency by the Agency Created to Provide �Service�
We expect integrity, consistency, and transparency in our government and our immigration system. This is more so particularly for the USCIS that was created to provide �service� and serve its fee paying clients/ customers. The separation of enforcement, border protection, and other functions from service and benefits that occurred in 2003 requires the USCIS as an agency within DHS to focus primarily in providing quality �service� and benefits to its clients, as its name suggests. Unfortunately, on July 2, 2007, and the days preceding and until today, the USCIS miserably failed those whom it was created to serve.
There are allegations of improprieties in the usage of visa numbers for cases that have not yet been approved, contrary to regulation. This allegedly artificially increased the usage of the numbers, allowing the USCIS to use them at a rate that is many times its normal monthly usage. The USCIS claims to have approved an unprecedented number of cases and requested all the remaining (approximately 60,000) visa numbers for the fiscal year within a span of just over two weeks. The net result of this, in addition to the damage already caused, will be litigation against the USCIS. This is costly and resource intensive. We are asking you to step in, and right this wrong. In so doing, you would take a significant step toward restoring the integrity of the system that is in place. People must be able to rely upon the system. In this case, they made decisions, and expended significant time and money, based upon the July Visa Bulletin. They did so because Visa Bulletins have always been reliable and have worked in a systematic, unwavering manner, in terms of governing which cases can be filed in a particular month. This must be restored.
U.S. is the Beacon of Hope � Our Government Cannot Exhibit Greed and Inconsistency in its Policies
We are a nation of immigrants. Immigrants come to this great nation in search of freedom and opportunities. I am eternally grateful for the incredible opportunities afforded me in the great nation to maximize my potential, build my law firm and lawfully, honestly and diligently serve those who wish to immigrate here lawfully. This is what sets the U.S. apart from other countries and governments rampant with corruption, greed, mismanagement, and other negative influences. The actions of the USCIS in connection with the events of July 2, 2007, have made many feel cheated, betrayed and disappointed in our government. How can the U.S. do this when we portray ourselves as the beacon of hope and the symbol of integrity and transparency for the rest of the world?
Request is that You Step in to �Right this Wrong�
Based on the above, we respectfully request you to undertake the following to attempt to redress the irreparable injury / harm caused to so many, including the reputation and reliability of our own government:
- Issue a directive to USCIS that this issue be promptly resolved. The USCIS must accept the I-485 filings that it was supposed to accept not just in July 2007, but for a sufficient time thereafter to allow for the proper preparation of those filings, including the need for medical examinations and accommodation for travel plans. This means that the USCIS must accept I-485 filings at the earlier fee and grant a minimum of an additional 46 days (time that would have been allowed from the date of the issuance of the Visa Bulletin on June 12, 2007 until July 31, 2007, the date until when the I-485s could have been filed but for the actions of the USCIS).
- Investigate the irregularities in the use of visa numbers as explained above. We would ask for you to launch an investigation into the usage of visa numbers for cases that were not approved, and to restore those numbers and make them available during FY 2007.
- Investigate the expenditures in terms of overtime, contractors and other efforts that were allegedly engaged in as part of the effort to deplete the allocation of visa numbers for FY 2007 before July 2007.
- Take all necessary measures to avoid any possibility that a similar event could occur in the future.
We expect you to step in to attempt to �right the wrong�. I believe that you will do the right thing for American employers and hard working immigrants who play by the rules not to lose faith in the integrity of our legal system and in our government. We appeal to you to do the right thing legally, morally, ethically and in good conscience. Our people need to gain back some of the trust in our government, our legal system, and in our country.
Thank you for your time and anticipated favorable consideration in this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
Yours truly,
Sheela Murthy
President and Founder
Murthy Law Firm
Cc: Emilio T. Gonzalez, Esq.
We expect integrity, consistency, and transparency in our government and our immigration system. This is more so particularly for the USCIS that was created to provide �service� and serve its fee paying clients/ customers. The separation of enforcement, border protection, and other functions from service and benefits that occurred in 2003 requires the USCIS as an agency within DHS to focus primarily in providing quality �service� and benefits to its clients, as its name suggests. Unfortunately, on July 2, 2007, and the days preceding and until today, the USCIS miserably failed those whom it was created to serve.
There are allegations of improprieties in the usage of visa numbers for cases that have not yet been approved, contrary to regulation. This allegedly artificially increased the usage of the numbers, allowing the USCIS to use them at a rate that is many times its normal monthly usage. The USCIS claims to have approved an unprecedented number of cases and requested all the remaining (approximately 60,000) visa numbers for the fiscal year within a span of just over two weeks. The net result of this, in addition to the damage already caused, will be litigation against the USCIS. This is costly and resource intensive. We are asking you to step in, and right this wrong. In so doing, you would take a significant step toward restoring the integrity of the system that is in place. People must be able to rely upon the system. In this case, they made decisions, and expended significant time and money, based upon the July Visa Bulletin. They did so because Visa Bulletins have always been reliable and have worked in a systematic, unwavering manner, in terms of governing which cases can be filed in a particular month. This must be restored.
U.S. is the Beacon of Hope � Our Government Cannot Exhibit Greed and Inconsistency in its Policies
We are a nation of immigrants. Immigrants come to this great nation in search of freedom and opportunities. I am eternally grateful for the incredible opportunities afforded me in the great nation to maximize my potential, build my law firm and lawfully, honestly and diligently serve those who wish to immigrate here lawfully. This is what sets the U.S. apart from other countries and governments rampant with corruption, greed, mismanagement, and other negative influences. The actions of the USCIS in connection with the events of July 2, 2007, have made many feel cheated, betrayed and disappointed in our government. How can the U.S. do this when we portray ourselves as the beacon of hope and the symbol of integrity and transparency for the rest of the world?
Request is that You Step in to �Right this Wrong�
Based on the above, we respectfully request you to undertake the following to attempt to redress the irreparable injury / harm caused to so many, including the reputation and reliability of our own government:
- Issue a directive to USCIS that this issue be promptly resolved. The USCIS must accept the I-485 filings that it was supposed to accept not just in July 2007, but for a sufficient time thereafter to allow for the proper preparation of those filings, including the need for medical examinations and accommodation for travel plans. This means that the USCIS must accept I-485 filings at the earlier fee and grant a minimum of an additional 46 days (time that would have been allowed from the date of the issuance of the Visa Bulletin on June 12, 2007 until July 31, 2007, the date until when the I-485s could have been filed but for the actions of the USCIS).
- Investigate the irregularities in the use of visa numbers as explained above. We would ask for you to launch an investigation into the usage of visa numbers for cases that were not approved, and to restore those numbers and make them available during FY 2007.
- Investigate the expenditures in terms of overtime, contractors and other efforts that were allegedly engaged in as part of the effort to deplete the allocation of visa numbers for FY 2007 before July 2007.
- Take all necessary measures to avoid any possibility that a similar event could occur in the future.
We expect you to step in to attempt to �right the wrong�. I believe that you will do the right thing for American employers and hard working immigrants who play by the rules not to lose faith in the integrity of our legal system and in our government. We appeal to you to do the right thing legally, morally, ethically and in good conscience. Our people need to gain back some of the trust in our government, our legal system, and in our country.
Thank you for your time and anticipated favorable consideration in this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
Yours truly,
Sheela Murthy
President and Founder
Murthy Law Firm
Cc: Emilio T. Gonzalez, Esq.
2010 cristiano ronaldo 2011
sanju
10-20 02:21 PM
well said.. but wait a minute.. why are we all debating.. we dont have voting rights... :D:D:D.. but whoever thinks mccain is the savior... god help them
Look, no one is saying that McCain is the savior, but at the same time, it is important for us to understand that Obama is not the light at the end of the tunnel, its the fast approaching train towards us. So, some of us are just pointing to others that be prepared for the train wreck. That does not necessarily translate into saying that McCain is the savior. It just means what it means.
And you are right, none of us can vote. But if this community supports Obama, its like 300 million Americans voting for the President who works against the interest of majority of Americans. Won't we also be guided by the "misguided" ideology and rhetoric if we act in the same manner.
The irony of the situation is, we are caught between the rock and the hard place. Some of us are saying its better to stay on rocks, others are preaching that its better to be caught in the hard place. That's all.
.
Look, no one is saying that McCain is the savior, but at the same time, it is important for us to understand that Obama is not the light at the end of the tunnel, its the fast approaching train towards us. So, some of us are just pointing to others that be prepared for the train wreck. That does not necessarily translate into saying that McCain is the savior. It just means what it means.
And you are right, none of us can vote. But if this community supports Obama, its like 300 million Americans voting for the President who works against the interest of majority of Americans. Won't we also be guided by the "misguided" ideology and rhetoric if we act in the same manner.
The irony of the situation is, we are caught between the rock and the hard place. Some of us are saying its better to stay on rocks, others are preaching that its better to be caught in the hard place. That's all.
.
more...
eb3retro
08-17 01:31 PM
As I said previously, just chill out.Let me give all you guys some advice whether you want it or not.You guys are just busy speculating about something which you guys have no idea about.As a result all you guys are doing is getting worked up and trust me this nonsense is not helping you one bit.
If you are giving some factual help with how to file,procedures etc it is one thing, baseless speculation will get you nowhere.If you think I am not in the same boat as the majority of you-- you are mistaken.It is just that I try to stay positive while you guys keep whining.We all know the system is not working fairly for Indians even though we are bright,intelligent and law abiding folks.
You have no idea how dates will progress,so to reiterate once again just chill!
Pray, just an fyi - what I meant as nonsense is "not we talking abt predicting priority dates"..but you saying EB2s are clever than EB3s. Do you have any idea of what you are saying? The very fact that you are not able to understand what we are discussing here shows how much clever you are..
If you are giving some factual help with how to file,procedures etc it is one thing, baseless speculation will get you nowhere.If you think I am not in the same boat as the majority of you-- you are mistaken.It is just that I try to stay positive while you guys keep whining.We all know the system is not working fairly for Indians even though we are bright,intelligent and law abiding folks.
You have no idea how dates will progress,so to reiterate once again just chill!
Pray, just an fyi - what I meant as nonsense is "not we talking abt predicting priority dates"..but you saying EB2s are clever than EB3s. Do you have any idea of what you are saying? The very fact that you are not able to understand what we are discussing here shows how much clever you are..
hair cristiano ronaldo 2011 real
hsm2007
09-20 07:37 PM
Hi Guys,
I am in tough spot. I was laid off from my GC sponsoring employer (A) in 2008 and joined another employer B . I did not do a AC21 notification. My dates are current and now I received an RFE to provide employment letter from current employer. The exact words of RFE are as follows:
"Submit a letter of employment attesting to applicant's current employment. This letter should be written on the company's official letterhead, citing the date the applicant began working, if a permanent full time position, the position offered, the position the applicant is currently working and the salary offered. Include corroborating evidence such as recent pay stubs, income tax returns, with all W2s or other evidence as appropriate. "
Now I am not working for original GC employer. I don't have a problem providing above from my current employer B. But whether the EVL should also mention that I am not working for GC sponsoring employer and that my current employers job profile is in same classification as previous based on AC21. Do I mention about the AC21 also in the letter? My current employer's attorneys are not that great but my current employer only wants me to use their own attorney.
Now here is the situation:
I have a job offer from another employer (Employer C) and they are in the middle of doing a H-1 transfer. In fact by tomorrow they will file the H1 paperwork. Now I don't know whether I should provide the letter from my potential new employer C . In that case, I won't be able to provide W2 or pay stubs until I join them. I have an opportunity to use my own attorney here (like murthy, Ron Gothcer..)
OR
should I provide a letter from my current employer using their attorneys and whether or not I should mention about AC21 in the employment letter.
Also they sent the RFE to my previous employer's attorney even though my current employer's attorney had sent the new G-28 forms. Can my current attorney respond to the RFE or will the response get rejected because USCIS still has old attorney on file.
Thanks.
I am in tough spot. I was laid off from my GC sponsoring employer (A) in 2008 and joined another employer B . I did not do a AC21 notification. My dates are current and now I received an RFE to provide employment letter from current employer. The exact words of RFE are as follows:
"Submit a letter of employment attesting to applicant's current employment. This letter should be written on the company's official letterhead, citing the date the applicant began working, if a permanent full time position, the position offered, the position the applicant is currently working and the salary offered. Include corroborating evidence such as recent pay stubs, income tax returns, with all W2s or other evidence as appropriate. "
Now I am not working for original GC employer. I don't have a problem providing above from my current employer B. But whether the EVL should also mention that I am not working for GC sponsoring employer and that my current employers job profile is in same classification as previous based on AC21. Do I mention about the AC21 also in the letter? My current employer's attorneys are not that great but my current employer only wants me to use their own attorney.
Now here is the situation:
I have a job offer from another employer (Employer C) and they are in the middle of doing a H-1 transfer. In fact by tomorrow they will file the H1 paperwork. Now I don't know whether I should provide the letter from my potential new employer C . In that case, I won't be able to provide W2 or pay stubs until I join them. I have an opportunity to use my own attorney here (like murthy, Ron Gothcer..)
OR
should I provide a letter from my current employer using their attorneys and whether or not I should mention about AC21 in the employment letter.
Also they sent the RFE to my previous employer's attorney even though my current employer's attorney had sent the new G-28 forms. Can my current attorney respond to the RFE or will the response get rejected because USCIS still has old attorney on file.
Thanks.
more...
sidbee
05-26 06:04 PM
While on the way back from White Mountains in NH, our car was stopped on I-93 south by the US border patrol. They were stopping every single vehicle to question. They had over a dozen Govt vehicles with 40-50 people in uniform. My buddy was driving.
Officer : Sir what is your status in the US ?
Buddy: I am on L1 visa
I: H1B
buddy's wife: L2
my wife: H4
officer: is anyone US citizen ?
I: my son is (he was sitting in the car seat)
Officer: (to my buddy) Is your visa still valid ?
Buddy: yes
officer: do you have documents to prove your status?
buddy: i have some papers in my bag which in the the trunk
officer: can you show me?
(buddy got out showed him tax papers and answered some questions)
officer: did they not tell you you are supposed to carry your papers while travelling?
buddy: I came over a year ago so i don't remember
officer: I am letting you go, but i could have fined you $2000; $500 for each pasenger with no papers.
I was so pissed off by this experience, clearly they are doing this to harrase immigrants. theoratically even if I am going for a walk i am supposed to carry immigration papers because a border patrol officer, in theory, could asks me for my papers ?
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/immigration_Border_flyer.pdf
I have decided that if anyone ask me such a stupid question again inside the US and i am just going to remain silent even if that means they detain me for some time.
Just out of curiosity.
You were not asked to show any documents (your friend was)?
May be because your son is a US Citizen...
Officer : Sir what is your status in the US ?
Buddy: I am on L1 visa
I: H1B
buddy's wife: L2
my wife: H4
officer: is anyone US citizen ?
I: my son is (he was sitting in the car seat)
Officer: (to my buddy) Is your visa still valid ?
Buddy: yes
officer: do you have documents to prove your status?
buddy: i have some papers in my bag which in the the trunk
officer: can you show me?
(buddy got out showed him tax papers and answered some questions)
officer: did they not tell you you are supposed to carry your papers while travelling?
buddy: I came over a year ago so i don't remember
officer: I am letting you go, but i could have fined you $2000; $500 for each pasenger with no papers.
I was so pissed off by this experience, clearly they are doing this to harrase immigrants. theoratically even if I am going for a walk i am supposed to carry immigration papers because a border patrol officer, in theory, could asks me for my papers ?
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/immigration_Border_flyer.pdf
I have decided that if anyone ask me such a stupid question again inside the US and i am just going to remain silent even if that means they detain me for some time.
Just out of curiosity.
You were not asked to show any documents (your friend was)?
May be because your son is a US Citizen...
hot wallpaper cristiano ronaldo
greencard_fever
07-28 04:54 PM
Why do you need to close the thread............It appears to be the greatest stressbuster currently available on IV:D
I agree that we need some stress release discussion but i disagree that this the topic which we need to discuss on..open up any other thread which will give a healthy discussing like to discuss about the current market trend in US or open up a thread which will helpful to understand the recent N-deal of India-USA saying that how much india will get benifit with that and how?
I agree that we need some stress release discussion but i disagree that this the topic which we need to discuss on..open up any other thread which will give a healthy discussing like to discuss about the current market trend in US or open up a thread which will helpful to understand the recent N-deal of India-USA saying that how much india will get benifit with that and how?
more...
house cristiano ronaldo real madrid
myvoice23
08-07 12:03 PM
Application Type: I485, APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
Current Status: Notice mailed welcoming the new permanent resident.
On August 7, 2008, we mailed you a notice that we had registered this customer's new permanent resident status. Please follow any instructions on the notice. Your new permanent resident card should be mailed within 60 days following this registration or after you complete any ADIT processing referred to in the welcome notice, whichever is later. If you move before you get your new card call customer service. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow the link below to register.
PD: July 2004
RD: July 3rd 2007
ND: Sept 12th 2007
I-140 Approved May 2007
Service Center: NSC
Name check: Pending (when I had infopass a week ago)
Thanks guys. I wish every one good luck, and I am going to contribute my advise, and suggestions.
I opended SR 3 weeks ago, On Monday I used POJ method to talk to IO. She said, my case has been assigned to officer. Today got this status updated.
Current Status: Notice mailed welcoming the new permanent resident.
On August 7, 2008, we mailed you a notice that we had registered this customer's new permanent resident status. Please follow any instructions on the notice. Your new permanent resident card should be mailed within 60 days following this registration or after you complete any ADIT processing referred to in the welcome notice, whichever is later. If you move before you get your new card call customer service. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow the link below to register.
PD: July 2004
RD: July 3rd 2007
ND: Sept 12th 2007
I-140 Approved May 2007
Service Center: NSC
Name check: Pending (when I had infopass a week ago)
Thanks guys. I wish every one good luck, and I am going to contribute my advise, and suggestions.
I opended SR 3 weeks ago, On Monday I used POJ method to talk to IO. She said, my case has been assigned to officer. Today got this status updated.
tattoo cristiano ronaldo son
dilber
07-20 05:37 AM
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?
EB2 has been on or Apr 2004 for a long time so all the ones before should have got the GC or at least most would have when we are calculation numbers for calculating retrogation We have to consider the numbers in in a particular category 11000 number as you say includes all the EB categories you have to discount out the EB1's because they have got their GCs long back. EB3 will also have to cut out form the calculation because they are not being counted. even if you consider 40% of these to be EB2 (a conservative estimate) then total GC needed including the dependents will be closer to 11000 (Total not just primary) and as Vdlrao and others have shown there should be more than this number available in this fiscal year alone. So I will have to agree with them that the numbers will go back but not all the way to Apr 2004 It should easily come in 2005 range may even come to 2006 since there were very few cases applied during 2005. Also can some one let me know if during 2005 when perm was instigated was regular labor processing also going on or was it completed stopped during that time.
Also conversations will affect this because people converting from EB3 to EB2 will make sure that they port their priority dates and hence if say all the EB3 people from 2003 convert to EB2 and successfully port their dates it will definitely push the dates south of 2003. Did I make sense???
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?
EB2 has been on or Apr 2004 for a long time so all the ones before should have got the GC or at least most would have when we are calculation numbers for calculating retrogation We have to consider the numbers in in a particular category 11000 number as you say includes all the EB categories you have to discount out the EB1's because they have got their GCs long back. EB3 will also have to cut out form the calculation because they are not being counted. even if you consider 40% of these to be EB2 (a conservative estimate) then total GC needed including the dependents will be closer to 11000 (Total not just primary) and as Vdlrao and others have shown there should be more than this number available in this fiscal year alone. So I will have to agree with them that the numbers will go back but not all the way to Apr 2004 It should easily come in 2005 range may even come to 2006 since there were very few cases applied during 2005. Also can some one let me know if during 2005 when perm was instigated was regular labor processing also going on or was it completed stopped during that time.
Also conversations will affect this because people converting from EB3 to EB2 will make sure that they port their priority dates and hence if say all the EB3 people from 2003 convert to EB2 and successfully port their dates it will definitely push the dates south of 2003. Did I make sense???
more...
pictures cristiano ronaldo 2011
ncrtpMay2004
11-11 09:33 AM
Anything possible in the lame duck session.
dresses cristiano ronaldo wallpaper
uma001
07-29 05:10 AM
Add Wachovia now acquired by Wells Fargo to the list. They don't even do H1 extensions.
That's too bad.
That's too bad.
more...
makeup cristiano ronaldo real madrid
Wendyzhu77
07-24 12:48 PM
I think this post is purposely composed to scare people. As a matter of fact, any 485 "might" be rejected if it is not properly filed, which has always been true for years. If you case is rejected, of course you will need to refile. So, it is absolutely normal that "some" July 2 filers "might" need to file again. Literally, this sentence is correct, but the auther intentionally uses it to imply that "ALL" will be rejected. As a matter of fact, "every day", some 485 filers will need to refile their 485 sometime later.
Continuing on this forum with more generic title
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10383
Per Greg Siskind -- July 2nd filers might have to file again, as all July 2nd application were rejected. Check out the link below as well as the comment section for the blog
Greg Siskind is reporting the following about July2nd rejection here
http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2007/07/faqs-part-1.html
part of above post --
USCIS did not state how cases filed and rejected on the 2nd are to be handled other than to say that properly filed applications would be accepted. This presumably covers the many cases filed after the second that were held, but it doesn�t explain what will happen to the cases received earlier. We hope USCIS will issue special instructions to issue July 2nd receipt dates to those who are able to document they attempted to file. We presume some folks are still waiting on their July 2nd cases to be returned and are debating refiling new cases rather than waiting. Unfortunately, there is a risk of not getting the package back before August 17th and some people will need to refile without proof of the earlier filing. Hopefully, again, USCIS will institute a process for such individuals to avoid being penalized.
USCIS has not announced any details yet on how it will determine which cases get 2007 visa numbers that might still be available. We also don�t know yet how cases will be processed that are not in the batch of cases that get green card numbers this year. For those who will have to get numbers in future years, applications should be worked by the order of the priority date. So applicants with labor certifications approved some time back, for example, should go before people in the same category with later priority dates.
For individuals filing cases not requiring a labor certification (such as Schedule A cases and national interest waivers), the priority date is the date of filing. Because there may be hundreds of thousands of applications received between July 2nd and August 17th with many of these cases not requiring a labor certification, the date during this six week period a case is filed could make a big difference in terms of when a case will complete processing. And, again, getting that July 2nd priority date for those who filed early and were rejected could make a big difference in when their cases are ultimately processed through to completion.
Continuing on this forum with more generic title
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10383
Per Greg Siskind -- July 2nd filers might have to file again, as all July 2nd application were rejected. Check out the link below as well as the comment section for the blog
Greg Siskind is reporting the following about July2nd rejection here
http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2007/07/faqs-part-1.html
part of above post --
USCIS did not state how cases filed and rejected on the 2nd are to be handled other than to say that properly filed applications would be accepted. This presumably covers the many cases filed after the second that were held, but it doesn�t explain what will happen to the cases received earlier. We hope USCIS will issue special instructions to issue July 2nd receipt dates to those who are able to document they attempted to file. We presume some folks are still waiting on their July 2nd cases to be returned and are debating refiling new cases rather than waiting. Unfortunately, there is a risk of not getting the package back before August 17th and some people will need to refile without proof of the earlier filing. Hopefully, again, USCIS will institute a process for such individuals to avoid being penalized.
USCIS has not announced any details yet on how it will determine which cases get 2007 visa numbers that might still be available. We also don�t know yet how cases will be processed that are not in the batch of cases that get green card numbers this year. For those who will have to get numbers in future years, applications should be worked by the order of the priority date. So applicants with labor certifications approved some time back, for example, should go before people in the same category with later priority dates.
For individuals filing cases not requiring a labor certification (such as Schedule A cases and national interest waivers), the priority date is the date of filing. Because there may be hundreds of thousands of applications received between July 2nd and August 17th with many of these cases not requiring a labor certification, the date during this six week period a case is filed could make a big difference in terms of when a case will complete processing. And, again, getting that July 2nd priority date for those who filed early and were rejected could make a big difference in when their cases are ultimately processed through to completion.
girlfriend cristiano ronaldo 2011
feedfront
09-23 12:19 PM
Just when i was wondering that we will have to wait till OCt 1 when new visa are avialable... I saw your message... If i was you i will wait too for next 5/6 days you have till oct to respond.
Does that mean there is still hope that we may see some activity on the cases who have responsed to RFEs or we have to wait till OCt 1 Chewing our nails?
Now my status changed to 'Initial Review' because post office returned my mail :confused: Within 12 hrs status changed from 'Card Production' (05.03 PM) to 'Initial Review' (06.33 AM).
I had updated my new address 3 yrs before and was confirmed by infopass appointment.
Does that mean there is still hope that we may see some activity on the cases who have responsed to RFEs or we have to wait till OCt 1 Chewing our nails?
Now my status changed to 'Initial Review' because post office returned my mail :confused: Within 12 hrs status changed from 'Card Production' (05.03 PM) to 'Initial Review' (06.33 AM).
I had updated my new address 3 yrs before and was confirmed by infopass appointment.
hairstyles tattoo cristiano ronaldo 2011
return_to_india
05-26 09:42 PM
..... theoratically even if I am going for a walk i am supposed to carry immigration papers because a border patrol officer, in theory, could asks me for my papers ?
.....
I carry my GC, passport etc even if i get out of my house to my lawn.
I also stick them to my body in a water resistant package when i dive into a swimming pool, in case a immigration nut lay waiting there. Law is law. Why can't they collect my finger print/iris scan and determine status ?
.....
I carry my GC, passport etc even if i get out of my house to my lawn.
I also stick them to my body in a water resistant package when i dive into a swimming pool, in case a immigration nut lay waiting there. Law is law. Why can't they collect my finger print/iris scan and determine status ?
ya3
03-08 01:07 AM
hmm... I may join... If I get time. We'll see :D
Those WIPs are looking excellent, ppl. Especially Eilsoe's :thumb:
btw, if anyone wants to learn a 3d app without any prior knowledge... go CINEMA 4D:beam:
Those WIPs are looking excellent, ppl. Especially Eilsoe's :thumb:
btw, if anyone wants to learn a 3d app without any prior knowledge... go CINEMA 4D:beam:
Karthikthiru
09-11 11:03 AM
It is already approved by Immigration Sub-committe about 3-4 weeks back. It has to pass through judicial sub-committe
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)."
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)."