sc3
10-16 02:48 PM
I beg to disagree. If it was the visa bulletin, then why did they process newer applications first?. That shows some disorder out there. Even when Amazon breaks up, they set their operations right. Here we are being fed the same story over and over again.
Coming to backlogs, they introduced perm before all the existing labor applications were processed and what happened after that?. All the existing applications were sent to the infamous backlog elimination centers. While those applications were waiting to be picked up, perm applications were being processed left, right and centre.
Firstly: If USCIS was reacting, they would not have approved the so called "newer" applications. USCIS had to use up the numbers so they took the path of least resistance -- not the right thing to do -- but it can't be branded as a "reaction" to the July 07 issue.
Second: When you say "approving" newer applications, are you saying approving older applications by PD or older applications by RD/ND (with older being 3-4 year older RD/PD)?? USCIS has never had to process applications by PD, only factor they have is RD/ND. PD just tells when someone can be approved (or apply), it doesn't get you any priority in the processing queue. I am sure you dont want the situation where you have your later PD, earlier RD, but someone who chose to delay his app to come with an ancient PD, but a fresh RD to get processed ahead of you (when both of you are current) do you?
I am bit out of touch, but isn't PERM/BEC a DoL operation not USCIS. Then again, those were the factors you have no control. Even when it was just the Labor Cert process, there had been disparities between various processing centers. Some people made use of provisions (sometimes fraudulently) to get their LCs through these "fast" process centers. I too have been affected by the Perm/LC situation, but I don't think USCIS is to take blame on that.
Am I defending USCIS: No, I am just saying if people want a Flower campaign, they should go ahead with it. No point putting FUD to stop people from doing what they want.
Coming to backlogs, they introduced perm before all the existing labor applications were processed and what happened after that?. All the existing applications were sent to the infamous backlog elimination centers. While those applications were waiting to be picked up, perm applications were being processed left, right and centre.
Firstly: If USCIS was reacting, they would not have approved the so called "newer" applications. USCIS had to use up the numbers so they took the path of least resistance -- not the right thing to do -- but it can't be branded as a "reaction" to the July 07 issue.
Second: When you say "approving" newer applications, are you saying approving older applications by PD or older applications by RD/ND (with older being 3-4 year older RD/PD)?? USCIS has never had to process applications by PD, only factor they have is RD/ND. PD just tells when someone can be approved (or apply), it doesn't get you any priority in the processing queue. I am sure you dont want the situation where you have your later PD, earlier RD, but someone who chose to delay his app to come with an ancient PD, but a fresh RD to get processed ahead of you (when both of you are current) do you?
I am bit out of touch, but isn't PERM/BEC a DoL operation not USCIS. Then again, those were the factors you have no control. Even when it was just the Labor Cert process, there had been disparities between various processing centers. Some people made use of provisions (sometimes fraudulently) to get their LCs through these "fast" process centers. I too have been affected by the Perm/LC situation, but I don't think USCIS is to take blame on that.
Am I defending USCIS: No, I am just saying if people want a Flower campaign, they should go ahead with it. No point putting FUD to stop people from doing what they want.
wallpaper fat guy on ike pic. fat guy
Michael chertoff
07-12 09:06 PM
AUG BULLETIN is already out, it moved to March06 for EB2,
He is talking about next month (September). I think we have to wait for next year now.
He is talking about next month (September). I think we have to wait for next year now.
cowboy
07-18 11:14 AM
My case was sent by my attorney June 29th (current July bulletin) USPS certified mail.
As per USPS online tracking record it was delivered July 2nd 12.45 PM.
No receipt yet. So far sounds okay.
But I got the copy of actual delivery receipt stamped by F.Heinauer (Director NSC USCIS) with the date 062907.
It is a stamp so some of their employee clearly has stamped it.
Now I am confused if that’s the receipt date they are going to go with and may reject the application.
And with this many application it may take more than AUG 17th to receive anything back.
I am very sure it was reached on July 2nd. It was only sent June 29th afternoon.
And USPS is telling there is no delivery can reach so fast. According to USPS the guy who might have stamped the delivery did not changed the stamp date from 0629 to 0702 since it was a weekend.
Anybody in the same situation? Any advice?
Thanks
As per USPS online tracking record it was delivered July 2nd 12.45 PM.
No receipt yet. So far sounds okay.
But I got the copy of actual delivery receipt stamped by F.Heinauer (Director NSC USCIS) with the date 062907.
It is a stamp so some of their employee clearly has stamped it.
Now I am confused if that’s the receipt date they are going to go with and may reject the application.
And with this many application it may take more than AUG 17th to receive anything back.
I am very sure it was reached on July 2nd. It was only sent June 29th afternoon.
And USPS is telling there is no delivery can reach so fast. According to USPS the guy who might have stamped the delivery did not changed the stamp date from 0629 to 0702 since it was a weekend.
Anybody in the same situation? Any advice?
Thanks
2011 Fat Guy On Bike Pic.
crazyghoda
01-30 12:13 PM
No I didnt inform USCIS about job change. The lawyer who handled the H1 transfer from my GC sponsoring employer to the (laying off) employer suggested that there was no need to and we could respond to an RFE if it ever happened. He said that USCIS doesnt do anything with the letter and never truly match it up and so I let it go.
more...
sumansk
12-20 06:25 PM
Man. I laughed bcos u really made me laugh and I thank you for that.. especially after the recent omnibus fiasco...u know what I am saying..:D
any way .. my thinking is that since you have already gone thru other earlier stages and they check things at that shatte also so ..at yr 485 stage..you shud be good..so relax and njoy donot worry and also even if you worry...nothing is going to change so relax and make your family also relax as your tension will pass on to them as well...
Just njoy and be happy as I have realised being happy wards off many unwanted things which we never know might have come our way due to being depresssed...
;)
any way .. my thinking is that since you have already gone thru other earlier stages and they check things at that shatte also so ..at yr 485 stage..you shud be good..so relax and njoy donot worry and also even if you worry...nothing is going to change so relax and make your family also relax as your tension will pass on to them as well...
Just njoy and be happy as I have realised being happy wards off many unwanted things which we never know might have come our way due to being depresssed...
;)
alias
06-10 01:21 PM
EAD is not tied to an employer/company, it is your application. You may apply for EAD but not work at all, if you wish.
more...
vin13
11-11 12:14 PM
We can all send a copy to the ombudsmand and DOS.
I will be discussing this with my congressperson in a couple of weeks. Can any of you contact your congressperson and have them help you regarding quarterly spillover? Use the draft to take to your local congressman.
The draft letter looks good. I think, we should also send a copy or new letter to the Ombudsman and to the DOS (as DOS is also involved in how many visas are released).
That way we do not get pushed around.
Good work.
Gaurav
I will be discussing this with my congressperson in a couple of weeks. Can any of you contact your congressperson and have them help you regarding quarterly spillover? Use the draft to take to your local congressman.
The draft letter looks good. I think, we should also send a copy or new letter to the Ombudsman and to the DOS (as DOS is also involved in how many visas are released).
That way we do not get pushed around.
Good work.
Gaurav
2010 fat guy on ike pic.
Openarms
08-13 02:27 PM
Please follow this thread
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum85-action-items-for-everyone/1599562-team-visa-allocation-by-dos-13.html#post1979373
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum85-action-items-for-everyone/1599562-team-visa-allocation-by-dos-13.html#post1979373
more...
msp1976
07-13 10:12 AM
All,
Discrediting attorney Murthy does not serve our purpose.
If she is doing something good, that is generating more pressure on USCIS, then let's stop criticizing her.
Though she is taking the step a few days late, it is a step in right direction and lets support and thank her...
Everyone has their motives...What matters is the end product...
Discrediting attorney Murthy does not serve our purpose.
If she is doing something good, that is generating more pressure on USCIS, then let's stop criticizing her.
Though she is taking the step a few days late, it is a step in right direction and lets support and thank her...
Everyone has their motives...What matters is the end product...
hair fat guy on a little ike
malaGCPahije
12-10 03:57 PM
Do some population control in India and China, that would automatically fix the issue of retrogression. We are simply too many and we have clogged the system real bad. every 6th person on the face of this earth is Indian.
every 4'th person on this earth is a chinese. The obvious conclusion given the 2 facts (6'th person as Indian and 4'th as Chinese) is that every 4'th person on this earth is a chinese, every 6'th person an Indian and every 12'th person is an Indian Chinese :-).
I know, bad joke...The only thing we can do is support IV, and I mean financially more so than anything else.
every 4'th person on this earth is a chinese. The obvious conclusion given the 2 facts (6'th person as Indian and 4'th as Chinese) is that every 4'th person on this earth is a chinese, every 6'th person an Indian and every 12'th person is an Indian Chinese :-).
I know, bad joke...The only thing we can do is support IV, and I mean financially more so than anything else.
more...
HV000
08-15 06:04 PM
Unfortunately, China and ROW EB2 are 2 and 3 years ahead of INDIA EB2!!!
Hopefully, INDIA EB2 and EB3 moves forward in OCT with new allocation.
The DOS method of PIECE MEAL ALLOCATION NEEDS TO CHANGE!!
Hopefully, INDIA EB2 and EB3 moves forward in OCT with new allocation.
The DOS method of PIECE MEAL ALLOCATION NEEDS TO CHANGE!!
hot Fat Guy on a Little Bike
akred
02-21 10:58 AM
How does one "change" to EB2?. I have a PD of Oct 2003 EB3. Should i submit a new labor and if it is approved my category will be EB2 PD Oct 2003?. Should i also file another I-140?.
Not that i want to. just out of curiosity. thanks
1. If you want to use experience gained on the job at the same employer, then have your employer file a new labor for a different job followed by an I140.
2. If you were EB2 qualified but your employer chose to file in EB3, then have the same employer file a new EB2 labor+I140.
3. Or if employer A originally filed an EB3 labor for you, and you are now qualified for EB2, change employers and have employer B file an EB2 labor+I140.
Not that i want to. just out of curiosity. thanks
1. If you want to use experience gained on the job at the same employer, then have your employer file a new labor for a different job followed by an I140.
2. If you were EB2 qualified but your employer chose to file in EB3, then have the same employer file a new EB2 labor+I140.
3. Or if employer A originally filed an EB3 labor for you, and you are now qualified for EB2, change employers and have employer B file an EB2 labor+I140.
more...
house Fat guy
himu73
07-02 07:34 AM
Hope you understand this is not the only issue we are concerned. If you feel this organization is not for you , why are you browsing here. Keep away. This is not the time we need negative energy like you.
i can say only one thing..IV willl not be able to do anythingin this regard.USCIS can do anything whatever the way hat want to do.
i can say only one thing..IV willl not be able to do anythingin this regard.USCIS can do anything whatever the way hat want to do.
tattoo Bike
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
more...
pictures Bike Related: To the fat guy
jayz
08-15 05:28 PM
Well, I mean no offense to anybody but why is EB3 ROW so far back while EB2 India and China are as per June bulletin or better?
I thought for India the approved cases were 5 times the country quota for 2007? Good for those guys that were approved but I still don't get it why ROW is 2002!
The reasoning that I can see is, you are comparing EB2 to EB3. EB2 gets higher preference than EB3, but I am not sure how the per-country rationing plays in this mix.
I thought for India the approved cases were 5 times the country quota for 2007? Good for those guys that were approved but I still don't get it why ROW is 2002!
The reasoning that I can see is, you are comparing EB2 to EB3. EB2 gets higher preference than EB3, but I am not sure how the per-country rationing plays in this mix.
dresses Fat Guy on a Beach Fail
new_gc
12-17 03:34 PM
gurus can you throw light on this please?
more...
makeup fat guy on ike pic.
preddy2k
07-24 01:20 PM
Any July 2nd filers got their receipt #s?
My package has been sent to TSC on July 2nd around 9AM by FedEx. Did not hear anything yet.
My package has been sent to TSC on July 2nd around 9AM by FedEx. Did not hear anything yet.
girlfriend fat guy on ike pic. more
kaisersose
09-18 11:15 PM
I had to reluctantly stay away from the rally due to a brand new baby at home, but I sure hope to be part of future efforts.
And I totally agree that Legal is the keyword. Most Americans are not clear about Legals v Illegals and lump them together. Of course, some just do not care and do not see a need to differentiate between the two. They would just like to see Asian and South Asian folks get out of the country.
And I also am not in favor of asking for an increase in GC quota. Instead I am in favor of not counting spouse and kids against the quota. This itself will effectively inrease the quota to over 350K per year. Directly asking for quota increase always leaves a bad taste for skeptics and will slow down any possible action.
And I totally agree that Legal is the keyword. Most Americans are not clear about Legals v Illegals and lump them together. Of course, some just do not care and do not see a need to differentiate between the two. They would just like to see Asian and South Asian folks get out of the country.
And I also am not in favor of asking for an increase in GC quota. Instead I am in favor of not counting spouse and kids against the quota. This itself will effectively inrease the quota to over 350K per year. Directly asking for quota increase always leaves a bad taste for skeptics and will slow down any possible action.
hairstyles Fat Guy On A Little Bike
Legal
07-20 10:38 PM
I'm having less and less faith in the claims made by members that USCIS is inefficient and clueless. ok, they have been and continue to be in many areas:):). However, they have a game plan this time. In retrospect, we know they had a game plan in June 07 also.
There are several unknown variables (repeatedly and extensively discussed here)which make accurate prediction impossible for us. However, USCIS has the numbers of RIPE CASES. And they moved the dates based on the availability of remaining GC numbers for this fiscal AND the ripe cases.
They could have moved it to just Dec 2005, instead they moved it all the way to June 2006.
Best\ optimistic scenario- Most EB-2-I cases upto June 2006 will be adjudicated before Oct 1st.
Conservative scenario-Upto at least Dec 2005 PD all cases will be adjudicated , and a few CP cases into early 2006 will be adjudicated. With spillovers happening in each quarter, the PD should continue to move.
There are several unknown variables (repeatedly and extensively discussed here)which make accurate prediction impossible for us. However, USCIS has the numbers of RIPE CASES. And they moved the dates based on the availability of remaining GC numbers for this fiscal AND the ripe cases.
They could have moved it to just Dec 2005, instead they moved it all the way to June 2006.
Best\ optimistic scenario- Most EB-2-I cases upto June 2006 will be adjudicated before Oct 1st.
Conservative scenario-Upto at least Dec 2005 PD all cases will be adjudicated , and a few CP cases into early 2006 will be adjudicated. With spillovers happening in each quarter, the PD should continue to move.
svr_76
06-10 12:45 PM
I dont want to undermine the need of the hour to contribute to IV/other efforts however-
From the content it appears the DHS secretary may not approve "a petition by an employer" for "any visa" authorizing employment in the United States unless the employer has provided written certification.
This means that H1B and I-140 filed by any employer cannot be approved if they have not provided written certification regarding Layoffs. This further enforce Labor Certification and clients who are laying offing citizen/perm and then replacing them with H1B holder.
EAD renewals are not "Visa" filed by employer that authorize employment. So I think that is excluded.
What this seems to target are companies that layoff existing US employee citizen and immidiately replace/hire ppl on H1B or file labor certification/I140 for others. (e.g. Microsoft other companies which are replacing existing employees with H1B - for lower pay?).
From the content it appears the DHS secretary may not approve "a petition by an employer" for "any visa" authorizing employment in the United States unless the employer has provided written certification.
This means that H1B and I-140 filed by any employer cannot be approved if they have not provided written certification regarding Layoffs. This further enforce Labor Certification and clients who are laying offing citizen/perm and then replacing them with H1B holder.
EAD renewals are not "Visa" filed by employer that authorize employment. So I think that is excluded.
What this seems to target are companies that layoff existing US employee citizen and immidiately replace/hire ppl on H1B or file labor certification/I140 for others. (e.g. Microsoft other companies which are replacing existing employees with H1B - for lower pay?).
GCStatus
09-18 12:20 AM
I will take it easy if you weren't intentionally insulting.
Woohoo, we have a winner
Woohoo, we have a winner