kondur_007
04-10 10:28 AM
Does anyone have numbers for spillover last year category wise? I mean, last year how many EB4, EB5 and EB1 left out visas got spilled over to EB2? Thanks...
Here are the details for last year and years before:
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
Here are the details for last year and years before:
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
wallpaper Short Haircuts for Men
kishdam
02-20 03:28 PM
Thats a slight good news (in the current bad news or no news era regarding legal immigration) - hopefully there are are enough EB1 spillover visas to move EB2 by a few months each quarter.
vagish
04-04 03:31 PM
Solution is :
1. Reform current H1B procedures so that it cannot be abused.
2. Make H1b cap market based.
3. Reform EB based GC process as suggested by Strive Act..
If only i was president !! :)..
keep dreaming ,
1) H1B based on market ( will never happen ) , how ever hiking it to some
rational number like 100K to 130K is a good possibility.
2) reform GC process so that after working for 5 years, with one company
one should be able to get green card without delay, this would be more
meanigful as it will demonstrate that the poners really has a full time job
as oppose to somebody just buying green card without ever
working for a company.
thanks
1. Reform current H1B procedures so that it cannot be abused.
2. Make H1b cap market based.
3. Reform EB based GC process as suggested by Strive Act..
If only i was president !! :)..
keep dreaming ,
1) H1B based on market ( will never happen ) , how ever hiking it to some
rational number like 100K to 130K is a good possibility.
2) reform GC process so that after working for 5 years, with one company
one should be able to get green card without delay, this would be more
meanigful as it will demonstrate that the poners really has a full time job
as oppose to somebody just buying green card without ever
working for a company.
thanks
2011 Mens Long Hair Styles
rajuseattle
07-14 08:23 PM
ajthakur,
dont worry about LUD on 07/13, that was a generic update.
My wife's approved I-539 (H-4) from 2005 received LUD on 07/13, so that's nothing to do with your current RFE situation.
I think you are scared of your past employer or you are worrying too much, god knows what he has asked you to do which you dont want to mention on this forum, but if he has threatened you or if he is doing some illegal activities you have the protection under AC-21 for reporting such employers to USCIS and DoL. Please read the USCIS (Neufield) Memo published in May 2008.
Please let us know whats going on with your ex-employer, if he is trying to get some money from you or abusing you, you can very well report him to DoL and you will be fine under the new AC-21 memo which protects such employees who are whistle blowers and you are fully protected under US laws.
Lot of the times desi blood suckers abuse their employees and this is the reason USCIS came up with whistle blower protection under AC-21. your competent attorney can use this special provision and argue with USCIS why you were forced to change employment after filing your I-485 back in July 2007 and you switch the job under AC-21 provisions in August 2007.
dont worry too much, try preparing your AC-21 letter and Employment verification letter to answer the RFE.
dont worry about LUD on 07/13, that was a generic update.
My wife's approved I-539 (H-4) from 2005 received LUD on 07/13, so that's nothing to do with your current RFE situation.
I think you are scared of your past employer or you are worrying too much, god knows what he has asked you to do which you dont want to mention on this forum, but if he has threatened you or if he is doing some illegal activities you have the protection under AC-21 for reporting such employers to USCIS and DoL. Please read the USCIS (Neufield) Memo published in May 2008.
Please let us know whats going on with your ex-employer, if he is trying to get some money from you or abusing you, you can very well report him to DoL and you will be fine under the new AC-21 memo which protects such employees who are whistle blowers and you are fully protected under US laws.
Lot of the times desi blood suckers abuse their employees and this is the reason USCIS came up with whistle blower protection under AC-21. your competent attorney can use this special provision and argue with USCIS why you were forced to change employment after filing your I-485 back in July 2007 and you switch the job under AC-21 provisions in August 2007.
dont worry too much, try preparing your AC-21 letter and Employment verification letter to answer the RFE.
more...
ezee
10-16 05:45 PM
I clearly mentioned each of the following country and category. To make sure, I also mentioned that we do not need combined total of pending AOS applications. If the request is ambiguous or means different things to different people,please let us know and we can make needed modifications asap. Are you recommending to hand out a blank tabular format .to USCIS FOIA?
I personally think there is a possible ambiguity in the request (especially since we are dealing with a government agency). So we should probably bullet point the data we need at least and if people don't think there is any harm in putting in a table for the format of data needed that will make things very clear. I agree with you that breakdown of quarter/month is probably not needed and might actually hurt our chances of getting the answer within reasonable amount of time.
I personally think there is a possible ambiguity in the request (especially since we are dealing with a government agency). So we should probably bullet point the data we need at least and if people don't think there is any harm in putting in a table for the format of data needed that will make things very clear. I agree with you that breakdown of quarter/month is probably not needed and might actually hurt our chances of getting the answer within reasonable amount of time.
alisa
01-20 03:44 PM
This is all for EB-3.
I think this is the best case scenario.
Pardon my ignorance, but I am assuming that EB-2 eats up from EB-3's numbers, and so EB-2 wait times will be better than what is estimated here for EB-3, at the expense of the EB-3 waiting times ofcourse.
For India:
Depletion_rate = 10500/year
Accumulation_rate = 19500/year
For ROW:
Depletion_rate = 25000/year (Kinda curves-fits to retire all 2001 backlog by 2006, and 2002 backlog by 2008)
Accumulation_rate = 19500/year (Estimated to be the same as that of India)
All numbers rounded off. No
For 2001: Year_current = 2001 + (123194/Depletion_rate)
For 2002: Year_current = 2002 + (160274/Depletion_rate)
For 2003 and later
Year_current = Year_applied + ( (Year_applied-2002)*(Accumulation_rate-Depletion_rate) + 160274) / Depletion_rate
Here are the results. YA is year applied. YC is Year your PD will be current.
No processing delay assumed.
...........India.. ROW
D_rate 10000 25000
A_rate 19500 19500
YA YC YC
2001 2013 2006
2002 2018 2008
2003 2020 2009
2004 2022 2010
2005 2024 2011
2006 2026 2012
2007 2028 2012
2008 2030 2013
2009 2032 2014
2010 2034 2015
I am open to suggestions on how this model can be improved.
If this model, and these estimates are reasonably accurate, lets come out with our own visa bulletin.
I think this is the best case scenario.
Pardon my ignorance, but I am assuming that EB-2 eats up from EB-3's numbers, and so EB-2 wait times will be better than what is estimated here for EB-3, at the expense of the EB-3 waiting times ofcourse.
For India:
Depletion_rate = 10500/year
Accumulation_rate = 19500/year
For ROW:
Depletion_rate = 25000/year (Kinda curves-fits to retire all 2001 backlog by 2006, and 2002 backlog by 2008)
Accumulation_rate = 19500/year (Estimated to be the same as that of India)
All numbers rounded off. No
For 2001: Year_current = 2001 + (123194/Depletion_rate)
For 2002: Year_current = 2002 + (160274/Depletion_rate)
For 2003 and later
Year_current = Year_applied + ( (Year_applied-2002)*(Accumulation_rate-Depletion_rate) + 160274) / Depletion_rate
Here are the results. YA is year applied. YC is Year your PD will be current.
No processing delay assumed.
...........India.. ROW
D_rate 10000 25000
A_rate 19500 19500
YA YC YC
2001 2013 2006
2002 2018 2008
2003 2020 2009
2004 2022 2010
2005 2024 2011
2006 2026 2012
2007 2028 2012
2008 2030 2013
2009 2032 2014
2010 2034 2015
I am open to suggestions on how this model can be improved.
If this model, and these estimates are reasonably accurate, lets come out with our own visa bulletin.
more...
sunty
11-11 12:33 PM
In addition to sending the letter, we may try this avenue as well (look at the page bottom)
How to Contact Us (http://travel.state.gov/about/info/info_308.html)
"For immigrant visa inquiries, call the National Visa Center at 603-334-0700 or
email: NVCINQUIRY@state.gov"
Any idea if these is the correct number to call ?
Maybe inundating them with calls might help us reach Mr. Charles Oppenheim office and get some explaination about the visa allocation process.
I tried calling, but today is a Federal Holiday. Will try again tomorrow.
How to Contact Us (http://travel.state.gov/about/info/info_308.html)
"For immigrant visa inquiries, call the National Visa Center at 603-334-0700 or
email: NVCINQUIRY@state.gov"
Any idea if these is the correct number to call ?
Maybe inundating them with calls might help us reach Mr. Charles Oppenheim office and get some explaination about the visa allocation process.
I tried calling, but today is a Federal Holiday. Will try again tomorrow.
2010 Ideal cut for men who
[uber]
03-12 11:46 AM
its still a tie between Eilsoe and Thirdworldman...
i voted Eilsoe because the surv. cam was a cool concept...
thirdworldman... you almost got the vote.. but for the fact that no train could travel the curve.... but supreme job regardless...
i voted Eilsoe because the surv. cam was a cool concept...
thirdworldman... you almost got the vote.. but for the fact that no train could travel the curve.... but supreme job regardless...
more...
va_dude
03-19 08:44 AM
Guys... can we drop the whole discussion about this guy's name.
It is no advisable to discuss such topics in public forums on the internet. These keywords attract unwarranted attention.
It is no advisable to discuss such topics in public forums on the internet. These keywords attract unwarranted attention.
hair 50s hairstyles men. cool
webm
03-19 03:52 PM
May be I am not aware, say the dates move to 2005, then whoever has a PD till 2005 and has a pending 485, is bound to get GC approved,
Approval depends on luck again as you know sometimes they follow random process and by that time dates can go back or stand still or fwd..no wonders anything can happen..
Approval depends on luck again as you know sometimes they follow random process and by that time dates can go back or stand still or fwd..no wonders anything can happen..
more...
WAIT_FOR_EVER_GC
07-13 03:44 PM
I am current now (PD: Feb 16th,06) and last time when i was current in 2008 for a month i got an RFE. Even though the attorney replied to the RFE in 3 days, all my case status shows is RFE response received.
Ours is a big company and close 2000 people applied for 485 during the July 2007 fiasco and we were asked to send the G28 forms to the attorney by mail with no signature reqd. Apparently almost every got an RFE for that.
I wish i could get to know if RFE was all taken care of and my case is pending for a VISA number. Any way to know if thats the case gurus?
Why did you not open an SR. I was in the same situation, my company replied back to the RFE and the status still says we recieved your RFE. I opened an SR to find out my position this March, they said they are waiting for visa to get current.
Try opening an SR and just find status.
Ours is a big company and close 2000 people applied for 485 during the July 2007 fiasco and we were asked to send the G28 forms to the attorney by mail with no signature reqd. Apparently almost every got an RFE for that.
I wish i could get to know if RFE was all taken care of and my case is pending for a VISA number. Any way to know if thats the case gurus?
Why did you not open an SR. I was in the same situation, my company replied back to the RFE and the status still says we recieved your RFE. I opened an SR to find out my position this March, they said they are waiting for visa to get current.
Try opening an SR and just find status.
hot with the same haircut. Men
eilsoe
03-08 04:24 PM
right, march 10th :lol:
sorry.. had my head somewhere else at the time... :sure:
sorry.. had my head somewhere else at the time... :sure:
more...
house sexy men hairstyles.
sukhwinderd
02-21 07:25 PM
people from cary, NC ; boston; detroit; orlando; new jersey till now.
need more participation from these areas as well as from other states.
need more participation from these areas as well as from other states.
tattoo cool hairstyles for men.
drirshad
03-09 10:11 PM
Ron Gotcher says, following him for years gotta believe him now .........
http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7501
Based on this information, it appears that the CIS really is adjudicating cases at a faster pace. If so, then this is unprecedented. My take on this is that the CIS is concentrating on EB3 cases, since that is where the demand seems to be. Notice that Paragraph F mentions the possibility of rapid movement in other categories. Since first preference is always "current" for everyone, that only leaves second preference for India and China.
E. RETROGRESSON OF THE WORLDWIDE, MEXICO, AND PHILIPPINES EMPLOYMENT THIRD PREFERENCE CUT-OFF DATES FOR APRIL
Despite the established cut-off date having been held for the past five months in an effort to keep demand within the average monthly usage targets, the amount of demand being received from Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) Offices for adjustment of status cases remains extremely high. Therefore, it has been necessary to retrogress the April cut-off dates in an attempt to hold demand within the FY-2009 annual limit. Since over 60 percent of the Worldwide and Philippines Employment Third preference CIS demand received this year has been for applicants with priority dates prior to January 1, 2004, the cut-off date has been retrogressed to 01MAR03 to help ensure that the amount of future demand is significantly reduced. As indicated in the last sentence of Item A, paragraph 1, of this bulletin, this cut-off date will be applied immediately. It should also be noted that further retrogression or “unavailability” at any time cannot be ruled out.
It has also been necessary to retrogress the Employment Third Preference Other Worker cut-off date for all countries in order to hold the issuance level within the annual limit.
F. VISA AVAILABILITY IN THE COMING MONTHS
During the past year, many preference categories have experienced steady and sometimes rapid cut-off date movement. Such action is normally followed by an increase in applicant demand. Heavy applicant demand for numbers in some categories could require cut-off date movements to slow, stop, or even retrogress at some point during the remainder of FY in order to hold visa use within the applicable annual numerical limits. Should such action occur, it would most likely be only temporary in nature, pending the start of the new fiscal year in October.
http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7501
Based on this information, it appears that the CIS really is adjudicating cases at a faster pace. If so, then this is unprecedented. My take on this is that the CIS is concentrating on EB3 cases, since that is where the demand seems to be. Notice that Paragraph F mentions the possibility of rapid movement in other categories. Since first preference is always "current" for everyone, that only leaves second preference for India and China.
E. RETROGRESSON OF THE WORLDWIDE, MEXICO, AND PHILIPPINES EMPLOYMENT THIRD PREFERENCE CUT-OFF DATES FOR APRIL
Despite the established cut-off date having been held for the past five months in an effort to keep demand within the average monthly usage targets, the amount of demand being received from Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) Offices for adjustment of status cases remains extremely high. Therefore, it has been necessary to retrogress the April cut-off dates in an attempt to hold demand within the FY-2009 annual limit. Since over 60 percent of the Worldwide and Philippines Employment Third preference CIS demand received this year has been for applicants with priority dates prior to January 1, 2004, the cut-off date has been retrogressed to 01MAR03 to help ensure that the amount of future demand is significantly reduced. As indicated in the last sentence of Item A, paragraph 1, of this bulletin, this cut-off date will be applied immediately. It should also be noted that further retrogression or “unavailability” at any time cannot be ruled out.
It has also been necessary to retrogress the Employment Third Preference Other Worker cut-off date for all countries in order to hold the issuance level within the annual limit.
F. VISA AVAILABILITY IN THE COMING MONTHS
During the past year, many preference categories have experienced steady and sometimes rapid cut-off date movement. Such action is normally followed by an increase in applicant demand. Heavy applicant demand for numbers in some categories could require cut-off date movements to slow, stop, or even retrogress at some point during the remainder of FY in order to hold visa use within the applicable annual numerical limits. Should such action occur, it would most likely be only temporary in nature, pending the start of the new fiscal year in October.
more...
pictures Haircut Fashion | Hairstyles
ckichannagari
06-10 08:44 PM
sent the message ..
I will be asking 6 more friends to do the same.
I will be asking 6 more friends to do the same.
dresses sexy hairstyles for men.
jamesbond007
09-10 11:16 AM
Is that 30 dots or 30 points?
It should be possible to have 30 points without 20 dots. I'm not clear on that, please let me know if I'm wrong.
This is taken from the chat page:
To access this area you must have: a.) Over 50 posts b.) Over 30 reputation points
It should be possible to have 30 points without 20 dots. I'm not clear on that, please let me know if I'm wrong.
This is taken from the chat page:
To access this area you must have: a.) Over 50 posts b.) Over 30 reputation points
more...
makeup Hairstyle for Men
.jpg "sexy men hairstyles.")
saimrathi
07-05 01:52 PM
In the time it took you to write all this up, mayb you coudl have enlightened a senator or two...
I think atleast the forums section should be made restricted to contributing members. I see many newcomers (both paying and freebies) come to this site and hoping to get a quick guidence on their immigration issue. They come here becasue they know a) they will get some answer quickly b) that answer will make sense and experinced users here who have gone through similar situation will share their insights.
Those are major outcomes or results for not paying any dime.
I can understand someone's concern about asking everyone to pay certain amount. But most of us here are earning decent wages and can contribute atleast 3$ a month (or 25$ a year) for such a service.
If those members want to contribute more as many of us do then they are most welcome to do so.
In $$$ terms of the 12K + members we can retain 40% (about 5K) and each of them contributes atleast 25$ a year (one time payment) = $75,000.00
Remember this $75K is only based on basic membership fees. Any dropouts or reduced rate of conversion will be compensated by those '20$ a month' paying members (roughly by 1 as to 10).
In short, I support this idea of having majority of forums under restricted umbrella.
- PMAMP
I think atleast the forums section should be made restricted to contributing members. I see many newcomers (both paying and freebies) come to this site and hoping to get a quick guidence on their immigration issue. They come here becasue they know a) they will get some answer quickly b) that answer will make sense and experinced users here who have gone through similar situation will share their insights.
Those are major outcomes or results for not paying any dime.
I can understand someone's concern about asking everyone to pay certain amount. But most of us here are earning decent wages and can contribute atleast 3$ a month (or 25$ a year) for such a service.
If those members want to contribute more as many of us do then they are most welcome to do so.
In $$$ terms of the 12K + members we can retain 40% (about 5K) and each of them contributes atleast 25$ a year (one time payment) = $75,000.00
Remember this $75K is only based on basic membership fees. Any dropouts or reduced rate of conversion will be compensated by those '20$ a month' paying members (roughly by 1 as to 10).
In short, I support this idea of having majority of forums under restricted umbrella.
- PMAMP
girlfriend Men#39;s Emo hairstyles hold a
yabayaba
08-11 02:23 PM
Also Could me in..
hairstyles hairstyles for men- simple
greyhair
02-08 06:01 PM
Frankly I think that this lawyer is just posting provocative material to make himself popular. He has made many predictions and number of "useful" analysis in the past, most of which were found to be untrue. I used to read his posts until recently I figured out that the analysis was unreliable. This is just my opinion.
amitjoey
07-05 12:56 PM
Fellow IV fighters, members. I know, it seems like there is always a target for funds and we dont achieve it. Well! that is not true, we set a new target when the first one is achieved.
Funds, There are more ideas than funds. For every new campaign, plan, we need funds. So it is an ever needed commodity. The reason so many of us are so very aggresive is that we just need more funds, plain and simple.
Inspite of several hundreds contributing, it is not enough. But we will soon reach a day when we would be okay, (given a lot of us/you, sign up for a recurring contribution).
Trusting IV with funds is a major stumbling block, but remember IV is a non-profit, so every "naya-paisa" (penny) is accounted for.
People handling money (core IV) are sincere, honest hardworking people on work-visas, they have much to lose from not being accountable.
And the most important thing is, please take a look at these hard-working IV CORE PEOPLE, please. Some of them have put thousands of dollars (I mean 5 and ten thousand) into this effort. I am not counting personal expenses, travelling to DC, lost work hours etc.
So your $100 at the bowling arena wont get you much farther, but contribute it to IV to get your way ahead paved and bull-dozed over.
Sorry, for posting in the wrong thread, just needed attention. And yes, I feel that it should be a paid website.
Funds, There are more ideas than funds. For every new campaign, plan, we need funds. So it is an ever needed commodity. The reason so many of us are so very aggresive is that we just need more funds, plain and simple.
Inspite of several hundreds contributing, it is not enough. But we will soon reach a day when we would be okay, (given a lot of us/you, sign up for a recurring contribution).
Trusting IV with funds is a major stumbling block, but remember IV is a non-profit, so every "naya-paisa" (penny) is accounted for.
People handling money (core IV) are sincere, honest hardworking people on work-visas, they have much to lose from not being accountable.
And the most important thing is, please take a look at these hard-working IV CORE PEOPLE, please. Some of them have put thousands of dollars (I mean 5 and ten thousand) into this effort. I am not counting personal expenses, travelling to DC, lost work hours etc.
So your $100 at the bowling arena wont get you much farther, but contribute it to IV to get your way ahead paved and bull-dozed over.
Sorry, for posting in the wrong thread, just needed attention. And yes, I feel that it should be a paid website.
delhiguy
07-09 04:20 PM
I am yet to see any legal basis in the case which states that DoS has to give notice of x days before changing the visa bulletin. All it says that they have "policy" of visa bulletin good for a month. Such policies, unless backed by legal basis, are not enforceable.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
Whenever i say this "Such policies, unless backed by legal basis, are not enforceable" Everybody starts bashing me up...
So you be ready toooo.
I would be very happy , if all the H1B guys get EAD , but i cant just give a statement against DOS/USCIS till i am 100% sure.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
Whenever i say this "Such policies, unless backed by legal basis, are not enforceable" Everybody starts bashing me up...
So you be ready toooo.
I would be very happy , if all the H1B guys get EAD , but i cant just give a statement against DOS/USCIS till i am 100% sure.