cbpds
01-13 06:11 PM
Will these rules apply for H1 re-stamping or is it just for H1 renewals only?
That seems to be the intention here..
That seems to be the intention here..
wallpaper pictures makeup grace kelly
vdlrao
07-21 06:49 PM
For 2007 we had an availability of 226,000 Family Based Visas. But the issued visas in 2007 in Family Based are 194,900 visas. That means there are 226,000 MINUS 194,900 = 31100. These 31,100
unused Family Based Visas have been made available for 2008 Employment Based Visas of 140,000. And USCIS has 28,795 unused VISAS of American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act of 2000 (AC21).
American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act of 2000 (AC21) had recaptured 130,107 visas.
Out of that 94,000 were used in 2005.
7,312 were used in 2007.
So dont know when the available 28,795 unused VISAS of AC21 will be used again.
The unused family based visas of 2007 are 31,100 , which are going to be added for Employement Based Visas of 2008. So the total Employment based visas for 2008 are 140,000 + 31,100 = 171,100.
Theses 171,100 EB Visas of 2008 will be split like, asuming USCIS is not using the availble 28,795 unused VISAS of AC21 below.
(If USCIS decides to use some or all of 28,795 unused VISAS of AC21, then the available Employment Based VISAS of 2008 increases accordingly. )
28.6 percent each EB1, EB2 and EB3. 48934 VISAS for Each Category.
And 7.1 percent each EB4 and EB5. 12148 VISAS for the last two EB categories.
So in 2008 the total Visas for EB1 and EB2 are 48934 + 48934 = 97868 plus unused EB4 and EB5 visas of 2008.
The total EB5 Visas usage never crossed 824 in the past 10 years(Average Usage is 376/year).
So there would be 11148 visas available for EB1 from EB5 (assuming 1,000 visas are used in EB5 which is highly impossible)
The unused EB4 Visas may be couple of thousand or null, based on the past 10 years EB4 usage (7,223 is the average usage)
Assume there are only 2,000 EB4 VISAS unused in 2008 (defenitely it would be more unused).
So IN THE WORST CASE the total EB1 and EB2 Visas for 2008 are
48934 + 48934 + 11,148 + 2,000 = 111,016
IN THE BEST CASE, ASSUMING USCIS USES ALL 28,795 unused VISAS of AC21 FOR 2008 AND THERE WOULD BE 5,000 UNUSED EB4 VISAS, THE TOTAL EB1 AND EB2 VISAS FOR 2008 ARE GOING TO BE 111,016 +3,000(EB4)+ 2*(28,795/3) = 111,016 +3,000+19196 = 133,212
Total (EB1+EB2) from 1998 to 2007 --> 35737, 23401 , 47821, 84222, 78484, 29859, 63825, 107328, 58871, 70859
So IN THE WORST CASE the total (EB1+ EB2) Visas for 2008 are
48934 + 48934 + 11,148 + 2,000 = 111,016
IN THE BEST CASE, ASSUMING USCIS USES ALL 28,795 unused VISAS of AC21 FOR 2008 AND THERE WOULD BE 5,000 UNUSED EB4 VISAS, THE TOTAL EB1 AND EB2 VISAS FOR 2008 ARE GOING TO BE 111,016 +3,000(EB4)+ 2*(28,795/3) = 111,016 +3,000+19196 = 133,212
----------------------------------
Type and class of admission 1998-- 1999-- 2000-- 2001-- 2002-- 2003-- 2004-- 2005-- 2006-- 2007
Employment-based preferences 77,413-- 56,678-- 106,642--178,702--173,814--81,727--155,330--246,877--159,081--162,176
First: Priority workers 21,375-- 14,844-- 27,566-- 41,672-- 34,168-- 14,453-- 31,291-- 64,731-- 36,960-- 26,697
unused Family Based Visas have been made available for 2008 Employment Based Visas of 140,000. And USCIS has 28,795 unused VISAS of American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act of 2000 (AC21).
American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act of 2000 (AC21) had recaptured 130,107 visas.
Out of that 94,000 were used in 2005.
7,312 were used in 2007.
So dont know when the available 28,795 unused VISAS of AC21 will be used again.
The unused family based visas of 2007 are 31,100 , which are going to be added for Employement Based Visas of 2008. So the total Employment based visas for 2008 are 140,000 + 31,100 = 171,100.
Theses 171,100 EB Visas of 2008 will be split like, asuming USCIS is not using the availble 28,795 unused VISAS of AC21 below.
(If USCIS decides to use some or all of 28,795 unused VISAS of AC21, then the available Employment Based VISAS of 2008 increases accordingly. )
28.6 percent each EB1, EB2 and EB3. 48934 VISAS for Each Category.
And 7.1 percent each EB4 and EB5. 12148 VISAS for the last two EB categories.
So in 2008 the total Visas for EB1 and EB2 are 48934 + 48934 = 97868 plus unused EB4 and EB5 visas of 2008.
The total EB5 Visas usage never crossed 824 in the past 10 years(Average Usage is 376/year).
So there would be 11148 visas available for EB1 from EB5 (assuming 1,000 visas are used in EB5 which is highly impossible)
The unused EB4 Visas may be couple of thousand or null, based on the past 10 years EB4 usage (7,223 is the average usage)
Assume there are only 2,000 EB4 VISAS unused in 2008 (defenitely it would be more unused).
So IN THE WORST CASE the total EB1 and EB2 Visas for 2008 are
48934 + 48934 + 11,148 + 2,000 = 111,016
IN THE BEST CASE, ASSUMING USCIS USES ALL 28,795 unused VISAS of AC21 FOR 2008 AND THERE WOULD BE 5,000 UNUSED EB4 VISAS, THE TOTAL EB1 AND EB2 VISAS FOR 2008 ARE GOING TO BE 111,016 +3,000(EB4)+ 2*(28,795/3) = 111,016 +3,000+19196 = 133,212
Total (EB1+EB2) from 1998 to 2007 --> 35737, 23401 , 47821, 84222, 78484, 29859, 63825, 107328, 58871, 70859
So IN THE WORST CASE the total (EB1+ EB2) Visas for 2008 are
48934 + 48934 + 11,148 + 2,000 = 111,016
IN THE BEST CASE, ASSUMING USCIS USES ALL 28,795 unused VISAS of AC21 FOR 2008 AND THERE WOULD BE 5,000 UNUSED EB4 VISAS, THE TOTAL EB1 AND EB2 VISAS FOR 2008 ARE GOING TO BE 111,016 +3,000(EB4)+ 2*(28,795/3) = 111,016 +3,000+19196 = 133,212
----------------------------------
Type and class of admission 1998-- 1999-- 2000-- 2001-- 2002-- 2003-- 2004-- 2005-- 2006-- 2007
Employment-based preferences 77,413-- 56,678-- 106,642--178,702--173,814--81,727--155,330--246,877--159,081--162,176
First: Priority workers 21,375-- 14,844-- 27,566-- 41,672-- 34,168-- 14,453-- 31,291-- 64,731-- 36,960-- 26,697
lost_stranger
10-10 03:13 AM
While it is a good idea to educate the congress regarding the impact the EB Green Card applicants could have on the Housing Market. It is a terrible idea to propose a legislation which would offer GCs to applicants who would purchases houses in US. To put it bluntly, the legislation seems to be meant for selling GCs to applicants who are in a position to afford it, offering GC to applicants who will invest in housing market is akin to giving out GCs for cash and there is already a category for that. How would one factor in the CP applicants like nurses and PT who are waiting in their home countries?
The idea should be modified to spread the message regarding the positive impact that the EB GC applicants could have on the housing market and not to create a niche category of EB applicants who can purchase their GC to scoot ahead of other less fortunate ones. This proposal should be nipped in the bud before some anti immigrant group or advocate like Lou gets wind of it.
The idea should be modified to spread the message regarding the positive impact that the EB GC applicants could have on the housing market and not to create a niche category of EB applicants who can purchase their GC to scoot ahead of other less fortunate ones. This proposal should be nipped in the bud before some anti immigrant group or advocate like Lou gets wind of it.
2011 how to grace kelly hair
venky321
01-13 07:31 PM
what the heck is all this
i cant even understand a single word
is it going to effect the students who did their masters here?
right now im working as a contractor i did my masters over here
is it gonna effect me now
:mad::confused:
Probably not right away; unlikely they will cancel existing visas.
But over time those working for consulting companies could face hurdles at every step of the way, extensions, visa stampings and even at port of entry.
Use your time to find a permanent job.
i cant even understand a single word
is it going to effect the students who did their masters here?
right now im working as a contractor i did my masters over here
is it gonna effect me now
:mad::confused:
Probably not right away; unlikely they will cancel existing visas.
But over time those working for consulting companies could face hurdles at every step of the way, extensions, visa stampings and even at port of entry.
Use your time to find a permanent job.
more...
neverbefore
09-23 12:02 PM
Applause!
small2006
07-03 04:32 PM
ooking for the following :
Chris Core
Rush Limbaugh
Sean Hannity
Mark Levin
__________________
Less talk, more work.
PD Nov 2005
I-140 Jun 2007 / EB3
http://rkkblogger.blogspot.com/
-----------------------
$20 / monthly
$260 - so far
-----------------------
Mark Levin: http://www.marklevinshow.com/ 1-877-3813811
Sean Hannity: http://www.hannity.com/ 1-800-941-7326
Rush Limbaugh: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html 1-800-282-2882
Chris Core: http://www.wmal.com/showdj.asp?DJID=2173 1-888-630-WMAL
Chris Core
Rush Limbaugh
Sean Hannity
Mark Levin
__________________
Less talk, more work.
PD Nov 2005
I-140 Jun 2007 / EB3
http://rkkblogger.blogspot.com/
-----------------------
$20 / monthly
$260 - so far
-----------------------
Mark Levin: http://www.marklevinshow.com/ 1-877-3813811
Sean Hannity: http://www.hannity.com/ 1-800-941-7326
Rush Limbaugh: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html 1-800-282-2882
Chris Core: http://www.wmal.com/showdj.asp?DJID=2173 1-888-630-WMAL
more...
brb2
06-21 04:52 PM
Labor substitution in my opinion is less that 1% of cases for some one jumping the line. The main problem is lack of visa numbers and processing delays. We are discussing a topic which will have little affect if any on our own GC process. It is a drop in the ocean to say the least.
I support its elimination because of the fraud that takes place. In the past I have got a pm on another immigration web site asking if I knew anyone who could "sell" them an approved labor!
I support its elimination because of the fraud that takes place. In the past I have got a pm on another immigration web site asking if I knew anyone who could "sell" them an approved labor!
2010 See our Grace Kelly photo
Michael chertoff
01-13 11:50 AM
Good Things about IV
1. IV Core does not conduct its business in the forum. They learnt this lesson a long time ago.
2. All their work is done in the donor forum and behind the scenes by volunteers
3. If they feel that any idea is worth pursuing they invite that person (with the idea) behind the scenes and pursue that idea
4. All the work is done by IV members themselves because they are helping themselves
5. IV members are investing time and money to do work which impacts a large number of immigrants
6. That is a professional way to do stuff and i admire the way work is done at IV
Concerns of IV
1. IV always states about the lack of will of people to do something for themselves
2. IV always states that people just comment on forum but do not step forward to do stuff
3. IV always says that people do not donate enough and without donation a grassroot organization will not survive
What IV is doing wrong
1. IV talks about a holistic approach whereby the benefit to EB community will trickle down and once EB2 will become current EB3 will get benefit of spillover
2. IV is assuming EB2 will become current but with the number of indians coming to USA and number of indian students who will graduate from MS courses in USA over the next 5 years EB2I will always be backlogged
3. Plus we are not even talking about EB2 ROW and EB3ROW demand which could go up
4. Supporting the DV 55k bill to US educated GC applicants on the whole looks like a great plan. Sure here are 55k and here are about 150 k GC applicants. 150 - 50 IS 100 K. So if the bill passes we reduce the backlog by 50 k. Now i will am one of the person who will be getting a GC because i am US educated but my opposition to this bill is on principle
5. What IV has to realise is that it is not only IV members specifically but it is a whole lot of non IV members who are EB3 who have been a bigger person in this whole immigration retorgression advocacy scheme of things till now.
How let me explain. We have seen EB3 persons from 2002 who are still waiting for GC and who are not getting spill over visas because EB2 is using up all the spill over visas. So do you see any EB3 now complaining about the rule change supported by IV and made by USCIS whereby EB2 gets spill over visas. NO we do not see any EB3 complaining. That is because EB3 as a whole understands that that rule in the past being interpeted in a wrong way and the current way is the correct interpetation. Sure the old method gave EB3 some extra spill over visa benefit but the new interpetation caused EB3 to dry up compleletly. Now that in itself is against the very nature of self preservation by definition, But EB3 went along for the greater good
What IV can do right
1. Now we have this 55K DV Bill. This is something different from the spillover (which is law and cannot be changed). This is one time oppurtunity to alieviate the sufferings of EB group as a whole. So can IV which is supposed to be talking for the whole EB community do the right thing here and ensure (with advocacy they are so good at) that IV's stand is that 55K visa are given to all GC applicant from retrogressed countries based on oldest priority date first irrespective of EB2 and EB3.
2. The concequence of such a move is that long retrogressed EB applicants will get relief (Which is one of the point IV talks about in their charter)
3. Sure Many US educated applicants from EB2 and EB3 will oppose this move because lets face it, this move impacts their getting GC sooner. And if they behave like that they are in the same category as EB2 guys on this forum who do not entertain any idea which will impact their getting GC soon.
What wil happen if IV does the above
1. The DV 55K bill will NEVER pass in congress. This along with the other bills we have seen will bite the dust because no one in the current economic scenario would like to see more immigrants (US educated or not)
2. The DV 55K bill will fail but IV would have achieved what it has failed to do till now. Get the support of EB3 community which they claim to represent.
Synopsis
How how does this work. This is a suggestion for discussion NOT a diktat to IV core to implement. If IV core does not allow discussion on this (and moderate this because frankly some of your existing advocacy group members and volunteers do not know what a discussion is and come out both fists swinging) then that is IV core perogative. they have that right since this is their system and they worked hard for it, and they believe what they say is right.
One question i do have for all the members who have argued with me here. Have you seen all the discussion i have participated under and my other posts. Please do that before yelling that i was a member since 2006 and freeloader and all that. You need to do this because if i am you enemy (Scounderal, Liad weed, Anti Immgrant, Future USA etc) then don't you think to know your enemy is better.
On a funny flip side ...............................
How will this be treated by the current members
Ohh He is a liar, cheat, sounderrl, absurer, voilent person, free loader, smooch, weed, Anti Immgrant, future USA and other unspeakable things
By the way guys i am a She not a He
Adieu/Ciao
Only one thing I like in this big post,, that is you are not HE you are SHE... we can be friends, you are so nice.
MC
1. IV Core does not conduct its business in the forum. They learnt this lesson a long time ago.
2. All their work is done in the donor forum and behind the scenes by volunteers
3. If they feel that any idea is worth pursuing they invite that person (with the idea) behind the scenes and pursue that idea
4. All the work is done by IV members themselves because they are helping themselves
5. IV members are investing time and money to do work which impacts a large number of immigrants
6. That is a professional way to do stuff and i admire the way work is done at IV
Concerns of IV
1. IV always states about the lack of will of people to do something for themselves
2. IV always states that people just comment on forum but do not step forward to do stuff
3. IV always says that people do not donate enough and without donation a grassroot organization will not survive
What IV is doing wrong
1. IV talks about a holistic approach whereby the benefit to EB community will trickle down and once EB2 will become current EB3 will get benefit of spillover
2. IV is assuming EB2 will become current but with the number of indians coming to USA and number of indian students who will graduate from MS courses in USA over the next 5 years EB2I will always be backlogged
3. Plus we are not even talking about EB2 ROW and EB3ROW demand which could go up
4. Supporting the DV 55k bill to US educated GC applicants on the whole looks like a great plan. Sure here are 55k and here are about 150 k GC applicants. 150 - 50 IS 100 K. So if the bill passes we reduce the backlog by 50 k. Now i will am one of the person who will be getting a GC because i am US educated but my opposition to this bill is on principle
5. What IV has to realise is that it is not only IV members specifically but it is a whole lot of non IV members who are EB3 who have been a bigger person in this whole immigration retorgression advocacy scheme of things till now.
How let me explain. We have seen EB3 persons from 2002 who are still waiting for GC and who are not getting spill over visas because EB2 is using up all the spill over visas. So do you see any EB3 now complaining about the rule change supported by IV and made by USCIS whereby EB2 gets spill over visas. NO we do not see any EB3 complaining. That is because EB3 as a whole understands that that rule in the past being interpeted in a wrong way and the current way is the correct interpetation. Sure the old method gave EB3 some extra spill over visa benefit but the new interpetation caused EB3 to dry up compleletly. Now that in itself is against the very nature of self preservation by definition, But EB3 went along for the greater good
What IV can do right
1. Now we have this 55K DV Bill. This is something different from the spillover (which is law and cannot be changed). This is one time oppurtunity to alieviate the sufferings of EB group as a whole. So can IV which is supposed to be talking for the whole EB community do the right thing here and ensure (with advocacy they are so good at) that IV's stand is that 55K visa are given to all GC applicant from retrogressed countries based on oldest priority date first irrespective of EB2 and EB3.
2. The concequence of such a move is that long retrogressed EB applicants will get relief (Which is one of the point IV talks about in their charter)
3. Sure Many US educated applicants from EB2 and EB3 will oppose this move because lets face it, this move impacts their getting GC sooner. And if they behave like that they are in the same category as EB2 guys on this forum who do not entertain any idea which will impact their getting GC soon.
What wil happen if IV does the above
1. The DV 55K bill will NEVER pass in congress. This along with the other bills we have seen will bite the dust because no one in the current economic scenario would like to see more immigrants (US educated or not)
2. The DV 55K bill will fail but IV would have achieved what it has failed to do till now. Get the support of EB3 community which they claim to represent.
Synopsis
How how does this work. This is a suggestion for discussion NOT a diktat to IV core to implement. If IV core does not allow discussion on this (and moderate this because frankly some of your existing advocacy group members and volunteers do not know what a discussion is and come out both fists swinging) then that is IV core perogative. they have that right since this is their system and they worked hard for it, and they believe what they say is right.
One question i do have for all the members who have argued with me here. Have you seen all the discussion i have participated under and my other posts. Please do that before yelling that i was a member since 2006 and freeloader and all that. You need to do this because if i am you enemy (Scounderal, Liad weed, Anti Immgrant, Future USA etc) then don't you think to know your enemy is better.
On a funny flip side ...............................
How will this be treated by the current members
Ohh He is a liar, cheat, sounderrl, absurer, voilent person, free loader, smooch, weed, Anti Immgrant, future USA and other unspeakable things
By the way guys i am a She not a He
Adieu/Ciao
Only one thing I like in this big post,, that is you are not HE you are SHE... we can be friends, you are so nice.
MC
more...
soljabhai
12-13 10:43 AM
Hello All,
First and foremost, i must thank everyone from IV, who is working tirelessly to resolve the issues of retrogression in the GC process. As an affected individual I am very grateful that leaders of IV are ready to contribute so much effort for its goals. And even though I do not actively work for the IV agenda, I have contributed money to some IV action items.
I have a question/suggestion regarding the IV agenda. On IV's about page, pt number 2 asserts amongst other things,
The Discriminatory Per-Country Rationing of Green Cards That Exacerbates the Delays.
and further in the same point
We do not allow employers to discriminate hiring based on their nationality or country of origin. Therefore, the employment-based immigration, which is a derivative benefit of employment, should also be free from rationing based on nationality or country of birth.
I am curious to know what is the "legal" strength of these assertions is. Are they just "moral" statements or can the validity of these statements be tested in the legal framework of this country? In other words, my question is what is the constitutionality of the "Per Country Caps" in Employment / Family Based Immrigration procedures.
A lot of Laws and Statutes have been challenged in the Judicial System of USA. And many more are challenged every year. And if the laws are not constitutional then they can be repealed.
I am sure the leaders of IV must have thought about this argument however a quick search of the forums with 'constitutionality' as the search term did not return any results.
IV's efforts to utilize Lobbying to bring about change to alleviate/eliminate retrogression are certainly beneficial. However, if IV has not already considered and eliminated this legal argument, then it should explore whether there is any substance to this approach.
Hence this post. Below are some of the links that might be relevant.
wikipedia article on constitutionality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionality)
wikipedia category on US immigration case law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_immigration_and_naturalizat ion_case_law)
thanks and sincerely,
--soljabhai
First and foremost, i must thank everyone from IV, who is working tirelessly to resolve the issues of retrogression in the GC process. As an affected individual I am very grateful that leaders of IV are ready to contribute so much effort for its goals. And even though I do not actively work for the IV agenda, I have contributed money to some IV action items.
I have a question/suggestion regarding the IV agenda. On IV's about page, pt number 2 asserts amongst other things,
The Discriminatory Per-Country Rationing of Green Cards That Exacerbates the Delays.
and further in the same point
We do not allow employers to discriminate hiring based on their nationality or country of origin. Therefore, the employment-based immigration, which is a derivative benefit of employment, should also be free from rationing based on nationality or country of birth.
I am curious to know what is the "legal" strength of these assertions is. Are they just "moral" statements or can the validity of these statements be tested in the legal framework of this country? In other words, my question is what is the constitutionality of the "Per Country Caps" in Employment / Family Based Immrigration procedures.
A lot of Laws and Statutes have been challenged in the Judicial System of USA. And many more are challenged every year. And if the laws are not constitutional then they can be repealed.
I am sure the leaders of IV must have thought about this argument however a quick search of the forums with 'constitutionality' as the search term did not return any results.
IV's efforts to utilize Lobbying to bring about change to alleviate/eliminate retrogression are certainly beneficial. However, if IV has not already considered and eliminated this legal argument, then it should explore whether there is any substance to this approach.
Hence this post. Below are some of the links that might be relevant.
wikipedia article on constitutionality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionality)
wikipedia category on US immigration case law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_immigration_and_naturalizat ion_case_law)
thanks and sincerely,
--soljabhai
hair Get the Grace Kelly Look
rajesh_kamisetty
07-10 11:16 AM
See below.
more...
walking_dude
02-13 01:57 PM
I know that, I was part of it. Lawsuit will require more than that amount if it gets protracted. Keeping the money angle apart, how many are ready to put their names on the plaintiff list?
We (MI chapter) tried to get two members who were impacted to participate in a lawsuit filed by another organization. It was free for them, they didn't have to pay a dime. Guess what, both of them bailed out at the last moment.
I'm not discouraging anyone here. Someone please conduct a poll on contribution pledges, and active participation. Then we will get an approximate understanding of how much we can raise, and how many are willing to have their name on the the lawsuit.
Show me the money!
But we also have members making $30K fundraising effort successful in 7 days! Hence I believe if the IV core decides to explore the possibility of a lawsuit, we can raise enough money to hire an attorney for that.
We (MI chapter) tried to get two members who were impacted to participate in a lawsuit filed by another organization. It was free for them, they didn't have to pay a dime. Guess what, both of them bailed out at the last moment.
I'm not discouraging anyone here. Someone please conduct a poll on contribution pledges, and active participation. Then we will get an approximate understanding of how much we can raise, and how many are willing to have their name on the the lawsuit.
Show me the money!
But we also have members making $30K fundraising effort successful in 7 days! Hence I believe if the IV core decides to explore the possibility of a lawsuit, we can raise enough money to hire an attorney for that.
hot Grace Kelly
krishna.ahd
02-18 08:57 PM
Don't shoot the messenger.
A couple of studies came to mind recently that don't involve immigration.
In Florida there was a plan over 30 years ago to build an artifical reef by planting 2 million tires. Seemed like a good idea but didn't serve its intended purpose and did the exact opposite. Now, 30 years later the person who pushed to do this is saying it was a mistake. There has been so much damage caused by this and now 30 years later they want to fix it. It wasn't studied enough and it was implemented and became a disaster.
In 1999 at Laguardia airport there was a push to allow smaller airlines some space at the airport; even though the airport couldn't accomodate more airlines/flights. There was strong opposition but they did it anyways. Since then; it takes more then 45 minutes from the time your flight leaves the gate to actually get airborn. The flight time from Laguardia versus into Laguardia has a differential of almost an hour. Now; eight years later they are going to try to fix this. Even though it has been a problem for this long. Wasn't studied or thought of carefully enough.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
.
I will give you example which involves immigration
Nurses / Physical therapist and in near future Teachers
Because of bad planning in the past or say no encouragement of these skill now there is Schedule A to import them and hand over the green card.
A couple of studies came to mind recently that don't involve immigration.
In Florida there was a plan over 30 years ago to build an artifical reef by planting 2 million tires. Seemed like a good idea but didn't serve its intended purpose and did the exact opposite. Now, 30 years later the person who pushed to do this is saying it was a mistake. There has been so much damage caused by this and now 30 years later they want to fix it. It wasn't studied enough and it was implemented and became a disaster.
In 1999 at Laguardia airport there was a push to allow smaller airlines some space at the airport; even though the airport couldn't accomodate more airlines/flights. There was strong opposition but they did it anyways. Since then; it takes more then 45 minutes from the time your flight leaves the gate to actually get airborn. The flight time from Laguardia versus into Laguardia has a differential of almost an hour. Now; eight years later they are going to try to fix this. Even though it has been a problem for this long. Wasn't studied or thought of carefully enough.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
.
I will give you example which involves immigration
Nurses / Physical therapist and in near future Teachers
Because of bad planning in the past or say no encouragement of these skill now there is Schedule A to import them and hand over the green card.
more...
house grace kelly hair. hair Grace
chmur
02-12 11:05 PM
Some of the events in the last week seem to indicate so ??
1. Writeoff FBI namechecks pending for > 180 Days
2. Moving EB3 dates in smaller increments . Eb3 India was moved by ~3 Months
Step 1 was crucial because this will enable USCIS to approve all the applications within 'Current Dates'. Atleast now, USCIS will know pretty clearly where they stand when they move the dates (in conjunction with DOS) , unlike last June fiasco.
Step 2 ; Moving the dates in reasonable increments indicates they do not want to loose control of approval process . Lot of 2003 /04 filers got GC's in last July at the cost 2001/2002 filers . It was obviously arbitrary once they made everything current and probably depended on how eager an officer was to grab those visa numbers for his /her cases. USCIS lost control over the process.
Regarding EB2 heart burn - Blame it on substitute filers, obviously most of the line breakers would have used EB2 rather than EB3. But I think eventually EB2 will get higher priority and move faster then EB3 once the Unused numbers from others categories gets distributed after June /July. Calm your nerves.
I only wish if they had streamlined the process in this fashion about 3-4 years back . We would have not lost 200,000 visas and most of the dates would have been current or at the most 2 years behind. Very reasonable.
Am I dreaming....has USCIS got it's act together??
I forget , IV was not around 3-4 years back.
But we cannot be too enthusiastic about these good news because unless those 200,000 numbers are recaptured the dates will soon get struck in near future .
1. Writeoff FBI namechecks pending for > 180 Days
2. Moving EB3 dates in smaller increments . Eb3 India was moved by ~3 Months
Step 1 was crucial because this will enable USCIS to approve all the applications within 'Current Dates'. Atleast now, USCIS will know pretty clearly where they stand when they move the dates (in conjunction with DOS) , unlike last June fiasco.
Step 2 ; Moving the dates in reasonable increments indicates they do not want to loose control of approval process . Lot of 2003 /04 filers got GC's in last July at the cost 2001/2002 filers . It was obviously arbitrary once they made everything current and probably depended on how eager an officer was to grab those visa numbers for his /her cases. USCIS lost control over the process.
Regarding EB2 heart burn - Blame it on substitute filers, obviously most of the line breakers would have used EB2 rather than EB3. But I think eventually EB2 will get higher priority and move faster then EB3 once the Unused numbers from others categories gets distributed after June /July. Calm your nerves.
I only wish if they had streamlined the process in this fashion about 3-4 years back . We would have not lost 200,000 visas and most of the dates would have been current or at the most 2 years behind. Very reasonable.
Am I dreaming....has USCIS got it's act together??
I forget , IV was not around 3-4 years back.
But we cannot be too enthusiastic about these good news because unless those 200,000 numbers are recaptured the dates will soon get struck in near future .
tattoo hot Grace Kelly and Prince
GCard_Dream
10-19 12:18 AM
Nope. You have to be in Canada physically 2 years out of the 5 years.
I'm not looking for a citizenship but I gotto live here and almost getting Canada PR. If this is the case, anyway I'll lose the PR 5 years later since I couldn't stand there 2 years long in 5 years.
Please advise.
I'm not looking for a citizenship but I gotto live here and almost getting Canada PR. If this is the case, anyway I'll lose the PR 5 years later since I couldn't stand there 2 years long in 5 years.
Please advise.
more...
pictures images Grace Kelly hair
kuhelica2000
02-15 04:47 PM
Dingudi,
I didn't generalize. I said preponderence meaning "a lot of" cases with L1/B1/H1 and I am also not denying the fact the India is doing a great job in producing IT skills in great numbers. I am saying how they end up in America in greater numbers than any other country. China, Pakistan, Israel also produces lots of IT gradutes but they don't have the bodyshop connection to land here with an NIIT certificate.
I am an Indian and also came as a student giving GRE/TOEFL. So do not generalize that IT workers from India came here via L1/B1 route. Some of them did but some did not. I know lot of Indian who came here to study.
If India is producing more people qualified in these skills then its not their fault.
I didn't generalize. I said preponderence meaning "a lot of" cases with L1/B1/H1 and I am also not denying the fact the India is doing a great job in producing IT skills in great numbers. I am saying how they end up in America in greater numbers than any other country. China, Pakistan, Israel also produces lots of IT gradutes but they don't have the bodyshop connection to land here with an NIIT certificate.
I am an Indian and also came as a student giving GRE/TOEFL. So do not generalize that IT workers from India came here via L1/B1 route. Some of them did but some did not. I know lot of Indian who came here to study.
If India is producing more people qualified in these skills then its not their fault.
dresses grace kelly wedding hair
jkays94
05-25 12:13 PM
http://www.notcanada.com/
you are much better of in india if you cant get GC in the US.
If you have a US education or in the alternate the right qualifications you should have no problem getting a stable well paying job in Canada. Its similar to a Doctor coming to the US but not taking USMLE but still expecting to get hired at the same level they were in their home country. I know of non-American friends with US undergrad degrees in Toronto making $95k+. With the Canadian dollar having recently surpassed the US dollar, the value of their pay is even greater now than it was before. If the folks in notcanada.com swallowed their pride used their PR status to get their qualifications up to par with Canadian requirements they would not waste so much time complaining. Its akin to having a car, having the keys, knowing you need to go from A to B, but complaining about the rough road as your number one excuse for not getting there. Those stuck here in GC limbo are in a similar boat, they have the car, they don't mind the rough road, they know how to drive but simply don't have the keys to get in the car in the first place. Bottomline is if one can't make it in Canada it would be difficult for them to make it anywhere else except their home country and the US (where things are relatively easy hence the now disappearing "land of opportunity" as things get tough with the misguided bill)
you are much better of in india if you cant get GC in the US.
If you have a US education or in the alternate the right qualifications you should have no problem getting a stable well paying job in Canada. Its similar to a Doctor coming to the US but not taking USMLE but still expecting to get hired at the same level they were in their home country. I know of non-American friends with US undergrad degrees in Toronto making $95k+. With the Canadian dollar having recently surpassed the US dollar, the value of their pay is even greater now than it was before. If the folks in notcanada.com swallowed their pride used their PR status to get their qualifications up to par with Canadian requirements they would not waste so much time complaining. Its akin to having a car, having the keys, knowing you need to go from A to B, but complaining about the rough road as your number one excuse for not getting there. Those stuck here in GC limbo are in a similar boat, they have the car, they don't mind the rough road, they know how to drive but simply don't have the keys to get in the car in the first place. Bottomline is if one can't make it in Canada it would be difficult for them to make it anywhere else except their home country and the US (where things are relatively easy hence the now disappearing "land of opportunity" as things get tough with the misguided bill)
more...
makeup Fashion Fridays: Grace Kelly
cableman
12-13 09:02 PM
I can't agree more. In fact, I don't understand how we can argue the quota cap discriminate a special group. The quota cap system is very different from the case of which a man could vote but not a woman. The quota cap system applies to every country fairly. Every foreign citizen can apply for immigration. Any country reaching the cap will have to wait for next year quota. Perhaps it is *too* fair that the system doesn't account the world population distribution. IMHO I have no doubt that this case would lose in the court and I am sure that bringing this case to the court would make EB applicants enemy to the country. In the end, what do we achieve?
girlfriend Iconic Blonde: Grace Kelly,
Munna Bhai
01-26 08:34 AM
Hello,
My I-140 is approved and I have a PD of Feb 2006.
One of my colleague whose job description is little different then mine has a PD of Sep 2003 and his Labour got approved but he left the company.
So is there anyway his approved labor is useful to me. What are the ifs,buts etc.
----------------
I changed your thread title. when you start a new thread make your thread title descriptive for all members to easily sift through threads, else your thread will be closed or deleted. Thanks for understanding- Admin
Thanks Pappu. Is this called Labour substitution? I don't know that term.Any input regarding this is greatly appreciated.
My I-140 is approved and I have a PD of Feb 2006.
One of my colleague whose job description is little different then mine has a PD of Sep 2003 and his Labour got approved but he left the company.
So is there anyway his approved labor is useful to me. What are the ifs,buts etc.
----------------
I changed your thread title. when you start a new thread make your thread title descriptive for all members to easily sift through threads, else your thread will be closed or deleted. Thanks for understanding- Admin
Thanks Pappu. Is this called Labour substitution? I don't know that term.Any input regarding this is greatly appreciated.
hairstyles diamonds say Grace Kelly.
andycool
09-17 07:46 AM
Here are the authentic numbers from FLCDataCenter.com (http://flcdatacenter.com/CasePerm.aspx)
My analysis from those mdb files: (they are tricky because the data is for FY2005 while the priority date calculations we are doing are for the calendar year)
calendar year 2005 ( received date between 3/19/2005 - 12/31/2005) = 8645
year 2006 (rcv date between 1/1/2006 - 9/27/2006) = 15008
after this it gets bad since the data has no receipt date, only certified date. my estimate is around 12000 for those 3 months of 2006.(total number of certified PERMs between 10/2/2006 - 03/31/2007 = 13873)
total PERM approvals with PD between march 2005 and Dec 2006 ~ 37000
If EB2 is 50%, we are talking ~19000, with an avg of 2.5 GCs per PERM, we need 47,500 GCs between Mar 05 and Jan 07.
Good luck every one :(:D:mad:
These numbers are not correct .....
the total numbers of perm certified for india from March 2005 - March 2006 is ~ 11000 this includes all EB cases . I dont know how you got the number 37000 .
this is from FLCDataCenter.com (http://flcdatacenter.com/CasePerm.aspx)
Thanks
My analysis from those mdb files: (they are tricky because the data is for FY2005 while the priority date calculations we are doing are for the calendar year)
calendar year 2005 ( received date between 3/19/2005 - 12/31/2005) = 8645
year 2006 (rcv date between 1/1/2006 - 9/27/2006) = 15008
after this it gets bad since the data has no receipt date, only certified date. my estimate is around 12000 for those 3 months of 2006.(total number of certified PERMs between 10/2/2006 - 03/31/2007 = 13873)
total PERM approvals with PD between march 2005 and Dec 2006 ~ 37000
If EB2 is 50%, we are talking ~19000, with an avg of 2.5 GCs per PERM, we need 47,500 GCs between Mar 05 and Jan 07.
Good luck every one :(:D:mad:
These numbers are not correct .....
the total numbers of perm certified for india from March 2005 - March 2006 is ~ 11000 this includes all EB cases . I dont know how you got the number 37000 .
this is from FLCDataCenter.com (http://flcdatacenter.com/CasePerm.aspx)
Thanks
sivasiva
03-26 10:06 AM
gururs,
Is it possible to substitute labor as future employee?
Thanks
Is it possible to substitute labor as future employee?
Thanks
dks
10-04 08:12 AM
Desi companies are to blame but not always.
This is a common practice in big companies. Guess which companies have got the most number of LC's to substitute. It is some of the big software and consulting firms. Myself being a part of one such company have seen a lot of my co-workers use it to get their GC. I will admit though that in big companies it is used after one of the following has happened:
1> You have been stuck in LC stage for a long time.
2> The initial original LC got messed up due to lawyer or company negligence.
3> The I-140 stage got messed up due to lawyer or company negligence.
4> You are an old employee but did not somehow start your GC process till you only had a year or less remaining on your H-1.
Unfortunately for me, none of the above has happened so the company will not use LC substitution for me. But it is a common practice.
This is a common practice in big companies. Guess which companies have got the most number of LC's to substitute. It is some of the big software and consulting firms. Myself being a part of one such company have seen a lot of my co-workers use it to get their GC. I will admit though that in big companies it is used after one of the following has happened:
1> You have been stuck in LC stage for a long time.
2> The initial original LC got messed up due to lawyer or company negligence.
3> The I-140 stage got messed up due to lawyer or company negligence.
4> You are an old employee but did not somehow start your GC process till you only had a year or less remaining on your H-1.
Unfortunately for me, none of the above has happened so the company will not use LC substitution for me. But it is a common practice.
No comments:
Post a Comment