InTheMoment
09-25 06:22 PM
I think you have summarized pre-adjudication quite well.
Also note that pre-adjudication is not a very recent phenomenon USCIS service centers especially NSC has been doing it since late 2005!
Also note that pre-adjudication is not a very recent phenomenon USCIS service centers especially NSC has been doing it since late 2005!
wallpaper pictures tattoo Justin Bieber
logiclife
06-27 11:35 AM
From pages 36-37 of CIS Ombudsman's 2007 Annual Report to Congress (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOMB_Annual%20Report_2007.pdf).
In the 2006 Annual Report (at p. 16, AR 2006 -- 02), the Ombudsman also recommended that USCIS assign visa numbers to employment-based green card applications as applicants file them. The Ombudsman continues to recommend that USCIS work with DOS to reinstate that process which existed in the early 1980s, wherein DOS issued visa numbers for both employment and family-based applications for applicants as they applied rather than as they were approved. This process would ensure that USCIS does not accept more applications than the number of visas available.
With respect to the recommendation that USCIS assign visa numbers to cases as they are received, the process the Ombudsman describes was the process in place a number of years ago. DOS, which manages overall visa number allocations, modified that process to the procedure in effect today. It is their policy to allocate visa numbers to USCIS adjustment cases only as the point of approval is reached.
However, through the tri-agency meetings, DOS explained that the modification to the program occurred in the early 1980s because INS could not adhere to the requirements to return unused visa numbers immediately. The Ombudsman understands that DOS prefers that cases are reported qualified for a visa earlier than at approval. In the last several months, there have been several suggestions on how to accomplish that task, but operational concerns remain. The Ombudsman hopes that USCIS and DOS can reestablish the older program with improved processing and technology to ensure timely and accurate reporting of cases ready-to-issue and to prevent the future loss of visa numbers.
Yes. Agreed. But what this means is that if they approve too many cases then they may issue August bulletin with retrogressed dates. And that's fine because they can do that and everyone expects dates to retrogress either in August bulletin or in subsequent bulletin.
Which portion of the Ombudsman report says that "In the middle of the month for which bulletin is already out there with current dates, they can just stop accepting applications and sort of "REVISE" an already issued bulletin".
WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT ???
And I am still looking for source of information where in the middle of the month for which a bulletin was already issued in preceding month, USCIS chose to stop accepting petitions and not honor the bulletin issued by DOS with current dates.
I am seeing a lot of copy-paste from lawyers websites but NONE, I repeat, NONE has a government website URL or any official source.
Those who still want to believe can choose to believe this. It will make people file on July 1st, if its in their hands. If its in the hands of HR department and company lawyers, it will make them raise their blood pressure until the lawyer sends them an email on July 25th that the Fedex went out today.
I believe that regardless of what August bulletin shows, July bulletin on DOS website applies to month of July all the way thru July 31st and as long as you file before July 31st, you are fine.
I made myself look like an idiot by asking such questions to my lawyer, who is already going nuts over the suddenly sky-rocketing workload of 485 petitions. There is another guy who made a fool of himself by asking the lawyer this question.
And people keep posting new updates and baseless sources to add credence to this baseless rumor. Suit yourself.
In the 2006 Annual Report (at p. 16, AR 2006 -- 02), the Ombudsman also recommended that USCIS assign visa numbers to employment-based green card applications as applicants file them. The Ombudsman continues to recommend that USCIS work with DOS to reinstate that process which existed in the early 1980s, wherein DOS issued visa numbers for both employment and family-based applications for applicants as they applied rather than as they were approved. This process would ensure that USCIS does not accept more applications than the number of visas available.
With respect to the recommendation that USCIS assign visa numbers to cases as they are received, the process the Ombudsman describes was the process in place a number of years ago. DOS, which manages overall visa number allocations, modified that process to the procedure in effect today. It is their policy to allocate visa numbers to USCIS adjustment cases only as the point of approval is reached.
However, through the tri-agency meetings, DOS explained that the modification to the program occurred in the early 1980s because INS could not adhere to the requirements to return unused visa numbers immediately. The Ombudsman understands that DOS prefers that cases are reported qualified for a visa earlier than at approval. In the last several months, there have been several suggestions on how to accomplish that task, but operational concerns remain. The Ombudsman hopes that USCIS and DOS can reestablish the older program with improved processing and technology to ensure timely and accurate reporting of cases ready-to-issue and to prevent the future loss of visa numbers.
Yes. Agreed. But what this means is that if they approve too many cases then they may issue August bulletin with retrogressed dates. And that's fine because they can do that and everyone expects dates to retrogress either in August bulletin or in subsequent bulletin.
Which portion of the Ombudsman report says that "In the middle of the month for which bulletin is already out there with current dates, they can just stop accepting applications and sort of "REVISE" an already issued bulletin".
WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT ???
And I am still looking for source of information where in the middle of the month for which a bulletin was already issued in preceding month, USCIS chose to stop accepting petitions and not honor the bulletin issued by DOS with current dates.
I am seeing a lot of copy-paste from lawyers websites but NONE, I repeat, NONE has a government website URL or any official source.
Those who still want to believe can choose to believe this. It will make people file on July 1st, if its in their hands. If its in the hands of HR department and company lawyers, it will make them raise their blood pressure until the lawyer sends them an email on July 25th that the Fedex went out today.
I believe that regardless of what August bulletin shows, July bulletin on DOS website applies to month of July all the way thru July 31st and as long as you file before July 31st, you are fine.
I made myself look like an idiot by asking such questions to my lawyer, who is already going nuts over the suddenly sky-rocketing workload of 485 petitions. There is another guy who made a fool of himself by asking the lawyer this question.
And people keep posting new updates and baseless sources to add credence to this baseless rumor. Suit yourself.
newbie2020
07-03 09:41 PM
My LC applied in Feb 2008
LC approved Apr 2008
I-140 Applied May 2008
My 6th yr H1B expires Dec 2008
H1B Maxout Jan 2008
I am short by around 20 days Should i recapture the days by going out of country for 20 days and apply H1B 1yr extension, Will i Qualify for 3 yrs in this case...?
or should i just Apply for I-140 PP in Oct 2008 and 3 yr H1B Extension without worrying about recapturing 20 days.
LC approved Apr 2008
I-140 Applied May 2008
My 6th yr H1B expires Dec 2008
H1B Maxout Jan 2008
I am short by around 20 days Should i recapture the days by going out of country for 20 days and apply H1B 1yr extension, Will i Qualify for 3 yrs in this case...?
or should i just Apply for I-140 PP in Oct 2008 and 3 yr H1B Extension without worrying about recapturing 20 days.
2011 selena gomez and justin bieber
GCard_Dream
10-04 02:39 PM
Well.. may be because we don't have any legislative issues to talk about until congress comes back from recess in November. By the way, how do you know that this practice might be ending soon. I know DOL was considering this and was receiving inputs back in April but nothing came out of that. They have thought about this before and they are thinking about it again. DOL knows that this system is being misused to the fullest extent and want to put a stop to it but they never do due to the pressure from companies misusing them. Why do you think DOL will act now? I have my doubts that anything will be done.
I have seen at least three thread in the past that discussed labor sub bashing. So you guys made your point, it is an evil practice and it screws those standing behind. We already know that this practice might be ended soon. So why are we discussing this issue for the fourth time all over again? :rolleyes:
I have seen at least three thread in the past that discussed labor sub bashing. So you guys made your point, it is an evil practice and it screws those standing behind. We already know that this practice might be ended soon. So why are we discussing this issue for the fourth time all over again? :rolleyes:
more...
sobyb
05-01 06:19 PM
"No politics can justify killing of innocent people...if congress and India can not get over themselves and help fellow Indians" ... "It is a shame India does not act to protect the interests of its citizens even after this news came up"
The person who opened this thread is not clear about the difference of 'Indian Citizen' and 'Indian Origin' (or Ethinic Indian). Any kind of discrimination faced by these people in their respective countries should be addressed in a non-violent manner and the current world order has its own mechanism to check such acts by majorities/minorities (atleast you get the relevant attention/care if you are not on the wrong side). Terrorism is not the solution to any discrimation ..period! and carrying out terror attacks on the supporting country (Rajiv Gandhi's killing) would only worsen the scenario.
India should work with Srilankan govt to establish democracy, peace and equality in Tamil majority areas and make sure that organizations like LTTE doesn't get the upper hand once again in those areas.
The person who opened this thread is not clear about the difference of 'Indian Citizen' and 'Indian Origin' (or Ethinic Indian). Any kind of discrimination faced by these people in their respective countries should be addressed in a non-violent manner and the current world order has its own mechanism to check such acts by majorities/minorities (atleast you get the relevant attention/care if you are not on the wrong side). Terrorism is not the solution to any discrimation ..period! and carrying out terror attacks on the supporting country (Rajiv Gandhi's killing) would only worsen the scenario.
India should work with Srilankan govt to establish democracy, peace and equality in Tamil majority areas and make sure that organizations like LTTE doesn't get the upper hand once again in those areas.
eager_immi
07-11 01:57 PM
Well said, forget the premiums if you fall sick you know there is constant co-pay for both doctors and medication, then lot of insurance you are covered only 80% till you hit some 3000 out of pocket, so you need to add that as well. Please watch SICKO (ofcourse canada has more wait time but that is bc 20% of the people in the US are unisured and they are not in the queue so that automatically reduces the wait time in the US)
Every time I hear "Canadian taxes are so much higher", I respond back with "really ? how much are you paying a month for health insurance?". I suggest a typical breadwinner with spouse + 2 dependents is probably paying $500 / mo + in health insurance premiums. Add that $6K / yr to your US tax bill, then compare it to your Canadian tax bill. ;)
- GS
Every time I hear "Canadian taxes are so much higher", I respond back with "really ? how much are you paying a month for health insurance?". I suggest a typical breadwinner with spouse + 2 dependents is probably paying $500 / mo + in health insurance premiums. Add that $6K / yr to your US tax bill, then compare it to your Canadian tax bill. ;)
- GS
more...
logiclife
01-23 04:51 PM
--thanks...edited my comments per your suggestion - logiclife
2010 justin bieber selena gomez
Rajkrish9
09-18 10:12 AM
Hi,
This is regarding switching job from one role to different role
Currently I am working for an Employer A in consulting position ie., Senior Developer Role. Current Project is ending in Dec'2008
Now I am planning to move to a different role of Management (Project Manager) to Employer B.
what would be the better way of doing for the above said role.
My current H1B is expiring on Nov'2008 (Six year term). I have to ask my employer to do the extn. But the employer doing is very minimal.
I have applied EAD in Aug'2008. - I am not sure when this will arrive.
Now I am into the state of More confusion. I couldn't able to do anything as far as in terms of career path.
Would like to enlighten some thoughts on this situation and Thanks in Advance.
Regards,
Raj.
This is regarding switching job from one role to different role
Currently I am working for an Employer A in consulting position ie., Senior Developer Role. Current Project is ending in Dec'2008
Now I am planning to move to a different role of Management (Project Manager) to Employer B.
what would be the better way of doing for the above said role.
My current H1B is expiring on Nov'2008 (Six year term). I have to ask my employer to do the extn. But the employer doing is very minimal.
I have applied EAD in Aug'2008. - I am not sure when this will arrive.
Now I am into the state of More confusion. I couldn't able to do anything as far as in terms of career path.
Would like to enlighten some thoughts on this situation and Thanks in Advance.
Regards,
Raj.
more...
mnkaushik
07-14 10:18 AM
My Priority date is Jan 2004, EB3-India category having approved I-140 and applied 485. I have sent my EAD and aP for renewal which expire in last week of September. My spouse is in EB2-India having pd Dec 2005, also applied I-485 (140 is approved) and has applied for EAD and aP renewal which expire in last week fo October. We both applied independently and are using our H1bs and not EAds.
Since my spouse's PD is going to be current in August'2008, I was planning on applying for a second 485 as a dependent on my spouse's application. Questions i have are -
1) I did my medical for previous 485 in June of last year, is that still valid?
2) Can I still keep my previous 485 application or should I cancel it.
3) What should i do about my AP and EAD? I have travelling job and am thinking of looking for a local job around end of the year or begining of next year. So would like to know what I should do about EAD and AP
Lastly is there something i am not thinking of?
Will greatly appreciate your response.
Since my spouse's PD is going to be current in August'2008, I was planning on applying for a second 485 as a dependent on my spouse's application. Questions i have are -
1) I did my medical for previous 485 in June of last year, is that still valid?
2) Can I still keep my previous 485 application or should I cancel it.
3) What should i do about my AP and EAD? I have travelling job and am thinking of looking for a local job around end of the year or begining of next year. So would like to know what I should do about EAD and AP
Lastly is there something i am not thinking of?
Will greatly appreciate your response.
hair Selena Gomez, Justin Bieber
PlainSpeak
01-13 01:40 PM
Let me see if I understand PlainSpeak's language:
1. IV core needs to put a lot of resources to lobby for the DV bill, knowing full well that this bill will go nowhere!
2. Raise a false sense of hope among the EB3 community, again, knowing full well that its going to be dashed - just so that IV gains the trust of EB3 (I am EB3, and they have my trust without your logic!)
3. An exercise to gain trust by misleading!:D
I wonder why IV core did not come up with this brilliant idea ;)
Mr willigetgc to start off with here are a few facts
1. IV core needs to put a lot of resources to lobby for the DV bill
IV Core need not put a lot of resources to lobby for DV bill if they feel it is not worth the time and effort. that is for IV Core to decide and the decision is theirs to make after all they know about advocacy and lobbying
1. knowing full well that this bill will go nowhere!
That is my personal opinion and also the opinion of a whole bunch of people on this forum who do not agree with me but do agrree to teh fact that it has been 4 years since any immigration friendly bill came to be debated in congress. What wil make DV bill any different. This wil also go the same way. I would be surpirsed if it even comes up for debate
2. Raise a false sense of hope among the EB3 community, again, knowing full well that its going to be dashed - just so that IV gains the trust of EB3
My friend willigetgc what do EB3 people have besides hope. If you look at the statistics i will get GC in 19 year sand you with a priority date of May 07 (20 - 25 years). No reason not to hope for something and if IV really believes in what i suggested (I am sure it will go through all possible refinements) that would be a signal of not just hope but also action on part of IV to do something about EB Retrogressed folks. Now i am not saying it will happen and i am also not saying it will. All i am saying is here is a chnace to do something different which is also right because iot is not part of teh IV charter that IV is working to get relief for retrogressed EB
(I am EB3, and they have my trust without your logic!)
And what a great thing it is that you being an EB3 with a priority date of 2007 are working with EB2 hand in hand to get something done. It is great that you have trust with IV. Without trust nothing works. What i say is i have trust in IV i do not have trust that what they advocate is good for EB3. Semantics you may say but please read the lines carefully my friend. I hope you will understand
1. IV core needs to put a lot of resources to lobby for the DV bill, knowing full well that this bill will go nowhere!
2. Raise a false sense of hope among the EB3 community, again, knowing full well that its going to be dashed - just so that IV gains the trust of EB3 (I am EB3, and they have my trust without your logic!)
3. An exercise to gain trust by misleading!:D
I wonder why IV core did not come up with this brilliant idea ;)
Mr willigetgc to start off with here are a few facts
1. IV core needs to put a lot of resources to lobby for the DV bill
IV Core need not put a lot of resources to lobby for DV bill if they feel it is not worth the time and effort. that is for IV Core to decide and the decision is theirs to make after all they know about advocacy and lobbying
1. knowing full well that this bill will go nowhere!
That is my personal opinion and also the opinion of a whole bunch of people on this forum who do not agree with me but do agrree to teh fact that it has been 4 years since any immigration friendly bill came to be debated in congress. What wil make DV bill any different. This wil also go the same way. I would be surpirsed if it even comes up for debate
2. Raise a false sense of hope among the EB3 community, again, knowing full well that its going to be dashed - just so that IV gains the trust of EB3
My friend willigetgc what do EB3 people have besides hope. If you look at the statistics i will get GC in 19 year sand you with a priority date of May 07 (20 - 25 years). No reason not to hope for something and if IV really believes in what i suggested (I am sure it will go through all possible refinements) that would be a signal of not just hope but also action on part of IV to do something about EB Retrogressed folks. Now i am not saying it will happen and i am also not saying it will. All i am saying is here is a chnace to do something different which is also right because iot is not part of teh IV charter that IV is working to get relief for retrogressed EB
(I am EB3, and they have my trust without your logic!)
And what a great thing it is that you being an EB3 with a priority date of 2007 are working with EB2 hand in hand to get something done. It is great that you have trust with IV. Without trust nothing works. What i say is i have trust in IV i do not have trust that what they advocate is good for EB3. Semantics you may say but please read the lines carefully my friend. I hope you will understand
more...
hopefull
05-25 12:28 PM
www.notcanada.com
Its blatant racism here. THe population is aging and the government makes a big chunk of money via immigration fees.
Its blatant racism here. THe population is aging and the government makes a big chunk of money via immigration fees.
hot hot Justin bieber selena gomez
PSReddy
09-05 04:27 PM
Go see your own posts AH.....
U Need to alteast learn how to hide your true identity......MOTHER FUCKER...
This too funny with 15 pages and nothing to achieve. No immigration realted issues.
Reddy: This is my first post. Do not degrade ourselves for some filthy discussion. You are degrading every one here and you are EB2. Can you justify why do you have to be in EB2 while using such words?
In doubt, do not suspect the entire village, just ask your neighbor or you can ask your father who your Biological father is. Why do you think True Facts is your Bio father?
U Need to alteast learn how to hide your true identity......MOTHER FUCKER...
This too funny with 15 pages and nothing to achieve. No immigration realted issues.
Reddy: This is my first post. Do not degrade ourselves for some filthy discussion. You are degrading every one here and you are EB2. Can you justify why do you have to be in EB2 while using such words?
In doubt, do not suspect the entire village, just ask your neighbor or you can ask your father who your Biological father is. Why do you think True Facts is your Bio father?
more...
house 2010 justin bieber selena
_2.jpg "selena gomez and justin bieber")
sk2006
08-15 03:56 PM
Your argument sounds like "Yes we do harass our own people here. So there is nothing wrong in harassing other country people"
Yes people feel harassed but security norms are there for a reason.
They are not magicians who would look at the face of the person and find if he is a good guy or not. Are they?
Read this link:
Don�€™t make a big deal of Shah Rukh�€™s detention:One For The Road:Anand Soondas's blog-The Times Of India (http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/onefortheroad/entry/don-t-make-a-big)
quote from this link:
"Interestingly, the same day that SRK was detained in Newark, there came news that the great Bob Dylan, who was wandering around Long Branch, near New York City, sometime back, was asked for an ID by two cops too young to know who he really was. When he couldn’t furnish one, he was taken right back to the resort where he was putting up and staff there vouched for him. And America is Dylan’s own country."
.
.
"There are two layers to the SRK incident and we must peel them off with care. One, it is quite ridiculous that Indians feel their icons and superstars are everybody’s icons and superstars. What the heck? If Jet Li came to India tomorrow, the man on the street here would probably call him ‘`Chinky’’ and not give a second look. For that matter, what if G�rard Depardieu came travelling. How many would know him? Matt Damon was here recently and there wasn’t a traffic jam in Delhi. These guys are huge back home. Moreover, America doesn’t have a culture of fawning the way India has. Mike Tyson was treated like a common rapist and spent most part of his youth in the slammer. Winona Ryder was sentenced to a three-year probation for shoplifting. Chinese born Hollywood actress Bai Ling was fined US 200 dollars for petty theft.
More importantly, we are actually aggrieved because we are ``not like them’’. Well, guess what. It isn’t a virtue. We should be like them and take the security of our country and its people with solemn, no-nonsense professionalism.
.
.
We are just whimpering over here like hurt puppies because we feel, ``Oh, but we don’t do it to them’’. Oh no, we don’t. And it’s a scandal. We should.
.
.
So instead of making SRK’s detention an issue, we should think of upgrading our own security set-up.
There’s a lesson in this. And it is a positive one. A day after our own 26/11, there was hardly any security at CST in Mumbai. It can’t get worse than that. The bottom line: Stop fawning, shed the colonial hangover and make no compromise where the country’s safety is concerned."
Yes people feel harassed but security norms are there for a reason.
They are not magicians who would look at the face of the person and find if he is a good guy or not. Are they?
Read this link:
Don�€™t make a big deal of Shah Rukh�€™s detention:One For The Road:Anand Soondas's blog-The Times Of India (http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/onefortheroad/entry/don-t-make-a-big)
quote from this link:
"Interestingly, the same day that SRK was detained in Newark, there came news that the great Bob Dylan, who was wandering around Long Branch, near New York City, sometime back, was asked for an ID by two cops too young to know who he really was. When he couldn’t furnish one, he was taken right back to the resort where he was putting up and staff there vouched for him. And America is Dylan’s own country."
.
.
"There are two layers to the SRK incident and we must peel them off with care. One, it is quite ridiculous that Indians feel their icons and superstars are everybody’s icons and superstars. What the heck? If Jet Li came to India tomorrow, the man on the street here would probably call him ‘`Chinky’’ and not give a second look. For that matter, what if G�rard Depardieu came travelling. How many would know him? Matt Damon was here recently and there wasn’t a traffic jam in Delhi. These guys are huge back home. Moreover, America doesn’t have a culture of fawning the way India has. Mike Tyson was treated like a common rapist and spent most part of his youth in the slammer. Winona Ryder was sentenced to a three-year probation for shoplifting. Chinese born Hollywood actress Bai Ling was fined US 200 dollars for petty theft.
More importantly, we are actually aggrieved because we are ``not like them’’. Well, guess what. It isn’t a virtue. We should be like them and take the security of our country and its people with solemn, no-nonsense professionalism.
.
.
We are just whimpering over here like hurt puppies because we feel, ``Oh, but we don’t do it to them’’. Oh no, we don’t. And it’s a scandal. We should.
.
.
So instead of making SRK’s detention an issue, we should think of upgrading our own security set-up.
There’s a lesson in this. And it is a positive one. A day after our own 26/11, there was hardly any security at CST in Mumbai. It can’t get worse than that. The bottom line: Stop fawning, shed the colonial hangover and make no compromise where the country’s safety is concerned."
tattoo justin bieber and selena gomez
immique
07-17 01:23 AM
I don't agree with your arguement. Spillover can happen in any quarter and you don't need to wait until the last quarter for it to happen. with EB1 and EB2 being current, the spillover into EB2 I and C will start from November/December of 2008 itself
Since no one knows how many of pre 2004 EB2/EB3 are pending for India or ROW, it is very difficult to predict where the PD would be at 2008 november. Whoever feels the numbers less suggests EB2 india PD would move forward, whoever feels the numbers are more suggests it will move slower.
But this is what my assumption is USCIS/DOS would start will less number of Visas for starting of year, let us say 900 for EB2(I) on november 08. There is a possibility that EB3 to EB2 conversion, Missed out old PD cases etc would result in getting EB2 going backwards...This would be the case for first 2 to 3 quarters, even if it moves it would in couple of months.Again based on EB3(ROW) demand next year end EB2(I) may or may not move forward fast.
One thing for sure spill over happens only during the last quarter, be it horizontal or vertical.
But this years move would make some people lucky to get GC even if their PD is in 2006. Again this is all my assumptions..
Since no one knows how many of pre 2004 EB2/EB3 are pending for India or ROW, it is very difficult to predict where the PD would be at 2008 november. Whoever feels the numbers less suggests EB2 india PD would move forward, whoever feels the numbers are more suggests it will move slower.
But this is what my assumption is USCIS/DOS would start will less number of Visas for starting of year, let us say 900 for EB2(I) on november 08. There is a possibility that EB3 to EB2 conversion, Missed out old PD cases etc would result in getting EB2 going backwards...This would be the case for first 2 to 3 quarters, even if it moves it would in couple of months.Again based on EB3(ROW) demand next year end EB2(I) may or may not move forward fast.
One thing for sure spill over happens only during the last quarter, be it horizontal or vertical.
But this years move would make some people lucky to get GC even if their PD is in 2006. Again this is all my assumptions..
more...
pictures Selena Gomez and Justin Bieber
hatighora
07-11 05:55 PM
I know people who got their GC in 7 months from the date they filed PERM. and then there are many people getting GCs every month. There are both good stories and bad stories to tell about getting GC in US.
There were times when H1 quota never reached the limit during the whole fiscal year, now they get used in just 2 days. This mess in GC process is a result mainly due to our own actions (temporary workers and consulting companies hiring temporary workers). Do you think majority of us once we get GC, stay with the consulting company that filed for our GC? When a consulting company files for PERM, they already have a foreign national working under H-1B in that position. So where is the real intent to hire an American when some foreigner is already working at that position?
This employment based GC is a way for us foreigners to immigrate to US easily at one point. Now due to our extreme usage and abuse of this process, there are genuine people who are being sponsored to immigrate to US are also suffering. In a true employment GC scenario, the company should be desperate to keep you for a long time (more than 6 years after H-1B is maxed) for your valuable skills that they were unable to find in others. But in most GC cases, looks like we temporary workers are more desperate than our employers for the GC? aren't we? Do you see any companies sweating on how to retain you with them, because you H-1B is expiring and they have no way to keep you?
Do not put all the blame on US immigration system, the majority of the blame should fall on us and the companies who are helping us to get GCs when our cases are not based on genuine sponsors.
There were times when H1 quota never reached the limit during the whole fiscal year, now they get used in just 2 days. This mess in GC process is a result mainly due to our own actions (temporary workers and consulting companies hiring temporary workers). Do you think majority of us once we get GC, stay with the consulting company that filed for our GC? When a consulting company files for PERM, they already have a foreign national working under H-1B in that position. So where is the real intent to hire an American when some foreigner is already working at that position?
This employment based GC is a way for us foreigners to immigrate to US easily at one point. Now due to our extreme usage and abuse of this process, there are genuine people who are being sponsored to immigrate to US are also suffering. In a true employment GC scenario, the company should be desperate to keep you for a long time (more than 6 years after H-1B is maxed) for your valuable skills that they were unable to find in others. But in most GC cases, looks like we temporary workers are more desperate than our employers for the GC? aren't we? Do you see any companies sweating on how to retain you with them, because you H-1B is expiring and they have no way to keep you?
Do not put all the blame on US immigration system, the majority of the blame should fall on us and the companies who are helping us to get GCs when our cases are not based on genuine sponsors.
dresses selena gomez and justin bieber
Pineapple
12-14 02:54 PM
Yep.
So what you are saying, in other words, is 7% limit is for every country in the world (Except USA:)) correct?
So what you are saying, in other words, is 7% limit is for every country in the world (Except USA:)) correct?
more...
makeup Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez
OLDMONK
07-24 05:54 PM
WOW what can I say? Well spoken!! In a lot of points, I agree with you.
But then let me ask you something - have you been investing back home? Have you been building a house back home? Have you been putting money in a bank account/ shares back home?
Waiting for your answer
BLIB
I do send money because I have a dialysis patient at home for 6 years now. and at this time I don't want to point to the healthcare system at all, but my best wishes that you don't have to go there.
I do have properties and business properties in India from before I came to US. I don't want to make this personal by naming the IT businesses I sold but am sure if you are from 90's and from India you are aware of those names.
I have sold those one by one, and that is another line buddy. Capital Assets Line. IT Enquiry Lines, Company liquidation issues (specially if you were a LTD. company), Commerical Property Tribunals, Service Tax lines, State Tax Issues, Central Sales Tax issues. And god forbid if there is a lawsuit filed.
And yes I am in GC line for 8 years and i dont mind another 2-3 years. This is the Last line hopefully other than immigration line at India every year. (which is painful for Indian Citizens) but easy for PIO's and Non Citizens.
But then let me ask you something - have you been investing back home? Have you been building a house back home? Have you been putting money in a bank account/ shares back home?
Waiting for your answer
BLIB
I do send money because I have a dialysis patient at home for 6 years now. and at this time I don't want to point to the healthcare system at all, but my best wishes that you don't have to go there.
I do have properties and business properties in India from before I came to US. I don't want to make this personal by naming the IT businesses I sold but am sure if you are from 90's and from India you are aware of those names.
I have sold those one by one, and that is another line buddy. Capital Assets Line. IT Enquiry Lines, Company liquidation issues (specially if you were a LTD. company), Commerical Property Tribunals, Service Tax lines, State Tax Issues, Central Sales Tax issues. And god forbid if there is a lawsuit filed.
And yes I am in GC line for 8 years and i dont mind another 2-3 years. This is the Last line hopefully other than immigration line at India every year. (which is painful for Indian Citizens) but easy for PIO's and Non Citizens.
girlfriend selena gomez and justin bieber
msp1976
02-13 02:50 PM
I don't think so. 7% limit has been there for a very long time. Unused visas from prior years for ac21 purposes were still subject to 7% in current year. The 7% rule was unchanged.
It seems that you think that the unused visas from prior year were not subject to 7%. There is nothing of the sort that allows this.
Refer to this text.....
http://www.fourmilab.ch/uscode/8usc/www/t8-12-II-I-1152.html#_a_
TITLE 8, CHAPTER 12, SUBCHAPTER II, Part I, Sec. 1152.
Look at paragraph a(5)
(5) Rules for employment-based immigrants
(A) Employment-based immigrants not subject to per country
limitation if additional visas available
If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 1153(b) of this title for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
(B) Limiting fall across for certain countries subject to
subsection (e) of this section
In the case of a foreign state or dependent area to which subsection (e) of this section applies, if the total number of visas issued under section 1153(b) of this title exceeds the maximum number of visas that may be made available to immigrants of the state or area under section 1153(b) of this title consistent with subsection (e) of this section (determined without regard to this paragraph), in applying subsection (e) of this section all visas shall be deemed to have been required for the classes of aliens specified in section 1153(b) of this title.
This is the section that allows for the 7% cap to be violated in case additional visas are available.................
This is the one many anti immigrant people tried to get removed again and again......
USCIS did not do anything wrong in 2005 nor in 2006.....By allocating additional visas to India/China USCIS did not do anything wrong...You can sue them ....USCIS has good grounds to defend their position.....You would not get anywhere...
It seems that you think that the unused visas from prior year were not subject to 7%. There is nothing of the sort that allows this.
Refer to this text.....
http://www.fourmilab.ch/uscode/8usc/www/t8-12-II-I-1152.html#_a_
TITLE 8, CHAPTER 12, SUBCHAPTER II, Part I, Sec. 1152.
Look at paragraph a(5)
(5) Rules for employment-based immigrants
(A) Employment-based immigrants not subject to per country
limitation if additional visas available
If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 1153(b) of this title for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
(B) Limiting fall across for certain countries subject to
subsection (e) of this section
In the case of a foreign state or dependent area to which subsection (e) of this section applies, if the total number of visas issued under section 1153(b) of this title exceeds the maximum number of visas that may be made available to immigrants of the state or area under section 1153(b) of this title consistent with subsection (e) of this section (determined without regard to this paragraph), in applying subsection (e) of this section all visas shall be deemed to have been required for the classes of aliens specified in section 1153(b) of this title.
This is the section that allows for the 7% cap to be violated in case additional visas are available.................
This is the one many anti immigrant people tried to get removed again and again......
USCIS did not do anything wrong in 2005 nor in 2006.....By allocating additional visas to India/China USCIS did not do anything wrong...You can sue them ....USCIS has good grounds to defend their position.....You would not get anywhere...
hairstyles house justin bieber selena
manderson
02-12 04:35 PM
actually Philippines has it's own category in the Visa Bulletin. So technically it's not part of ROW. But practically speaking EB3 ROW dates and Philippines EB3 (previously Schedule A Nurses) are usually very close...
ROW = Rest of the World. It refers to countries other than India, China, Mexico, and I believe Philippines.
ROW = Rest of the World. It refers to countries other than India, China, Mexico, and I believe Philippines.
snathan
01-16 07:20 PM
There is no such requirement for fresh H1B as well as renewal as per Law. That is why we call it an ILLEGAL memo. We all need to fight this together.
NB: I am not a specialist in law
We need to come up with a road map and how to fight?
NB: I am not a specialist in law
We need to come up with a road map and how to fight?
Legal
07-25 09:13 PM
Next years numbers are not consequential to EB2I movement to be honest. Any realistic movement will depend on spillover. Consider that EB2I is statutorily limited to about 2800 visas(inclusive of family members) without spillover. Whereas spillover has the potential to contribute tens of thousands of visas.
Very true. My speculation :) is most EB2-I upto mid 2006 will be cleared up and the puny new numbers will trickle to keep the PD around June 2006, or slightly earlier rather than going to 2004 or earlier.
Very true. My speculation :) is most EB2-I upto mid 2006 will be cleared up and the puny new numbers will trickle to keep the PD around June 2006, or slightly earlier rather than going to 2004 or earlier.
No comments:
Post a Comment