diptam
09-28 10:09 AM
We have given some our most energetic and productive years of life in this country. We paid taxes,we spent money here,we got set with the way of life and peoples here.
There is no question of running away. We got the skills,qualifications , attitude - we can settle anywhere we want - That's not an issue. Ther issue is that we should not run away from Problems. Otherwise where ever we go - we will have to moveout from there too in couple of years - who knows !!
At the end of the day, its comes to ones preferences.
The way i look at, after spending so many years in states, its just hard to pack and move. Over the period of time, we make friends, we have familes and above all we invest the best years of our lives.
Pros and cons will be everywhere.
India no doubt has changed a lot. One can debate about the pros and cons the whole day. I dont think money is a problem in india any more. The economy is growing like anything and will keep on growing. No doubt about it.
I am sure folks who have spent 7-8 years in this country and are still trying to settle down, will love every oppurtunity to settle down here. Because this country is like our home now. We have given it everything. We have made sincere efforts in helping the American economy grow.
Even if we move to other countries, there is no gurantee we will be treated good. We have to start from scratch, make friends, earn peoples respect and trust.
Sometimes i feel sad when people talk about leaving the country, to whom they have given everything.
I will like to ask everyone one question.
Why not give one good shot at trying to fix the broken Employement-Based green card system? What are we all scared off? We never did anything wrong, so why do we need to leave the country?
Folks think about it.
I am sorry if i offended anyone, but this is what i feel.
I believe in fixing things then running away from them. Thats my take.
GO IV GO
TOGETHER WE CAN
There is no question of running away. We got the skills,qualifications , attitude - we can settle anywhere we want - That's not an issue. Ther issue is that we should not run away from Problems. Otherwise where ever we go - we will have to moveout from there too in couple of years - who knows !!
At the end of the day, its comes to ones preferences.
The way i look at, after spending so many years in states, its just hard to pack and move. Over the period of time, we make friends, we have familes and above all we invest the best years of our lives.
Pros and cons will be everywhere.
India no doubt has changed a lot. One can debate about the pros and cons the whole day. I dont think money is a problem in india any more. The economy is growing like anything and will keep on growing. No doubt about it.
I am sure folks who have spent 7-8 years in this country and are still trying to settle down, will love every oppurtunity to settle down here. Because this country is like our home now. We have given it everything. We have made sincere efforts in helping the American economy grow.
Even if we move to other countries, there is no gurantee we will be treated good. We have to start from scratch, make friends, earn peoples respect and trust.
Sometimes i feel sad when people talk about leaving the country, to whom they have given everything.
I will like to ask everyone one question.
Why not give one good shot at trying to fix the broken Employement-Based green card system? What are we all scared off? We never did anything wrong, so why do we need to leave the country?
Folks think about it.
I am sorry if i offended anyone, but this is what i feel.
I believe in fixing things then running away from them. Thats my take.
GO IV GO
TOGETHER WE CAN
wallpaper Metro PCS Blackberry Curve 2
suriajay12
02-19 06:56 AM
How exactly are illegals going to prove that they have been here for more than 5 years?
I think this is a good one. It supports legal immigrants.
I dont agreee with this dvb guy. 5 years legally is lots of time. And I now know people who are 10-15 years here. He will want to say the same tthing even in that case. Instead learn to rationalize and make sure if one thinks one is eligivle, then see how one can get included.crab behavior, the one at bottom pulls down the one thats climbing up. Finally both end at dinner table.
I think this is a good one. It supports legal immigrants.
I dont agreee with this dvb guy. 5 years legally is lots of time. And I now know people who are 10-15 years here. He will want to say the same tthing even in that case. Instead learn to rationalize and make sure if one thinks one is eligivle, then see how one can get included.crab behavior, the one at bottom pulls down the one thats climbing up. Finally both end at dinner table.
McLuvin
03-12 01:55 PM
finally the bulletin has been posted in the DOS website...
Visa Bulletin for April 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4747.html)
They have given a brief description about "BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS"
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, a significant amount of demand is received each month for applicants who have priority dates which are significantly earlier than the applicable cut-off dates. In addition, fluctuations in demand can cause cut-off date movement to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7% is a cap which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed. Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled, however.
Applicability of Section 202(a)(5): INA Section 202(a)(5), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, removed the per-country limit on Employment-based immigrants in any calendar quarter in which applicant demand for numbers in one or more Employment-based preferences is less than the total of such numbers available. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5) has allowed countries such as China � mainland born and India to utilize large amounts of Employment First and Second preference numbers which would have otherwise gone unused. Such numbers are provided strictly in priority date order without regard to the foreign state chargeability, and the same cut-off date applies to any country benefiting from this provision.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by documentarily qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation, that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may require the establishment of an earlier cut-off date than that which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
Furthermore, Section 202(a)(2) reads, �2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed seven percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or two percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.� The seven percent per-country limit specified in INA 202(a)(2) is considered to be for both Family-sponsored and Employment-based numbers combined.
Allocation of visa numbers under Section 202(e) is accomplished as follows:
If based on historical patterns or current demand it appears that during a fiscal year number use by aliens chargeable to a particular country will exceed the per-country numerical limit for both the Family and Employment preferences combined, that country would be considered oversubscribed. Both the Family and Employment preferences would be subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1).
Sometimes during a fiscal year it may become apparent that because of a lack of demand in the Family preferences, number use by aliens chargeable to an oversubscribed country will be well within the per-country numerical limit. In such case the excess Family numbers would be made available to the Employment preferences subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1). Each of the first three Employment categories would receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and each of the Fourth and Fifth preference categories 7.1%. (Fall-across would likewise apply if an oversubscribed country lacked sufficient demand in the Employment preferences but had excess demand in the Family preferences.)
If a foreign state other than an oversubscribed country has little Family preference demand but considerable Employment preference demand, the otherwise unused Family numbers fall across to Employment (and vice versa) for purposes of that foreign state�s annual numerical limit. For example, in FY-2009 South Korea used a grand total of 15,899 Family and Employment preference numbers, of which 1,688 were Family numbers and 14,211 were Employment numbers. This grand total was well within the FY-2009 per-country numerical limit of 25,620 Family and Employment numbers combined, so South Korea was not oversubscribed. The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.
Visa Bulletin for April 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4747.html)
They have given a brief description about "BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS"
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, a significant amount of demand is received each month for applicants who have priority dates which are significantly earlier than the applicable cut-off dates. In addition, fluctuations in demand can cause cut-off date movement to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7% is a cap which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed. Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled, however.
Applicability of Section 202(a)(5): INA Section 202(a)(5), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, removed the per-country limit on Employment-based immigrants in any calendar quarter in which applicant demand for numbers in one or more Employment-based preferences is less than the total of such numbers available. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5) has allowed countries such as China � mainland born and India to utilize large amounts of Employment First and Second preference numbers which would have otherwise gone unused. Such numbers are provided strictly in priority date order without regard to the foreign state chargeability, and the same cut-off date applies to any country benefiting from this provision.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by documentarily qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation, that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may require the establishment of an earlier cut-off date than that which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
Furthermore, Section 202(a)(2) reads, �2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed seven percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or two percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.� The seven percent per-country limit specified in INA 202(a)(2) is considered to be for both Family-sponsored and Employment-based numbers combined.
Allocation of visa numbers under Section 202(e) is accomplished as follows:
If based on historical patterns or current demand it appears that during a fiscal year number use by aliens chargeable to a particular country will exceed the per-country numerical limit for both the Family and Employment preferences combined, that country would be considered oversubscribed. Both the Family and Employment preferences would be subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1).
Sometimes during a fiscal year it may become apparent that because of a lack of demand in the Family preferences, number use by aliens chargeable to an oversubscribed country will be well within the per-country numerical limit. In such case the excess Family numbers would be made available to the Employment preferences subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1). Each of the first three Employment categories would receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and each of the Fourth and Fifth preference categories 7.1%. (Fall-across would likewise apply if an oversubscribed country lacked sufficient demand in the Employment preferences but had excess demand in the Family preferences.)
If a foreign state other than an oversubscribed country has little Family preference demand but considerable Employment preference demand, the otherwise unused Family numbers fall across to Employment (and vice versa) for purposes of that foreign state�s annual numerical limit. For example, in FY-2009 South Korea used a grand total of 15,899 Family and Employment preference numbers, of which 1,688 were Family numbers and 14,211 were Employment numbers. This grand total was well within the FY-2009 per-country numerical limit of 25,620 Family and Employment numbers combined, so South Korea was not oversubscribed. The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.
2011 For Blackberry Bold 9700
raj2007
12-20 08:33 PM
Thanks for the clarification, Logiclife. I enter U.S in the first week of Feb, 2001. The economy was bad and I didn't manage to get a job. In fact, I didn't managed to get a job for a year. My then employer didn't revoked my H1B and the I-94 was valid until Oct, 2002. I didn't know that I was out of status till now. I don't remember seeing any section in I-485 form, asking for information about out of status. I did attach my previous H1-B approval notice(2000 -2002) while filing I-485. One thing I want to know is, did anyone got a query(RFE), asking to provide all W2 forms since their entry into this country? I am interested to know that.
You are OK.. they problem should have come in 2002 when you changed ur H1B not now and max they will ask for 3 year W2. Don't worry..everything is fine.
You are OK.. they problem should have come in 2002 when you changed ur H1B not now and max they will ask for 3 year W2. Don't worry..everything is fine.
more...
eilsoe
02-16 07:04 PM
http://www.avalon-rev.dk/junk/station1.jpg
my WIP screen... gonna add a lot of detail later. :)
my WIP screen... gonna add a lot of detail later. :)
varshadas
12-14 09:12 AM
Hello All,
This is a reminder to all to join the conference call tonight at 9.00 PM.
Thanks,
Varsha
This is a reminder to all to join the conference call tonight at 9.00 PM.
Thanks,
Varsha
more...
desi3933
07-09 04:42 PM
Certainty is related to belief not reality. It still means the name check was not completed. The law does not say they "when you are certain that the FBI name check can be cleared..please allot a visa."
Would you mind quoting the actual law then?
Does every I-485 need FBI approval or just background check? How do you know that it needs FBI Name Check for all cases. Quote the law please.
Would you mind quoting the actual law then?
Does every I-485 need FBI approval or just background check? How do you know that it needs FBI Name Check for all cases. Quote the law please.
2010 who also had Metro PCS,
rajuram
11-11 09:31 AM
It does not hurt to start planning now and get some bill moving as soon as he gets into office. May be if something can get attached to the 2nd stimulus package.
REMEMBER WE SHOULD MARKET HOW IMMIGRANTS CAN HELP THE HOUSING MESS BY BUYING HOUSES. IT IS ALL ABOUT MARKETING.
I'd like to point out that Obama is the President-elect. He doesn't become the president until Jan 20 when he takes the oath. Right now the situation is exactly like it was before the election.
REMEMBER WE SHOULD MARKET HOW IMMIGRANTS CAN HELP THE HOUSING MESS BY BUYING HOUSES. IT IS ALL ABOUT MARKETING.
I'd like to point out that Obama is the President-elect. He doesn't become the president until Jan 20 when he takes the oath. Right now the situation is exactly like it was before the election.
more...
xyz2005
07-18 09:43 AM
What is meant by "Rejected" here?
-FedEx not accepted on July 2nd
-They took the packet and in 2-3 days they opened it and returned back some after inputting in their database
-Packet is still with them but they generated a rejection notice that was sent to lawyer/candidate
-Rejection email was sent to lawyer/candidate
OR
-USCIS's July 2nd bulletin just said all applications received would be returned/rejected and Greg's thought is that the whole pile must be kept somewhere with the action planned "to be rejected" and nobody is taking action on it and USCIS has to be made aware about that or in their yesterday's UPDATE they forgot to touch about this. ( To me this is internal processing matter of USCIS)
Well to be honest with you, I was 1 million % convinced that we all should be OK because yesterday's press release very clearly mentions " All properly filed cases would be accepted" until I stumbled on Greg's blog. Now I am confused as well.
I contacted my attorney but so far no reply. Will update all of you.
I don't think so that we have to refile as it does not make sense. Plus even those who are rejected would have proof of filing )FedEx and rejection notice and through Motion to reopen case can be resurrected. Pls keep everybody updated as and when your attorney advises you.
Thanks
-FedEx not accepted on July 2nd
-They took the packet and in 2-3 days they opened it and returned back some after inputting in their database
-Packet is still with them but they generated a rejection notice that was sent to lawyer/candidate
-Rejection email was sent to lawyer/candidate
OR
-USCIS's July 2nd bulletin just said all applications received would be returned/rejected and Greg's thought is that the whole pile must be kept somewhere with the action planned "to be rejected" and nobody is taking action on it and USCIS has to be made aware about that or in their yesterday's UPDATE they forgot to touch about this. ( To me this is internal processing matter of USCIS)
Well to be honest with you, I was 1 million % convinced that we all should be OK because yesterday's press release very clearly mentions " All properly filed cases would be accepted" until I stumbled on Greg's blog. Now I am confused as well.
I contacted my attorney but so far no reply. Will update all of you.
I don't think so that we have to refile as it does not make sense. Plus even those who are rejected would have proof of filing )FedEx and rejection notice and through Motion to reopen case can be resurrected. Pls keep everybody updated as and when your attorney advises you.
Thanks
hair FLASH to METRO PCS any
Winner
06-11 08:02 AM
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE SEND THE MESSAGE. WE WILL ALSO START WITH THE PHONE CAMPAIGN IN THE MORNING.
Reason being, the other side is writing letters to other Senators to seek their support. They want to see this amendment pass. Here is the letter.
************************************************** ***************
COMPANIES LAYING-OFF THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN WORKERS DON�T NEED GUEST WORKERS
Please Support the Sanders-Grassley Employ America Amendment to the Tax Extenders bill
Dear Colleague:
Since the recession started in December of 2007, nearly 8 million Americans have lost their jobs and the unemployment rate has nearly doubled. In total, 15 million Americans are officially unemployed, another 8.8 million Americans are working part-time only because they cannot find a full-time job, and more than one million workers have given up looking for work altogether.
With the unemployment rate still unacceptably high and millions of people looking for a job, we have a responsibility to ensure that companies do not use temporary visa programs to replace American workers with cheaper labor from overseas.
Therefore, during the consideration of the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act, we will be offering an amendment that would prohibit companies which have announced mass lay-offs over the past year from hiring guest workers, unless they can prove that their overall employment will not be reduced as a result of these lay-offs.
At a time when millions of Americans are out of work, the notion that we need to import labor from abroad because there are not enough qualified, willing or able American workers in this country rings hollow.
Recently, some of the very companies that have hired tens of thousands of guest-workers from overseas have announced large scale lay-offs of American workers. The high-tech industry, a major employer of H-1B guest workers, has announced over 330,000 job cuts since 2008. The construction industry, a major employer of H-2B guest-workers, has laid-off 1.9 million workers since December of 2007.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, signed into law last February, included a provision to prevent companies receiving assistance through the Troubled Asset Relief Program from replacing laid-off American workers with guest-workers from overseas.
The Employ America Act expands upon this provision to prevent any company engaged in a mass lay-off of American workers from importing cheaper labor from abroad through temporary guest-worker programs. Those companies that are truly facing labor shortages would not be impacted by this legislation and could continue to obtain employer-sponsored visas. Only companies that are laying-off a large number of Americans would be barred from importing foreign workers through guest worker programs.
If you would like to co-sponsor this amendment, please have your staff contact Warren Gunnels in Sen. Sanders� office at 8-6358 or Kathy Nuebel Kovarik in Sen. Grassley's office at 4-3744.
Sincerely,
____________________ ____________________
BERNARD SANDERS CHARLES E. GRASSLEY
UNITED STATES SENATOR UNITED STATES SENATOR
************************************************** ***************
This underscores the urgency. Please act on the action item NOW.
Reason being, the other side is writing letters to other Senators to seek their support. They want to see this amendment pass. Here is the letter.
************************************************** ***************
COMPANIES LAYING-OFF THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN WORKERS DON�T NEED GUEST WORKERS
Please Support the Sanders-Grassley Employ America Amendment to the Tax Extenders bill
Dear Colleague:
Since the recession started in December of 2007, nearly 8 million Americans have lost their jobs and the unemployment rate has nearly doubled. In total, 15 million Americans are officially unemployed, another 8.8 million Americans are working part-time only because they cannot find a full-time job, and more than one million workers have given up looking for work altogether.
With the unemployment rate still unacceptably high and millions of people looking for a job, we have a responsibility to ensure that companies do not use temporary visa programs to replace American workers with cheaper labor from overseas.
Therefore, during the consideration of the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act, we will be offering an amendment that would prohibit companies which have announced mass lay-offs over the past year from hiring guest workers, unless they can prove that their overall employment will not be reduced as a result of these lay-offs.
At a time when millions of Americans are out of work, the notion that we need to import labor from abroad because there are not enough qualified, willing or able American workers in this country rings hollow.
Recently, some of the very companies that have hired tens of thousands of guest-workers from overseas have announced large scale lay-offs of American workers. The high-tech industry, a major employer of H-1B guest workers, has announced over 330,000 job cuts since 2008. The construction industry, a major employer of H-2B guest-workers, has laid-off 1.9 million workers since December of 2007.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, signed into law last February, included a provision to prevent companies receiving assistance through the Troubled Asset Relief Program from replacing laid-off American workers with guest-workers from overseas.
The Employ America Act expands upon this provision to prevent any company engaged in a mass lay-off of American workers from importing cheaper labor from abroad through temporary guest-worker programs. Those companies that are truly facing labor shortages would not be impacted by this legislation and could continue to obtain employer-sponsored visas. Only companies that are laying-off a large number of Americans would be barred from importing foreign workers through guest worker programs.
If you would like to co-sponsor this amendment, please have your staff contact Warren Gunnels in Sen. Sanders� office at 8-6358 or Kathy Nuebel Kovarik in Sen. Grassley's office at 4-3744.
Sincerely,
____________________ ____________________
BERNARD SANDERS CHARLES E. GRASSLEY
UNITED STATES SENATOR UNITED STATES SENATOR
************************************************** ***************
This underscores the urgency. Please act on the action item NOW.
more...
wizard20740
07-09 07:25 PM
A FBI name check does not seem to be a mandatory requirement for a GC. I think it maybe part of a "National Security Background Check" but does not seem to be a mandatory one.
Also Please see link below, which seems to indicate that precedents exist for issuing Citizenship to people without completion of background checks. These checks have to be completed within 120 days of citizenship interview, and it seems that in nearly 20% cases, people have been granted citizenship without completion of background checks because the 120 day timeline expired.
http://immigration.about.com/b/a/256020.htm
Would you mind quoting the actual law then?
Does every I-485 need FBI approval or just background check? How do you know that it needs FBI Name Check for all cases. Quote the law please.
Also Please see link below, which seems to indicate that precedents exist for issuing Citizenship to people without completion of background checks. These checks have to be completed within 120 days of citizenship interview, and it seems that in nearly 20% cases, people have been granted citizenship without completion of background checks because the 120 day timeline expired.
http://immigration.about.com/b/a/256020.htm
Would you mind quoting the actual law then?
Does every I-485 need FBI approval or just background check? How do you know that it needs FBI Name Check for all cases. Quote the law please.
hot HTC Evo 4G on MetroPCS 1X
WillIBLucky
06-22 08:36 PM
Its against law to take color copies of ID, passport, DOB etc in Michigan. So you should not take color copies as it would mean you are breaking a federal law.
b/w copies are more than enough for ID and passport. But, the ID should be enlarged in b/w.
b/w copies are more than enough for ID and passport. But, the ID should be enlarged in b/w.
more...
house Telus BlackBerry Bold 9780
new_horizon
03-17 11:00 AM
the only good thing I see there are families in which both husband and wife filed separate GC petition. When one's gc process goes thru completion, the other petition will be withdrawn from the queue. : )
hope there are more cases like that.
hope there are more cases like that.
tattoo metro pcs phones for sale.
greyhair
02-09 08:20 PM
They wasted 580 EB3 India visas last year (2009).
Total available EB3 India GC Visas per year: 2802
Used: 2222
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV_2.pdf
No disrespect meant but what's this? Faux News? As per the law, there is no quota of 2802 green cards for EB3 India. Its a ceiling not a quota. The difference is with ceiling of 7% USCIS can allocate lower number than 7% of 28.6% of 140,000 to EB3 India. If it would be 7% quota, then it would be fair to ask for our "right" for another 580 more green cards. That's why this is not real information, its Faux news.
desi3933 has correctly mentioned the relevant stats. Just in case you missed it:
141,020 visa numbers used in FY2009
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV.pdf
Look at the last page.
The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is 140,000. So the usage was actually more.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
This is the reason I do not find that immigration business shop credible any more.
Total available EB3 India GC Visas per year: 2802
Used: 2222
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV_2.pdf
No disrespect meant but what's this? Faux News? As per the law, there is no quota of 2802 green cards for EB3 India. Its a ceiling not a quota. The difference is with ceiling of 7% USCIS can allocate lower number than 7% of 28.6% of 140,000 to EB3 India. If it would be 7% quota, then it would be fair to ask for our "right" for another 580 more green cards. That's why this is not real information, its Faux news.
desi3933 has correctly mentioned the relevant stats. Just in case you missed it:
141,020 visa numbers used in FY2009
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV.pdf
Look at the last page.
The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is 140,000. So the usage was actually more.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
This is the reason I do not find that immigration business shop credible any more.
more...
pictures Metro+pcs+phones+android
rajuram
01-26 02:23 AM
I (and may be lot of others like me) want to care about IV & want to contribute to IV. But there has not even a single thread of good news for last several months. This is very demotivating. I have contributed only once. Every time I visit this site, I feel guilty of taking a free ride. But at the same time I find it hard to make any contributions with nothing happening on the horizon. Currently it looks like what ever is happening or going to happen with CIR etc is just moving at its own pace. If we can not expedite it, then what is the use? in any case congress will pass some relief for skilled workers when CIR comes up.
dresses Home Wall Charger For Metro PCS Blackberry Curve 8330 | eBay
cool_guy_onnet1
02-21 10:31 AM
From ,
1. In Fy08, there were 189 EB2 India approvals.
2. Assume annual quota for Eb2 India is X (Correct me if i'm wrong but i think this equates to 2800?)
3. So 189 approvals = 2800 actual approvals. A ratio of 6.75%.
Upto Dec31, 03, there are still about 330 or so pending Eb2 India cases. Using the 6.75% representation, it would mean that there are about 4900 Eb2 India cases pending.
NOT EVERYONE REGISTERS AT THESE POS SITES. lol
C'mon be realistic.
1. In Fy08, there were 189 EB2 India approvals.
2. Assume annual quota for Eb2 India is X (Correct me if i'm wrong but i think this equates to 2800?)
3. So 189 approvals = 2800 actual approvals. A ratio of 6.75%.
Upto Dec31, 03, there are still about 330 or so pending Eb2 India cases. Using the 6.75% representation, it would mean that there are about 4900 Eb2 India cases pending.
NOT EVERYONE REGISTERS AT THESE POS SITES. lol
C'mon be realistic.
more...
makeup Home Wall Charger For Metro PCS Blackberry Curve 8330 | eBay
conchshell
08-13 04:15 PM
Each Year un-used FB (Family based) visas are given to EB (Employment based) in coming year. Last year CIS did not use 22704 FB visa which is added to 140K EB count for 2008.
that means Eb2 india has more than 40k visa available ... that explains it why EB2 India and China has moved from June to August 2006.
that means Eb2 india has more than 40k visa available ... that explains it why EB2 India and China has moved from June to August 2006.
girlfriend Metro Pcs Blackberry.
gimme_GC2006
07-15 11:12 AM
Is your case still @ Local Office
I think so..atleast there were no LUDs
Thats actually a good question..now I am thinking :confused:
I think so..atleast there were no LUDs
Thats actually a good question..now I am thinking :confused:
hairstyles Metro PCS
desi3933
02-11 12:27 PM
Check this link
Report of the Visa Office 2009 Table of Contents (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/statistics/statistics_4594.html)
Point V and part 2
the numbers come around 137000 ( which is 3000 ) Short of 140,000 ( I think the actual number will be 140,000 + Spill over FB Visas from 2008 If any )
Thanks
Read again.
Point V and part 2 covers only eb1 thru eb4 only.
Employment based visa numbers 140,000 is for eb1 thru eb5.
As mentioned in my previous post in this thread, for FY2008 family based numbers are totally used, so there were no unused numbers for employment based FY2009 numbers.
______________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
Report of the Visa Office 2009 Table of Contents (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/statistics/statistics_4594.html)
Point V and part 2
the numbers come around 137000 ( which is 3000 ) Short of 140,000 ( I think the actual number will be 140,000 + Spill over FB Visas from 2008 If any )
Thanks
Read again.
Point V and part 2 covers only eb1 thru eb4 only.
Employment based visa numbers 140,000 is for eb1 thru eb5.
As mentioned in my previous post in this thread, for FY2008 family based numbers are totally used, so there were no unused numbers for employment based FY2009 numbers.
______________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
immigrant2007
09-10 12:50 PM
Thats what exactly I said
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/1984591-post28.html
sorry brother..didn't see your post earlier...but that makes two os us thinking the same way.....I think we should ask for more transprecany from USCIS/DOs on numbers and approvals and all backdoors being closed.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/1984591-post28.html
sorry brother..didn't see your post earlier...but that makes two os us thinking the same way.....I think we should ask for more transprecany from USCIS/DOs on numbers and approvals and all backdoors being closed.
delhiguy
07-09 02:22 PM
http://www.ahslaw.com/documents/AHSLawsuit.pdf
This document gives lot of legal details, states what the lawsuits exactly is..
P.S : I Think its just filed, not accepted by the court as of now
This document gives lot of legal details, states what the lawsuits exactly is..
P.S : I Think its just filed, not accepted by the court as of now