alterego
09-15 01:39 PM
Hey, this sounds sig-worthy... can I use that for my sig?
Did you come to america for Horizontal growth...................ie to increase your girth?
You could easily do that in india these days. Some comments here are plain funny!
Did you come to america for Horizontal growth...................ie to increase your girth?
You could easily do that in india these days. Some comments here are plain funny!
wallpaper plastic surgery face. kim
jthomas
04-13 05:27 PM
Thanks IV core members for helping a member in our community. this will help me to support IV's agenda in future.
Jose Thomas
Jose Thomas
makemygc
07-06 06:29 PM
Just like USCIS, they duped us at the last moment.
2011 Kim Kardashian is turning her
zilmax007
07-27 05:32 PM
An Indian man walks into a bank in New York City and asks for the loan officer. He tells the loan officer that he is going to India on business for two weeks and needs to borrow $5,000.The bank officer tells him that the bank will need some form of security for the loan, so the Indian man hands over the keys to a new Ferrari parked on the street in front of the bank. He produces the title and everything checks out. The loan officer agrees to accept the car as collateral for the loan.The bank's president and its officers all enjoy a good laugh at the Indian for using a $250,000 Ferrari as collateral against a $5,000 loan. An employee of the bank then drives the Ferrari into the bank's underground garage and parks it there.Two weeks later, the Indian returns, repays the $5,000 and the interest, which comes to $15.41.The loan officer says, "Sir, we are very happy to have had your business, and this transaction has worked out very nicely,but we are a little puzzled. While you were away, we checked you out and found that you are a multi millionaire. What puzzles us is, why would you bother to borrow "$5,000".The Indian replies: "Where else in New York City can I park my car for two weeks for only $15.41 and expect it to be there when I return".
more...
anai
07-19 02:20 PM
Most people from India will have PPD test positive as they have received BCG vaccine in childhood. PPD test in not mandatory. Negative chest xray is sufficient to prove that you are free from active TB (you may still have dormant infection but that doesn't matter at this point of time). Plus USCIS/CDC had published a guideline for civil surgeons instructing how to perform the Medical exam for immigration purposes and it clearly says that applicant can choose not to have PPD test and negative cxr will be sufficient.
Please cite the source for the claim that an applicant has some sort of a choice about the skin test. I disagree with your claim for the following three reasons.
(1) See instructions to form I-693 (the medical form): http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/I-693.pdf "Applicants two years old or older will be required to have a tuberculin skin test."
(2) Also, while this next link is less authoritative than USCIS's link above, see this page on murthy: http://www.murthy.com/news/n_tbtest.html (dated mid May)
(3) Note also the USCIS memo (dated April) that went into effect by mid June:
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/RFEFactSheet041207.pdf
This states that, unlike earlier, petitions filed without initial evidence are more likely to be rejected than to be RFE-ed. (See towards end of first page). "To avoid denial, USCIS urges applicants and petitioners to file complete
applications with all of the required initial evidence. The initial evidence for each application and petition type is clearly listed on the form instructions and in the regulations."
As always, please read the instructions to the forms. Most questions will have answers there.
And if the original poster found any of the answers in this thread useful, consider contributing to IV.
Please cite the source for the claim that an applicant has some sort of a choice about the skin test. I disagree with your claim for the following three reasons.
(1) See instructions to form I-693 (the medical form): http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/I-693.pdf "Applicants two years old or older will be required to have a tuberculin skin test."
(2) Also, while this next link is less authoritative than USCIS's link above, see this page on murthy: http://www.murthy.com/news/n_tbtest.html (dated mid May)
(3) Note also the USCIS memo (dated April) that went into effect by mid June:
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/RFEFactSheet041207.pdf
This states that, unlike earlier, petitions filed without initial evidence are more likely to be rejected than to be RFE-ed. (See towards end of first page). "To avoid denial, USCIS urges applicants and petitioners to file complete
applications with all of the required initial evidence. The initial evidence for each application and petition type is clearly listed on the form instructions and in the regulations."
As always, please read the instructions to the forms. Most questions will have answers there.
And if the original poster found any of the answers in this thread useful, consider contributing to IV.
kiran_k02
08-06 11:09 PM
PD: July 2004
RD: July 03 2007
ND: Sept 13 2007
140 Approved: May 07
485 Pending: NSC
name checking: pending (got to know with Recent infopass appointment)
I got hold of IO this morning using POJ method. She said, my case has been assigned to IO.
Hello myvoice23 ---
How come your case is assigned to IO inspite of pending NC. I saw a post which said that NC should be cleared before 485 approval. They are planning to finish NC by Feb, 09; for all applicants whose NC is pending for than 6 months.
I am stuck with NC...my PD is 09/2004...
Kiran
RD: July 03 2007
ND: Sept 13 2007
140 Approved: May 07
485 Pending: NSC
name checking: pending (got to know with Recent infopass appointment)
I got hold of IO this morning using POJ method. She said, my case has been assigned to IO.
Hello myvoice23 ---
How come your case is assigned to IO inspite of pending NC. I saw a post which said that NC should be cleared before 485 approval. They are planning to finish NC by Feb, 09; for all applicants whose NC is pending for than 6 months.
I am stuck with NC...my PD is 09/2004...
Kiran
more...
kondur_007
06-10 04:22 PM
Also Mr O said out look for Eb2 india is grim and could have delay for decades .. where Eb3 india can be set to Oct 2001 in oct 2009. His whole prediction is based on current demand from USCIS.
Lets says he USCIS has 50k Eb2 india and 70k Eb3 india in back room. Now they both have 3k visas in a given year . if USCIS process ( Pre adjucted ) 40k Eb2 india cases and 4k Eb3 india and bring to DOS , DOS may think there are 10 time more cases in Eb2 india so it can take decades while Eb3 india has only 1k extra so it can be in a year. but reality is different.
hope that makes some thing clear to members..
Agree with that as well...that may impact PD determination (and it MAY), but the fact is:
EB2 and EB3 India people with PD after 2005 (just an arbitary year) will not get GC unless there is spill over....it will be 20 yrs without spill over....
Lets says he USCIS has 50k Eb2 india and 70k Eb3 india in back room. Now they both have 3k visas in a given year . if USCIS process ( Pre adjucted ) 40k Eb2 india cases and 4k Eb3 india and bring to DOS , DOS may think there are 10 time more cases in Eb2 india so it can take decades while Eb3 india has only 1k extra so it can be in a year. but reality is different.
hope that makes some thing clear to members..
Agree with that as well...that may impact PD determination (and it MAY), but the fact is:
EB2 and EB3 India people with PD after 2005 (just an arbitary year) will not get GC unless there is spill over....it will be 20 yrs without spill over....
2010 Kim Kardashian has smoothed
nitin_prabh
02-13 12:49 PM
I filed my 485 in June 2007 in Nebraska and yesterday my LUD changed but there was no message. This is the first change in my LUD since my finger printing in July 2007. I am EB3-I with PD of Dec 2002. Not sure what got updated. Any ideas???
more...
ramreddy
01-31 04:28 AM
ICE: "Sham" University, Cover For Illegals - FoxNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/28/ice-sham-university-cover-illegals/?test=latestnews)
Amongst Google video or Y-Tube was a report that TVU in fact ran a pyramid scheme or referral, which very much discounted the fees if there where referrals. Referrals would likely be a close school friend.
I feel very sad for the tarnish it has caused .Esp the common Indian working there is bound to be looked upon as a fraud case - and he would have nothing to do with this AT ALL,it spoils the prospects and reputation of genuine people be it anyone Telegu or Non ..as long as he is Indian.
Now all the local regional associations are desperately painting them as scapegoats because if otherwise it will be a big dent to their own rep. And next the Feds will want to go smell fish at any AP run consulting firm . A general fraud impression will be built rapidly around that community.Very unfortunate if that happens. But WHY in the 1st place attempt such a massive fraud ? Bad for all. I just hate it .
BTW all this 1500 student game is happening when the H1B visa laws are the most restrictive so companies find it imposs to file a fresh H1B but its a lot easier to transit a student from F to H.
Amongst Google video or Y-Tube was a report that TVU in fact ran a pyramid scheme or referral, which very much discounted the fees if there where referrals. Referrals would likely be a close school friend.
I feel very sad for the tarnish it has caused .Esp the common Indian working there is bound to be looked upon as a fraud case - and he would have nothing to do with this AT ALL,it spoils the prospects and reputation of genuine people be it anyone Telegu or Non ..as long as he is Indian.
Now all the local regional associations are desperately painting them as scapegoats because if otherwise it will be a big dent to their own rep. And next the Feds will want to go smell fish at any AP run consulting firm . A general fraud impression will be built rapidly around that community.Very unfortunate if that happens. But WHY in the 1st place attempt such a massive fraud ? Bad for all. I just hate it .
BTW all this 1500 student game is happening when the H1B visa laws are the most restrictive so companies find it imposs to file a fresh H1B but its a lot easier to transit a student from F to H.
hair Do you think Kim Kardashian
downthedrain
02-18 10:31 PM
Aachoo, downthedrain, jazzbytheway, sushilup, rvr_jcop -
question 1) did both you and your spouse's I485 cases receive the "pending at the location it was transfered to"?
question 2) did both you and your spouses I485 cases receive RFE?
question 3) did both you and your spouses case have an LUD after RFE?
have you guys received the RFE notices and if yes, what is USCIS asking
thanks
Sree
LUD for my wife before RFE. RFE on just mine. got 1HLUD and 3 SLUDs on just mine after RFE received, no transfer on both cases
question 1) did both you and your spouse's I485 cases receive the "pending at the location it was transfered to"?
question 2) did both you and your spouses I485 cases receive RFE?
question 3) did both you and your spouses case have an LUD after RFE?
have you guys received the RFE notices and if yes, what is USCIS asking
thanks
Sree
LUD for my wife before RFE. RFE on just mine. got 1HLUD and 3 SLUDs on just mine after RFE received, no transfer on both cases
more...
tiinap
04-09 01:12 PM
"Even horse-betting has some amount of skill level (of the horse) and knowledge involved when u place a bet...and to think about it....When I used to be in India, I was told why India is not improving is because meritocracy takes a back seat everywhere while in US people are rewarded based on merits. I now realize with the backlog and the H1B that things are worse out here."
You're absolutely right. Ever since last year's H1-b lottery, I look at this country in a new light. I no longer see this U.S. as the world's greatest country, I suspect this is a civilization in decline. If I were to make a bet where this country will be in 50 years, I would bet it would lose it's position as a superpower and the most successful economy.
This H-1b and GC mess to me is an indicator of how things are run in this country. With all these major problems: immigration, healthcare -- there's just an attempt to sweep problems quietly under the rug or apply band-aid fixes such as a lottery.
Thousands of advanced degree holders are being kicked out of the country and a million people are stuck in a GC mess -- no one cares, it's no-one's business. The human being is like a tiny and replacable cog in the system.
Of maybe ~500 highly influential people in Washington DC (congressmen + senators + president + DHS high officials) maybe 3-4 people are expressing outrage at the EB GC and H1B mess. Zoe Lofgren is one, maybe a few others. The rest think the system is just fine.
Barack Obama spoke in the senate last July and said that the employment-based immigration system is working so well, we shouldn't make any changes!
Sorry, seeing this week's H1B brings out the pessimist in me. Maybe there's hope for legal immigrants in the future, but only if we keep fighting.
You're absolutely right. Ever since last year's H1-b lottery, I look at this country in a new light. I no longer see this U.S. as the world's greatest country, I suspect this is a civilization in decline. If I were to make a bet where this country will be in 50 years, I would bet it would lose it's position as a superpower and the most successful economy.
This H-1b and GC mess to me is an indicator of how things are run in this country. With all these major problems: immigration, healthcare -- there's just an attempt to sweep problems quietly under the rug or apply band-aid fixes such as a lottery.
Thousands of advanced degree holders are being kicked out of the country and a million people are stuck in a GC mess -- no one cares, it's no-one's business. The human being is like a tiny and replacable cog in the system.
Of maybe ~500 highly influential people in Washington DC (congressmen + senators + president + DHS high officials) maybe 3-4 people are expressing outrage at the EB GC and H1B mess. Zoe Lofgren is one, maybe a few others. The rest think the system is just fine.
Barack Obama spoke in the senate last July and said that the employment-based immigration system is working so well, we shouldn't make any changes!
Sorry, seeing this week's H1B brings out the pessimist in me. Maybe there's hope for legal immigrants in the future, but only if we keep fighting.
hot Kim Kardashian Plans Ahead,
indianindian2006
04-13 03:50 PM
Looking at this latest bullet from USCIS it feels that Eb3 and even Eb2 Indians and illegals have only hope in CIR.What a sad state for indians.
more...
house Kim Kardashian#39;s #39;tilting
Guig0
02-03 06:58 AM
now i�m ashaned coz i don�t have any vote at all :(
tattoo Kim Kardashian
pcs
07-10 08:36 AM
We can keep sending emails / call the CNN President.
He is already on the defensive..
Read this....
CNN's Immigration Problem
Is Dobbs the exception�or the rule?
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2867
He is already on the defensive..
Read this....
CNN's Immigration Problem
Is Dobbs the exception�or the rule?
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2867
more...
pictures kim kardashian plastic surgery
helens_64
12-13 09:09 AM
In the visa bullitin, it says current for Targeted Employ-ment Areas/
Regio.nal Centers . What is that mean?. Is it only for the investor who does business in Targeted areas? or employees who works in the under served areas
Regio.nal Centers . What is that mean?. Is it only for the investor who does business in Targeted areas? or employees who works in the under served areas
dresses Kim Kardashian has strongly
lazycis
02-28 01:49 PM
Can you please let us know the URL for the latest name check FAQ posted today.
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=17312&d=1204204596
Questions & Answers
BACKGROUND CHECK POLICY UPDATE
Q1. What applications are affected by this policy change?
A1. Applications included in this policy are:
• I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status;
• I-601, Application for Waiver of Ground of Inadmissibility;
• I-687, Application for Status as a Temporary Resident Under Section 245A of the Immigration and Nationality Act; and
• I-698, Application to Adjust from Temporary to Permanent Resident (Under Section 245A of Public Law 99-603).
Q2. How has USCIS changed its national security requirements?
A2. USCIS has not changed its background check policies for naturalization applications. Recently, the agency did modify its existing guidance for certain applications (see above) where the immigration laws allow for the detention and removal of individuals if actionable information from a FBI name check response is received after approval. No application for lawful permanent residence will be approved until a definitive FBI fingerprint check and Interagency Border Inspection Services (IBIS) check are completed and resolved favorably. (Please refer to the USCIS Immigration Security Checks fact sheet on the USCIS website for more information.)
Q3. How has USCIS changed its adjudications requirements?
A3. For these forms, including applications for lawful permanent residence, USCIS will adjudicate the application based on all required evidence outlined in applicable law and regulation if the application is otherwise approvable, outside of normal processing times, and the FBI name check request has been pending for more than 180 days.
(more)
Q4. What happens if USCIS later receives adverse information from an FBI name check?
A4. In the unlikely event that Department of Homeland Security, (DHS) receives actionable adverse information from the FBI name check after the application is adjudicated, DHS may detain the applicant and initiate removal proceedings.
Q5. Why is this policy being implemented?
A5. This policy change responds to a 2005 DHS Inspector General recommendation that USCIS better align its background check screening policies with those of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Q6. Is this policy consistent with the national security priorities of USCIS and the Department of Homeland Security?
A6. Yes. Applications for lawful permanent residence will not be approved until a definitive FBI fingerprint check and Interagency Border Inspection Services (IBIS) check are completed and resolved favorably. In addition, in the unlikely event that DHS receives actionable adverse information after the application is approved, removal proceedings may be initiated.
Q7. How many applications for lawful permanent residence are immediately affected by this policy change?
A7. USCIS is aware of approximately 47,000 applications for permanent residence (I-485) cases that are otherwise approvable but have an FBI name check pending. A portion of these cases are both outside normal processing times and have an FBI name check that has been pending for more than 180 days. These cases will be subject to processing under the new policy. USCIS anticipates the majority of the cases that can now be adjudicated will be processed by mid-March 2008.
Q8. Does this policy change affect naturalization applications?
A8. No. There is no change in the requirement that FBI name check, FBI fingerprint and Interagency Border Inspection Services (IBIS) check results be obtained and resolved prior to the adjudication of an Application for Naturalization (N-400).
Q9. How long will it take for USCIS to work through the cases affected by the policy change?
A9. USCIS has begun identifying cases affected by this policy modification in each field office and service center. Each office will evaluate the pending cases and will adjust their workload accordingly. USCIS anticipates the majority of the cases subject to this policy modification will be processed by mid-March 2008. We recommend customers wait until March 10 before inquiring about their cases. This will allow each office sufficient time to identify and adjudicate pending cases.
(more)
Q10. The memorandum identifies I-485, I-601, I-687 and I-698 forms. Is there a plan to include other forms, specifically nonimmigrant and naturalization, in this policy?
A10. No.
Q11. Should customers contact USCIS through the 1-800 customer service number or make an INFOPASS appointment to visit their local office if their case is outside of normal processing times and they believe their application meets the criteria of this new policy?
A11. For pending applications outside of normal processing times, we recommend that customers wait until March 10, 2008, before inquiring about cases affected by this policy modification. This will allow each office sufficient time to identify and adjudicate the relevant pending cases. If no action is taken by mid-March, we recommend inquiring with the USCIS customer service line at 1-800-375-5283. This procedure is for customers who have been previously informed that their case is pending due to the FBI name check. (Cases that are still pending within the processing times will be completed when the related adjudication actions are completed.)
Q12. Will USCIS automatically notify an applicant to appear at an Application Support Center, (ASC) if his or her fingerprints have expired?
A12. Applicants will be notified through an appointment notice if new or updated fingerprint checks are needed.
– USCIS –
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=17312&d=1204204596
Questions & Answers
BACKGROUND CHECK POLICY UPDATE
Q1. What applications are affected by this policy change?
A1. Applications included in this policy are:
• I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status;
• I-601, Application for Waiver of Ground of Inadmissibility;
• I-687, Application for Status as a Temporary Resident Under Section 245A of the Immigration and Nationality Act; and
• I-698, Application to Adjust from Temporary to Permanent Resident (Under Section 245A of Public Law 99-603).
Q2. How has USCIS changed its national security requirements?
A2. USCIS has not changed its background check policies for naturalization applications. Recently, the agency did modify its existing guidance for certain applications (see above) where the immigration laws allow for the detention and removal of individuals if actionable information from a FBI name check response is received after approval. No application for lawful permanent residence will be approved until a definitive FBI fingerprint check and Interagency Border Inspection Services (IBIS) check are completed and resolved favorably. (Please refer to the USCIS Immigration Security Checks fact sheet on the USCIS website for more information.)
Q3. How has USCIS changed its adjudications requirements?
A3. For these forms, including applications for lawful permanent residence, USCIS will adjudicate the application based on all required evidence outlined in applicable law and regulation if the application is otherwise approvable, outside of normal processing times, and the FBI name check request has been pending for more than 180 days.
(more)
Q4. What happens if USCIS later receives adverse information from an FBI name check?
A4. In the unlikely event that Department of Homeland Security, (DHS) receives actionable adverse information from the FBI name check after the application is adjudicated, DHS may detain the applicant and initiate removal proceedings.
Q5. Why is this policy being implemented?
A5. This policy change responds to a 2005 DHS Inspector General recommendation that USCIS better align its background check screening policies with those of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Q6. Is this policy consistent with the national security priorities of USCIS and the Department of Homeland Security?
A6. Yes. Applications for lawful permanent residence will not be approved until a definitive FBI fingerprint check and Interagency Border Inspection Services (IBIS) check are completed and resolved favorably. In addition, in the unlikely event that DHS receives actionable adverse information after the application is approved, removal proceedings may be initiated.
Q7. How many applications for lawful permanent residence are immediately affected by this policy change?
A7. USCIS is aware of approximately 47,000 applications for permanent residence (I-485) cases that are otherwise approvable but have an FBI name check pending. A portion of these cases are both outside normal processing times and have an FBI name check that has been pending for more than 180 days. These cases will be subject to processing under the new policy. USCIS anticipates the majority of the cases that can now be adjudicated will be processed by mid-March 2008.
Q8. Does this policy change affect naturalization applications?
A8. No. There is no change in the requirement that FBI name check, FBI fingerprint and Interagency Border Inspection Services (IBIS) check results be obtained and resolved prior to the adjudication of an Application for Naturalization (N-400).
Q9. How long will it take for USCIS to work through the cases affected by the policy change?
A9. USCIS has begun identifying cases affected by this policy modification in each field office and service center. Each office will evaluate the pending cases and will adjust their workload accordingly. USCIS anticipates the majority of the cases subject to this policy modification will be processed by mid-March 2008. We recommend customers wait until March 10 before inquiring about their cases. This will allow each office sufficient time to identify and adjudicate pending cases.
(more)
Q10. The memorandum identifies I-485, I-601, I-687 and I-698 forms. Is there a plan to include other forms, specifically nonimmigrant and naturalization, in this policy?
A10. No.
Q11. Should customers contact USCIS through the 1-800 customer service number or make an INFOPASS appointment to visit their local office if their case is outside of normal processing times and they believe their application meets the criteria of this new policy?
A11. For pending applications outside of normal processing times, we recommend that customers wait until March 10, 2008, before inquiring about cases affected by this policy modification. This will allow each office sufficient time to identify and adjudicate the relevant pending cases. If no action is taken by mid-March, we recommend inquiring with the USCIS customer service line at 1-800-375-5283. This procedure is for customers who have been previously informed that their case is pending due to the FBI name check. (Cases that are still pending within the processing times will be completed when the related adjudication actions are completed.)
Q12. Will USCIS automatically notify an applicant to appear at an Application Support Center, (ASC) if his or her fingerprints have expired?
A12. Applicants will be notified through an appointment notice if new or updated fingerprint checks are needed.
– USCIS –
more...
makeup DESTROYS HER FACE WITH BAD
SkilledWorker4GC
07-08 04:40 PM
He is considered among the future generation of leaders in america by the media. He is a front runner for vice president. He is the best political resource that could be used by IV. But he would not do anything as that would affect his image as a conservative republican. He doesnt understand the pain suffered by many who are not born here like him but are raised here (as white as he is), waiting for their GC as a dependent with the fear that if they turn 21 they will be deported seperating them from their families.
why single out one guy, he is doing what is good for him. What do you expect if the even people registered on this site are not willing to do do something to help themselves. The attidude is i have EAD/AP i am free or I am EB1/2 its just a matter of time till i get the GC. Even the politicians are using us for their own agenda and to score political points.
why single out one guy, he is doing what is good for him. What do you expect if the even people registered on this site are not willing to do do something to help themselves. The attidude is i have EAD/AP i am free or I am EB1/2 its just a matter of time till i get the GC. Even the politicians are using us for their own agenda and to score political points.
girlfriend kim kardashian plastic surgery
andy garcia
12-30 01:04 PM
Longq,
Are these info are based on good guess? If not, can you provide us some link, or attach jpg with highlighting relevent facts.
From November 2005 Visa Bulletin
HOW IS THE EMPLOYMENT-BASED PER-COUNTRY LIMIT CALCULATED?
Section 201 of the INA sets an annual minimum Family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000, while the worldwide annual level for Employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 202 sets the per-country limit for preference immigrants at 7% of the total annual Family-sponsored and Employment-based preference limits, i.e. a minimum of 25,620.
* The annual per-country limitation of 7% is a cap, meaning visa issuances to any single country may not exceed this figure. This limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled, however. The per-country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the visa numbers by applicants from only a few countries.
* In recent years, the application of the rules outlined in AC21 has allowed countries such as China � mainland born, India, and the Philippines to utilize large amounts of employment numbers which would have otherwise gone unused.
* During FY due to anticipated heavy demand, the AC21 provisions are not expected to apply, and the amount of Employment numbers available to any single country will be subject to the 7% cap. It is anticipated that the addition of unused FY-2005 Family numbers and the remaining AC21 numbers to the 140,000 annual minimum will result in an FY-2006 annual Employment limit of 152,000. This will mean an Employment per-country limit for FY-2006 of approximately 10,650.
* To illustrate the effect of the reduced per-county limitation during FY-2006 on the oversubscribed countries, it should be noted that during FY-2005 India used approximately 47,175 Employment numbers.
Are these info are based on good guess? If not, can you provide us some link, or attach jpg with highlighting relevent facts.
From November 2005 Visa Bulletin
HOW IS THE EMPLOYMENT-BASED PER-COUNTRY LIMIT CALCULATED?
Section 201 of the INA sets an annual minimum Family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000, while the worldwide annual level for Employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 202 sets the per-country limit for preference immigrants at 7% of the total annual Family-sponsored and Employment-based preference limits, i.e. a minimum of 25,620.
* The annual per-country limitation of 7% is a cap, meaning visa issuances to any single country may not exceed this figure. This limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled, however. The per-country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the visa numbers by applicants from only a few countries.
* In recent years, the application of the rules outlined in AC21 has allowed countries such as China � mainland born, India, and the Philippines to utilize large amounts of employment numbers which would have otherwise gone unused.
* During FY due to anticipated heavy demand, the AC21 provisions are not expected to apply, and the amount of Employment numbers available to any single country will be subject to the 7% cap. It is anticipated that the addition of unused FY-2005 Family numbers and the remaining AC21 numbers to the 140,000 annual minimum will result in an FY-2006 annual Employment limit of 152,000. This will mean an Employment per-country limit for FY-2006 of approximately 10,650.
* To illustrate the effect of the reduced per-county limitation during FY-2006 on the oversubscribed countries, it should be noted that during FY-2005 India used approximately 47,175 Employment numbers.
hairstyles REMY MA AND LIL KIM ARE
eilsoe
02-05 12:56 AM
right :)
javadeveloper
08-21 10:44 AM
Please refrain from pushing OP to post employer details on public forum. Let it be OP�s weapon of surprise. I wish OP has contacted an attorney for fighting his case. If this is going to be an out of court settlement, then we shouldn�t expect complete details as well. OP's story should be an eye opener for all of us(Employees and Employers).
Who'z OP?
Who'z OP?
whattodo21
12-08 09:31 AM
If an RFE is issued, how long does it take to get EAD/AP? Will the USCIS still honor the 90/120 day issuance?
No comments:
Post a Comment