meridiani.planum
08-07 02:38 AM
Hi Sachug22,
Some of the data you specified does not add up well. For example 2006 India, EB-total is 17,358 but 3,156+3,720+3,006 adds upto 9882.
Any idea?
Type 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
EB1-All 41,672 34,168 14,453 31,291 64,731 36,960 26,697
EB2-All 42,550 44,316 15,406 32,534 42,597 21,911 44,162
EB3-All 85,847 88,002 46,415 85,969 129,070 89,922 85,030
EB-All 179,195 174,968 82,137 155,330 246,878 159,081 155,889
EB1-I 3,543 2,820 1,266 2,998 6,336 3,156 2,855
EB2-I 21,355 21,310 8,536 16,262 16,687 3,720 6,203
EB3-I 16,339 17,354 10,647 19,889 23,250 3,006 17,795
EB-I 41,720 41,919 20,818 39,496 47,160 17,358 26,853
Thanks
that difference in numbers between total(EB) and total-india-GC for 2006 is because of a special provision of 50k visas made for schedule-A (nurses). Folks from Philippines and India took a big chunk of those visas. There was a lot of discussion of that on IV, because those 50k were recaptured visa numbers, which instead of being put into the general pool, were all given to schedule-A.
Some of the data you specified does not add up well. For example 2006 India, EB-total is 17,358 but 3,156+3,720+3,006 adds upto 9882.
Any idea?
Type 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
EB1-All 41,672 34,168 14,453 31,291 64,731 36,960 26,697
EB2-All 42,550 44,316 15,406 32,534 42,597 21,911 44,162
EB3-All 85,847 88,002 46,415 85,969 129,070 89,922 85,030
EB-All 179,195 174,968 82,137 155,330 246,878 159,081 155,889
EB1-I 3,543 2,820 1,266 2,998 6,336 3,156 2,855
EB2-I 21,355 21,310 8,536 16,262 16,687 3,720 6,203
EB3-I 16,339 17,354 10,647 19,889 23,250 3,006 17,795
EB-I 41,720 41,919 20,818 39,496 47,160 17,358 26,853
Thanks
that difference in numbers between total(EB) and total-india-GC for 2006 is because of a special provision of 50k visas made for schedule-A (nurses). Folks from Philippines and India took a big chunk of those visas. There was a lot of discussion of that on IV, because those 50k were recaptured visa numbers, which instead of being put into the general pool, were all given to schedule-A.
wallpaper Mavericks Surf Competition
virtual55
07-05 01:16 PM
Yes I aggree. I think we have reached a stage where there are at least around 1000 members who flock to IV, when they need help on any GC related issue.
Why not make IV paid membership? IV core team's work and persistance has made this site an integral part of all GC apsirants' lives.
Peole value this site/it's opinions etc. There is nothing wrong in make them pay for it ONLY because we are on so shoestring budget. Our efforts can be more fruitful if core is having enough funds at disposal.
Those who care about IV efforts ,who care about themselves and GC will definitely join and those who wanted this site to be non paid will realize and will also join as paid members later on.
Why not make IV paid membership? IV core team's work and persistance has made this site an integral part of all GC apsirants' lives.
Peole value this site/it's opinions etc. There is nothing wrong in make them pay for it ONLY because we are on so shoestring budget. Our efforts can be more fruitful if core is having enough funds at disposal.
Those who care about IV efforts ,who care about themselves and GC will definitely join and those who wanted this site to be non paid will realize and will also join as paid members later on.
nixstor
04-23 04:57 PM
Read my message - I am *NOT* an IV member and nor did I represent myself as one - like many people I just subscribed to public portal - if you want to limit it to IV members, you must consider doing that .
As far as talking in the meeting was considered, it was not an IV meeting and open to the public and I have all the right to say what I want to - whether it is inline with what you want to hear or not is not my problem.
Tone yourself down before you point fingers elsewhere. GC is not your birth right.
Bud,
Its quite contradictory that you say that you are not an IV member and dont intend to be one, but you would like to particiapte freely and throw your opinion and get info about events with out aligning to the common goal of the organization. Now dont tell me that you got info about the event some where else. If every one of us try to get our own issue or a group of 15-20 people's issue solved we wont get any thing. This is common sense. What you said about making it paid site/open for certain members sounds bland to me. I am appalled that your thought process is not at all in sync with your accomplishments. If you think you can sell your group story and bring GC to the massess dream on. IV sure has lot of compelling stories that are sold already, but politics is bigger than you,me and our stories. If you are working only for people who are sought after by the stanford's and harvard's, move on.
It's so unfortunate that we fight on issues like this. On your next conf call with Rajiv, bring up the same Q and seek his advice. Let us know what he thinks about your sales pitch and getting GC's only for the most sought. I am not mocking you or slinging mud at you. Its blatant that you are not understanding the political scenario. GC is not any one's birth right but that is what actuallly holding you up.
As far as talking in the meeting was considered, it was not an IV meeting and open to the public and I have all the right to say what I want to - whether it is inline with what you want to hear or not is not my problem.
Tone yourself down before you point fingers elsewhere. GC is not your birth right.
Bud,
Its quite contradictory that you say that you are not an IV member and dont intend to be one, but you would like to particiapte freely and throw your opinion and get info about events with out aligning to the common goal of the organization. Now dont tell me that you got info about the event some where else. If every one of us try to get our own issue or a group of 15-20 people's issue solved we wont get any thing. This is common sense. What you said about making it paid site/open for certain members sounds bland to me. I am appalled that your thought process is not at all in sync with your accomplishments. If you think you can sell your group story and bring GC to the massess dream on. IV sure has lot of compelling stories that are sold already, but politics is bigger than you,me and our stories. If you are working only for people who are sought after by the stanford's and harvard's, move on.
It's so unfortunate that we fight on issues like this. On your next conf call with Rajiv, bring up the same Q and seek his advice. Let us know what he thinks about your sales pitch and getting GC's only for the most sought. I am not mocking you or slinging mud at you. Its blatant that you are not understanding the political scenario. GC is not any one's birth right but that is what actuallly holding you up.
2011 The waves at Maverick#39;s have
paskal
01-21 02:21 AM
i like the way you did this
i wonder though if it's better to adjust it for depnedents
per USCIS figures the average is 2.5 individuals in a family for each approval
The timeline is stunninh when you put that in.
I will retire or die before a GC......!
i wonder though if it's better to adjust it for depnedents
per USCIS figures the average is 2.5 individuals in a family for each approval
The timeline is stunninh when you put that in.
I will retire or die before a GC......!
more...
h1techSlave
02-03 11:00 AM
I agree with you completely. Removing the country quota is one thing the lawmakers should be able to push through.
But some how IV is opposed to piece meal immigration reform approach. From the beginning they IV has this grandiose dream of fixing all immigration issues. Is it time to rethink about that approach? Sure IV might antagonize ROW applicants. But aren't they already out of IV in all practical sense?
In the current economic environment, removing country quota seems like the only argument that can fly, since it does not increase actual visas.
But some how IV is opposed to piece meal immigration reform approach. From the beginning they IV has this grandiose dream of fixing all immigration issues. Is it time to rethink about that approach? Sure IV might antagonize ROW applicants. But aren't they already out of IV in all practical sense?
In the current economic environment, removing country quota seems like the only argument that can fly, since it does not increase actual visas.
karanp25
07-14 06:49 PM
7/13 LUD is inconclusive. There's a separate thread on IV discussing this where EB-2 folks have seen a 07/13 LUD w/o AC-21. Do you remember seeing a change in your I-140 LUD after approval in 2006 and before last week when they generated your RFE?
if there was a LUD, this is a high possibility that your previous employer revoked I-140.
This RFE can not be generated out of the blues. Using H-1B Xfr instead of EAD has absolutely nothing to do with validity of your AC-21. At least i am not aware of any correlation between the two.
I dont remember that. I saw my online profile with USCIS just now. There is a LUD for yesterday 07/13/2008 on my 140 approved in 2006.
if there was a LUD, this is a high possibility that your previous employer revoked I-140.
This RFE can not be generated out of the blues. Using H-1B Xfr instead of EAD has absolutely nothing to do with validity of your AC-21. At least i am not aware of any correlation between the two.
I dont remember that. I saw my online profile with USCIS just now. There is a LUD for yesterday 07/13/2008 on my 140 approved in 2006.
more...
rongha_2000
11-14 05:17 PM
Does this vote gives us an overview of how the PDs might be spread out all over? From this poll, it looks like there are not many applications from Jan 2005 onwards as compared to prior to Jan 2005.
Once that back log is cleared, things wont be as bad for the rest? What do you think?
Once that back log is cleared, things wont be as bad for the rest? What do you think?
2010 It#39;s not the right surf spot?
chanduv23
07-13 01:57 PM
A RALLY IS BEING ORGANIZED IN SAN JOSE TOMORROW. PLEASE CHANNELIZE ALL YOUR POSITIVE ENERGY IN ACCOMPLISHING THIS TASK.
DONT WASTE TIME ON NEGATIVE ENERGY.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10086
DONT WASTE TIME ON NEGATIVE ENERGY.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10086
more...
pappu
02-22 12:28 PM
Pls post your schedule and location on the the IV agenda thread so that it is visible on the homepage. Urge more NJ members to come to the temple to help you distribute flyers and talk to interested people.They will also have a chance to and meet other NJ chapter members. At least one core member will also come for this and everyone will have a chance to meet and ask any questions.
hair Photographers amp; Surf Fans
sunny1000
04-09 06:31 PM
I completely agree with you . For five years EB3 is stuck in 2001 that means people who came here 10 years back are still waiting. Something needs to be done by someone somewhere but I guess no one has any idea who can ( except the congress ) .
All of my friends about 10-15 of them who came with me in 2000-2001 timeframe got their GC's and their citizenships in EB3 ( none in EB2 ) and I am still hanging .
I wonder what was that which made their application go by light speed and my application go into a blackhole :)
Probably, their labor got approved before the FY2006 when the retrogression started. All the categories were current until then due to the recapture done by AC21. I am stuck in this mess because my labor took 5 years to get approved.
All of my friends about 10-15 of them who came with me in 2000-2001 timeframe got their GC's and their citizenships in EB3 ( none in EB2 ) and I am still hanging .
I wonder what was that which made their application go by light speed and my application go into a blackhole :)
Probably, their labor got approved before the FY2006 when the retrogression started. All the categories were current until then due to the recapture done by AC21. I am stuck in this mess because my labor took 5 years to get approved.
more...
ramus
07-03 05:09 PM
Thank you..
Here is my $99 by paypal.
Amount: $99.00 USD
Transaction ID: 5DB90775US5552631
Here is my $99 by paypal.
Amount: $99.00 USD
Transaction ID: 5DB90775US5552631
hot the Mavericks Surf Shop,
seahawks
10-26 09:58 PM
bump, action item, please notarize and mail. Please keep this thread active!
more...
house Maverick#39;s Surf Break Pillar
frostrated
08-21 01:54 PM
I dont think your issuse can be fixed even by attorney. You are not coming under any category to file Green Card. So prepare for yourself to go back and build your life back in canada.
or pray that CIR gets approved soon so that you can apply under the undocumented alien category.
or pray that CIR gets approved soon so that you can apply under the undocumented alien category.
tattoo Favorite Surf Spots: Mavericks
feedfront
09-21 12:23 PM
Hi Guys,
I am in tough spot. I was laid off from my GC sponsoring employer (A) in 2008 and joined another employer B . I did not do a AC21 notification. My dates are current and now I received an RFE to provide employment letter from current employer. The exact words of RFE are as follows:
"Submit a letter of employment attesting to applicant's current employment. This letter should be written on the company's official letterhead, citing the date the applicant began working, if a permanent full time position, the position offered, the position the applicant is currently working and the salary offered. Include corroborating evidence such as recent pay stubs, income tax returns, with all W2s or other evidence as appropriate. "
Now I am not working for original GC employer. I don't have a problem providing above from my current employer B. But whether the EVL should also mention that I am not working for GC sponsoring employer and that my current employers job profile is in same classification as previous based on AC21. Do I mention about the AC21 also in the letter? My current employer's attorneys are not that great but my current employer only wants me to use their own attorney.
Now here is the situation:
I have a job offer from another employer (Employer C) and they are in the middle of doing a H-1 transfer. In fact by tomorrow they will file the H1 paperwork. Now I don't know whether I should provide the letter from my potential new employer C . In that case, I won't be able to provide W2 or pay stubs until I join them. I have an opportunity to use my own attorney here (like murthy, Ron Gothcer..)
OR
should I provide a letter from my current employer using their attorneys and whether or not I should mention about AC21 in the employment letter.
Also they sent the RFE to my previous employer's attorney even though my current employer's attorney had sent the new G-28 forms. Can my current attorney respond to the RFE or will the response get rejected because USCIS still has old attorney on file.
Thanks.
Don't worry too much, just follow the instructions and respond. Well, I will suggest to use your current employer and their attorney as paperword will be smooth, efficient and fast.
You can hold your H1 transfer for a week or two till you don't respond.
I think your attorney (whoever you pick to work on RFE) will definitely mention AC-21 to keep it issueless.
I have also switched my employer and not filed AC-21. I've been sent RFE and that's what my attorney will do (I assume). I had asked him before (after switching job) if I needed to file AC21 letter. He said it's not mandatory and added that it can be handled if any RFEs are issued. Well, I did not send AC21 because he was asking for fee and I did not want to DIY project on such important. He's my previous employer's attorney.
I think for these RFEs you don't need great attorney as case is not complex. I think anything will work as long as you've not misused any GC's requirements.
Good Luck!
I am in tough spot. I was laid off from my GC sponsoring employer (A) in 2008 and joined another employer B . I did not do a AC21 notification. My dates are current and now I received an RFE to provide employment letter from current employer. The exact words of RFE are as follows:
"Submit a letter of employment attesting to applicant's current employment. This letter should be written on the company's official letterhead, citing the date the applicant began working, if a permanent full time position, the position offered, the position the applicant is currently working and the salary offered. Include corroborating evidence such as recent pay stubs, income tax returns, with all W2s or other evidence as appropriate. "
Now I am not working for original GC employer. I don't have a problem providing above from my current employer B. But whether the EVL should also mention that I am not working for GC sponsoring employer and that my current employers job profile is in same classification as previous based on AC21. Do I mention about the AC21 also in the letter? My current employer's attorneys are not that great but my current employer only wants me to use their own attorney.
Now here is the situation:
I have a job offer from another employer (Employer C) and they are in the middle of doing a H-1 transfer. In fact by tomorrow they will file the H1 paperwork. Now I don't know whether I should provide the letter from my potential new employer C . In that case, I won't be able to provide W2 or pay stubs until I join them. I have an opportunity to use my own attorney here (like murthy, Ron Gothcer..)
OR
should I provide a letter from my current employer using their attorneys and whether or not I should mention about AC21 in the employment letter.
Also they sent the RFE to my previous employer's attorney even though my current employer's attorney had sent the new G-28 forms. Can my current attorney respond to the RFE or will the response get rejected because USCIS still has old attorney on file.
Thanks.
Don't worry too much, just follow the instructions and respond. Well, I will suggest to use your current employer and their attorney as paperword will be smooth, efficient and fast.
You can hold your H1 transfer for a week or two till you don't respond.
I think your attorney (whoever you pick to work on RFE) will definitely mention AC-21 to keep it issueless.
I have also switched my employer and not filed AC-21. I've been sent RFE and that's what my attorney will do (I assume). I had asked him before (after switching job) if I needed to file AC21 letter. He said it's not mandatory and added that it can be handled if any RFEs are issued. Well, I did not send AC21 because he was asking for fee and I did not want to DIY project on such important. He's my previous employer's attorney.
I think for these RFEs you don't need great attorney as case is not complex. I think anything will work as long as you've not misused any GC's requirements.
Good Luck!
more...
pictures beaches and best waves,
Jelena
07-14 08:23 AM
Yes, this letter is a bit late but it's still very well-written an exactly to the point. I couldn't help but nodding all the way through.
My lawyer (company's lawyer, to be exact) didn't even bother telling me about either July bulletin or July 2nd fiasco - I found about it in the Internet.
My lawyer (company's lawyer, to be exact) didn't even bother telling me about either July bulletin or July 2nd fiasco - I found about it in the Internet.
dresses at the 2010 Mavericks Surf
Jaime
09-10 12:37 PM
You have been stuck in the Labor backlog centers or name check for years - It's not our fault that USCIS is a totally broken agency and the immigration process discriminatory and arcane. We contribute billions to the economy and love the U.S. The least we can ask for is for a fair immigration process (let alone a good one) just plain old FAIR will do!
more...
makeup the annual Mavericks Surf
eager_immi
07-24 07:09 AM
A guy with visa #current in June, his check got encashed.Guys, check this thread out. sanjay is saying he got his checks cashed.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10994&highlight=cheque
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10994&highlight=cheque
girlfriend Maverick waves off Half
WillIWin?
07-23 02:24 PM
My lawyer is going to submit the 485 WITHOUT a letter from my current employer. This is going to be a concurrent I-140 and I-485 application (140 and 485 applied together).
I looked at the 485 application form and see that it clearly mentions - page 5, that a letter from the employer is required (mentioning job title, job description and salary). My lawyer still says it is NOT required.
- Are there people who have submitted 485 applications OR who are going to submit the 485 WITHOUT an Employment letter ? Replies/advice greatly appreciated.
Thanks in Advance!
I looked at the 485 application form and see that it clearly mentions - page 5, that a letter from the employer is required (mentioning job title, job description and salary). My lawyer still says it is NOT required.
- Are there people who have submitted 485 applications OR who are going to submit the 485 WITHOUT an Employment letter ? Replies/advice greatly appreciated.
Thanks in Advance!
hairstyles Mavericks Surf Contest
nixstor
10-16 05:59 PM
I personally think there is a possible ambiguity in the request (especially since we are dealing with a government agency). So we should probably bullet point the data we need at least and if people don't think there is any harm in putting in a table for the format of data needed that will make things very clear. I agree with you that breakdown of quarter/month is probably not needed and might actually hurt our chances of getting the answer within reasonable amount of time.
Hear ya. Even though its repetitive,for the sake of clarity and to avoid ambiguity/frivolous answer, I have updated the document in google docs and the attachment by one of our other member prabhu.
Thanks for your feedback.
Hear ya. Even though its repetitive,for the sake of clarity and to avoid ambiguity/frivolous answer, I have updated the document in google docs and the attachment by one of our other member prabhu.
Thanks for your feedback.
seahawks
07-25 01:47 AM
Dude/Dudette, I give up. The alien's eligibility and admissibility is decided at I-485 stage - FBI name checks, medical tests ring a bell? The law explicitly states that visa number availabililty is a pre-requisite for the adjustment of status application in 245(a)(3). If you can't understand - or choose to refuse to understand - plain English, have fun arguing with yourself.
I concur, otherwise there won't be a IV forum or confusion and pain that everyone going through retrogession is facing, will we?
I concur, otherwise there won't be a IV forum or confusion and pain that everyone going through retrogession is facing, will we?
ArunAntonio
04-23 12:17 AM
I was the first person in the QnA - disappointed at the intent of this meeting - they really care about illegal immigration - not once legal immigrants were discussed. It was a farce and IV was just used as an organization to show support to him - very disappointed.:mad:
gautamagg,
I was at the meeting and I was really taken aback by your question, it was totally out of context, I think I understand your position which is 'You wanted GC - you are not getting it - you decide to go back - but before that you decide to attend school - but cant get F1 coz you extablizhed Intent to Immigrate' -- This is a unique situation... atleast not something the larger IV community is affected by, but the accusing tone of your question to the Rep. was uncalled for .. I dont even know what you expected out of this meeting for your situation .. just try to get some perspective and place things incontext.. and again numbers matter.. if there were thousands of ppl in your situation your problem would have been addressed... anyways.. I beg to differ on your opinion about it being a farce.. There is effort being put to address the issues and IV has to maintain presence and make sure our issues are out there and are being noticed and not forgotten.. and thats what precisely happened yesterday.. IV members who are affected by Retrogression made their presence felt, the Core members were present on the dias rubbing shoulders with Congressman Gutierrez and representing the retrogressed community.
Your issue.. my friend .. unfortunately is not on the mandate of IV or the congressman..no doubt you were disappointed.. but good luck with you efforts and struggle.
gautamagg,
I was at the meeting and I was really taken aback by your question, it was totally out of context, I think I understand your position which is 'You wanted GC - you are not getting it - you decide to go back - but before that you decide to attend school - but cant get F1 coz you extablizhed Intent to Immigrate' -- This is a unique situation... atleast not something the larger IV community is affected by, but the accusing tone of your question to the Rep. was uncalled for .. I dont even know what you expected out of this meeting for your situation .. just try to get some perspective and place things incontext.. and again numbers matter.. if there were thousands of ppl in your situation your problem would have been addressed... anyways.. I beg to differ on your opinion about it being a farce.. There is effort being put to address the issues and IV has to maintain presence and make sure our issues are out there and are being noticed and not forgotten.. and thats what precisely happened yesterday.. IV members who are affected by Retrogression made their presence felt, the Core members were present on the dias rubbing shoulders with Congressman Gutierrez and representing the retrogressed community.
Your issue.. my friend .. unfortunately is not on the mandate of IV or the congressman..no doubt you were disappointed.. but good luck with you efforts and struggle.
No comments:
Post a Comment