gc28262
08-21 12:11 PM
If phone companies resort to misleading advertisements, you can complain to FCC (Federal Communications Commission)
FCC Consumer Complaints (http://esupport.fcc.gov/complaints.htm)
FCC Consumer Complaints (http://esupport.fcc.gov/complaints.htm)
wallpaper Beaver#39; review: Mel Gibson
485Mbe4001
08-25 12:43 PM
I agree nobody cares...for now, from experience i can tell you that i have advised most of my juniors to try MS in Australia, they can get an Aussi citizenship faster and most have listened. I am sure i am not the only one saying so, this could and will eventually affect the number of students(and the quality) coming here for MS/Phd etc, agreed that US is still the best place for a post graduation but the visa hassles of getting an EAD/H1/GC is not worth the effort, most of the students coming in will be over the hill in terms of their growth by the time they get the GC, if they get it in the first place...imho. I have had friends in EB1 NIW stuck in a mess for years.
IF you talk to the kids working in indian companies, most will tell you that they want to come to US for short term projects. Most know the mess that we are in. Sometimes we are so preoccupied with our issues that we are not aware that the world is watching us and learning from our mistakes
btw:- i did not give you the red dot, if you are offended by it you can email IV about it, they can easily query and find out who gave you the dot. (to the guys who post "anonymous"...it is not as "anonymous" as you think)
Try that and see what happens. :D :D
Nobody cares if you stay here or go back.
IF you talk to the kids working in indian companies, most will tell you that they want to come to US for short term projects. Most know the mess that we are in. Sometimes we are so preoccupied with our issues that we are not aware that the world is watching us and learning from our mistakes
btw:- i did not give you the red dot, if you are offended by it you can email IV about it, they can easily query and find out who gave you the dot. (to the guys who post "anonymous"...it is not as "anonymous" as you think)
Try that and see what happens. :D :D
Nobody cares if you stay here or go back.
gcwait2007
09-29 01:21 PM
Good Analysis by Bharat Premi.
Hats off to you.
Hats off to you.
2011 dresses Mel Gibson#39;s The
dontcareanymore
08-20 02:57 PM
Yes, there is one year agreement.
One additional year of contract for changing to world plan ? I already have 24.99 plan.
One additional year of contract for changing to world plan ? I already have 24.99 plan.
more...
kushaljn
01-04 02:06 AM
Did anyone who was given that yellow form and asked that he/she would receive an email get email from the consulate.
Was any one successfully receive a visa stamp after being referred to PIMS system?
What is the time line for such visa stamps?
Was any one successfully receive a visa stamp after being referred to PIMS system?
What is the time line for such visa stamps?
logiclife
07-09 07:19 PM
The message no longer appears on USCIS portal now.
I think they are reading our portals:)
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=f4b3076eb0f93110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=1958b0aaa86fa010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
Its still there.
I think they are reading our portals:)
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=f4b3076eb0f93110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=1958b0aaa86fa010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
Its still there.
more...
mallu
09-14 10:25 PM
http://boards.immigration.com/showpost.php?p=1781566&postcount=6128
2010 Mel Gibson Actors Mel Gibson
mallu
08-16 11:46 PM
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOmbudsman_AnnualReport_2006_II-F-Name_Checks.pdf
Has anything happened so far by recommendation of USCIS Ombudsman ? The position looks like a 'toothless tiger' .
Has anything happened so far by recommendation of USCIS Ombudsman ? The position looks like a 'toothless tiger' .
more...
unseenguy
06-17 01:29 PM
So attack on L1 is on the way.
What about another plan to attack F1?
You are NOT supposed to have immigration intent when you apply F1. So what about targeting all those F1 now, since it is very obvious that they didnt come here just to study and go back. So lets smoke them out based on their "fraud intentions".
After that lets attack the H1 landers. Many of them landed in H1 with body shoppers, and later changed to some big american company. Lets find some thing or other against these body shoppers, and all those H1 came with these body shoppers should go back (even though they are with some other company).
Ok. what is left.......... lets find out something bad about everybody else, except me.
Ohh... wait a sec..... we were supposed to be "united", by this forum, not "divided".
In that case L1fraud himself could come under radar.
What about another plan to attack F1?
You are NOT supposed to have immigration intent when you apply F1. So what about targeting all those F1 now, since it is very obvious that they didnt come here just to study and go back. So lets smoke them out based on their "fraud intentions".
After that lets attack the H1 landers. Many of them landed in H1 with body shoppers, and later changed to some big american company. Lets find some thing or other against these body shoppers, and all those H1 came with these body shoppers should go back (even though they are with some other company).
Ok. what is left.......... lets find out something bad about everybody else, except me.
Ohh... wait a sec..... we were supposed to be "united", by this forum, not "divided".
In that case L1fraud himself could come under radar.
hair The Beaver Trailer: Mel Gibson
Macaca
12-05 05:23 PM
JUAN GONZALEZ: No, exactly. And I have a different perspective on that�
LOU DOBBS: Sure.
JUAN GONZALEZ: So you�ll indulge me.
LOU DOBBS: Sure.
JUAN GONZALEZ: But the fact is that immigration policy in this country has always been a means of rallying anger among the public.
LOU DOBBS: Oh, nonsense.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Yes, it has.
LOU DOBBS: Nonsense.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Lou, let me finish.
LOU DOBBS: First of all�
JUAN GONZALEZ: Let me finish, Lou, please.
LOU DOBBS: Ridiculous. But, alright, go ahead.
JUAN GONZALEZ: The Chinese�in 1882, the Chinese Exclusion Act�what was the claim against the Chinese, small population of Chinese immigrants? The claim was that they were involved in drugs, that they were bringing crime, that they were a danger to the country, and the country passed in 1882 a Chinese Exclusion Act. The same thing in the 1920s.
LOU DOBBS: Are you holding me responsible? Or are�
JUAN GONZALEZ: No, no.
LOU DOBBS: Because I can�t find germane or relevant point there.
JUAN GONZALEZ: What I�m telling you is that this has been done over and over again. This has been done over and over again. And precisely�
LOU DOBBS: Juan, according to you�
JUAN GONZALEZ: Let me finish, Lou. Precisely because�because the country is an immigrant nation, it�s easy to divide the people along ethnic and racial lines over the issue of immigration.
LOU DOBBS: You�re the only one doing it.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Over the issue of immigration.
LOU DOBBS: You�re the only one doing it.
JUAN GONZALEZ: No, I�m not. No, I�m not.
LOU DOBBS: You�re socio-ethnocentric to the point of absurdity.
JUAN GONZALEZ: You know very well that 75% of the undocumented immigrant population in this country comes from Latin America. And not only that, 65% comes from one country: Mexico.
LOU DOBBS: That is right.
JUAN GONZALEZ: So the crux of the illegal immigration problem in the United States is the question of Mexico and the United States�
LOU DOBBS: Correct.
JUAN GONZALEZ: �and the relationships between Mexico and the United States. Mexicans are the larger source of immigration to this country from any nationality.
LOU DOBBS: What is your point?
JUAN GONZALEZ: So that the question is that there is a huge disparity between the economic levels in Mexico and the economic levels in the United States. And you have properly said many times on your show that American companies are creating the problems, rather than helping to alleviate the problems. All that would be needed to do is to raise the economic level in Mexico and the entire illegal immigration population problems would decline in this country. And not only that, but the country, if it had a higher immigration quota in connection with�
LOU DOBBS: Are you giving me instruction, or are you telling me what we agree upon?
JUAN GONZALEZ: No, we don�t agree. We don�t agree, because you are demonizing illegal immigration as a separate issue, rather than dealing with the realities that Mexico and the United States must find a way to build better closer economic ties and raise the levels for both countries.
LOU DOBBS: Your view is�as I take it, you and Amy believe that if we just had more illegal immigration, the crime rate would drop and the economy would boom in this country.
JUAN GONZALEZ: No.
LOU DOBBS: That�s, on its face, absurd.
JUAN GONZALEZ: No.
LOU DOBBS: Secondly, I have, over the�over five years in reporting on this issue, repeatedly pointed out that the investment in Mexico by the United States has been paltry and absurd and diverted to China, instead of to this hemisphere, and particularly Mexico. The results could have been quite different. So when you talked about these issues, you�re preaching to the choir, and you know that. The fact that you would focus on a couple of reports on tuberculosis, leprosy, the issue of the CCC in a flash�what amounts to a flash frame, folks�
AMY GOODMAN: And all the guests connected to it since.
LOU DOBBS: And all of those guests. How many would you say? Five?
AMY GOODMAN: Oh, I can keep going. I just thought�
LOU DOBBS: I would like�
AMY GOODMAN: �I should give someone else a chance here to have�
LOU DOBBS: No, really, I think you should keep going, because the reality is, illegal immigration in this country is not going to be overwhelmed by this nonsense. The reality is, the Southern Poverty Law Center is an advocacy group right now. The ADL is an advocacy group right now. Pro-illegal immigration, pro-open borders, both of you, ideologically�I understand that, and I can deal with that.
But the reality is, there is such a thing as the national interest. There is such a thing as the common good. And it�s not ethnocentric. It�s not group and identity politics. It�s all about this country, because this political system makes this economy possible. And the fact that people are starving in Mexico�and my heart goes out to them�the reality is there are five-and-a-half billion people in the world who are more impoverished than those folks in Mexico. And that land bridge does not give Felipe Calderon or Vicente Fox or any other group of activists the right to dictate the US immigration policy. That�s the reality.
LOU DOBBS: Sure.
JUAN GONZALEZ: So you�ll indulge me.
LOU DOBBS: Sure.
JUAN GONZALEZ: But the fact is that immigration policy in this country has always been a means of rallying anger among the public.
LOU DOBBS: Oh, nonsense.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Yes, it has.
LOU DOBBS: Nonsense.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Lou, let me finish.
LOU DOBBS: First of all�
JUAN GONZALEZ: Let me finish, Lou, please.
LOU DOBBS: Ridiculous. But, alright, go ahead.
JUAN GONZALEZ: The Chinese�in 1882, the Chinese Exclusion Act�what was the claim against the Chinese, small population of Chinese immigrants? The claim was that they were involved in drugs, that they were bringing crime, that they were a danger to the country, and the country passed in 1882 a Chinese Exclusion Act. The same thing in the 1920s.
LOU DOBBS: Are you holding me responsible? Or are�
JUAN GONZALEZ: No, no.
LOU DOBBS: Because I can�t find germane or relevant point there.
JUAN GONZALEZ: What I�m telling you is that this has been done over and over again. This has been done over and over again. And precisely�
LOU DOBBS: Juan, according to you�
JUAN GONZALEZ: Let me finish, Lou. Precisely because�because the country is an immigrant nation, it�s easy to divide the people along ethnic and racial lines over the issue of immigration.
LOU DOBBS: You�re the only one doing it.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Over the issue of immigration.
LOU DOBBS: You�re the only one doing it.
JUAN GONZALEZ: No, I�m not. No, I�m not.
LOU DOBBS: You�re socio-ethnocentric to the point of absurdity.
JUAN GONZALEZ: You know very well that 75% of the undocumented immigrant population in this country comes from Latin America. And not only that, 65% comes from one country: Mexico.
LOU DOBBS: That is right.
JUAN GONZALEZ: So the crux of the illegal immigration problem in the United States is the question of Mexico and the United States�
LOU DOBBS: Correct.
JUAN GONZALEZ: �and the relationships between Mexico and the United States. Mexicans are the larger source of immigration to this country from any nationality.
LOU DOBBS: What is your point?
JUAN GONZALEZ: So that the question is that there is a huge disparity between the economic levels in Mexico and the economic levels in the United States. And you have properly said many times on your show that American companies are creating the problems, rather than helping to alleviate the problems. All that would be needed to do is to raise the economic level in Mexico and the entire illegal immigration population problems would decline in this country. And not only that, but the country, if it had a higher immigration quota in connection with�
LOU DOBBS: Are you giving me instruction, or are you telling me what we agree upon?
JUAN GONZALEZ: No, we don�t agree. We don�t agree, because you are demonizing illegal immigration as a separate issue, rather than dealing with the realities that Mexico and the United States must find a way to build better closer economic ties and raise the levels for both countries.
LOU DOBBS: Your view is�as I take it, you and Amy believe that if we just had more illegal immigration, the crime rate would drop and the economy would boom in this country.
JUAN GONZALEZ: No.
LOU DOBBS: That�s, on its face, absurd.
JUAN GONZALEZ: No.
LOU DOBBS: Secondly, I have, over the�over five years in reporting on this issue, repeatedly pointed out that the investment in Mexico by the United States has been paltry and absurd and diverted to China, instead of to this hemisphere, and particularly Mexico. The results could have been quite different. So when you talked about these issues, you�re preaching to the choir, and you know that. The fact that you would focus on a couple of reports on tuberculosis, leprosy, the issue of the CCC in a flash�what amounts to a flash frame, folks�
AMY GOODMAN: And all the guests connected to it since.
LOU DOBBS: And all of those guests. How many would you say? Five?
AMY GOODMAN: Oh, I can keep going. I just thought�
LOU DOBBS: I would like�
AMY GOODMAN: �I should give someone else a chance here to have�
LOU DOBBS: No, really, I think you should keep going, because the reality is, illegal immigration in this country is not going to be overwhelmed by this nonsense. The reality is, the Southern Poverty Law Center is an advocacy group right now. The ADL is an advocacy group right now. Pro-illegal immigration, pro-open borders, both of you, ideologically�I understand that, and I can deal with that.
But the reality is, there is such a thing as the national interest. There is such a thing as the common good. And it�s not ethnocentric. It�s not group and identity politics. It�s all about this country, because this political system makes this economy possible. And the fact that people are starving in Mexico�and my heart goes out to them�the reality is there are five-and-a-half billion people in the world who are more impoverished than those folks in Mexico. And that land bridge does not give Felipe Calderon or Vicente Fox or any other group of activists the right to dictate the US immigration policy. That�s the reality.
more...
naushit
10-01 03:24 PM
Alright, Finally I got CPO email , Life is good.
Thanks,
-N
Finallly, my online status changed from "Initial review" -> "Document production" and also got email from Senator's office that my case is approved.
I think I got it....but not 100% sure yet...no approval emails yet... or no other proof.
Thanks,
-N
Thanks,
-N
Finallly, my online status changed from "Initial review" -> "Document production" and also got email from Senator's office that my case is approved.
I think I got it....but not 100% sure yet...no approval emails yet... or no other proof.
Thanks,
-N
hot There#39;s some scuttle bucket that the edgy comedy starring Mel Gibson as a
Honda
09-24 10:47 AM
28.6%/5 = 5.72% for EB3-India + Spillover from EB2 and EB1, not more than 10,000 of which to "Other Workers".
28.6%/5 = 5.72% for EB2-India + spillover from EB1
28.6%/5 = 5.72% for EB1-India + spillover from EB4 and EB5
Each category is 28.6% WW Quota.
WW Quota consists of 5 country specific sub-quotas 1)India 2)China 3) Mexico 4) Philipines 5)ROW.
Based on page 1, I do math as under for Philippines categories.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota for EB4 -->7% x 140000/5=1960, Pending: 70 Quota to be spilled over to EB1= 1890
2) Quota for EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 0 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1960
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 1890 + EB5 spillover 1960 = 11858 - pending 74 = Total
11784 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 11784 =19792, Pending: 510, So total 19282 VISA numbers will be spilled
over to EB3.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 19282 spill over =27290 - 11563 Pending = 15727 VISA extra.
6) �Other Workers� � Pending: 264 TOTAL UNUSED VISAS = 15727-264 = 15463 UNUSED VISAS will go to the quota
of other countries.
Based on page 3, I do math as under for ROW categories.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota for EB4 -->7% x 140000/5=1960, Pending: 1378 Quota to be spilled over to EB1= 582
2) Quota for EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 40 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1920
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 582 + EB5 spillover 1920 = 10510 - pending 2477 = Total
8033 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 8033 =16031, Pending: 7150, So total 8881 VISA numbers will be spilled
over to EB3.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 8881 spill over =16889. Pending: 62840 -16889 = 45951 applications will
still be pending and pushed to year 2011.
Based on page 4, I do math as under for China categories.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota For EB4 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 384 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1576
2) Quota For EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 13 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1947
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 1576 + EB5 spillover 1947 = 11531 - pending 607 =
Total 10924 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 10924 =18932, Pending: 19333, So total 401 applications will be pushed to
year 2011 with pending approval.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + no spillover = 8008 � 6343 Pending = 1665 visas Extra.
6) �Other Workers� � Pending: 30 TOTAL UNUSED VISAS = 1665-30 = 1635 UNUSED VISAS will go to the quota
of other countries.
Based on page 5, I do math as under for India categories.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota for EB4 -->7% x 140000/5=1960, Pending: 123 Quota to be spilled over to EB1= 1960-123 = 1837
2) Quota for EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 13 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1960-13 = 1947
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 1837 + EB5 spillover 1947 = 11792 - pending 418 = Total
11374 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 11374 =19382, Pending: 47728, So total 28346 applications will still be
pending for year 2011.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008, no spill over. Pending: 62607 -8008 = 54599 applications will still be pending
and pushed to year 2011.
Based on page 6, I do math as under for Mexico categories.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota For EB4 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 62 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1960-62=1898
2) Quota For EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 0 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1960
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 1898 + EB5 spillover 1960 = 11866 - pending 174 =
Total 11692 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 11692 =19700, Pending: 211, So total 19489 applications will spill over to
EB3 category.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 19489 spillover = 27497 � 7878 Pending = 19619 visas Extra.
6) �Other Workers� � Pending: 8415 TOTAL UNUSED VISAS = 19619-8415 = 11204 UNUSED VISAS will go to the quota
of other countries.
TOTAL UNUSED VISAS = 15463 + 1635 + 11204 = 28302.
Assuming these unused visas from Philippines, China and Mexico will be used for India, ROW equally India will benefit additional 14151 VISAS this year. Assuming all of these go to EB2 India Pushed down figure for EB2-India for the year 2011 will be 28346 � 14151 = 14195 pending EB2-I applications ready to go to year 2011.
Excellent Analysis.
28.6%/5 = 5.72% for EB2-India + spillover from EB1
28.6%/5 = 5.72% for EB1-India + spillover from EB4 and EB5
Each category is 28.6% WW Quota.
WW Quota consists of 5 country specific sub-quotas 1)India 2)China 3) Mexico 4) Philipines 5)ROW.
Based on page 1, I do math as under for Philippines categories.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota for EB4 -->7% x 140000/5=1960, Pending: 70 Quota to be spilled over to EB1= 1890
2) Quota for EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 0 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1960
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 1890 + EB5 spillover 1960 = 11858 - pending 74 = Total
11784 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 11784 =19792, Pending: 510, So total 19282 VISA numbers will be spilled
over to EB3.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 19282 spill over =27290 - 11563 Pending = 15727 VISA extra.
6) �Other Workers� � Pending: 264 TOTAL UNUSED VISAS = 15727-264 = 15463 UNUSED VISAS will go to the quota
of other countries.
Based on page 3, I do math as under for ROW categories.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota for EB4 -->7% x 140000/5=1960, Pending: 1378 Quota to be spilled over to EB1= 582
2) Quota for EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 40 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1920
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 582 + EB5 spillover 1920 = 10510 - pending 2477 = Total
8033 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 8033 =16031, Pending: 7150, So total 8881 VISA numbers will be spilled
over to EB3.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 8881 spill over =16889. Pending: 62840 -16889 = 45951 applications will
still be pending and pushed to year 2011.
Based on page 4, I do math as under for China categories.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota For EB4 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 384 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1576
2) Quota For EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 13 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1947
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 1576 + EB5 spillover 1947 = 11531 - pending 607 =
Total 10924 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 10924 =18932, Pending: 19333, So total 401 applications will be pushed to
year 2011 with pending approval.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + no spillover = 8008 � 6343 Pending = 1665 visas Extra.
6) �Other Workers� � Pending: 30 TOTAL UNUSED VISAS = 1665-30 = 1635 UNUSED VISAS will go to the quota
of other countries.
Based on page 5, I do math as under for India categories.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota for EB4 -->7% x 140000/5=1960, Pending: 123 Quota to be spilled over to EB1= 1960-123 = 1837
2) Quota for EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 13 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1960-13 = 1947
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 1837 + EB5 spillover 1947 = 11792 - pending 418 = Total
11374 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 11374 =19382, Pending: 47728, So total 28346 applications will still be
pending for year 2011.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008, no spill over. Pending: 62607 -8008 = 54599 applications will still be pending
and pushed to year 2011.
Based on page 6, I do math as under for Mexico categories.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota For EB4 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 62 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1960-62=1898
2) Quota For EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 0 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1960
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 1898 + EB5 spillover 1960 = 11866 - pending 174 =
Total 11692 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 11692 =19700, Pending: 211, So total 19489 applications will spill over to
EB3 category.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 19489 spillover = 27497 � 7878 Pending = 19619 visas Extra.
6) �Other Workers� � Pending: 8415 TOTAL UNUSED VISAS = 19619-8415 = 11204 UNUSED VISAS will go to the quota
of other countries.
TOTAL UNUSED VISAS = 15463 + 1635 + 11204 = 28302.
Assuming these unused visas from Philippines, China and Mexico will be used for India, ROW equally India will benefit additional 14151 VISAS this year. Assuming all of these go to EB2 India Pushed down figure for EB2-India for the year 2011 will be 28346 � 14151 = 14195 pending EB2-I applications ready to go to year 2011.
Excellent Analysis.
more...
house Mel Gibson. comingsoon.net
ujjwal_p
09-23 07:51 PM
It is economy. DOL vitually halted PERM approvals. Companies are not sponsering GCs as they used. If you give an Ad today, you will get 10 times resumes. So there is no easy way to get an approval.
I think we are assuming that this will continue to be the case through Oct 2010. What if DOL changes policies with PERM approval tomorrow or the economy starts improving by March? EB2 ROW is current and there will be quite a few PERM's from them which will be adjusted immediately. We'll have to wait till the Sep results are in and the data is adjusted with 2005 EB2 numbers. Hopefully all < 2005 should be taken care of for EB2.
I think we are assuming that this will continue to be the case through Oct 2010. What if DOL changes policies with PERM approval tomorrow or the economy starts improving by March? EB2 ROW is current and there will be quite a few PERM's from them which will be adjusted immediately. We'll have to wait till the Sep results are in and the data is adjusted with 2005 EB2 numbers. Hopefully all < 2005 should be taken care of for EB2.
tattoo Mel Gibson Vs. His Character
CADude
11-06 03:40 PM
Wow.. Applicants are waiting since 2002 and Govt Agency know it but don't do anything. Shame on you FBI NNCP :mad:
Check this:
http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Liang%2010-30-07.pdf
Defendants assert that the background check is a complex
process that must accommodate an extremely large volume of requests
from the USCIS. Given the backlog of name-check requests and the
FBI�s limited resources, they maintain that the delay of two and a
half years in processing Mr. Liang�s background check is not
unreasonable. There is some validity to these points, and the
Court appreciates that the name-check process is indeed complex and
resource-intensive. But limited resources or not, a common-sense
rule of reason dictates that if the FBI was performing background
checks with due diligence, it would not take two and a half years
to process Mr. Liang�s name. While the Court is sympathetic to the
demands placed on the FBI and the limited ability of the USCIS to
control how the FBI allocates its resources, a lack of sufficient
resources devoted to name-check operations is a matter for the
agencies to take up between themselves or with Congress. The
executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its
statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those
duties have been met.
See Dong, 2007 WL 2601107 at *11 (�[I]t is
not the place of the judicial branch to weigh a plaintiff�s clear
right to administrative action against the agency�s burdens in
complying.�).
Moreover, although there is no Congressionally mandated
timetable for the processing of I-485 applications, Congress has by
statute expressed its view of what a reasonable amount of time is:
�It is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days
after the initial filing of the application.� 8 U.S.C. � 1571.
The Court recognizes that this statute was enacted prior to the
events of September 11, 2001, and that the burdens on agencies with
responsibility for immigration matters have since increased.
Nonetheless, Plaintiffs� applications have been pending for five
times the length of the period identified by Congress.
Defendants argue that expediting Mr. Liang�s name check will
prejudice other applicants who have been waiting longer than he -in some cases, since as long as December, 2002.
While this would
be unfortunate, Defendants� failure to fulfill their statutory duty
to other applicants has no bearing on whether they have fulfilled
their statutory duty to Plaintiffs, and thus cannot serve as a
basis for denying Plaintiffs� motion.
While Defendants worry that
granting Plaintiffs relief may reward �the more litigious
applicants� or encourage other applicants to file lawsuits,
�perhaps recognizing this possibility will provide the defendants
with adequate incentive to begin processing [I-485] applications in
a lawful and timely fashion in order to obviate the applicants�
need to resort to the courts for redress.� Dong, 2007 WL 2601107
at *12.
Check this:
http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Liang%2010-30-07.pdf
Defendants assert that the background check is a complex
process that must accommodate an extremely large volume of requests
from the USCIS. Given the backlog of name-check requests and the
FBI�s limited resources, they maintain that the delay of two and a
half years in processing Mr. Liang�s background check is not
unreasonable. There is some validity to these points, and the
Court appreciates that the name-check process is indeed complex and
resource-intensive. But limited resources or not, a common-sense
rule of reason dictates that if the FBI was performing background
checks with due diligence, it would not take two and a half years
to process Mr. Liang�s name. While the Court is sympathetic to the
demands placed on the FBI and the limited ability of the USCIS to
control how the FBI allocates its resources, a lack of sufficient
resources devoted to name-check operations is a matter for the
agencies to take up between themselves or with Congress. The
executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its
statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those
duties have been met.
See Dong, 2007 WL 2601107 at *11 (�[I]t is
not the place of the judicial branch to weigh a plaintiff�s clear
right to administrative action against the agency�s burdens in
complying.�).
Moreover, although there is no Congressionally mandated
timetable for the processing of I-485 applications, Congress has by
statute expressed its view of what a reasonable amount of time is:
�It is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days
after the initial filing of the application.� 8 U.S.C. � 1571.
The Court recognizes that this statute was enacted prior to the
events of September 11, 2001, and that the burdens on agencies with
responsibility for immigration matters have since increased.
Nonetheless, Plaintiffs� applications have been pending for five
times the length of the period identified by Congress.
Defendants argue that expediting Mr. Liang�s name check will
prejudice other applicants who have been waiting longer than he -in some cases, since as long as December, 2002.
While this would
be unfortunate, Defendants� failure to fulfill their statutory duty
to other applicants has no bearing on whether they have fulfilled
their statutory duty to Plaintiffs, and thus cannot serve as a
basis for denying Plaintiffs� motion.
While Defendants worry that
granting Plaintiffs relief may reward �the more litigious
applicants� or encourage other applicants to file lawsuits,
�perhaps recognizing this possibility will provide the defendants
with adequate incentive to begin processing [I-485] applications in
a lawful and timely fashion in order to obviate the applicants�
need to resort to the courts for redress.� Dong, 2007 WL 2601107
at *12.
more...
pictures Mel Gibson joins the worst
manand24
09-16 01:28 PM
My wife and I received the CPO e-mails today at 12:15PM.
1.) Priority Date --> 04/24/2006
2.) 485 Approved on --> 09/16/2010
3.) Pre-Adjucated Yes/No --> No Idea
4.) Info Pass Yes/No --> No
5.) USCIS Contact Yes/No --> No)
6) Service Request Yes/No --> Yes (opened SR on 09/10/10 citing "outside processingtime" and no updates on the case after initial filing) - No response for the SR.
7.) Contact Senator Yes/No --> NO
8.) Recent RFE Yes/No --> NO
9.) AC-21 (Employer change) NO
10.)Ported Case(EB3->EB2) Yes/No --> NO
11.) Service Center - NSC
Best wishes to you all waiting
Application Type: I485 , APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
Your Case Status: Card/ Document Production
On September 16, 2010, we ordered production of your new card. Please allow 30 days for your card to be mailed to you. If we need something from you we will contact you. If you move before you receive the card, call customer service at 1-800-375-5283.
This step applies to applications that result in an applicant receiving a card (such as a "green card") or other document (such as a naturalization certificate, employment authorization document, travel document, or advance parole). Applications will be in this step from the time the order to produce the card/document is given until the card/document is produced and mailed to the applicant. You can expect to receive your card/document within 30 days of the approval of your application.
If you do not receive your document, please contact our National Customer Service Center at 1-800-375-5283.
If you have questions or concerns about your application or the case status results listed above, or if you have not received a decision from USCIS within the current processing time listed*, please contact USCIS Customer Service at (800) 375-5283.
1.) Priority Date --> 04/24/2006
2.) 485 Approved on --> 09/16/2010
3.) Pre-Adjucated Yes/No --> No Idea
4.) Info Pass Yes/No --> No
5.) USCIS Contact Yes/No --> No)
6) Service Request Yes/No --> Yes (opened SR on 09/10/10 citing "outside processingtime" and no updates on the case after initial filing) - No response for the SR.
7.) Contact Senator Yes/No --> NO
8.) Recent RFE Yes/No --> NO
9.) AC-21 (Employer change) NO
10.)Ported Case(EB3->EB2) Yes/No --> NO
11.) Service Center - NSC
Best wishes to you all waiting
Application Type: I485 , APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
Your Case Status: Card/ Document Production
On September 16, 2010, we ordered production of your new card. Please allow 30 days for your card to be mailed to you. If we need something from you we will contact you. If you move before you receive the card, call customer service at 1-800-375-5283.
This step applies to applications that result in an applicant receiving a card (such as a "green card") or other document (such as a naturalization certificate, employment authorization document, travel document, or advance parole). Applications will be in this step from the time the order to produce the card/document is given until the card/document is produced and mailed to the applicant. You can expect to receive your card/document within 30 days of the approval of your application.
If you do not receive your document, please contact our National Customer Service Center at 1-800-375-5283.
If you have questions or concerns about your application or the case status results listed above, or if you have not received a decision from USCIS within the current processing time listed*, please contact USCIS Customer Service at (800) 375-5283.
dresses AP. Mel Gibson on the set of
caliguy
10-25 02:10 PM
@ fatjoe
I am glad you are finally out of this rut. Heartiest congratulations to you again!
I will call the CIS om. number you provided again on Monday. I got a letter in the mail from DHS (CIS Om) saying they were looking into my case and it would take anywhere between 45-90 days. I have around 10 letters from different senators, USCIS that tell me the same thing - wait 45- 90 days.
I will keep trying....
Cheers!
I am glad you are finally out of this rut. Heartiest congratulations to you again!
I will call the CIS om. number you provided again on Monday. I got a letter in the mail from DHS (CIS Om) saying they were looking into my case and it would take anywhere between 45-90 days. I have around 10 letters from different senators, USCIS that tell me the same thing - wait 45- 90 days.
I will keep trying....
Cheers!
more...
makeup Mel Gibson Mel Gibson arrives
BharatPremi
03-27 12:37 PM
I do understand that without evidence you can't fight the conventional way or file a law suit. It would be difficult, if not impossible. I am not debating that. I never said it would be easy. Even with evidence (in case of Capital One), one can argue if thats a good enough base for fighting and whether it will do any good if the case is won. Thats not the point.
What would you do if a recruiter or employer told you (verbal or writing) that it is their policy not to hire Indians? (I am just using India as an example).
Regardless of written evidence, I would be inclined to do something about it. I am not saying that I will file a law suit. I would probably not even want to work for such an employer. But I will not be speculating that oh, there must be some loophole that allows employers to have such a policy; because many of them are saying that, it must be legal. I will not assume that they can do this under "Hire and fire" authority. We just seem to have a little difference in opinion about that. We agree on pretty much everything else. Thats all. And frankly, its good to have an opposing perspective on things.
Now, if I hear from experts that my understanding of the discrimination laws is incorrect and that it is legal for an employer to say that they will not hire somebody with EAD, I'll just shut up. Until then, I will encourage people not to be quiet and to call the hotline, file a complaint, call the media, and pursue whatever means we have at our disposal to fight what we consider injustice and fight what we believe is discrimination as per the law.
Now, I am with you:)
What would you do if a recruiter or employer told you (verbal or writing) that it is their policy not to hire Indians? (I am just using India as an example).
Regardless of written evidence, I would be inclined to do something about it. I am not saying that I will file a law suit. I would probably not even want to work for such an employer. But I will not be speculating that oh, there must be some loophole that allows employers to have such a policy; because many of them are saying that, it must be legal. I will not assume that they can do this under "Hire and fire" authority. We just seem to have a little difference in opinion about that. We agree on pretty much everything else. Thats all. And frankly, its good to have an opposing perspective on things.
Now, if I hear from experts that my understanding of the discrimination laws is incorrect and that it is legal for an employer to say that they will not hire somebody with EAD, I'll just shut up. Until then, I will encourage people not to be quiet and to call the hotline, file a complaint, call the media, and pursue whatever means we have at our disposal to fight what we consider injustice and fight what we believe is discrimination as per the law.
Now, I am with you:)
girlfriend Mel Gibson The Beaver Critics
krishmunn
03-29 12:14 PM
Not sure i agree with that statement. The way the spillover trickle is reaching EB2 there is no way EB2 will become current for atleast 5 years so impact on EB3 within a year or two is a incorrect statement
If the momentum continues, EB2 will be current in about 2 - 3 years. There are roughly 15 - 18K EB2 I applicants per year and around 5 K for EB 2 C. the number will defnitely be less during later part of 2008 to mid 2010 due to Economic downturn.
The current queue for EB I + EB C till Aug 2007 ~ 36 K
People here are talking about 38 K SOFAD whcih means by August this year it will catch up August 2007, by late next year it should reach Aug 2009 and by late 2013 it will be current.
Again, all these based on assumption that the current momentum continues and the assumed 38 K SOFAD are available every year.
If the momentum continues, EB2 will be current in about 2 - 3 years. There are roughly 15 - 18K EB2 I applicants per year and around 5 K for EB 2 C. the number will defnitely be less during later part of 2008 to mid 2010 due to Economic downturn.
The current queue for EB I + EB C till Aug 2007 ~ 36 K
People here are talking about 38 K SOFAD whcih means by August this year it will catch up August 2007, by late next year it should reach Aug 2009 and by late 2013 it will be current.
Again, all these based on assumption that the current momentum continues and the assumed 38 K SOFAD are available every year.
hairstyles thumb mel gibson beaver
bitzbytz
03-29 05:18 PM
Thanks to IV for getting this done
stuck_here
01-24 01:30 PM
hmmm.. i had noticed that for couple of persons whose approval was done early got their passport immediately but in you case it is not true!! :confused: so I guess it is difficult to decide any pattern.. (i am not sure whether it is related to H1 approval of any specific center.. if we decide some template and ask everyone to post all such details that might help but i am not sure whether everyone will follow that template...) was there anything complex in your case which you think might have caused this problem?
my H1 approval was done in April 2007 and I have my appointment in Feb 1 st week. I will post my details as soon as my interview is done.. Good luck to you..
Thanks and good luck to u too !
I called DOS and they r just saying that they have't gotten to verifying my data yet in PIMS coz it's not yet available.. it's been a month 13 days and counting since my visa appearance..
my H1 approval was done in April 2007 and I have my appointment in Feb 1 st week. I will post my details as soon as my interview is done.. Good luck to you..
Thanks and good luck to u too !
I called DOS and they r just saying that they have't gotten to verifying my data yet in PIMS coz it's not yet available.. it's been a month 13 days and counting since my visa appearance..
hopefulgc
07-09 06:58 PM
People,
whatever people may say, flower campaign is a success.
Its tells us one thing.. if we all unite, they cannot ignore us.
At least, we know they are listening. Keep the pressure going.
"There is a Gandhi in each of us"
whatever people may say, flower campaign is a success.
Its tells us one thing.. if we all unite, they cannot ignore us.
At least, we know they are listening. Keep the pressure going.
"There is a Gandhi in each of us"
No comments:
Post a Comment