Higcoptimist
04-01 07:31 PM
Hi,
Sent the two faxes.
My thanks to the core group and active members, working tirelessly towards our common goal.
Cheers
Sent the two faxes.
My thanks to the core group and active members, working tirelessly towards our common goal.
Cheers
wallpaper quotes for mobile. mobile
ashkam
03-27 11:51 AM
"I am not replying anymore to your arguments"
That's the most sensible thing you've said today.
Also, read qasleuth's post.
That's the most sensible thing you've said today.
Also, read qasleuth's post.
vikki76
06-23 02:02 PM
Why can't garbage be thrown in Walmart shopping plastic bags?
It doesn't make sense to harm environment even more by buying new things.In fact, there are new trash cans available whose upper mouth is designed to fit in shopping bags itself.
Regards photos-Let's say you save $20 by saving on photo. You can put this extra $20 in bank @rate of 5%. or you can spend it on extra dinner/movie.
Both options will still rejuvenate economy.
If you send saved $20 to India-Indian govt will be happy to reduce its oil import bill by $20, your family will use this $20 to buy a new Motorola cell phone/Nike shoes or eat dinner at MacDonalds.
Circle of Money never stops.
It doesn't make sense to harm environment even more by buying new things.In fact, there are new trash cans available whose upper mouth is designed to fit in shopping bags itself.
Regards photos-Let's say you save $20 by saving on photo. You can put this extra $20 in bank @rate of 5%. or you can spend it on extra dinner/movie.
Both options will still rejuvenate economy.
If you send saved $20 to India-Indian govt will be happy to reduce its oil import bill by $20, your family will use this $20 to buy a new Motorola cell phone/Nike shoes or eat dinner at MacDonalds.
Circle of Money never stops.
2011 wallpaper quotes for mobile.
lostinbeta
02-02 11:48 PM
I voted ;)
It was a tough choice between Soul and Eilsoe, but I chose my choice and voted.
all were excellent entires though.
Bravo.. Bravo
:evil:
It was a tough choice between Soul and Eilsoe, but I chose my choice and voted.
all were excellent entires though.
Bravo.. Bravo
:evil:
more...
satishku_2000
08-20 04:08 PM
You may be able lodge a complaint at your district attorneys office. you have to find your local DA's details. If you are from one of the coasts the chances of your DA's office having a section for immigration related complaints is high.
KanME
07-19 04:24 PM
I have been in this country for almost 10 years and I have never felt more stressed about these status issues than I did today. I even stopped working from this afternoon reading forums for similar cases, finding info here and there etc. :(
This is confusing..I have a similar situation(not paid for 2 weeks)..
When i talked to my lawyer she said that employement verification is done in I-140 and since that is approved I dont need to worry abt it for 485??
What does your lawyer say?
This is confusing..I have a similar situation(not paid for 2 weeks)..
When i talked to my lawyer she said that employement verification is done in I-140 and since that is approved I dont need to worry abt it for 485??
What does your lawyer say?
more...
ronhira
07-21 10:33 PM
I knew the call was a BS. I don't want to waste my prepaid calling card. Real job ads are hard to come by these days, and H1b job ads
don't exist any more.:D
very smart??? asshole stfu, u guys talked everything u wanted and left the call satisfied and victorious. in reality, the call was cheap shit.... that's what it was worth.....
don't exist any more.:D
very smart??? asshole stfu, u guys talked everything u wanted and left the call satisfied and victorious. in reality, the call was cheap shit.... that's what it was worth.....
2010 mobile with quotes. love
go_guy123
05-11 01:06 PM
WASHINGTON � Democrats are trying once again to advance legislation that would give some young illegal immigrants a chance to live legally in the U.S.
Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois plans to file a new DREAM Act bill on Wednesday. In the House, Rep. Howard Berman of California plans to file similar legislation.
Generally, to qualify the young immigrants must have a high school diploma or the equivalent and have spent two years in college or the military. They must have been under 16 when they arrived in the U.S.
At least one Republican, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, is co-sponsoring the House bill.
The bill filings would follow a speech Tuesday in Texas on immigration by President Barack Obama.
Read more: Democrats to try again on DREAM Act - FoxNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/10/democrats-try-dream-act/#ixzz1M3rtftS0)
All token stunt by Democratic party before 2012. Last time they failed in lame duck but with GOP in power even Latino groups are not energised by it
Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois plans to file a new DREAM Act bill on Wednesday. In the House, Rep. Howard Berman of California plans to file similar legislation.
Generally, to qualify the young immigrants must have a high school diploma or the equivalent and have spent two years in college or the military. They must have been under 16 when they arrived in the U.S.
At least one Republican, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, is co-sponsoring the House bill.
The bill filings would follow a speech Tuesday in Texas on immigration by President Barack Obama.
Read more: Democrats to try again on DREAM Act - FoxNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/10/democrats-try-dream-act/#ixzz1M3rtftS0)
All token stunt by Democratic party before 2012. Last time they failed in lame duck but with GOP in power even Latino groups are not energised by it
more...
.jpg "Funny Quotes Mobile")
onemorecame
07-17 10:41 AM
Sorry But please tell me how to do this?
Yes I got it, after clearing the cookies, I closed that instatnce of browser and opened again from new browser and it worked for me.
Yes I got it, after clearing the cookies, I closed that instatnce of browser and opened again from new browser and it worked for me.
hair quotes. mobile wallpapers
mmj
04-22 10:35 PM
Amen!!!
definitely ..and i am sure lot of people agree ..flowers, marching etc is much better ..but till we get to that point ..let us send emails / letters atleast ...something better than nothing !!
definitely ..and i am sure lot of people agree ..flowers, marching etc is much better ..but till we get to that point ..let us send emails / letters atleast ...something better than nothing !!
more...
longq
12-20 03:41 PM
Hello IV and its core members,
I am one of the members of the forum and suffering due to the severe retrogression of EB visas. I highly appreciate IV�s effort to bring some legislative relief to address the severe backlogs in EB visas. I too participated in all IVs campaign in urging the law makers to bring some relief for this crisis. However, I have some concern here; about the method followed U.S DOS in allocating EB visas particularly in EB2 category for India and China. I am worried whether U.S DOS is violating the INA 202 (a), by suspending AC21 provision that eliminates country quota in EB categories. If they are violating by mistake, it is our responsibility to notify/clarify with them or we need to understand the law clearly. This is very important. Because, even if 110th congress passes SKIL bill, if DOS violates the AC21 law then it will not help applicants from oversubscribed countries (India and China). Here is my analysis based on following facts.
The cutoff date for EB2 India has moved just 7 days since last 9 months. However EB2 �Row has been current. EB2- ROW has never retrogressed before. EB3 ROW has seen considerable movement in last 9 months.
There may be four possible separate or combination of following reasons for the freeze of cutoff dates for India in EB2 at Jan 2003.
1. The backlog elimination effort of DOL pumped massive approved labor certificates from BEC. There may be tons of EB2 applicants from India and China with PD in the year 2001 and 2002 might have applied 485s based on recent approvals from BEC. However I doubt that. Because, in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003, EB3 India and China were �current�. No body cared about filing EB2 labor certification till the later part of 2004. Most lawyers preferred to file EB3 as it was easy, and there were no difference between EB3 and EB2 at that time. First ever indication for EB3 retrogression was issued by DOS only in later part of 2004. I doubt so many people have filed EB2-labor till 2003, keeping in mind that EB3 will retrogress in 2004 or future. Traditionally EB2 has been less demanding compare to EB1 and EB3.
2. Perhaps, there may be a huge demand by ROW (Due to PERM) to consume all the 86% of visa numbers in EB2 category in every month that prompts DOS to allocate only 7% to India and China. I doubt this too, because India and China itself consume about 60% of EB2 visas.
3. There may be lot of EB3 Indians and Chinese with PD 2001 and 2002 porting their PD from EB3 to EB2 by filing new LC and EB2-I-140. This may escalate the demand. However, how many will do this? How many employers will to do this �favor� for their employees? A real US employer/big corporations will not do double time work for an employee. Only consulting/staffing companies will do this. I think this may be a small group (or may not be?).
4. There may be another possible reason. There may be something wrong with U.S.DOS in allocating visa numbers in EB2 category, as per section 202 (a) of current INA. They may be issuing only 2800 (7% of 40,000) visas to India and China in EB2 and redirecting unused EB2 numbers to EB3 category. They may be imposing hard country cap in EB2 (Suspending AC21 law as per their VB Nov 2005). There is a large room for this speculation, due to the pattern of cutoff date movement in EB2 category. This is just a speculation. This argument/speculation is valid if DOS has issued less than 40,000 EB2 visas in FY 2006 as mandated by the law, and issued those numbers (40,000 minus actually issued) to EB3-ROW. In my view, it violates section 203 (b) (2) of the INA. One has to wait till they release statistics for FY 2006, to see how many EB2 visas are issued in that FY.
Here is some detailed analysis that says why it violates the law.
Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 203 a and b of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets numbers for each preference categories with in FB and EB.
Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320. This section also explains how to handle unused numbers with respect to country quota.
Even before AC21 rule enacted in 2000, there was no �hard� country cap as per INA then. Here is the section of INA before year 2000, describes how to allocate unused visas, if overall/total demand for FB an EB visas are less than supply*.
INA 202 (a) (3)
�Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a-Family category) and (b-Employment category) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter�.
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
After 2000 (After AC21) the following law was added to INA in the section 202.
INA 202 (a) (5) (A)
EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
As per my simple interpretation of above AC21 rule, DOS should allocate unused visas by ROW �EB2 (ROW- countries other than India and China in EB2 category) for the first two months of any calendar quarter to over-subscribed countries (India & China) at the third month of that calendar quarter. They should not allocate to lower Preference category (EB3), if demand is more in higher preference category (EB2) to consume all the visa numbers in that preference category. They should allocate visas to all the documentarily qualified applicants in that (EB2) preference category, irrespective of country of birth. If they followed this rule/law, there may be a considerable movement in cut-off dates for India and China in Dec 2005, Mar, June and Sep of 2006 in EB2 (last month of each calendar quarter in a fiscal year). We have not witnessed such movement in last 1.5 years. No one knows how DOS is allocating numbers. They may be allocating only 7% visas to India and China in EB2 category very strictly, every month, and allocating unused numbers to EB3 category, by suspending AC21 law as indicated in their Nov 2005 Visa Bulletin. If they do so, it is against the law, at least in my interpretation of AC21 rule that eliminates country quota in EB categories.
DOS can not interpret above AC21 rule that eliminates per country limit applies �totally� to all EB categories put together, not by individual preference categories. I.e. If they say they will issue more than 2,800 visas to EB2- India per year (more than 7% of 40,000), provided overall demand for EB visas are less than 140,000. If they interpret the law like this, then there is no need for section 202(a) (5) (A) due to AC21 law. The law before AC21 {i.e. section 202 (a) (3)} itself address the elimination of country quota in both FB and EB category*. Then, section 202(a) (5) (A) is a duplicate wording of section 202(a) (3). So, this section of AC21 law becomes a redundant/duplicate law. Then, there is no meaning of employment �preference� category if they interpret �totally or overall worldwide demand�. In other words, a non-Indian/Chinese restaurant cook (EB3) is more preferred than a NIW PhDs (EB2) from India or China. Is it the intend of the congress when enacting AC21 law in removing per country limitation in EB category? Is it the American Competitiveness in 21st century? I highly doubt that.
Now it is the time to ask US DOS, how they are allocating visa number in EB2 category. If DOS interpreting the law differently, then we need to ask the law makers (Congress) what is their original intension behind the section 202(a)(5)(A) when they drafted the AC21 law in 2000 and how it is differ from 202 (a) (3).
Perhaps Core IV team can initiate to discuss/consult this issue with an immigration lawyer and place an enquiry with DOS or Law makers, if needed.
(*Note: DOS do not mix FB and EB categories for visa number allocation/calculation to meet the per country limit. They keep both in separate track to meet separately the 7% limit)
I am one of the members of the forum and suffering due to the severe retrogression of EB visas. I highly appreciate IV�s effort to bring some legislative relief to address the severe backlogs in EB visas. I too participated in all IVs campaign in urging the law makers to bring some relief for this crisis. However, I have some concern here; about the method followed U.S DOS in allocating EB visas particularly in EB2 category for India and China. I am worried whether U.S DOS is violating the INA 202 (a), by suspending AC21 provision that eliminates country quota in EB categories. If they are violating by mistake, it is our responsibility to notify/clarify with them or we need to understand the law clearly. This is very important. Because, even if 110th congress passes SKIL bill, if DOS violates the AC21 law then it will not help applicants from oversubscribed countries (India and China). Here is my analysis based on following facts.
The cutoff date for EB2 India has moved just 7 days since last 9 months. However EB2 �Row has been current. EB2- ROW has never retrogressed before. EB3 ROW has seen considerable movement in last 9 months.
There may be four possible separate or combination of following reasons for the freeze of cutoff dates for India in EB2 at Jan 2003.
1. The backlog elimination effort of DOL pumped massive approved labor certificates from BEC. There may be tons of EB2 applicants from India and China with PD in the year 2001 and 2002 might have applied 485s based on recent approvals from BEC. However I doubt that. Because, in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003, EB3 India and China were �current�. No body cared about filing EB2 labor certification till the later part of 2004. Most lawyers preferred to file EB3 as it was easy, and there were no difference between EB3 and EB2 at that time. First ever indication for EB3 retrogression was issued by DOS only in later part of 2004. I doubt so many people have filed EB2-labor till 2003, keeping in mind that EB3 will retrogress in 2004 or future. Traditionally EB2 has been less demanding compare to EB1 and EB3.
2. Perhaps, there may be a huge demand by ROW (Due to PERM) to consume all the 86% of visa numbers in EB2 category in every month that prompts DOS to allocate only 7% to India and China. I doubt this too, because India and China itself consume about 60% of EB2 visas.
3. There may be lot of EB3 Indians and Chinese with PD 2001 and 2002 porting their PD from EB3 to EB2 by filing new LC and EB2-I-140. This may escalate the demand. However, how many will do this? How many employers will to do this �favor� for their employees? A real US employer/big corporations will not do double time work for an employee. Only consulting/staffing companies will do this. I think this may be a small group (or may not be?).
4. There may be another possible reason. There may be something wrong with U.S.DOS in allocating visa numbers in EB2 category, as per section 202 (a) of current INA. They may be issuing only 2800 (7% of 40,000) visas to India and China in EB2 and redirecting unused EB2 numbers to EB3 category. They may be imposing hard country cap in EB2 (Suspending AC21 law as per their VB Nov 2005). There is a large room for this speculation, due to the pattern of cutoff date movement in EB2 category. This is just a speculation. This argument/speculation is valid if DOS has issued less than 40,000 EB2 visas in FY 2006 as mandated by the law, and issued those numbers (40,000 minus actually issued) to EB3-ROW. In my view, it violates section 203 (b) (2) of the INA. One has to wait till they release statistics for FY 2006, to see how many EB2 visas are issued in that FY.
Here is some detailed analysis that says why it violates the law.
Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 203 a and b of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets numbers for each preference categories with in FB and EB.
Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320. This section also explains how to handle unused numbers with respect to country quota.
Even before AC21 rule enacted in 2000, there was no �hard� country cap as per INA then. Here is the section of INA before year 2000, describes how to allocate unused visas, if overall/total demand for FB an EB visas are less than supply*.
INA 202 (a) (3)
�Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a-Family category) and (b-Employment category) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter�.
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
After 2000 (After AC21) the following law was added to INA in the section 202.
INA 202 (a) (5) (A)
EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
As per my simple interpretation of above AC21 rule, DOS should allocate unused visas by ROW �EB2 (ROW- countries other than India and China in EB2 category) for the first two months of any calendar quarter to over-subscribed countries (India & China) at the third month of that calendar quarter. They should not allocate to lower Preference category (EB3), if demand is more in higher preference category (EB2) to consume all the visa numbers in that preference category. They should allocate visas to all the documentarily qualified applicants in that (EB2) preference category, irrespective of country of birth. If they followed this rule/law, there may be a considerable movement in cut-off dates for India and China in Dec 2005, Mar, June and Sep of 2006 in EB2 (last month of each calendar quarter in a fiscal year). We have not witnessed such movement in last 1.5 years. No one knows how DOS is allocating numbers. They may be allocating only 7% visas to India and China in EB2 category very strictly, every month, and allocating unused numbers to EB3 category, by suspending AC21 law as indicated in their Nov 2005 Visa Bulletin. If they do so, it is against the law, at least in my interpretation of AC21 rule that eliminates country quota in EB categories.
DOS can not interpret above AC21 rule that eliminates per country limit applies �totally� to all EB categories put together, not by individual preference categories. I.e. If they say they will issue more than 2,800 visas to EB2- India per year (more than 7% of 40,000), provided overall demand for EB visas are less than 140,000. If they interpret the law like this, then there is no need for section 202(a) (5) (A) due to AC21 law. The law before AC21 {i.e. section 202 (a) (3)} itself address the elimination of country quota in both FB and EB category*. Then, section 202(a) (5) (A) is a duplicate wording of section 202(a) (3). So, this section of AC21 law becomes a redundant/duplicate law. Then, there is no meaning of employment �preference� category if they interpret �totally or overall worldwide demand�. In other words, a non-Indian/Chinese restaurant cook (EB3) is more preferred than a NIW PhDs (EB2) from India or China. Is it the intend of the congress when enacting AC21 law in removing per country limitation in EB category? Is it the American Competitiveness in 21st century? I highly doubt that.
Now it is the time to ask US DOS, how they are allocating visa number in EB2 category. If DOS interpreting the law differently, then we need to ask the law makers (Congress) what is their original intension behind the section 202(a)(5)(A) when they drafted the AC21 law in 2000 and how it is differ from 202 (a) (3).
Perhaps Core IV team can initiate to discuss/consult this issue with an immigration lawyer and place an enquiry with DOS or Law makers, if needed.
(*Note: DOS do not mix FB and EB categories for visa number allocation/calculation to meet the per country limit. They keep both in separate track to meet separately the 7% limit)
hot Mobile With Quotes. love
JA1HIND
01-27 09:54 PM
Your case is a bit different, I am not sure if you could avoid paying back as GC process is for your benefit so a company could request a pay-back, even though amount is a bit high and you did not get anything in return. I would compare it to a situation where company gives an employee a laptop and expect person to return it when s/he leaves a company.
helloh1's clause is different - company receives benefits by training its employees so it's just plain wrong to request a pay back in that case.
So just forget about it and move on, we all make mistakes and here in the US those mistakes usually cost money.
Thank you "lazycis" I agree with you and take your advise and let this go and be more cautious moving forward!
Once again I really appreciate for all the folks out there who looked into my request and your great posts!
helloh1's clause is different - company receives benefits by training its employees so it's just plain wrong to request a pay back in that case.
So just forget about it and move on, we all make mistakes and here in the US those mistakes usually cost money.
Thank you "lazycis" I agree with you and take your advise and let this go and be more cautious moving forward!
Once again I really appreciate for all the folks out there who looked into my request and your great posts!
more...
house love quotes mobile wallpapers.
sanju
09-09 09:13 PM
I have a question on salary hike after invoking AC21.
What if new employer pay same salary as old and the other amount as per diem. Is that going to be a problem.
For ex. current employer is paying 80K and new employer is going to pay 120 K. Which is way beyond the limit. In this case can new employer pay the difference in per diem.
Experts, your opinion please.
It may be ok if the new employers writes in the employment verification letter sent to USCIS to reply to the RFE that your salary with the new employer is say between 80K-83K "plus benefits". Per diem is actually a benefit. The only problem could be, per diem is for finite period of time and you have to maintain a primary residence different than the place of your work, now sure though. I think this question could be verified by a lawyer and/or HR dept.
What if new employer pay same salary as old and the other amount as per diem. Is that going to be a problem.
For ex. current employer is paying 80K and new employer is going to pay 120 K. Which is way beyond the limit. In this case can new employer pay the difference in per diem.
Experts, your opinion please.
It may be ok if the new employers writes in the employment verification letter sent to USCIS to reply to the RFE that your salary with the new employer is say between 80K-83K "plus benefits". Per diem is actually a benefit. The only problem could be, per diem is for finite period of time and you have to maintain a primary residence different than the place of your work, now sure though. I think this question could be verified by a lawyer and/or HR dept.
tattoo funny quotes for mobile. funny
kondur_007
06-10 03:50 PM
Completely baseless and irresponsible statement from Mr. Gotcher!!!
He contradicts his own statements:
"If these statements are true, then the end of the current mess is in sight.
If the CIS really has wiped out its processing backlog, then when the "pre-adjudicated" cases are given visa numbers in the next fiscal year, cutoff dates should advance rapidly. At a minimum, we should see them return to February 2007 levels, if not closer."
CONTRADICTS:
" EB2 China and India: Outlook is "grim" and there may be further retrogressions until later in the fiscal year."
On what basis he thinks that EB3 India will have PD in 2001 but EB2 India will further retrogress (currently it is stuck in 1999):
"EB2 China and India: Outlook is "grim" and there may be further retrogressions until later in the fiscal year.
EB3 India: November 1, 2001"
AND THE MOST OUTRAGEOUS REMARK IS FOR CIR: Look at this:
"Of course, all of this becomes academic if CIR is passed. In that case, all priority dates will become "current" overnight and remain that way for years."
Yeah...right...this is same Mr. Gotcher who predicted that "if you do "consular processing" you will get your GC very soon as USCIS does not process cases"....Look what happened...
He contradicts his own statements:
"If these statements are true, then the end of the current mess is in sight.
If the CIS really has wiped out its processing backlog, then when the "pre-adjudicated" cases are given visa numbers in the next fiscal year, cutoff dates should advance rapidly. At a minimum, we should see them return to February 2007 levels, if not closer."
CONTRADICTS:
" EB2 China and India: Outlook is "grim" and there may be further retrogressions until later in the fiscal year."
On what basis he thinks that EB3 India will have PD in 2001 but EB2 India will further retrogress (currently it is stuck in 1999):
"EB2 China and India: Outlook is "grim" and there may be further retrogressions until later in the fiscal year.
EB3 India: November 1, 2001"
AND THE MOST OUTRAGEOUS REMARK IS FOR CIR: Look at this:
"Of course, all of this becomes academic if CIR is passed. In that case, all priority dates will become "current" overnight and remain that way for years."
Yeah...right...this is same Mr. Gotcher who predicted that "if you do "consular processing" you will get your GC very soon as USCIS does not process cases"....Look what happened...
more...
pictures mobile wallpapers with quotes.
simple1
06-18 06:44 PM
I support.
dresses Funny Quotes For Mobile. ps2
qvadis
12-29 12:14 AM
Being on the other side (EB3-ROW) I read the law a bit differently ;-)
In short:
- INA 202 (a) (2) establishes a 7% country limit for both FB and EB categories together and per fiscal year.
- INA 202 (a) (3) allows to make unused visas available per quarter in excess to the 7% country limit.
- INA 202 (e) specifies that any visas in excess to 7% must be distributed equally to FB and EB, and each sub-categories.
- INA 202 (a) (5) gives preference to EB (over FB) and determines the allottment for additional visas with preference to EB1 over EB2, etc.
INA 202 (a) (5)
If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
I guess the question here is, what does "visas available" in conjunction with INA 203(b) mean.
INA 203 (b) (3) (EB3)
[...] Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) [...]
The way I read it all this is that the rules in INA 203 (b) (1)...(5) should be applied first before INA 202 (a) (5), ie. additional visas are only available if EB-3 ROW is current.
So, the allottment should work as follows:
Any unused visas in EB-1 (with regards to 7% country limit) will spill over to EB-2, and unused visas from EB-2 to EB-3, etc. If there are still unused visas, they will be used for countries that are subject to the 7% limit, first in EB-1, then EB-2, etc.
Even before AC21 rule enacted in 2000, there was no �hard� country cap as per INA then. [...]
INA 202 (a) (3)
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
(*Note: DOS do not mix FB and EB categories for visa number allocation/calculation to meet the per country limit. They keep both in separate track to meet separately the 7% limit)
I would disagree with the premise in your note. You could also read it that the 7% applies to the sum of both FB and EB categories: "[T]he total number of immigrant visas [...] under subsections (a) and (b) [...] may not exceed 7 percent [...] of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections [...].�
Subsection (e) actually seems to suggest that any additional visas have to be allotted proportional to FB and EB categories:
[I]INA 202 (e)
If it is determined that the total number of immigrant visas [...] will exceed the numerical limitation [...] visa numbers with respect to natives of that state or area shall be allocated (to the extent practicable and otherwise consistent with this section and section 203) in a manner so that -
(1)
the ratio of the visa numbers made available under section 203(a) to the visa numbers made available under section 203(b) is equal to the ratio of the worldwide level of immigration under section 201(c) to such level under section 201 (d);
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
I guess the important phrase in the law is IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE. You seem to interpret 203 (b) as only up to 28.5% are available without the ones spilled over from higher categories.
In short:
- INA 202 (a) (2) establishes a 7% country limit for both FB and EB categories together and per fiscal year.
- INA 202 (a) (3) allows to make unused visas available per quarter in excess to the 7% country limit.
- INA 202 (e) specifies that any visas in excess to 7% must be distributed equally to FB and EB, and each sub-categories.
- INA 202 (a) (5) gives preference to EB (over FB) and determines the allottment for additional visas with preference to EB1 over EB2, etc.
INA 202 (a) (5)
If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
I guess the question here is, what does "visas available" in conjunction with INA 203(b) mean.
INA 203 (b) (3) (EB3)
[...] Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) [...]
The way I read it all this is that the rules in INA 203 (b) (1)...(5) should be applied first before INA 202 (a) (5), ie. additional visas are only available if EB-3 ROW is current.
So, the allottment should work as follows:
Any unused visas in EB-1 (with regards to 7% country limit) will spill over to EB-2, and unused visas from EB-2 to EB-3, etc. If there are still unused visas, they will be used for countries that are subject to the 7% limit, first in EB-1, then EB-2, etc.
Even before AC21 rule enacted in 2000, there was no �hard� country cap as per INA then. [...]
INA 202 (a) (3)
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
(*Note: DOS do not mix FB and EB categories for visa number allocation/calculation to meet the per country limit. They keep both in separate track to meet separately the 7% limit)
I would disagree with the premise in your note. You could also read it that the 7% applies to the sum of both FB and EB categories: "[T]he total number of immigrant visas [...] under subsections (a) and (b) [...] may not exceed 7 percent [...] of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections [...].�
Subsection (e) actually seems to suggest that any additional visas have to be allotted proportional to FB and EB categories:
[I]INA 202 (e)
If it is determined that the total number of immigrant visas [...] will exceed the numerical limitation [...] visa numbers with respect to natives of that state or area shall be allocated (to the extent practicable and otherwise consistent with this section and section 203) in a manner so that -
(1)
the ratio of the visa numbers made available under section 203(a) to the visa numbers made available under section 203(b) is equal to the ratio of the worldwide level of immigration under section 201(c) to such level under section 201 (d);
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
I guess the important phrase in the law is IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE. You seem to interpret 203 (b) as only up to 28.5% are available without the ones spilled over from higher categories.
more...
makeup Funny Quotes Mobile
eb3retro
07-08 05:55 PM
you still didnt answer my question, who are you and why are you here and that too sneakily...(;)). Caught you pretty good eh??
To solve the EB immigration issue, we need to focus on issues that are pertinent to the problem. How and why does it matter what my status is? I know the truth hurts, but just coz someone does not like it, does not change it. I am not giving my opinion - it's the truth.
To solve the EB immigration issue, we need to focus on issues that are pertinent to the problem. How and why does it matter what my status is? I know the truth hurts, but just coz someone does not like it, does not change it. I am not giving my opinion - it's the truth.
girlfriend mobile wallpapers quotes.
babli2007
01-03 01:59 PM
Hi everyone, just had an AC-21 question which I was hoping you could help with.
I went to the OneNet link to get the job categories but wanted to get a second opinion.
My current role is computer systems analyst (business analyst) and i might move to a IT project managment role under AC21. There are definitely crossover similarities in both, of course the PM role has more of a leadership aspect to it.
The catagory in Onenet is 11-3021.00 Computer and Information Systems Managers for Project Managers; and 15-1051.00 Computer Systems Analysts for my current role. It shows they are indirectly related throught the Computer Programmer category i.e. 15-1021.00 Computer Programmers.
Is this acceptable for AC21? Please advise.
I went to the OneNet link to get the job categories but wanted to get a second opinion.
My current role is computer systems analyst (business analyst) and i might move to a IT project managment role under AC21. There are definitely crossover similarities in both, of course the PM role has more of a leadership aspect to it.
The catagory in Onenet is 11-3021.00 Computer and Information Systems Managers for Project Managers; and 15-1051.00 Computer Systems Analysts for my current role. It shows they are indirectly related throught the Computer Programmer category i.e. 15-1021.00 Computer Programmers.
Is this acceptable for AC21? Please advise.
hairstyles mobile wallpapers quotes.
JunRN
07-16 11:11 PM
I myself is interested to get the interim benefits now and not expecting to receive the GC right away. But I can feel the frustration of those who are already in the few last steps.
After getting the EAD/AP within three months, I don't think our problem is solved already. We will be at certain point in time be in the same situation as the poster above.
After getting the EAD/AP within three months, I don't think our problem is solved already. We will be at certain point in time be in the same situation as the poster above.
kevin08
04-19 10:09 PM
Man - U guys love to quibble about stupid things rather than focus on the big picture. All my thread says is - I'm doing X .... Please consider doing it as well if you think it is worth your while ... Thats it - Nothing more - nothing less. And here we're having a discussion about how long I've been a member of IV and yada yada yada ...
good effort and a superb reply
good effort and a superb reply
subba
07-07 02:47 PM
Honorable congressman,
I am writing to you (in your capacity as a judiciary committee member) to bring a recent action by the department of state that wrecked the hopes of many tax paying, employment based legal immigrants.
The New York Times carried an excellent editorial regarding the State department's actions:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/07/opinion/07sat1.html
As a legal tax paying resident of Masachusetts since 10 long years, I have been eagerly waiting my turn in the line for a green card, putting lot of very important life decisions on hold. This latest bait and switch has made me totally disillusioned with the immigration system and I have started looking for opportunities to apply my skills in my home country instead.
For the sake of fellow legal immigrants who have been impacted though, I am hoping you can look into this matter and try to influence the department of state to correct its action. Rep.Lofgren has already issued a statement in this regard. http://lofgren.house.gov/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=1808
Thank you for your time.
Regards,
xxxxxxx
Here is the link to the NY Times Editorial:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/07/opinion/07sat1.html
It is one of the most well written editorials from a renowned source. (You might have to register to see it). Everyone should try to send emails via the above link to their own Senators and Congressman, along with various Congressmen on the House Judicial Committee (Subcommittee on Immigration). http://judiciary.house.gov/committeestructure.aspx?committee=4 .
The House.gov web site does not accept email from anyone outside their respective constituency. The Chairperson is from San Jose CA while the other members are from CA, VA, MA, TX, IL, etc. If you are from one of these places, you need to emphasize the importance to them and also mention that we are the next wealthy voting block of the future elections and we will remember them. Now only a Congressional oversight can save us from the USCIS created crisis.
I am writing to you (in your capacity as a judiciary committee member) to bring a recent action by the department of state that wrecked the hopes of many tax paying, employment based legal immigrants.
The New York Times carried an excellent editorial regarding the State department's actions:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/07/opinion/07sat1.html
As a legal tax paying resident of Masachusetts since 10 long years, I have been eagerly waiting my turn in the line for a green card, putting lot of very important life decisions on hold. This latest bait and switch has made me totally disillusioned with the immigration system and I have started looking for opportunities to apply my skills in my home country instead.
For the sake of fellow legal immigrants who have been impacted though, I am hoping you can look into this matter and try to influence the department of state to correct its action. Rep.Lofgren has already issued a statement in this regard. http://lofgren.house.gov/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=1808
Thank you for your time.
Regards,
xxxxxxx
Here is the link to the NY Times Editorial:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/07/opinion/07sat1.html
It is one of the most well written editorials from a renowned source. (You might have to register to see it). Everyone should try to send emails via the above link to their own Senators and Congressman, along with various Congressmen on the House Judicial Committee (Subcommittee on Immigration). http://judiciary.house.gov/committeestructure.aspx?committee=4 .
The House.gov web site does not accept email from anyone outside their respective constituency. The Chairperson is from San Jose CA while the other members are from CA, VA, MA, TX, IL, etc. If you are from one of these places, you need to emphasize the importance to them and also mention that we are the next wealthy voting block of the future elections and we will remember them. Now only a Congressional oversight can save us from the USCIS created crisis.
No comments:
Post a Comment