Ramba
07-04 07:25 PM
Everyone blaming CIS/DOS needs to understand some basics behind this mess. Before going to conclude anything, first, one should read all the ombudsman reports for last 3 or 4 years. Former INS or current USCIS�s functions and operations were not questionable and not known to public till ombudsman office was established. Ombudsman has helped customers and keep helping to improve efficiency of CIS. Ombudsman main concern (or goal) have been over the 4 years are
1. Primarily reducing backlogs in any application type particularly 485 and timely approval of any application.
2. Abolish the need for interim benefits like EAD, AP etc. If they approve 485 in 6 months, then most of us do not require EAD and AP.
3. Reduce the wastage of EB visas, as unused EB visas can not be carried over to next year (use it or lose it). Since 1992, about 200,000 EB visas were lost permanently. In 2003 alone, they issued only 64,000 EB visas and lost 88,000.
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Now lets come to July Visa bulletin mess.
Because of tight holding of visa cutoff dates for EB3 and EB2 for the first 8 months of 2007 (From Oct 2006 to May 2007) USCIS approved only 66,000 485s. For the next 4 months they have about 60K to 70K numbers available. If they approve the pending 485s with slower speed or old cut off dates, there is a potential estimated loss of 40,000 EB visas by Sep 2007. Thats why, based on ombudsman recommendation, DOS moved considerably the cut off date for June. When they took inventory in May, there are about 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications were pending due to non-availability of visa numbers. The �documentarily qualified 485 applications� mean the application filed long time back and processed by USCIS and cleared the FBI name and criminal check, and found eligible for green card. Apart from 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications, there is thousands of 485 applications (documentarily not yet qualified) pending due to name check. When DOS checked with USCIS they found only 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications (in all EB categories put together) are pending. However, the available visas are more than 40,000 (60to 70K). Then they made with out consulting properly with USCIS they made �current� for all EB categories. This is how they determine �current� or �over-subscribed� and how they establish cutoff dates.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered �Current.�
Whenever the total of documentarily qualified applicants in a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for the particular month, the category is considered to be �oversubscribed� and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories �current� for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories �current� ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of �current� there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making �current� for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as �current� in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
1. Primarily reducing backlogs in any application type particularly 485 and timely approval of any application.
2. Abolish the need for interim benefits like EAD, AP etc. If they approve 485 in 6 months, then most of us do not require EAD and AP.
3. Reduce the wastage of EB visas, as unused EB visas can not be carried over to next year (use it or lose it). Since 1992, about 200,000 EB visas were lost permanently. In 2003 alone, they issued only 64,000 EB visas and lost 88,000.
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Now lets come to July Visa bulletin mess.
Because of tight holding of visa cutoff dates for EB3 and EB2 for the first 8 months of 2007 (From Oct 2006 to May 2007) USCIS approved only 66,000 485s. For the next 4 months they have about 60K to 70K numbers available. If they approve the pending 485s with slower speed or old cut off dates, there is a potential estimated loss of 40,000 EB visas by Sep 2007. Thats why, based on ombudsman recommendation, DOS moved considerably the cut off date for June. When they took inventory in May, there are about 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications were pending due to non-availability of visa numbers. The �documentarily qualified 485 applications� mean the application filed long time back and processed by USCIS and cleared the FBI name and criminal check, and found eligible for green card. Apart from 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications, there is thousands of 485 applications (documentarily not yet qualified) pending due to name check. When DOS checked with USCIS they found only 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications (in all EB categories put together) are pending. However, the available visas are more than 40,000 (60to 70K). Then they made with out consulting properly with USCIS they made �current� for all EB categories. This is how they determine �current� or �over-subscribed� and how they establish cutoff dates.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered �Current.�
Whenever the total of documentarily qualified applicants in a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for the particular month, the category is considered to be �oversubscribed� and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories �current� for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories �current� ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of �current� there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making �current� for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as �current� in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
wallpaper vanessa hudgens hairstyles
sledge_hammer
07-01 03:42 PM
pappu and logiclife, you said you'll give us an update on the situation, we are waiting.
Thanks!
P.S: I don't mean to ask this question in a bad way!
Thanks!
P.S: I don't mean to ask this question in a bad way!
Life2Live
07-09 04:05 PM
Hatz off to that lady... Lot of us are still thinking to fill law-suit against USCIS/DOS.... We should act fast now and file law-suit rather than just waiting and discussing here. I felt bad some people even asked when will be outcome of that law-suit....That clearly tells you are going to wait till the out come of it and you will file law-suit....
Weird........Weird...Weird
Weird........Weird...Weird
2011 Vanessa Hudgens ABC All Star
kaisersose
03-07 04:16 PM
Until last year, it was important to announce a job change via AC21 to USCIS. This was because many sponsoring employers would revoke the 140 (even after 180 days) so that they could reuse the Labor for someone else.
When that happened and there was no AC21 letter from the applicant, some IOs would deny the 485 even without a NOID. This would mean MTR and a lot of unnecessary work.
This problem no longer exists as Labot substitution has been removed. The employer has no incentive to revoke the 140 and so the chances of goofup from USCIS has been lowered.
When that happened and there was no AC21 letter from the applicant, some IOs would deny the 485 even without a NOID. This would mean MTR and a lot of unnecessary work.
This problem no longer exists as Labot substitution has been removed. The employer has no incentive to revoke the 140 and so the chances of goofup from USCIS has been lowered.
more...
SunnySurya
07-28 11:55 AM
This is going to be my last post because I think you are just trying to incite anger. You don't even know what you are talking about. I will recommend admins to note the IP address as they may need to give it to the authorities.
Can you state your source "It is second highest next to Iraq"
Your are forgetting the places like Dafur, Somalia etc..
Have you read that casualties in India is next to Iraq? more than 3000 people died in India due to this. It is second highest next to Iraq.
Can you state your source "It is second highest next to Iraq"
Your are forgetting the places like Dafur, Somalia etc..
Have you read that casualties in India is next to Iraq? more than 3000 people died in India due to this. It is second highest next to Iraq.
Imigrait
07-11 05:28 PM
Can you provide the source of this info? a link or something?
Here's your link
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4252.html
Look at Section E. I have also pasted the text below.
E. EMPLOYMENT SECOND PREFERENCE VISA AVAILABILITY
There have been questions raised regarding the way numbers have been provided to the China and India in the Employment Second preference categories beginning in April. Section 202(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act states that if total demand for visas in an Employment preference category is insufficient to use all available visa numbers in that category in a calendar quarter, then the unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limit. (For example: If the second preference annual limit were 40,000, number use by �All Other Countries� were estimated to be only 25,000, and the China/India combined number use based on their per-country limits were 6,000, then there would be 9,000 numbers unused. Those 9,000 numbers could then be made available to China and India applicants without regard to their per-country limits.)
Based on the informaiton available, it was been determined that the demand from �All Other Countries� for Second preference numbers, plus the amount of numbers available under China and India Second preference per-country limit, would be insufficient to utilize all available numbers under the annual limit for this category. Therefore, pursuant to Section 202(a)(5) of the Act, the unused numbers have been made available to China and India Second preference applicants. Since Section 203(e)(1) of the Act requires that such unused numbers be made available strictly in priority date order, the China and India applicants have been subject to the identical cut-off date. As there are more Employment Second preference applicants from India and the Indian applicants may have earlier priority dates, it is likely that Indian applicants will receive a larger portion of the available numbers than Chinese applicants.
It should be noted that the Employment Second preference category is "Current" for all countries except China and India. If at any point it appears that demand from �All Other Countries� would utilize all available numbers, then an adjustment would be made to the China/India cut-off date. Therefore, providing the unused numbers to China and India in no way disadvantages applicants from any other country, and helps to insure that the worldwide annual limit can be reached.
Here's your link
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4252.html
Look at Section E. I have also pasted the text below.
E. EMPLOYMENT SECOND PREFERENCE VISA AVAILABILITY
There have been questions raised regarding the way numbers have been provided to the China and India in the Employment Second preference categories beginning in April. Section 202(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act states that if total demand for visas in an Employment preference category is insufficient to use all available visa numbers in that category in a calendar quarter, then the unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limit. (For example: If the second preference annual limit were 40,000, number use by �All Other Countries� were estimated to be only 25,000, and the China/India combined number use based on their per-country limits were 6,000, then there would be 9,000 numbers unused. Those 9,000 numbers could then be made available to China and India applicants without regard to their per-country limits.)
Based on the informaiton available, it was been determined that the demand from �All Other Countries� for Second preference numbers, plus the amount of numbers available under China and India Second preference per-country limit, would be insufficient to utilize all available numbers under the annual limit for this category. Therefore, pursuant to Section 202(a)(5) of the Act, the unused numbers have been made available to China and India Second preference applicants. Since Section 203(e)(1) of the Act requires that such unused numbers be made available strictly in priority date order, the China and India applicants have been subject to the identical cut-off date. As there are more Employment Second preference applicants from India and the Indian applicants may have earlier priority dates, it is likely that Indian applicants will receive a larger portion of the available numbers than Chinese applicants.
It should be noted that the Employment Second preference category is "Current" for all countries except China and India. If at any point it appears that demand from �All Other Countries� would utilize all available numbers, then an adjustment would be made to the China/India cut-off date. Therefore, providing the unused numbers to China and India in no way disadvantages applicants from any other country, and helps to insure that the worldwide annual limit can be reached.
more...
desi3933
02-02 11:07 AM
That's fine ..To show that we are in status form the last non-immigrant visa entry to 485 filing stage should we have our monthly stubs or will W2 be sufficient? I'm afraid I've some misplaced. Again thank you very much for your responses.
W2 should be fine in most cases. Additionally, employment letter stating job duties, salary offered, dates is very useful. Please note that this salary could be different from GC Salary, however, it must be within the salary range mentioned in H1 LCA.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
W2 should be fine in most cases. Additionally, employment letter stating job duties, salary offered, dates is very useful. Please note that this salary could be different from GC Salary, however, it must be within the salary range mentioned in H1 LCA.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
2010 Vanessa Hudgens at 2010 Cancer
nandakumar
11-21 02:30 AM
I also got a letter with same information.
Today I got the second letter from USCIS regarding this request. The letter says they accepted the request and put in the pending que.
Also the letter says, "your request is deemed to constitute an agreement to pay any fees that may be chargeable up to $25.00" and continues and finally it says "most requests do not require any fees and if fees in excess of $25.00 are required, we will notify you beforehand"
Jusy wondering any one got this reply..
Today I got the second letter from USCIS regarding this request. The letter says they accepted the request and put in the pending que.
Also the letter says, "your request is deemed to constitute an agreement to pay any fees that may be chargeable up to $25.00" and continues and finally it says "most requests do not require any fees and if fees in excess of $25.00 are required, we will notify you beforehand"
Jusy wondering any one got this reply..
more...
imv116
04-04 11:05 AM
Well, if we start to talk what is ethical and unethical. The entire immigration system and IT consulting is unethical.
That�s the down side from the client side on going for consulting and contracting. Every wise manager knows that! If every one were to hire full time, no matter H1B, EAD or PR, we wouldn�t be in the situation looking for a new assignment.
I agree that it is unethical on there part, but there is a much bigger unethical part on the part of the client companies for not hiring new grads and willing to train them in the areas of there business. New grad hiring doesn�t happen here as it happens in India.
Simply putting it, they don�t have a choice.
House wives with EAD�s and PR cards have started to get into contract jobs with 5-6 years of experience. Most of them are probably not even academically CS educated. Forget about the huge career gap they have.
No one, be it experienced or new grad likes to be code striped at client place, but for some one who is willing to take that risk of humiliation, I see nothing wrong in taking such a step to advance there career.
But there should be an optimal level that one should project them selves too in order to be accepted, can manage to get a decent time to learn things etc.
Also, client companies if they are serious should be more careful by calling for an on-site interview and testing them on the basics with a written test.
That�s the down side from the client side on going for consulting and contracting. Every wise manager knows that! If every one were to hire full time, no matter H1B, EAD or PR, we wouldn�t be in the situation looking for a new assignment.
I agree that it is unethical on there part, but there is a much bigger unethical part on the part of the client companies for not hiring new grads and willing to train them in the areas of there business. New grad hiring doesn�t happen here as it happens in India.
Simply putting it, they don�t have a choice.
House wives with EAD�s and PR cards have started to get into contract jobs with 5-6 years of experience. Most of them are probably not even academically CS educated. Forget about the huge career gap they have.
No one, be it experienced or new grad likes to be code striped at client place, but for some one who is willing to take that risk of humiliation, I see nothing wrong in taking such a step to advance there career.
But there should be an optimal level that one should project them selves too in order to be accepted, can manage to get a decent time to learn things etc.
Also, client companies if they are serious should be more careful by calling for an on-site interview and testing them on the basics with a written test.
hair Young Vanessa Hudgens Sexy
Gate_jj
05-07 09:56 PM
My friend was on situation. He consulted lawyer. If already change of status is applied from October 1 you will be in H1. But if you go out of country and come back before October 1st with L1 visa, you are COS will not be valid. Youcan continue in L1. But only problem is you can not switch to H1 later without stamping.
Can you please explain the above ....
I am on L1 and wife on L2 with EAD , Now I applied for H1 for both of us with a New company. I would like continue with the L1 from the old company, in case only I get the H1 !!.
None of the explaination says this explicitly , does any one know something more in detail ..
Thanks for all the help
-j
Can you please explain the above ....
I am on L1 and wife on L2 with EAD , Now I applied for H1 for both of us with a New company. I would like continue with the L1 from the old company, in case only I get the H1 !!.
None of the explaination says this explicitly , does any one know something more in detail ..
Thanks for all the help
-j
more...
gc28262
06-11 09:36 AM
resent it !
hot With angs
ss2005
07-11 01:48 PM
If they want to make money, they no need to say that abt 2 year EAD at all.
And also most of the EAD renewals are free of cost who filed after 30th June 30 2007.
And also most of the EAD renewals are free of cost who filed after 30th June 30 2007.
more...
house Vanessa Anne Hudgens
apahilaj
02-21 02:32 PM
Please note:PERM Audit very aggressive with EB2 since last couple of months. Just to keep in mind
Till how long can they audit the PERM once it's approved? Just curious.
Till how long can they audit the PERM once it's approved? Just curious.
tattoo girlfriend vanessa hudgens
485InDreams
09-26 09:47 AM
Guys,
Choke the CNN editorial site with the mail stating tht its for Green card...Green card.
Also, send the link to other editorial site like NYTimes, Washingtonpost, Businessweek to them...so that they will learn wht to right correctly....
For the people who Attended /(didn't attend) the rally...Please do this...
Choke the CNN editorial site with the mail stating tht its for Green card...Green card.
Also, send the link to other editorial site like NYTimes, Washingtonpost, Businessweek to them...so that they will learn wht to right correctly....
For the people who Attended /(didn't attend) the rally...Please do this...
more...
pictures Vanessa Hudgens graces “Lucky”
titu1972
07-03 03:58 PM
Please contribute...
dresses vanessa hudgens front fringe.
alterego
07-13 11:19 AM
When a few IV members predicted the rapid movment of EB2 -I, they were dismissed as naive, and fantasizing. Yet, here we are with the EB-2-I PD current for June 2006. Lately, I'm having more faith in the philosophical statement -"The truth is unknowable". :) and having less and less faith on the speculations/ predictions of most IV members.
Are you sure about your above statement? My interpretation is since the processing date for 485s at the Nebraska service center is July 27th 2007, all the 485S received before that date have been processed, and are waiting only for visa number assignment.
I would like to fantasize next fee weeks my assumption is correct:). My PD is EB2-I feb 2006, RD July 2nd 2007.
Fair enough, you are free to fantasize. :) I didn't mean to rain on your party!
I'd wish too that what you said is true. Hey, I am a well wisher of EB immigration.
However my understanding is that many 485s were not receipted like yours. Also the processing dates have stuck at that time now. So although admittedly I am not sure how many of those applications were in fact processed, I suspect it is not the majority. There are indications that there are 200-250K pending EB 485s of which 40-45% are EB India and another 15% or so Chinese. Looking at the bigger picture if 35% of these are EB2. I can't see how the EB2 backlog can be cleared before the end of the next fiscal year.
I whole heartedly agree with you that our speculation and guesswork is often wrong, but it gives us something to do while we wait!
Are you sure about your above statement? My interpretation is since the processing date for 485s at the Nebraska service center is July 27th 2007, all the 485S received before that date have been processed, and are waiting only for visa number assignment.
I would like to fantasize next fee weeks my assumption is correct:). My PD is EB2-I feb 2006, RD July 2nd 2007.
Fair enough, you are free to fantasize. :) I didn't mean to rain on your party!
I'd wish too that what you said is true. Hey, I am a well wisher of EB immigration.
However my understanding is that many 485s were not receipted like yours. Also the processing dates have stuck at that time now. So although admittedly I am not sure how many of those applications were in fact processed, I suspect it is not the majority. There are indications that there are 200-250K pending EB 485s of which 40-45% are EB India and another 15% or so Chinese. Looking at the bigger picture if 35% of these are EB2. I can't see how the EB2 backlog can be cleared before the end of the next fiscal year.
I whole heartedly agree with you that our speculation and guesswork is often wrong, but it gives us something to do while we wait!
more...
makeup Although Vanessa did apologize
nomi
12-11 04:12 PM
I think the act says that the alien should have filed an application, only after which does the question of available visa comes into picture.
http://www.americanlaw.com/aos.html
I think this act is not the applicable one.
So I think we are still green to discuss this. Do you interpret the same?
so let`s see what does core team `s opinion about it ?? Core Team, please throw some light on it.
Thx.
http://www.americanlaw.com/aos.html
I think this act is not the applicable one.
So I think we are still green to discuss this. Do you interpret the same?
so let`s see what does core team `s opinion about it ?? Core Team, please throw some light on it.
Thx.
girlfriend Vanessa Hudgens#39; Curly
cal_dood
07-05 01:43 PM
I'll just go back to forums of the leading lady immigration lawyer....
hairstyles Selena Gomez BANGS, HOT Or NOT
WillIBLucky
12-31 07:36 PM
I thought you said you posted in detroit website as well? Have you not? Just an update .. Following in following websites have posted with classifieds.
I am looking forward to more participation or other ideas from other Members ... or it's better I close this thread :)
Suggest ,comment or post a classified in a web site you know.
Following regional web sites have been posted with claissfied. Catch you folks later.
1)New York
2)Los Angeles
3)Chicago .....................www.chicagosamachar.com
4)Houston
5)Philadelphia
6)Phoenix
7)San Antonio
8)San Diego ................. www.sasural.com/san_diego
9)Dallas
10)San Jose
11)Detroit
12)Indianapolis
13)Jacksonville
14)San Fransisco
15)Columbus
16)Austin
17)Memphis
18)Baltimore
19)Fort Worth
20)Charlotte
21)El Paso
22)Milwaukee
23)Seattle
24)Boston ...................... www.aapkamanoranjan.com
25)Denver
26)Luisville
27)Washington
28)Nashville
29)Las Vegas
30)Portland .....................www.eknazar.com
31)Oklahoma City
32)Tuscon
33) Atlanta .....................www.desigate.com,
34) Kanasas City ..............www.kcdesi.com
35) St. Louis ...................www.myilaaka.com
I am looking forward to more participation or other ideas from other Members ... or it's better I close this thread :)
Suggest ,comment or post a classified in a web site you know.
Following regional web sites have been posted with claissfied. Catch you folks later.
1)New York
2)Los Angeles
3)Chicago .....................www.chicagosamachar.com
4)Houston
5)Philadelphia
6)Phoenix
7)San Antonio
8)San Diego ................. www.sasural.com/san_diego
9)Dallas
10)San Jose
11)Detroit
12)Indianapolis
13)Jacksonville
14)San Fransisco
15)Columbus
16)Austin
17)Memphis
18)Baltimore
19)Fort Worth
20)Charlotte
21)El Paso
22)Milwaukee
23)Seattle
24)Boston ...................... www.aapkamanoranjan.com
25)Denver
26)Luisville
27)Washington
28)Nashville
29)Las Vegas
30)Portland .....................www.eknazar.com
31)Oklahoma City
32)Tuscon
33) Atlanta .....................www.desigate.com,
34) Kanasas City ..............www.kcdesi.com
35) St. Louis ...................www.myilaaka.com
tikka
07-03 10:49 PM
http://digg.com/politics/Rep_Lofgren_Issues_Statement_on_Updated_Visa_Bulle tin
grupak
02-15 05:33 PM
Look, I don't want to enter a pissing match with anyone here. Go read your history (http://americanhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/limiting_the_huddled_masses) before jumping to conclusions.
Supporting a law based on eugenics is very sad indeed.
Supporting a law based on eugenics is very sad indeed.
No comments:
Post a Comment