Imigrait
06-16 04:53 PM
For the most part it is if it were left to market forces. Employers, rationally, would only want as much as talent for the price they pay. Most importantly, employers would be willing to go the extra mile to sponsor green cards only if they perceive that the immigrant employee would add value both in the present and the future. Now again, when I say employers, I mean the genuine employers and not the fly by night consulting body shops or the outsourcing companies. I strongly believe that EB based GC for a very large part is built on merit. You may see sme cases wherein some ordinary people getting green cards. They, in my opinion , are mostly from these body shops who got "lucky".
Of course everyone who have worse qualifications(according to who??-> dilipcr ) are ordinary. Rest of the people are good. This is the same argument as "now that I have GC, let me come out and say retrogressions and less GCs are good, cuz I am qualified and I already have GC."
And yes I agree EB based GC is built by merit. Merit according to the employer who will keep paying the employee if the employee performs his job at least satisfactorily. Dilipcr is not the adjudicator here, the market aka the employer is. And...... the employer is making sure it is following the regulations prescribed by USCIS.
Cant believe I am using that word !!!.
What's not to believe? You just did!
In my opinion it does not. But be careful in this forum though. People may view your statement as egotistic.
People don't view any statement that you're from a top college as egoistic. Ppl view it as egoistic when after 15-20 years out of college you still throw around your college name to make other people treat you differently. Dude, after 20 years people from various colleges are working with you, some doing a worse job than you and some better, colleges don't matter any more for the current job. It might have some influence in a new job.
Now the distortion comes into play when outsourcing companies flout rules and undercut the market through pervasive fraud. Like other industries such as manufacturing/agriculture etc, IT wages are destined to decline but not at this rate. The acceleration in the decline of wages is perpetuated by these scum outsourcing companies. If the decline in wages were let to decline at the speed of market, then it gives talented people time to upgrade skills or move to other industries without having to sacrifice quality of living. So per your argument, yes the end employer is following the rules by employing people from the outsourcing company because the employer does not know or looks the other way of the outsourcing company commiting pervasive fraud. Oh BTW that 80K number was just to highlight that the L1s should be paid high too. It was not based on any scientific or statistical evidence.
Why are you calling outsourcing companies scum? So do you call the companies that manufacture in China as scum too? I know tonnes of engineers from Infosys, TCS, Wipro and others who work for Google,Msft,Apple,Amazon etc etc. So now that these people have bathed in Ganga(google etc etc) their scum is washed off?
"the speed of market" -The outsourcing companies are part of the market. Yes the salaries have gone down, but that's according to the speed of the market, not due to some participants outside the market.
"committing pervasive fraud" - No US or foreign company will keep a company if the value proposition dosen't work for them. For Building a webpage or multi tiered web applications we don't need a rocket scientist. Hence, the market is paying what is deserved. Would you be able to keep a job if you don't perform in the US? Then why will an outsourcing company be treated differently?
Ok it seems lots of other people are also responding so I'll stop here. :D
Of course everyone who have worse qualifications(according to who??-> dilipcr ) are ordinary. Rest of the people are good. This is the same argument as "now that I have GC, let me come out and say retrogressions and less GCs are good, cuz I am qualified and I already have GC."
And yes I agree EB based GC is built by merit. Merit according to the employer who will keep paying the employee if the employee performs his job at least satisfactorily. Dilipcr is not the adjudicator here, the market aka the employer is. And...... the employer is making sure it is following the regulations prescribed by USCIS.
Cant believe I am using that word !!!.
What's not to believe? You just did!
In my opinion it does not. But be careful in this forum though. People may view your statement as egotistic.
People don't view any statement that you're from a top college as egoistic. Ppl view it as egoistic when after 15-20 years out of college you still throw around your college name to make other people treat you differently. Dude, after 20 years people from various colleges are working with you, some doing a worse job than you and some better, colleges don't matter any more for the current job. It might have some influence in a new job.
Now the distortion comes into play when outsourcing companies flout rules and undercut the market through pervasive fraud. Like other industries such as manufacturing/agriculture etc, IT wages are destined to decline but not at this rate. The acceleration in the decline of wages is perpetuated by these scum outsourcing companies. If the decline in wages were let to decline at the speed of market, then it gives talented people time to upgrade skills or move to other industries without having to sacrifice quality of living. So per your argument, yes the end employer is following the rules by employing people from the outsourcing company because the employer does not know or looks the other way of the outsourcing company commiting pervasive fraud. Oh BTW that 80K number was just to highlight that the L1s should be paid high too. It was not based on any scientific or statistical evidence.
Why are you calling outsourcing companies scum? So do you call the companies that manufacture in China as scum too? I know tonnes of engineers from Infosys, TCS, Wipro and others who work for Google,Msft,Apple,Amazon etc etc. So now that these people have bathed in Ganga(google etc etc) their scum is washed off?
"the speed of market" -The outsourcing companies are part of the market. Yes the salaries have gone down, but that's according to the speed of the market, not due to some participants outside the market.
"committing pervasive fraud" - No US or foreign company will keep a company if the value proposition dosen't work for them. For Building a webpage or multi tiered web applications we don't need a rocket scientist. Hence, the market is paying what is deserved. Would you be able to keep a job if you don't perform in the US? Then why will an outsourcing company be treated differently?
Ok it seems lots of other people are also responding so I'll stop here. :D
wallpaper anushka sharma hot kiss
sachug22
09-15 02:17 PM
Here are my Estimate of pending EB2 India case for give years
<=2004 2000
2005 10000
2006 13000
2007(july) 5000
==============
Total 30000
==============
This number is very close to Ron Gocthers number prediction a few months back (minus sept approvals).
Collaboration on visa quota data/analysis - Page 6 - Immigration Information Discussion Forum (http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/general-immigration-questions/8419-collaboration-on-visa-quota-data-analysis-6.html)
Pending as of 15 July 2009 145000
EB2 50000
EB3 94000
EB2India (2.4/3.5 EB2) 35714
We can use the LCA number and come close these numbers as well
2005
EB2 India LCA for 2005 = RIR (3000) + PERM (60% of 7290) ~ 7400
Assuming 20% abandon applicant we get = 5900
1.2 dependent per applicant give ~ 13000 I-485 applicantions
Assuming 10% approved in 2008 and 10% rejected/abandon I-485 and 5% cross-charageability we get => pending 10000 pending I-485 application for 2005
2006
India PERM applications = 18000
EB2 India PERM applications (60%) = 10800
Assuming 20% abandon applicant we get = 8640
1.2 dependent per applicant give ~ 19000 I-485 applicantions
Assuming 10% approved in 2008 and 10% rejected/abandon I-485 and 10% cross-charageability we get => pending 13000 pending I-485 application for 2006
So if we see spillover of more than 30K the date will move beyond July 2007.
<=2004 2000
2005 10000
2006 13000
2007(july) 5000
==============
Total 30000
==============
This number is very close to Ron Gocthers number prediction a few months back (minus sept approvals).
Collaboration on visa quota data/analysis - Page 6 - Immigration Information Discussion Forum (http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/general-immigration-questions/8419-collaboration-on-visa-quota-data-analysis-6.html)
Pending as of 15 July 2009 145000
EB2 50000
EB3 94000
EB2India (2.4/3.5 EB2) 35714
We can use the LCA number and come close these numbers as well
2005
EB2 India LCA for 2005 = RIR (3000) + PERM (60% of 7290) ~ 7400
Assuming 20% abandon applicant we get = 5900
1.2 dependent per applicant give ~ 13000 I-485 applicantions
Assuming 10% approved in 2008 and 10% rejected/abandon I-485 and 5% cross-charageability we get => pending 10000 pending I-485 application for 2005
2006
India PERM applications = 18000
EB2 India PERM applications (60%) = 10800
Assuming 20% abandon applicant we get = 8640
1.2 dependent per applicant give ~ 19000 I-485 applicantions
Assuming 10% approved in 2008 and 10% rejected/abandon I-485 and 10% cross-charageability we get => pending 13000 pending I-485 application for 2006
So if we see spillover of more than 30K the date will move beyond July 2007.
.jpg "Kiss anushka sharma hot")
Marphad
04-20 02:08 PM
GCKaMaara is right, different people operate at different IQ level.
When there is so much of repeated junk in this thread from the people who think they are political strategist, then what's wrong in posting a fun youtube video twice?
.
I can only laugh at you(r post).
When there is so much of repeated junk in this thread from the people who think they are political strategist, then what's wrong in posting a fun youtube video twice?
.
I can only laugh at you(r post).
2011 wallpaper anushka sharma hot
Legal
07-21 08:13 PM
The unused Employment Based visas will be added to the following year's Family Based visas.
CAN ANY ONE BELIEVE THEY GAVE 10,326 "UNUSED" EB NUMBERS TO FAMILY BASED IN THE YEAR 2006?? AMAZING.
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/LPR_FR_2007.pdf
Another concern I have on your estimation is it looks like unlimited categories (immediate relatives) eat into the overall numbers. But it looks like FB is guaranteed minimum of 226,000 each year.
CAN ANY ONE BELIEVE THEY GAVE 10,326 "UNUSED" EB NUMBERS TO FAMILY BASED IN THE YEAR 2006?? AMAZING.
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/LPR_FR_2007.pdf
Another concern I have on your estimation is it looks like unlimited categories (immediate relatives) eat into the overall numbers. But it looks like FB is guaranteed minimum of 226,000 each year.
more...
bfadlia
02-16 02:57 PM
I still fail to see how country caps on Employment Based immigration serve the purpose of diversity. Look, people from India/China with H1B visas and pending AOS applications are already here, right? They are here and will be here regardless of whether they get GCs now or after 10 years. Many of them bought houses, have families, American born kids. How making them wait for years is gonna serve the purpose of diversity? You think if an Indian guy will be using AC21/EAD for years, going to finger printing every year, going through secondary security check on airports, in time he is gonna evolve into something less Indian? It's gonna be the same people but with different documents in their pockets.
For diversity purposes there is lottery, and the purpose of that lottery is exactly that - the diversity. Also, if the government wants diversity, they should have immigration program like Canada has. Where people are issued permanent residency BEFORE coming to the country and spending years working for that country.
bestia, the people here keep saying "i don't see the reasoning in x, then x must be wrong and should change"
u believe US intended diversity in DV lottery only and by mistake put it in DV, FB and EB.. you are entitled to your opinion, but good luck getting someone to take u seriosly with this argument
again..i only mentioned race when people kept saying we (certainly their race) are better and brighter, outside correcting that context i would never have discussed it this way.
peace.. have a soccer game now.. c u later
For diversity purposes there is lottery, and the purpose of that lottery is exactly that - the diversity. Also, if the government wants diversity, they should have immigration program like Canada has. Where people are issued permanent residency BEFORE coming to the country and spending years working for that country.
bestia, the people here keep saying "i don't see the reasoning in x, then x must be wrong and should change"
u believe US intended diversity in DV lottery only and by mistake put it in DV, FB and EB.. you are entitled to your opinion, but good luck getting someone to take u seriosly with this argument
again..i only mentioned race when people kept saying we (certainly their race) are better and brighter, outside correcting that context i would never have discussed it this way.
peace.. have a soccer game now.. c u later
Desichakit
07-24 07:09 PM
VDLRAO Ji,
Can you throw some light on the points said by Attorney Ron. Is Ron overstating numbers or some thing is missing in calculations
Can you throw some light on the points said by Attorney Ron. Is Ron overstating numbers or some thing is missing in calculations
more...
Tito_ortiz
03-20 12:41 PM
Hi, I experienced similar situation. This is what I did:
Upon getting my PR and landing in Canada, I got job offer in the beautiful US. I kept visiting Canada every month, I kept bank account active there, I bought a car in Canada and transferred to the US (that was silly, don't do that) etc just in case I needed to prove certain ties to Canada and it would be transfer car to Canada again if I needed to go back.
Then 1 year passed. I retained my PR just fine. However, when entering Canada, the immigration officer advised that I was going to end up losing my Canadian PR if I start going back and forth. At that point I applied for the Returning Resident permit. I wen to Canadian embassy in Seattle. Lady who attended me was very rude and told me that working in the US was not a valid excuse to stay out of Canada for 2 years. Then I claimed that I wanted to go back to Canada to open business there with my US experience within 2 years. Lady finally said "you guys don't love Canada, you just love the US". From there she signed the Returning Resident Permanent residency paper for 2 years. Now, five years have passed and I guess my Canadian PR status is unknown. I guess I could just return if I wanted. Last week I went there to visit a friend (it was raining like crazy in Vancouver, BC) and I entered the country without any questions. Therefore if you manage to get in, I guess all my PR status would still be valid.
I also have my canadian PR. I know that I have to physically stay in CA for 2 years out of 5 to keep it alive. My question is if I enter just before my fourth year and live only for one year in CA .... what would happen ? At the end of fifth year when my PR card expires, will I have to leave CA ? Or is there any other visa on which I can move to or is there a way to re-apply for PR in the last year itself ?
Basically bcuz of the retregression I want to go to CA but I have seen so many -ve posts about job scene that I am apprehensive. Hence was wondering if I can wait till the fourth year and still this GC mess is not solved would it be possible somehow to stay in CA beyond the fifth year.
Upon getting my PR and landing in Canada, I got job offer in the beautiful US. I kept visiting Canada every month, I kept bank account active there, I bought a car in Canada and transferred to the US (that was silly, don't do that) etc just in case I needed to prove certain ties to Canada and it would be transfer car to Canada again if I needed to go back.
Then 1 year passed. I retained my PR just fine. However, when entering Canada, the immigration officer advised that I was going to end up losing my Canadian PR if I start going back and forth. At that point I applied for the Returning Resident permit. I wen to Canadian embassy in Seattle. Lady who attended me was very rude and told me that working in the US was not a valid excuse to stay out of Canada for 2 years. Then I claimed that I wanted to go back to Canada to open business there with my US experience within 2 years. Lady finally said "you guys don't love Canada, you just love the US". From there she signed the Returning Resident Permanent residency paper for 2 years. Now, five years have passed and I guess my Canadian PR status is unknown. I guess I could just return if I wanted. Last week I went there to visit a friend (it was raining like crazy in Vancouver, BC) and I entered the country without any questions. Therefore if you manage to get in, I guess all my PR status would still be valid.
I also have my canadian PR. I know that I have to physically stay in CA for 2 years out of 5 to keep it alive. My question is if I enter just before my fourth year and live only for one year in CA .... what would happen ? At the end of fifth year when my PR card expires, will I have to leave CA ? Or is there any other visa on which I can move to or is there a way to re-apply for PR in the last year itself ?
Basically bcuz of the retregression I want to go to CA but I have seen so many -ve posts about job scene that I am apprehensive. Hence was wondering if I can wait till the fourth year and still this GC mess is not solved would it be possible somehow to stay in CA beyond the fifth year.
2010 Kiss anushka sharma hot
bitu72
10-04 12:04 AM
thanks amisha..any idea about the identity card number is it the ssn number we have in US. i can fill in that number and make a copy and get it notarized.
more...
HOPE_GC_SOON
07-17 12:44 PM
Hi Kshitijnt,
If it doesnot mattter: May I know, what was the problem found in your labor.. Is it due to Acquisition, or because of your Educational/ occupational postiion.
Can you share some info.. Just for awareness.
Thanks,
For short term yes. Long term No.
If there is a surge of ROW applicants. India & China applicants are at severe disadvantage.
If it doesnot mattter: May I know, what was the problem found in your labor.. Is it due to Acquisition, or because of your Educational/ occupational postiion.
Can you share some info.. Just for awareness.
Thanks,
For short term yes. Long term No.
If there is a surge of ROW applicants. India & China applicants are at severe disadvantage.
hair anushka sharma hot kiss
BharatPremi
07-11 12:48 PM
BharatPremi,
Same applies to you.. If you are so crazy about Bharat, what are you doing here.... HEHEHE. Just thought that it was kinda funny statement because of your name....BharatPremi --- :D
My "Avtar Name" is "BharatPremi" not "BharatVasi" To do "Prem" you do not have to be "vasi":)
Same applies to you.. If you are so crazy about Bharat, what are you doing here.... HEHEHE. Just thought that it was kinda funny statement because of your name....BharatPremi --- :D
My "Avtar Name" is "BharatPremi" not "BharatVasi" To do "Prem" you do not have to be "vasi":)
more...
EndlessWait
07-10 11:36 AM
bbye monseiur!
hot Theiranushka sharma, kisses
johnggberg
07-10 07:29 PM
but wish you all the best of luck in canada.
more...
house 2010 14 Anushka Sharma HOT
MYGC2008
09-24 10:24 AM
There won't be any spillover to EB3 unless EB2 ROW becomes current.
Based on following link:
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/New%20Structure/2nd%20Level%20%28Left%20Nav%20Parents%29/Green%20Card%20-%202nd%20Level/Pending%20Form%20I-485%20Reports.pdf
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.
Based on following link:
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/New%20Structure/2nd%20Level%20%28Left%20Nav%20Parents%29/Green%20Card%20-%202nd%20Level/Pending%20Form%20I-485%20Reports.pdf
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.
tattoo Anushka Sharma First Ever Kiss
mheggade
02-14 12:24 PM
I understand the mood among fellow Indians , due to substantial dates movement for ROW but it dint move enough for India. Lets take the high road and stop bickering among ourselves and lets get back to the Action Item which needs to be done.
more...
pictures 2010 Anushka+sharma+hot+kiss
desi3933
07-27 12:20 PM
Nope that's not correct. You file your business earnings through 1099 and not W2. It has nothing to do with H1-B. Good luck.
1099 or W2, it does not matter.
On H-1B status, one can not run business. PERIOD. Check with US CIS for yourself.
One more thing, Passive Investment is not same as Running a Business. Passive Investment is allowed on H-1/H-4 and other non-immigrant visa status.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
1099 or W2, it does not matter.
On H-1B status, one can not run business. PERIOD. Check with US CIS for yourself.
One more thing, Passive Investment is not same as Running a Business. Passive Investment is allowed on H-1/H-4 and other non-immigrant visa status.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
dresses Anushka Sharma Hot Bikini
go_guy123
08-16 01:24 AM
Don’t make a big deal of Shah Rukh’s detention:One For The Road:Anand Soondas's blog-The Times Of India (http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/onefortheroad/entry/don-t-make-a-big)
One For The RoadDon�t make a big deal of Shah Rukh�s detention
After a long time actor Salman Khan has come up with a real gem. On hearing about Shah Rukh Khan being questioned by US security at Newark, New Jersey, he said it�s good that the country has such a tight set-up. And that ``there has been no attack after 9/11 because of this.��
Salman has a point. SRK might be an icon to Indians and many in the subcontinent, even to the desi diaspora spread across the globe, but to America he�s just a visitor. We may be convinced he cannot be involved in anything that�s remotely violent, but the guard given the responsibility of stopping something like 9/11 from happening in his country again will want to take no chances. And what is the possibility that he�s a die hard fan of the Khan and Bollywood? Very slim.
Interestingly, the same day that SRK was detained in Newark, there came news that the great Bob Dylan, who was wandering around Long Branch, near New York City, sometime back, was asked for an ID by two cops too young to know who he really was. When he couldn�t furnish one, he was taken right back to the resort where he was putting up and staff there vouched for him. And America is Dylan�s own country.
Was there a furore? Not that I know of. Not even a little blowin' in the wind.
SRK says he�s ``upset and angry�� because it was his Muslim name that caused all this. Thousands of Muslims are made to go through extra security checks everyday in America and a host of Western countries. Is he equally upset at that? He's probably just pissed that it happened to him, India's mega star. We all know how a lot of Muslims have been subjected to prejudice around the world because many countries see terrorism as an Islamic phenomenon. Yes, it is uncalled for, unjust and maybe wrong. But America is a country that takes the killings of its people with the seriousness it deserves, unlike India whose record on this is shameful, to say the least.
Also, because most of the perpetrators of 9/11 were Muslims, America thinks it has to be doubly careful where they are concerned. Had the terrorists been Jews, perhaps it would have looked at Jews with similar suspicion. I was much more aggrieved at President Kalam being frisked. But that�s a dated debate.
There are two layers to the SRK incident and we must peel them off with care. One, it is quite ridiculous that Indians feel their icons and superstars are everybody�s icons and superstars. What the heck? If Jet Li came to India tomorrow, the man on the street here would probably call him �`Chinky�� and not give a second look. For that matter, what if G�rard Depardieu came travelling. How many would know him? Matt Damon was here recently and there wasn�t a traffic jam in Delhi. These guys are huge back home.
Moreover, America doesn�t have a culture of fawning the way India has. Mike Tyson was treated like a common rapist and spent most part of his youth in the slammer. Winona Ryder was sentenced to a three-year probation for shoplifting. Chinese born Hollywood actress Bai Ling was fined US 200 dollars for petty theft.
More importantly, we are actually aggrieved because we are ``not like them��. Well, guess what. It isn�t a virtue. We should be like them and take the security of our country and its people with solemn, no-nonsense professionalism. Frisk Brad Pitt when he lands in India next. Give Tom Cruise the same dose. Don�t spare Bill Clinton either. Isn�t he an ex-prez just like Kalam? Who�s stopping you and what�s stopping you? Colonial hangover? Or is it plain lethargy and callousness. Looks like both.
We are just whimpering over here like hurt puppies because we feel, ``Oh, but we don�t do it to them��. Oh no, we don�t. And it�s a scandal. We should. I�ve seen white men � and women � get away in India with murder. Indian women can�t get into some discos wearing a sari. And bouncers will frown at you if you are dressed in a kurta. Have you seen what some of these firangs have on them? No one bats a eyelid.
So instead of making SRK�s detention an issue, we should think of upgrading our own security set-up.
There�s a lesson in this. And it is a positive one. A day after our own 26/11, there was hardly any security at CST in Mumbai. It can�t get worse than that. The bottom line: Stop fawning, shed the colonial hangover and make no compromise where the country�s safety is concerned. Can we do that or is it too much to ask from a country that�s been free for 62 years but was ruled by white sahibs for 200?
Well said and perfect....in India there is a culture of babu where VIPs are not checked at all....otherwise the wrath of the high officer will strike on the junior officer.
One For The RoadDon�t make a big deal of Shah Rukh�s detention
After a long time actor Salman Khan has come up with a real gem. On hearing about Shah Rukh Khan being questioned by US security at Newark, New Jersey, he said it�s good that the country has such a tight set-up. And that ``there has been no attack after 9/11 because of this.��
Salman has a point. SRK might be an icon to Indians and many in the subcontinent, even to the desi diaspora spread across the globe, but to America he�s just a visitor. We may be convinced he cannot be involved in anything that�s remotely violent, but the guard given the responsibility of stopping something like 9/11 from happening in his country again will want to take no chances. And what is the possibility that he�s a die hard fan of the Khan and Bollywood? Very slim.
Interestingly, the same day that SRK was detained in Newark, there came news that the great Bob Dylan, who was wandering around Long Branch, near New York City, sometime back, was asked for an ID by two cops too young to know who he really was. When he couldn�t furnish one, he was taken right back to the resort where he was putting up and staff there vouched for him. And America is Dylan�s own country.
Was there a furore? Not that I know of. Not even a little blowin' in the wind.
SRK says he�s ``upset and angry�� because it was his Muslim name that caused all this. Thousands of Muslims are made to go through extra security checks everyday in America and a host of Western countries. Is he equally upset at that? He's probably just pissed that it happened to him, India's mega star. We all know how a lot of Muslims have been subjected to prejudice around the world because many countries see terrorism as an Islamic phenomenon. Yes, it is uncalled for, unjust and maybe wrong. But America is a country that takes the killings of its people with the seriousness it deserves, unlike India whose record on this is shameful, to say the least.
Also, because most of the perpetrators of 9/11 were Muslims, America thinks it has to be doubly careful where they are concerned. Had the terrorists been Jews, perhaps it would have looked at Jews with similar suspicion. I was much more aggrieved at President Kalam being frisked. But that�s a dated debate.
There are two layers to the SRK incident and we must peel them off with care. One, it is quite ridiculous that Indians feel their icons and superstars are everybody�s icons and superstars. What the heck? If Jet Li came to India tomorrow, the man on the street here would probably call him �`Chinky�� and not give a second look. For that matter, what if G�rard Depardieu came travelling. How many would know him? Matt Damon was here recently and there wasn�t a traffic jam in Delhi. These guys are huge back home.
Moreover, America doesn�t have a culture of fawning the way India has. Mike Tyson was treated like a common rapist and spent most part of his youth in the slammer. Winona Ryder was sentenced to a three-year probation for shoplifting. Chinese born Hollywood actress Bai Ling was fined US 200 dollars for petty theft.
More importantly, we are actually aggrieved because we are ``not like them��. Well, guess what. It isn�t a virtue. We should be like them and take the security of our country and its people with solemn, no-nonsense professionalism. Frisk Brad Pitt when he lands in India next. Give Tom Cruise the same dose. Don�t spare Bill Clinton either. Isn�t he an ex-prez just like Kalam? Who�s stopping you and what�s stopping you? Colonial hangover? Or is it plain lethargy and callousness. Looks like both.
We are just whimpering over here like hurt puppies because we feel, ``Oh, but we don�t do it to them��. Oh no, we don�t. And it�s a scandal. We should. I�ve seen white men � and women � get away in India with murder. Indian women can�t get into some discos wearing a sari. And bouncers will frown at you if you are dressed in a kurta. Have you seen what some of these firangs have on them? No one bats a eyelid.
So instead of making SRK�s detention an issue, we should think of upgrading our own security set-up.
There�s a lesson in this. And it is a positive one. A day after our own 26/11, there was hardly any security at CST in Mumbai. It can�t get worse than that. The bottom line: Stop fawning, shed the colonial hangover and make no compromise where the country�s safety is concerned. Can we do that or is it too much to ask from a country that�s been free for 62 years but was ruled by white sahibs for 200?
Well said and perfect....in India there is a culture of babu where VIPs are not checked at all....otherwise the wrath of the high officer will strike on the junior officer.
more...
makeup hot ANUSHKA SHARMA IN SAREE
logiclife
05-10 04:13 PM
There is a lot of debate going on here, about how Canada and Australia have a better immigration system because they are points-based self-petition systems compared to employer-petition system here in US.
I believe the employer-petition system is still the best system to implement for immigration. Its complicated, long and provides breeding ground for exploitation. But that is the ONLY way to ensure that the workforce is not oversupplied with labor and the immigrants who can gather points actually have the ability to get jobs.(look at Canada where Ph.Ds who aced the points sytem are inept in real world and drive taxicabs and blame the Canadian Government).
If I score 100 points out of required 50 or 60 points for Canada, its all meaningless if I am inept and cannot get a job. However, I would contribute to my own well-being and to the workforce and economy if I can find a job and an employer willing to petition, even if I score 25 points out of required 50 or 60.
US has the best immigration system and I believe the employer petition is the best method for adjudication. However, it has its problems in terms of delays due to bureaucratic inefficiencies and inadequate annual quotas. If Australia, France, Germany are going to adopt the Canadian model of points-based system, its not goint to help them or the ones who go there.
I believe the employer-petition system is still the best system to implement for immigration. Its complicated, long and provides breeding ground for exploitation. But that is the ONLY way to ensure that the workforce is not oversupplied with labor and the immigrants who can gather points actually have the ability to get jobs.(look at Canada where Ph.Ds who aced the points sytem are inept in real world and drive taxicabs and blame the Canadian Government).
If I score 100 points out of required 50 or 60 points for Canada, its all meaningless if I am inept and cannot get a job. However, I would contribute to my own well-being and to the workforce and economy if I can find a job and an employer willing to petition, even if I score 25 points out of required 50 or 60.
US has the best immigration system and I believe the employer petition is the best method for adjudication. However, it has its problems in terms of delays due to bureaucratic inefficiencies and inadequate annual quotas. If Australia, France, Germany are going to adopt the Canadian model of points-based system, its not goint to help them or the ones who go there.
girlfriend anushka sharma hot kiss
Lasantha
12-14 04:41 PM
If that were the case then the rest of us must be equlally skeptical of your ideas since you yourself hail from an oversubscribed country. :cool:
All you need to do is listen to the idea with an open mind and see if that makes sense. Obviously the ppl from oversubscribed countries would love to see these restrictions removed (and I can understand that) but please also keep in mind that the people from ROW will think twice about supporting such a move if it's done without other provisions like increasing the total quota, visa recapture, excluding dependents and faster processing times.
On the other hand if you are from "ROW" then all your attempts to kill this ideas will make me understand how scared you are of this idea and hence how good this idea really is. :)
All you need to do is listen to the idea with an open mind and see if that makes sense. Obviously the ppl from oversubscribed countries would love to see these restrictions removed (and I can understand that) but please also keep in mind that the people from ROW will think twice about supporting such a move if it's done without other provisions like increasing the total quota, visa recapture, excluding dependents and faster processing times.
On the other hand if you are from "ROW" then all your attempts to kill this ideas will make me understand how scared you are of this idea and hence how good this idea really is. :)
hairstyles anushka sharma hot kiss in
villamonte6100
12-14 12:30 PM
Hello All,
First and foremost, i must thank everyone from IV, who is working tirelessly to resolve the issues of retrogression in the GC process. As an affected individual I am very grateful that leaders of IV are ready to contribute so much effort for its goals. And even though I do not actively work for the IV agenda, I have contributed money to some IV action items.
I have a question/suggestion regarding the IV agenda. On IV's about page, pt number 2 asserts amongst other things,
The Discriminatory Per-Country Rationing of Green Cards That Exacerbates the Delays.
and further in the same point
We do not allow employers to discriminate hiring based on their nationality or country of origin. Therefore, the employment-based immigration, which is a derivative benefit of employment, should also be free from rationing based on nationality or country of birth.
I am curious to know what is the "legal" strength of these assertions is. Are they just "moral" statements or can the validity of these statements be tested in the legal framework of this country? In other words, my question is what is the constitutionality of the "Per Country Caps" in Employment / Family Based Immrigration procedures.
A lot of Laws and Statutes have been challenged in the Judicial System of USA. And many more are challenged every year. And if the laws are not constitutional then they can be repealed.
I am sure the leaders of IV must have thought about this argument however a quick search of the forums with 'constitutionality' as the search term did not return any results.
IV's efforts to utilize Lobbying to bring about change to alleviate/eliminate retrogression are certainly beneficial. However, if IV has not already considered and eliminated this legal argument, then it should explore whether there is any substance to this approach.
Hence this post. Below are some of the links that might be relevant.
wikipedia article on constitutionality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionality)
wikipedia category on US immigration case law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_immigration_and_naturalizat ion_case_law)
thanks and sincerely,
--soljabhai
You don't have a case. Before laws are signed, lawmakers spend hours and hours or weeks arguing, debating and modying before it is passed by both Senators and congressmen.
If they change the current law to favor Indians, then it will be disciminatory to other nationals. Think the other way.
Personally, I don't see any discrimination in the existing law. It so happened that you came from Indian and the law only allows a certain percentage per country.
First and foremost, i must thank everyone from IV, who is working tirelessly to resolve the issues of retrogression in the GC process. As an affected individual I am very grateful that leaders of IV are ready to contribute so much effort for its goals. And even though I do not actively work for the IV agenda, I have contributed money to some IV action items.
I have a question/suggestion regarding the IV agenda. On IV's about page, pt number 2 asserts amongst other things,
The Discriminatory Per-Country Rationing of Green Cards That Exacerbates the Delays.
and further in the same point
We do not allow employers to discriminate hiring based on their nationality or country of origin. Therefore, the employment-based immigration, which is a derivative benefit of employment, should also be free from rationing based on nationality or country of birth.
I am curious to know what is the "legal" strength of these assertions is. Are they just "moral" statements or can the validity of these statements be tested in the legal framework of this country? In other words, my question is what is the constitutionality of the "Per Country Caps" in Employment / Family Based Immrigration procedures.
A lot of Laws and Statutes have been challenged in the Judicial System of USA. And many more are challenged every year. And if the laws are not constitutional then they can be repealed.
I am sure the leaders of IV must have thought about this argument however a quick search of the forums with 'constitutionality' as the search term did not return any results.
IV's efforts to utilize Lobbying to bring about change to alleviate/eliminate retrogression are certainly beneficial. However, if IV has not already considered and eliminated this legal argument, then it should explore whether there is any substance to this approach.
Hence this post. Below are some of the links that might be relevant.
wikipedia article on constitutionality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionality)
wikipedia category on US immigration case law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_immigration_and_naturalizat ion_case_law)
thanks and sincerely,
--soljabhai
You don't have a case. Before laws are signed, lawmakers spend hours and hours or weeks arguing, debating and modying before it is passed by both Senators and congressmen.
If they change the current law to favor Indians, then it will be disciminatory to other nationals. Think the other way.
Personally, I don't see any discrimination in the existing law. It so happened that you came from Indian and the law only allows a certain percentage per country.
kondur_007
07-26 06:04 PM
I dont think the situation is that bleak. What would happen when EB3 ROW is unable to use up all the spillovers from EB2? The excess would go to EB3 I, right?
This is exactly the point which is not clear and therefore, asking for verticle spillover may not benefit EB3 I.
What you are asking for is "verticle spill" till it comes to EB3 ROW and then spill it "horizontally" to EB3 I, then only EB3 I would benefit. (although USCIS did this in the past, there is no logic that can explain it)
If they re-interprete the spill and make it verticle, it will go EB2 ROW -> EB 3 ROW -> EB2 I -> EB3 I (pure verticle spill) ; In this case, EB3 I gets nothing but EB2 I looses with some benefit to EB3 ROW. And remember, verticle spill from ROW will need to go equally to India and China...
At the end of the day, if you look at the big picture, I think horizontal or verticle spills are not likely to make any difference to the backlog of EB3 I. What we need is more visa number. Mechanism (recapture, STEM exemption etc) does not matter. Also we neet to unite and work on getting our agenda in the CIR that is likely to be awakened once elections are over.
This is exactly the point which is not clear and therefore, asking for verticle spillover may not benefit EB3 I.
What you are asking for is "verticle spill" till it comes to EB3 ROW and then spill it "horizontally" to EB3 I, then only EB3 I would benefit. (although USCIS did this in the past, there is no logic that can explain it)
If they re-interprete the spill and make it verticle, it will go EB2 ROW -> EB 3 ROW -> EB2 I -> EB3 I (pure verticle spill) ; In this case, EB3 I gets nothing but EB2 I looses with some benefit to EB3 ROW. And remember, verticle spill from ROW will need to go equally to India and China...
At the end of the day, if you look at the big picture, I think horizontal or verticle spills are not likely to make any difference to the backlog of EB3 I. What we need is more visa number. Mechanism (recapture, STEM exemption etc) does not matter. Also we neet to unite and work on getting our agenda in the CIR that is likely to be awakened once elections are over.
mbawa2574
02-16 08:27 AM
No. I can't understand fairshot and equality when major bodyshops from a certain nationality flood the market here with people from that certain nationality, u keep ignoring that and coming back to the stupid suggestion that it's only because u have more talent
suit urself, anyone who argues with you reasonably, tell them they are wrong and make assumptions about their motives and insult and alienate more members of your organization
good luck
Is this not racism ??
suit urself, anyone who argues with you reasonably, tell them they are wrong and make assumptions about their motives and insult and alienate more members of your organization
good luck
Is this not racism ??
No comments:
Post a Comment