lazycis
12-13 04:22 PM
It does not violate the constitution so we better of concentrating on other issues. The country has a right to regulate foreign relationships as it sees fit. It does not have to treat all countries equally. Some countries are eligible for DV lottery, some not. Also, per-country limits for employment-based visas apply to those who are in the US and to those who are not.
We have to push Congress for changes, not courts. Some laws can and should be challenged, but this is not the case.
We have to push Congress for changes, not courts. Some laws can and should be challenged, but this is not the case.
wallpaper our family wedding america
admin
12-31 07:22 PM
Very good find logiclife. Hope we can get such good points across to our legislators.
nogc_noproblem
07-17 01:02 PM
Friend, as advised (?) by you, I read your other posts in this thread, I could not find the source but I found what you are saying to others.
“This whole thread is speculation
Try to think logically
You should read the INA law clearly.
But if this speculation makes you happy, enjoy!”
You can be very smart of yourself, but don’t think others are idiots and fools. It is up to you agree or disagree with others opinion, but don’t show your "others don't know anything" attitude (“try to think logically”, “read INA law clearly”, “everybody is speculating”) here.
Read my earlier posts for source. Ofcourse it is speculation if you are thinking EB2 will be current in one year :) I would be more than happy if USCIS did that, but try to think logically than expecting miracles to happen. As you said, its a wait-n-watch for results.
“This whole thread is speculation
Try to think logically
You should read the INA law clearly.
But if this speculation makes you happy, enjoy!”
You can be very smart of yourself, but don’t think others are idiots and fools. It is up to you agree or disagree with others opinion, but don’t show your "others don't know anything" attitude (“try to think logically”, “read INA law clearly”, “everybody is speculating”) here.
Read my earlier posts for source. Ofcourse it is speculation if you are thinking EB2 will be current in one year :) I would be more than happy if USCIS did that, but try to think logically than expecting miracles to happen. As you said, its a wait-n-watch for results.
2011 Celeb Style: America Ferrera
Picasa
07-27 03:05 PM
Zimbabwean dollars.:D:D:D
With your attitude, you will not even become millionaire in Zimbabwean dollars.:D:D:D
With your attitude, you will not even become millionaire in Zimbabwean dollars.:D:D:D
more...
Michael chertoff
01-13 11:50 AM
Good Things about IV
1. IV Core does not conduct its business in the forum. They learnt this lesson a long time ago.
2. All their work is done in the donor forum and behind the scenes by volunteers
3. If they feel that any idea is worth pursuing they invite that person (with the idea) behind the scenes and pursue that idea
4. All the work is done by IV members themselves because they are helping themselves
5. IV members are investing time and money to do work which impacts a large number of immigrants
6. That is a professional way to do stuff and i admire the way work is done at IV
Concerns of IV
1. IV always states about the lack of will of people to do something for themselves
2. IV always states that people just comment on forum but do not step forward to do stuff
3. IV always says that people do not donate enough and without donation a grassroot organization will not survive
What IV is doing wrong
1. IV talks about a holistic approach whereby the benefit to EB community will trickle down and once EB2 will become current EB3 will get benefit of spillover
2. IV is assuming EB2 will become current but with the number of indians coming to USA and number of indian students who will graduate from MS courses in USA over the next 5 years EB2I will always be backlogged
3. Plus we are not even talking about EB2 ROW and EB3ROW demand which could go up
4. Supporting the DV 55k bill to US educated GC applicants on the whole looks like a great plan. Sure here are 55k and here are about 150 k GC applicants. 150 - 50 IS 100 K. So if the bill passes we reduce the backlog by 50 k. Now i will am one of the person who will be getting a GC because i am US educated but my opposition to this bill is on principle
5. What IV has to realise is that it is not only IV members specifically but it is a whole lot of non IV members who are EB3 who have been a bigger person in this whole immigration retorgression advocacy scheme of things till now.
How let me explain. We have seen EB3 persons from 2002 who are still waiting for GC and who are not getting spill over visas because EB2 is using up all the spill over visas. So do you see any EB3 now complaining about the rule change supported by IV and made by USCIS whereby EB2 gets spill over visas. NO we do not see any EB3 complaining. That is because EB3 as a whole understands that that rule in the past being interpeted in a wrong way and the current way is the correct interpetation. Sure the old method gave EB3 some extra spill over visa benefit but the new interpetation caused EB3 to dry up compleletly. Now that in itself is against the very nature of self preservation by definition, But EB3 went along for the greater good
What IV can do right
1. Now we have this 55K DV Bill. This is something different from the spillover (which is law and cannot be changed). This is one time oppurtunity to alieviate the sufferings of EB group as a whole. So can IV which is supposed to be talking for the whole EB community do the right thing here and ensure (with advocacy they are so good at) that IV's stand is that 55K visa are given to all GC applicant from retrogressed countries based on oldest priority date first irrespective of EB2 and EB3.
2. The concequence of such a move is that long retrogressed EB applicants will get relief (Which is one of the point IV talks about in their charter)
3. Sure Many US educated applicants from EB2 and EB3 will oppose this move because lets face it, this move impacts their getting GC sooner. And if they behave like that they are in the same category as EB2 guys on this forum who do not entertain any idea which will impact their getting GC soon.
What wil happen if IV does the above
1. The DV 55K bill will NEVER pass in congress. This along with the other bills we have seen will bite the dust because no one in the current economic scenario would like to see more immigrants (US educated or not)
2. The DV 55K bill will fail but IV would have achieved what it has failed to do till now. Get the support of EB3 community which they claim to represent.
Synopsis
How how does this work. This is a suggestion for discussion NOT a diktat to IV core to implement. If IV core does not allow discussion on this (and moderate this because frankly some of your existing advocacy group members and volunteers do not know what a discussion is and come out both fists swinging) then that is IV core perogative. they have that right since this is their system and they worked hard for it, and they believe what they say is right.
One question i do have for all the members who have argued with me here. Have you seen all the discussion i have participated under and my other posts. Please do that before yelling that i was a member since 2006 and freeloader and all that. You need to do this because if i am you enemy (Scounderal, Liad weed, Anti Immgrant, Future USA etc) then don't you think to know your enemy is better.
On a funny flip side ...............................
How will this be treated by the current members
Ohh He is a liar, cheat, sounderrl, absurer, voilent person, free loader, smooch, weed, Anti Immgrant, future USA and other unspeakable things
By the way guys i am a She not a He
Adieu/Ciao
Only one thing I like in this big post,, that is you are not HE you are SHE... we can be friends, you are so nice.
MC
1. IV Core does not conduct its business in the forum. They learnt this lesson a long time ago.
2. All their work is done in the donor forum and behind the scenes by volunteers
3. If they feel that any idea is worth pursuing they invite that person (with the idea) behind the scenes and pursue that idea
4. All the work is done by IV members themselves because they are helping themselves
5. IV members are investing time and money to do work which impacts a large number of immigrants
6. That is a professional way to do stuff and i admire the way work is done at IV
Concerns of IV
1. IV always states about the lack of will of people to do something for themselves
2. IV always states that people just comment on forum but do not step forward to do stuff
3. IV always says that people do not donate enough and without donation a grassroot organization will not survive
What IV is doing wrong
1. IV talks about a holistic approach whereby the benefit to EB community will trickle down and once EB2 will become current EB3 will get benefit of spillover
2. IV is assuming EB2 will become current but with the number of indians coming to USA and number of indian students who will graduate from MS courses in USA over the next 5 years EB2I will always be backlogged
3. Plus we are not even talking about EB2 ROW and EB3ROW demand which could go up
4. Supporting the DV 55k bill to US educated GC applicants on the whole looks like a great plan. Sure here are 55k and here are about 150 k GC applicants. 150 - 50 IS 100 K. So if the bill passes we reduce the backlog by 50 k. Now i will am one of the person who will be getting a GC because i am US educated but my opposition to this bill is on principle
5. What IV has to realise is that it is not only IV members specifically but it is a whole lot of non IV members who are EB3 who have been a bigger person in this whole immigration retorgression advocacy scheme of things till now.
How let me explain. We have seen EB3 persons from 2002 who are still waiting for GC and who are not getting spill over visas because EB2 is using up all the spill over visas. So do you see any EB3 now complaining about the rule change supported by IV and made by USCIS whereby EB2 gets spill over visas. NO we do not see any EB3 complaining. That is because EB3 as a whole understands that that rule in the past being interpeted in a wrong way and the current way is the correct interpetation. Sure the old method gave EB3 some extra spill over visa benefit but the new interpetation caused EB3 to dry up compleletly. Now that in itself is against the very nature of self preservation by definition, But EB3 went along for the greater good
What IV can do right
1. Now we have this 55K DV Bill. This is something different from the spillover (which is law and cannot be changed). This is one time oppurtunity to alieviate the sufferings of EB group as a whole. So can IV which is supposed to be talking for the whole EB community do the right thing here and ensure (with advocacy they are so good at) that IV's stand is that 55K visa are given to all GC applicant from retrogressed countries based on oldest priority date first irrespective of EB2 and EB3.
2. The concequence of such a move is that long retrogressed EB applicants will get relief (Which is one of the point IV talks about in their charter)
3. Sure Many US educated applicants from EB2 and EB3 will oppose this move because lets face it, this move impacts their getting GC sooner. And if they behave like that they are in the same category as EB2 guys on this forum who do not entertain any idea which will impact their getting GC soon.
What wil happen if IV does the above
1. The DV 55K bill will NEVER pass in congress. This along with the other bills we have seen will bite the dust because no one in the current economic scenario would like to see more immigrants (US educated or not)
2. The DV 55K bill will fail but IV would have achieved what it has failed to do till now. Get the support of EB3 community which they claim to represent.
Synopsis
How how does this work. This is a suggestion for discussion NOT a diktat to IV core to implement. If IV core does not allow discussion on this (and moderate this because frankly some of your existing advocacy group members and volunteers do not know what a discussion is and come out both fists swinging) then that is IV core perogative. they have that right since this is their system and they worked hard for it, and they believe what they say is right.
One question i do have for all the members who have argued with me here. Have you seen all the discussion i have participated under and my other posts. Please do that before yelling that i was a member since 2006 and freeloader and all that. You need to do this because if i am you enemy (Scounderal, Liad weed, Anti Immgrant, Future USA etc) then don't you think to know your enemy is better.
On a funny flip side ...............................
How will this be treated by the current members
Ohh He is a liar, cheat, sounderrl, absurer, voilent person, free loader, smooch, weed, Anti Immgrant, future USA and other unspeakable things
By the way guys i am a She not a He
Adieu/Ciao
Only one thing I like in this big post,, that is you are not HE you are SHE... we can be friends, you are so nice.
MC
mbawa2574
02-15 06:49 PM
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
Reality is that you don't want to see Indians and Chinese around you. I am sure IV does not need people like you. IV does not promote nationality and we are against all the bad pracitices of the body shoppers but we don't want someone to label Indians and Chinese in this country product of bodyshopping immigration.
Most of the population are well educated , skilled professionals and labelling them that they are flooding the market is insulting. If you think that you don't have marketable skills and is difficult for you to play due to Indians and Chinese, please feel free not to come back to this website. There are many Anti-Chinese and Anti-India blogs for your agenda. I am not sure whose side you are on and who has planted you here.
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
Reality is that you don't want to see Indians and Chinese around you. I am sure IV does not need people like you. IV does not promote nationality and we are against all the bad pracitices of the body shoppers but we don't want someone to label Indians and Chinese in this country product of bodyshopping immigration.
Most of the population are well educated , skilled professionals and labelling them that they are flooding the market is insulting. If you think that you don't have marketable skills and is difficult for you to play due to Indians and Chinese, please feel free not to come back to this website. There are many Anti-Chinese and Anti-India blogs for your agenda. I am not sure whose side you are on and who has planted you here.
more...
justAnotherFile
07-12 10:15 PM
byeUSA,
can you send your story to pratik, as requested on homepage. I think yours is a compelling story and will help others in IV even if you have already made your decision
can you send your story to pratik, as requested on homepage. I think yours is a compelling story and will help others in IV even if you have already made your decision
2010 our family wedding america
lazycis
02-14 09:19 AM
There are 71 people who have voted for a class action lawsuit.
Has anyone of them contacted Rajiv Khnanna and spent their own $600 and got an anwer? NO.
This is because nobody is serious about this. Everyone wants the other person to spend their money and time. They will only spend their time in writing posts.
I oppose this idea for number of reasons. Firstly people will not become plantiffs. They are scared. USCIS will scruitanize their applications more than anyone. Secondly people will not donate money in thousands of dollars each for it. Unless you can get hundred thousand dollars and above, you cannot go into a class action lawsuit. Thirdly nobody will go and travel on their own money and testify. Forthly, nobody will spend time helping lawyers prepare cases and research. Forthly, class action lawsuits take time and people will disappear after a while. Fifthly nobody will be willing to lead this effort. They will just dump it on IV to lead it and have core spend their time and money into it for them. Sixthly if this fail, they will blame IV for wasting the money and failing in the effort. Seventhly we do not want greencards that bad. If we wanted greencards that bad we all would have written more than 20 thousand letters till now. We should only try to bite as much as we can chew. This is just an overambitious plan and looks good in a post.
Thus I oppose this idea.
internet,
You cannot speak on behalf of other persons. Speak for yourself. Even though I have a GC, I am willing to contribute (monetary, reviewing lawyers briefs, doing legal research). I will not be able to participate as plaintiff as I have a GC.
Has anyone of them contacted Rajiv Khnanna and spent their own $600 and got an anwer? NO.
This is because nobody is serious about this. Everyone wants the other person to spend their money and time. They will only spend their time in writing posts.
I oppose this idea for number of reasons. Firstly people will not become plantiffs. They are scared. USCIS will scruitanize their applications more than anyone. Secondly people will not donate money in thousands of dollars each for it. Unless you can get hundred thousand dollars and above, you cannot go into a class action lawsuit. Thirdly nobody will go and travel on their own money and testify. Forthly, nobody will spend time helping lawyers prepare cases and research. Forthly, class action lawsuits take time and people will disappear after a while. Fifthly nobody will be willing to lead this effort. They will just dump it on IV to lead it and have core spend their time and money into it for them. Sixthly if this fail, they will blame IV for wasting the money and failing in the effort. Seventhly we do not want greencards that bad. If we wanted greencards that bad we all would have written more than 20 thousand letters till now. We should only try to bite as much as we can chew. This is just an overambitious plan and looks good in a post.
Thus I oppose this idea.
internet,
You cannot speak on behalf of other persons. Speak for yourself. Even though I have a GC, I am willing to contribute (monetary, reviewing lawyers briefs, doing legal research). I will not be able to participate as plaintiff as I have a GC.
more...
qvadis
02-13 07:23 PM
No. You are wrong..
202 (e)(3) will not applicable, because of (a)(5).
The third point excempts that ..
(3) 3/ except as provided in subsection (a)(5), the proportion of the visa numbers made available under each of paragraphs (1) through (5) of section 203(b) is equal to the ratio of the total number of visas made available under the respective paragraph to the total number of visas made available under section 203(b).
202(a)(5) was added by AC21!! That's exactly the change that allowed USCIS to give additional visas to over-subscribed countries.
202 (e)(3) will not applicable, because of (a)(5).
The third point excempts that ..
(3) 3/ except as provided in subsection (a)(5), the proportion of the visa numbers made available under each of paragraphs (1) through (5) of section 203(b) is equal to the ratio of the total number of visas made available under the respective paragraph to the total number of visas made available under section 203(b).
202(a)(5) was added by AC21!! That's exactly the change that allowed USCIS to give additional visas to over-subscribed countries.
hair Forest Whitaker vs Carlos
sbvw76
09-23 09:57 PM
Seems to be a fair idea even though I don't qualify. I did a dumbest thing of buying house in 2006 even before apply for the Green card ( though I submitted all required documents in 2004, my corporate company filed only in 2006 waiting for PERM process to stabilize).
I'm still hanging on my house though it lost 27% value with no GC or not even approved 140 ...
I'm still hanging on my house though it lost 27% value with no GC or not even approved 140 ...
more...
vdlrao
07-16 05:11 PM
How many of you think theres a Possibility of Current for EB2 India in either of the Jul/Aug/Sep 2009 bulletins, just like a more than 2 years jump in Aug 2008 bulletin.
hot America Ferrera got married
samay
07-14 06:49 AM
Thank You Samay !!
I was in US from 2000 to 2001 on h1b.(first h1 approval)
Went to india and worked there from 2001 to 2006
On new H1 came to US on 2006
I didnt had the H1b approval copy of first h1 approval(2000 -2001) when I applied for 140. I submitted
only the current one which is from 2006. My 140 is not yet approved.
So I would like to make sure whether h1b approval notice copy during 2000 to 2001 was needed/
will be needed in future.I had submitted 140 during July 07.
Is it needed for any 140 RFE or 485 level ?
Good Day !
Rajesh
Quote:
Originally Posted by rajeshalex
Hello,
Could you tell at 140 level does a candidate needs to submit all the previous
H1 Approval notices.
I couldnt submit my previous 140 approval notice since it was during 2000-2001. How important is the previous H1 B approval notices for a 140 approval ? . I submitted the current approval notice which is from 2006-2009
Rajesh
Hello
We normally submit all the previous H-1B approvals with the I-140 application. I am a bit confused from your post is there a gap in your H-1 B approvals.
__________________
Was your earlier H-1Bapproval mentioned at all in the I-140. If not I would not worry about it. Relax.
I was in US from 2000 to 2001 on h1b.(first h1 approval)
Went to india and worked there from 2001 to 2006
On new H1 came to US on 2006
I didnt had the H1b approval copy of first h1 approval(2000 -2001) when I applied for 140. I submitted
only the current one which is from 2006. My 140 is not yet approved.
So I would like to make sure whether h1b approval notice copy during 2000 to 2001 was needed/
will be needed in future.I had submitted 140 during July 07.
Is it needed for any 140 RFE or 485 level ?
Good Day !
Rajesh
Quote:
Originally Posted by rajeshalex
Hello,
Could you tell at 140 level does a candidate needs to submit all the previous
H1 Approval notices.
I couldnt submit my previous 140 approval notice since it was during 2000-2001. How important is the previous H1 B approval notices for a 140 approval ? . I submitted the current approval notice which is from 2006-2009
Rajesh
Hello
We normally submit all the previous H-1B approvals with the I-140 application. I am a bit confused from your post is there a gap in your H-1 B approvals.
__________________
Was your earlier H-1Bapproval mentioned at all in the I-140. If not I would not worry about it. Relax.
more...
house hot Our Family Wedding (HD
krishna.ahd
02-18 08:38 PM
When the cap is revised, I agree that 'the increase in net population' is one parameter in decision...
But that should not be the determining dominant parameter....
The dominant parameter should be the change in the US demographics and the needs of the US economy...Millions of baby boomers are gonna start retiring soon....The cap has to increase keeping that in mind....
The projections of manpower deficit due to demographic shift are in millions......
If you want to maintain the same standard of living, you have absolutely no option but to import more skilled labor....and lots of it.....
America is barely producing babies at replacement levels and between 2011 to 2032 ...... 77 million baby boomers( people born between 1946 to 1964) would need to retire or phase out involvement in active labor force....
http://www.teamncpa.org/main/news.php?ItemsID=165
Doggone illegal mexicans would not take care of your high end requirements ... That is just fact of life...Now you tell me how much the EB cap should be .....
.
As per the facts first baby boomers will start collecting benefits in 2008 and by 2020 when most boomers are 60+ there will be 2.6 workers paying social security and medicare for every retiree versus 5 workers now
Is there anybody looking at this angle for increasing GC cap/upper limit ??
But that should not be the determining dominant parameter....
The dominant parameter should be the change in the US demographics and the needs of the US economy...Millions of baby boomers are gonna start retiring soon....The cap has to increase keeping that in mind....
The projections of manpower deficit due to demographic shift are in millions......
If you want to maintain the same standard of living, you have absolutely no option but to import more skilled labor....and lots of it.....
America is barely producing babies at replacement levels and between 2011 to 2032 ...... 77 million baby boomers( people born between 1946 to 1964) would need to retire or phase out involvement in active labor force....
http://www.teamncpa.org/main/news.php?ItemsID=165
Doggone illegal mexicans would not take care of your high end requirements ... That is just fact of life...Now you tell me how much the EB cap should be .....
.
As per the facts first baby boomers will start collecting benefits in 2008 and by 2020 when most boomers are 60+ there will be 2.6 workers paying social security and medicare for every retiree versus 5 workers now
Is there anybody looking at this angle for increasing GC cap/upper limit ??
tattoo Fashion Extra: America Ferrera
Macaca
06-26 07:54 PM
The assessment is correct. The Visa Bulletin is published by the 15th. of every month by DOS. So, by July 15, whatever number of applications, USCIS receives, they have to count them and send the numbers to DOS. DOS then have to do their math and come up with August 2007 numbers, but August 2007 Visa Bulletin has to be published by July 15.
DOS allocates GC numbers to USCIS adjustment cases only as the point of approval is reached. DOS can set/move/retrogress PD based on info provided by USCIS about number of cases at point of approval.
USCIS is not able to provide a good estimate of this number because
it can not calculate this number based on USCISs workload, and
it does not know the number of cases DOL will send to them. DOL again can not calculate the number of cases (it will send to USCIS) based on DOLs worload.
The following are from page 35 and beginning of page 36
The key to addressing this management issue at USCIS is to understand the dynamic interplay of priority dates and shifting workloads of three departments, and to know with greater precision and accuracy the size and details of USCIS� workloads.
The tri-agency meetings seek to expand inter-agency communication regarding expected new demands and surges, workflows, and priority dates. During the meetings, there is an examination of the case management systems and data collection processes used to assess workflows through each entity, particularly USCIS.
Although USCIS stated in its 2006 Annual Report Response (at p. 8) that it provides detailed data to DOS, the tri-agency group identified gaps in USCIS� data.
DOS allocates GC numbers to USCIS adjustment cases only as the point of approval is reached. DOS can set/move/retrogress PD based on info provided by USCIS about number of cases at point of approval.
USCIS is not able to provide a good estimate of this number because
it can not calculate this number based on USCISs workload, and
it does not know the number of cases DOL will send to them. DOL again can not calculate the number of cases (it will send to USCIS) based on DOLs worload.
The following are from page 35 and beginning of page 36
The key to addressing this management issue at USCIS is to understand the dynamic interplay of priority dates and shifting workloads of three departments, and to know with greater precision and accuracy the size and details of USCIS� workloads.
The tri-agency meetings seek to expand inter-agency communication regarding expected new demands and surges, workflows, and priority dates. During the meetings, there is an examination of the case management systems and data collection processes used to assess workflows through each entity, particularly USCIS.
Although USCIS stated in its 2006 Annual Report Response (at p. 8) that it provides detailed data to DOS, the tri-agency group identified gaps in USCIS� data.
more...
pictures Of quot;Our Family Weddingquot;
grupak
02-13 02:58 PM
We're all in this crap together, some worse than others... so let's stop with this ROW Vs India & China nonsense. Country quotas are unfair and frankly the entire GC process is unfair and unpredictable... We should aim for solutions that solve this issue in a comprehensive way, not by dividing us even further.
Well said. We are here only because we want to fix the employment-based GC processes. If I could fix the system on my own I wouldn't be hanging around here. Together we want to fix the system so lets propose solutions that helps everyone in IV.
For a start, everyone mail those letters to the President.
Well said. We are here only because we want to fix the employment-based GC processes. If I could fix the system on my own I wouldn't be hanging around here. Together we want to fix the system so lets propose solutions that helps everyone in IV.
For a start, everyone mail those letters to the President.
dresses hot wedding goods, dress for
reachinus
07-28 09:56 PM
I am not saying that the AP cannot be used again, but it cannot be used after the Validity on the AP which is 1 year from the Issue date and the date on the I-94 doesn't have any meaning.
For example
My AP was issued on Oct 18th 2007 and I can use it to travel till Oct 17th 2008. But people are saying that they are issued an I-94 with a date which is 1 year from the date they enter/use the AP.
But my concern is that I was issued an I-94A which doesn't have any date on it. Should I be concerned about that?
AP's are generally issued for multiple trips. I am little confused by your question. Could you please specify why is it that you think that you cannot use the AP again.
For example
My AP was issued on Oct 18th 2007 and I can use it to travel till Oct 17th 2008. But people are saying that they are issued an I-94 with a date which is 1 year from the date they enter/use the AP.
But my concern is that I was issued an I-94A which doesn't have any date on it. Should I be concerned about that?
AP's are generally issued for multiple trips. I am little confused by your question. Could you please specify why is it that you think that you cannot use the AP again.
more...
makeup film #39;Our Family Wedding#39;
ashutrip
06-26 02:11 PM
Hey...No one can predict anything about Aug and Sept. You just have to wait till you get your LC and then check where dates are and file accordingly. There is nothing you can do about it, so relax and don't worry too much.
If it makes you feel better, then people from 2001/2002/2003 are still still in line. You are lucky at least you have hope that you can file 485 if you get your LC in time.
it tough to so relax and don't worry too much when I am aware that there are people from 2001/2002/2003 are still still in line doesnot make me happy but I can feel for these blokes.:( :(
If it makes you feel better, then people from 2001/2002/2003 are still still in line. You are lucky at least you have hope that you can file 485 if you get your LC in time.
it tough to so relax and don't worry too much when I am aware that there are people from 2001/2002/2003 are still still in line doesnot make me happy but I can feel for these blokes.:( :(
girlfriend In America Ferrera#39;s Closet
OLDMONK
07-24 05:54 PM
WOW what can I say? Well spoken!! In a lot of points, I agree with you.
But then let me ask you something - have you been investing back home? Have you been building a house back home? Have you been putting money in a bank account/ shares back home?
Waiting for your answer
BLIB
I do send money because I have a dialysis patient at home for 6 years now. and at this time I don't want to point to the healthcare system at all, but my best wishes that you don't have to go there.
I do have properties and business properties in India from before I came to US. I don't want to make this personal by naming the IT businesses I sold but am sure if you are from 90's and from India you are aware of those names.
I have sold those one by one, and that is another line buddy. Capital Assets Line. IT Enquiry Lines, Company liquidation issues (specially if you were a LTD. company), Commerical Property Tribunals, Service Tax lines, State Tax Issues, Central Sales Tax issues. And god forbid if there is a lawsuit filed.
And yes I am in GC line for 8 years and i dont mind another 2-3 years. This is the Last line hopefully other than immigration line at India every year. (which is painful for Indian Citizens) but easy for PIO's and Non Citizens.
But then let me ask you something - have you been investing back home? Have you been building a house back home? Have you been putting money in a bank account/ shares back home?
Waiting for your answer
BLIB
I do send money because I have a dialysis patient at home for 6 years now. and at this time I don't want to point to the healthcare system at all, but my best wishes that you don't have to go there.
I do have properties and business properties in India from before I came to US. I don't want to make this personal by naming the IT businesses I sold but am sure if you are from 90's and from India you are aware of those names.
I have sold those one by one, and that is another line buddy. Capital Assets Line. IT Enquiry Lines, Company liquidation issues (specially if you were a LTD. company), Commerical Property Tribunals, Service Tax lines, State Tax Issues, Central Sales Tax issues. And god forbid if there is a lawsuit filed.
And yes I am in GC line for 8 years and i dont mind another 2-3 years. This is the Last line hopefully other than immigration line at India every year. (which is painful for Indian Citizens) but easy for PIO's and Non Citizens.
hairstyles our family wedding america
MunnaBhai
06-27 05:55 PM
According to the AILA, approximately 40,000 visas remain in all employment-based categories, other than EW, for FY2007, according to its sources, and that the USCIS has far more than 40,000 adjustment applications in the backlog queue that are ready for approval, not to mention the additional numbers which will be consumed in concular immigrant visa processing. It is thus possible that the cap may reach within a short period in July, even though no one can predict it until after July 2, 2007. The USCIS at this time does not have any policy announced with reference to July 2007 I-485 filings which are filed after certain date in July when the total number is exhausted. However, considering the fact that the USCIS currently rejects the "Other Worker" category I-485 applications even though June 2007 Visa Bulletin show current for certain applicants because the "other worker" category quota was exhausted on June 5, 2007. This raises a serious concern because as we reported earlier today, the USCIS appears to be picking up the speed of processing of backlog I-485 applications in anticipation of flood of July 485 applications. The USCIS hands may be tied, should the EB visa numbers for FY 2007 is exhausted before the end of July.
http://www.immigration-law.com/
http://www.immigration-law.com/
Legal
07-24 07:10 PM
Have some more comments from Atty Ron. Might be interesting to discuss if already not brought up.
"Some thoughts on India E2 movement over the next two months.
More and more, I see people posting messages containing the unspoken assumption that since the Indian E2 cutoff date has moved forward, it is likely to move forward further in the coming months. This is a false hope.
Even with a cutoff date in early 2003, the CIS has sufficient inventory of Indian E2 adjustments on file to use up the remaining inventory of E2 visas for this fiscal year. The reason that the Visa Office advanced the priority date is to move it up to the point where overseas consular posts can take up the slack left by the CIS's inability to close out enough cases and avoid wasting visas this year.
The CIS inventory of pending cases is massive. If there were no quota at all - if everyone were suddenly "current" - and no new cases were filed after today, it would still take the CIS four to five years to close out all of the pending cases that they already have in their inventory.
Overseas consular posts maintain inventories of cases as well. When the priority date for a particular case starts to edge forward and it appears that the applicant may become "current' in the not too distant future, the applicant is told to submit all required supporting documents to the post or the NVC. When this is done, the applicant is reported to the Visa Office as being "documentarily qualified." This means that the case is in a position where an immigrant visa can be issued to the applicant as soon as a visa number becomes available.
The inventory of documentarily qualified cases with current priority dates at a consular post never exceeds that post's ability to process all such cases within sixty days. Consular posts have very high bandwidth processing capabilities. No matter how many cases become current, they are able to process all of them within sixty days.
The reason that the Indian E2 cutoff date has moved forward is that the Visa Office fears that the CIS will not be able to adjudicate enough adjustment of status applications to exhaust the annual quota. They have advanced the cutoff date in order to make more cases overseas eligible for final processing.
This means that overseas consular posts have exhausted their inventories of Indian E2 cases with priority dates earlier than 2006 and the Visa Office had to move the cutoff date forward in order to make more cases eligible to be closed out.
This does not mean that the CIS has closed out all of the pre-2006 cases pending in their inventory. Far from it. When the new fiscal year starts, Indian E2 is likely to retrogress back to late 2002 or early 2003. This is roughly the point reached by the CIS in processing their inventory of pending cases.
Please understand that this is a temporary phenomenon and due entirely to the difference in the processing capabilities of the CIS and the overseas consular posts.
I hope this clarifies matters."
I am curious and have a few questions:
1. What was Ron Gotcher's prediction (if any) BEFORE the Aug bulletin came out??
2. In his long post above, he elaborates on one single theme- to avoid wastage of visa numbers, and since there are some CP cases which could be adjudicated faster, USCIS moved the dates. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING NEW HERE, everyone knows this. He is entirely silent on (a) the ACTUAL number of EB visas available for this fiscal year, (b) spillover from unused FB quota
3. He is entirely silent on vertical spill over policy changing to horizontal spill over policy. Even without spillover, some minimum numbers will be available in October for EB2-I from the new fiscal year's quota.
4. He is not giving any credible explanation on why the dates will move back to 2002-3 despite declaring there is a massive inventory? What are the numbers he has on this massive inventory? If there is such a massive inventory of pending EB-2 cases, and every one knows this, no one will be speculating like this.
"Some thoughts on India E2 movement over the next two months.
More and more, I see people posting messages containing the unspoken assumption that since the Indian E2 cutoff date has moved forward, it is likely to move forward further in the coming months. This is a false hope.
Even with a cutoff date in early 2003, the CIS has sufficient inventory of Indian E2 adjustments on file to use up the remaining inventory of E2 visas for this fiscal year. The reason that the Visa Office advanced the priority date is to move it up to the point where overseas consular posts can take up the slack left by the CIS's inability to close out enough cases and avoid wasting visas this year.
The CIS inventory of pending cases is massive. If there were no quota at all - if everyone were suddenly "current" - and no new cases were filed after today, it would still take the CIS four to five years to close out all of the pending cases that they already have in their inventory.
Overseas consular posts maintain inventories of cases as well. When the priority date for a particular case starts to edge forward and it appears that the applicant may become "current' in the not too distant future, the applicant is told to submit all required supporting documents to the post or the NVC. When this is done, the applicant is reported to the Visa Office as being "documentarily qualified." This means that the case is in a position where an immigrant visa can be issued to the applicant as soon as a visa number becomes available.
The inventory of documentarily qualified cases with current priority dates at a consular post never exceeds that post's ability to process all such cases within sixty days. Consular posts have very high bandwidth processing capabilities. No matter how many cases become current, they are able to process all of them within sixty days.
The reason that the Indian E2 cutoff date has moved forward is that the Visa Office fears that the CIS will not be able to adjudicate enough adjustment of status applications to exhaust the annual quota. They have advanced the cutoff date in order to make more cases overseas eligible for final processing.
This means that overseas consular posts have exhausted their inventories of Indian E2 cases with priority dates earlier than 2006 and the Visa Office had to move the cutoff date forward in order to make more cases eligible to be closed out.
This does not mean that the CIS has closed out all of the pre-2006 cases pending in their inventory. Far from it. When the new fiscal year starts, Indian E2 is likely to retrogress back to late 2002 or early 2003. This is roughly the point reached by the CIS in processing their inventory of pending cases.
Please understand that this is a temporary phenomenon and due entirely to the difference in the processing capabilities of the CIS and the overseas consular posts.
I hope this clarifies matters."
I am curious and have a few questions:
1. What was Ron Gotcher's prediction (if any) BEFORE the Aug bulletin came out??
2. In his long post above, he elaborates on one single theme- to avoid wastage of visa numbers, and since there are some CP cases which could be adjudicated faster, USCIS moved the dates. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING NEW HERE, everyone knows this. He is entirely silent on (a) the ACTUAL number of EB visas available for this fiscal year, (b) spillover from unused FB quota
3. He is entirely silent on vertical spill over policy changing to horizontal spill over policy. Even without spillover, some minimum numbers will be available in October for EB2-I from the new fiscal year's quota.
4. He is not giving any credible explanation on why the dates will move back to 2002-3 despite declaring there is a massive inventory? What are the numbers he has on this massive inventory? If there is such a massive inventory of pending EB-2 cases, and every one knows this, no one will be speculating like this.
ronhira
01-13 04:34 PM
IV already has easy, non controversial provisions that takes care of all.
1) Recapture all lost visas.
2) NO Country caps
3) Do not count dependants.
Just these 3 will make all categories current.
so what's the problem..... y don't iv get these provisions done? what r we waiting for?
1) Recapture all lost visas.
2) NO Country caps
3) Do not count dependants.
Just these 3 will make all categories current.
so what's the problem..... y don't iv get these provisions done? what r we waiting for?
