desi3933
03-11 11:12 AM
See here this guy is also saying the same thing what my lawyer has predicted.
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?p=28881#post28881
This is what Ron has said (link provided by you)
--------
I am just speculating, but it appears that the CIS has decided to concentrate on EB3 AOS cases and is trying to use up as much of the quota as possible there. At the same time, the State Department is slowly advancing the China/India EB2 cutoff dates to try to use up numbers there.
-------------
Two things -
2. EB3 are being approved so use to use all available quota for EB3
2. How slowly advancing for eb2 means current to you?
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?p=28881#post28881
This is what Ron has said (link provided by you)
--------
I am just speculating, but it appears that the CIS has decided to concentrate on EB3 AOS cases and is trying to use up as much of the quota as possible there. At the same time, the State Department is slowly advancing the China/India EB2 cutoff dates to try to use up numbers there.
-------------
Two things -
2. EB3 are being approved so use to use all available quota for EB3
2. How slowly advancing for eb2 means current to you?
wallpaper American Idol judge Jennifer
imh1b
03-16 02:47 PM
There is no wastage. Just because people are not getting green cards does not mean wastage. Show me where in the bulletin or official document you can see wastage.
alterego
07-04 08:31 PM
Everyone blaming CIS/DOS needs to understand some basics behind this mess. Before going to conclude anything, first, one should read all the ombudsman reports for last 3 or 4 years. Former INS or current USCIS’s functions and operations were not questionable and not known to public till ombudsman office was established. Ombudsman has helped customers and keep helping to improve efficiency of CIS. Ombudsman main concern (or goal) have been over the 4 years are
1. Primarily reducing backlogs in any application type particularly 485 and timely approval of any application.
2. Abolish the need for interim benefits like EAD, AP etc. If they approve 485 in 6 months, then most of us do not require EAD and AP.
3. Reduce the wastage of EB visas, as unused EB visas can not be carried over to next year (use it or lose it). Since 1992, about 200,000 EB visas were lost permanently. In 2003 alone, they issued only 64,000 EB visas and lost 88,000.
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Now lets come to July Visa bulletin mess.
Because of tight holding of visa cutoff dates for EB3 and EB2 for the first 8 months of 2007 (From Oct 2006 to May 2007) USCIS approved only 66,000 485s. For the next 4 months they have about 60K to 70K numbers available. If they approve the pending 485s with slower speed or old cut off dates, there is a potential estimated loss of 40,000 EB visas by Sep 2007. Thats why, based on ombudsman recommendation, DOS moved considerably the cut off date for June. When they took inventory in May, there are about 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications were pending due to non-availability of visa numbers. The “documentarily qualified 485 applications” mean the application filed long time back and processed by USCIS and cleared the FBI name and criminal check, and found eligible for green card. Apart from 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications, there is thousands of 485 applications (documentarily not yet qualified) pending due to name check. When DOS checked with USCIS they found only 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications (in all EB categories put together) are pending. However, the available visas are more than 40,000 (60to 70K). Then they made with out consulting properly with USCIS they made “current” for all EB categories. This is how they determine “current” or “over-subscribed” and how they establish cutoff dates.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered “Current.”
Whenever the total of documentarily qualified applicants in a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for the particular month, the category is considered to be “oversubscribed” and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories “current” for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories “current” ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of “current” there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making “current” for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as “current” in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
Excellent analysis and reccomendations. I feel that a visa number should be assigned at the point of 485 filing. If there is a problem it can be returned to the pool. That will be the least disruptive way to allot numbers in a timely fashion. In the end, that is likely to be the change that will come out of this.
This way, it will offer prospective applicants a more clear viewpoint of what they are up against when they consider their immigration options. i.e if you know you will have to wait 10 yrs to file an AOS even if you have an approved immigrant petition ala the family based immigrants, your plans would be different. You might not feel the wait worthwhile or even if you do, you do it fully aware of the consequences, 10 yrs exploitative employer on h1b etc.
If you notice, the level of hubris and cry is less in family based immigration even though the waits are longer. Atleast they know before they apply!
Your last point about a visa recapture is on the money. It is the least disruptive and easiest of the possible changes for current EB applicants in the current hostile atmosphere. It comes across as a rectification of USCIS inefficiency rather than a request for more immigration, which the public has clearly rejected at this time. If we can get 100-150K visas recaptured, this will greatly help EVERYONE in the EB queue for various reasons. It will buy us the 1-2 yrs needed before immigration is seriously addressed again. It will help those waiting to file 485 to file, those in 485 to have a hope to get out etc. It will help heavily retrogressed countries to keep getting more visas than the annual caps etc. I think that is something everyone can agree on as well.
1. Primarily reducing backlogs in any application type particularly 485 and timely approval of any application.
2. Abolish the need for interim benefits like EAD, AP etc. If they approve 485 in 6 months, then most of us do not require EAD and AP.
3. Reduce the wastage of EB visas, as unused EB visas can not be carried over to next year (use it or lose it). Since 1992, about 200,000 EB visas were lost permanently. In 2003 alone, they issued only 64,000 EB visas and lost 88,000.
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Now lets come to July Visa bulletin mess.
Because of tight holding of visa cutoff dates for EB3 and EB2 for the first 8 months of 2007 (From Oct 2006 to May 2007) USCIS approved only 66,000 485s. For the next 4 months they have about 60K to 70K numbers available. If they approve the pending 485s with slower speed or old cut off dates, there is a potential estimated loss of 40,000 EB visas by Sep 2007. Thats why, based on ombudsman recommendation, DOS moved considerably the cut off date for June. When they took inventory in May, there are about 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications were pending due to non-availability of visa numbers. The “documentarily qualified 485 applications” mean the application filed long time back and processed by USCIS and cleared the FBI name and criminal check, and found eligible for green card. Apart from 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications, there is thousands of 485 applications (documentarily not yet qualified) pending due to name check. When DOS checked with USCIS they found only 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications (in all EB categories put together) are pending. However, the available visas are more than 40,000 (60to 70K). Then they made with out consulting properly with USCIS they made “current” for all EB categories. This is how they determine “current” or “over-subscribed” and how they establish cutoff dates.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered “Current.”
Whenever the total of documentarily qualified applicants in a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for the particular month, the category is considered to be “oversubscribed” and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories “current” for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories “current” ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of “current” there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making “current” for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as “current” in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
Excellent analysis and reccomendations. I feel that a visa number should be assigned at the point of 485 filing. If there is a problem it can be returned to the pool. That will be the least disruptive way to allot numbers in a timely fashion. In the end, that is likely to be the change that will come out of this.
This way, it will offer prospective applicants a more clear viewpoint of what they are up against when they consider their immigration options. i.e if you know you will have to wait 10 yrs to file an AOS even if you have an approved immigrant petition ala the family based immigrants, your plans would be different. You might not feel the wait worthwhile or even if you do, you do it fully aware of the consequences, 10 yrs exploitative employer on h1b etc.
If you notice, the level of hubris and cry is less in family based immigration even though the waits are longer. Atleast they know before they apply!
Your last point about a visa recapture is on the money. It is the least disruptive and easiest of the possible changes for current EB applicants in the current hostile atmosphere. It comes across as a rectification of USCIS inefficiency rather than a request for more immigration, which the public has clearly rejected at this time. If we can get 100-150K visas recaptured, this will greatly help EVERYONE in the EB queue for various reasons. It will buy us the 1-2 yrs needed before immigration is seriously addressed again. It will help those waiting to file 485 to file, those in 485 to have a hope to get out etc. It will help heavily retrogressed countries to keep getting more visas than the annual caps etc. I think that is something everyone can agree on as well.
2011 Jennifer Lopez
user1205
08-15 05:38 PM
The spill over goes from EB2 ROW to EB3 ROW to EB2 India to EB3 India .. at least that's how some people explained it.
Also I'm pretty sure country quota of 7% is for all EB categories combined.
I guess the logic of USCIS is beyond logic and rules.
Also I'm pretty sure country quota of 7% is for all EB categories combined.
I guess the logic of USCIS is beyond logic and rules.
more...
sroyc
07-11 04:14 PM
I posted this in another thread.
There could be two reasons for this huge forward movement for EB2.
1) They want to minimize wastage by making more visas available for CP.
2) There was some heartburn among EB2 China applicants when their PD was set to April 2004. Since there are a lot more EB2 India applicants with PD's earlier than that, they felt that most of the EB2-ROW spillover would go to India. Moving the dates forward to 2006 would ensure that EB2 China gets a decent share of the spillover.
There could be two reasons for this huge forward movement for EB2.
1) They want to minimize wastage by making more visas available for CP.
2) There was some heartburn among EB2 China applicants when their PD was set to April 2004. Since there are a lot more EB2 India applicants with PD's earlier than that, they felt that most of the EB2-ROW spillover would go to India. Moving the dates forward to 2006 would ensure that EB2 China gets a decent share of the spillover.
GC_ASP
03-18 05:28 PM
This is the post from Ron:
I have to confess error and make a correction. The AC21 legislation changed things far more that I suspected and changed the allocation process from what I had learned previously. In further corresondence with the Visa Office, I've learned that I was wrong about how numbers are moved from worldwide to single state allocations. The following is a direct quote:
Quote:
Employment First Preference example: Annual limit 40,000 - (expected) 25,000 ("rest of world") - 3,300 (China limit) - 3,300 (India limit) = 8,400 unused numbers. Those 8,400 numbers could be made available to China/India applicants without regard to their normal 3,300 per-country limit for that category. But those extra numbers would need to be made available to China/India applicants on an equal basis, and in doing so making sure that the additional number use would not result in the Worldwide annual limit being exceeded. Thus, the same cut-off date for each country since the extra numbers must be made available in priority date order without regard to country.
I apologize for the confusion generated by my earlier remarks
So whatever said in the visa bulletin makes sense.
I have to confess error and make a correction. The AC21 legislation changed things far more that I suspected and changed the allocation process from what I had learned previously. In further corresondence with the Visa Office, I've learned that I was wrong about how numbers are moved from worldwide to single state allocations. The following is a direct quote:
Quote:
Employment First Preference example: Annual limit 40,000 - (expected) 25,000 ("rest of world") - 3,300 (China limit) - 3,300 (India limit) = 8,400 unused numbers. Those 8,400 numbers could be made available to China/India applicants without regard to their normal 3,300 per-country limit for that category. But those extra numbers would need to be made available to China/India applicants on an equal basis, and in doing so making sure that the additional number use would not result in the Worldwide annual limit being exceeded. Thus, the same cut-off date for each country since the extra numbers must be made available in priority date order without regard to country.
I apologize for the confusion generated by my earlier remarks
So whatever said in the visa bulletin makes sense.
more...
ItsLife
06-10 09:34 PM
Incorrect. You have to submit proof of employment. Basically a letter from employer. If you are unemployed that that will raise a red flag and you cannot renew your EAD anyways. So current and future employment letter is a must for getting EAD. Sometimes they even ask you for salary slips if they suspect your employment. In this proposed amendment the employer also has an obligation to record layoffs and inform government. That makes it very tough for EAD guys to renew their EADs. Even if you are not working for the same company that filed your EAD, USCIS record can show there were layoffs and your applications will be in trouble. Expect lot of RFE and denials. Remember AC21 denials last year?
-----
Once you get your EAD and move on you dont have to worry about this stupid memo. Anyone who is trying to fool you is scaring you including this stupid eastIndia. Dont spread false rumours.
-----
Once you get your EAD and move on you dont have to worry about this stupid memo. Anyone who is trying to fool you is scaring you including this stupid eastIndia. Dont spread false rumours.
2010 idolmar To jennifer lopez
sathishav
02-18 09:24 AM
Guys,
1. I live in Cary and planning to drive to DC on Apr 04/05. Open to car pool.
2. I just came across this forum and made a small $50 donation. ( More later on how things work out) . I still don't have access to Donor forums. I did mail StarSun my unique#.
inputs appreciated.
1. I live in Cary and planning to drive to DC on Apr 04/05. Open to car pool.
2. I just came across this forum and made a small $50 donation. ( More later on how things work out) . I still don't have access to Donor forums. I did mail StarSun my unique#.
inputs appreciated.
more...
sheela
10-16 05:43 PM
I agree we need to do something big to end never-ending regression.
Let us organise:
"WORK-ROUND-THE-CLOCK non-stop for 24 hours"
This will generate lot of interest in media for the hard-working immigrant community
It will get us support from our Employers/Managers & hurt none
It is easy to organise at institution level- be it University, Hospitals/Corporate sector or R&D. I believe participation & effect will be much more than we expect. With little publicity -It may become a news of the day
I tell you what= during our doctoral studies at a prestigious institute in india. we did this and it really worked
WE can do some polling here and select a date for this event. I may say: Let us start this non-stop event a day-before THANKSGIVING DAY and end on the morning of thanksgiving day.
-Someone gave me RED for this posting with NO comments-
I wish that educated moron could come in open to discuss the alternative approaches. with a issues like this probably we need mltiple approaches to get our msg clear.
Let us organise:
"WORK-ROUND-THE-CLOCK non-stop for 24 hours"
This will generate lot of interest in media for the hard-working immigrant community
It will get us support from our Employers/Managers & hurt none
It is easy to organise at institution level- be it University, Hospitals/Corporate sector or R&D. I believe participation & effect will be much more than we expect. With little publicity -It may become a news of the day
I tell you what= during our doctoral studies at a prestigious institute in india. we did this and it really worked
WE can do some polling here and select a date for this event. I may say: Let us start this non-stop event a day-before THANKSGIVING DAY and end on the morning of thanksgiving day.
-Someone gave me RED for this posting with NO comments-
I wish that educated moron could come in open to discuss the alternative approaches. with a issues like this probably we need mltiple approaches to get our msg clear.
hair American Idol judge Jennifer
Munna Bhai
12-26 06:50 PM
:confused:
more...
chanduv23
11-11 03:44 PM
I am not sure what lobbying efforts would do for us, haven't worked so far...In my opinion we need more media visibility which makes politicians to take notice of us. In these troubled times they are open to any kind of ideas that would help the housing market.
Just show the real numbers to the media -
Approx 0.5 million people (well educated with decent earnings)
Atleast 50 to 60% of these people could potentially buy houses if immigration related uncertainities are gone
Potentially quarter of million buyers for houses, that is a lot!!
I leave it up to IV core to followup on these ideas. I repeat, as I have done so many times, it is all about marketing + media presence. We won the July 2007 visa bulletin battle because of adverse media reaction to the state department. Grass roots stuff is all good, but no one will ever notice it.
Please come up with ideas. Remember - IV core looks at all the posts and get ideas from the forums. You may want to start a thread saying - Lets all put our constructive thoughts about moving ahead with Obama administration here. People can posts their ideas, plans, implementations, strategies ...... and we can all discuss.
Rajuram - your concern is valid and basically what is happening is - IV now needs some dedicated new generation members who can make a difference. thats how IV has been working from the beginnibg, people come and go - so do admins.
You can help in this way by opening a thread to share new ideas and strategies.
Just show the real numbers to the media -
Approx 0.5 million people (well educated with decent earnings)
Atleast 50 to 60% of these people could potentially buy houses if immigration related uncertainities are gone
Potentially quarter of million buyers for houses, that is a lot!!
I leave it up to IV core to followup on these ideas. I repeat, as I have done so many times, it is all about marketing + media presence. We won the July 2007 visa bulletin battle because of adverse media reaction to the state department. Grass roots stuff is all good, but no one will ever notice it.
Please come up with ideas. Remember - IV core looks at all the posts and get ideas from the forums. You may want to start a thread saying - Lets all put our constructive thoughts about moving ahead with Obama administration here. People can posts their ideas, plans, implementations, strategies ...... and we can all discuss.
Rajuram - your concern is valid and basically what is happening is - IV now needs some dedicated new generation members who can make a difference. thats how IV has been working from the beginnibg, people come and go - so do admins.
You can help in this way by opening a thread to share new ideas and strategies.
hot jennifer lopez american idol
mallu
02-16 03:00 PM
2006 census
Total population of India,china, mexico and Philipines = about 40 % of world population
India - 17% of world Population
China- 20% of world population
Mexico- 1.7
Phillipines-1.3 %
------------
Ttl 40 % of world population.
so theres a reason behind this quota. Its not divide and rule.
Excluding US (4.3) , ICMP Still comprise of 35.7 % of world total
What is the % of chinese, Indians in USA ?
Total population of India,china, mexico and Philipines = about 40 % of world population
India - 17% of world Population
China- 20% of world population
Mexico- 1.7
Phillipines-1.3 %
------------
Ttl 40 % of world population.
so theres a reason behind this quota. Its not divide and rule.
Excluding US (4.3) , ICMP Still comprise of 35.7 % of world total
What is the % of chinese, Indians in USA ?
more...
house Jennifer Lopez: “American
mmk123
06-10 04:06 PM
done. thanks!
tattoo american idol jennifer lopez hairstyles.
gc_bucs
02-18 04:33 PM
Not sure where you read that H1B would be eliminated totally. It does mention Elimination of H-1B Classification for Fashion Models
Below is the text
TITLE VII--EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRATIONCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 701. UNFAIR IMMIGRATION-RELATED EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES.
Section 274B (8 U.S.C. 1324b) is amended--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(1) in subsection (a)(5)--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(A) by amending the paragraph heading to read �Prohibition of Intimidation, Retaliation, or Unlawful Discrimination in Employment�;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(B) by moving the text down and to the right 2 ems;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(C) by inserting before such text the following: �(A) IN GENERAL- �; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(D) by adding at the end the following:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
�(B) FEDERAL LABOR OR EMPLOYMENT LAWS- It is an unfair employment practice for any employer to directly or indirectly threaten any individual with removal or any other adverse consequences pertaining to that individual�s immigration status or employment benefits for the purpose of intimidating, pressuring, or coercing any such individual not to exercise any right protected by State or Federal labor or employment law (including section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 157)), or for the purpose of retaliating against any such individual for having exercised or having stated an intention to exercise any such right.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
�(C) DISCRIMINATION BASED ON IMMIGRATION STATUS- It is an unfair employment practice for any employer, except to the extent specifically authorized or required by law, to discriminate in any term or condition of employment against any individual employed by such employer on the basis of such individual�s immigration status.�; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) in subsection (c)(2), by adding at the end the following: �The Special Counsel shall not disclose to the Secretary of Homeland Security or any other government agency or employee, and shall not cause to be published in a manner that discloses to the Secretary of Homeland Security or any other government agency or employee, any information obtained by the Special Counsel in any manner concerning the immigration status of any individual who has filed a charge under this section, or the identity of any individual or entity that is a party or witness to a proceedings brought pursuant to such charge. The Secretary of Homeland Security may not rely, in whole or in part, in any enforcement action or removal proceeding, upon any information obtained as a result of the filing or prosecution of an unfair immigration-related employment practice charge. For purposes of this paragraph, the term �Special Counsel� includes individuals formerly appointed to the position of Special Counsel and any current or former employee of the office of the Special Counsel. Whoever knowingly uses, publishes, or permits information to be used in violation of this paragraph shall be fined not more than $10,000.�.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 702. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR TASK FORCE.
The Secretary of Labor, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall conduct a national study of American workplaces to determine the causes, extent, circumstances, and consequences, of exploitation of undocumented alien workers by their employers. As part of this study, the Secretary of Labor shall create a plan for targeted review of Federal labor law enforcement in industries with a substantial immigrant workforce, for the purpose of identifying, monitoring, and deterring frequent or egregious violators of wage and hour, antidiscrimination, National Labor Relations Act, and workplace safety and health requirements. Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor shall submit to the Congress a report describing the results of the study and the Secretary�s recommendations based on the study.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 703. RECRUITMENT OF AMERICAN WORKERS.
Section 214 is amended--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(1) by redesignating subsections (m) (as added by section 105 of Public Law 106-313), (n) (as added by section 107(e) of Public Law 106-386), (o) (as added by section 1513(c) of Public Law 106-386), (o) (as added by section 1102(b) of the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act), and (p) (as added by section 1503(b) of the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act) as subsections (n), (o), (p), (q), and (r), respectively; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) by adding at the end the following:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
�(s)(1) No petition to accord employment status under the nonimmigrant classifications described in sections 101(a)(15)(E)(iii) and (H) shall be granted in the absence of an affidavit from the petitioner describing the efforts that were made to recruit an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence or a citizen of the United States before resorting to a petition to obtain a foreign employee. The recruitment efforts must have included substantial attempts to find employees in minority communities. Recruitment efforts in minority communities should include at least one of the following, if appropriate for the employment being advertised:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
�(A) Advertise the availability of the job opportunity for which the employer is seeking a worker in local newspapers in the labor market that is likely to be patronized by a potential worker for at least 5 consecutive days.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
�(B) Undertake efforts to advertise the availability of the job opportunity for which the employer is seeking a worker through advertisements in public transportation systems.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
�(C) To the extent permitted by local laws and regulations, engage in recruitment activities in secondary schools, recreation centers, community centers, and other places throughout the communities within 50 miles of the job site that serve minorities.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
�(2)(A) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall impose a 10 percent surcharge on all fees collected for petitions to accord employment status and shall use these funds to establish an employment training program which will include unemployed workers in the United States who need to be trained or retrained. The purpose of this program shall be to increase the number of lawful permanent residents and citizens of the United States who are available for employment in the occupations that are the subjects of such petitions. At least 50 percent of the funds generated by this provision must be used to train American workers in rural and inner-city areas.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
�(B) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall reserve and make available to the Secretary of Labor a portion of the funds collected under this paragraph. Such funds shall be used by the Secretary of Labor to establish an �Office to Preserve American Jobs� within the Department of Labor. The purpose of this office shall be to establish policies intended to ensure that employers in the United States will hire available workers in the United States before resorting to foreign labor, giving substantial emphasis to hiring minority workers in the United States.�.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 1403. NONIMMIGRANT CATEGORY FOR FASHION MODELS.
(a) Elimination of H-1B Classification for Fashion Models- Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b)) is amended--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(1) by striking �or as a fashion model�; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) by striking �or, in the case of a fashion model, is of distinguished merit and ability�.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(b) New Classification- Section 101(a)(15)(O) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(O)) is amended--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(1) in clause (iii), by striking �clause (i) or (ii)� and inserting �clause (i), (ii), or (iii)� and by redesignating clause (iii) as clause (iv); andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) by inserting after clause (ii) the following new clause:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
�(iii) is a fashion model who is of distinguished merit and ability and who is seeking to enter the United States temporarily to perform fashion modeling services that involve events or productions which have a distinguished reputation or that are performed for an organization or establishment that has a distinguished reputation for, or a record of, utilizing prominent modeling talent; or�.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(c) Effective Date and Implementation-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h264/show
This bill is ending H1B for sure, but how will people get EB when there is no h1B or H1B renewal to wait for EB.
Please add your views about this bill.
Also, is there a IL chapter for IV?
Below is the text
TITLE VII--EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRATIONCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 701. UNFAIR IMMIGRATION-RELATED EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES.
Section 274B (8 U.S.C. 1324b) is amended--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(1) in subsection (a)(5)--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(A) by amending the paragraph heading to read �Prohibition of Intimidation, Retaliation, or Unlawful Discrimination in Employment�;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(B) by moving the text down and to the right 2 ems;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(C) by inserting before such text the following: �(A) IN GENERAL- �; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(D) by adding at the end the following:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
�(B) FEDERAL LABOR OR EMPLOYMENT LAWS- It is an unfair employment practice for any employer to directly or indirectly threaten any individual with removal or any other adverse consequences pertaining to that individual�s immigration status or employment benefits for the purpose of intimidating, pressuring, or coercing any such individual not to exercise any right protected by State or Federal labor or employment law (including section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 157)), or for the purpose of retaliating against any such individual for having exercised or having stated an intention to exercise any such right.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
�(C) DISCRIMINATION BASED ON IMMIGRATION STATUS- It is an unfair employment practice for any employer, except to the extent specifically authorized or required by law, to discriminate in any term or condition of employment against any individual employed by such employer on the basis of such individual�s immigration status.�; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) in subsection (c)(2), by adding at the end the following: �The Special Counsel shall not disclose to the Secretary of Homeland Security or any other government agency or employee, and shall not cause to be published in a manner that discloses to the Secretary of Homeland Security or any other government agency or employee, any information obtained by the Special Counsel in any manner concerning the immigration status of any individual who has filed a charge under this section, or the identity of any individual or entity that is a party or witness to a proceedings brought pursuant to such charge. The Secretary of Homeland Security may not rely, in whole or in part, in any enforcement action or removal proceeding, upon any information obtained as a result of the filing or prosecution of an unfair immigration-related employment practice charge. For purposes of this paragraph, the term �Special Counsel� includes individuals formerly appointed to the position of Special Counsel and any current or former employee of the office of the Special Counsel. Whoever knowingly uses, publishes, or permits information to be used in violation of this paragraph shall be fined not more than $10,000.�.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 702. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR TASK FORCE.
The Secretary of Labor, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall conduct a national study of American workplaces to determine the causes, extent, circumstances, and consequences, of exploitation of undocumented alien workers by their employers. As part of this study, the Secretary of Labor shall create a plan for targeted review of Federal labor law enforcement in industries with a substantial immigrant workforce, for the purpose of identifying, monitoring, and deterring frequent or egregious violators of wage and hour, antidiscrimination, National Labor Relations Act, and workplace safety and health requirements. Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor shall submit to the Congress a report describing the results of the study and the Secretary�s recommendations based on the study.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 703. RECRUITMENT OF AMERICAN WORKERS.
Section 214 is amended--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(1) by redesignating subsections (m) (as added by section 105 of Public Law 106-313), (n) (as added by section 107(e) of Public Law 106-386), (o) (as added by section 1513(c) of Public Law 106-386), (o) (as added by section 1102(b) of the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act), and (p) (as added by section 1503(b) of the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act) as subsections (n), (o), (p), (q), and (r), respectively; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) by adding at the end the following:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
�(s)(1) No petition to accord employment status under the nonimmigrant classifications described in sections 101(a)(15)(E)(iii) and (H) shall be granted in the absence of an affidavit from the petitioner describing the efforts that were made to recruit an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence or a citizen of the United States before resorting to a petition to obtain a foreign employee. The recruitment efforts must have included substantial attempts to find employees in minority communities. Recruitment efforts in minority communities should include at least one of the following, if appropriate for the employment being advertised:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
�(A) Advertise the availability of the job opportunity for which the employer is seeking a worker in local newspapers in the labor market that is likely to be patronized by a potential worker for at least 5 consecutive days.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
�(B) Undertake efforts to advertise the availability of the job opportunity for which the employer is seeking a worker through advertisements in public transportation systems.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
�(C) To the extent permitted by local laws and regulations, engage in recruitment activities in secondary schools, recreation centers, community centers, and other places throughout the communities within 50 miles of the job site that serve minorities.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
�(2)(A) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall impose a 10 percent surcharge on all fees collected for petitions to accord employment status and shall use these funds to establish an employment training program which will include unemployed workers in the United States who need to be trained or retrained. The purpose of this program shall be to increase the number of lawful permanent residents and citizens of the United States who are available for employment in the occupations that are the subjects of such petitions. At least 50 percent of the funds generated by this provision must be used to train American workers in rural and inner-city areas.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
�(B) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall reserve and make available to the Secretary of Labor a portion of the funds collected under this paragraph. Such funds shall be used by the Secretary of Labor to establish an �Office to Preserve American Jobs� within the Department of Labor. The purpose of this office shall be to establish policies intended to ensure that employers in the United States will hire available workers in the United States before resorting to foreign labor, giving substantial emphasis to hiring minority workers in the United States.�.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 1403. NONIMMIGRANT CATEGORY FOR FASHION MODELS.
(a) Elimination of H-1B Classification for Fashion Models- Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b)) is amended--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(1) by striking �or as a fashion model�; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) by striking �or, in the case of a fashion model, is of distinguished merit and ability�.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(b) New Classification- Section 101(a)(15)(O) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(O)) is amended--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(1) in clause (iii), by striking �clause (i) or (ii)� and inserting �clause (i), (ii), or (iii)� and by redesignating clause (iii) as clause (iv); andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) by inserting after clause (ii) the following new clause:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
�(iii) is a fashion model who is of distinguished merit and ability and who is seeking to enter the United States temporarily to perform fashion modeling services that involve events or productions which have a distinguished reputation or that are performed for an organization or establishment that has a distinguished reputation for, or a record of, utilizing prominent modeling talent; or�.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(c) Effective Date and Implementation-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h264/show
This bill is ending H1B for sure, but how will people get EB when there is no h1B or H1B renewal to wait for EB.
Please add your views about this bill.
Also, is there a IL chapter for IV?
more...
pictures american idol jennifer lopez
p_kumar
02-21 11:31 AM
thanks for your responses. its just like stock market. who knows what will happen.
dresses hairstyles Jennifer Lopez:
waitingGC
01-16 06:21 PM
I just got the word from our treasurer that the IRS has approved Immigration Voice as a non-profit organization of 501 (C) (4) type.
Until now, it was pending approval. Now Immigration Voice is a non-profit for sure and this means that we do not pay taxes on the income. This also means that no volunteers can get paid compensations for the work done.
Immigration Voice will file the tax return as a non-profit and hopefully, that will remove doubts from some members/visitors that all the money is spent only on advocacy(lobbying) and website maintenance and no one is personally profiting from this effort.
This is a big relief for us and now its time to file taxes.
I actually don't think this is the main concern of many people who have not contributed. I have talked with many friends who got stuck with their GC applications regarding IV and urged them to contribute. However, not many of them were very passionate about this. They just simply believed that they could not achieve their GCs faster with IV's effort than without. $20 per month is not a big deal for them. But without any confidence and hope, they did not even want to bother to register and contribute. Most of my friends are EB2 with PD 2004 or later. Some who have filed 485s see no sign for SKIL being passed and are fine with their APs and EADs. Those who have not filed their 485 truly believe that they could file their 485s in about 2 years and got used to this waiting.
So I think maybe we can let people know what IV has achieved in the past one year(not just how many members or how much money IV has achieved..., but things really matter to people) and inspire them.
Until now, it was pending approval. Now Immigration Voice is a non-profit for sure and this means that we do not pay taxes on the income. This also means that no volunteers can get paid compensations for the work done.
Immigration Voice will file the tax return as a non-profit and hopefully, that will remove doubts from some members/visitors that all the money is spent only on advocacy(lobbying) and website maintenance and no one is personally profiting from this effort.
This is a big relief for us and now its time to file taxes.
I actually don't think this is the main concern of many people who have not contributed. I have talked with many friends who got stuck with their GC applications regarding IV and urged them to contribute. However, not many of them were very passionate about this. They just simply believed that they could not achieve their GCs faster with IV's effort than without. $20 per month is not a big deal for them. But without any confidence and hope, they did not even want to bother to register and contribute. Most of my friends are EB2 with PD 2004 or later. Some who have filed 485s see no sign for SKIL being passed and are fine with their APs and EADs. Those who have not filed their 485 truly believe that they could file their 485s in about 2 years and got used to this waiting.
So I think maybe we can let people know what IV has achieved in the past one year(not just how many members or how much money IV has achieved..., but things really matter to people) and inspire them.
more...
makeup Jennifer Lopez#39;s long
chanduv23
05-26 04:40 PM
There is a rule that you are suppossed to carry your passport all the times if you are on a visa.
Border patrol has the right to ask you for documents.
Fines are like $100 or so - not quite sure.
I was once driving on Adirondocks and was stopped by the border patrol. I showed my dirver's license but they wanted to see the visa. We waited there for sometime as they validated us on their computer and then let us go - they were friendly and suggested that it is always good to carry documents.
Border patrol has the right to ask you for documents.
Fines are like $100 or so - not quite sure.
I was once driving on Adirondocks and was stopped by the border patrol. I showed my dirver's license but they wanted to see the visa. We waited there for sometime as they validated us on their computer and then let us go - they were friendly and suggested that it is always good to carry documents.
girlfriend american idol jennifer lopez
ItIsNotFunny
10-15 04:40 PM
Guys,
It was just a suggestion. If we together decide after analysis that this is not a good idea, we can divert our energy to something that is more productive.
By the way, I already got few red flowers (red dots) :)
It was just a suggestion. If we together decide after analysis that this is not a good idea, we can divert our energy to something that is more productive.
By the way, I already got few red flowers (red dots) :)
hairstyles american idol jennifer lopez
kpchal2
07-18 12:17 PM
hi tapukakababa, the number is for the national customer service center but you mentioned you called the nebraska service center. so did u ask them to transfer to that service center or ???. i would like to talk to those guys and see what they did wityh my application. i guess we already had a painful ride and if it does not yield the right fruit then it really hurts us bad.
smuggymba
09-10 01:05 PM
So, I guess all EB3's with a PD before 2007 should be in a very good shape. No doubt GC is the best but at least they have EAD's and their spouse can work, which I think is a great thing.
The real issue is with post 2007 EB3 filers, correct me if I'm wrong. It seems that prior to 2007, EB2/3 are almost in the same situation. EAD is much better than visa and of course GC is the king. Thanks.
The real issue is with post 2007 EB3 filers, correct me if I'm wrong. It seems that prior to 2007, EB2/3 are almost in the same situation. EAD is much better than visa and of course GC is the king. Thanks.
sat0207
04-27 09:23 AM
Immigration Security Checks
�How and Why the Process Works
Background All applicants for a U.S. immigration benefit are subject to criminal and national security background checks to ensure they are eligible for that benefit. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the Federal agency that oversees immigration benefits, performs checks on every applicant, regardless of ethnicity, national origin or religion. Since 2002, USCIS has increased the number and scope of relevant background checks, processing millions of security checks without incident. However, in some cases, USCIS customers and immigrant advocates have expressed frustration over delays in processing applications, noting that individual customers have waited a year or longer for the completion of their adjudication pending the outcome of security checks. While the percentage of applicants who find their cases delayed by pending background checks is relatively small, USCIS recognizes that for those affected individuals, the additional delay and uncertainty can cause great anxiety. Although USCIS cannot guarantee the prompt resolution of every case, we can assure the public that applicants are not singled out based on race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. USCIS strives to balance the need for timely, fair and accurate service with the need to ensure a high level of integrity in the decision-making process. This fact sheet outlines the framework of the immigration security check process, explaining its necessity, as well as factors contributing to delays in resolving pending cases. Why USCIS Conducts Security Checks USCIS conducts security checks for all cases involving a petition or application for an immigration service or benefit. This is done both to enhance national security and ensure the integrity of the immigration process. USCIS is responsible for ensuring that our immigration system is not used as a vehicle to harm our nation or its citizens by screening out people who seek immigration benefits improperly or fraudulently. These security checks have yielded information about applicants involved in violent crimes, sex crimes, crimes against children, drug trafficking and individuals with known links to terrorism. These investigations require time, resources, and patience and USCIS recognizes that the process is slower for some customers than they would like. Because of that, USCIS is working closely with the FBI and other agencies to speed the background check process. However, USCIS will never grant an immigration service or benefit before the required security checks are completed regardless of how long those checks take.
To ensure that immigration benefits are given only to eligible applicants, USCIS adopted background security check procedures that address a wide range of possible risk factors. Different kinds of applications undergo different levels of scrutiny. USCIS normally uses the following three background check mechanisms but maintains the authority to conduct other background investigations as necessary:
� The Interagency Border Inspection System (IBIS)
Name Check� IBIS is a multiagency effort with a central system that combines information from multiple agencies, databases and system interfaces to compile data relating to national security risks, public safety issues and other law enforcement concerns. USCIS can quickly check information from these multiple government agencies to determine if the information in the system affects the adjudication of the case. Results of an IBIS check are usually available immediately. In some cases, information found during an IBIS check will require further investigation. The IBIS check is not deemed completed until all eligibility issues arising from the initial system response are resolved.
� FBI Fingerprint Check�FBI fingerprint checks are conducted for many applications. The FBI fingerprint check provides information relating to criminal background within the United States. Generally, the FBI forwards responses to USCIS within 24-48 hours. If there is a record match, the FBI forwards an electronic copy of the criminal history (RAP sheet) to USCIS. At that point, a USCIS adjudicator reviews the information to determine what effect it may have on eligibility for the benefit. Although the vast majority of inquiries yield no record or match, about 10 percent do uncover criminal history (including immigration violations). In cases involving arrests or charges without disposition, USCIS requires the applicant to provide court certified evidence of the disposition. Customers with prior arrests should provide complete information and certified disposition records at the time of filing to avoid adjudication delays or denial resulting from misrepresentation about criminal history. Even expunged or vacated convictions must be reported for immigration purposes.
� FBI Name Checks�FBI name checks are also required for many applications. The FBI name check is totally different from the FBI fingerprint check. The records maintained in the FBI name check process consist of administrative, applicant, criminal, personnel and other files compiled by law enforcement. Initial responses to this check generally take about two weeks. In about 80 percent of the cases, no match is found. Of the remaining 20 percent, most are resolved within six months. Less than one percent of cases subject to an FBI name check remain pending longer than six months. Some of these cases involve complex, highly sensitive information and cannot be resolved quickly. Even after FBI has provided an initial response to USCIS concerning a match, the name check is not complete until full information is obtained and eligibility issues arising from it are resolved. For most applicants, the process outlined above allows USCIS to quickly determine if there are criminal or security related issues in the applicant�s background that affect eligibility for immigration benefits. Most cases proceed forward without incident. However, due to both the sheer volume of security checks USCIS conducts, and the need to ensure that each applicant is thoroughly screened, some delays on individual applications are inevitable. Background checks may still be considered pending when either the FBI or relevant agency has not provided the final response to the background check or when the FBI or agency has provided a response, but the response requires further investigation or review by the agency or USCIS. Resolving pending cases is time-consuming and labor-intensive; some cases legitimately take months or evenseveral years to resolve. Every USCIS District Office performs regular reviews of the pending caseload to determine when cases have cleared and are ready to be decided. USCIS does not share information about the records match or the nature or status of any investigation with applicants or their representatives.
�How and Why the Process Works
Background All applicants for a U.S. immigration benefit are subject to criminal and national security background checks to ensure they are eligible for that benefit. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the Federal agency that oversees immigration benefits, performs checks on every applicant, regardless of ethnicity, national origin or religion. Since 2002, USCIS has increased the number and scope of relevant background checks, processing millions of security checks without incident. However, in some cases, USCIS customers and immigrant advocates have expressed frustration over delays in processing applications, noting that individual customers have waited a year or longer for the completion of their adjudication pending the outcome of security checks. While the percentage of applicants who find their cases delayed by pending background checks is relatively small, USCIS recognizes that for those affected individuals, the additional delay and uncertainty can cause great anxiety. Although USCIS cannot guarantee the prompt resolution of every case, we can assure the public that applicants are not singled out based on race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. USCIS strives to balance the need for timely, fair and accurate service with the need to ensure a high level of integrity in the decision-making process. This fact sheet outlines the framework of the immigration security check process, explaining its necessity, as well as factors contributing to delays in resolving pending cases. Why USCIS Conducts Security Checks USCIS conducts security checks for all cases involving a petition or application for an immigration service or benefit. This is done both to enhance national security and ensure the integrity of the immigration process. USCIS is responsible for ensuring that our immigration system is not used as a vehicle to harm our nation or its citizens by screening out people who seek immigration benefits improperly or fraudulently. These security checks have yielded information about applicants involved in violent crimes, sex crimes, crimes against children, drug trafficking and individuals with known links to terrorism. These investigations require time, resources, and patience and USCIS recognizes that the process is slower for some customers than they would like. Because of that, USCIS is working closely with the FBI and other agencies to speed the background check process. However, USCIS will never grant an immigration service or benefit before the required security checks are completed regardless of how long those checks take.
To ensure that immigration benefits are given only to eligible applicants, USCIS adopted background security check procedures that address a wide range of possible risk factors. Different kinds of applications undergo different levels of scrutiny. USCIS normally uses the following three background check mechanisms but maintains the authority to conduct other background investigations as necessary:
� The Interagency Border Inspection System (IBIS)
Name Check� IBIS is a multiagency effort with a central system that combines information from multiple agencies, databases and system interfaces to compile data relating to national security risks, public safety issues and other law enforcement concerns. USCIS can quickly check information from these multiple government agencies to determine if the information in the system affects the adjudication of the case. Results of an IBIS check are usually available immediately. In some cases, information found during an IBIS check will require further investigation. The IBIS check is not deemed completed until all eligibility issues arising from the initial system response are resolved.
� FBI Fingerprint Check�FBI fingerprint checks are conducted for many applications. The FBI fingerprint check provides information relating to criminal background within the United States. Generally, the FBI forwards responses to USCIS within 24-48 hours. If there is a record match, the FBI forwards an electronic copy of the criminal history (RAP sheet) to USCIS. At that point, a USCIS adjudicator reviews the information to determine what effect it may have on eligibility for the benefit. Although the vast majority of inquiries yield no record or match, about 10 percent do uncover criminal history (including immigration violations). In cases involving arrests or charges without disposition, USCIS requires the applicant to provide court certified evidence of the disposition. Customers with prior arrests should provide complete information and certified disposition records at the time of filing to avoid adjudication delays or denial resulting from misrepresentation about criminal history. Even expunged or vacated convictions must be reported for immigration purposes.
� FBI Name Checks�FBI name checks are also required for many applications. The FBI name check is totally different from the FBI fingerprint check. The records maintained in the FBI name check process consist of administrative, applicant, criminal, personnel and other files compiled by law enforcement. Initial responses to this check generally take about two weeks. In about 80 percent of the cases, no match is found. Of the remaining 20 percent, most are resolved within six months. Less than one percent of cases subject to an FBI name check remain pending longer than six months. Some of these cases involve complex, highly sensitive information and cannot be resolved quickly. Even after FBI has provided an initial response to USCIS concerning a match, the name check is not complete until full information is obtained and eligibility issues arising from it are resolved. For most applicants, the process outlined above allows USCIS to quickly determine if there are criminal or security related issues in the applicant�s background that affect eligibility for immigration benefits. Most cases proceed forward without incident. However, due to both the sheer volume of security checks USCIS conducts, and the need to ensure that each applicant is thoroughly screened, some delays on individual applications are inevitable. Background checks may still be considered pending when either the FBI or relevant agency has not provided the final response to the background check or when the FBI or agency has provided a response, but the response requires further investigation or review by the agency or USCIS. Resolving pending cases is time-consuming and labor-intensive; some cases legitimately take months or evenseveral years to resolve. Every USCIS District Office performs regular reviews of the pending caseload to determine when cases have cleared and are ready to be decided. USCIS does not share information about the records match or the nature or status of any investigation with applicants or their representatives.
Post a Comment