grinch
03-14 07:30 AM
If ya'll do like a character model contest next time, I think I will be in. But we will need like a 4 week due date...lol. Good job all.
Sounds good 3d, I'll actually look toward a battle like that.
It'll be my first character project, but I'll be looking foward to it.
Sounds good 3d, I'll actually look toward a battle like that.
It'll be my first character project, but I'll be looking foward to it.
wallpaper 2011 Jesus amor eterno. Amor Eterno; Amor Eterno. vbkris77. 03-10 05:00 PM
unitednations
12-21 10:52 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, but you've had unexpired H1B while you were out of work. This is not considered unlawful presence. On top of that, violation of status determination can be done only by the USCIS (IO). If they did not inform you that you violated status, you are good to go.
I don't agree that a person hasn't violated status unless uscis io informs the person.
If a person is here legally but not maintaining status (ie., unexpired I-94 card) but not adhering to the terms and conditions then the I-94 can be revoked by an IO in adjudication of immigration benefits or an immigration judge. This would mainly happen if a person is trying to extend h-1b or change employer and there existing i-94 card is still valid but immigration officer determines person wasn't maintaining status. They will not only deny the I-94 card in the new petition but they can also revoke the existing i-94 card. They very, very rarely do this.
I don't agree that a person hasn't violated status unless uscis io informs the person.
If a person is here legally but not maintaining status (ie., unexpired I-94 card) but not adhering to the terms and conditions then the I-94 can be revoked by an IO in adjudication of immigration benefits or an immigration judge. This would mainly happen if a person is trying to extend h-1b or change employer and there existing i-94 card is still valid but immigration officer determines person wasn't maintaining status. They will not only deny the I-94 card in the new petition but they can also revoke the existing i-94 card. They very, very rarely do this.
amitps
09-26 12:11 PM
Please send a thank you email to the reporter....
Eilene Zimmerman
freelance journalist
v and f: 619.582.2192
ezimmerman@sbcglobal.net
This will be a great gesture on IV's part.
Eilene Zimmerman
freelance journalist
v and f: 619.582.2192
ezimmerman@sbcglobal.net
This will be a great gesture on IV's part.
2011 Amor Eterno by ojoqtv
amitjoey
07-03 05:40 PM
When we are already doing the work (sending flowers, calling senators & media etc), why should we pay IV? Also, I would feel more comfy donating to something where I can see where the money is going.. I'm not well versed with the website, but is there a place I can get financial info from.. Thnks..
Please PM IV Core, also in regards to how the funds will be used, there is detailed text on the financial contributions page.
Please PM IV Core, also in regards to how the funds will be used, there is detailed text on the financial contributions page.
more...
supers789
03-11 10:57 PM
Thanks for the link... And so sad after all that hype!
chanduv23
09-10 03:59 PM
Andy Garciaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa is coming to the rallyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
more...
transpass
04-10 12:07 PM
Here are the details for last year and years before:
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
Thanks Kondur. That was a very good presentation of the numbers. I very much appreciate it.
Now,
1. Why did EB1 last year needed spillover visas, although it was current all the time? If a category is current, isn't that it has less demand than allocated numbers?
2. As per May bulletin, EB4 might need a cut off. So we cannot expect any spillover from EB4. So that is clear. Now the spillover chances are from EB5, EB2 ROW and EB1(?). I am including EB1 because, given the current economy over the past year, should there be a better possibility of more spillover from EB2 ROW and EB1 compared to last year?
3. Also why are the total EB numbers different in different fiscal years (e.g., 141020 in FY2009, 162949 in FY 2008 and 154497 in FY2007)? In FYs 2007 and 2008 did the extra visas come from Family based while it did not for FY 2009? If so, why is it so?
4. Based on Pending 485 data of March 2010, I barely see few hundred EB4s. And hardly considerable number of EB1s. What's going on? If we go by this data, we should be getting good chunk of spillover numbers...
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Green%20Card/Green%20Card%20Through%20a%20Job/Employment%20Based%20I-485%20Pending%20Inventory-Total%203-8-2010.pdf
Thanks,
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
Thanks Kondur. That was a very good presentation of the numbers. I very much appreciate it.
Now,
1. Why did EB1 last year needed spillover visas, although it was current all the time? If a category is current, isn't that it has less demand than allocated numbers?
2. As per May bulletin, EB4 might need a cut off. So we cannot expect any spillover from EB4. So that is clear. Now the spillover chances are from EB5, EB2 ROW and EB1(?). I am including EB1 because, given the current economy over the past year, should there be a better possibility of more spillover from EB2 ROW and EB1 compared to last year?
3. Also why are the total EB numbers different in different fiscal years (e.g., 141020 in FY2009, 162949 in FY 2008 and 154497 in FY2007)? In FYs 2007 and 2008 did the extra visas come from Family based while it did not for FY 2009? If so, why is it so?
4. Based on Pending 485 data of March 2010, I barely see few hundred EB4s. And hardly considerable number of EB1s. What's going on? If we go by this data, we should be getting good chunk of spillover numbers...
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Green%20Card/Green%20Card%20Through%20a%20Job/Employment%20Based%20I-485%20Pending%20Inventory-Total%203-8-2010.pdf
Thanks,
2010 Amor Eterno; amor eterno. Por intentarlo que no quede
grupak
02-15 05:33 PM
Look, I don't want to enter a pissing match with anyone here. Go read your history (http://americanhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/limiting_the_huddled_masses) before jumping to conclusions.
Supporting a law based on eugenics is very sad indeed.
Supporting a law based on eugenics is very sad indeed.
more...
kumar1
12-13 11:32 PM
someone gave me red dot with this message -
**motherfucker**
I answer to that person is -- thank you for telling me your real level.
**motherfucker**
I answer to that person is -- thank you for telling me your real level.
hair imagens de amor eterno.
nojoke
02-27 08:22 PM
Noway it is normal..
When was the last "normal" economic cycle when so many big banks failed...
Lehman Brothers were 150 years old bank meaning they say great depression and the world wars and survived all of that.. This time it disappeared one morning.
Citi, BofA,Wells etc are all in trouble..
Would you believe Citi stock at 3 Bucks?
And it all started with Housing.
House prices never go down! Oh yeah.
"No way. House prices will never go down in California. Certainly not in bay area. Government will do all the magic to stop the crash... Not affordable, doesn't matter. Google stocks will make a lot of rich guys. BTW renting is throwing money away.":D:D:D:rolleyes:
I love the guys making those arguments.
Now it is India's turn.
"No way, India's real estate will crash. It has a huge population and a huge demand for 70 lakh apartments( even though there are only few people who can afford it)".:rolleyes:
When was the last "normal" economic cycle when so many big banks failed...
Lehman Brothers were 150 years old bank meaning they say great depression and the world wars and survived all of that.. This time it disappeared one morning.
Citi, BofA,Wells etc are all in trouble..
Would you believe Citi stock at 3 Bucks?
And it all started with Housing.
House prices never go down! Oh yeah.
"No way. House prices will never go down in California. Certainly not in bay area. Government will do all the magic to stop the crash... Not affordable, doesn't matter. Google stocks will make a lot of rich guys. BTW renting is throwing money away.":D:D:D:rolleyes:
I love the guys making those arguments.
Now it is India's turn.
"No way, India's real estate will crash. It has a huge population and a huge demand for 70 lakh apartments( even though there are only few people who can afford it)".:rolleyes:
more...
-front1.jpg "amor eterno lyrics. quotas de")
eb3retro
08-16 03:39 PM
Because you guys are not as clever as EB2s.
easy there pray...people can get offended by your statement. Not a good statement for your first post.
easy there pray...people can get offended by your statement. Not a good statement for your first post.
hot amor eterno Image
dilber
07-20 05:37 AM
Here you go - conversion should not impact this as the number of LC approvals remains the same:
Here are all the LC approvals for India in the last seven years.
Year, Total LC Approved, Total India
2007 85112 24573
2006 79782 22298
2005 6133 1350
2004 43582 No Info
2003 62912 No Info
2002 79784 No Info
2001 77921 No Info
2000 70204 No Info
Lets assume about 25% of pre-PERM LCs are India based on post-PERM data. Thus for fiscal 2004 (Oct 2003 thru Sep 2004) the total LC number is 43,852. Assume 25% of that to be India based on PERM data. That gives about 11,000 India LCs in 2004 alone (All EB categories combined). If you assume an average of 2.5 dependents then the number of visas required for all India EB categories for 2004 is 27,500 (11,000*2.5). The regular quota for EB2 and EB3 combined is only about 9,800. That means 17,700 visas have to come from somewhere. I dont think those many visas are remaining for this year. Be prepared to see FIFO thrown under the bus and approvals with PDs that are all over the place. Please critique this analysis without piling on. Thoughts?
EB2 has been on or Apr 2004 for a long time so all the ones before should have got the GC or at least most would have when we are calculation numbers for calculating retrogation We have to consider the numbers in in a particular category 11000 number as you say includes all the EB categories you have to discount out the EB1's because they have got their GCs long back. EB3 will also have to cut out form the calculation because they are not being counted. even if you consider 40% of these to be EB2 (a conservative estimate) then total GC needed including the dependents will be closer to 11000 (Total not just primary) and as Vdlrao and others have shown there should be more than this number available in this fiscal year alone. So I will have to agree with them that the numbers will go back but not all the way to Apr 2004 It should easily come in 2005 range may even come to 2006 since there were very few cases applied during 2005. Also can some one let me know if during 2005 when perm was instigated was regular labor processing also going on or was it completed stopped during that time.
Also conversations will affect this because people converting from EB3 to EB2 will make sure that they port their priority dates and hence if say all the EB3 people from 2003 convert to EB2 and successfully port their dates it will definitely push the dates south of 2003. Did I make sense???
Here are all the LC approvals for India in the last seven years.
Year, Total LC Approved, Total India
2007 85112 24573
2006 79782 22298
2005 6133 1350
2004 43582 No Info
2003 62912 No Info
2002 79784 No Info
2001 77921 No Info
2000 70204 No Info
Lets assume about 25% of pre-PERM LCs are India based on post-PERM data. Thus for fiscal 2004 (Oct 2003 thru Sep 2004) the total LC number is 43,852. Assume 25% of that to be India based on PERM data. That gives about 11,000 India LCs in 2004 alone (All EB categories combined). If you assume an average of 2.5 dependents then the number of visas required for all India EB categories for 2004 is 27,500 (11,000*2.5). The regular quota for EB2 and EB3 combined is only about 9,800. That means 17,700 visas have to come from somewhere. I dont think those many visas are remaining for this year. Be prepared to see FIFO thrown under the bus and approvals with PDs that are all over the place. Please critique this analysis without piling on. Thoughts?
EB2 has been on or Apr 2004 for a long time so all the ones before should have got the GC or at least most would have when we are calculation numbers for calculating retrogation We have to consider the numbers in in a particular category 11000 number as you say includes all the EB categories you have to discount out the EB1's because they have got their GCs long back. EB3 will also have to cut out form the calculation because they are not being counted. even if you consider 40% of these to be EB2 (a conservative estimate) then total GC needed including the dependents will be closer to 11000 (Total not just primary) and as Vdlrao and others have shown there should be more than this number available in this fiscal year alone. So I will have to agree with them that the numbers will go back but not all the way to Apr 2004 It should easily come in 2005 range may even come to 2006 since there were very few cases applied during 2005. Also can some one let me know if during 2005 when perm was instigated was regular labor processing also going on or was it completed stopped during that time.
Also conversations will affect this because people converting from EB3 to EB2 will make sure that they port their priority dates and hence if say all the EB3 people from 2003 convert to EB2 and successfully port their dates it will definitely push the dates south of 2003. Did I make sense???
more...
house camila amor eterno. amor eterno-camila ♫. este amor eterno es mi bendicion
pd_recapturing
12-10 03:49 PM
Do some population control in India and China, that would automatically fix the issue of retrogression. We are simply too many and we have clogged the system real bad. every 6th person on the face of this earth is Indian.
you hit the nail ... this is the biggest reason ...We are just too many and everyone wants to come to US
you hit the nail ... this is the biggest reason ...We are just too many and everyone wants to come to US
tattoo camila amor eterno. amor
immi_enthu
08-15 04:35 PM
yes but they will start processing the applications based on the receipt dates. so if a guy applied last year, he gets priority over last month's people. (that is assuming that his priority dates were current last year from him to apply!)
also they will need to do fingerprinting etc. and shall pass the FBI check before they get to final stage of adjudication. that would take 6 more months. so they should look at the bulletin at that time to see if they are eligible. dont get excited about these dates - they are not that helpful for the last month filers.
some people who applied in June may get approved if their PDs are current. July/ Aug filers unlikely
also they will need to do fingerprinting etc. and shall pass the FBI check before they get to final stage of adjudication. that would take 6 more months. so they should look at the bulletin at that time to see if they are eligible. dont get excited about these dates - they are not that helpful for the last month filers.
some people who applied in June may get approved if their PDs are current. July/ Aug filers unlikely
more...
pictures imagens de amor eterno.
conchshell
07-28 01:59 PM
Someone should close it so that we can talk about the more important matter of getting the green card faster.
I would say let it go on ... because this is the kind of topic people really like to discuss. It breaks my heart to note that last week I started a thread to raise ideas about immigration problems ... lots of people went through it, but just a handful participated. Here is the thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20406
So when people have lost focus, they are not interested in discussing the core issue anymore ... then let this discussion go on, on top of it may be we can also start reviewing bollywood movies here .... sorry for being sarcastic, but this the state of affairs at IV forums these days!!:(
I would say let it go on ... because this is the kind of topic people really like to discuss. It breaks my heart to note that last week I started a thread to raise ideas about immigration problems ... lots of people went through it, but just a handful participated. Here is the thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20406
So when people have lost focus, they are not interested in discussing the core issue anymore ... then let this discussion go on, on top of it may be we can also start reviewing bollywood movies here .... sorry for being sarcastic, but this the state of affairs at IV forums these days!!:(
dresses amor eterno juan gabriel.
pointlesswait
02-04 10:31 AM
some jack left me a message calling me ignorant.
ppl here are discussing his topic to death.. abt changing the per country quota.
No one here wants to even ponder that.. immigration into US is a not a random act.
The policy makers and thinkers may have spent many sleepless nights to arrive at the thought of giving every global citizen an equal opportunity to migrate to this "land of opportunity".
So even an attempt to remove per country quota is absurd and retarded thought.
Be practical and make more realistic suggestions..
a.) IF someone has been inthis country for 10 years ..F1->H1, he shoudl qualify for EAD (no constrains) , until the visa number become avaliable.
b.) Allow for simultaneous 140-485 filing..
so if peeps here think that i am ignorant for saying that attempt to remove country quota is a non-starter.. think again.. DF's
ppl here are discussing his topic to death.. abt changing the per country quota.
No one here wants to even ponder that.. immigration into US is a not a random act.
The policy makers and thinkers may have spent many sleepless nights to arrive at the thought of giving every global citizen an equal opportunity to migrate to this "land of opportunity".
So even an attempt to remove per country quota is absurd and retarded thought.
Be practical and make more realistic suggestions..
a.) IF someone has been inthis country for 10 years ..F1->H1, he shoudl qualify for EAD (no constrains) , until the visa number become avaliable.
b.) Allow for simultaneous 140-485 filing..
so if peeps here think that i am ignorant for saying that attempt to remove country quota is a non-starter.. think again.. DF's
more...
makeup AmOoOR EteRnO.
satishku_2000
08-15 04:30 PM
What do EB cutoff dates in Sept VB mean? All eligible for filing AOS did in July/Aug. Does it mean that USCIS will be giving visa (approving GC) to those within the new cutoff dates?
Some people from BEC are still waiting for their labor approvals , Some of those people should be able to file for 140/485 if their PDs fall in the cut off dates . Hope USCIS will exhaust the numbers in this year by approving 485s for eligible people .
Some people from BEC are still waiting for their labor approvals , Some of those people should be able to file for 140/485 if their PDs fall in the cut off dates . Hope USCIS will exhaust the numbers in this year by approving 485s for eligible people .
girlfriend camila amor eterno. camila
ramus
07-02 06:07 PM
Thank you... Every drop in the ocean counts.
There are 1200 members online... Once you contribute please put link of this thread in our main thread..
Thanks a lot.
contributed 100 just now, my drop in the ocean, I will try to add more drops in coming days.
There are 1200 members online... Once you contribute please put link of this thread in our main thread..
Thanks a lot.
contributed 100 just now, my drop in the ocean, I will try to add more drops in coming days.
hairstyles amor eterno lyrics. quotas de
Macaca
07-01 11:28 AM
http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/Oppenheim070606.pdf
Testimony of Charles Oppenheim, Chief, Immigrant Control and Reporting Division, Visa Services Office, U.S. Department of State, June 6, 2007.
Are you aware of a similar document that explains
country caps.
conditions that lead to initial retrogression. That is, from current to settingcurrent dates. This is what happened in Oct 2005 and will happen now when all dates are current. This is different from VB's that reset existing current dates.
Spencer HSU, Washington Post likes to rape USCIS. We can send him our issues if July VB is reset in the middle.
Testimony of Charles Oppenheim, Chief, Immigrant Control and Reporting Division, Visa Services Office, U.S. Department of State, June 6, 2007.
Are you aware of a similar document that explains
country caps.
conditions that lead to initial retrogression. That is, from current to settingcurrent dates. This is what happened in Oct 2005 and will happen now when all dates are current. This is different from VB's that reset existing current dates.
Spencer HSU, Washington Post likes to rape USCIS. We can send him our issues if July VB is reset in the middle.
logiclife
01-26 03:50 PM
Please mention details of your issue since most of members here are either in the labor black hole or under EB retrogression waiting to file for I 485. If you know something and if its WIDESPREAD and affects almost all applicants, please mention it here in details. We can include that in our agenda so that we dont have to fight for those issues when we do file for 485 in the future.
HawaldarNaik
03-09 12:27 PM
Where is the great predictor :D
Right now he is looking into his globe...and making corrections to his calculations...so lets call him the 'Corrector' for now...and wait for his next predictions or 'pears of wisdom':D
Right now he is looking into his globe...and making corrections to his calculations...so lets call him the 'Corrector' for now...and wait for his next predictions or 'pears of wisdom':D
Post a Comment