thomachan72
07-05 04:46 PM
Money never, never comes last, IMHO. Money does have its place right beside grass root efforts. Any one who undermines either of them at any time is making a huge mistake.
I am scratching my head to figure out how IV benefits with non paying members? If you say that by being a member of IV, we have done the honors, I have no answer for you. If you say that we all boast about being a 15K member org, You can pass on me. Are you a proponent of "I dont care how IV benefits from me, All that I care for is if I got my question answered or not " thought process? As long as we see IV only as a forum and compare with other forums, we will never see the invaluable difference. while eulogizing the founders, also try to see what they would like us to do. I am positive they would love more contributions than a simple eulogy so that we can enable ourselves with more ammo. Thanks for the undeserved pat. I will be happy if people take a moment and introspect their stand on this issue.
Friend I dont disagree with you regarding the value of money but we should think in the context of the current situation, right? The CIR is gone for now. It may / may not come back in 2009, who knows. Now we have the 485 filing crisis. You said we have 15000 members. How many of these are actually affected by the current crisis?? I can tell about one person, myself, certainly I am not affected directly. Now if lets say 20% are affected that would be 3000, right? Do you know how many people applied for 485 this time, it certainly is in the 100K or much more numbers. Now if we start being very critical of the few here (approx 3000), who have not contributed, we are making a mistake. I may be completely wrong on these numericals. Lets hope everybody contributes (if IV actually needs fund urgently). Atleast regarding the present crisis we are fortunate the AILF is taking up the case for FREE. People who want to contribute can through IV or even directly. I dont think contribution is going to make a difference here. This is not a lobbying effort involving the pattonbog, this is a legal case in which we are just joining.
I am scratching my head to figure out how IV benefits with non paying members? If you say that by being a member of IV, we have done the honors, I have no answer for you. If you say that we all boast about being a 15K member org, You can pass on me. Are you a proponent of "I dont care how IV benefits from me, All that I care for is if I got my question answered or not " thought process? As long as we see IV only as a forum and compare with other forums, we will never see the invaluable difference. while eulogizing the founders, also try to see what they would like us to do. I am positive they would love more contributions than a simple eulogy so that we can enable ourselves with more ammo. Thanks for the undeserved pat. I will be happy if people take a moment and introspect their stand on this issue.
Friend I dont disagree with you regarding the value of money but we should think in the context of the current situation, right? The CIR is gone for now. It may / may not come back in 2009, who knows. Now we have the 485 filing crisis. You said we have 15000 members. How many of these are actually affected by the current crisis?? I can tell about one person, myself, certainly I am not affected directly. Now if lets say 20% are affected that would be 3000, right? Do you know how many people applied for 485 this time, it certainly is in the 100K or much more numbers. Now if we start being very critical of the few here (approx 3000), who have not contributed, we are making a mistake. I may be completely wrong on these numericals. Lets hope everybody contributes (if IV actually needs fund urgently). Atleast regarding the present crisis we are fortunate the AILF is taking up the case for FREE. People who want to contribute can through IV or even directly. I dont think contribution is going to make a difference here. This is not a lobbying effort involving the pattonbog, this is a legal case in which we are just joining.
wallpaper red dragon black sign picture
snakesrocks
09-10 06:16 PM
Hey Yall,
I just called the House Judiciary Committee to inquire about the webcast link not working and the reason sited was that "thats due to the hearing postponed until tomorrow".
So, no more hearing for the day and it resumes tomorrow. I did forget to ask for what time it starts, may be someone else can check on it.
The House Judiciary Committee today completed mark up of four immigration bills:
H.R. 6020 would provide immigration benefits for immigrant soldiers and their families; (Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-CA and Rep. Mac Thornberry R-TX)
H.R. 5882 would recapture employment-based and family-sponsored immigrant visas lost to bureaucratic delays; (Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-CA and Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., R-WI)
H.R. 5924 would provide 20,000 employment-based visas per year for three years specifically for nurses; (Rep. Robert Wexler, D-FL and Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., R-WI)
HR 5950 would ensure basic medical care for immigration detainees; (Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-CA and Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, R-FL)
These bills now must await determinations by the Rules Committee as to how much debate will be allowed and whether floor amendments will be allowed, and if so , how many.
There is no assurance that any of these bills will make it to the floor of the House for a vote. If one or more of them should pass, the Senate would have to act very quickly as there are no parallel Senate measures pending.
While this is a positive step forward, the odds remain heavily against passage of any of these as "stand alone" legislation this year.
__________________
I just called the House Judiciary Committee to inquire about the webcast link not working and the reason sited was that "thats due to the hearing postponed until tomorrow".
So, no more hearing for the day and it resumes tomorrow. I did forget to ask for what time it starts, may be someone else can check on it.
The House Judiciary Committee today completed mark up of four immigration bills:
H.R. 6020 would provide immigration benefits for immigrant soldiers and their families; (Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-CA and Rep. Mac Thornberry R-TX)
H.R. 5882 would recapture employment-based and family-sponsored immigrant visas lost to bureaucratic delays; (Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-CA and Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., R-WI)
H.R. 5924 would provide 20,000 employment-based visas per year for three years specifically for nurses; (Rep. Robert Wexler, D-FL and Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., R-WI)
HR 5950 would ensure basic medical care for immigration detainees; (Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-CA and Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, R-FL)
These bills now must await determinations by the Rules Committee as to how much debate will be allowed and whether floor amendments will be allowed, and if so , how many.
There is no assurance that any of these bills will make it to the floor of the House for a vote. If one or more of them should pass, the Senate would have to act very quickly as there are no parallel Senate measures pending.
While this is a positive step forward, the odds remain heavily against passage of any of these as "stand alone" legislation this year.
__________________
ashwin_27
06-13 12:10 AM
If this has not been done already..a good idea might be to spread this message among the hundreds of International Student (including Indian/Chinese) associations. They are already having trouble entering as graduates into a tough job market and this anti-H1B proposal will only make things worse...no additional incentive for students to join this IV initiative. I will forward to my alma mater and couple of other student associations I am aware of.
2011 Black Dragon Wallpaper
snathan
03-10 01:13 PM
Yes...we need to get the unused visa numbers. But this is not the right time for that. Because of the economy there will be huge outcry and we should avoid the negative publicity.
In this situation if things are not going bad for us, we should be happy. At least for status quo rather than losing what we have.
In this situation if things are not going bad for us, we should be happy. At least for status quo rather than losing what we have.
more...
greencard_fever
07-28 05:08 PM
only a fool of the nth order can say that india will benefit from this nuclear treaty!
I am not saying that India will be benefit from with this N-deal. I was said if so then how? read it properly...by the way i don’t have any info on this deal and looks like you have more info. can you please tell me and other IV members who is not aware of this deal that how India will not get the benefit and how bad it will effect our great nations growing economy and Nuclear power?
I am not saying that India will be benefit from with this N-deal. I was said if so then how? read it properly...by the way i don’t have any info on this deal and looks like you have more info. can you please tell me and other IV members who is not aware of this deal that how India will not get the benefit and how bad it will effect our great nations growing economy and Nuclear power?
thomachan72
04-11 09:32 AM
Before taking up any agenda, check with IV core whether it is the right time.
If it was the right time, why wouldn't IV core initiate any action items when members are so willing to take up those ?
I think Suhail raised a verry valid point. However, to recapture unused visa numbers might not just be an administrative fix. it would require a law being passed just for that and that then becomes a whole different issue.
We know visa numbers have been wasted but can we persuade and get a majority vote on a legislation that would recapture unused visa numbers?? That to me is a mighty big task in itself.... just like raising the country limits.
I am certainly not discouraing anybody....
On the other hand, is there any legal issue involved that could be fought in a court of law?? Since there were more applications pending than the allowed anual limit why were not sufficient numbers of visas issued? was it because there was a per country limit?? If that is true they can simply say unless the per country limit is removed they cannot issue more numbers to India/china.
Personally, I therefore feel more inclined to fight for these:-
1) Taking of the per country limits (toughest one)
2) Allowing change of status application irrespective of availability of visa numbers
3) Allowing for H1b stamping from within the US
4) premium processing of I-140
If it was the right time, why wouldn't IV core initiate any action items when members are so willing to take up those ?
I think Suhail raised a verry valid point. However, to recapture unused visa numbers might not just be an administrative fix. it would require a law being passed just for that and that then becomes a whole different issue.
We know visa numbers have been wasted but can we persuade and get a majority vote on a legislation that would recapture unused visa numbers?? That to me is a mighty big task in itself.... just like raising the country limits.
I am certainly not discouraing anybody....
On the other hand, is there any legal issue involved that could be fought in a court of law?? Since there were more applications pending than the allowed anual limit why were not sufficient numbers of visas issued? was it because there was a per country limit?? If that is true they can simply say unless the per country limit is removed they cannot issue more numbers to India/china.
Personally, I therefore feel more inclined to fight for these:-
1) Taking of the per country limits (toughest one)
2) Allowing change of status application irrespective of availability of visa numbers
3) Allowing for H1b stamping from within the US
4) premium processing of I-140
more...
andymajumder
11-10 09:11 PM
I am with you and willng to contribute, but unless we are united and willing to take some action here, there's no hope. Even people who get approved now, never come back to contibute a penny - there has to be some provision of visa recapture.
2010 Black dragon. views: 1350
McLuvin
03-12 01:55 PM
finally the bulletin has been posted in the DOS website...
Visa Bulletin for April 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4747.html)
They have given a brief description about "BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS"
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, a significant amount of demand is received each month for applicants who have priority dates which are significantly earlier than the applicable cut-off dates. In addition, fluctuations in demand can cause cut-off date movement to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7% is a cap which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed. Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled, however.
Applicability of Section 202(a)(5): INA Section 202(a)(5), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, removed the per-country limit on Employment-based immigrants in any calendar quarter in which applicant demand for numbers in one or more Employment-based preferences is less than the total of such numbers available. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5) has allowed countries such as China � mainland born and India to utilize large amounts of Employment First and Second preference numbers which would have otherwise gone unused. Such numbers are provided strictly in priority date order without regard to the foreign state chargeability, and the same cut-off date applies to any country benefiting from this provision.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by documentarily qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation, that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may require the establishment of an earlier cut-off date than that which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
Furthermore, Section 202(a)(2) reads, �2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed seven percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or two percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.� The seven percent per-country limit specified in INA 202(a)(2) is considered to be for both Family-sponsored and Employment-based numbers combined.
Allocation of visa numbers under Section 202(e) is accomplished as follows:
If based on historical patterns or current demand it appears that during a fiscal year number use by aliens chargeable to a particular country will exceed the per-country numerical limit for both the Family and Employment preferences combined, that country would be considered oversubscribed. Both the Family and Employment preferences would be subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1).
Sometimes during a fiscal year it may become apparent that because of a lack of demand in the Family preferences, number use by aliens chargeable to an oversubscribed country will be well within the per-country numerical limit. In such case the excess Family numbers would be made available to the Employment preferences subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1). Each of the first three Employment categories would receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and each of the Fourth and Fifth preference categories 7.1%. (Fall-across would likewise apply if an oversubscribed country lacked sufficient demand in the Employment preferences but had excess demand in the Family preferences.)
If a foreign state other than an oversubscribed country has little Family preference demand but considerable Employment preference demand, the otherwise unused Family numbers fall across to Employment (and vice versa) for purposes of that foreign state�s annual numerical limit. For example, in FY-2009 South Korea used a grand total of 15,899 Family and Employment preference numbers, of which 1,688 were Family numbers and 14,211 were Employment numbers. This grand total was well within the FY-2009 per-country numerical limit of 25,620 Family and Employment numbers combined, so South Korea was not oversubscribed. The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.
Visa Bulletin for April 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4747.html)
They have given a brief description about "BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS"
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, a significant amount of demand is received each month for applicants who have priority dates which are significantly earlier than the applicable cut-off dates. In addition, fluctuations in demand can cause cut-off date movement to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7% is a cap which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed. Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled, however.
Applicability of Section 202(a)(5): INA Section 202(a)(5), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, removed the per-country limit on Employment-based immigrants in any calendar quarter in which applicant demand for numbers in one or more Employment-based preferences is less than the total of such numbers available. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5) has allowed countries such as China � mainland born and India to utilize large amounts of Employment First and Second preference numbers which would have otherwise gone unused. Such numbers are provided strictly in priority date order without regard to the foreign state chargeability, and the same cut-off date applies to any country benefiting from this provision.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by documentarily qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation, that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may require the establishment of an earlier cut-off date than that which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
Furthermore, Section 202(a)(2) reads, �2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed seven percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or two percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.� The seven percent per-country limit specified in INA 202(a)(2) is considered to be for both Family-sponsored and Employment-based numbers combined.
Allocation of visa numbers under Section 202(e) is accomplished as follows:
If based on historical patterns or current demand it appears that during a fiscal year number use by aliens chargeable to a particular country will exceed the per-country numerical limit for both the Family and Employment preferences combined, that country would be considered oversubscribed. Both the Family and Employment preferences would be subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1).
Sometimes during a fiscal year it may become apparent that because of a lack of demand in the Family preferences, number use by aliens chargeable to an oversubscribed country will be well within the per-country numerical limit. In such case the excess Family numbers would be made available to the Employment preferences subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1). Each of the first three Employment categories would receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and each of the Fourth and Fifth preference categories 7.1%. (Fall-across would likewise apply if an oversubscribed country lacked sufficient demand in the Employment preferences but had excess demand in the Family preferences.)
If a foreign state other than an oversubscribed country has little Family preference demand but considerable Employment preference demand, the otherwise unused Family numbers fall across to Employment (and vice versa) for purposes of that foreign state�s annual numerical limit. For example, in FY-2009 South Korea used a grand total of 15,899 Family and Employment preference numbers, of which 1,688 were Family numbers and 14,211 were Employment numbers. This grand total was well within the FY-2009 per-country numerical limit of 25,620 Family and Employment numbers combined, so South Korea was not oversubscribed. The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.
more...
.soulty
02-27 08:46 PM
cant find anything online, check your help files grinch, and i think your right 3d Nirvana your method may be more grinch is looking for, im so rusty in 3d its just nastiness. :(
hair Black Dragon Wallpaper. and
dotnetguru
04-08 11:11 PM
Well..you cut your BS first..just because Its not first hand doesnt mean it is unreal..just because I posted on IV doesnt mean I expected IV to take up this case..just b'coz sucker like you saw two different lanes in the airport doesnt mean all airports are like that..I posted my experience in the airport I travelled thru..I dont have to prove to morons like you.
You dont need to be best and brightest to tell me that Airports have different lanes..Oh..yeah...how will I know..I sneaked through Texas border...I never said all ppl stand in the same lane..I said, queues are different but unless you are deaf to your a** you can hear most of the conversation..atleast I did..I dont care if you didnt in your case?
different lanes means like up to 5 to 20 lanes for only citizens and gc holders.there will be some space with the division with that belt u see in airports and then up to 5 to 20 lanes for visa holders.number of lanes differ based on the size of the airport.this is what i have seen in newark,ATL,PHI,CLT,MIA.now ur friends might be in corner lane and then there is space and then that visa holder who got sent back is also in corner lane to be able to hear if at all it is possible to hear.so now tell me which airports do not have separation like that. any one can pitch in.i could hardly hear the next person questions how come ur friend had heard in the above scenario.beats me...
You dont need to be best and brightest to tell me that Airports have different lanes..Oh..yeah...how will I know..I sneaked through Texas border...I never said all ppl stand in the same lane..I said, queues are different but unless you are deaf to your a** you can hear most of the conversation..atleast I did..I dont care if you didnt in your case?
different lanes means like up to 5 to 20 lanes for only citizens and gc holders.there will be some space with the division with that belt u see in airports and then up to 5 to 20 lanes for visa holders.number of lanes differ based on the size of the airport.this is what i have seen in newark,ATL,PHI,CLT,MIA.now ur friends might be in corner lane and then there is space and then that visa holder who got sent back is also in corner lane to be able to hear if at all it is possible to hear.so now tell me which airports do not have separation like that. any one can pitch in.i could hardly hear the next person questions how come ur friend had heard in the above scenario.beats me...
more...
Saralayar
09-10 05:45 PM
Guys,
The link isnt working for me too.
I hope things work in favor with this bill today, but if not, we must ask for Citizenship instead of Greencards. Anyone with me.,
We have all waited for 5-10 year and there are many who got it in one year and then Citizenship in 6-8 years from the day they got their GCs. That was the normal timeframe. But due to their inefficiency, we are waiting this much time. NOT our fault. Now dont you guys think we must ask for Citizenship.. I thought my case was too stressful, came 99, applied 04, waiting for 485 now, but I have seen so many many stories of ohter guys also here who suffered more. I feel we must ask them Citizenship. If we get, great, else atleast we end up with GC.
Anybody with me,
Thanks,
Sri.,
I opend a thread for this some months ago... and people have no vision for future... so laughing and making sarcastic comments..... because most of them are from the country which do not think about future (even now).:(
The link isnt working for me too.
I hope things work in favor with this bill today, but if not, we must ask for Citizenship instead of Greencards. Anyone with me.,
We have all waited for 5-10 year and there are many who got it in one year and then Citizenship in 6-8 years from the day they got their GCs. That was the normal timeframe. But due to their inefficiency, we are waiting this much time. NOT our fault. Now dont you guys think we must ask for Citizenship.. I thought my case was too stressful, came 99, applied 04, waiting for 485 now, but I have seen so many many stories of ohter guys also here who suffered more. I feel we must ask them Citizenship. If we get, great, else atleast we end up with GC.
Anybody with me,
Thanks,
Sri.,
I opend a thread for this some months ago... and people have no vision for future... so laughing and making sarcastic comments..... because most of them are from the country which do not think about future (even now).:(
hot Dragon Dragons Black Dragon
caprianurag
03-12 11:22 AM
How do you guys find out what job code your H1B/labor was filed under?
My H1b saus 030, but I think the job is a 6 digit number.
Where can I locate that?
Thanks
My H1b saus 030, but I think the job is a 6 digit number.
Where can I locate that?
Thanks
more...
house Black Dragon Wallpaper
![black dragon wallpaper. Theme + Black Dragon]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_u462necshzZZ-F86IRsX6o0C2TSOEUX29KJVSATL-6S26xybhc8Tz1MWOtQYVhS4XWt32NnruyqDo4JWnkffUftOlpDFnOMKzvb02kJMxVoFsuuDKIzn8C2XElEYd5Ywm7ws73eC41qBHa5utQC_xuTe_O3Nc_aYs5Ig=s0-d "Theme + Black Dragon]")
optimystic
03-18 03:43 PM
Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be quite true as it contradicts the April bulletin. The bulletin says there are unused visas in the second category going to EB-2 India, and doesn't mention EB-1 at all.
There also seem to be people who are going to sue because they believe DOS ignoring per-country quotas is hurting their chances at EB-3 visas (i.e. they claim that if EB-2 India should get any extra visas then all of EB-3 ROW applications should be approved first). This situation is turning out to be quite interesting. I wonder if we're going to have another fiasco like the July 2007 one.
Just a question out of curiosity....why would someone choose 'taliban' as a login handle, knowing fully well the kind of unneccessary negative attention one can get. I do fully respect the individual's choice to choose her/her own id but just curious...And to jog the curiosity even more , this member seems to be tagged as 'banned' now.. :D...did the admins not like the chosen handle as well !!
There also seem to be people who are going to sue because they believe DOS ignoring per-country quotas is hurting their chances at EB-3 visas (i.e. they claim that if EB-2 India should get any extra visas then all of EB-3 ROW applications should be approved first). This situation is turning out to be quite interesting. I wonder if we're going to have another fiasco like the July 2007 one.
Just a question out of curiosity....why would someone choose 'taliban' as a login handle, knowing fully well the kind of unneccessary negative attention one can get. I do fully respect the individual's choice to choose her/her own id but just curious...And to jog the curiosity even more , this member seems to be tagged as 'banned' now.. :D...did the admins not like the chosen handle as well !!
tattoo Black Dragon Logo by ~reederda
neoneo
09-26 08:40 PM
Here's a classic example ..
If you look at the other threads on this forum you have people against the Durban bill coz it affects F-1 students . There is another section which is against Grassley coz it'll affect Consultants trying to get H1-B. I do understand Grassley's bill can have many implications and need to be opposed, but the focus still has to be towards alleviating the Employment based GC issues.
I don't think CNN is to be faulted that much coz IV itself has lost its focus towards Employment Based Green Cards. period. thats what is started out to be and needs to come back on that track instead of trying to act as a platform for all Legal Immigration issues.
Simply put IV is " EB-1/2/3- related org" ok..ok.. add in those millionaires who put in a million dollars for GC too.
If you look at the other threads on this forum you have people against the Durban bill coz it affects F-1 students . There is another section which is against Grassley coz it'll affect Consultants trying to get H1-B. I do understand Grassley's bill can have many implications and need to be opposed, but the focus still has to be towards alleviating the Employment based GC issues.
I don't think CNN is to be faulted that much coz IV itself has lost its focus towards Employment Based Green Cards. period. thats what is started out to be and needs to come back on that track instead of trying to act as a platform for all Legal Immigration issues.
Simply put IV is " EB-1/2/3- related org" ok..ok.. add in those millionaires who put in a million dollars for GC too.
more...
pictures hot Black Dragon wallpaper
GCwaitforever
02-22 11:41 AM
EB-2 India went to unavailable because USCIS stamped 2003/2004 petitions left and right to consume VISA numbers. Then they realized there were bunch of 2001/2002 petitions gathering dust. After no VISA numbers left, they had no option but to move the priority date backwards to make very few petitions current.
I am betting that they will move the dates forward to 2003 in August or September and process few more EB-2 India petitions. For any forward movement to happen to India EB-2/EB-3, ROW EB-2/EB-3 must become current again. If not, we have to wait till October 2008 for new quota to become effective.
I am betting that they will move the dates forward to 2003 in August or September and process few more EB-2 India petitions. For any forward movement to happen to India EB-2/EB-3, ROW EB-2/EB-3 must become current again. If not, we have to wait till October 2008 for new quota to become effective.
dresses Dragon Wallpaper
shsk
11-11 11:02 PM
We can all pitch in and send either congrats greeting card/flower along with IV letter highlighting our pathetic situation.
Hope he addresses something.
Hope he addresses something.
more...
makeup Black Dragon Wallpaper. Free
yetanotherguyinline
05-15 04:26 PM
I agree this is a bad year but this was an article from 2006. I also completely agree that people need to pursue M.B.A with the aim of improving their skills or with a aim of improving their marketability or future career growth but then once you pay the big bucks it alwyas filters down to ROI. But spending 2 years of one's life at a full-time school shelling out 100's of thousands of dollars (especially if it is out of their own pocket) will make sense only if one can justify the investment in terms of dollars. People expect sunk costs to be recovered in the future. Investment banking and finance offered that opportunity to M.B.A professionals where they could draw anywhere between $300k-450k in base salary alone apart from millions of dollars in bonuses. Going into the future, the current socialistic government will keep tabs on such exuberant pays.
I weighed all these when deciding to start part-time. I always wanted to be a Mechanical Engineer and I want to be associated with my field for rest of my life. My intent of pursuing M.B.A is to move up the ladder quickly in Engineering/Technology Management.
You nailed it when you said you want to be in your field and you need an MBA to move up. My argument was that ROI should not be the major factor but reasoning as you mentioned above should be.
I weighed all these when deciding to start part-time. I always wanted to be a Mechanical Engineer and I want to be associated with my field for rest of my life. My intent of pursuing M.B.A is to move up the ladder quickly in Engineering/Technology Management.
You nailed it when you said you want to be in your field and you need an MBA to move up. My argument was that ROI should not be the major factor but reasoning as you mentioned above should be.
girlfriend Year of the Dragon Wallpaper
new_horizon
01-18 02:33 PM
Once while visiting Niagara falls, I took a wrong turn towards the bridge to Canada, and the officer wouldn't allow me to turn back, but told me to go to Canada. Since I did not have my passport or visa with me the CA people wouldn't let me inside their country. I told I took a wrong turn when looking for a gas station, and they finally let me turn back to US. But since I did not have the passport the US guys wouldn't let me in here. I told them the same story I took a wrong turn. I was taken in for questioning by the main guy there. The officer finally took my drivers licence (and my employee id which luckily I had) and I think he checked it in his system. After a long while he came back, and told that I can get in, but told me to carry the passport & visa at all times. When this all happened I had my 15 mo daughter with me, 'coz she was in the car (wife and others were going up in the hot air baloon:)). I think my little girl helped somewhat 'coz she's a US citizen :). Above all praise God for that day!!
hairstyles desktop. dragon wallpapers
logiclife
04-23 04:22 PM
-------------
Northern California members we need volunteers for an event on Wednesday (04/25) in Campbell @ 1:00 p.m. for an hour. This is much more interactive event. No undocumented immigration issues just EB related issues. Please join the yahoo group and get involved. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NC_Immigration_Voice/
Lets keep the momentum going.
You may want to start a new thread with an appropriate title, to get more attention from members in Northern CA.
Northern California members we need volunteers for an event on Wednesday (04/25) in Campbell @ 1:00 p.m. for an hour. This is much more interactive event. No undocumented immigration issues just EB related issues. Please join the yahoo group and get involved. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NC_Immigration_Voice/
Lets keep the momentum going.
You may want to start a new thread with an appropriate title, to get more attention from members in Northern CA.
vin13
02-12 09:11 AM
Would you mind asking source/link for "another 13,000 shifted over"?
As per this link - family based numbers were totally used up for FY2008
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY08-AR-TableV.pdf
Family based visa used for FY2008 = 226,105 against 226,000 available.
I suggest that you follow your own advice and read & understand what is being posted in this thread. What do you think? Is this information or "message" correct?
______________________
Not a legal advice.
How difficult is it for you to understand. I did not advice. I just said this is the info...
I was not judging anyone. I do not claim to know all the numbers. So i just put it out there for someone to look and evaluate. Now many are saying based on the numbers, there was no spillover wasted. That is fine.
As per this link - family based numbers were totally used up for FY2008
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY08-AR-TableV.pdf
Family based visa used for FY2008 = 226,105 against 226,000 available.
I suggest that you follow your own advice and read & understand what is being posted in this thread. What do you think? Is this information or "message" correct?
______________________
Not a legal advice.
How difficult is it for you to understand. I did not advice. I just said this is the info...
I was not judging anyone. I do not claim to know all the numbers. So i just put it out there for someone to look and evaluate. Now many are saying based on the numbers, there was no spillover wasted. That is fine.
matreen
10-28 11:42 PM
PD = Jan 29, 2007
I40 = Aprroved = April, 2007
485 = Receipt Date, July, 12 2007
I40 = Aprroved = April, 2007
485 = Receipt Date, July, 12 2007
Post a Comment