coopheal
07-02 07:03 AM
Doing more than what IV suggest is good. If you personally take responsibility and make the online petition a success, great... and best luck.
IV core has set their priorities after considerable thinking so please dont be upset if they dont involve in this.
I agree and I support. maybe as some have said that online don't have the same impact ..but there is no harm in doing something extra. also, we will be able to get more supporters for online especially if we send the links to our respective friends, batchmates etc
IV core has set their priorities after considerable thinking so please dont be upset if they dont involve in this.
I agree and I support. maybe as some have said that online don't have the same impact ..but there is no harm in doing something extra. also, we will be able to get more supporters for online especially if we send the links to our respective friends, batchmates etc
wallpaper house quotes famous Love+poems
jetguy777
03-09 12:53 PM
by the way shusterman predicted ROW will retrogress in his blog found at shusterman.com there was also an IV post about this (abbout somethin like shusterman got a call from clinton or something)..........
so what happened to the quareterly spill over ???????????
Last year's April visa bulletin contained the following note:
D. INDIA EMPLOYMENT SECOND PREFERENCE VISA AVAILABILITY
"Section 202(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides that if total demand will be insufficient to use all available numbers in a particular Employment preference category in a calendar quarter, then the unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual �per-country� limit. It has been determined that based on the current level of demand being received, primarily by Citizenship and Immigration Services Offices, there would be otherwise unused numbers in the Employment Second preference category. As a result, numbers have once again become available to the India Employment Second preference category. The rate of number use in the Employment Second preference category will continue to be monitored, and it may be necessary to make adjustments should the level of demand increase substantially. "
At the risk of stating the obvious there was not any spillover this month but there is hope that we may see spillover in future months.
so what happened to the quareterly spill over ???????????
Last year's April visa bulletin contained the following note:
D. INDIA EMPLOYMENT SECOND PREFERENCE VISA AVAILABILITY
"Section 202(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides that if total demand will be insufficient to use all available numbers in a particular Employment preference category in a calendar quarter, then the unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual �per-country� limit. It has been determined that based on the current level of demand being received, primarily by Citizenship and Immigration Services Offices, there would be otherwise unused numbers in the Employment Second preference category. As a result, numbers have once again become available to the India Employment Second preference category. The rate of number use in the Employment Second preference category will continue to be monitored, and it may be necessary to make adjustments should the level of demand increase substantially. "
At the risk of stating the obvious there was not any spillover this month but there is hope that we may see spillover in future months.
thesparky007
02-14 07:24 PM
i dont even have a 3d application to try
i would if i had 1
sorry
hehe
i would if i had 1
sorry
hehe
2011 Screenshots Famous Love Quotes
Jaime
09-10 09:13 PM
I wish these bills the best! Also, once we have a new president we will have another shot at solving our immigration woes! Let's go for it guys!
more...
chmur
09-11 03:04 PM
EB3-ROW Pending per Aug 2009 I-485 Inventory ~ 63K
The EB3-ROW Demand for October 2010 ~ 45K.
So actually backlog reduction for EB3 ROW has just been 18 K (much less than the 30K they should get). I don't see where you are seeing the overflow.
The total Pending in Aug 2009 was
EB2 ALL- 75K. EB3 all -151K . So total ~ 225K
The demand data today is EB2 = 34K(this is only I/C, no ROW demand)
Demand for EB3 = 136K.
So even though reduction in backlog is significant (225K- 170K =55K). It is not going to all categories evenly.
And unless USCIS comes up with a smarter way to determine demand data other than counting pending I-485, once this demand goes to zero they will have to advance EB2 I/C dates. Now they can be smart and advance it by 6 months to not open up floodgates and test the post 2007 demand, or just follow the rule blindly that supply > demand and the category is current. Either way, the law prevents any spillover from a category unless it is current and EB2 I/C is not getting current in 2-3 years.
I also want to believe like you that the hidden demand post 2007 for EB2I/C + EB3 ROW is as low as possible. And we won't know about the exact number till USCIS does a better job of reporting approved I-140 by country.
Check with latest Inventory data - 05/2010
Also - where can i get the demand data you are referring to ??
The EB3-ROW Demand for October 2010 ~ 45K.
So actually backlog reduction for EB3 ROW has just been 18 K (much less than the 30K they should get). I don't see where you are seeing the overflow.
The total Pending in Aug 2009 was
EB2 ALL- 75K. EB3 all -151K . So total ~ 225K
The demand data today is EB2 = 34K(this is only I/C, no ROW demand)
Demand for EB3 = 136K.
So even though reduction in backlog is significant (225K- 170K =55K). It is not going to all categories evenly.
And unless USCIS comes up with a smarter way to determine demand data other than counting pending I-485, once this demand goes to zero they will have to advance EB2 I/C dates. Now they can be smart and advance it by 6 months to not open up floodgates and test the post 2007 demand, or just follow the rule blindly that supply > demand and the category is current. Either way, the law prevents any spillover from a category unless it is current and EB2 I/C is not getting current in 2-3 years.
I also want to believe like you that the hidden demand post 2007 for EB2I/C + EB3 ROW is as low as possible. And we won't know about the exact number till USCIS does a better job of reporting approved I-140 by country.
Check with latest Inventory data - 05/2010
Also - where can i get the demand data you are referring to ??
logiclife
02-13 12:49 PM
It is an item on the organization's agenda.
Both for USCIS and BECs to show some transparency. More posts mean more attention, but the posts are made by 800 members and majority of them are stuck in Dallas and Philly BECs or waiting for 485 to be filed so that they can get portability benefit beyond 6th year.
That is much more important than speed of 485 processing. It is on the agenda of the org but the reason you dont see those posts is because its not a problem yet for the majority on this forum. That's just how it works. First things first. You dont find people on student visas worried about Labor backlogs coz they need to find H1 first. You dont find people stuck in labor worried about retrogression coz they need to get their labor approved first without which retrogression or no-retrogression makes no difference to them.
I agree with your idea and understand that USCIS handling of 485 is a serious issue, just trying to explain why you dont see too many posts here for that issue.
Both for USCIS and BECs to show some transparency. More posts mean more attention, but the posts are made by 800 members and majority of them are stuck in Dallas and Philly BECs or waiting for 485 to be filed so that they can get portability benefit beyond 6th year.
That is much more important than speed of 485 processing. It is on the agenda of the org but the reason you dont see those posts is because its not a problem yet for the majority on this forum. That's just how it works. First things first. You dont find people on student visas worried about Labor backlogs coz they need to find H1 first. You dont find people stuck in labor worried about retrogression coz they need to get their labor approved first without which retrogression or no-retrogression makes no difference to them.
I agree with your idea and understand that USCIS handling of 485 is a serious issue, just trying to explain why you dont see too many posts here for that issue.
more...
2ndJuly
09-11 11:53 AM
Here is the info from NumbersUSA:
Vote on Foreign-Worker Bills Postponed Amid Growing Opposition
Updated Thursday, September 11, 2008, 10:00 AM
The House Judiciary Committee yesterday postponed consideration of bills containing massive foreign worker increases (H.R. 5882 and H.R. 5924) after the committee's debate stalled during discussions on the armed forces amnesty bill (H.R. 6020). The committee is expected to resume consideration of all three bills on September 18
Vote on Foreign-Worker Bills Postponed Amid Growing Opposition
Updated Thursday, September 11, 2008, 10:00 AM
The House Judiciary Committee yesterday postponed consideration of bills containing massive foreign worker increases (H.R. 5882 and H.R. 5924) after the committee's debate stalled during discussions on the armed forces amnesty bill (H.R. 6020). The committee is expected to resume consideration of all three bills on September 18
2010 Green Famous Quotes of Love
studmvr
12-13 09:25 AM
PD-Nov03 EB2 here in Central-NJ.
Iam in the process of letting everyone in my friends community know about IV here. Please contact me @ studmvr@yahoo.com for any help for IV.
Iam in the process of letting everyone in my friends community know about IV here. Please contact me @ studmvr@yahoo.com for any help for IV.
more...
coolmanasip
03-07 08:45 AM
Guys....like everyone else I have been doing exhaustive research on this subject for last month or so.....I have resigned this week from my job and have decided to use AC21...... following are answers to some of your questions...
New Employer support - There is no need for the new employer to support the GC process.....After you file 485, the process is yours as an individual and not of any employer....All you are saying is that my I-140 was once approved with some employer and USCIS took forever (read more than 180 days) to give me my green card......so as long as your job is in the same profession (read occupational classification) you are okay....so NO, the new employer does not need to support the process....all they have to say in the employement verification letter is that we intend to hire this person on permenant basis after getting his Green Card...... Please read Yates Memo of 2005 and it will tell you all there is to know about AC21.....
Lawyer Support and Expenses------- I can imagine lawyers trying to make whatever case for asking whatever ammount of money for AC21 as that is a new business area for them?----- I do not think you need a lawyer for this.....there are plenty of letters on the net that show the template....also, if you are sure your employer is not going to revoke the I-140 then you are not even required to send the letter untill if and when USCIS asks for employement verification letter.....
As per charges from RK and Murthy...
Rajiv Khanna - $3000 for primary +$1000 per dependent
Murthy - $2000....
I have done some exhaustive research on this AC21 crap and have decided to change the employment......
New Employer support - There is no need for the new employer to support the GC process.....After you file 485, the process is yours as an individual and not of any employer....All you are saying is that my I-140 was once approved with some employer and USCIS took forever (read more than 180 days) to give me my green card......so as long as your job is in the same profession (read occupational classification) you are okay....so NO, the new employer does not need to support the process....all they have to say in the employement verification letter is that we intend to hire this person on permenant basis after getting his Green Card...... Please read Yates Memo of 2005 and it will tell you all there is to know about AC21.....
Lawyer Support and Expenses------- I can imagine lawyers trying to make whatever case for asking whatever ammount of money for AC21 as that is a new business area for them?----- I do not think you need a lawyer for this.....there are plenty of letters on the net that show the template....also, if you are sure your employer is not going to revoke the I-140 then you are not even required to send the letter untill if and when USCIS asks for employement verification letter.....
As per charges from RK and Murthy...
Rajiv Khanna - $3000 for primary +$1000 per dependent
Murthy - $2000....
I have done some exhaustive research on this AC21 crap and have decided to change the employment......
hair famous quotes about love and
meg_z
06-22 03:52 PM
USCIS filing fee - $180.00 check payable to 'United States Citizenship and Immigration Service' OR 'USCIS' with your SSN# and I-765 mentioned in the comments section of the check
Thanks.
Thanks.
more...
amitjoey
01-02 04:14 PM
Is there any way to find out the number of members in IV. I talked about IV with a lot of my friends and 6 of them have become members. It would be nice to know the number of members in IV just like we know the Percentage of Target Met for $ contributions.
From Pappu's post- total Members till now 7,921.
From Pappu's post- total Members till now 7,921.
hot Funny Quotes About Love And
saatiish
07-13 10:40 AM
Mar 1 2006 - Mar 7 2006 --> will be processed when cutoff date is Mar 08 2006.
yikes !!! so looks like I have to wait then... anyways I was happy for a few moments till I saw this message :)
yikes !!! so looks like I have to wait then... anyways I was happy for a few moments till I saw this message :)
more...
house famous quotes about love and
pappu
04-06 07:39 PM
Sure I will give the link..
I know its not fake..because I have 3 people on our floor who came from a visit..who saw these kind of things happening right in front of them (and my friends were GCs so I guess they themselves were left alone).
Now coming to point of posting their experiences themselves..especially in a situation where they were not allowed to enter US, I dont think they have any incentive left to post and seek help from fellow IV..once they are out they are out..
Nothing can bring them back unless they file a new petition and go for stamping..
I can imagine how much pain they might be going through, touchwood if I was to be one ofthem, I dont see myself posting my experience for 3 months or so..
its a different case where someone is inside US and they face a problem, yeah..why not they post straight away, but this is a different territory..we can only expect them to post, its not going to happen or may be rare case.
If we come across a few cases we can explore options. Is there an appeal process? This can be in media and can help future cases. With few case examples, a legal opinion can also be sought if this is legal at POE.
In the absence of real cases, there is no way any action can be taken and it will stay as a forum rumor.
I know its not fake..because I have 3 people on our floor who came from a visit..who saw these kind of things happening right in front of them (and my friends were GCs so I guess they themselves were left alone).
Now coming to point of posting their experiences themselves..especially in a situation where they were not allowed to enter US, I dont think they have any incentive left to post and seek help from fellow IV..once they are out they are out..
Nothing can bring them back unless they file a new petition and go for stamping..
I can imagine how much pain they might be going through, touchwood if I was to be one ofthem, I dont see myself posting my experience for 3 months or so..
its a different case where someone is inside US and they face a problem, yeah..why not they post straight away, but this is a different territory..we can only expect them to post, its not going to happen or may be rare case.
If we come across a few cases we can explore options. Is there an appeal process? This can be in media and can help future cases. With few case examples, a legal opinion can also be sought if this is legal at POE.
In the absence of real cases, there is no way any action can be taken and it will stay as a forum rumor.
tattoo pictures funny quotes from
alisa
01-19 06:15 PM
Thanks jungalee43...
Bumping up this thread.
BTW, this is the best we have got so far. If anyone can improve on this, please let me know. I will look into this in detail later. An online tool that shows a person how screwed up they are (or are not) due to retrogression should also be helpful.
I had posted this statistics last year on IV. I had done good research to arrive at these figures. I hope the figures will open eyes of people who are bestowed with 'blissful ignorance'.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=1265#post1265
Bumping up this thread.
BTW, this is the best we have got so far. If anyone can improve on this, please let me know. I will look into this in detail later. An online tool that shows a person how screwed up they are (or are not) due to retrogression should also be helpful.
I had posted this statistics last year on IV. I had done good research to arrive at these figures. I hope the figures will open eyes of people who are bestowed with 'blissful ignorance'.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=1265#post1265
more...
pictures funny quotes about love and
Madhuri
10-15 01:46 PM
and will mail it tomorrow.
dresses famous quotes about love and
pappu
07-24 10:56 AM
I will try to dig out the actual memo. But this is from the oh law firm page:
---
06/17/2007: Flexible RFE/NOID Response Time Rule and Advisory for July EB-485 Filing
* As we advised earlier, the USCIS published a new rule that allows the USCIS to have more discredtion and control over the two issues: One is shortening of the timeframe for responses to RFE from previous 12 weeks to any period of time which they see fit. The second rule is their authority to either reject or deny petitions or applications without issuing RFE where "initial evidence" is missing in the filing. Previously, the so-called Yates memo indirectly required the agency to avoid rejection and denial with a recommend to issue RFEs as much as possible. This part of the Yates memo is overridden by the new rule who took effect yesterday, June 16, 2007. It is thus likely that the Service Centers will more aggressively reject or deny the I-485 applications where the "initial evidence" are missing in the filing packet. It is thus very important that people understand the definition of "initial evidence." The initial evidence varies between the nonimmigrant and immigrant proceedings and for that matter, each type of proceedings. The immigration regulation lists in details the initial evidence. However, the instructions sheets to each petition or application lists the initial evidence that are required for filing. Accordingly, beginning from today, people may want to read the instruction sheet for I-485 form carefully to learn the list of initial evidence and not to miss omitting these evidence in filing I-485 applications.
* One of the initial evidence which is listed is the sealed I-693, the Medical Examination results completed and sealed by the USCIS designated civil surgeons who examined the applicants per the immigration rules. As we reported yesterday, attorneys asked the USCIS authorities to accept I-485 applications without the medical result, but their answer was that they were taking it under advicement but as it stands now, the sealed medical report would be required as initial evidence, accoring to the USCIS authorities who were present at the AILA Annual Conference in Orlando. We understand that in some areas, there are a huge backlog in the physician's clinics for such medical examination. However, people can shop around the authorized physicians in much broader areas. For instance, people usually were asked to schedule such medical examination in the local "district" office where the applicants resided. The definition of "district office" has been broaden lately. Former district offices have been turned into field offices of a district office. Accordingly, people can schedule the medical examination through a physician located outside of their residence if the area falls under the jurisdiction of "district" even if it is outside the jurisdiction of "field office."
---
---
06/17/2007: Flexible RFE/NOID Response Time Rule and Advisory for July EB-485 Filing
* As we advised earlier, the USCIS published a new rule that allows the USCIS to have more discredtion and control over the two issues: One is shortening of the timeframe for responses to RFE from previous 12 weeks to any period of time which they see fit. The second rule is their authority to either reject or deny petitions or applications without issuing RFE where "initial evidence" is missing in the filing. Previously, the so-called Yates memo indirectly required the agency to avoid rejection and denial with a recommend to issue RFEs as much as possible. This part of the Yates memo is overridden by the new rule who took effect yesterday, June 16, 2007. It is thus likely that the Service Centers will more aggressively reject or deny the I-485 applications where the "initial evidence" are missing in the filing packet. It is thus very important that people understand the definition of "initial evidence." The initial evidence varies between the nonimmigrant and immigrant proceedings and for that matter, each type of proceedings. The immigration regulation lists in details the initial evidence. However, the instructions sheets to each petition or application lists the initial evidence that are required for filing. Accordingly, beginning from today, people may want to read the instruction sheet for I-485 form carefully to learn the list of initial evidence and not to miss omitting these evidence in filing I-485 applications.
* One of the initial evidence which is listed is the sealed I-693, the Medical Examination results completed and sealed by the USCIS designated civil surgeons who examined the applicants per the immigration rules. As we reported yesterday, attorneys asked the USCIS authorities to accept I-485 applications without the medical result, but their answer was that they were taking it under advicement but as it stands now, the sealed medical report would be required as initial evidence, accoring to the USCIS authorities who were present at the AILA Annual Conference in Orlando. We understand that in some areas, there are a huge backlog in the physician's clinics for such medical examination. However, people can shop around the authorized physicians in much broader areas. For instance, people usually were asked to schedule such medical examination in the local "district" office where the applicants resided. The definition of "district office" has been broaden lately. Former district offices have been turned into field offices of a district office. Accordingly, people can schedule the medical examination through a physician located outside of their residence if the area falls under the jurisdiction of "district" even if it is outside the jurisdiction of "field office."
---
more...
makeup quotes on love and
Openarms
08-11 03:20 PM
As far I am concerned they are one of the organizations that injected this EB2 vs EB3 allocation... at that movement they might have their own reasons... but it might change now... We kinda know where IV stands on this...
They do....
How come a person with EB2 category applied GC in 2006 doing the same thing that a EB3 person does who applied GC in 2002 gets their Green Cards approved?? Again not against any category...What in the world of kinda rationale is this is??
They do....
How come a person with EB2 category applied GC in 2006 doing the same thing that a EB3 person does who applied GC in 2002 gets their Green Cards approved?? Again not against any category...What in the world of kinda rationale is this is??
girlfriend famous quotes about love
gc_in_30_yrs
07-17 10:48 AM
Sanjay,
I did not find Point Number 2 in their website that you mentioned here. Can you post link to it? It may be that they removed it now, or you might understood something differently.
thanks.
gc_in_30_yrs.
Following up on the NYTimes article about the NumbersUSA group, I visited their website and saw that they have a free FAX program where they can easily send faxes to their senators.
One of their fax letters is below, which is a complete mis-representation of truth - look at point #2.
================================
Dear [This fax will go to Your U.S. Senators and U.S. Representative ]
I oppose any increase in the annual H-1B visa cap, including those in the SKIL Act. I am counting on you to oppose it.
Here are just a few reasons why I hope you will oppose the SKIL Act:
(1) The six-year visas allow foreign workers to bring in their families, and guarantee thousands of anchor babies.
(2) H-1B salaries are tax-exempt - no FICA, no federal or state income taxes. They can live at the same level as tax-paying Americans at a lower cost. Therefore, Congress allows foreigners to "low-ball" American workers.
(3) H-1Bs can leave the job they came to fill and seek other jobs, not necessarily in the "hard to fill" category.
(4) Most H-1Bs are of a "protected" ethnic group, so H-1Bs have an affirmative action preference when competing with Americans for the same jobs.
The result of the SKIL Act would be to further depress the wages of Americans working in high-tech and scientific fields and to cause additional job displacement for those workers.
Sincerely, [Your Name Will Appear Here]
==============================================
Is there any way we could let the senators know that this is complete lie, misinformation and mis-representation of facts?. We should also let the senators know that the credibility of these organizations are questionable and following the news/faxes from these organizations would in turn put the credibility of these senators at a BIG RISK. We also should let the senators know that these groups are artificially "hiking" up the count by sending in duplicate faxes.
Also, I recommend creating a similar page in IV website, where we can have an automated 1-2-3 STEP fax facility where we can automatically fax a letter to senators. It should be as simple as selecting the state and pressing the Send Fax button. Please let me know if you need any programming help from me.
Thanks,
Sanjay.
I did not find Point Number 2 in their website that you mentioned here. Can you post link to it? It may be that they removed it now, or you might understood something differently.
thanks.
gc_in_30_yrs.
Following up on the NYTimes article about the NumbersUSA group, I visited their website and saw that they have a free FAX program where they can easily send faxes to their senators.
One of their fax letters is below, which is a complete mis-representation of truth - look at point #2.
================================
Dear [This fax will go to Your U.S. Senators and U.S. Representative ]
I oppose any increase in the annual H-1B visa cap, including those in the SKIL Act. I am counting on you to oppose it.
Here are just a few reasons why I hope you will oppose the SKIL Act:
(1) The six-year visas allow foreign workers to bring in their families, and guarantee thousands of anchor babies.
(2) H-1B salaries are tax-exempt - no FICA, no federal or state income taxes. They can live at the same level as tax-paying Americans at a lower cost. Therefore, Congress allows foreigners to "low-ball" American workers.
(3) H-1Bs can leave the job they came to fill and seek other jobs, not necessarily in the "hard to fill" category.
(4) Most H-1Bs are of a "protected" ethnic group, so H-1Bs have an affirmative action preference when competing with Americans for the same jobs.
The result of the SKIL Act would be to further depress the wages of Americans working in high-tech and scientific fields and to cause additional job displacement for those workers.
Sincerely, [Your Name Will Appear Here]
==============================================
Is there any way we could let the senators know that this is complete lie, misinformation and mis-representation of facts?. We should also let the senators know that the credibility of these organizations are questionable and following the news/faxes from these organizations would in turn put the credibility of these senators at a BIG RISK. We also should let the senators know that these groups are artificially "hiking" up the count by sending in duplicate faxes.
Also, I recommend creating a similar page in IV website, where we can have an automated 1-2-3 STEP fax facility where we can automatically fax a letter to senators. It should be as simple as selecting the state and pressing the Send Fax button. Please let me know if you need any programming help from me.
Thanks,
Sanjay.
hairstyles My favorite love quotes,
andycool
03-16 02:04 PM
141,020 visa numbers used in FY2009
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV.pdf
Look at the last page.
The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is 140,000. So the usage was actually more.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
Hello Desi,
"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:
1. 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).
2. 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.
This is from April Visa Bulletin , according to this S korea got 14,211 visas from FB ( spill over from FB - EB) then dont you think the total EB visas issued in 2009 should be around 150000 instead of 141000....
I am little confused...
your comment will be greatly appreciated ;)
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV.pdf
Look at the last page.
The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is 140,000. So the usage was actually more.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
Hello Desi,
"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:
1. 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).
2. 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.
This is from April Visa Bulletin , according to this S korea got 14,211 visas from FB ( spill over from FB - EB) then dont you think the total EB visas issued in 2009 should be around 150000 instead of 141000....
I am little confused...
your comment will be greatly appreciated ;)
snathan
03-11 09:19 PM
If we put the word H1B in the Visa Re-capturing bill, the bill would be doomed. As few have rightly pointed out, it would be taken out of context probably advertised and interpreted as increasing H1B visas.
If we put the words, eliminating per country limits, it would doomed. The CNN headlines would scream "Indians and Chinese are coming".
If we put any changes to the current requirements of I-485 filing, it would be interpreted as diluting the existing laws to import more cheap foreign workers faster. The anti-immigration forces would be all over it like a monkey on a cupcake.
If we keep it simple : Re-capturing unused visa numbers for Employment Based Categories for Foreign Born Professionals already employed in the US legally and in the queue for Permanent Residency, we have a high chance of success.
IV team please start the fund raising for re-capturing visa numbers. Thanks.
Before starting new fund raising...do you consider to contribute for the current drive.
If we put the words, eliminating per country limits, it would doomed. The CNN headlines would scream "Indians and Chinese are coming".
If we put any changes to the current requirements of I-485 filing, it would be interpreted as diluting the existing laws to import more cheap foreign workers faster. The anti-immigration forces would be all over it like a monkey on a cupcake.
If we keep it simple : Re-capturing unused visa numbers for Employment Based Categories for Foreign Born Professionals already employed in the US legally and in the queue for Permanent Residency, we have a high chance of success.
IV team please start the fund raising for re-capturing visa numbers. Thanks.
Before starting new fund raising...do you consider to contribute for the current drive.
mirage
03-17 12:26 PM
As far as I know there are atleast 5-6K applicants waiting with PDs before Dec-2003. Considering 3 visas used for each applicant. There'll be a requirement of atleast 15-20K Green Card numbers for Indian EB3 to clear people up to Dec'2003. While EB3 gets a maximum of 3K/Year. My guess is it'll take 5-6 Years to get the EB3 to Dec'2003.
If we assume this poll is a mirror of actual application load at USCIS then 70% applications were filed before January 2005 (529/750). Out of 529, 223 were filed during June 2003 or before (42% load). Now during last May-June 2007 EB3-I's current PD reached to June 2003. So assuming current stuck ones were product of either PBEC/DBEC labor approval delay and /or Name check delay, they will be virtually ready to go, I mean get a GC rightaway. People with PD having DEC 2003 and before will have fair chance as well.
If we assume this poll is a mirror of actual application load at USCIS then 70% applications were filed before January 2005 (529/750). Out of 529, 223 were filed during June 2003 or before (42% load). Now during last May-June 2007 EB3-I's current PD reached to June 2003. So assuming current stuck ones were product of either PBEC/DBEC labor approval delay and /or Name check delay, they will be virtually ready to go, I mean get a GC rightaway. People with PD having DEC 2003 and before will have fair chance as well.
Post a Comment