chetanjumani
04-23 11:03 PM
Congrats Googler.
Enjoy your GC
Enjoy your GC
wallpaper happy birthday quotes for best friends. Happy Birthday. » Best Friends
pappu
07-23 09:08 PM
Employment Letter is Required. I would even go to the extent of emphasising to put original letter instead of a photocopy. Do not take chances. The application can be rejected/RFE can be issued in the absece of initial evidence. Read the new memo and educate yourself rather then blindly believing members or lawyers. Ignorance of law is not an excuse if you were to challenge a denial notice. When all information is available, make yourself educated. and BTW get a good lawyer to file your application so that each and every small detail can be taken care of.
Sunx_2004
07-14 06:02 PM
Can new company file amendmend to existing I-140...
The company who filed my greencard got acquired within 6 months of I485 filing for me, They amend my H1 within 6 months window and now they are in process of amending the I140..
My question to gurus is-Will he be ok if his new company amend the I140.
Of course, you know your problems best, but it was obviously irresponsible of you to quit before letting 180 days pass after applying for 485.
Here is the problem. The letter of employment you send to CIS must have a start date which will expose your violation of the 180 day rule. So unless you lie here, you are likely in in trouble. Your best bet is to suck it up and return to your sponsoring employer. That will ensure your case 100%. Any other option is risky.
Go to a knowledged attorney. Khanna, Murthy, Gotcher etc., are the names I know.
The company who filed my greencard got acquired within 6 months of I485 filing for me, They amend my H1 within 6 months window and now they are in process of amending the I140..
My question to gurus is-Will he be ok if his new company amend the I140.
Of course, you know your problems best, but it was obviously irresponsible of you to quit before letting 180 days pass after applying for 485.
Here is the problem. The letter of employment you send to CIS must have a start date which will expose your violation of the 180 day rule. So unless you lie here, you are likely in in trouble. Your best bet is to suck it up and return to your sponsoring employer. That will ensure your case 100%. Any other option is risky.
Go to a knowledged attorney. Khanna, Murthy, Gotcher etc., are the names I know.
2011 happy birthday quotes funny
arnab221
03-18 07:57 PM
On a lighter note .
The USCIS has a 4 year full time course for understanding PD's and restrogression . It is called BPD&R ( Bachelor of Priority Dates and Retrogression ) . This degree is recognised only by the in the US and H1b's are also granted based on this course .There is no education evaluation needed.
You could also do an MBPD&R and leads to Phd also . You could then join the USCIS and set PD's for the countries .
The USCIS has a 4 year full time course for understanding PD's and restrogression . It is called BPD&R ( Bachelor of Priority Dates and Retrogression ) . This degree is recognised only by the in the US and H1b's are also granted based on this course .There is no education evaluation needed.
You could also do an MBPD&R and leads to Phd also . You could then join the USCIS and set PD's for the countries .
more...
Imigrait
01-30 02:46 PM
You didn't get it. One could have filed I-485 and still accruing out-of-status days. Hint - Employment history and salary details since last admission.
Please note that I am not implying that CrazyGhoda is accumulating out-of-status, I don't have all the details for his case.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
So, basically anyone laid off on I485 pending without a job is accumulating "out of status" days.That's your opinion?
Please note that I am not implying that CrazyGhoda is accumulating out-of-status, I don't have all the details for his case.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
So, basically anyone laid off on I485 pending without a job is accumulating "out of status" days.That's your opinion?
senthil1
06-12 03:10 PM
If no H1b restrictions then mostly lottery for new H1b for every year( I think 115k is not enough as Consulting companies will rush to get the quota on first day) unless unlimited H1b was given. Lottery is very bad for good companies. Best way is to put restrictions only for new H1bs and exclude from extensions and transfers.
If people think that after CIR fails, we will have a better chance of getting favorable provisions with some other Bill or on coat tails of appropriation bills, it could be a risky gamble.
However, looking at the mood of Senate there is a very good chance that post-CIR we might be thrown a curve ball with some hard line H1B restrictions and fee increases extracted from almost passed CIR. So opposing CIR due to H1 alone is not the best strategy.
CIR is on the table because there are lot of interests driving its existence. If Compete America and us(IV) cannot drive in a small amendment into a popular bill like this, it would be a big blow. Is there enough bite in the coalition to create our own bill or fight an anti-H1 wave out there? That's up for judgement.
My point is, please do not assume H1B status quo will stay that way even if CIR fails. Like someone pointed out in these forums, big Corporations might enlist these anti-consulting restrictions/fee increases and use as compromise to increase H1 numbers(even post CIR).
And we thought life was tough now, imagine paying 10K for every H1 extension and not being able to consult and status quo on current GC system still place. Thats a hair raising thought for me.
If people think that after CIR fails, we will have a better chance of getting favorable provisions with some other Bill or on coat tails of appropriation bills, it could be a risky gamble.
However, looking at the mood of Senate there is a very good chance that post-CIR we might be thrown a curve ball with some hard line H1B restrictions and fee increases extracted from almost passed CIR. So opposing CIR due to H1 alone is not the best strategy.
CIR is on the table because there are lot of interests driving its existence. If Compete America and us(IV) cannot drive in a small amendment into a popular bill like this, it would be a big blow. Is there enough bite in the coalition to create our own bill or fight an anti-H1 wave out there? That's up for judgement.
My point is, please do not assume H1B status quo will stay that way even if CIR fails. Like someone pointed out in these forums, big Corporations might enlist these anti-consulting restrictions/fee increases and use as compromise to increase H1 numbers(even post CIR).
And we thought life was tough now, imagine paying 10K for every H1 extension and not being able to consult and status quo on current GC system still place. Thats a hair raising thought for me.
more...
delhiguy
07-09 04:05 PM
Delhiguy,
YES! They did broke law by provisioning visa numbers for applications that had not cleared FBI check. Their book clearly says the visa number needs to be alloted only after the application is 100% ready for adjudication.
Are we 100% SURE that this happened???
Is there any clause in the law, which lets them do this ,If FBI doesnt give any information for 6 months/1 Year... I dont know , so i will let the court decide.
YES! They did broke law by provisioning visa numbers for applications that had not cleared FBI check. Their book clearly says the visa number needs to be alloted only after the application is 100% ready for adjudication.
Are we 100% SURE that this happened???
Is there any clause in the law, which lets them do this ,If FBI doesnt give any information for 6 months/1 Year... I dont know , so i will let the court decide.
2010 Happy Birthday Quotes Comments
kutra
03-06 10:06 AM
btw you are paranoid ..how can someone else do this for you ??
>So long as singhsa3's not pledging that I and my wife will buy our house #2 and house #3 only because USCIS gives us green cards
dude, i was being funny. which part of the smiley didn't you get?
why are you so scared :-D ..what happens if media watches the poll and how is this dirty linen ...it is a valid point ..and the main point is legal people have to wait for years and years to get the stupid card (and in the meanwhile keep on paying the lawyers fees) ..this is not dirty linen ...if you are not convinced then stay out of the way.
really I dont see any other options after the letter campaign ...unless some one else has a better idea !!
I have been resisting to get dragged into this, but I have to post! Not only are you incapable of understanding humor, but you are totally incompetent in understanding plain English.
I never wrote dirty linen is "writing the fact that we have to wait for years and years" or "having the poll" either. singhsa3 is trying his best to make a case that all of us who are "waiting for years and years" have the potential to buy houses, and therefore give us GCs. Dirty linen is when people like me and Pegasus503 offer our contrasting views (and get red-dotted by immature posters who cannot have a civil debate) AND the media thinks these IV folks are not even in agreement on this subject. This to me would be detrimental to singhsa3's efforts and thus I wrote let's not bicker/argue/wash dirty linen about whether we agree with singhsa3's idea or not.
As far as your advice "if you are not convinced then stay out of the way", take a cold shower, dude. I was the first to delete my post and asked others to do the same so this would benefit singhsa3's campaign. If your miniscule brain cannot fathom my posts, ignore them and help singhsa3 out instead. And yes, while you are growing up, do resist the urge to add those red-dots......that's not getting you your green card any faster.
>So long as singhsa3's not pledging that I and my wife will buy our house #2 and house #3 only because USCIS gives us green cards
dude, i was being funny. which part of the smiley didn't you get?
why are you so scared :-D ..what happens if media watches the poll and how is this dirty linen ...it is a valid point ..and the main point is legal people have to wait for years and years to get the stupid card (and in the meanwhile keep on paying the lawyers fees) ..this is not dirty linen ...if you are not convinced then stay out of the way.
really I dont see any other options after the letter campaign ...unless some one else has a better idea !!
I have been resisting to get dragged into this, but I have to post! Not only are you incapable of understanding humor, but you are totally incompetent in understanding plain English.
I never wrote dirty linen is "writing the fact that we have to wait for years and years" or "having the poll" either. singhsa3 is trying his best to make a case that all of us who are "waiting for years and years" have the potential to buy houses, and therefore give us GCs. Dirty linen is when people like me and Pegasus503 offer our contrasting views (and get red-dotted by immature posters who cannot have a civil debate) AND the media thinks these IV folks are not even in agreement on this subject. This to me would be detrimental to singhsa3's efforts and thus I wrote let's not bicker/argue/wash dirty linen about whether we agree with singhsa3's idea or not.
As far as your advice "if you are not convinced then stay out of the way", take a cold shower, dude. I was the first to delete my post and asked others to do the same so this would benefit singhsa3's campaign. If your miniscule brain cannot fathom my posts, ignore them and help singhsa3 out instead. And yes, while you are growing up, do resist the urge to add those red-dots......that's not getting you your green card any faster.
more...
vijayassr
02-23 02:24 AM
Hi,
Have a question on my visa.
I applied for H1 visa with company A, when I am in US in Apr'08 with
L1 thats getting expired, due to emergency I went to India.
I got h1 approval notice with COS on July'23 2008.
My Indian company B asked to get fresh L1 , so I took a stamping on
Aug'20 2008 and came to US on L1
changed company A with H1 visa . (company A did not do any COS again, since they say H1 is already with COS).
Want to know if my H1 is valid do I need to do any other things to
tell USCIS that I am on H1 NOW. Can I do stamping at Mexico/Cuba.
If there is any problem above how to come out of it.
Have a question on my visa.
I applied for H1 visa with company A, when I am in US in Apr'08 with
L1 thats getting expired, due to emergency I went to India.
I got h1 approval notice with COS on July'23 2008.
My Indian company B asked to get fresh L1 , so I took a stamping on
Aug'20 2008 and came to US on L1
changed company A with H1 visa . (company A did not do any COS again, since they say H1 is already with COS).
Want to know if my H1 is valid do I need to do any other things to
tell USCIS that I am on H1 NOW. Can I do stamping at Mexico/Cuba.
If there is any problem above how to come out of it.
hair happy birthday quotes funny
richi121175
01-17 02:19 PM
I tried to send you something in a private msg but your quota is fullShameless creatures, not even a single guy came and blasted me out for such comments ..! This means that I am telling the truth. You guys don't even have any self dignity left to come and face off with me.
:mad: :mad:
:mad: :mad:
more...
GCanyMinute
08-02 03:17 PM
The unavailabilty of a Visa number does not 'cancel' an I-485 that has already been filed.
It merely means that one cannot file an I-485, OR if one has previously filed (during a period when cut-off dates were not retrogressed) an I-485, it cannot be approved.
USCIS may have proceeded very far on your case... but they (like you) must wait for an available number before approving your I-485.
By the way, I'm in EXACTLY the same boat as you: my PD is 03may02, everything but I-485 approved. My only difference was that my i-140 was approved in may 2005, a month before the retrogression crash: just missed getting GC, now expecting to wait 2 more years.:(
Thanks for your comments!! it is good to know that i'm not alone in the road lol !! but hey do you really think that it is gonna take 2 years for our PD ?? That's just crazy I don't know if I'm willing to wait that long... (of course I'll but ya know just some drama :p )
It merely means that one cannot file an I-485, OR if one has previously filed (during a period when cut-off dates were not retrogressed) an I-485, it cannot be approved.
USCIS may have proceeded very far on your case... but they (like you) must wait for an available number before approving your I-485.
By the way, I'm in EXACTLY the same boat as you: my PD is 03may02, everything but I-485 approved. My only difference was that my i-140 was approved in may 2005, a month before the retrogression crash: just missed getting GC, now expecting to wait 2 more years.:(
Thanks for your comments!! it is good to know that i'm not alone in the road lol !! but hey do you really think that it is gonna take 2 years for our PD ?? That's just crazy I don't know if I'm willing to wait that long... (of course I'll but ya know just some drama :p )
hot images funny quotes about
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...
house happy birthday quotes funny.
thomachan72
07-13 09:20 AM
Do any of you think that the dates will move forward next month? Looking at the backlog numbers published by USCIS, I think they moved as far as they could to make use of all the available visas. I am thinking that the move next month might be only a few days or a month at the max. USCIS mentioned last month that we could expect the dates to be March/April 06 at the end of this fiscal year. Will this mean that EB2I will hold out at March / April 06 for the next fiscal year?
Interesting question. You are probably quite accurate but there still remains some hope of a few months movement:D:D
Interesting question. You are probably quite accurate but there still remains some hope of a few months movement:D:D
tattoo happy birthday quotes;
.JPG "Funny Happy Birthday Quotes")
sledge_hammer
07-14 09:05 AM
I have a question for the core team. There are way too many people on this forum offering their 2 cents, so why are you guys still asking for more contributions? Going by the rate at which people give away their 2 cents, the IV treasury must be full! :D
more...
pictures happy irthday quotes funny for
meridiani.planum
03-16 04:32 PM
what i am saying is how and why is it that inspite of the PD having been current as I detailed in my original post for so long during 2000-2005 for EB 2 India, why are there applicants from way back in 2002 and 2003 still waiting?
Honestly, I thought they should have been already processed and gotten their Green cards by now.
All I am trying to figure out is how many applicants from 2004-2005 are still in the proverbial 'PIPELINE' waiting. Unless they are done, the PD is not gonna move.
If we can have it move conclusively to 2005-2006 regions relatively quickly, most problems are solved.
most people who filed LC in 2004/2005 before PERM got approvals in 2006 and 2007 and have only got a chance to apply for 485 in July VB. There are 10s of thousands of such people with that LC and EB2-India. When was the opportunity to get approval?
BTW, what are the chances that the PD may become "Current" again for EB2/EB3 India over the next 40 months?
without an administrative fix, and with the current levels of demand and supply I would say its NIL. It needs to be a mistake...
Also, with H1 quota possibly going up this year or next, expect even more demand, and the dates will probably not be current for atleast a decade. The demand is going to go up (more H1s filing for greencards) and supply remaining the same (140k + country-limits etc)
Honestly, I thought they should have been already processed and gotten their Green cards by now.
All I am trying to figure out is how many applicants from 2004-2005 are still in the proverbial 'PIPELINE' waiting. Unless they are done, the PD is not gonna move.
If we can have it move conclusively to 2005-2006 regions relatively quickly, most problems are solved.
most people who filed LC in 2004/2005 before PERM got approvals in 2006 and 2007 and have only got a chance to apply for 485 in July VB. There are 10s of thousands of such people with that LC and EB2-India. When was the opportunity to get approval?
BTW, what are the chances that the PD may become "Current" again for EB2/EB3 India over the next 40 months?
without an administrative fix, and with the current levels of demand and supply I would say its NIL. It needs to be a mistake...
Also, with H1 quota possibly going up this year or next, expect even more demand, and the dates will probably not be current for atleast a decade. The demand is going to go up (more H1s filing for greencards) and supply remaining the same (140k + country-limits etc)
dresses irthday quotes for best
Hermione
09-26 10:55 AM
FSB debate is on H1-B raise and NOT on PR visas. So, I dont see reason to participation in debate. Thanks for the info though.
Actually, I think participating in the debate to present the other point of view (as in 'foreign workers are good for the US economy') is a good thing to do. Giving the forum out to the antis is a good way to make sure Durbin gets his message reaffirmed. Well, that's all true, unless you are one of those people who likes to yell 'Close the door!' right after they get in.
Actually, I think participating in the debate to present the other point of view (as in 'foreign workers are good for the US economy') is a good thing to do. Giving the forum out to the antis is a good way to make sure Durbin gets his message reaffirmed. Well, that's all true, unless you are one of those people who likes to yell 'Close the door!' right after they get in.
more...
makeup happy birthday quotes funny
rimzhim
04-04 04:04 PM
[From here (http://www.ieeeusa.org/policy/issues/).
Enacting legislation to facilitate the admission of foreign professionals with advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering and managerial fields as legal permanent residents.
[/LIST]
great to hear that!
also johnifax98: if middlepersons are exploiting the system, it will help to eliminate their role. i agree that is also abuse.
Enacting legislation to facilitate the admission of foreign professionals with advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering and managerial fields as legal permanent residents.
[/LIST]
great to hear that!
also johnifax98: if middlepersons are exploiting the system, it will help to eliminate their role. i agree that is also abuse.
girlfriend Funny Happy Birthday Quotes
sweet_jungle
10-25 06:22 PM
no comments on the above ?? I do support the FOIA .but when you think about it ..what is the point in knowing that our GC's are 3-4 years away ...we should also focus on something getting passed during lame duck session ..at the very least we should be prepared for something incase it is suddenly announced that there will be lame duck session after elections ...any thoughts ??
Can somebody re-post the link for downloading the form I need to fax?
Can somebody re-post the link for downloading the form I need to fax?
hairstyles happy birthday quotes funny
k_ek
11-22 12:36 PM
Hi guys
my question is same as in the previous post of Arun.
I wanted to know if the I 140 was approoved from previous employer and if u change the job and restart the gc again can u stiil use the old I 140 prority dates(even if the previous employer revoked the old I140).
thanx
kek
my question is same as in the previous post of Arun.
I wanted to know if the I 140 was approoved from previous employer and if u change the job and restart the gc again can u stiil use the old I 140 prority dates(even if the previous employer revoked the old I140).
thanx
kek
hsm2007
09-20 07:37 PM
Hi Guys,
I am in tough spot. I was laid off from my GC sponsoring employer (A) in 2008 and joined another employer B . I did not do a AC21 notification. My dates are current and now I received an RFE to provide employment letter from current employer. The exact words of RFE are as follows:
"Submit a letter of employment attesting to applicant's current employment. This letter should be written on the company's official letterhead, citing the date the applicant began working, if a permanent full time position, the position offered, the position the applicant is currently working and the salary offered. Include corroborating evidence such as recent pay stubs, income tax returns, with all W2s or other evidence as appropriate. "
Now I am not working for original GC employer. I don't have a problem providing above from my current employer B. But whether the EVL should also mention that I am not working for GC sponsoring employer and that my current employers job profile is in same classification as previous based on AC21. Do I mention about the AC21 also in the letter? My current employer's attorneys are not that great but my current employer only wants me to use their own attorney.
Now here is the situation:
I have a job offer from another employer (Employer C) and they are in the middle of doing a H-1 transfer. In fact by tomorrow they will file the H1 paperwork. Now I don't know whether I should provide the letter from my potential new employer C . In that case, I won't be able to provide W2 or pay stubs until I join them. I have an opportunity to use my own attorney here (like murthy, Ron Gothcer..)
OR
should I provide a letter from my current employer using their attorneys and whether or not I should mention about AC21 in the employment letter.
Also they sent the RFE to my previous employer's attorney even though my current employer's attorney had sent the new G-28 forms. Can my current attorney respond to the RFE or will the response get rejected because USCIS still has old attorney on file.
Thanks.
I am in tough spot. I was laid off from my GC sponsoring employer (A) in 2008 and joined another employer B . I did not do a AC21 notification. My dates are current and now I received an RFE to provide employment letter from current employer. The exact words of RFE are as follows:
"Submit a letter of employment attesting to applicant's current employment. This letter should be written on the company's official letterhead, citing the date the applicant began working, if a permanent full time position, the position offered, the position the applicant is currently working and the salary offered. Include corroborating evidence such as recent pay stubs, income tax returns, with all W2s or other evidence as appropriate. "
Now I am not working for original GC employer. I don't have a problem providing above from my current employer B. But whether the EVL should also mention that I am not working for GC sponsoring employer and that my current employers job profile is in same classification as previous based on AC21. Do I mention about the AC21 also in the letter? My current employer's attorneys are not that great but my current employer only wants me to use their own attorney.
Now here is the situation:
I have a job offer from another employer (Employer C) and they are in the middle of doing a H-1 transfer. In fact by tomorrow they will file the H1 paperwork. Now I don't know whether I should provide the letter from my potential new employer C . In that case, I won't be able to provide W2 or pay stubs until I join them. I have an opportunity to use my own attorney here (like murthy, Ron Gothcer..)
OR
should I provide a letter from my current employer using their attorneys and whether or not I should mention about AC21 in the employment letter.
Also they sent the RFE to my previous employer's attorney even though my current employer's attorney had sent the new G-28 forms. Can my current attorney respond to the RFE or will the response get rejected because USCIS still has old attorney on file.
Thanks.
Ramba
07-09 07:44 PM
I came across this law about the departmental control of numerical limitations, and I'd appreciate it if you all could post your interpretations of the same.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
I feel that they did not violate any clause. Till June 30 which is end of third quarter, they are authorized to approve (3*27%*140K) 113,400. However they approved only 66,400 till May 31. That yields about 47,000 for June alone(10%+any number not used in previous months). The reamining visas are eligible for Jul 1, which is 13,000. Put together June and July1, it comes 60,000. Therefore they did not violate any law. This makes only 126,000. The remaining number was splitted for Consular processing.
my 2 cents...
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
I feel that they did not violate any clause. Till June 30 which is end of third quarter, they are authorized to approve (3*27%*140K) 113,400. However they approved only 66,400 till May 31. That yields about 47,000 for June alone(10%+any number not used in previous months). The reamining visas are eligible for Jul 1, which is 13,000. Put together June and July1, it comes 60,000. Therefore they did not violate any law. This makes only 126,000. The remaining number was splitted for Consular processing.
my 2 cents...
Post a Comment