kumarc123
04-09 03:37 PM
Visa Bulletin for May 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4805.html)
Hey Pappu,
What do you conclude of this? Their has to be some rational reason behind them not moving EB2I, it is hard to grasp that they are still working on 2004-2005 PD's. Is their something we can do bring them in more transparency.
I believe earlier they screwed up and now they are on apposite extreme end, scrutinizing every element.
Hey Pappu,
What do you conclude of this? Their has to be some rational reason behind them not moving EB2I, it is hard to grasp that they are still working on 2004-2005 PD's. Is their something we can do bring them in more transparency.
I believe earlier they screwed up and now they are on apposite extreme end, scrutinizing every element.
wallpaper free chinese dragon tattoo
Circus123
02-20 04:05 PM
Here is Mr. Gotcher's perspective on EB3 movement ...
In terms of EB3 movement for India do you think that the slow movement as predicted will atleast move the cut off dates to Dec 2001 (India) by end of FY 08 ?
I doubt very much that we will see any EB3 cutoff date movement until October.
James Ronald Gotcher
In terms of EB3 movement for India do you think that the slow movement as predicted will atleast move the cut off dates to Dec 2001 (India) by end of FY 08 ?
I doubt very much that we will see any EB3 cutoff date movement until October.
James Ronald Gotcher
senthil1
12-26 07:21 PM
If old employer revokes I140 then the result will be unpredictable. But it is upto INS to decide. Only those who had similar experience can tell clearly about this. Or a Lawyer can give better idea
Thanks for the reply, if old employer revokes I-140 while the other employer is still working on LC+I-140, Will this creates any problem for me?
-Thanks,
Thanks for the reply, if old employer revokes I-140 while the other employer is still working on LC+I-140, Will this creates any problem for me?
-Thanks,
2011 chinese character tattoo
atleasth1b
08-22 05:13 PM
I am in a very Bad situation it seems, please help.
I am working in US on L1B visa and Wife on L2. then Wife got a Job and her employer filled her 485.
In the mean time I applied for H1 (through a consultant, to get out of the L1B company). Looks like the H1 Got Approved. Now, I think the problem is, If I switch to H1, then she will loose her job and our chance of Getting EAD will go.
I do NOT want to go for H1, but EAD Is important to me. Is there a Way I can keep my L1? (so that my wife can keep her job)
Please help
I am working in US on L1B visa and Wife on L2. then Wife got a Job and her employer filled her 485.
In the mean time I applied for H1 (through a consultant, to get out of the L1B company). Looks like the H1 Got Approved. Now, I think the problem is, If I switch to H1, then she will loose her job and our chance of Getting EAD will go.
I do NOT want to go for H1, but EAD Is important to me. Is there a Way I can keep my L1? (so that my wife can keep her job)
Please help
more...
alterego
07-14 09:37 PM
The fundamental rule (for getting GC) is the longterm intent of having permanent employment relationship between employer and employee at the time of filing 140 and 485 (see the Q&A). The intet has to be "at the time of filing" only. The employee has worked 3 years in H1B for thr sponser. It clearly establishes the both party's intent at the time of filing. So, even if the employer revokes his approved 140, he is 100% safe.
I do not think what you are saying is correct. Ac21 does not allow you to leave before 180 days of your 485 filing.
The RFE is trying to determine whether your former employer holds a bonafide future job open for you or not. If he/she does not then your application is not valid in your circumstances from what I know.
If you get a letter from him/her then that should be adequate, however you will also need to start work with that employer for a reasonable time afterward to be within the law.
If as the poster above said the intent has to be there at the time of filing, then it would be easy for everyone to intend whatever the needed at the time of filing and then change their minds. It does not work that way.
The revocation of the 140 would not have been a problem if it happened after the 180 days, but would be an issue now.
I can see you are in a difficult spot. I would definitely suggest you stay honest, since they have all of your filing records etc. and if you fudge it, your petition can be denied for fraud, which could harm future applications.
Rather than relying on the advise here, you should seek out a good attorney experienced in AC21.
I do not think what you are saying is correct. Ac21 does not allow you to leave before 180 days of your 485 filing.
The RFE is trying to determine whether your former employer holds a bonafide future job open for you or not. If he/she does not then your application is not valid in your circumstances from what I know.
If you get a letter from him/her then that should be adequate, however you will also need to start work with that employer for a reasonable time afterward to be within the law.
If as the poster above said the intent has to be there at the time of filing, then it would be easy for everyone to intend whatever the needed at the time of filing and then change their minds. It does not work that way.
The revocation of the 140 would not have been a problem if it happened after the 180 days, but would be an issue now.
I can see you are in a difficult spot. I would definitely suggest you stay honest, since they have all of your filing records etc. and if you fudge it, your petition can be denied for fraud, which could harm future applications.
Rather than relying on the advise here, you should seek out a good attorney experienced in AC21.
lotsofspace
02-14 12:38 AM
Dear friends,
I am appalled and disgusted by the mudslinging going on between ROW and India-born applicants. If any of you remember your history lessons from high school, the English used this exact policy of "Divide and Rule" to keep control over their colonies.
For example, in India, they would go into Moslem dominated cities, discriminate against them for jobs, and put Hindus in more prestigious positions, and vice-versa. They did this after the first war for independence in 1857 where Hindus, Moslems, rich and poor fought to overthrow the British occupation.
The very same policy is used by the U.S. government to control their population:
1) Per country quotas in EB immigration cause infighting
2) Infighting causes immigrant activists like IV to lose focus and weaken the agenda
3) Infighting results in racism between ROW, India, and China, which causes Americans to watch the circus, shake their heads and lobby for more immigration control
4) Poor regulation in the H1B program cause Americans to lose their jobs and blame the Indians and Chinese
...and the elite sit back, sip their martinis, and watch the fun.
So you have two choices before you:
1) Keep fighting, achieve none of the 3 main IV objectives, and continue your bonded slavery or
2) Unite as one to achieve all 3 objectives, and throw off your shackles
Remember, "Injustice Anywhere is a Threat to Justice Everywhere" - Martin Luther King
Wow , Talk about conspiracy theories. :)
Just relax. we are fighting here because we all know nothing positive is going to happen for a while and dying to find some thing to post :):)
Just the compulsion to visit this site and post...........
I am sure ROW don't hate ICMP folks and vice versa. we are all together in the fight (If I may call it). We can argue all day long and that quota is not being removed any time soon. So all of you guys relax. And certainly no conspiracy theories.
I am appalled and disgusted by the mudslinging going on between ROW and India-born applicants. If any of you remember your history lessons from high school, the English used this exact policy of "Divide and Rule" to keep control over their colonies.
For example, in India, they would go into Moslem dominated cities, discriminate against them for jobs, and put Hindus in more prestigious positions, and vice-versa. They did this after the first war for independence in 1857 where Hindus, Moslems, rich and poor fought to overthrow the British occupation.
The very same policy is used by the U.S. government to control their population:
1) Per country quotas in EB immigration cause infighting
2) Infighting causes immigrant activists like IV to lose focus and weaken the agenda
3) Infighting results in racism between ROW, India, and China, which causes Americans to watch the circus, shake their heads and lobby for more immigration control
4) Poor regulation in the H1B program cause Americans to lose their jobs and blame the Indians and Chinese
...and the elite sit back, sip their martinis, and watch the fun.
So you have two choices before you:
1) Keep fighting, achieve none of the 3 main IV objectives, and continue your bonded slavery or
2) Unite as one to achieve all 3 objectives, and throw off your shackles
Remember, "Injustice Anywhere is a Threat to Justice Everywhere" - Martin Luther King
Wow , Talk about conspiracy theories. :)
Just relax. we are fighting here because we all know nothing positive is going to happen for a while and dying to find some thing to post :):)
Just the compulsion to visit this site and post...........
I am sure ROW don't hate ICMP folks and vice versa. we are all together in the fight (If I may call it). We can argue all day long and that quota is not being removed any time soon. So all of you guys relax. And certainly no conspiracy theories.
more...
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 ;)
2010 chinese tattoos symbols.
abhijitp
07-24 12:16 AM
Pappu, Others:
My lawyer confirmed they were "unable to" include the Employment Verification Letter along with the AOS/ EAD/ AP packet that was submitted in time to reach USCIS on July 2.
What are my options now? If you have any insight please let me know.
I was wondering about doing one or both of the following two things:
1. Send Employment Verification Letter even before Receipt Notice is received for I-485. This is likely to be lost in the mess that it is now, but does not hurt trying!
2. Prepare and send another I-485 with all documents including Employment Verification Letter. Even if this is not recommended by some lawyers, I would think this is better than simply relying on the "common" practice of issuing an RFE instead of outright rejecting the I-485.
Thanks!
My lawyer confirmed they were "unable to" include the Employment Verification Letter along with the AOS/ EAD/ AP packet that was submitted in time to reach USCIS on July 2.
What are my options now? If you have any insight please let me know.
I was wondering about doing one or both of the following two things:
1. Send Employment Verification Letter even before Receipt Notice is received for I-485. This is likely to be lost in the mess that it is now, but does not hurt trying!
2. Prepare and send another I-485 with all documents including Employment Verification Letter. Even if this is not recommended by some lawyers, I would think this is better than simply relying on the "common" practice of issuing an RFE instead of outright rejecting the I-485.
Thanks!
more...
svr_76
06-10 12:45 PM
I dont want to undermine the need of the hour to contribute to IV/other efforts however-
From the content it appears the DHS secretary may not approve "a petition by an employer" for "any visa" authorizing employment in the United States unless the employer has provided written certification.
This means that H1B and I-140 filed by any employer cannot be approved if they have not provided written certification regarding Layoffs. This further enforce Labor Certification and clients who are laying offing citizen/perm and then replacing them with H1B holder.
EAD renewals are not "Visa" filed by employer that authorize employment. So I think that is excluded.
What this seems to target are companies that layoff existing US employee citizen and immidiately replace/hire ppl on H1B or file labor certification/I140 for others. (e.g. Microsoft other companies which are replacing existing employees with H1B - for lower pay?).
From the content it appears the DHS secretary may not approve "a petition by an employer" for "any visa" authorizing employment in the United States unless the employer has provided written certification.
This means that H1B and I-140 filed by any employer cannot be approved if they have not provided written certification regarding Layoffs. This further enforce Labor Certification and clients who are laying offing citizen/perm and then replacing them with H1B holder.
EAD renewals are not "Visa" filed by employer that authorize employment. So I think that is excluded.
What this seems to target are companies that layoff existing US employee citizen and immidiately replace/hire ppl on H1B or file labor certification/I140 for others. (e.g. Microsoft other companies which are replacing existing employees with H1B - for lower pay?).
hair Cheap laser tattoo removal in
vik123
01-10 01:20 PM
That's right.We need to show them our strength not our weakness by pulling each other legs and talking negative things about India.
As for them we are third world cheap labor.
As for them we are third world cheap labor.
more...
TeddyKoochu
09-10 10:29 AM
One of the main things that could help us to make a correct guess is number of approved and pending I-140s per country per year of priority.
USCIs shouldn't say they don't have this data and we shouldn't say we never requested this
With the data we may come up with an exact figure (Let’s not spend IV resources for that) but ball park approximation range of 100-120K for EB2 I/C and similar for EB3 ROW indicates that it’s a very tall order for them to be current any time soon even with the most optimistic and lofty assumptions. What I intended to indicate is that the real issue is the per country limits there should be equality within all categories (PS - I have nothing against my friends from ROW). Elimination of per country limits is a must for any kind of fair play, the EB2 spillover will all evaporate once the economic climate improves and for the retrogressed countries there won’t be much of a difference between Eb2 and Eb3 once again, this certainly will happen in the next 5 years before either EB3 ROW or EB2 I/C become literally current.
USCIs shouldn't say they don't have this data and we shouldn't say we never requested this
With the data we may come up with an exact figure (Let’s not spend IV resources for that) but ball park approximation range of 100-120K for EB2 I/C and similar for EB3 ROW indicates that it’s a very tall order for them to be current any time soon even with the most optimistic and lofty assumptions. What I intended to indicate is that the real issue is the per country limits there should be equality within all categories (PS - I have nothing against my friends from ROW). Elimination of per country limits is a must for any kind of fair play, the EB2 spillover will all evaporate once the economic climate improves and for the retrogressed countries there won’t be much of a difference between Eb2 and Eb3 once again, this certainly will happen in the next 5 years before either EB3 ROW or EB2 I/C become literally current.
hot Japanese Tattoos: Chinese
NKR
03-10 10:09 AM
I have been lurking on this forum to understand the plight of EB immigrants and the posts the last few weeks have confirmed my belief that the problem exist because a lot of people came to the US from 1999-2006 and want to stay here permanently. The EB immigration system was fine before then; thus, the problem is supply/demand, not the immigration policies.
You are partly right, but the problem does not end there. Lot of it has to do with the disorderly way the applications were/are being picked up. All the old applications were pushed to BECs and newer perm applications were picked up for processing. The dates were abruptly moved forward which allowed USCIS to approve newer 485 applications before the dates were pushed back. I am a victim of both these cases… Also, there has been a lot of wastage of visa numbers. If none of these happened I am sure the EB3 dates would have move forward without getting stagnated in 2001.
You are partly right, but the problem does not end there. Lot of it has to do with the disorderly way the applications were/are being picked up. All the old applications were pushed to BECs and newer perm applications were picked up for processing. The dates were abruptly moved forward which allowed USCIS to approve newer 485 applications before the dates were pushed back. I am a victim of both these cases… Also, there has been a lot of wastage of visa numbers. If none of these happened I am sure the EB3 dates would have move forward without getting stagnated in 2001.
more...
house cross tattoo chinese
singhsa3
03-16 01:57 PM
Your are not wanted here and no one likes you. You are an anti-social element and should be banned now.
dont "warn" me..........you think i give a damn about your "warning"??
the right to speak is MINE. all YOU can do from your high horse is ban me from the forum.
i really dont care, i still think interfilers and substituters should get what they derserve. every single bit of it. may they really, truly, go to hell, and stay there indefinitely.
and NO, dont preach to me about trying to "fix" the system. the agenda here is mostly EB3, and mostly Indian, at best. the multitudes of diploma holders get pissed when i call them out for what they are...........why are THEY so sensitive and ashamed???
i have a RIGHT to be in the proper EB queue, which i EARNED, and did not employ cheap desi-employer tricks and other games to get into........if that does not answer your doubts my friend, then as i said earlier, ban me..........i dont really care either way.
i dont advertise what i have done or can do for IV. somehow, that is a little demeaning. sort of like going to a temple and offering some money and then coming out and proclaiming to one and all how generous a give you are....
dont "warn" me..........you think i give a damn about your "warning"??
the right to speak is MINE. all YOU can do from your high horse is ban me from the forum.
i really dont care, i still think interfilers and substituters should get what they derserve. every single bit of it. may they really, truly, go to hell, and stay there indefinitely.
and NO, dont preach to me about trying to "fix" the system. the agenda here is mostly EB3, and mostly Indian, at best. the multitudes of diploma holders get pissed when i call them out for what they are...........why are THEY so sensitive and ashamed???
i have a RIGHT to be in the proper EB queue, which i EARNED, and did not employ cheap desi-employer tricks and other games to get into........if that does not answer your doubts my friend, then as i said earlier, ban me..........i dont really care either way.
i dont advertise what i have done or can do for IV. somehow, that is a little demeaning. sort of like going to a temple and offering some money and then coming out and proclaiming to one and all how generous a give you are....
tattoo the Chinese tattoo designs
psam
07-03 10:11 AM
2) When there is no per country quota in H1B visas, do you think it is fair to have it in EB visas?
There is no reason to mention H1B in this context. Its not going to help GC seekers or H1B seekers.
There is no reason to mention H1B in this context. Its not going to help GC seekers or H1B seekers.
more...
pictures Chinese tattoo designs
pcs
07-02 07:42 PM
I put in $100 today to fight for our cause
dresses Chinese Neck Tattoo Design
hebbar77
11-12 09:07 PM
I guess this is important. rest will follow.
We must gift him something special. How about a puppy.
We must gift him something special. How about a puppy.
more...
makeup chinese symbol tattoos
mirage
02-03 01:21 PM
Do you only do what IV support ? Did I say anywhere I want IV o endorse it ? Didn't we have these discussions over and over before? and the admins telling us to stop because IV goals are set and will not change?
If you just want to argue and waste time, lookup previous threads discussing this and you'll have enough reading material for weeks to come.
If you just want to argue and waste time, lookup previous threads discussing this and you'll have enough reading material for weeks to come.
girlfriend and Kanji Tattoo Designs
rajuram
10-25 09:38 PM
Reason: All of us(between 2002-4) were rotting in BEC for years...BEC just
vomited us out between Jan 2007 to September 07.
Lets get for another round of rotting
vomited us out between Jan 2007 to September 07.
Lets get for another round of rotting
hairstyles Chinese Symbol Tattoos – cool
intheyan
06-29 05:39 PM
Hi Am100 and Ramee,
Congrads to you both and also really happy to see 2004 aprrovals.:)
Congrads to you both and also really happy to see 2004 aprrovals.:)
mpadapa
09-12 11:08 AM
There is still seats available on the tri-state bus..
Hop on the bus (free ride) for a journey towards better future
click on my signature
Hop on the bus (free ride) for a journey towards better future
click on my signature
Openarms
11-06 10:49 AM
This is the only thread and issue that helps a lot of people in the process. If USCIS send the numbers correctly then we better of assuming when is our GC turn is. We will know the real picture and it will definitely open lot of peoples eyes to act in the future... So "Immigrants" please send the letters.
Post a Comment