godspeed
06-11 09:40 AM
and forwarded to 20 of my friends, will follow up with them to send the message
wallpaper tattoo on ribs for girls. ribs
mirage
07-02 08:03 AM
I think you guys keep forgetting IV's success of getting it's amendments as brownback amendment in the CIR last fall. The beauty was the amendment was not even discussed or debated or voted by the senate as it was added by Sen. specter as manager's amendment. So don't make loose statements about IV.
hrushi_j
09-10 03:27 PM
and will return at 5:00 PM
2011 Rib Cage Tattoos for Girls
alisa
01-25 09:38 PM
I had trouble sifting through all that data and figuring out what that was all about.
Could you give the specific report that you used for these numbers. And, if possible, any hints on how you arrived at the data below. I would appreciate that.
Thanks....
Can you re-estimate the new dates. Using this data
******* EB Pref*******EB3
FY**|*Total*|INDIA | *Total* |India
2000|107,024| 15888| 049,736| 05567
2001|179,195| 41720| 086,058| 16405
2002|174,968| 41919| 088,555| 17428
2003|082,137| 20818| 046,613| 10680
2004|155,330| 39496| 085,969| 19962
2005|246,877| 47160| 129,070| 23399
2006|?????????TBP in the near future ???????
THis are the number of visas issued for each fiscal year since FY 2000 for the EB preference.
They are under this link:DOS Visa Statistics (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/statistics/statistics_1476.html)
andy
Could you give the specific report that you used for these numbers. And, if possible, any hints on how you arrived at the data below. I would appreciate that.
Thanks....
Can you re-estimate the new dates. Using this data
******* EB Pref*******EB3
FY**|*Total*|INDIA | *Total* |India
2000|107,024| 15888| 049,736| 05567
2001|179,195| 41720| 086,058| 16405
2002|174,968| 41919| 088,555| 17428
2003|082,137| 20818| 046,613| 10680
2004|155,330| 39496| 085,969| 19962
2005|246,877| 47160| 129,070| 23399
2006|?????????TBP in the near future ???????
THis are the number of visas issued for each fiscal year since FY 2000 for the EB preference.
They are under this link:DOS Visa Statistics (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/statistics/statistics_1476.html)
andy
more...
mirage
02-07 06:17 PM
If you remove country quota, the system should work in FIFO order, First in First out, it will not differentiate if you are from India, China or Nepal.
I support country quota otherwise all the greencards will be taken by Indians and Chinese and the people from small countries will not even get a chance. I am sorry but of you are born on one of these countries then you have to wait before everyone who filed earlier.
I support country quota otherwise all the greencards will be taken by Indians and Chinese and the people from small countries will not even get a chance. I am sorry but of you are born on one of these countries then you have to wait before everyone who filed earlier.
varshadas
02-09 09:34 PM
http://profiles.numbersusa.com/profile_state.php3?District=NJ
For other states, use
http://profiles.numbersusa.com/
Mike Ferguson whom we met today was pro legal immigration, If anyone is or knows someone in Morris County, please contact Garrett, Scott. I think first we should target the greens (lower immigration intent) and then target the others.
As you can see the Southern states like Lousiana, Texas have many greens.
Thanks,
Varsha
For other states, use
http://profiles.numbersusa.com/
Mike Ferguson whom we met today was pro legal immigration, If anyone is or knows someone in Morris County, please contact Garrett, Scott. I think first we should target the greens (lower immigration intent) and then target the others.
As you can see the Southern states like Lousiana, Texas have many greens.
Thanks,
Varsha
more...
johnamit
07-18 09:14 AM
some applications have already been rejected, mostly on July 2nd but a very few.
USCIS did not say that they will return the application and they should be refilled.
With their announcement on July 17th, they have about 16 more days in this month left. It is a heavy workload for them to reject all the petitions (minimum 200K packages) which is unnecessary work and cost enourmous amount of money.
Also they will not invite another problem if the do not give sufficient time to the clients to file, what if someone receives the package Auguest 15. That will be another mess up.
It looks like SCs have rejected some applications on the same day (July 2nd), those applicants should have already received them(on July 3rd or 4th). They have to refile. Rejections after July 17th may not be true.
My lawer says:
Your application has reached INS on July 2nd and upon the statement from USIC on July 17th, it will be accepted.
USCIS did not say that they will return the application and they should be refilled.
With their announcement on July 17th, they have about 16 more days in this month left. It is a heavy workload for them to reject all the petitions (minimum 200K packages) which is unnecessary work and cost enourmous amount of money.
Also they will not invite another problem if the do not give sufficient time to the clients to file, what if someone receives the package Auguest 15. That will be another mess up.
It looks like SCs have rejected some applications on the same day (July 2nd), those applicants should have already received them(on July 3rd or 4th). They have to refile. Rejections after July 17th may not be true.
My lawer says:
Your application has reached INS on July 2nd and upon the statement from USIC on July 17th, it will be accepted.
2010 lettering tattoos on ribs.
gc_lover
07-18 08:34 AM
Mine reached USCIS Jul 2, 2007 10:25 AM.. no check cashed, no RD..
I will call USCIS next monday if I dont hear anything before then..
I read in one of the other thread that, a lawyer said, it might take couple of weeks to generate receipt numbers for early July filers. They are almost done with receipt number for June filers and will start with July filers.
I will call USCIS next monday if I dont hear anything before then..
I read in one of the other thread that, a lawyer said, it might take couple of weeks to generate receipt numbers for early July filers. They are almost done with receipt number for June filers and will start with July filers.
more...
saketkapur
10-16 03:30 PM
sent.........
hair Rib Tattoos For Guys and Girls
24fps
02-04 02:41 PM
For people who don't know, Country Cap goes by Country of Birth , not country of citizenship...So if you are born in India but now you are canadian Citizen, you will still be counted as Indian for EB based Green Card allocation, isn't this a blatent racist agenda. I have a letter from Congresswoman Zoe Logfren's office, which clearly says 'I will work on removing arbitrary country quota on employement based Green Cards', we just need to pursue her...
its not racism its just an old rule
u can be indian but born in a different country and you could avail of ROW benefits, my friend is indian but was born in europe as his father was workin there at that time and then moved back to india and now he got his GC in under 2 years in EB2
racism is purely based on your ethnicity
its not racism its just an old rule
u can be indian but born in a different country and you could avail of ROW benefits, my friend is indian but was born in europe as his father was workin there at that time and then moved back to india and now he got his GC in under 2 years in EB2
racism is purely based on your ethnicity
more...
GCScrewed
07-04 11:06 AM
Paskal,
It is possible that EB1 C might become unavailable, because you might be looking at it more closer than I am. But I still find it hard to believe that an MNC will just create a phony Managerial position for every Joe Bloggs, an abuse similar to Labor substitution and satellite offices in states where labor processing was fast etc. Lets say an MNC really promoted some one to a position that qualifies for EB1, moves him out and moves him back, it is still by the book and can't be compared to labor sub, which were sold for money. Labor sub by itself is NO crime irrespective of what we think. The rampant abuse of it caused the demise. Same rule applies to some one who goes out and comes back as its all by the rules and no abuse is involved. In responding to the OP, My intention was to say that MNC's do not go to such an extent of creating a Managerial position that do not exist or have an employee do the same work in the name of managerial position. Some companies might have abused it in such way on few occasions, but thats definitely NOT a practice as rampant as Labor Sub's once was. If that were true and as easy as depicted, A lot of people & companies would have done it, by now. We don't need to teach the gamers. They are a step ahead in getting things done, if there is a way.
Given the severe backlog of EB2 and EB3, some people will find ways to outsmart the system so that they can get the greencards sooner. If those loopholes are not plugged now, it will make a mess just as Labor Sub once did.
I think we should pursue a goal that benefit everyone in the backlogs... not just a specific types, say I, C vs ROW; EB1 vs. EB2 vs. EB3; STEM vs. Non-STEM; Schedule A vs. Non-Schedule A; Healthcare vs. Non-Healthcare; IT vs. Non-IT. The only cause which will get everyone on the same page and therefore is worth pursuing is to recapture unused #s so that all people in the backlogs can go through the pipeline quickly. Of course, all the government agencies, esp. USCIS, must be held accountable for processing cases in a consistent and orderly way. This may be another goal IV should pursue. Just my opinion.
It is possible that EB1 C might become unavailable, because you might be looking at it more closer than I am. But I still find it hard to believe that an MNC will just create a phony Managerial position for every Joe Bloggs, an abuse similar to Labor substitution and satellite offices in states where labor processing was fast etc. Lets say an MNC really promoted some one to a position that qualifies for EB1, moves him out and moves him back, it is still by the book and can't be compared to labor sub, which were sold for money. Labor sub by itself is NO crime irrespective of what we think. The rampant abuse of it caused the demise. Same rule applies to some one who goes out and comes back as its all by the rules and no abuse is involved. In responding to the OP, My intention was to say that MNC's do not go to such an extent of creating a Managerial position that do not exist or have an employee do the same work in the name of managerial position. Some companies might have abused it in such way on few occasions, but thats definitely NOT a practice as rampant as Labor Sub's once was. If that were true and as easy as depicted, A lot of people & companies would have done it, by now. We don't need to teach the gamers. They are a step ahead in getting things done, if there is a way.
Given the severe backlog of EB2 and EB3, some people will find ways to outsmart the system so that they can get the greencards sooner. If those loopholes are not plugged now, it will make a mess just as Labor Sub once did.
I think we should pursue a goal that benefit everyone in the backlogs... not just a specific types, say I, C vs ROW; EB1 vs. EB2 vs. EB3; STEM vs. Non-STEM; Schedule A vs. Non-Schedule A; Healthcare vs. Non-Healthcare; IT vs. Non-IT. The only cause which will get everyone on the same page and therefore is worth pursuing is to recapture unused #s so that all people in the backlogs can go through the pipeline quickly. Of course, all the government agencies, esp. USCIS, must be held accountable for processing cases in a consistent and orderly way. This may be another goal IV should pursue. Just my opinion.
hot Rib Tattoos for Girls,
kramesh_babu
07-27 08:44 PM
But I do understand your point though, FYI. I already left them last summer in good terms and I still have good relationship with them. I also referred few of my friends (who had bad experience with their employers and wanted to come out) to ECG and never heard any issues from them yet :)
Other than the above, I really do NOT have anything else with them, TRUST ME dude!!!
Are you sure you are no way associated with them (of course, other than being a consultant to them)? ;)
Other than the above, I really do NOT have anything else with them, TRUST ME dude!!!
Are you sure you are no way associated with them (of course, other than being a consultant to them)? ;)
more...
house tattoos for girls on ribs.
mbawa2574
02-15 04:31 PM
Well, I do have a vested interest in maintaining status quo, at least with regard to the per country caps. :)
But, working in one of the Valley companies, I see a lot of people from India and China who just don't mix with rest of the people, say, from Poland or Germany or France or Iran. US (the whole government, including USCIS) likes the idea of 'Melting pot' when it comes to immigration. When you melt a lot of metals with each other, you don't end up with a fragmented alloy, since you've capped the amount of each metal in your pot. That is how you get 'Little Italy's and 'China Town's and the latest one in San Jose, CA: 'Saigon Business district'
:mad:
But, working in one of the Valley companies, I see a lot of people from India and China who just don't mix with rest of the people, say, from Poland or Germany or France or Iran. US (the whole government, including USCIS) likes the idea of 'Melting pot' when it comes to immigration. When you melt a lot of metals with each other, you don't end up with a fragmented alloy, since you've capped the amount of each metal in your pot. That is how you get 'Little Italy's and 'China Town's and the latest one in San Jose, CA: 'Saigon Business district'
:mad:
tattoo tattoo on girls ribs. tattoo
AMITAT007
10-03 03:08 AM
I am on L1A visa with Company A & the I-94 was valid till September 10, 2007.
Company B has filed my H1B on April 20, 2007 & I received I797 notice dated May 17, 2007 with change of status from Oct 1, 2007.
In the meantime, Company A has filed an extention of status of L1A from September 10, 2007 on June 8, 2007. For which I received the I797 notice dated June 28, 2007.
I have few question
1. What is my status from Oct 1, 2007, as I did not joined the company B. I am not in a position to leave Company A till Nov 15, 2007. As the I797 for L1 extention was of the latter date, whether the law of last action will be applicable here & I can work for Company A on L1 till Nov 15, 2007
2. If I can work on L1, whether my H1B approval get cancelled automatically. Whether the company B have to file I129 & I539 for me.
3. If I am out of status what should I do. Do i have go back to my native country immediately & leave to idea to work in USA for ever or there is any other way.
Company B has filed my H1B on April 20, 2007 & I received I797 notice dated May 17, 2007 with change of status from Oct 1, 2007.
In the meantime, Company A has filed an extention of status of L1A from September 10, 2007 on June 8, 2007. For which I received the I797 notice dated June 28, 2007.
I have few question
1. What is my status from Oct 1, 2007, as I did not joined the company B. I am not in a position to leave Company A till Nov 15, 2007. As the I797 for L1 extention was of the latter date, whether the law of last action will be applicable here & I can work for Company A on L1 till Nov 15, 2007
2. If I can work on L1, whether my H1B approval get cancelled automatically. Whether the company B have to file I129 & I539 for me.
3. If I am out of status what should I do. Do i have go back to my native country immediately & leave to idea to work in USA for ever or there is any other way.
more...
pictures quote tattoos for girls on
pappu
06-10 12:28 PM
WAKE UP CALL FOR THOSE STILL SITTING ON THE SIDELINES
On Tuesday, when we were on the Hill doing meetings during Advocacy days, we were informed by the senior Senate office that an amendment to prevent H1 and work authorizations is in the works in the Tax bill. We immediately requested this office to oppose this amendment. Senator office expressed full support for us and shared with us that the Senator's office has already expressed opposition to such an amendment.
We would like everyone to know that just because someone has EAD, it does not mean we are in safe haven. There is no safe haven till we have approved green cards. And for those who think that they don't need to participate actively, this is a wake up call.
We have also learned that this is degree 1 amendment. This means it will be voted on on the Senate floor even when it is non-germane to the bill. We have also learned that if such an amendment comes up for vote during this difficult political climate, it appears that such an amendment will have 70 votes in the senate which makes each one of us extremely vulnerable to be forced out. Everyone on H1, L1, J1 or EAD will risk the renewal of their current application status.
IV is working on defeating this amendment. Please stay tuned for further updates.
On Tuesday, Mr. Sanders sponsored an amendment S.AMDT.4319 in bill H.R.4213
AMENDMENT PURPOSE: Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S4754
COSPONSORS(2):
Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] - 6/9/2010
Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] - 6/9/2010
Source: Congressional Record - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) (http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r111:1:./temp/~r1119eE0Na:e98:)
SA 4319. Mr. SANDERS (for himself, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Harkin) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 4213, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Employ America Act''.
(b) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security may not approve a petition by an employer for any visa authorizing employment in the United States unless the employer has provided written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that--
(1) the employer has not provided a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.) during the 12-month period immediately preceding the date on which the alien is scheduled to be hired; and
(2) the employer does not intend to provide a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to such Act.
(c) Effect of Mass Layoff.--If an employer provides a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act after the approval of a visa described in subsection (b), any visas approved during the most recent 12-month period for such employer shall expire on the date that is 60 days after the date on which such notice is provided. The expiration of a visa under this subsection shall not be subject to judicial review.
(d) Notice Requirement.--Upon receiving notification of a mass layoff from an employer, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall inform each employee whose visa is scheduled to expire under subsection (c)--
(1) the date on which such individual will no longer be authorized to work in the United States; and
(2) the date on which such individual will be required to leave the United States unless the individual is otherwise authorized to remain in the United States.
(e) Exemption.--An employer shall be exempt from the requirements under this section if the employer provides written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that the total number of the employer's workers who are United States citizens and are working in the United States have not been, and will not be, reduced as a result of a mass layoff described in subsection (c).
(f) Rulemaking.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Labor shall promulgate regulations to carry out this section, including a requirement that employers provide notice to the Secretary of Homeland Security of a mass layoff (as defined in section 2 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101)).
On Tuesday, when we were on the Hill doing meetings during Advocacy days, we were informed by the senior Senate office that an amendment to prevent H1 and work authorizations is in the works in the Tax bill. We immediately requested this office to oppose this amendment. Senator office expressed full support for us and shared with us that the Senator's office has already expressed opposition to such an amendment.
We would like everyone to know that just because someone has EAD, it does not mean we are in safe haven. There is no safe haven till we have approved green cards. And for those who think that they don't need to participate actively, this is a wake up call.
We have also learned that this is degree 1 amendment. This means it will be voted on on the Senate floor even when it is non-germane to the bill. We have also learned that if such an amendment comes up for vote during this difficult political climate, it appears that such an amendment will have 70 votes in the senate which makes each one of us extremely vulnerable to be forced out. Everyone on H1, L1, J1 or EAD will risk the renewal of their current application status.
IV is working on defeating this amendment. Please stay tuned for further updates.
On Tuesday, Mr. Sanders sponsored an amendment S.AMDT.4319 in bill H.R.4213
AMENDMENT PURPOSE: Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S4754
COSPONSORS(2):
Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] - 6/9/2010
Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] - 6/9/2010
Source: Congressional Record - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) (http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r111:1:./temp/~r1119eE0Na:e98:)
SA 4319. Mr. SANDERS (for himself, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Harkin) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 4213, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Employ America Act''.
(b) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security may not approve a petition by an employer for any visa authorizing employment in the United States unless the employer has provided written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that--
(1) the employer has not provided a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.) during the 12-month period immediately preceding the date on which the alien is scheduled to be hired; and
(2) the employer does not intend to provide a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to such Act.
(c) Effect of Mass Layoff.--If an employer provides a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act after the approval of a visa described in subsection (b), any visas approved during the most recent 12-month period for such employer shall expire on the date that is 60 days after the date on which such notice is provided. The expiration of a visa under this subsection shall not be subject to judicial review.
(d) Notice Requirement.--Upon receiving notification of a mass layoff from an employer, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall inform each employee whose visa is scheduled to expire under subsection (c)--
(1) the date on which such individual will no longer be authorized to work in the United States; and
(2) the date on which such individual will be required to leave the United States unless the individual is otherwise authorized to remain in the United States.
(e) Exemption.--An employer shall be exempt from the requirements under this section if the employer provides written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that the total number of the employer's workers who are United States citizens and are working in the United States have not been, and will not be, reduced as a result of a mass layoff described in subsection (c).
(f) Rulemaking.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Labor shall promulgate regulations to carry out this section, including a requirement that employers provide notice to the Secretary of Homeland Security of a mass layoff (as defined in section 2 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101)).
dresses tattoo on girls ribs.
ItIsNotFunny
10-15 04:42 PM
People who want a copy of their LCA/I-140, please send that in before this. This will create a real large queue and you won't ever get your copy.
Do we all need to do this ?
-M
What are you suggesting? Please speak in lay man's terms.
Do we all need to do this ?
-M
What are you suggesting? Please speak in lay man's terms.
more...
makeup tattoos for girls on ribs.
satishku_2000
12-20 04:19 PM
May be hilarious for you, not for me. You would understand the situation if you were in my shoes.
Please just dont worry about it too much , there are also chances that you may not get an RFE. There are chances that you may get an RFE but you dont know what USCIS will ask from you. You need to have RFE in hand to prepare response for that.
Please just dont worry about it too much , there are also chances that you may not get an RFE. There are chances that you may get an RFE but you dont know what USCIS will ask from you. You need to have RFE in hand to prepare response for that.
girlfriend tattoo star rib sexy girls
cal_dood
07-05 01:43 PM
I'll just go back to forums of the leading lady immigration lawyer....
hairstyles tattoos for girls on ribs.
bitu72
01-31 10:04 AM
first of thanks a lot for taking time and explaining this in detail.
so if i understand it correctly, I have applied in jul2007 and entered on h1 on dec2007. if i get my gc in 2012. I can not be out of status for more than 6 months between dec 2007 to whenever 2012. So if i start using EAD i need to make sure i have a job almost all the time.
RFE which was posted is clearly looking for past employment history. If W2 shows that in year 2009 i made 40k and my labor cert was for 80K it will be a problem.
assuming u r getting RFE in future. this realy is crazy.
so if i understand it correctly, I have applied in jul2007 and entered on h1 on dec2007. if i get my gc in 2012. I can not be out of status for more than 6 months between dec 2007 to whenever 2012. So if i start using EAD i need to make sure i have a job almost all the time.
RFE which was posted is clearly looking for past employment history. If W2 shows that in year 2009 i made 40k and my labor cert was for 80K it will be a problem.
assuming u r getting RFE in future. this realy is crazy.
delax
07-19 08:55 PM
We need a realistic estimate of how many applications are pending with PD in 2004, which really seems like the bottleneck. Another thing to bear in mind is the conversion from EB3->EB2. That is also going to hinder the movement of EB2. There are a lot of people trying to use that route.
Here you go - conversion should not impact this as the number of LC approvals remains the same:
Here are all the LC approvals for India in the last seven years.
Year, Total LC Approved, Total India
2007 85112 24573
2006 79782 22298
2005 6133 1350
2004 43582 No Info
2003 62912 No Info
2002 79784 No Info
2001 77921 No Info
2000 70204 No Info
Lets assume about 25% of pre-PERM LCs are India based on post-PERM data. Thus for fiscal 2004 (Oct 2003 thru Sep 2004) the total LC number is 43,852. Assume 25% of that to be India based on PERM data. That gives about 11,000 India LCs in 2004 alone (All EB categories combined). If you assume an average of 2.5 dependents then the number of visas required for all India EB categories for 2004 is 27,500 (11,000*2.5). The regular quota for EB2 and EB3 combined is only about 9,800. That means 17,700 visas have to come from somewhere. I dont think those many visas are remaining for this year. Be prepared to see FIFO thrown under the bus and approvals with PDs that are all over the place. Please critique this analysis without piling on. Thoughts?
Here you go - conversion should not impact this as the number of LC approvals remains the same:
Here are all the LC approvals for India in the last seven years.
Year, Total LC Approved, Total India
2007 85112 24573
2006 79782 22298
2005 6133 1350
2004 43582 No Info
2003 62912 No Info
2002 79784 No Info
2001 77921 No Info
2000 70204 No Info
Lets assume about 25% of pre-PERM LCs are India based on post-PERM data. Thus for fiscal 2004 (Oct 2003 thru Sep 2004) the total LC number is 43,852. Assume 25% of that to be India based on PERM data. That gives about 11,000 India LCs in 2004 alone (All EB categories combined). If you assume an average of 2.5 dependents then the number of visas required for all India EB categories for 2004 is 27,500 (11,000*2.5). The regular quota for EB2 and EB3 combined is only about 9,800. That means 17,700 visas have to come from somewhere. I dont think those many visas are remaining for this year. Be prepared to see FIFO thrown under the bus and approvals with PDs that are all over the place. Please critique this analysis without piling on. Thoughts?
bmoni
08-12 04:48 PM
All Eb3 please follow the thread http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum85-action-items-for-everyone/1599562-team-visa-allocation-by-dos-8.html#post1978863 . They need help looks like we may be onto something...it will be benefit everyone most important EB3.
Don't be disappointed.
We are focusing on another thread right now.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum85-action-items-for-everyone/1599562-team-visa-allocation-by-dos.html
Please post your ideas on this thread.
Don't be disappointed.
We are focusing on another thread right now.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum85-action-items-for-everyone/1599562-team-visa-allocation-by-dos.html
Please post your ideas on this thread.
Post a Comment