logiclife
04-02 01:53 PM
Please call up your friends, dust off the old address book, make your friends do the same thing.
wallpaper Gladiator – Jeff Hardy
ragz4u
04-01 04:16 PM
god_bless_you
I am not sure what the issue is with your account. I know Siva has been really busy. Can you, as a quick fix, create a new account and fax from that?
Thanks
I am not sure what the issue is with your account. I know Siva has been really busy. Can you, as a quick fix, create a new account and fax from that?
Thanks
abhijitp
08-15 01:19 AM
Thanks heywhat and abhijitp
I will re-file it tommorrow.
And thank God you found IV:)
But more important... PLEASE contribute in $$, flyers, videos, buy merchandise etc etc!
I will re-file it tommorrow.
And thank God you found IV:)
But more important... PLEASE contribute in $$, flyers, videos, buy merchandise etc etc!
2011 The Enigma Hardy
longq
12-20 03:41 PM
Hello IV and its core members,
I am one of the members of the forum and suffering due to the severe retrogression of EB visas. I highly appreciate IV�s effort to bring some legislative relief to address the severe backlogs in EB visas. I too participated in all IVs campaign in urging the law makers to bring some relief for this crisis. However, I have some concern here; about the method followed U.S DOS in allocating EB visas particularly in EB2 category for India and China. I am worried whether U.S DOS is violating the INA 202 (a), by suspending AC21 provision that eliminates country quota in EB categories. If they are violating by mistake, it is our responsibility to notify/clarify with them or we need to understand the law clearly. This is very important. Because, even if 110th congress passes SKIL bill, if DOS violates the AC21 law then it will not help applicants from oversubscribed countries (India and China). Here is my analysis based on following facts.
The cutoff date for EB2 India has moved just 7 days since last 9 months. However EB2 �Row has been current. EB2- ROW has never retrogressed before. EB3 ROW has seen considerable movement in last 9 months.
There may be four possible separate or combination of following reasons for the freeze of cutoff dates for India in EB2 at Jan 2003.
1. The backlog elimination effort of DOL pumped massive approved labor certificates from BEC. There may be tons of EB2 applicants from India and China with PD in the year 2001 and 2002 might have applied 485s based on recent approvals from BEC. However I doubt that. Because, in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003, EB3 India and China were �current�. No body cared about filing EB2 labor certification till the later part of 2004. Most lawyers preferred to file EB3 as it was easy, and there were no difference between EB3 and EB2 at that time. First ever indication for EB3 retrogression was issued by DOS only in later part of 2004. I doubt so many people have filed EB2-labor till 2003, keeping in mind that EB3 will retrogress in 2004 or future. Traditionally EB2 has been less demanding compare to EB1 and EB3.
2. Perhaps, there may be a huge demand by ROW (Due to PERM) to consume all the 86% of visa numbers in EB2 category in every month that prompts DOS to allocate only 7% to India and China. I doubt this too, because India and China itself consume about 60% of EB2 visas.
3. There may be lot of EB3 Indians and Chinese with PD 2001 and 2002 porting their PD from EB3 to EB2 by filing new LC and EB2-I-140. This may escalate the demand. However, how many will do this? How many employers will to do this �favor� for their employees? A real US employer/big corporations will not do double time work for an employee. Only consulting/staffing companies will do this. I think this may be a small group (or may not be?).
4. There may be another possible reason. There may be something wrong with U.S.DOS in allocating visa numbers in EB2 category, as per section 202 (a) of current INA. They may be issuing only 2800 (7% of 40,000) visas to India and China in EB2 and redirecting unused EB2 numbers to EB3 category. They may be imposing hard country cap in EB2 (Suspending AC21 law as per their VB Nov 2005). There is a large room for this speculation, due to the pattern of cutoff date movement in EB2 category. This is just a speculation. This argument/speculation is valid if DOS has issued less than 40,000 EB2 visas in FY 2006 as mandated by the law, and issued those numbers (40,000 minus actually issued) to EB3-ROW. In my view, it violates section 203 (b) (2) of the INA. One has to wait till they release statistics for FY 2006, to see how many EB2 visas are issued in that FY.
Here is some detailed analysis that says why it violates the law.
Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 203 a and b of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets numbers for each preference categories with in FB and EB.
Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320. This section also explains how to handle unused numbers with respect to country quota.
Even before AC21 rule enacted in 2000, there was no �hard� country cap as per INA then. Here is the section of INA before year 2000, describes how to allocate unused visas, if overall/total demand for FB an EB visas are less than supply*.
INA 202 (a) (3)
�Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a-Family category) and (b-Employment category) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter�.
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
After 2000 (After AC21) the following law was added to INA in the section 202.
INA 202 (a) (5) (A)
EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
As per my simple interpretation of above AC21 rule, DOS should allocate unused visas by ROW �EB2 (ROW- countries other than India and China in EB2 category) for the first two months of any calendar quarter to over-subscribed countries (India & China) at the third month of that calendar quarter. They should not allocate to lower Preference category (EB3), if demand is more in higher preference category (EB2) to consume all the visa numbers in that preference category. They should allocate visas to all the documentarily qualified applicants in that (EB2) preference category, irrespective of country of birth. If they followed this rule/law, there may be a considerable movement in cut-off dates for India and China in Dec 2005, Mar, June and Sep of 2006 in EB2 (last month of each calendar quarter in a fiscal year). We have not witnessed such movement in last 1.5 years. No one knows how DOS is allocating numbers. They may be allocating only 7% visas to India and China in EB2 category very strictly, every month, and allocating unused numbers to EB3 category, by suspending AC21 law as indicated in their Nov 2005 Visa Bulletin. If they do so, it is against the law, at least in my interpretation of AC21 rule that eliminates country quota in EB categories.
DOS can not interpret above AC21 rule that eliminates per country limit applies �totally� to all EB categories put together, not by individual preference categories. I.e. If they say they will issue more than 2,800 visas to EB2- India per year (more than 7% of 40,000), provided overall demand for EB visas are less than 140,000. If they interpret the law like this, then there is no need for section 202(a) (5) (A) due to AC21 law. The law before AC21 {i.e. section 202 (a) (3)} itself address the elimination of country quota in both FB and EB category*. Then, section 202(a) (5) (A) is a duplicate wording of section 202(a) (3). So, this section of AC21 law becomes a redundant/duplicate law. Then, there is no meaning of employment �preference� category if they interpret �totally or overall worldwide demand�. In other words, a non-Indian/Chinese restaurant cook (EB3) is more preferred than a NIW PhDs (EB2) from India or China. Is it the intend of the congress when enacting AC21 law in removing per country limitation in EB category? Is it the American Competitiveness in 21st century? I highly doubt that.
Now it is the time to ask US DOS, how they are allocating visa number in EB2 category. If DOS interpreting the law differently, then we need to ask the law makers (Congress) what is their original intension behind the section 202(a)(5)(A) when they drafted the AC21 law in 2000 and how it is differ from 202 (a) (3).
Perhaps Core IV team can initiate to discuss/consult this issue with an immigration lawyer and place an enquiry with DOS or Law makers, if needed.
(*Note: DOS do not mix FB and EB categories for visa number allocation/calculation to meet the per country limit. They keep both in separate track to meet separately the 7% limit)
I am one of the members of the forum and suffering due to the severe retrogression of EB visas. I highly appreciate IV�s effort to bring some legislative relief to address the severe backlogs in EB visas. I too participated in all IVs campaign in urging the law makers to bring some relief for this crisis. However, I have some concern here; about the method followed U.S DOS in allocating EB visas particularly in EB2 category for India and China. I am worried whether U.S DOS is violating the INA 202 (a), by suspending AC21 provision that eliminates country quota in EB categories. If they are violating by mistake, it is our responsibility to notify/clarify with them or we need to understand the law clearly. This is very important. Because, even if 110th congress passes SKIL bill, if DOS violates the AC21 law then it will not help applicants from oversubscribed countries (India and China). Here is my analysis based on following facts.
The cutoff date for EB2 India has moved just 7 days since last 9 months. However EB2 �Row has been current. EB2- ROW has never retrogressed before. EB3 ROW has seen considerable movement in last 9 months.
There may be four possible separate or combination of following reasons for the freeze of cutoff dates for India in EB2 at Jan 2003.
1. The backlog elimination effort of DOL pumped massive approved labor certificates from BEC. There may be tons of EB2 applicants from India and China with PD in the year 2001 and 2002 might have applied 485s based on recent approvals from BEC. However I doubt that. Because, in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003, EB3 India and China were �current�. No body cared about filing EB2 labor certification till the later part of 2004. Most lawyers preferred to file EB3 as it was easy, and there were no difference between EB3 and EB2 at that time. First ever indication for EB3 retrogression was issued by DOS only in later part of 2004. I doubt so many people have filed EB2-labor till 2003, keeping in mind that EB3 will retrogress in 2004 or future. Traditionally EB2 has been less demanding compare to EB1 and EB3.
2. Perhaps, there may be a huge demand by ROW (Due to PERM) to consume all the 86% of visa numbers in EB2 category in every month that prompts DOS to allocate only 7% to India and China. I doubt this too, because India and China itself consume about 60% of EB2 visas.
3. There may be lot of EB3 Indians and Chinese with PD 2001 and 2002 porting their PD from EB3 to EB2 by filing new LC and EB2-I-140. This may escalate the demand. However, how many will do this? How many employers will to do this �favor� for their employees? A real US employer/big corporations will not do double time work for an employee. Only consulting/staffing companies will do this. I think this may be a small group (or may not be?).
4. There may be another possible reason. There may be something wrong with U.S.DOS in allocating visa numbers in EB2 category, as per section 202 (a) of current INA. They may be issuing only 2800 (7% of 40,000) visas to India and China in EB2 and redirecting unused EB2 numbers to EB3 category. They may be imposing hard country cap in EB2 (Suspending AC21 law as per their VB Nov 2005). There is a large room for this speculation, due to the pattern of cutoff date movement in EB2 category. This is just a speculation. This argument/speculation is valid if DOS has issued less than 40,000 EB2 visas in FY 2006 as mandated by the law, and issued those numbers (40,000 minus actually issued) to EB3-ROW. In my view, it violates section 203 (b) (2) of the INA. One has to wait till they release statistics for FY 2006, to see how many EB2 visas are issued in that FY.
Here is some detailed analysis that says why it violates the law.
Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 203 a and b of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets numbers for each preference categories with in FB and EB.
Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320. This section also explains how to handle unused numbers with respect to country quota.
Even before AC21 rule enacted in 2000, there was no �hard� country cap as per INA then. Here is the section of INA before year 2000, describes how to allocate unused visas, if overall/total demand for FB an EB visas are less than supply*.
INA 202 (a) (3)
�Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a-Family category) and (b-Employment category) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter�.
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
After 2000 (After AC21) the following law was added to INA in the section 202.
INA 202 (a) (5) (A)
EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
As per my simple interpretation of above AC21 rule, DOS should allocate unused visas by ROW �EB2 (ROW- countries other than India and China in EB2 category) for the first two months of any calendar quarter to over-subscribed countries (India & China) at the third month of that calendar quarter. They should not allocate to lower Preference category (EB3), if demand is more in higher preference category (EB2) to consume all the visa numbers in that preference category. They should allocate visas to all the documentarily qualified applicants in that (EB2) preference category, irrespective of country of birth. If they followed this rule/law, there may be a considerable movement in cut-off dates for India and China in Dec 2005, Mar, June and Sep of 2006 in EB2 (last month of each calendar quarter in a fiscal year). We have not witnessed such movement in last 1.5 years. No one knows how DOS is allocating numbers. They may be allocating only 7% visas to India and China in EB2 category very strictly, every month, and allocating unused numbers to EB3 category, by suspending AC21 law as indicated in their Nov 2005 Visa Bulletin. If they do so, it is against the law, at least in my interpretation of AC21 rule that eliminates country quota in EB categories.
DOS can not interpret above AC21 rule that eliminates per country limit applies �totally� to all EB categories put together, not by individual preference categories. I.e. If they say they will issue more than 2,800 visas to EB2- India per year (more than 7% of 40,000), provided overall demand for EB visas are less than 140,000. If they interpret the law like this, then there is no need for section 202(a) (5) (A) due to AC21 law. The law before AC21 {i.e. section 202 (a) (3)} itself address the elimination of country quota in both FB and EB category*. Then, section 202(a) (5) (A) is a duplicate wording of section 202(a) (3). So, this section of AC21 law becomes a redundant/duplicate law. Then, there is no meaning of employment �preference� category if they interpret �totally or overall worldwide demand�. In other words, a non-Indian/Chinese restaurant cook (EB3) is more preferred than a NIW PhDs (EB2) from India or China. Is it the intend of the congress when enacting AC21 law in removing per country limitation in EB category? Is it the American Competitiveness in 21st century? I highly doubt that.
Now it is the time to ask US DOS, how they are allocating visa number in EB2 category. If DOS interpreting the law differently, then we need to ask the law makers (Congress) what is their original intension behind the section 202(a)(5)(A) when they drafted the AC21 law in 2000 and how it is differ from 202 (a) (3).
Perhaps Core IV team can initiate to discuss/consult this issue with an immigration lawyer and place an enquiry with DOS or Law makers, if needed.
(*Note: DOS do not mix FB and EB categories for visa number allocation/calculation to meet the per country limit. They keep both in separate track to meet separately the 7% limit)
more...
eilsoe
02-11 07:29 AM
I voted for ya too kit ;)
I was your first... :sure:
I was your first... :sure:
eilsoe
02-02 06:08 PM
*oops*
Edited the above post the clear that little mishap up :)
Edited the above post the clear that little mishap up :)
more...
Libra
07-21 02:43 PM
E-filed: July 9th 2008
Received Paper receipt and FP notice within a week.
FP: Aug 2nd 2008 (Scheduled on)
Status Pending
Received Paper receipt and FP notice within a week.
FP: Aug 2nd 2008 (Scheduled on)
Status Pending
2010 Jeff Hardy
GCInThisLife
07-19 02:21 PM
You are still with in 180 days window of being out of status.
This discussion scared me now.
I came in US on 06/03/2001. When I came I was told, no project for me right now and I have to wait. I waited till 09/11/2001 WITHOUT pay.
The first time I was on my company payroll was in 09/11/2001. Since then as of today I am working continously.
AM I IN PROBLEM?
Please comment and give me hope.
This discussion scared me now.
I came in US on 06/03/2001. When I came I was told, no project for me right now and I have to wait. I waited till 09/11/2001 WITHOUT pay.
The first time I was on my company payroll was in 09/11/2001. Since then as of today I am working continously.
AM I IN PROBLEM?
Please comment and give me hope.
more...
bujjigadu123
02-21 01:36 AM
No. I am not an employee of any of the companies named in H1B visa fraud last week. The current employer is my the sponserer of my H1 B visa and also my first employer . I did not change my employer.
hair jeff hardy wallpapers
manand24
08-10 10:57 AM
not in same boat as you and me buddy. They are in a boat ahead of you....
Good point.
Good point.
more...
Sheila Danzig
02-25 09:17 PM
I apologize. I did not left the default on many of the points. I have changed them now. The questions don't allow for people who are not applying for anything. I did not mean to solicit business. Some of my clients have asked me to post here and clear up some issues. I get 90% of my business from attorneys and employers, not from chat boards.
We have never taken more than authorized on the card. The form is automated and submitted by the client. We never even see the card #. If anyone has a problem with double submissions (if they hit submit twice) we always credit back.
You are soliciting business from IV site. You don't have a disclaimer or no shame in doing that. You filled your charge country as UK and pretend to be GC aspirant. You can advertise your thing by paying IV, not by these cheap method of interfering here. I know you suck a big amount from people approching your firm for evaluation and take more amount (than the authorized) from them using the credit card details on file by giving lame excuse. I know many friend burn their hands.
We have never taken more than authorized on the card. The form is automated and submitted by the client. We never even see the card #. If anyone has a problem with double submissions (if they hit submit twice) we always credit back.
You are soliciting business from IV site. You don't have a disclaimer or no shame in doing that. You filled your charge country as UK and pretend to be GC aspirant. You can advertise your thing by paying IV, not by these cheap method of interfering here. I know you suck a big amount from people approching your firm for evaluation and take more amount (than the authorized) from them using the credit card details on file by giving lame excuse. I know many friend burn their hands.
hot Wallpaper of Jeff Hardy
imh1b
11-03 09:00 AM
Today I was talking to IO in Texas service center, during discussion I told her that India dates might retrogress.. can you please expedite my case. For that she replied that " that's what they are doing"
I am not sure how reliable is this and on what she has in her mind.. Just wanted to share the information. Don't give me RED for this.
Do you seriously think a customer service person knows visa bulletins in advance?
I am not sure how reliable is this and on what she has in her mind.. Just wanted to share the information. Don't give me RED for this.
Do you seriously think a customer service person knows visa bulletins in advance?
more...
house lamborchini jeff hardy the
transpass
02-23 02:16 PM
I got the scanned copy of the RFE of my wife's case from my attorney this morning, here are the details - "Need secondary evidence to demonstrate the claimed relationship..."
I had submitted the marriage certificate, but now they want more. Gurus, has anyone received something like this before, please suggest how this can be taken care of. Can someone point me to a sample affidavit, please?
Thank you!!
Sometimes, Indian passport has spouse's name entered...May be that should help also..
I had submitted the marriage certificate, but now they want more. Gurus, has anyone received something like this before, please suggest how this can be taken care of. Can someone point me to a sample affidavit, please?
Thank you!!
Sometimes, Indian passport has spouse's name entered...May be that should help also..
tattoo Jeff Hardy Wallpaper by
himu73
07-19 03:30 PM
Show that this is an Emergency situation and try to get it preponed from US Embassy. They will consider the request.
No she cant becuase her visa appointment is on Aug 13.
No she cant becuase her visa appointment is on Aug 13.
more...
pictures Triple H Jeff Hardy dektop
jonty_11
05-22 03:20 PM
more i want more of these options.....as logiclife said - THIS IS NOT A JOKE ....
Let explore any and all options here to become illegal and qualify for a Z VISA
Let explore any and all options here to become illegal and qualify for a Z VISA
dresses Wallpaper of Jeff Hardy
met3259
05-25 03:42 PM
MET3259- Thanks for the Post. It was great.
Could you address my quiestion regarding "low" wages. How "low" are they and what does 'low" mean in Canada, relative to cost of living and especially real estate prices. Can you afford to buy a decent house or apartments in average salary?
Thanks
Excellent question. Wages are lower (with a few exceptions like teachers) than in the US, but we are not talking about "poor house" wages. I made $70K Cdn (remember, a dollar is still a dollar at home - so don't convert to US$) and made $77K US my first year in the US. The job though went from a process engineer, to a plant manager of a small plant.
I have tried to talk to my friends in Canada about this (and job opportunity) and figure it out - how come I can make more in the US and have more carrier opportunities. I really do not know the exact answer, but... (let me try anyway):
It is easy to "shine" in the US - again, the average (and by no means not all) person here is less educated and has less drive/ability than at home -- thus more competition (relatively speaking) than in the US.
Economies of scale in the US present more opportunity.
I did notice, that in the US, you can be a grade 8 drop out and still make a lot of money if you are willing to work (and have at least a little luck - re: the song "sun screen"). That very rarely(if ever) happens back home.
Along this line of thinking, it is easier to sell a "widget" in the US as the average consumer is not that bright. Canadians are at least a little more hesitant/intelligent/cautious with purchases. The US have more disposible imcome than Canadians (which should tell you a lot right there).
Another difference is the banks in Canada will tell you how much you can spend. In the US, they just keep giving morgates, car loans, credit cards to anyone (even my 6 year old son got a peapproved application for a credit card). In Canada - the bank will say - "you can not afford that" - we do not have people morgated to the hilt, with a SUV (or 2) in the driveway ready for bankrupcy if they loose their job.
Conclusion - you can afford a house and renting in Canada (unlike the US) is actually cheaper. Wages can be and most liekly are lower, but - no ghettos, no bankrupcy due to illnesss, safer streets (although it is getting worse).
Hope that helps.
Could you address my quiestion regarding "low" wages. How "low" are they and what does 'low" mean in Canada, relative to cost of living and especially real estate prices. Can you afford to buy a decent house or apartments in average salary?
Thanks
Excellent question. Wages are lower (with a few exceptions like teachers) than in the US, but we are not talking about "poor house" wages. I made $70K Cdn (remember, a dollar is still a dollar at home - so don't convert to US$) and made $77K US my first year in the US. The job though went from a process engineer, to a plant manager of a small plant.
I have tried to talk to my friends in Canada about this (and job opportunity) and figure it out - how come I can make more in the US and have more carrier opportunities. I really do not know the exact answer, but... (let me try anyway):
It is easy to "shine" in the US - again, the average (and by no means not all) person here is less educated and has less drive/ability than at home -- thus more competition (relatively speaking) than in the US.
Economies of scale in the US present more opportunity.
I did notice, that in the US, you can be a grade 8 drop out and still make a lot of money if you are willing to work (and have at least a little luck - re: the song "sun screen"). That very rarely(if ever) happens back home.
Along this line of thinking, it is easier to sell a "widget" in the US as the average consumer is not that bright. Canadians are at least a little more hesitant/intelligent/cautious with purchases. The US have more disposible imcome than Canadians (which should tell you a lot right there).
Another difference is the banks in Canada will tell you how much you can spend. In the US, they just keep giving morgates, car loans, credit cards to anyone (even my 6 year old son got a peapproved application for a credit card). In Canada - the bank will say - "you can not afford that" - we do not have people morgated to the hilt, with a SUV (or 2) in the driveway ready for bankrupcy if they loose their job.
Conclusion - you can afford a house and renting in Canada (unlike the US) is actually cheaper. Wages can be and most liekly are lower, but - no ghettos, no bankrupcy due to illnesss, safer streets (although it is getting worse).
Hope that helps.
more...
makeup Labels: Jeff Hardy
pani_6
05-30 10:07 AM
I applied on May18 for I-140 and will be applying to I485 soon.. and would get EAD...so what happens to EAD and AP...I cant beleive they are
waste..Probabaly people with pending I-140 will be subject to the new systems..??..what do you guys think??..Its not pratical to drive people down the Queue again..
waste..Probabaly people with pending I-140 will be subject to the new systems..??..what do you guys think??..Its not pratical to drive people down the Queue again..
girlfriend WWE Smackdown Jeff Hardy
kaisersose
06-05 03:27 PM
Thanks KS !! but is it a law or did they create their own rules ? I know I am day dreaming here ...but if they were to push (the worst category) EB3 - I in this case so that it is somewhere in 2003 then it would make their system look better ..i.e. instead of giving people a chance to say that USCIS is broken they could say ..people will get GC's in 4 -5 years time.
Check the Family based 4th Category for Phillipines. It is stuck in 1986 for a long time now. That is they have pending applications from 22 years ago.
I don't think they have any interest in making their system look better. It is what it is.
Check the Family based 4th Category for Phillipines. It is stuck in 1986 for a long time now. That is they have pending applications from 22 years ago.
I don't think they have any interest in making their system look better. It is what it is.
hairstyles Steady Looks – Jeff Hardy
MDix
11-04 10:46 AM
Upcoming month's visa bulletin: December 2009 (coming soon)
Visa Bulletin (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_1360.html)
Visa Bulletin (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_1360.html)
isantem
07-29 12:57 PM
Well if the system were fair, it wouldn't say x pending ROW, it would be like x pending eb3 and y pending eb2. Yes, there are a lot of applications from India, it is a large country! But why should it be relevant in EB based processing?
Did you choose the country you would be born in, or is somehow one's skillset dependent on national origin?
Like it or not, USA want diversity;), they not want to be a second Indian, Asian, Mexican, African, European etc country.
And one way to try to manage this is by country limits.
Did you choose the country you would be born in, or is somehow one's skillset dependent on national origin?
Like it or not, USA want diversity;), they not want to be a second Indian, Asian, Mexican, African, European etc country.
And one way to try to manage this is by country limits.
arnab221
06-10 04:14 AM
I think there are people who have a labor pending from July 4th 1776 , so they might take the date back to July 4th 1776 when the US was formed and when the USCIS was established . However they will then not allow people living in the west coast and the then Confederate states to apply , only people living in the Union states will be eligible to apply .
Post a Comment