meridiani.planum
09-10 11:25 AM
I will update here for those who cannot enter chat
Right now they are discussing
H.R. 6598
the "Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act of 2008
I will update here once HR 5882 starts
ouch that is so ironic.... 'Equine Cruelty'?? What about 'immigrant cruelty'?
some of the priorities in this country are all screwed up...
Right now they are discussing
H.R. 6598
the "Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act of 2008
I will update here once HR 5882 starts
ouch that is so ironic.... 'Equine Cruelty'?? What about 'immigrant cruelty'?
some of the priorities in this country are all screwed up...
wallpaper Lea Michele and Cory Monteith duet on Journey#39;s Faithfully live at the
Roger Binny
10-11 08:13 PM
There are so many illegal immigrats working as lawn tenders, cleaners at stores....why doens't USCIS go after them? They are easy to spot and can be found anywhere...why harrass students?
USCIS perceives students are smart and sets standards by following rules than uneducated brothers.
It's not harassing it has altogether different meaning, i too doesn't know when they first asked me, but one needs to keep cool and explain the reality it would work.
I agree with other OP saying checking bio-metric is best than carrying these important documents around, all we know it need big budget.
USCIS perceives students are smart and sets standards by following rules than uneducated brothers.
It's not harassing it has altogether different meaning, i too doesn't know when they first asked me, but one needs to keep cool and explain the reality it would work.
I agree with other OP saying checking bio-metric is best than carrying these important documents around, all we know it need big budget.
bfadlia
05-27 03:59 PM
I have made copies of my passport several times at kinkos. I have also send those to immigration lawyer etc..
I asked a guy in kinkos to photocopy for me, told me he can't, it's illeagel, then lowering his voice as if we're drug dealers said go to that self serve copier and do it yourself and I'll pretend I didn't see.
I asked a guy in kinkos to photocopy for me, told me he can't, it's illeagel, then lowering his voice as if we're drug dealers said go to that self serve copier and do it yourself and I'll pretend I didn't see.
2011 Lea Michele, Cory Monteith amp; Dianna Agron
guy03062
07-13 02:26 PM
I agree with you 100% for her delayed letter when everything falls in right place and may want to claim credit later on. But on other side, it is still good that she wrote a letter to add pressure on DHS. My 2 cents.
This is just a stunt. WHy did she wait allthese days to write this letter. Now when everything falls in place by others efforts, she wants people to think it is because her effort all these things are happening. I hate murthy or your murfhy.
This is just a stunt. WHy did she wait allthese days to write this letter. Now when everything falls in place by others efforts, she wants people to think it is because her effort all these things are happening. I hate murthy or your murfhy.
more...
yabadaba
09-10 11:44 AM
Perfect Weather For Marching
80 High 61 Low Sunny 10% Chance Of Showers
80 High 61 Low Sunny 10% Chance Of Showers
feedfront
10-05 03:10 PM
Hi Guys,
My attorney sent the response last week and it was delivered to the Dallas, TX. I am little concerned that my attorney actually sent the response to a courier address rather than the PO Box for TSC that they ask you to send. So far I have not seen any updates on my case.
Vgayalu: After how many days did you see an update after you sent the response to the RFE.
Ask your attorney to call USCIS for confirmation. Did he add return receipt also? It should not be any issue once you get the confirmation. Good Luck!
My attorney sent the response last week and it was delivered to the Dallas, TX. I am little concerned that my attorney actually sent the response to a courier address rather than the PO Box for TSC that they ask you to send. So far I have not seen any updates on my case.
Vgayalu: After how many days did you see an update after you sent the response to the RFE.
Ask your attorney to call USCIS for confirmation. Did he add return receipt also? It should not be any issue once you get the confirmation. Good Luck!
more...
prioritydate
12-20 08:42 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, but you've had unexpired H1B while you were out of work. This is not considered unlawful presence. On top of that, violation of status determination can be done only by the USCIS (IO). If they did not inform you that you violated status, you are good to go.
Well, I moved a lot since 2001 and I don't know if the IO sent any documents to my previous address. Yes, I have unexpired H1B visa till Oct 2002(I-94 valid until Oct, 2002). In Apr, 2005, I went to Canada for stamping of my new H1B. I again made an appointment in Jan, 2008.
Well, I moved a lot since 2001 and I don't know if the IO sent any documents to my previous address. Yes, I have unexpired H1B visa till Oct 2002(I-94 valid until Oct, 2002). In Apr, 2005, I went to Canada for stamping of my new H1B. I again made an appointment in Jan, 2008.
2010 Lea Michele, Cory Monteith amp; Dianna Agron
ashwin_27
06-10 01:02 PM
Track the status of this bill -
S. 2804: Employ America Act (GovTrack.us) (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-2804)
We can read between the lines and be as optimistic as we want..but I do not see anything in the text that excludes EADs.
As per pappu's initial email, everyone - H1B, EAD, L1 etc etc (except GC holders and citizens) are impacted by this bill.
What is the guidance to IV members? Start contacting the senators in the senate committee that deliberating on it and impress upon them to oppose this draconian bill?
S. 2804: Employ America Act (GovTrack.us) (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-2804)
We can read between the lines and be as optimistic as we want..but I do not see anything in the text that excludes EADs.
As per pappu's initial email, everyone - H1B, EAD, L1 etc etc (except GC holders and citizens) are impacted by this bill.
What is the guidance to IV members? Start contacting the senators in the senate committee that deliberating on it and impress upon them to oppose this draconian bill?
more...
Lasantha
03-07 10:26 AM
Is it true that in some cases after you file for AC21, CIS would send a RFE for the financial details of the new company (to stablish that the new company can pay you - company tax details).
I think I heard this on the last IV attorney conference call with Attorney Prashanti. So if that's is true, what if the company does not want to send this kind of confidential information to a third party attorney (your attorney)?
Or if the company is a big one they may not want to help you with these details at all. You know, they may not want to be bothered with that sort of hassle.
Have any of you heard of a case where CIS asked for ability to pay supporting information for AC21?
I think I heard this on the last IV attorney conference call with Attorney Prashanti. So if that's is true, what if the company does not want to send this kind of confidential information to a third party attorney (your attorney)?
Or if the company is a big one they may not want to help you with these details at all. You know, they may not want to be bothered with that sort of hassle.
Have any of you heard of a case where CIS asked for ability to pay supporting information for AC21?
hair house lea michele boyfriend
nixstor
07-04 08:56 PM
Excellent analysis but it does have flaws
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
We all understand this and what you are saying, But What is in law is more important than OB's recommendations. First of all the office of OB might not have recommended to pass on any name checks. It might have advised to some how expedite them. More over, I dont think that they take the annual report seriously. We know how many times DOS officials and USCIS officials testify before congress. Why don't they tell congress that in order to clear backlogs
a) They need FBI to expedite name checks (they might have testified about this)
b) They need to recapture visa numbers (AFAIK, they never did this because your case is not pending unless you filed for AOS/485. We are not a part of the back log)
Their biggest problem now is if all of us file for 485, we will continue to be the back log for ever on the back of USCIS for ages to come unless recapture occurs. What ever be the number 200K or 700K, they simply dont want it.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
I am sure you might have read this from murthy's website (http://www.murthy.com/news/n_dosebn.html) or not, but DOS/CA/VO officials shared this piece with them. As per the above article, final quarter quota should not open until Jul 2nd. I understand that agencies can implement and interpret certain stuff, but you cannot interpret and implement one thing on Jun 13th and another on Jul 2nd. If its written into law, that the quarterly allocation is a must, USCIS is in violation and DOS/CA/VO as well for not policing them of visa number usage.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Understood, if they can clear 60K cases in 18 days, I doubt they will have any issues clearing them in 90 days. It goes back to the point of us becoming the biggest hump on USCIS
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories “current” for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories “current” ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of “current” there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making “current” for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as “current” in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
I think we all agree that there was no need to make every category current given that we know how many will become eligible for 485 filing. How ever, The OB's office will be pretty pissed if they use him as the trump card. Also, I got the annual report from OB's office in email on Jun 12th 07. VB came out on 14th? What you are saying is USCIS has worked over night to analyze OB's report or they had access to OB's report 15-20 days ahead. Everything points to me that there was a lack of communication between the two agencies on an issue with huge stakes.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
We need to do both as the success is not guaranteed in either situation. I do not know if AILF will win the law suit. On the other side, Senators like Kennedy who control immigration issues will not give a damn in the current situation. If the issue gets to a point where USCIS & DOS officials testify before congress, the root problem will be solved. If we just win the lawsuit and get in, USCIS is only going to sulk us for 10 years in the name of security check.In the end, We should be able to portray the whole situation as if USCIS has been put in a ugly predicament to utilize visa numbers under the arcane laws. Bashing DOS & USCIS left and right now is not of any use in the long run.
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
We all understand this and what you are saying, But What is in law is more important than OB's recommendations. First of all the office of OB might not have recommended to pass on any name checks. It might have advised to some how expedite them. More over, I dont think that they take the annual report seriously. We know how many times DOS officials and USCIS officials testify before congress. Why don't they tell congress that in order to clear backlogs
a) They need FBI to expedite name checks (they might have testified about this)
b) They need to recapture visa numbers (AFAIK, they never did this because your case is not pending unless you filed for AOS/485. We are not a part of the back log)
Their biggest problem now is if all of us file for 485, we will continue to be the back log for ever on the back of USCIS for ages to come unless recapture occurs. What ever be the number 200K or 700K, they simply dont want it.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
I am sure you might have read this from murthy's website (http://www.murthy.com/news/n_dosebn.html) or not, but DOS/CA/VO officials shared this piece with them. As per the above article, final quarter quota should not open until Jul 2nd. I understand that agencies can implement and interpret certain stuff, but you cannot interpret and implement one thing on Jun 13th and another on Jul 2nd. If its written into law, that the quarterly allocation is a must, USCIS is in violation and DOS/CA/VO as well for not policing them of visa number usage.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Understood, if they can clear 60K cases in 18 days, I doubt they will have any issues clearing them in 90 days. It goes back to the point of us becoming the biggest hump on USCIS
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories “current” for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories “current” ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of “current” there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making “current” for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as “current” in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
I think we all agree that there was no need to make every category current given that we know how many will become eligible for 485 filing. How ever, The OB's office will be pretty pissed if they use him as the trump card. Also, I got the annual report from OB's office in email on Jun 12th 07. VB came out on 14th? What you are saying is USCIS has worked over night to analyze OB's report or they had access to OB's report 15-20 days ahead. Everything points to me that there was a lack of communication between the two agencies on an issue with huge stakes.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
We need to do both as the success is not guaranteed in either situation. I do not know if AILF will win the law suit. On the other side, Senators like Kennedy who control immigration issues will not give a damn in the current situation. If the issue gets to a point where USCIS & DOS officials testify before congress, the root problem will be solved. If we just win the lawsuit and get in, USCIS is only going to sulk us for 10 years in the name of security check.In the end, We should be able to portray the whole situation as if USCIS has been put in a ugly predicament to utilize visa numbers under the arcane laws. Bashing DOS & USCIS left and right now is not of any use in the long run.
more...
javadeveloper
01-30 12:15 PM
have you submitted the new G-28 form when you changed employers?
You can go back to your original GC sponsoring employer also right?
You can go back to your original GC sponsoring employer also right?
hot and a slew of talented newcomers including Lea Michele, Cory Monteith a.
psaxena
05-27 05:33 PM
I am really laughing.... very true, there are a lot of dumbs on this forum
The guy at Kino's was probably a dumb high school dropout and you have proved to be his match by posting it here....
The guy at Kino's was probably a dumb high school dropout and you have proved to be his match by posting it here....
more...
house lea michele dianna agron and
chi_shark
03-11 11:08 AM
I agree that preadjudication could be happening now and the flood gates are to be opened for Eb2 I soon. Otherwise why would USCIS work on apps and send for RFE etc?
I have seen high activitiy in the last few months.
man, we are an optimistic bunch! nothing wrong with it... but this is what keeps me coming back! :-)
I have seen high activitiy in the last few months.
man, we are an optimistic bunch! nothing wrong with it... but this is what keeps me coming back! :-)
tattoo Best friend(s): Lea Michele
waitnwatch
07-28 12:50 PM
Let's get this straight............
This thread was started by some fake who most probably joined today and has all dates set to 3/24/2005.
Could you guys please find something better to do than getting all worked up with this FAKE thread.
Next thing we will see is a thread saying......."I just shook hands with Donald Duck" and we will start investigating the characters immigrant status, ethnicity and religious leanings.
GOOD LUCK:rolleyes:
This thread was started by some fake who most probably joined today and has all dates set to 3/24/2005.
Could you guys please find something better to do than getting all worked up with this FAKE thread.
Next thing we will see is a thread saying......."I just shook hands with Donald Duck" and we will start investigating the characters immigrant status, ethnicity and religious leanings.
GOOD LUCK:rolleyes:
more...
pictures lea michele boyfriend cory
logiclife
03-09 12:09 AM
Many thanks Abha for your contributions.
Would you also like to join the membership drive of immigration voice. We are organizing a chain recruitment drive (since a couple of days) to help get more members and have 10,000 members.
Please email me at jay@immigrationvoice.org so that I can send you brochure/doc for volunteering. Its really not a big commitment, except 45 minutes per day for a few days.
Here is more: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=305
--Jay.
Would you also like to join the membership drive of immigration voice. We are organizing a chain recruitment drive (since a couple of days) to help get more members and have 10,000 members.
Please email me at jay@immigrationvoice.org so that I can send you brochure/doc for volunteering. Its really not a big commitment, except 45 minutes per day for a few days.
Here is more: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=305
--Jay.
dresses lea michele boyfriend cory
kumarc123
10-19 02:28 PM
Just imagine the cowardice of these people!. Online forums already have sufficient anonymity that you dont have to reveal your true name. Despite that people hide behind comment system to give reds (and tell things like "you suck" and what not). I hope the admins shut down this misused feature. Or make the system non-anonymous so that we can drag out these people and take up their comments in open forum.
Hello there,
I cant less concur to what you jsut said, if someone has something to say and critique , they can very well post their response or send a private message.
Anyways the focus is the campaign. Have we decided on what and when we should do this flower campaign?
I request all IV members, to please unite and do something, we all need to be mobile and create more awareness.
Have we all forgotten how much publicity we got in 2007? lets all wait till the election day is over and the right candidate is elected.
Then we should plan a rally.
I am lucky, because I work hard. We all can be lucky as well, all we need to do is, work hard on these rally's. A flower campaign, a rally and maybe someone earlier suggested the EB community should take one day off work and attend that rally. This way, they will understand our Importance
Hello there,
I cant less concur to what you jsut said, if someone has something to say and critique , they can very well post their response or send a private message.
Anyways the focus is the campaign. Have we decided on what and when we should do this flower campaign?
I request all IV members, to please unite and do something, we all need to be mobile and create more awareness.
Have we all forgotten how much publicity we got in 2007? lets all wait till the election day is over and the right candidate is elected.
Then we should plan a rally.
I am lucky, because I work hard. We all can be lucky as well, all we need to do is, work hard on these rally's. A flower campaign, a rally and maybe someone earlier suggested the EB community should take one day off work and attend that rally. This way, they will understand our Importance
more...
makeup Cory Monteith, Lea Michele
pmamp
07-05 01:56 PM
In the time it took you to write all this up, mayb you coudl have enlightened a senator or two...
Sai,
I DO THAT PART. PLEASE DO NOT MAKE ANY ASSUMPTIONS. IF YOU ARE NOT ONE OF THE FREE RIDERS HERE THEN YOU WON'T BE BOTHERED BY DISCUSSION HERE. PLEASE EXCUSE ME FOR BEING RUDE ... YOU KNOW YOU REAP WHAT YOU SOW :(
Sai,
I DO THAT PART. PLEASE DO NOT MAKE ANY ASSUMPTIONS. IF YOU ARE NOT ONE OF THE FREE RIDERS HERE THEN YOU WON'T BE BOTHERED BY DISCUSSION HERE. PLEASE EXCUSE ME FOR BEING RUDE ... YOU KNOW YOU REAP WHAT YOU SOW :(
girlfriend Lea Michele, Cory Monteith amp; Dianna Agron
yabadaba
07-24 02:15 PM
jc menon...have u ever taken a law class? do u have a jd? why are u then so adamant on thinking u "found" the loophole?
we are not stupid morons over here. Neither is the AILA/millions of lawyers that are associated with immigration law. Please for heaven sake dont start now about some conspiracy theory about immigration lawyers having a preference for backlog.
there is no loophole, there is no precedent and by emailing the director with a moronic question will only show that probably that we have morons stuck in retrogression and probably we deserve to be stuck.
we are not stupid morons over here. Neither is the AILA/millions of lawyers that are associated with immigration law. Please for heaven sake dont start now about some conspiracy theory about immigration lawyers having a preference for backlog.
there is no loophole, there is no precedent and by emailing the director with a moronic question will only show that probably that we have morons stuck in retrogression and probably we deserve to be stuck.
hairstyles Lea Michele, Cory Monteith and Dianna Agron at San Diego Comic-Con
alex99
11-14 05:09 PM
bump
rc0878
03-19 03:24 PM
Let's hope the following happens....coz EB3 seekers like me are also waiting for a long time.
May be I am not aware, say the dates move to 2005, then whoever has a PD till 2005 and has a pending 485, is bound to get GC approved, or incase the dates move back, then he/she is stuck again?
RC
Not only EB2, EB3 India also will move to April 2005, atleast for couple of months before this FY ends, to use the 140K numbers.
May be I am not aware, say the dates move to 2005, then whoever has a PD till 2005 and has a pending 485, is bound to get GC approved, or incase the dates move back, then he/she is stuck again?
RC
Not only EB2, EB3 India also will move to April 2005, atleast for couple of months before this FY ends, to use the 140K numbers.
transpass
04-10 12:07 PM
Here are the details for last year and years before:
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
Thanks Kondur. That was a very good presentation of the numbers. I very much appreciate it.
Now,
1. Why did EB1 last year needed spillover visas, although it was current all the time? If a category is current, isn't that it has less demand than allocated numbers?
2. As per May bulletin, EB4 might need a cut off. So we cannot expect any spillover from EB4. So that is clear. Now the spillover chances are from EB5, EB2 ROW and EB1(?). I am including EB1 because, given the current economy over the past year, should there be a better possibility of more spillover from EB2 ROW and EB1 compared to last year?
3. Also why are the total EB numbers different in different fiscal years (e.g., 141020 in FY2009, 162949 in FY 2008 and 154497 in FY2007)? In FYs 2007 and 2008 did the extra visas come from Family based while it did not for FY 2009? If so, why is it so?
4. Based on Pending 485 data of March 2010, I barely see few hundred EB4s. And hardly considerable number of EB1s. What's going on? If we go by this data, we should be getting good chunk of spillover numbers...
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Green%20Card/Green%20Card%20Through%20a%20Job/Employment%20Based%20I-485%20Pending%20Inventory-Total%203-8-2010.pdf
Thanks,
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
Thanks Kondur. That was a very good presentation of the numbers. I very much appreciate it.
Now,
1. Why did EB1 last year needed spillover visas, although it was current all the time? If a category is current, isn't that it has less demand than allocated numbers?
2. As per May bulletin, EB4 might need a cut off. So we cannot expect any spillover from EB4. So that is clear. Now the spillover chances are from EB5, EB2 ROW and EB1(?). I am including EB1 because, given the current economy over the past year, should there be a better possibility of more spillover from EB2 ROW and EB1 compared to last year?
3. Also why are the total EB numbers different in different fiscal years (e.g., 141020 in FY2009, 162949 in FY 2008 and 154497 in FY2007)? In FYs 2007 and 2008 did the extra visas come from Family based while it did not for FY 2009? If so, why is it so?
4. Based on Pending 485 data of March 2010, I barely see few hundred EB4s. And hardly considerable number of EB1s. What's going on? If we go by this data, we should be getting good chunk of spillover numbers...
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Green%20Card/Green%20Card%20Through%20a%20Job/Employment%20Based%20I-485%20Pending%20Inventory-Total%203-8-2010.pdf
Thanks,
0 comments:
Post a Comment