vin13
11-11 01:46 PM
I'm willing to send this to all the congressman/senators in Texas. Since I'm new to this game, is email better or snail mail? Or is personal contact expected?
Thanks.
Contacting personally is the best. You may not always get a chance to meet the congressman. But atleast get an appointment with an aide who deals with immigration. Some of them would have offices in several towns. Choose the one close to you. Meet in person and explain the situation and give them the letter. Do not go in a big group. 1 or 2 members would be ideal. Lot of the congressman may not know much about the process. so you need to keep it simple with less technical terms.
Thanks.
Contacting personally is the best. You may not always get a chance to meet the congressman. But atleast get an appointment with an aide who deals with immigration. Some of them would have offices in several towns. Choose the one close to you. Meet in person and explain the situation and give them the letter. Do not go in a big group. 1 or 2 members would be ideal. Lot of the congressman may not know much about the process. so you need to keep it simple with less technical terms.
wallpaper Clip Art - Birthday flag
sprash
01-30 01:51 PM
Hi had an RFE when my dates were not current. Here is the scan of my RFE notice.
Hope the scan helps you prepare in advance the necessary documentation.
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b337/sprash/RFEMine.jpg
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b337/sprash/RFEWife.jpg
I had discussed this in the following thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=296497#post296497
My *guess* is that the revoking of previous H1b has triggered this RFE --- When my wife's previous employer canceled her H1b it took a few months before her already approved h1b petition was reopened (as per USCIS online).
The suspense must be terrible!
Good luck.
Hope the scan helps you prepare in advance the necessary documentation.
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b337/sprash/RFEMine.jpg
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b337/sprash/RFEWife.jpg
I had discussed this in the following thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=296497#post296497
My *guess* is that the revoking of previous H1b has triggered this RFE --- When my wife's previous employer canceled her H1b it took a few months before her already approved h1b petition was reopened (as per USCIS online).
The suspense must be terrible!
Good luck.
rayoflight
02-19 11:29 AM
SEC. 501. EARNED ACCESS TO LEGALIZATION.
(a) In General- Chapter 5 of title II (8 U.S.C. 1255 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 245A the following:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS ON THE BASIS OF EARNED ACCESS TO LEGALIZATION
‘Sec. 245B. (a) In General- The Secretary of Homeland Security may adjust the status of an alien to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if the alien--
‘(1) was physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 5 years immediately preceding the date on which this provision was enacted and has maintained continuous physical presence since then;
‘(2) has at all times been a person of good moral character;
‘(3) has never been convicted of a criminal offense in the United States;
‘(4) in the case of an alien who is 18 years of age or older, but who is not over the age of 65, has successfully completed a course on reading, writing, and speaking words in ordinary usage in the English language, unless unable to do so on account of physical or developmental disability or mental impairment;
‘(5) in the case of an alien 18 years of age or older, has accepted the values and cultural life of the United States; and
‘(6) in the case of an alien 18 years of age or older, has performed at least 40 hours of community service.
‘(b) Treatment of Brief, Casual, and Innocent Absences- An alien shall not be considered to have failed to maintain a continuous presence in the United States for purposes of subsection (a)(1) by virtue of brief, casual, and innocent absences from the United States.
‘(c) Admissible as Immigrant-
‘(1) IN GENERAL- The alien shall establish that the alien is admissible to the United States as immigrant, except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2).
‘(2) EXCEPTIONS- The provisions of paragraphs (5), (6)(A), (6)(B), (6)(C), (6)(F), (6)(G), (7)(A), (9)(B), and (9)(C)(i)(I) of section 212(a) shall not apply in the determination of an alien’s admissibility under this section.
‘(d) Security and Law Enforcement Clearances- The alien, if over 15 years of age, shall submit fingerprints in accordance with procedures established by the Secretary of Homeland Security. Such fingerprints shall be submitted to relevant Federal agencies to be checked against existing databases for information relating to criminal, national security, or other law enforcement actions that would render the alien ineligible for adjustment of status under this section. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide a process for challenging the accuracy of matches that result in a finding of ineligibility for adjustment of status.
‘(e) Inapplicability of Numerical Limitations- When an alien is granted lawful permanent resident status under this subsection, the number of immigrant visas authorized to be issued under any provision of this Act shall not be reduced. The numerical limitations of sections 201 and 202 shall not apply to adjustment of status under this section.
‘(f) Termination of Proceedings- The Secretary of Homeland Security may terminate removal proceedings without prejudice pending the outcome of an alien’s application for adjustment of status under this section on the basis of a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief under this section.’.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of contents is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 245A the following:
‘Sec. 245B. Adjustment of status on the basis of earned access to legalization.’.
(a) In General- Chapter 5 of title II (8 U.S.C. 1255 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 245A the following:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS ON THE BASIS OF EARNED ACCESS TO LEGALIZATION
‘Sec. 245B. (a) In General- The Secretary of Homeland Security may adjust the status of an alien to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if the alien--
‘(1) was physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 5 years immediately preceding the date on which this provision was enacted and has maintained continuous physical presence since then;
‘(2) has at all times been a person of good moral character;
‘(3) has never been convicted of a criminal offense in the United States;
‘(4) in the case of an alien who is 18 years of age or older, but who is not over the age of 65, has successfully completed a course on reading, writing, and speaking words in ordinary usage in the English language, unless unable to do so on account of physical or developmental disability or mental impairment;
‘(5) in the case of an alien 18 years of age or older, has accepted the values and cultural life of the United States; and
‘(6) in the case of an alien 18 years of age or older, has performed at least 40 hours of community service.
‘(b) Treatment of Brief, Casual, and Innocent Absences- An alien shall not be considered to have failed to maintain a continuous presence in the United States for purposes of subsection (a)(1) by virtue of brief, casual, and innocent absences from the United States.
‘(c) Admissible as Immigrant-
‘(1) IN GENERAL- The alien shall establish that the alien is admissible to the United States as immigrant, except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2).
‘(2) EXCEPTIONS- The provisions of paragraphs (5), (6)(A), (6)(B), (6)(C), (6)(F), (6)(G), (7)(A), (9)(B), and (9)(C)(i)(I) of section 212(a) shall not apply in the determination of an alien’s admissibility under this section.
‘(d) Security and Law Enforcement Clearances- The alien, if over 15 years of age, shall submit fingerprints in accordance with procedures established by the Secretary of Homeland Security. Such fingerprints shall be submitted to relevant Federal agencies to be checked against existing databases for information relating to criminal, national security, or other law enforcement actions that would render the alien ineligible for adjustment of status under this section. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide a process for challenging the accuracy of matches that result in a finding of ineligibility for adjustment of status.
‘(e) Inapplicability of Numerical Limitations- When an alien is granted lawful permanent resident status under this subsection, the number of immigrant visas authorized to be issued under any provision of this Act shall not be reduced. The numerical limitations of sections 201 and 202 shall not apply to adjustment of status under this section.
‘(f) Termination of Proceedings- The Secretary of Homeland Security may terminate removal proceedings without prejudice pending the outcome of an alien’s application for adjustment of status under this section on the basis of a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief under this section.’.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of contents is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 245A the following:
‘Sec. 245B. Adjustment of status on the basis of earned access to legalization.’.
2011 irthday #33659 Clip Art
nomi
12-13 09:54 AM
I am sure the IV core would have thought about this option of contacting USCIS and let them know the problems because of retrogression.
But I like the idea of collecting 10$ for the fax and creating awareness. Lets move.
so let find out who is dead of department of homeland Security and get addresses , phone number and fax. USCIS is branch of DHS. That`s where we need to contact them and ask them what we THEY can do for us and what are our legal options
please someone work with core team to get that fax letter ready. I can do that if core team allow me
thx.
But I like the idea of collecting 10$ for the fax and creating awareness. Lets move.
so let find out who is dead of department of homeland Security and get addresses , phone number and fax. USCIS is branch of DHS. That`s where we need to contact them and ask them what we THEY can do for us and what are our legal options
please someone work with core team to get that fax letter ready. I can do that if core team allow me
thx.
more...
Jbpvisa
07-12 11:01 PM
http://www.murthy.com/chertoff_murthy.html
July 12, 2007
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Michael Chertoff, Esq.
Secretary
Department of Homeland Security
RE: USCIS Decision to Reject I-485 Filings
Dear Mr. Chertoff:
It was a pleasure and an honor to meet with you and to share my views during your panel discussion at the Harvard Worldwide Congress June 15, 2007 in Washington, D.C. I understand and appreciate that the responsibility vested in you as the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is no simple task. We applaud your service to our nation. After meeting with you personally and speaking with you, I am more convinced than ever that you will do the right thing for our country and for the people you serve, both in terms of securing our nation and in being the leader of the DHS, with over 20 federal agencies reporting to you, including the USCIS.
Purpose of this Letter
I am writing to you at this time to address recent actions by the USCIS to refuse to accept I-485 adjustment of status filing during July 2007 that are having significant impact upon the reliability of the legal immigration system in this country, as well as impacting legal foreign nationals and the many U.S. businesses that rely upon the work they perform.
USCIS Decision Contradicts its Long Standing Procedure
In contradiction of its own long standing policy and procedure, we understand that the USCIS, through its Director Gonzalez, contacted the U.S. Department of State (DOS) and requested or required the DOS to issue a �revised� Visa Bulletin on July 2, 2007. The USCIS then used the revised Bulletin to refuse to accept I-485 filings. This decision deprives thousands of foreign nationals, and their families, of the rights and privileges that are attendant to the I-485 filing.
These Highly Skilled Professionals Followed All the Rules and Believe in the American Dream
These professionals and their employers have played by our established immigration laws and rules. The vast majority of these thousands of potential applicants has a U.S. employer corporation, university or other business as a sponsor for permanent resident status. The exceptions from an employer are for those who are considered of �extraordinary ability� or whose work is in our �national interest.� Many of these applicants have completed their Bachelor�s, Master�s and/or PhD programs from U.S. universities. They believe in the opportunities of this great nation and strive to achieve the American Dream by following all the rules, working hard, paying taxes, and striving to do the right thing. They believe in this country, and rely upon our systems, our government, and our processes. Unfortunately, on July 2, 2007, we let them down. The USCIS abandoned its own system and long standing practices. This happened through manipulation of the use of visa numbers, insisting upon the issuance of a "revised visa bulletin," and instituting the USCIS policy of rejecting every employment-based I-485 that could have been filed during the month of July 2007.
USCIS Decision Denies Substantive and Procedural Rights to Highly Skilled Workers and Their Employers - Many of Whom Have Already Suffered and Will Suffer Further Harm/ Injury
Not only does the USCIS' action harm the individuals and employers involved, it undermines the reliability of our entire employment-based immigration system. The unexpected decision of the USCIS to refuse to accept any I-485 filings denies both substantive and procedural due process rights to would be applicants across the U.S. All of these applicants are employment based (EB) applicants who are primarily highly skilled professionals or experienced workers, that the U.S. seeks in high demand areas, including: science, technology, medicine, research, business, academia, and education.
The harm in not accepting the filings in July 2007 goes beyond mere delay. In reliance upon the July Visa Bulletin, starting in mid-June 2007, these applicants took the steps necessary to prepare their filings and made decisions in reliance upon the USCIS accepting their filings during July 2007. In order to be present in the U.S., as required for these filings, many applicants and their families canceled travel plans abroad or arranged to return to the U.S. on short notice missing family weddings and other important life events. They undertook medical examinations and paid for the required tests which must accompany the I-485 filings. (The USCIS had refused to waive this requirement even temporarily.) They hired lawyers to process their paperwork; they arranged to obtain documents from abroad on an expedited basis, involving foreign lawyers and foreign governments, all at a significant cost. They made employment and other strategic immigration related decisions to be able to process their I-485s for them and their families. Some canceled visa appointments at the consulates, or withdrew other immigration filings, all in reliance upon the USCIS accepting I-485 filings during July 2007.
The applicants and their employers lose the rights and privileges that accompany the filing of the I-485. These include eligibility for the Employment Authorization Document (EAD) and Advanced Parole (AP), thus eliminating the need for the individuals and their employers to make the filings necessary to maintain a non-immigrant, temporary status. These same ancillary benefits also apply to dependant family members. Most importantly, those that have not filed I-485s are not eligible for "portability" benefits under the �American Competitiveness in the Twenty First Century Act� of Oct. 2000 or �AC21� as it is sometimes referred to. This ineligibility for AC21 portability forces career stagnation. This is to the detriment of the individual as well as their sponsoring employer. Under AC21 portability, employers can promote and/or relocate employees to positions that are the same or similar job classifications as the positions for which they were initially sponsored. Individuals can utilize these provisions for career advancement, and for entrepreneurship. Given that the green card process often spans many years, AC21 portability allows the necessary flexibility to permit the case to continue, to accommodate changes in the sponsoring employer's needs as well as opportunities that are specific to the beneficiary.
The list of stories of individuals and families harmed by the USCIS decision is endless. We have for example, many spouses who will now be separated potentially for years on end, as one received a green card during the USCIS' June "rush," while the other is now ineligible to file.
The USCIS decision also created a burden on U.S. employers. Further delays in the green card process mean that, at best, U.S. employers have to continue to file temporary petitions to keep their workforce in the U.S. legally; at worst, it jeopardizes the availability of this needed highly educated and skilled workforce.
USCIS Motive is to Collect Millions of Additional Filing Fees
Many are baffled by the USCIS decision to reject I-485 filings in July, and its use of the �revised� Visa Bulletin as an excuse. The suspected motive is the collection of the substantially higher filing fees that will be generated after July 27, 2007. This entire incident sends the wrong message about our government, our policies and our legal system reeking of greed and inconsistency. Even the appearance of such impropriety undermines our system.
.................
continue
July 12, 2007
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Michael Chertoff, Esq.
Secretary
Department of Homeland Security
RE: USCIS Decision to Reject I-485 Filings
Dear Mr. Chertoff:
It was a pleasure and an honor to meet with you and to share my views during your panel discussion at the Harvard Worldwide Congress June 15, 2007 in Washington, D.C. I understand and appreciate that the responsibility vested in you as the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is no simple task. We applaud your service to our nation. After meeting with you personally and speaking with you, I am more convinced than ever that you will do the right thing for our country and for the people you serve, both in terms of securing our nation and in being the leader of the DHS, with over 20 federal agencies reporting to you, including the USCIS.
Purpose of this Letter
I am writing to you at this time to address recent actions by the USCIS to refuse to accept I-485 adjustment of status filing during July 2007 that are having significant impact upon the reliability of the legal immigration system in this country, as well as impacting legal foreign nationals and the many U.S. businesses that rely upon the work they perform.
USCIS Decision Contradicts its Long Standing Procedure
In contradiction of its own long standing policy and procedure, we understand that the USCIS, through its Director Gonzalez, contacted the U.S. Department of State (DOS) and requested or required the DOS to issue a �revised� Visa Bulletin on July 2, 2007. The USCIS then used the revised Bulletin to refuse to accept I-485 filings. This decision deprives thousands of foreign nationals, and their families, of the rights and privileges that are attendant to the I-485 filing.
These Highly Skilled Professionals Followed All the Rules and Believe in the American Dream
These professionals and their employers have played by our established immigration laws and rules. The vast majority of these thousands of potential applicants has a U.S. employer corporation, university or other business as a sponsor for permanent resident status. The exceptions from an employer are for those who are considered of �extraordinary ability� or whose work is in our �national interest.� Many of these applicants have completed their Bachelor�s, Master�s and/or PhD programs from U.S. universities. They believe in the opportunities of this great nation and strive to achieve the American Dream by following all the rules, working hard, paying taxes, and striving to do the right thing. They believe in this country, and rely upon our systems, our government, and our processes. Unfortunately, on July 2, 2007, we let them down. The USCIS abandoned its own system and long standing practices. This happened through manipulation of the use of visa numbers, insisting upon the issuance of a "revised visa bulletin," and instituting the USCIS policy of rejecting every employment-based I-485 that could have been filed during the month of July 2007.
USCIS Decision Denies Substantive and Procedural Rights to Highly Skilled Workers and Their Employers - Many of Whom Have Already Suffered and Will Suffer Further Harm/ Injury
Not only does the USCIS' action harm the individuals and employers involved, it undermines the reliability of our entire employment-based immigration system. The unexpected decision of the USCIS to refuse to accept any I-485 filings denies both substantive and procedural due process rights to would be applicants across the U.S. All of these applicants are employment based (EB) applicants who are primarily highly skilled professionals or experienced workers, that the U.S. seeks in high demand areas, including: science, technology, medicine, research, business, academia, and education.
The harm in not accepting the filings in July 2007 goes beyond mere delay. In reliance upon the July Visa Bulletin, starting in mid-June 2007, these applicants took the steps necessary to prepare their filings and made decisions in reliance upon the USCIS accepting their filings during July 2007. In order to be present in the U.S., as required for these filings, many applicants and their families canceled travel plans abroad or arranged to return to the U.S. on short notice missing family weddings and other important life events. They undertook medical examinations and paid for the required tests which must accompany the I-485 filings. (The USCIS had refused to waive this requirement even temporarily.) They hired lawyers to process their paperwork; they arranged to obtain documents from abroad on an expedited basis, involving foreign lawyers and foreign governments, all at a significant cost. They made employment and other strategic immigration related decisions to be able to process their I-485s for them and their families. Some canceled visa appointments at the consulates, or withdrew other immigration filings, all in reliance upon the USCIS accepting I-485 filings during July 2007.
The applicants and their employers lose the rights and privileges that accompany the filing of the I-485. These include eligibility for the Employment Authorization Document (EAD) and Advanced Parole (AP), thus eliminating the need for the individuals and their employers to make the filings necessary to maintain a non-immigrant, temporary status. These same ancillary benefits also apply to dependant family members. Most importantly, those that have not filed I-485s are not eligible for "portability" benefits under the �American Competitiveness in the Twenty First Century Act� of Oct. 2000 or �AC21� as it is sometimes referred to. This ineligibility for AC21 portability forces career stagnation. This is to the detriment of the individual as well as their sponsoring employer. Under AC21 portability, employers can promote and/or relocate employees to positions that are the same or similar job classifications as the positions for which they were initially sponsored. Individuals can utilize these provisions for career advancement, and for entrepreneurship. Given that the green card process often spans many years, AC21 portability allows the necessary flexibility to permit the case to continue, to accommodate changes in the sponsoring employer's needs as well as opportunities that are specific to the beneficiary.
The list of stories of individuals and families harmed by the USCIS decision is endless. We have for example, many spouses who will now be separated potentially for years on end, as one received a green card during the USCIS' June "rush," while the other is now ineligible to file.
The USCIS decision also created a burden on U.S. employers. Further delays in the green card process mean that, at best, U.S. employers have to continue to file temporary petitions to keep their workforce in the U.S. legally; at worst, it jeopardizes the availability of this needed highly educated and skilled workforce.
USCIS Motive is to Collect Millions of Additional Filing Fees
Many are baffled by the USCIS decision to reject I-485 filings in July, and its use of the �revised� Visa Bulletin as an excuse. The suspected motive is the collection of the substantially higher filing fees that will be generated after July 27, 2007. This entire incident sends the wrong message about our government, our policies and our legal system reeking of greed and inconsistency. Even the appearance of such impropriety undermines our system.
.................
continue
ashatara78
03-10 04:38 PM
The EB immigration system was fine before then; thus, the problem is supply/demand, not the immigration policies.
I have no comments about comparison of family vs EB but the EB immigration system was not find before then. I have friends who were in this system in the late 1980s, early 1990s and had huge problems - had to wait a long time, could not switch jobs, could not visit back home for sibling's weddings etc.
It was probably fine during the Clinton administration for a few years 1996-1999 but I only know of a few cases, not many.
I have no comments about comparison of family vs EB but the EB immigration system was not find before then. I have friends who were in this system in the late 1980s, early 1990s and had huge problems - had to wait a long time, could not switch jobs, could not visit back home for sibling's weddings etc.
It was probably fine during the Clinton administration for a few years 1996-1999 but I only know of a few cases, not many.
more...
feedfront
10-04 04:05 PM
onemorecame.. did you send your RFE? Can you track the response time of RFE?
2010 irthday banner clip art.
Jaime
09-13 10:06 AM
Come To Washington!! It's Now Or Never!!!
more...
gsc999
09-26 08:55 PM
Here's a classic example ..
If you look at the other threads on this forum you have people against the Durban bill coz it affects F-1 students . There is another section which is against Grassley coz it'll affect Consultants trying to get H1-B. I do understand Grassley's bill can have many implications and need to be opposed, but the focus still has to be towards alleviating the Employment based GC issues.
I don't think CNN is to be faulted that much coz IV itself has lost its focus towards Employment Based Green Cards. period. thats what is started out to be and needs to come back on that track instead of trying to act as a platform for all Legal Immigration issues.
Simply put IV is " EB-1/2/3- related org" ok..ok.. add in those millionaires who put in a million dollars for GC too.
---
Hi,
Thanks for your feedback:
"I don't think CNN is to be faulted that much coz IV itself has lost its focus towards Employment Based Green Cards."
Your comment doesn't make sense to me. Please explain.
If you look at the other threads on this forum you have people against the Durban bill coz it affects F-1 students . There is another section which is against Grassley coz it'll affect Consultants trying to get H1-B. I do understand Grassley's bill can have many implications and need to be opposed, but the focus still has to be towards alleviating the Employment based GC issues.
I don't think CNN is to be faulted that much coz IV itself has lost its focus towards Employment Based Green Cards. period. thats what is started out to be and needs to come back on that track instead of trying to act as a platform for all Legal Immigration issues.
Simply put IV is " EB-1/2/3- related org" ok..ok.. add in those millionaires who put in a million dollars for GC too.
---
Hi,
Thanks for your feedback:
"I don't think CNN is to be faulted that much coz IV itself has lost its focus towards Employment Based Green Cards."
Your comment doesn't make sense to me. Please explain.
hair happy birthday clip art
sreedhar
03-16 12:51 PM
My Friend...Applied his Labor on EB-2 in MAR 2005. His labor approved and applied I-140 & I-485 in AUG 2007. His I-140 Got approved. He said his lawyer accidentally filed his I-140 in EB-3. Because his I-140 approved notice Type has the message like "Skilled Worker or Professional, Sec. 203(b) (3) (A) (i) or (ii)". Is this is true....? Thanks for early reply.
more...
dilber
07-20 05:37 AM
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?
EB2 has been on or Apr 2004 for a long time so all the ones before should have got the GC or at least most would have when we are calculation numbers for calculating retrogation We have to consider the numbers in in a particular category 11000 number as you say includes all the EB categories you have to discount out the EB1's because they have got their GCs long back. EB3 will also have to cut out form the calculation because they are not being counted. even if you consider 40% of these to be EB2 (a conservative estimate) then total GC needed including the dependents will be closer to 11000 (Total not just primary) and as Vdlrao and others have shown there should be more than this number available in this fiscal year alone. So I will have to agree with them that the numbers will go back but not all the way to Apr 2004 It should easily come in 2005 range may even come to 2006 since there were very few cases applied during 2005. Also can some one let me know if during 2005 when perm was instigated was regular labor processing also going on or was it completed stopped during that time.
Also conversations will affect this because people converting from EB3 to EB2 will make sure that they port their priority dates and hence if say all the EB3 people from 2003 convert to EB2 and successfully port their dates it will definitely push the dates south of 2003. Did I make sense???
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?
EB2 has been on or Apr 2004 for a long time so all the ones before should have got the GC or at least most would have when we are calculation numbers for calculating retrogation We have to consider the numbers in in a particular category 11000 number as you say includes all the EB categories you have to discount out the EB1's because they have got their GCs long back. EB3 will also have to cut out form the calculation because they are not being counted. even if you consider 40% of these to be EB2 (a conservative estimate) then total GC needed including the dependents will be closer to 11000 (Total not just primary) and as Vdlrao and others have shown there should be more than this number available in this fiscal year alone. So I will have to agree with them that the numbers will go back but not all the way to Apr 2004 It should easily come in 2005 range may even come to 2006 since there were very few cases applied during 2005. Also can some one let me know if during 2005 when perm was instigated was regular labor processing also going on or was it completed stopped during that time.
Also conversations will affect this because people converting from EB3 to EB2 will make sure that they port their priority dates and hence if say all the EB3 people from 2003 convert to EB2 and successfully port their dates it will definitely push the dates south of 2003. Did I make sense???
hot Name anner clip art freeware
WeShallOvercome
08-17 05:47 PM
I don't get it.
How can:
VB-April07 EB3-ROW PD be Aug-02
VB-MAy07 EB3-ROW PD be Aug-03
VB-June07 EB3-ROW PD be June-05
..and then:
VB-Sept-07 EB3-ROW PD be Aug-02
Are you telling me they haven't processed any EB3-ROW 485 during all those months? Why does it go all the way back to Aug-02???
Sometimes i consider seriously giving up:(
Need someone to give me the motivation to keep waiting... something logical i can understand.
Well, First let me tell you that nothing in USCIS makes any sense.
Cominig to the reasoning behind it, it could be that they did not have enough 'approvable' cases with PDs before Aug'02 to exhaust the annual quota(stuck in name check FP check etc), so they moved the dates forward. They approved some cases that felll within the new dates.
Now after approving some newly current cases, only a few visas are left with them. Also, by this time, some of the older cases, which were stuck earlier got out of whatever check they were stuck in...
As a result, now they don't have enough visas available to approve any cases after the PD of Aug'02.
Anything is possible here dear !
How can:
VB-April07 EB3-ROW PD be Aug-02
VB-MAy07 EB3-ROW PD be Aug-03
VB-June07 EB3-ROW PD be June-05
..and then:
VB-Sept-07 EB3-ROW PD be Aug-02
Are you telling me they haven't processed any EB3-ROW 485 during all those months? Why does it go all the way back to Aug-02???
Sometimes i consider seriously giving up:(
Need someone to give me the motivation to keep waiting... something logical i can understand.
Well, First let me tell you that nothing in USCIS makes any sense.
Cominig to the reasoning behind it, it could be that they did not have enough 'approvable' cases with PDs before Aug'02 to exhaust the annual quota(stuck in name check FP check etc), so they moved the dates forward. They approved some cases that felll within the new dates.
Now after approving some newly current cases, only a few visas are left with them. Also, by this time, some of the older cases, which were stuck earlier got out of whatever check they were stuck in...
As a result, now they don't have enough visas available to approve any cases after the PD of Aug'02.
Anything is possible here dear !
more...
house anner clip art. irthday
grinch
03-07 05:56 PM
alright eilsoe, good entry man, pissed that you couldnt get time, but heck, no one has time eh?
Its ok, good work!
Its ok, good work!
tattoo funny irthday pictures clip
SunnySurya
07-28 12:21 PM
No, you won't be banned from IV. You just will be banned from this country.
And by the way, the thing you were trying to do is not protected by "the first amendment"
So I cannot even speak on IV and even little I defended my religion, I will be banned from IV? Freedom Of Speech
And by the way, the thing you were trying to do is not protected by "the first amendment"
So I cannot even speak on IV and even little I defended my religion, I will be banned from IV? Freedom Of Speech
more...
pictures images happy birthday banner
bobzibub
03-18 10:45 PM
Nixstor did explained his actions and I concur... Controversial handles should be banned... Handle "TALIBAN" was banned and same member opened new handle "TAWLIBANN" saying his name is Tawlibann Foggs...
Anyway we should close this issue.. I do find tawlibann's posts decent and non-offensive.. Only thing is we need to practice some respect to the communitity when chosing a handle... Its just not this.. there could be potentially other offensive handles.. So I'd say there should be a step/check in registration process to monitor/regulate handles... You won't like any handle offending your religious beliefs, dis-respecting your nation or humanity itself...
Just my 2 cents... We should stop this discussion and focus on immigration issues...
:D
Anyway we should close this issue.. I do find tawlibann's posts decent and non-offensive.. Only thing is we need to practice some respect to the communitity when chosing a handle... Its just not this.. there could be potentially other offensive handles.. So I'd say there should be a step/check in registration process to monitor/regulate handles... You won't like any handle offending your religious beliefs, dis-respecting your nation or humanity itself...
Just my 2 cents... We should stop this discussion and focus on immigration issues...
:D
dresses Free Birthday Clipart - Public
gc_bulgaria
09-27 10:24 AM
While we are trying our best to fix a broken system and brace ourselves, lets take a look at what is happening in other parts of the world.
European Union is introducing a Blue Card that will allow you to work in any of the EU coountries
Euro value is rising against dollar
Opportunities will be on the rise with strengthening the currency.
Lets run this thread for sharing views, opinions, experiences and anything related to the EU
Chanduv23: Right now it is just a proposal and as the article says, many rich European countries are not willing to take in immigrants. Forget about Asian or African immigrants, they are reluctant to let even Romanians and Bulgarians work in their countries (although they are part of EU now). Racism is much higher in many of those countries and I was recently reading an article about getting PD in Switzerland - basically communities vote in favor or against and if you are not "white" it�s very hard to get that vote.
The reason this threads interests me is because I am an Indian national married to a Bulgarian and we live and work in the US. EU is the next option for us if this GC drags on too long. Technically I can work anywhere in the EU including UK but I am not sure if it will be easy enough to find a job � America still has the best opportunities in my field.
OK, I�ll stop rambling now and look forward to more thoughts from IV members.:o
European Union is introducing a Blue Card that will allow you to work in any of the EU coountries
Euro value is rising against dollar
Opportunities will be on the rise with strengthening the currency.
Lets run this thread for sharing views, opinions, experiences and anything related to the EU
Chanduv23: Right now it is just a proposal and as the article says, many rich European countries are not willing to take in immigrants. Forget about Asian or African immigrants, they are reluctant to let even Romanians and Bulgarians work in their countries (although they are part of EU now). Racism is much higher in many of those countries and I was recently reading an article about getting PD in Switzerland - basically communities vote in favor or against and if you are not "white" it�s very hard to get that vote.
The reason this threads interests me is because I am an Indian national married to a Bulgarian and we live and work in the US. EU is the next option for us if this GC drags on too long. Technically I can work anywhere in the EU including UK but I am not sure if it will be easy enough to find a job � America still has the best opportunities in my field.
OK, I�ll stop rambling now and look forward to more thoughts from IV members.:o
more...
makeup Happy Pig clip art. Preview
sc3
10-16 06:05 PM
What happened to your sense of judgment, whoever said that USCIS is doing it maliciously? They reacted for sure but within legal boundaries. I do not understand why you keep twisted people’s answers.
I havent twisted anyone's answers. When you (and others) say "reacted" you mean that they are intentionally shafting you in some way. Do you dispute that? Why is the very first response to this idea something to the tune of "..and see the cutoff go back to ice ages". It clearly shows that people are saying USCIS will "revolt" against you (not necessarily in as many words).
That is exactly I am saying, I am asking why should it be this way, this is totally wrong. They should go by PD. Even if my application was not moved to another centre mine still would not have gotten approved because I applied in Aug and not July. I mentioned that to tell you that I have to wait even more now.
Now if you ask me why I applied in Aug and not in Jul, it is because my family was not in US at that time. If you had told me beforehand about the impending fiasco I wouldn’t have sent them in the first place. I had to call them back and cancel my trip spending hundreds of $s.
Why is it not sustainable, now you are defending something that is wrong, why should I have to wait though my GC was started ages before?
Let's see here; I don't need to know why you did not apply earlier, that is your personal matter. But answer me this.
I have a PD of late 2002 (EB3), and haven't been able to apply due to personal reasons. Now when the PD becomes current. I apply and the following bulletin further advances the PD. Do you think that I should be given preference over someone who had no personal obligations and applied in 2007, that is to say, should the entire system be ground to a halt because I am a late filer?
Now put yourself in the earlier RD's applicant? What will be your answer? Do you think someone who delays for personal reason be given a free pass just because he has an earlier PD??
I know you dont want to hear it, but the current system of RD based processing is a good system. Your grouse probably is that they advanced the PDs so much further when there was enough demand from earlier PDs. If you argue on that premise, I will be very supportive. But I am insensitive to "I have an earlier PD, so I should get my GC first".
PD has its place in the system, however it does not play a role in processing order.
Just because I said USCIS is doing something wrong (not following processing order..) doesn’t mean I said that DOS did something right.. you keep assuming things..
You were blaming USCIS for the Perm/BEC debacle, I did not assume anything you haven't already said.
Again you are running your imagination wild, who blamed all the other things on USCIS?..
I guess your computer has a bug, it is not showing the winkies and the smiles properly. Get a technician to look at it.
Dude, show me one post of mine which said anything against the idea. I even gave a green for what he is trying to do, at least he is doing something while the rest of us are watching….
I was responding to "bec", and you ended up debating the issue by supporting the idea that USCIS retaliated because of the July 07. I guess that makes it fair play for people to assume that you are against the original idea. I you consider it to be overreaching to make such connection, I apologize for that.
I havent twisted anyone's answers. When you (and others) say "reacted" you mean that they are intentionally shafting you in some way. Do you dispute that? Why is the very first response to this idea something to the tune of "..and see the cutoff go back to ice ages". It clearly shows that people are saying USCIS will "revolt" against you (not necessarily in as many words).
That is exactly I am saying, I am asking why should it be this way, this is totally wrong. They should go by PD. Even if my application was not moved to another centre mine still would not have gotten approved because I applied in Aug and not July. I mentioned that to tell you that I have to wait even more now.
Now if you ask me why I applied in Aug and not in Jul, it is because my family was not in US at that time. If you had told me beforehand about the impending fiasco I wouldn’t have sent them in the first place. I had to call them back and cancel my trip spending hundreds of $s.
Why is it not sustainable, now you are defending something that is wrong, why should I have to wait though my GC was started ages before?
Let's see here; I don't need to know why you did not apply earlier, that is your personal matter. But answer me this.
I have a PD of late 2002 (EB3), and haven't been able to apply due to personal reasons. Now when the PD becomes current. I apply and the following bulletin further advances the PD. Do you think that I should be given preference over someone who had no personal obligations and applied in 2007, that is to say, should the entire system be ground to a halt because I am a late filer?
Now put yourself in the earlier RD's applicant? What will be your answer? Do you think someone who delays for personal reason be given a free pass just because he has an earlier PD??
I know you dont want to hear it, but the current system of RD based processing is a good system. Your grouse probably is that they advanced the PDs so much further when there was enough demand from earlier PDs. If you argue on that premise, I will be very supportive. But I am insensitive to "I have an earlier PD, so I should get my GC first".
PD has its place in the system, however it does not play a role in processing order.
Just because I said USCIS is doing something wrong (not following processing order..) doesn’t mean I said that DOS did something right.. you keep assuming things..
You were blaming USCIS for the Perm/BEC debacle, I did not assume anything you haven't already said.
Again you are running your imagination wild, who blamed all the other things on USCIS?..
I guess your computer has a bug, it is not showing the winkies and the smiles properly. Get a technician to look at it.
Dude, show me one post of mine which said anything against the idea. I even gave a green for what he is trying to do, at least he is doing something while the rest of us are watching….
I was responding to "bec", and you ended up debating the issue by supporting the idea that USCIS retaliated because of the July 07. I guess that makes it fair play for people to assume that you are against the original idea. I you consider it to be overreaching to make such connection, I apologize for that.
girlfriend wallpaper Happy Birthday Wish
ramus
07-03 03:00 PM
Thanks.
Contributed $100.
Order Details - Jul 3, 2007 10:34 AM PDT
Google Order #222021463879830
Contributed $100.
Order Details - Jul 3, 2007 10:34 AM PDT
Google Order #222021463879830
hairstyles Free irthday clip art
delhiguy
07-09 04:20 PM
I am yet to see any legal basis in the case which states that DoS has to give notice of x days before changing the visa bulletin. All it says that they have "policy" of visa bulletin good for a month. Such policies, unless backed by legal basis, are not enforceable.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
Whenever i say this "Such policies, unless backed by legal basis, are not enforceable" Everybody starts bashing me up...
So you be ready toooo.
I would be very happy , if all the H1B guys get EAD , but i cant just give a statement against DOS/USCIS till i am 100% sure.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
Whenever i say this "Such policies, unless backed by legal basis, are not enforceable" Everybody starts bashing me up...
So you be ready toooo.
I would be very happy , if all the H1B guys get EAD , but i cant just give a statement against DOS/USCIS till i am 100% sure.
nixstor
07-05 02:33 PM
I found the forum by chance and didn't realize there was more to this website until a while after I signed up. On second thought look at my sign up date, I think I'll just let you old timers battle this one out.
I am neither taking shots at you nor pointing fingers at you. Its not about old timers or new comers. I hope it will not take for ever for you to be convinced that your favorite website needs contributions from every one
I am neither taking shots at you nor pointing fingers at you. Its not about old timers or new comers. I hope it will not take for ever for you to be convinced that your favorite website needs contributions from every one
same_old_guy
07-09 04:47 PM
And we are not in deep shit right now ???? Where have you been all the time ?
Why are you so scared ? Is it because you think USCIS wil do harm to you and others ? Well, what the hell it was doing while allocating all the quota in 15 days to avoid the rush ?
I wish USCIS would get down on it's knee and issue an apologies to all those people it's screwed over !
Why are you so scared ? Is it because you think USCIS wil do harm to you and others ? Well, what the hell it was doing while allocating all the quota in 15 days to avoid the rush ?
I wish USCIS would get down on it's knee and issue an apologies to all those people it's screwed over !