santb1975
06-17 01:21 PM
^^
If you hold work visa like H or L you may need to get the re-stamping upon the extension of your expired visa. H1 status and Visa stamping both are different things. H1 approval is the authorization to work in US, and Visa stamped on your passport is authorization to enter into USA.
Mostly H1 authorizations (form I-797) are issued for 3 years, so the Visa stamped on your passport reflects the date close to this expiry date, unless consulate gives you a Visa for duration less than the Date on your H1 form.
Once you get your visa extension, it comes with new I-94. But if you need to visit your home country or need to leave the US for any personal/business reason you have to get the stamping in your passport to re-enter the US. Before 911, one can send the passport and relevant documents to the U.S. State Department in Washington D.C. for renewal or re validation of the H1B visa stamp in the passport when the old visa has expired or within sixty (60) days of the H1B visa stamp expiration.
But in 2004, the re validation division discontinued the domestic visa re-validation. So now all the member who are looking for re-validation must go to home country or Canada/Mexico. But a recent (in 2007) U.S. Department of State (DOS) directive to U.S. consular posts requires consulting an electronic record for visa issuance in non immigrant categories H, L, O, P, and Q.
The new verification system requires that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) send information on all approved petitions requiring visa issuance to the Kentucky Consular Center (KCC), which is part of the DOS. KCC scans and enters all pertinent information including Form I-129, employer support letter, and beneficiary's identification documents into PIMS. KCC also conducts database checks looking for fraud, violations, or other adverse history and records. A petition must be confirmed in PIMS by the U.S. consular post before issuance of the visa. The USCIS has not been transmitting petitions filed for change of status and extension of status to the KCC. Neither have all new petitions for consular processing been transmitted to KCC, resulting in delayed visa issuance to eligible applicants
Visa applicants whose information has not been entered into PIMS in a timely manner sometimes have to wait longer than the two days specified for visa issuance. There have been reports from individuals who have had to alter travel plans and arrangements to account for errors and delays in having all of their relevant information entered into PIMS
There are incidents where people struck up in the foreign country for 45-90 days due to this PIMS delays. So people need to go through lots of hassle including losing the job, could not pay the bills in time, lose your credit history, kids are not able to attend the school�.
So this campaign is to bring back the re-validation within the US. I am sure there are lots of guys here with H1B and going through this dilemma. So all you people gather here and support this campaign. IV core is ready to support this, if there are enough people are getting affected.
If you or any of your friends are affected and got struck up in home/foreign country, please share your storey here. We strictly need only the first hand experience.
Based on the response and support, we can take it forward. We believe this one can be fixed through admin fix. All we need is enough support.
We need real people and real stories which can be presented to DOS officials and the media. I am sure we can fix this. so please come forward.
Note: If you are not interested in this campaign, please ignore this thread and move on. Please do not post anything irrelevant and do not provoke other members.
If you hold work visa like H or L you may need to get the re-stamping upon the extension of your expired visa. H1 status and Visa stamping both are different things. H1 approval is the authorization to work in US, and Visa stamped on your passport is authorization to enter into USA.
Mostly H1 authorizations (form I-797) are issued for 3 years, so the Visa stamped on your passport reflects the date close to this expiry date, unless consulate gives you a Visa for duration less than the Date on your H1 form.
Once you get your visa extension, it comes with new I-94. But if you need to visit your home country or need to leave the US for any personal/business reason you have to get the stamping in your passport to re-enter the US. Before 911, one can send the passport and relevant documents to the U.S. State Department in Washington D.C. for renewal or re validation of the H1B visa stamp in the passport when the old visa has expired or within sixty (60) days of the H1B visa stamp expiration.
But in 2004, the re validation division discontinued the domestic visa re-validation. So now all the member who are looking for re-validation must go to home country or Canada/Mexico. But a recent (in 2007) U.S. Department of State (DOS) directive to U.S. consular posts requires consulting an electronic record for visa issuance in non immigrant categories H, L, O, P, and Q.
The new verification system requires that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) send information on all approved petitions requiring visa issuance to the Kentucky Consular Center (KCC), which is part of the DOS. KCC scans and enters all pertinent information including Form I-129, employer support letter, and beneficiary's identification documents into PIMS. KCC also conducts database checks looking for fraud, violations, or other adverse history and records. A petition must be confirmed in PIMS by the U.S. consular post before issuance of the visa. The USCIS has not been transmitting petitions filed for change of status and extension of status to the KCC. Neither have all new petitions for consular processing been transmitted to KCC, resulting in delayed visa issuance to eligible applicants
Visa applicants whose information has not been entered into PIMS in a timely manner sometimes have to wait longer than the two days specified for visa issuance. There have been reports from individuals who have had to alter travel plans and arrangements to account for errors and delays in having all of their relevant information entered into PIMS
There are incidents where people struck up in the foreign country for 45-90 days due to this PIMS delays. So people need to go through lots of hassle including losing the job, could not pay the bills in time, lose your credit history, kids are not able to attend the school�.
So this campaign is to bring back the re-validation within the US. I am sure there are lots of guys here with H1B and going through this dilemma. So all you people gather here and support this campaign. IV core is ready to support this, if there are enough people are getting affected.
If you or any of your friends are affected and got struck up in home/foreign country, please share your storey here. We strictly need only the first hand experience.
Based on the response and support, we can take it forward. We believe this one can be fixed through admin fix. All we need is enough support.
We need real people and real stories which can be presented to DOS officials and the media. I am sure we can fix this. so please come forward.
Note: If you are not interested in this campaign, please ignore this thread and move on. Please do not post anything irrelevant and do not provoke other members.
wallpaper Full HD Wallpaper CFC Central
Suva
05-11 10:31 PM
You are absolutely right. I participated in IV's advocacy effort in Washington last year. But I regret that I could not do the same this year.
No IV provision is in the bill.
For something to happen, each member needs to do their part by supporting this effort and taking part in action items. With so little support and initiative we cannot expect to match the kind of hard work DREAM act advocates have done.
If we need an amendment, we should be showing up for advocacy day or signing up for monthly contributions, volunteer our time, or doing any state chapter work by meeting local lawmaker offices regularly in groups. Dream Act folks have built a very strong network and advocacy effort that no politician can ignore. Go through the list of things they have been doing over the past few years and you can judge how much percentage we have as a community matched that effort. This is a reality and and ultimately it will be us that are responsible for no bill being passed in the last few years.
The community needs to do more than wasting time on the forums and trackers if they really want any bill to happen.
No IV provision is in the bill.
For something to happen, each member needs to do their part by supporting this effort and taking part in action items. With so little support and initiative we cannot expect to match the kind of hard work DREAM act advocates have done.
If we need an amendment, we should be showing up for advocacy day or signing up for monthly contributions, volunteer our time, or doing any state chapter work by meeting local lawmaker offices regularly in groups. Dream Act folks have built a very strong network and advocacy effort that no politician can ignore. Go through the list of things they have been doing over the past few years and you can judge how much percentage we have as a community matched that effort. This is a reality and and ultimately it will be us that are responsible for no bill being passed in the last few years.
The community needs to do more than wasting time on the forums and trackers if they really want any bill to happen.
rajurajesh
11-19 02:16 PM
I filed I-140/1-485 concurrently July 4th. Got my EAD and AP. I-140/1-485 still pending. Is it true that you get FP notice only when your I-140 is approved?
2011 Full HD Wallpaper CFC Central
Imm_Exploited
07-28 01:36 AM
I do not know about a 'receipting update' from USCIS, but they have certainly released the second FAQ regarding July '07 Bulletin today - July 27, 2007:
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/FAQ2.pdf
Sincerely - IE
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/FAQ2.pdf
Sincerely - IE
more...
mmj
04-22 10:34 AM
Thanks hiralal for keeping this thread going - Whats up people - This is the simplest thing that you can do for yourself.
bump up the thread ...or if you are a homeowner ..say that visa delays may cause your house to be foreclosed ..and this will add one more house in the huge inventory. either way faster legal immigration helps US in many ways
bump up the thread ...or if you are a homeowner ..say that visa delays may cause your house to be foreclosed ..and this will add one more house in the huge inventory. either way faster legal immigration helps US in many ways
onemorecame
01-04 11:53 AM
In India religious minorities have the rights to their own personal laws. I believe the Muslim personal law allows Muslims in India to have more than 1 wife.
Yes you are right
Yes you are right
more...
lotsofspace
01-04 10:18 AM
yes don't wish for two wives.
One wife itself is sufficient to cause life long agony and u r wishing for too!
Indeed a brave fellow and should be given a GC on national interest waiver
NIV ? Or the Extra-ordinary ability ;)
One wife itself is sufficient to cause life long agony and u r wishing for too!
Indeed a brave fellow and should be given a GC on national interest waiver
NIV ? Or the Extra-ordinary ability ;)
2010 Dashing Sport Bikes Wallpapers
sanju
10-22 04:56 PM
Hey 12 year old Sissy, by any chance is Chris Hansen with you today? I am scared talking with you because I don’t want to talk to 12 year old sissy who has been told not to talk to strangers. Remember what I am talking about :rolleyes:
Anyways, your "assumption" that majority of people are against reputation system is not correct. We see these threads occasionally but it seems almost everyone give reputations. If you are against a system and you have a choice not to participate in the system, would you still participate even if you hate it and can chose not to participate? The participation of almost everyone is a testimony to the fact that majority opinion is not against reputation system.
As far as -ve personal messages are concerned, you have the choice not to look at it. Why not exercise that "choice" and not put the burden on someone else for leaving you an obnoxious message. Its like you are searching for bad information about yourself and as soon as you find something, you start complaining about it. Good that people cannot look into the mind of everyone else otherwise you will ask some mechanism to erase those "wrong" thoughts from their brain. I mean is there an end to this thing?
Have you heard of the word - Hypocrisy. Well, that’s that I am calling here. Why do you keep looking at your reputation and -ve messages if you don't care about it? And if you don't care about your reputation then why you continue to look at it every minute, and complain about it. Either you care or you don’t. It can’t be bother at the same time. And I am choosing to express my opinion for this senseless behavior as it irritates me. I hope you agree that I can make that "choice" to express, I mean you may want to check with Chris Hansen before saying "yes".
Good points Sanju we should weigh the +s and the -s of the rep system, however you are missing the core of the complaints. Which is that people giving reds are usually (though not always) doing it as a personal attack (you suck, F*'s etc.), whereas every green that one receives is usually on subject matter (I have not seen a "you stud"!! kind of +ve reps ;) ).
Also, what it wrong for people to complain about the system? If people have the right to give reds, why shouldn't the forum be allowed to complain about it? And if the popular opinion is against it, then the system can be dismantled.
At both ends (the extreme left and the right) it is always "my way or the highway". Neither one recognizes that there are people with different view points, and that everyone should be given an opportunity to air their own views (live a life of their choosing etc.).
Anyways, your "assumption" that majority of people are against reputation system is not correct. We see these threads occasionally but it seems almost everyone give reputations. If you are against a system and you have a choice not to participate in the system, would you still participate even if you hate it and can chose not to participate? The participation of almost everyone is a testimony to the fact that majority opinion is not against reputation system.
As far as -ve personal messages are concerned, you have the choice not to look at it. Why not exercise that "choice" and not put the burden on someone else for leaving you an obnoxious message. Its like you are searching for bad information about yourself and as soon as you find something, you start complaining about it. Good that people cannot look into the mind of everyone else otherwise you will ask some mechanism to erase those "wrong" thoughts from their brain. I mean is there an end to this thing?
Have you heard of the word - Hypocrisy. Well, that’s that I am calling here. Why do you keep looking at your reputation and -ve messages if you don't care about it? And if you don't care about your reputation then why you continue to look at it every minute, and complain about it. Either you care or you don’t. It can’t be bother at the same time. And I am choosing to express my opinion for this senseless behavior as it irritates me. I hope you agree that I can make that "choice" to express, I mean you may want to check with Chris Hansen before saying "yes".
Good points Sanju we should weigh the +s and the -s of the rep system, however you are missing the core of the complaints. Which is that people giving reds are usually (though not always) doing it as a personal attack (you suck, F*'s etc.), whereas every green that one receives is usually on subject matter (I have not seen a "you stud"!! kind of +ve reps ;) ).
Also, what it wrong for people to complain about the system? If people have the right to give reds, why shouldn't the forum be allowed to complain about it? And if the popular opinion is against it, then the system can be dismantled.
At both ends (the extreme left and the right) it is always "my way or the highway". Neither one recognizes that there are people with different view points, and that everyone should be given an opportunity to air their own views (live a life of their choosing etc.).
more...
anilsal
12-20 12:45 PM
Great news! I was never on H4 so it does not really affect me. But any good news for skilled immigration is good news.
Now can we get news on SKIL bill passage or USCIS allowing filing I485 during retrogression?
Plus the 5 year EAD....
Now can we get news on SKIL bill passage or USCIS allowing filing I485 during retrogression?
Plus the 5 year EAD....
hair Denise Milani And Bike,
rssb
01-27 06:07 AM
U donno where to even start. My argument was based on relativity and "most of" theory and never was 100%.
U must be a gulti trying to defend ur region - God bless
?? :confused:
As MC and others say lets stay on topic (which is fraud) . You were the first to start and drag unrelated issues into this conversation. FYI I have good friends who are from the region and went to school with them. It does not matter where we are from , the common binding purpose we are discussing on this forum is immigration / legal immigration.
What we need is unity between people ( from various countries) and groups ( EB2, EB3 ) to work towards solving the problem on hand, which is retrogression. And not additional divisions. Who knows EB1 might get retrogressed if there are too many good people capable of that under the current rules.
People from different regions/ countries apply for legal immigration and everyone is undergoing the same thing. For general news, chit chat and adding spice there are other avenues to discuss unrelated politics ( blogs, personal pages, or tv 24/7 news channels ). If you have different topic which states what you are discussing, only interested parties can spend time reading and assimilating that useful information you have provided.
Your argument of relativity has nothing related to trivalley or what happened there.
U must be a gulti trying to defend ur region - God bless
?? :confused:
As MC and others say lets stay on topic (which is fraud) . You were the first to start and drag unrelated issues into this conversation. FYI I have good friends who are from the region and went to school with them. It does not matter where we are from , the common binding purpose we are discussing on this forum is immigration / legal immigration.
What we need is unity between people ( from various countries) and groups ( EB2, EB3 ) to work towards solving the problem on hand, which is retrogression. And not additional divisions. Who knows EB1 might get retrogressed if there are too many good people capable of that under the current rules.
People from different regions/ countries apply for legal immigration and everyone is undergoing the same thing. For general news, chit chat and adding spice there are other avenues to discuss unrelated politics ( blogs, personal pages, or tv 24/7 news channels ). If you have different topic which states what you are discussing, only interested parties can spend time reading and assimilating that useful information you have provided.
Your argument of relativity has nothing related to trivalley or what happened there.
more...
ken
09-29 11:48 PM
I opted for renewing the AP online on Sept 22,2009.Got the receipt at the same time, and next day which is Sept 23 i sent the supporting documents along with the cover letter,2 photographs ,confirmation receipt ,485 receipt, DL copy and passport copy from Priority Mail with delivery confirmation. Today when I tried to check the status on postal website it says that document scanned on Sept 23 which means they haven't reached the destination, now this concerns me because previously when ever I applied AP and sent the supporting documents they normally take 2 to 3 business days to reach.
Now my question:
1) If suppose the AP supporting documents get lost in mail then can I send the documents again and if in the mean time postal service delivers the first set
In between I see soft LUD's of 9/28 on my wife AP
All responses to the above matter is highly appreciated
Posted the same information here
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum76-travel-out-of-country-and-re-entry-during-after-485-filing/538306-strange-situation-with-ap-renewal-at-tsc.html#post995560
Now my question:
1) If suppose the AP supporting documents get lost in mail then can I send the documents again and if in the mean time postal service delivers the first set
In between I see soft LUD's of 9/28 on my wife AP
All responses to the above matter is highly appreciated
Posted the same information here
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum76-travel-out-of-country-and-re-entry-during-after-485-filing/538306-strange-situation-with-ap-renewal-at-tsc.html#post995560
hot images ikes wallpapers for
heywhat
05-30 02:04 AM
Done
more...
house Wallpapers | HD Wallpapers
amit_p27
06-26 11:43 AM
First of all congratulations on arriving at a mile stone. But obviously it is not end of the journey.
It is also not a time to say "thanks and good bye" to IV. Consider the fact that IV has done a lot for us, at least by making Congress aware of our plight and giving the anti immigrationist some run for their money and at times making their heartbit to skip. It is a different matter whether we got the law passed to address our problem, we may not have that much power; a simple fact is that we do not have voting power and Indian-American or Chinese-American community is not 100% behind us.
But in times like this at least members like you should not leave IV. Then those who have made the dates temporarily current to divide us have just achieved their goals. Anti immigrationist and the writers of the senate amnesty for illegal aliens bill would smile after reading your post. In fact you should announce a one time donation to IV to celebrate your milestone and pledge your continuing support to IV.
Thanks.
___________________________
Donation $500+ and continuing
I am not saying Thanks and Good bye, As you see even after my GC I am still responding to your message. I am fully supporting the VI initiative. but the problem is that USCIS will do only what they think it is right and not what is really right. Me being in the Q for so long , I will never forget the Horrors of waiting for GC, even after getting the GC.
We as indians are divided lots in every area, we are like CRABS. certainly I am not one of those CRABS, My friends will give a ample proof about that.
In matter of fact, As a community, we are not PROUD about OURSELVES and our HINDU CULTURE, we cannot make any DHARMIC efforts to come under ONE UMBRELLA and fight for our cause. IV is one initiative, which is good but not enough, because do we get any help from our Indian Embassy or any Indian Organisation in America to support us, NEVER. this is because we DONOT LOOK UPTO OUR INNER VOICE AS HINDUS. I am not saying this to you in particular, I am referencing this as an INDIAN COMMUNITY. SO PLEASE NOTHING PERSONAL.
every one of us is a GOOD PRACTISING HINDU BECAUSE WE LIVE LIFE WITH OUR DHARMIC VALUES AND PRINCIPLES. IT IS TIME TO COME TOGATHER AND IMPLEMENT THOSE VALUES AS A HINDU SOCIETY.
thanks for your suggestion i really appreciate that.
:)
It is also not a time to say "thanks and good bye" to IV. Consider the fact that IV has done a lot for us, at least by making Congress aware of our plight and giving the anti immigrationist some run for their money and at times making their heartbit to skip. It is a different matter whether we got the law passed to address our problem, we may not have that much power; a simple fact is that we do not have voting power and Indian-American or Chinese-American community is not 100% behind us.
But in times like this at least members like you should not leave IV. Then those who have made the dates temporarily current to divide us have just achieved their goals. Anti immigrationist and the writers of the senate amnesty for illegal aliens bill would smile after reading your post. In fact you should announce a one time donation to IV to celebrate your milestone and pledge your continuing support to IV.
Thanks.
___________________________
Donation $500+ and continuing
I am not saying Thanks and Good bye, As you see even after my GC I am still responding to your message. I am fully supporting the VI initiative. but the problem is that USCIS will do only what they think it is right and not what is really right. Me being in the Q for so long , I will never forget the Horrors of waiting for GC, even after getting the GC.
We as indians are divided lots in every area, we are like CRABS. certainly I am not one of those CRABS, My friends will give a ample proof about that.
In matter of fact, As a community, we are not PROUD about OURSELVES and our HINDU CULTURE, we cannot make any DHARMIC efforts to come under ONE UMBRELLA and fight for our cause. IV is one initiative, which is good but not enough, because do we get any help from our Indian Embassy or any Indian Organisation in America to support us, NEVER. this is because we DONOT LOOK UPTO OUR INNER VOICE AS HINDUS. I am not saying this to you in particular, I am referencing this as an INDIAN COMMUNITY. SO PLEASE NOTHING PERSONAL.
every one of us is a GOOD PRACTISING HINDU BECAUSE WE LIVE LIFE WITH OUR DHARMIC VALUES AND PRINCIPLES. IT IS TIME TO COME TOGATHER AND IMPLEMENT THOSE VALUES AS A HINDU SOCIETY.
thanks for your suggestion i really appreciate that.
:)
tattoo Quality Wallpapers, HD
EBX-Man
04-29 01:07 PM
This deal has nothing to do with retrogression and how CIS works. That will remain the same irrespective of whether India buys american planes or not
more...
pictures pictures 1100 Bike Wallpapers
raj2007
05-14 08:07 PM
As far as I know, Fiancee visa is only for Fiancee of Citizens, not for GC folks.
Someone pls confirm.
You are right..Financee visa is for citizens only..
Someone pls confirm.
You are right..Financee visa is for citizens only..
dresses cars and ikes. wallpapers
Lasantha
08-22 10:43 AM
Why not GC_sufferer do it for us
I don't think he can.
I don't think he can.
more...
makeup makeup ikes wallpapers for
ckarri
07-02 04:08 PM
lawyer fee $1000
medical $600(for both of us)
INS fee $1490
Photos+Fedex charges +DOB Affidavits= $200
TOTAL $2290
medical $600(for both of us)
INS fee $1490
Photos+Fedex charges +DOB Affidavits= $200
TOTAL $2290
girlfriend Excelent Cars HD Wallpapers
WeShallOvercome
07-27 01:26 PM
if they've less calls, they can do some other real work.
in any case..they took 1-3 months in case of reciepting 65K H1s. How soon do you think they can receipt 10 times that number..
That was before their newly found 'effeciency'...
more recently, they took 2 days (not even working days) to APPROVE 25000 AOS applications, how hard do you think it is for them to issue receipts ? :)
in any case..they took 1-3 months in case of reciepting 65K H1s. How soon do you think they can receipt 10 times that number..
That was before their newly found 'effeciency'...
more recently, they took 2 days (not even working days) to APPROVE 25000 AOS applications, how hard do you think it is for them to issue receipts ? :)
hairstyles Moto Bikes HD Wallpapers
kakarla
07-22 12:28 PM
EAD Renewal applied online on May19th
My Case
Got the LIN088001XXXX
FP done on 06/11
Approval Email received (card prodcution ordered) Yesterday
Spouse Case
Got the LIN088001XXXX
FP done on 06/11
Approval: Not yet
----
EB3/ India Apr2002
My Case
Got the LIN088001XXXX
FP done on 06/11
Approval Email received (card prodcution ordered) Yesterday
Spouse Case
Got the LIN088001XXXX
FP done on 06/11
Approval: Not yet
----
EB3/ India Apr2002
rajuram
08-01 10:00 PM
The key is that....there should not be substantial difference in the job duties and the responsibilities.
what do 180 days start, RN date or notice date?
what do 180 days start, RN date or notice date?
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)