TexDBoy
09-10 01:20 PM
I just see the eagle ... it should have started already ...
wallpaper Lakes Landscape Wallpapers
chanduv23
11-22 01:33 PM
I dont think that is correct - as per my lawyer this is what she says -
In order to move to a new employer and still continue with the same gc applications, you must meet all of the following conditions under AC21:
1. Your I-140 must be approved
2. Your I-485 must be filed and pending for at least 180 days
3. Your new job classification must be the same as in the old job
If you are missing any of the 3 conditions at the time you move to an employer, you will lose your gc application and you will need to start a new one.
So guys please make sure you give correct information. Also, I would suggest people who are asking various questions over here in IV should also talk to their own lawyers and take a decision. Please do not take decision based on comments given over here. So "LOOK BEFORE YOU LEAP".
Please note that most people here give suggestions and advices based on their knowledge, experience etc... and may not be taken as legal advice. One must definitely consult an attorney before taking any career move. But also note that, Lawyers may not also be 100% aware or correct, as such no lawyer is perfect and most lawyers are commercial and you may * not really get the true picture* , exceptions and provisions are done on case to case basis and experienced and good lawyers can definitely help answer your questions.
Changing employer after 140 abd keeping PD is something new and I guess lawyers may not suggest taking that route, but in realty if u r in troubled waters, definitely u must see if u can work that option out.
In order to move to a new employer and still continue with the same gc applications, you must meet all of the following conditions under AC21:
1. Your I-140 must be approved
2. Your I-485 must be filed and pending for at least 180 days
3. Your new job classification must be the same as in the old job
If you are missing any of the 3 conditions at the time you move to an employer, you will lose your gc application and you will need to start a new one.
So guys please make sure you give correct information. Also, I would suggest people who are asking various questions over here in IV should also talk to their own lawyers and take a decision. Please do not take decision based on comments given over here. So "LOOK BEFORE YOU LEAP".
Please note that most people here give suggestions and advices based on their knowledge, experience etc... and may not be taken as legal advice. One must definitely consult an attorney before taking any career move. But also note that, Lawyers may not also be 100% aware or correct, as such no lawyer is perfect and most lawyers are commercial and you may * not really get the true picture* , exceptions and provisions are done on case to case basis and experienced and good lawyers can definitely help answer your questions.
Changing employer after 140 abd keeping PD is something new and I guess lawyers may not suggest taking that route, but in realty if u r in troubled waters, definitely u must see if u can work that option out.
pappu
02-01 10:17 AM
Thank you for registering with Immigration Voice for the advocacy efforts in Washington DC. Your participation in such efforts will help tremendously in bringing about the positive changes we seek.
Many of you may have questions regarding the advocacy event. To answer your questions, we are holding a conference call this weekend. An email was sent out to confirmed members today (Mar 24) with the subject line: IMPORTANT: IV Advocacy Conf Call Info. Please check your email for the conference call details and other important information.
The conference call in number and details cannot be made public.
Thank you.
Many of you may have questions regarding the advocacy event. To answer your questions, we are holding a conference call this weekend. An email was sent out to confirmed members today (Mar 24) with the subject line: IMPORTANT: IV Advocacy Conf Call Info. Please check your email for the conference call details and other important information.
The conference call in number and details cannot be made public.
Thank you.
2011 wallpaper landscape fantasy.
harish
05-21 11:59 AM
Congrats,
Thanks!
Please keep supporting IV
Of course...that is a no-brainer. :)
Thanks!
Please keep supporting IV
Of course...that is a no-brainer. :)
more...
mps
07-23 04:58 PM
My attorney has specifically advised us that we don't have to file again. My application reached NSC on July 2nd.
Continuing on this forum with more generic title
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10383
Per Greg Siskind -- July 2nd filers might have to file again, as all July 2nd application were rejected. Check out the link below as well as the comment section for the blog
Greg Siskind is reporting the following about July2nd rejection here
http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2007/07/faqs-part-1.html
part of above post --
USCIS did not state how cases filed and rejected on the 2nd are to be handled other than to say that properly filed applications would be accepted. This presumably covers the many cases filed after the second that were held, but it doesn�t explain what will happen to the cases received earlier. We hope USCIS will issue special instructions to issue July 2nd receipt dates to those who are able to document they attempted to file. We presume some folks are still waiting on their July 2nd cases to be returned and are debating refiling new cases rather than waiting. Unfortunately, there is a risk of not getting the package back before August 17th and some people will need to refile without proof of the earlier filing. Hopefully, again, USCIS will institute a process for such individuals to avoid being penalized.
USCIS has not announced any details yet on how it will determine which cases get 2007 visa numbers that might still be available. We also don�t know yet how cases will be processed that are not in the batch of cases that get green card numbers this year. For those who will have to get numbers in future years, applications should be worked by the order of the priority date. So applicants with labor certifications approved some time back, for example, should go before people in the same category with later priority dates.
For individuals filing cases not requiring a labor certification (such as Schedule A cases and national interest waivers), the priority date is the date of filing. Because there may be hundreds of thousands of applications received between July 2nd and August 17th with many of these cases not requiring a labor certification, the date during this six week period a case is filed could make a big difference in terms of when a case will complete processing. And, again, getting that July 2nd priority date for those who filed early and were rejected could make a big difference in when their cases are ultimately processed through to completion.
Continuing on this forum with more generic title
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10383
Per Greg Siskind -- July 2nd filers might have to file again, as all July 2nd application were rejected. Check out the link below as well as the comment section for the blog
Greg Siskind is reporting the following about July2nd rejection here
http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2007/07/faqs-part-1.html
part of above post --
USCIS did not state how cases filed and rejected on the 2nd are to be handled other than to say that properly filed applications would be accepted. This presumably covers the many cases filed after the second that were held, but it doesn�t explain what will happen to the cases received earlier. We hope USCIS will issue special instructions to issue July 2nd receipt dates to those who are able to document they attempted to file. We presume some folks are still waiting on their July 2nd cases to be returned and are debating refiling new cases rather than waiting. Unfortunately, there is a risk of not getting the package back before August 17th and some people will need to refile without proof of the earlier filing. Hopefully, again, USCIS will institute a process for such individuals to avoid being penalized.
USCIS has not announced any details yet on how it will determine which cases get 2007 visa numbers that might still be available. We also don�t know yet how cases will be processed that are not in the batch of cases that get green card numbers this year. For those who will have to get numbers in future years, applications should be worked by the order of the priority date. So applicants with labor certifications approved some time back, for example, should go before people in the same category with later priority dates.
For individuals filing cases not requiring a labor certification (such as Schedule A cases and national interest waivers), the priority date is the date of filing. Because there may be hundreds of thousands of applications received between July 2nd and August 17th with many of these cases not requiring a labor certification, the date during this six week period a case is filed could make a big difference in terms of when a case will complete processing. And, again, getting that July 2nd priority date for those who filed early and were rejected could make a big difference in when their cases are ultimately processed through to completion.
paskal
07-03 09:13 PM
If this is true, then everyone who thinks this is unfair must write letters to USCIS, Ombudsman, WH etc
USCIS does not read our forums and will not take action from a forum post.
If you see something wrong, and you feel strongly about it, Do not let it happen.
In hindsight I think we should have done it for labor substitution too.
nixstor, you right of course. i was not comparing it to labor sub, just pointing out that there are a myriad of loopholes. the EB1C is hardly meant for employees already here- sending them out and bringing them back is legal- yet its very much a loophole being exploited. in many cases - again just my anecdotal observation, the position is not just a fake manager- yet the position is not the real "concept" of a multinational manager either. i have seen attorneys in big corporate firms getting EB1c by this method.
i do believe though that over time USCIS has become aware of this activity. A little skimming of EB1c posts on reveals a great deal of new scrutiny for the EB1c 1-140 petitions. The same is true when an entirely new employee is being brought in. they are asking a lot of questions on company structures, hierarchy and individual roles and responsibilities....
USCIS does not read our forums and will not take action from a forum post.
If you see something wrong, and you feel strongly about it, Do not let it happen.
In hindsight I think we should have done it for labor substitution too.
nixstor, you right of course. i was not comparing it to labor sub, just pointing out that there are a myriad of loopholes. the EB1C is hardly meant for employees already here- sending them out and bringing them back is legal- yet its very much a loophole being exploited. in many cases - again just my anecdotal observation, the position is not just a fake manager- yet the position is not the real "concept" of a multinational manager either. i have seen attorneys in big corporate firms getting EB1c by this method.
i do believe though that over time USCIS has become aware of this activity. A little skimming of EB1c posts on reveals a great deal of new scrutiny for the EB1c 1-140 petitions. The same is true when an entirely new employee is being brought in. they are asking a lot of questions on company structures, hierarchy and individual roles and responsibilities....
more...
sukhwinderd
02-22 09:22 AM
with StarSun. there are so many people in neighboring states (to DC) who can come during advocacy days, or atleast offer accomodation, hotel pickup drop offs. hardly anything to loose. its pathetic that people will line up for free lunch, but will not do anything to get it, even when there is nothing to loose.
2010 Ocean Landscape wallpaper
logiclife
01-30 04:01 PM
Point 3 was for the employer refunding the employee for the H1 costs after completing 6 months on project.
Well it is an accepted fact that Employers need to pay for H1 sponsorship but desi companies hardly follow the rules. Well I don't understand from you point above why paying for H1 expenses means I am breaking the law. Rather it should be the employer who is breaking the law.
Good point. Employer would be breaking the law by asking you to pay and accepting payment for immigration fees. And frankly, I am not sure if there is a statute or a regulation that prevents that. I think its a regulation. So it would be a regulatory issue, not a statutory issue. And then again, paying would make you a willing participant so I dont know what your culpability would be.
And yes, desi companies hardly follow the rules and bend/break them every day.
And I am not saying that you should go or should not go for it. I am just saying that what you hear from them before you start working is only half the story and there are other unethical practices they engage in. So finally its your call if its worth it. Especially if you are close to getting 485 and EAD, then I would think its not worth going thru that nonsense of H4 to H1 especially with a desi employer.
Well it is an accepted fact that Employers need to pay for H1 sponsorship but desi companies hardly follow the rules. Well I don't understand from you point above why paying for H1 expenses means I am breaking the law. Rather it should be the employer who is breaking the law.
Good point. Employer would be breaking the law by asking you to pay and accepting payment for immigration fees. And frankly, I am not sure if there is a statute or a regulation that prevents that. I think its a regulation. So it would be a regulatory issue, not a statutory issue. And then again, paying would make you a willing participant so I dont know what your culpability would be.
And yes, desi companies hardly follow the rules and bend/break them every day.
And I am not saying that you should go or should not go for it. I am just saying that what you hear from them before you start working is only half the story and there are other unethical practices they engage in. So finally its your call if its worth it. Especially if you are close to getting 485 and EAD, then I would think its not worth going thru that nonsense of H4 to H1 especially with a desi employer.
more...
makemygc
07-05 10:02 AM
Strange to find that any thread which asks for contribution is pushed down the toilet within seconds whereas people are just too fond of discussing all idiotic things like..July 2 filers, July 3 filers, Will USCIS return our appllications, so on and so forth.
hair Mountain landscape wallpaper
mbawa2574
02-15 04:59 PM
Well, US government thinks otherwise about my (or USCIS') logic. If you think it is unfair, you can sue them. I won't stop you.
US government thinks that Indians and Chinese don't mix up with other races. Are u on drugs ??????????????????:mad:
US government thinks that Indians and Chinese don't mix up with other races. Are u on drugs ??????????????????:mad:
more...
Rajeev
12-14 01:59 PM
I am from Park Ridge NJ. I will join the conference today.
hot free landscape wallpapers.
anilsal
12-26 03:50 PM
MasterCard is quite attractive with the new WorldPoints concept. A point for every dollar spent. When you have sufficient points, you can get air tickets etc.
An issue with Discover card is that it is not widely accepted outside the US - not in Canada or in Europe (the merchant will have to call some number to get authorization). Amex is usable worldwide.
Many merchants do not accept either Amex or Disc in the US.
An issue with Discover card is that it is not widely accepted outside the US - not in Canada or in Europe (the merchant will have to call some number to get authorization). Amex is usable worldwide.
Many merchants do not accept either Amex or Disc in the US.
more...
house Landscape wallpaper
bank_king2003
04-09 05:08 PM
there we go again..... becoz visa bulletin dates did no move.... all of a sudden it means uscis/dos is not doing their job?..... get a grip of u'r self.....
my date if 7th feb-05 & its just days away for over an year.... but i know that blaming uscis/dos won't do a shit for anyone..... becoz that's not where the problem is..... now don't throw bullshit at me.... saying uscis is not efficient blah blah blah..... if uscis is allocating 140K gc per year, that's good enough...... becoz its a wrong goal to setup 100% efficiency with uscis..... we all don't work with our employer 100% becoz we spend time scanning the web..... y do we expect uscis to work 100%....... for me uscis is doing their job if they allocate 140k gc per year...... period..... now stop this non-sense of blaming uscis/dos becoz that sets a wrong target..... the blame/fault for vb and backlog lies with the congress..... the least we can do is identify the source of the problem...... we do people here keep beating down on uscis & dos...... y r we do dumb.....
and all these questions is totally a waste of time...... in the end lets say u get 100% efficiency, what will it get u..... 7 more green cards for a backlog of 1 million..... how stupid is it to get totally blinded by this misguided meaningless talk for 7 visas for a million headless chickens.....
lets continue talking about uscis/dos..... who is next...:mad:
Gud u let out ur frustration. U r gud for that only as i see u comparing our effeciency with USCIS. i know ur gray matter now !!!
my date if 7th feb-05 & its just days away for over an year.... but i know that blaming uscis/dos won't do a shit for anyone..... becoz that's not where the problem is..... now don't throw bullshit at me.... saying uscis is not efficient blah blah blah..... if uscis is allocating 140K gc per year, that's good enough...... becoz its a wrong goal to setup 100% efficiency with uscis..... we all don't work with our employer 100% becoz we spend time scanning the web..... y do we expect uscis to work 100%....... for me uscis is doing their job if they allocate 140k gc per year...... period..... now stop this non-sense of blaming uscis/dos becoz that sets a wrong target..... the blame/fault for vb and backlog lies with the congress..... the least we can do is identify the source of the problem...... we do people here keep beating down on uscis & dos...... y r we do dumb.....
and all these questions is totally a waste of time...... in the end lets say u get 100% efficiency, what will it get u..... 7 more green cards for a backlog of 1 million..... how stupid is it to get totally blinded by this misguided meaningless talk for 7 visas for a million headless chickens.....
lets continue talking about uscis/dos..... who is next...:mad:
Gud u let out ur frustration. U r gud for that only as i see u comparing our effeciency with USCIS. i know ur gray matter now !!!
tattoo Landscape wallpaper
vik352
07-01 04:03 PM
Hi,
I feel that per country quota for EB green cards is ridiculous. A skilled worker from India and China has to wait for GC 10 years, whereas a person from ROW gets it in few years/months. I wish I had known all the delays/pains in GC processing before I started my career here. We should start an online petetion/a law suit to end this disciminatory quota and address it to President/all the congressman/all the media.
Simple questions in the online petition/law suit:
1) Do you think it is fair for a person from India/China to wait for 10 years whereas a person from other country gets it in few years?
2) When there is no per country quota in H1B visas, do you think it is fair to have it in EB visas?
3) Do you think it is fair to have the same quota for India/China compared to a small country?
4) Everyone is aware of the legal immigration problems here, atlease try to make it same for everyone.
Most of us are Ivy League or good college graduates and work in good companies. We can mention our names, school and company information in the petition. All those who don't agree with me, please dont respond.
Can IV core come up with an online petition?
I feel that per country quota for EB green cards is ridiculous. A skilled worker from India and China has to wait for GC 10 years, whereas a person from ROW gets it in few years/months. I wish I had known all the delays/pains in GC processing before I started my career here. We should start an online petetion/a law suit to end this disciminatory quota and address it to President/all the congressman/all the media.
Simple questions in the online petition/law suit:
1) Do you think it is fair for a person from India/China to wait for 10 years whereas a person from other country gets it in few years?
2) When there is no per country quota in H1B visas, do you think it is fair to have it in EB visas?
3) Do you think it is fair to have the same quota for India/China compared to a small country?
4) Everyone is aware of the legal immigration problems here, atlease try to make it same for everyone.
Most of us are Ivy League or good college graduates and work in good companies. We can mention our names, school and company information in the petition. All those who don't agree with me, please dont respond.
Can IV core come up with an online petition?
more...
pictures snow landscape wallpaper Image
kaisersose
02-21 04:12 PM
I had one question. If there 140 K quota and 400 k employment AOS pending shuldnt they be cleared in 2-3 years (140k*3) since no matter what 140 k visas are going to get used (for example if there are leftovers others will get it)?
Even assuming hereafter no visa numbers will be wasted, It is not exactly FIFO for that to happen.
Consider this:
a) The Indian Applicant started back in 2003. In 2009 everything is done except assigning a visa number to this case.
b) There is a German Applicant who will start in 2008. In 2009 everything is done except assigning a visa number to this case.
The German will get a visa number assigned and a green card, but the Indian will not as he still has thousands ahead of him waiting for visa numbers.
Therefore 400K at 140K/ year is not how it works.
Even assuming hereafter no visa numbers will be wasted, It is not exactly FIFO for that to happen.
Consider this:
a) The Indian Applicant started back in 2003. In 2009 everything is done except assigning a visa number to this case.
b) There is a German Applicant who will start in 2008. In 2009 everything is done except assigning a visa number to this case.
The German will get a visa number assigned and a green card, but the Indian will not as he still has thousands ahead of him waiting for visa numbers.
Therefore 400K at 140K/ year is not how it works.
dresses Sunset Landscape wallpaper -
gc28262
04-10 11:14 AM
Time and again I am telling. EB 3 problem is due to 245(i) cases. Once 245(i) primaries are over, their dependent will come into the picture, who are waiting back home. All 245(i) cases have PD before April 2001. For time being, EB3 I or Mexico move beyond April 01 but again retrogress back to the April 01 when cases are accumulate at CP. This is the reason why EB3 I and Mexico is not moving since last many years.
If some one is not convince with me, request under FOIA
1. How many cases filed under 245(i) in India, Mexico, and ROW
2. How many cases filed under I 824 Follow to Join since 2007?
I agree with your observations except the point that it will retrogress again to 2001.
As dates have moved beyond April 2001, I don't believe there will be any more 245(i) s coming into the queue. Dependents of 245(i) applicants would have a PD of Apr 2001 or before. They already got their GCs by now. 245(i) applicants would have filed for their dependents already. If these 245(i) applicants file for relatives, they WON'T have 2001 PD.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
If some one is not convince with me, request under FOIA
1. How many cases filed under 245(i) in India, Mexico, and ROW
2. How many cases filed under I 824 Follow to Join since 2007?
I agree with your observations except the point that it will retrogress again to 2001.
As dates have moved beyond April 2001, I don't believe there will be any more 245(i) s coming into the queue. Dependents of 245(i) applicants would have a PD of Apr 2001 or before. They already got their GCs by now. 245(i) applicants would have filed for their dependents already. If these 245(i) applicants file for relatives, they WON'T have 2001 PD.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
more...
makeup Landscape picture of summer
imh1b
03-12 02:47 PM
Kumar123 is either a woman in late 30s not able to get married and thus so bitchy. Or a man who is frustrated in life, dominated by his woman and so taking it out on IV.:D:D
Chill man. !
At least you are EB2. Think about people in EB3.
Chill man. !
At least you are EB2. Think about people in EB3.
girlfriend Download medium wallpaper of
transpass
04-10 12:07 PM
Here are the details for last year and years before:
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
Thanks Kondur. That was a very good presentation of the numbers. I very much appreciate it.
Now,
1. Why did EB1 last year needed spillover visas, although it was current all the time? If a category is current, isn't that it has less demand than allocated numbers?
2. As per May bulletin, EB4 might need a cut off. So we cannot expect any spillover from EB4. So that is clear. Now the spillover chances are from EB5, EB2 ROW and EB1(?). I am including EB1 because, given the current economy over the past year, should there be a better possibility of more spillover from EB2 ROW and EB1 compared to last year?
3. Also why are the total EB numbers different in different fiscal years (e.g., 141020 in FY2009, 162949 in FY 2008 and 154497 in FY2007)? In FYs 2007 and 2008 did the extra visas come from Family based while it did not for FY 2009? If so, why is it so?
4. Based on Pending 485 data of March 2010, I barely see few hundred EB4s. And hardly considerable number of EB1s. What's going on? If we go by this data, we should be getting good chunk of spillover numbers...
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Green%20Card/Green%20Card%20Through%20a%20Job/Employment%20Based%20I-485%20Pending%20Inventory-Total%203-8-2010.pdf
Thanks,
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
Thanks Kondur. That was a very good presentation of the numbers. I very much appreciate it.
Now,
1. Why did EB1 last year needed spillover visas, although it was current all the time? If a category is current, isn't that it has less demand than allocated numbers?
2. As per May bulletin, EB4 might need a cut off. So we cannot expect any spillover from EB4. So that is clear. Now the spillover chances are from EB5, EB2 ROW and EB1(?). I am including EB1 because, given the current economy over the past year, should there be a better possibility of more spillover from EB2 ROW and EB1 compared to last year?
3. Also why are the total EB numbers different in different fiscal years (e.g., 141020 in FY2009, 162949 in FY 2008 and 154497 in FY2007)? In FYs 2007 and 2008 did the extra visas come from Family based while it did not for FY 2009? If so, why is it so?
4. Based on Pending 485 data of March 2010, I barely see few hundred EB4s. And hardly considerable number of EB1s. What's going on? If we go by this data, we should be getting good chunk of spillover numbers...
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Green%20Card/Green%20Card%20Through%20a%20Job/Employment%20Based%20I-485%20Pending%20Inventory-Total%203-8-2010.pdf
Thanks,
hairstyles Fabulous Landscape Wallpaper
EB3_SEP04
05-26 06:41 PM
I haven't heard anything like this (yes random checks I seen by cops in NJ) but not searching all cars on a highway and then verifying if everyone is legal and harassing them if they have not carried their immigration papers.
I read long ago after 9/11 that law enforcements used this tactic to jail folks who were suspected terrorists but if they are using this to discourage immigration (legal immigrants) it would be a real shame.
where are these commands coming from its not like one county suddenly gets up and starts doing random inspection, their must be a higher authority who is making these rules
I think the law/rule was passed/enacted in late 2008 by prev govt to make some psychos happy. It is a big problem in AZ and CA where these people routinely get in the commercial buses and ask everyone's status. so ACLU posted signs in buses telling people their rights. see my OP.
I read long ago after 9/11 that law enforcements used this tactic to jail folks who were suspected terrorists but if they are using this to discourage immigration (legal immigrants) it would be a real shame.
where are these commands coming from its not like one county suddenly gets up and starts doing random inspection, their must be a higher authority who is making these rules
I think the law/rule was passed/enacted in late 2008 by prev govt to make some psychos happy. It is a big problem in AZ and CA where these people routinely get in the commercial buses and ask everyone's status. so ACLU posted signs in buses telling people their rights. see my OP.
keshtwo
07-09 05:02 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 !
dude if you think we are in deep shit now, wait till you are really in deep shit. no lawsuit can get you a green card any faster (could make it slower though). All that it might do is make sure that USCIS has to deal with an avalanche of EAD apps, delaying EAD anyways.
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 !
dude if you think we are in deep shit now, wait till you are really in deep shit. no lawsuit can get you a green card any faster (could make it slower though). All that it might do is make sure that USCIS has to deal with an avalanche of EAD apps, delaying EAD anyways.
ronhira
03-12 12:24 PM
So now only paid people get access to information. Why don't you start contributing now?
I am not on any side and seriously want atleast the bashing stopped. But don't want some piece of jerk doing this for sake of passing time. I would consider Ron Hira a better candidate to counter bashing. He is paid (thats what it shows on his status as "donor").
More, I sincerely don't believe that paid employee of competitor can do this. 2 reasons:
1. By any kind of conversation, site gets more traffic. Thats exactly competitors don't want.
2. This could lead to serious legal issue and opposites can lose their shirts.
I think the people on opposite sites are some old finger burnt people from IV itself like Kumar. Think what Kumar will do if he is banned from IV today for harsh bashing!
gckaMara.... i love u for volunteering me for doing something.... not sure what..... but that's ok.....
btw.... greyhair is just giving excuses...... but u look like someone who cares.... y r u not a donor....
I am not on any side and seriously want atleast the bashing stopped. But don't want some piece of jerk doing this for sake of passing time. I would consider Ron Hira a better candidate to counter bashing. He is paid (thats what it shows on his status as "donor").
More, I sincerely don't believe that paid employee of competitor can do this. 2 reasons:
1. By any kind of conversation, site gets more traffic. Thats exactly competitors don't want.
2. This could lead to serious legal issue and opposites can lose their shirts.
I think the people on opposite sites are some old finger burnt people from IV itself like Kumar. Think what Kumar will do if he is banned from IV today for harsh bashing!
gckaMara.... i love u for volunteering me for doing something.... not sure what..... but that's ok.....
btw.... greyhair is just giving excuses...... but u look like someone who cares.... y r u not a donor....
No comments:
Post a Comment