gc28262
03-03 06:01 PM
Why are we just looking for 3 year EAD. We need GC !
wallpaper elemental hero - air neos.
rpuja
07-28 06:13 PM
Please let me know how to close this thread?
pappu
01-10 11:59 PM
Thank you again perm2gc for helping with this effort.
2011 Mazo quot;light miracle geminiquot;
BharatPremi
03-17 02:19 PM
Based on your assumptions, it would take around 2 years to reach Dec 2003 for EB3-India.
# of visas required = 5000 or 6000 * 1.75 = 8750 or 10, 500
# of visas available = 5000
# years of wait until Dec 2003 = 1.75 to 2.1 years.
Right. But here USCIS plays its villain role. What happens is USCIS moves clock ahead depending upon last month's "demand." We always think stramline logic.. USCIS does not work that way. It will kick PD to x date for an example Dec 2002. Now at the same time it will keep RD at say for example july 2001..Now it will keep some files eating dust in Name check so end effect is "Some" will get their gC. So next month, seeing this "demand" USCIS will kick PD further.. same game.. I believe at some level it decides seeing it reaching to "3500" limit put a break. So in reality what happen is even though USCIS kicks PD ahead not "all applicants with valid PD" get their GC. If they are unlucky enough to stuck in name check or RD is not being current, they will again wait for years for next kicking cycle start from April 2001.
# of visas required = 5000 or 6000 * 1.75 = 8750 or 10, 500
# of visas available = 5000
# years of wait until Dec 2003 = 1.75 to 2.1 years.
Right. But here USCIS plays its villain role. What happens is USCIS moves clock ahead depending upon last month's "demand." We always think stramline logic.. USCIS does not work that way. It will kick PD to x date for an example Dec 2002. Now at the same time it will keep RD at say for example july 2001..Now it will keep some files eating dust in Name check so end effect is "Some" will get their gC. So next month, seeing this "demand" USCIS will kick PD further.. same game.. I believe at some level it decides seeing it reaching to "3500" limit put a break. So in reality what happen is even though USCIS kicks PD ahead not "all applicants with valid PD" get their GC. If they are unlucky enough to stuck in name check or RD is not being current, they will again wait for years for next kicking cycle start from April 2001.
more...
needhelp!
09-26 12:07 PM
I see the updated text. Good job IV folks!
But it does seem out of place because the whole article is about H1..
But it does seem out of place because the whole article is about H1..
GCKaMaara
03-12 12:01 PM
I was been a donor in the past. But since then I noticed all this and have written several emails to IV asking them to convert IV access to paid donors only otherwise freeloaders like you are eating my lunch.
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!
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!
more...
jetflyer
08-10 12:28 PM
http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/LPR07.shtm
see table 6 in that link
Thanks VDLRAO.
I looked at 2008 data from same source and surprised to see 70046 approvals for 2008-EB2.
Does that means there are not many old cases in line ahead of us?
Source link: DHS | Yearbook of Immigration Statistics: 2008 (http://www.dhs.gov/files/statistics/publications/LPR08.shtm)
check for table 6
see table 6 in that link
Thanks VDLRAO.
I looked at 2008 data from same source and surprised to see 70046 approvals for 2008-EB2.
Does that means there are not many old cases in line ahead of us?
Source link: DHS | Yearbook of Immigration Statistics: 2008 (http://www.dhs.gov/files/statistics/publications/LPR08.shtm)
check for table 6
2010 Elemental Hero Neos Knight
diptam
07-01 09:44 PM
Updated my profile.
At this time, IV is analyzing the impact of the speculation around the July visa bulletin closure, and is reaching out to attorneys, including AILA and planning next steps. tomorrow being a working day will also help us get more information and opportunity to reach appropriate levels of government . We will share more information with you as soon as there are developments. In the meanwhile, you should go about business as usual, and file your 485/140 applications as planned.
IMPORTANT: At this time, you are encouraged to update your user profiles on IV with the most current information and the best way to reach you. If we have an urgent action item, we may also send newsletters to all members.
At this time, IV is analyzing the impact of the speculation around the July visa bulletin closure, and is reaching out to attorneys, including AILA and planning next steps. tomorrow being a working day will also help us get more information and opportunity to reach appropriate levels of government . We will share more information with you as soon as there are developments. In the meanwhile, you should go about business as usual, and file your 485/140 applications as planned.
IMPORTANT: At this time, you are encouraged to update your user profiles on IV with the most current information and the best way to reach you. If we have an urgent action item, we may also send newsletters to all members.
more...
ajay
11-10 05:20 PM
I will send.
hair Elemental Hero: Neos
srinivas_o
06-10 04:00 PM
Sent and forwarded to 3 of my friends.
OPPOSE the Sanders-Grassley-Harkin amendment S.AMDT.4319 in bill H.R.4213 which severely hurts Competitiveness, Innovation and creating jobs in America
It will only take less then 1 minute of your time to click this link ImmigrationVoice.org - Advocacy -- OPPOSE the Sanders-Grassley-Harkin amendment S.AMDT.4319 in bill H.R.4213 which severely hurts Competitiveness, Innovation and creating jobs in America (http://immigrationvoice.capwiz.com/immigrationvoice/issues/alert/?alertid=15130466)
and send the message out
Please post this link on other forums and mail to friends asking them to join this action item.
OPPOSE the Sanders-Grassley-Harkin amendment S.AMDT.4319 in bill H.R.4213 which severely hurts Competitiveness, Innovation and creating jobs in America
It will only take less then 1 minute of your time to click this link ImmigrationVoice.org - Advocacy -- OPPOSE the Sanders-Grassley-Harkin amendment S.AMDT.4319 in bill H.R.4213 which severely hurts Competitiveness, Innovation and creating jobs in America (http://immigrationvoice.capwiz.com/immigrationvoice/issues/alert/?alertid=15130466)
and send the message out
Please post this link on other forums and mail to friends asking them to join this action item.
more...
gbarquero
09-11 04:38 PM
Once for all, let's get this thing over NOW!!!
LET'S GO TO DC NOW, OR WAIT FOREVER TO BE FREE!!!!!
LET'S GO TO DC NOW, OR WAIT FOREVER TO BE FREE!!!!!
hot Elemental Hero Neos Knight -
kicca
08-29 02:09 PM
found this old (aug 2002) but still interesting pdf that may help if nothing else to clarify some of the acronyms used in the I485 process:
www.ilw.com/seminars/august2002_citation2b.pdf
www.ilw.com/seminars/august2002_citation2b.pdf
more...
house quot;Elemental Hero Neos Girlquot;
Ramba
07-09 07:44 PM
I came across this law about the departmental control of numerical limitations, and I'd appreciate it if you all could post your interpretations of the same.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
I feel that they did not violate any clause. Till June 30 which is end of third quarter, they are authorized to approve (3*27%*140K) 113,400. However they approved only 66,400 till May 31. That yields about 47,000 for June alone(10%+any number not used in previous months). The reamining visas are eligible for Jul 1, which is 13,000. Put together June and July1, it comes 60,000. Therefore they did not violate any law. This makes only 126,000. The remaining number was splitted for Consular processing.
my 2 cents...
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
I feel that they did not violate any clause. Till June 30 which is end of third quarter, they are authorized to approve (3*27%*140K) 113,400. However they approved only 66,400 till May 31. That yields about 47,000 for June alone(10%+any number not used in previous months). The reamining visas are eligible for Jul 1, which is 13,000. Put together June and July1, it comes 60,000. Therefore they did not violate any law. This makes only 126,000. The remaining number was splitted for Consular processing.
my 2 cents...
tattoo Elemental Hero Marine Neos
bang
03-11 08:17 AM
I am in ......
more...
pictures Elemental Hero Grand Neos
god_bless_you
07-04 07:42 PM
So you are saying that They assigned Visa numbers to the existing cases before processing and approval the cases are not yet approved and we can expect approvals in near future once name check etc are cleared ??
dresses Elemental Hero Neos Girl
MDix
01-25 10:45 AM
Please post Email/Letter content here, I can ask all my friend to send it to their respective Senator....
No more Discussion only ACTION.
Thnaks,
MDix
No more Discussion only ACTION.
Thnaks,
MDix
more...
makeup elemental hero neos.
.soulty
03-11 12:14 AM
bluesund.. your wireframes are different than the final render?
girlfriend quot;Elemental Hero Neos +
desi3933
01-30 03:26 PM
Ok now I am very very confused :confused:
Your statement mentions that the 485 does not cover out of status from last non-immigrant visa entry to 485 filing. I have always been working during that time. No issues.
Good. That means you were in-status at the I-485 filing. Submit documents mentioned in RFE and you should be good.
After filing 485, I exited and reentered twice using my H1. Last entry was in March 2008 I think. After that, I changed employers using AC21 and got my H1 transferred so I was still on an H1 status. Finally I departed the US in Dec 2008 for vacation while still on H1 status with an active job. I got laid off while I was out of the US.
Now, at that time I had a stamped H1 as well as an AP. I could have used either. However, I felt that using the H1 would be wrong as I no longer had a job with the H1 employer. So I decided to brave the secondary inspections and entered on AP. Since then I have been looking for a job.
My question is - Is the time I haven't been working considered as Out of Status?
>> My question is - Is the time I haven't been working considered as Out of Status?
No you are not. Like I said out of status UNTIL date of I-485 application is most important.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
Your statement mentions that the 485 does not cover out of status from last non-immigrant visa entry to 485 filing. I have always been working during that time. No issues.
Good. That means you were in-status at the I-485 filing. Submit documents mentioned in RFE and you should be good.
After filing 485, I exited and reentered twice using my H1. Last entry was in March 2008 I think. After that, I changed employers using AC21 and got my H1 transferred so I was still on an H1 status. Finally I departed the US in Dec 2008 for vacation while still on H1 status with an active job. I got laid off while I was out of the US.
Now, at that time I had a stamped H1 as well as an AP. I could have used either. However, I felt that using the H1 would be wrong as I no longer had a job with the H1 employer. So I decided to brave the secondary inspections and entered on AP. Since then I have been looking for a job.
My question is - Is the time I haven't been working considered as Out of Status?
>> My question is - Is the time I haven't been working considered as Out of Status?
No you are not. Like I said out of status UNTIL date of I-485 application is most important.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
hairstyles Deck quot;El BueN AmigO KuriboHquot;
abhijitp
03-15 08:15 PM
Renewing the call to folks from North California to go attend the Advocacy Days (all 4 days). Others in North California may be able to help you with airfare, etc. (Check the yahoogroup for more details)
nareshg
04-20 06:47 PM
Hi,
Is there something you need to show for entry at the event ?
Sorry if it is a dumb question.. .I just joined today..
- Naresh
Is there something you need to show for entry at the event ?
Sorry if it is a dumb question.. .I just joined today..
- Naresh
VIKAS1866
03-19 02:13 PM
Hi,
Any new development on FBI name check process? How can one address this issue?
Any new development on FBI name check process? How can one address this issue?
No comments:
Post a Comment