alisa
01-26 08:06 AM
Because the alternative is to
a) sit at home and
b) bitch about retrogression.
I am from ROW, and so I am not so severely affected by retrogression. However, I am still fed up of looking at visa bulletins every month, and running into people with stupid freaking smiles on their face, resigned to not doing anything and just bitching about how screwed up the whole thing is.
There is a way things are done in this country. We owe it to ourselves to try that.
And if we don't let people who can make a difference know what our problems are, then we should only blame ourselves.
Like I had said earlier, the purpose of this thread is to come up with the best model possible with the limited data and resources available, that can predict the current dates for PD.
I am pretty sure that a poster, in the form of a visa bulletin, dated 2020, showing that the priority dates of 2003 are finally current, in an indian grocery store, will get a lot more attention and funding for this forum, than anything else.
I (and may be lot of others like me) want to care about IV & want to contribute to IV. But there has not even a single thread of good news for last several months. This is very demotivating. I have contributed only once. Every time I visit this site, I feel guilty of taking a free ride. But at the same time I find it hard to make any contributions with nothing happening on the horizon. Currently it looks like what ever is happening or going to happen with CIR etc is just moving at its own pace. If we can not expedite it, then what is the use? in any case congress will pass some relief for skilled workers when CIR comes up.
a) sit at home and
b) bitch about retrogression.
I am from ROW, and so I am not so severely affected by retrogression. However, I am still fed up of looking at visa bulletins every month, and running into people with stupid freaking smiles on their face, resigned to not doing anything and just bitching about how screwed up the whole thing is.
There is a way things are done in this country. We owe it to ourselves to try that.
And if we don't let people who can make a difference know what our problems are, then we should only blame ourselves.
Like I had said earlier, the purpose of this thread is to come up with the best model possible with the limited data and resources available, that can predict the current dates for PD.
I am pretty sure that a poster, in the form of a visa bulletin, dated 2020, showing that the priority dates of 2003 are finally current, in an indian grocery store, will get a lot more attention and funding for this forum, than anything else.
I (and may be lot of others like me) want to care about IV & want to contribute to IV. But there has not even a single thread of good news for last several months. This is very demotivating. I have contributed only once. Every time I visit this site, I feel guilty of taking a free ride. But at the same time I find it hard to make any contributions with nothing happening on the horizon. Currently it looks like what ever is happening or going to happen with CIR etc is just moving at its own pace. If we can not expedite it, then what is the use? in any case congress will pass some relief for skilled workers when CIR comes up.
wallpaper kim kardashian hair color
kavita
12-11 04:13 PM
If US does not benefit from giving the visas, are they doing it as a part of social service?
All of us (people on L-1, F-1, J-1, H1, B1, K1 and their derivatives....) went to US consulate to request for VISA. US consulate never came to your door with a VISA. !
All of us (people on L-1, F-1, J-1, H1, B1, K1 and their derivatives....) went to US consulate to request for VISA. US consulate never came to your door with a VISA. !
JazzByTheBay
09-26 10:17 AM
That's what Ron Hira said would happen - by aligning with Compete America, we do run the risk of getting the IV message obfuscated.
http://morejazzbythebay.wordpress.com/2007/09/18/experts-tech-companies-h1b-visa-demands-could-obscure-immigrationvoices-more-specific-call-for-green-cards/
jazz
Oh My God, CNN is screwing us in different way now. They are telling american people the Rally last week at SC was for increse in H1B and not for Incresed GCs.
I am getting freakled out by such American politics. I thought USA is different than INDIA atleast in this regard.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/09/25/smbusiness/h1b_cap.fsb/index.htm?postversion=2007092606
http://morejazzbythebay.wordpress.com/2007/09/18/experts-tech-companies-h1b-visa-demands-could-obscure-immigrationvoices-more-specific-call-for-green-cards/
jazz
Oh My God, CNN is screwing us in different way now. They are telling american people the Rally last week at SC was for increse in H1B and not for Incresed GCs.
I am getting freakled out by such American politics. I thought USA is different than INDIA atleast in this regard.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/09/25/smbusiness/h1b_cap.fsb/index.htm?postversion=2007092606
2011 kim kardashian hair colour.
danila
07-10 09:09 AM
Certainty is releated to belief not reality. It still means the name check was not completed. The law does not say they "when you are certain that the FBI name check can be cleared..please allot a visa."
Nowhere in that statement he says anything about the name check. It might be just the expired biometrics. And coming from some anonymous immigration officials how can you be sure that the information is absolutely credible or represents the facts and not their speculations? Were those applications really approved or they've just requested the visa numbers for them?
Nowhere in that statement he says anything about the name check. It might be just the expired biometrics. And coming from some anonymous immigration officials how can you be sure that the information is absolutely credible or represents the facts and not their speculations? Were those applications really approved or they've just requested the visa numbers for them?
more...
andy garcia
01-26 09:40 AM
I had trouble sifting through all that data and figuring out what that was all about.
Could you give the specific report that you used for these numbers. And, if possible, any hints on how you arrived at the data below. I would appreciate that.
Thanks....
FISCAL ------ Employment ------- EB3
YEAR ----- Total ---- INDIA | Total --- India
2000 ----- 111,024 | 15888 | 51,711 | -5567 :IV FY 2000 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2000%20table%20V.pdf)
2001 ----- 186,536 | 41720 | 90,274 | 16405 :IV FY 2001 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2001%20table%20V.pdf)
2002 ----- 171,583 | 41919 | 87,574 | 17428 :IV FY 2002 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2002%20table%20V.pdf)
2003 ----- -83,020 | 20818 | 47,354 | 10680 :IV FY 2003 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2003%20table%20V.pdf)
2004 ----- 157,107 | 39496 | 88,114 | 19962 :IV FY 2004 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY04tableV.pdf)
2005 ----- 242,335 | 47160 |122,130 | 23399 :IV FY 2005 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY05tableV.pdf)
6 yr total - 951,605| 207001| 487,157| 93441
Annual Avg --------- 34500 | -------- 15574
If this trend would have continued. There should not be any MAJOR retrogression problem, but if you remember from the Nov 05 VB. The warning was very clear:
During FY due to anticipated heavy demand, the AC21 provisions are not expected to apply, and the amount of Employment numbers available to any single country will be subject to the 7% cap. It is anticipated that the addition of unused FY-2005 Family numbers and the remaining AC21 numbers to the 140,000 annual minimum will result in an FY-2006 annual Employment limit of 152,000. This will mean an Employment per-country limit for FY-2006 of approximately 10,650.
To illustrate the effect of the reduced per-county limitation during FY-2006 on the oversubscribed countries, it should be noted that during FY-2005 India used approximately 47,175 Employment numbers.
If you plug this number into your analysis the result might be a couple of years of advance for your predictions.
andy
Could you give the specific report that you used for these numbers. And, if possible, any hints on how you arrived at the data below. I would appreciate that.
Thanks....
FISCAL ------ Employment ------- EB3
YEAR ----- Total ---- INDIA | Total --- India
2000 ----- 111,024 | 15888 | 51,711 | -5567 :IV FY 2000 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2000%20table%20V.pdf)
2001 ----- 186,536 | 41720 | 90,274 | 16405 :IV FY 2001 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2001%20table%20V.pdf)
2002 ----- 171,583 | 41919 | 87,574 | 17428 :IV FY 2002 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2002%20table%20V.pdf)
2003 ----- -83,020 | 20818 | 47,354 | 10680 :IV FY 2003 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2003%20table%20V.pdf)
2004 ----- 157,107 | 39496 | 88,114 | 19962 :IV FY 2004 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY04tableV.pdf)
2005 ----- 242,335 | 47160 |122,130 | 23399 :IV FY 2005 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY05tableV.pdf)
6 yr total - 951,605| 207001| 487,157| 93441
Annual Avg --------- 34500 | -------- 15574
If this trend would have continued. There should not be any MAJOR retrogression problem, but if you remember from the Nov 05 VB. The warning was very clear:
During FY due to anticipated heavy demand, the AC21 provisions are not expected to apply, and the amount of Employment numbers available to any single country will be subject to the 7% cap. It is anticipated that the addition of unused FY-2005 Family numbers and the remaining AC21 numbers to the 140,000 annual minimum will result in an FY-2006 annual Employment limit of 152,000. This will mean an Employment per-country limit for FY-2006 of approximately 10,650.
To illustrate the effect of the reduced per-county limitation during FY-2006 on the oversubscribed countries, it should be noted that during FY-2005 India used approximately 47,175 Employment numbers.
If you plug this number into your analysis the result might be a couple of years of advance for your predictions.
andy
jonty_11
07-05 03:47 PM
Thx for the update Pappu...
Go IV go!
Go IV go!
more...
chanduv23
10-29 11:45 AM
Come on folks - we need requests in large numbers or else our campaigns will fail. Let us not be victims of our own inaction.
Please send in your requests.
This is a very serious action item and IV is working extremely hard in the background
Please send in your requests.
This is a very serious action item and IV is working extremely hard in the background
2010 kim kardashian hair color.
snathan
03-10 08:52 PM
All our applications are based on our Employment-- We are already employed and filed our petitions for legal permanent residency. How on earth would that affect the un-employment rate? We would continue to work in jobs in US until our I-485 gets approved. Just because delaying our approvals does not increase/decrease the un-employment rate. I am fully aware of the legislations introduced by the Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren. There were too many legislative bills in her agenda.
We would succeed if we just focus a single item-- Visa Recapturing and NO other business.
By the way Mr.snathan, are you an administrative member of the IV team?.
You and I understand that we are already employed. Please check the Number USA site and tell me what common american people thinks about this.
We would succeed if we just focus a single item-- Visa Recapturing and NO other business.
By the way Mr.snathan, are you an administrative member of the IV team?.
You and I understand that we are already employed. Please check the Number USA site and tell me what common american people thinks about this.
more...
amsgc
07-04 08:04 PM
Legal,
The 700K number is from the Ombudsman's report. He speculated that if the VB was made current, the there would be that many people eligible to apply in the two to three months.
The 700K number is from the Ombudsman's report. He speculated that if the VB was made current, the there would be that many people eligible to apply in the two to three months.
hair kim kardashian hair color
file485
12-22 09:40 AM
lazycis..
yes..the 485 was filed thru ex-employer based on future employment...
so basically we submitted a future empl letter from ex-employer + the current employment letter with the current employer stating that I am working with the current employer with the same skills mentioned in the labor..
the mess up was submitting the current empl.letter alongwith the G325a form which does not mention the current employer(which was prepared in June 07 before i found this job..)
yes..the 485 was filed thru ex-employer based on future employment...
so basically we submitted a future empl letter from ex-employer + the current employment letter with the current employer stating that I am working with the current employer with the same skills mentioned in the labor..
the mess up was submitting the current empl.letter alongwith the G325a form which does not mention the current employer(which was prepared in June 07 before i found this job..)
more...
javadeveloper
05-15 10:11 AM
jD, I dont think desi unversities went online yet..but if you are here, why dont you think of doing an American or European MBA? ;)
all the schools I mentioned above went online
Reasons for exploring
1.Cheaper(for SCDL fee is $1600 for 2 years)
2.They are reasonably recognized at least in India , As I have intentions to settle in india
3.Easy to get admission(at least in SCDL)
all the schools I mentioned above went online
Reasons for exploring
1.Cheaper(for SCDL fee is $1600 for 2 years)
2.They are reasonably recognized at least in India , As I have intentions to settle in india
3.Easy to get admission(at least in SCDL)
hot Kim Kardashian Short Hair O
greyhair
02-08 06:01 PM
Frankly I think that this lawyer is just posting provocative material to make himself popular. He has made many predictions and number of "useful" analysis in the past, most of which were found to be untrue. I used to read his posts until recently I figured out that the analysis was unreliable. This is just my opinion.
more...
house kim kardashian hair color. kim
kandhu
06-10 04:55 PM
Done
tattoo kim kardashian hair. kim
acecupid
07-13 11:22 AM
And has your lawyer sent a letter - if not, why is he/she still waiting to do so. Did you exhort her to do so. Will you exclude yourself from any AILF lawsuit benefit.
You are missing the forest for the trees friend - Its not one agianst the other. Focus on the objective.
I am not saying my lawyer is any better, all these lawyers are nothing but blood suckers just like the employers. I'm just disgusted that people can stoop so low. The objective might be the same, but the intentions are far from it. I hope you understand that my friend and stop being a PR rep for murthy or any lawyer. :)
You are missing the forest for the trees friend - Its not one agianst the other. Focus on the objective.
I am not saying my lawyer is any better, all these lawyers are nothing but blood suckers just like the employers. I'm just disgusted that people can stoop so low. The objective might be the same, but the intentions are far from it. I hope you understand that my friend and stop being a PR rep for murthy or any lawyer. :)
more...
pictures kim kardashian hair colour
alterego
09-20 07:55 PM
In addition to family based immigration, legal immigration includes asylum, refugees (with a special category for Iraqi refugees) and may be more!
You forgot the weirdest one..................the diversity green card!:)
You forgot the weirdest one..................the diversity green card!:)
dresses of The Day: Kim Kardashian
alterego
03-16 12:44 AM
A few things.
Ignoring folks who are full of themselves is the best way to make them go away.
There are many reasons why people with priority dates before 2004 are stuck in queue. Some I can think of are:
1) Backlog labors that were completed as recently as late last year.
2) Background check stuck applications.
3) Labor Subs which were allowed as recently as last summer.
4) EB3-EB2 cases, where PDs are transferred.
5) Other applications that cannot be approved due to time specific requirements such as physician NIW cases.
6) Some cases that just slipped through the cracks of USCIS inefficiency.
Many of the above causes are being/have been addressed, however their impact will be with us for some time yet, unless there is a visa recapture legislation to make up for the unused visas.
Ignoring folks who are full of themselves is the best way to make them go away.
There are many reasons why people with priority dates before 2004 are stuck in queue. Some I can think of are:
1) Backlog labors that were completed as recently as late last year.
2) Background check stuck applications.
3) Labor Subs which were allowed as recently as last summer.
4) EB3-EB2 cases, where PDs are transferred.
5) Other applications that cannot be approved due to time specific requirements such as physician NIW cases.
6) Some cases that just slipped through the cracks of USCIS inefficiency.
Many of the above causes are being/have been addressed, however their impact will be with us for some time yet, unless there is a visa recapture legislation to make up for the unused visas.
more...
makeup kim kardashian blonde hair. or
Googler
02-20 03:11 PM
googler u r the new berkeleybee!!
can u call him in a few weeks and ask him what was the number of eb2 india pre-dec 2003 that he got from uscis?
I try not to abuse his patience too much -- this was the first time ever that I called him twice in the matter of seven days. ;-)
can u call him in a few weeks and ask him what was the number of eb2 india pre-dec 2003 that he got from uscis?
I try not to abuse his patience too much -- this was the first time ever that I called him twice in the matter of seven days. ;-)
girlfriend 2010 kim kardashian hair color
nonimmi
03-07 04:11 PM
If AOS takes 3-4 years (read long time) USCIS will issue RFE (for EVL) anyway to re-confirm job offer - even if we dont use AC21 and change employer. That is standard procedure. So sending them employer change notification is not going to help us anyway. And if we change job multiple time during this 3-4 years sending them letters everytime may cause more RFE. But it is always better to have EVL with us if we change employer using AC21 and send them when asked.
hairstyles kim kardashian hair color
gimmeacard
07-13 05:08 PM
hoping we dont see another retrogression
calgirl
07-12 05:53 PM
sammas..
Ahh.. Thought I missed something in the loong document..
Thanks..
Ahh.. Thought I missed something in the loong document..
Thanks..
ajay
04-13 10:12 AM
A very useful piece of information has been brought to our attention by shiankuraaf.
Thank you very much!
http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/LPR08.shtm
Table 6 Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status by Type and Major Class of Admission: Fiscal Years 1999 to 2008
http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/YrBk04Im.shtm
Table 4 Immigrants admitted by type and selected class of admission: fiscal years 1986-2004
Employment-based preferences (Total Number)
Year QUOTA ISSUED Unused/Excessively used
1986 140000 56617 83383
1987 140000 57519 82481
1988 140000 58727 81273
1989 140000 57741 82259
1990 140000 58192 81808
1991 140000 59525 80475
1992 140000 116198 23802
1993 140000 147012 -7012
1994 140000 123291 16709
1995 140000 85336 54664
1996 140000 117499 22501
1997 140000 90607 49393
1998 140000 77517 62483
1999 140000 56678 83322
2000 140000 106642 33358
2001 140000 178702 -38702
2002 140000 173814 -33814
2003 140000 81727 58273
2004 140000 155330 -15330
2005 140000 246877 -106877
2006 140000 159081 -19081
2007 140000 162176 -22176
2008 140000 166511 -26511
Sum total of the differences from 1986 to 2008: 626,681. Vow!!!
So when looked between the period of 1986 and 2008,
there were a total of 626,681 un-used visa numbers that can be re-captured.
This is based on the BIG assumption that the yearly quota for EB categories is 140,000 from 1986 to 2008.
Does anybody know how to verify this important assumption online --a link to a gov website perhaps?
It would be good to verify when the law specifying 140,000 visa numbers per year was passed and
what were the criteria for visa number usage prior to the existence of the law.
It is clearly a well prepared format and nobody has brought this kind of helpful information to our group. We would need people like you and I am sure I will also support this if we are aggressively pursuing it. But again as somebody here said in this discussion that we should be careful about the seriousness of the situation being counted by the lawmakers.
Kudos to you.
Thank you very much!
http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/LPR08.shtm
Table 6 Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status by Type and Major Class of Admission: Fiscal Years 1999 to 2008
http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/YrBk04Im.shtm
Table 4 Immigrants admitted by type and selected class of admission: fiscal years 1986-2004
Employment-based preferences (Total Number)
Year QUOTA ISSUED Unused/Excessively used
1986 140000 56617 83383
1987 140000 57519 82481
1988 140000 58727 81273
1989 140000 57741 82259
1990 140000 58192 81808
1991 140000 59525 80475
1992 140000 116198 23802
1993 140000 147012 -7012
1994 140000 123291 16709
1995 140000 85336 54664
1996 140000 117499 22501
1997 140000 90607 49393
1998 140000 77517 62483
1999 140000 56678 83322
2000 140000 106642 33358
2001 140000 178702 -38702
2002 140000 173814 -33814
2003 140000 81727 58273
2004 140000 155330 -15330
2005 140000 246877 -106877
2006 140000 159081 -19081
2007 140000 162176 -22176
2008 140000 166511 -26511
Sum total of the differences from 1986 to 2008: 626,681. Vow!!!
So when looked between the period of 1986 and 2008,
there were a total of 626,681 un-used visa numbers that can be re-captured.
This is based on the BIG assumption that the yearly quota for EB categories is 140,000 from 1986 to 2008.
Does anybody know how to verify this important assumption online --a link to a gov website perhaps?
It would be good to verify when the law specifying 140,000 visa numbers per year was passed and
what were the criteria for visa number usage prior to the existence of the law.
It is clearly a well prepared format and nobody has brought this kind of helpful information to our group. We would need people like you and I am sure I will also support this if we are aggressively pursuing it. But again as somebody here said in this discussion that we should be careful about the seriousness of the situation being counted by the lawmakers.
Kudos to you.
No comments:
Post a Comment