diqingshen
07-04 12:40 PM
Can we also contact compete america for their actions? Their members companies must have suffered a lot as well.
wallpaper The 00-Gundam is the title
mkumar
05-11 08:50 PM
Wrong! Stop assuming dude. People are here because they need the Green Card. We don't take an oath to renounce loyalties when we get it. Of course your intention is clear and I am thankful that we Indians don't need to count on you. Of course, its interesting that you are quite happy being a US Citizen when it's the US which has called the LTTE a terrorist organization. Hmm, I hope you did your research. Anyway, too late. We don't need you anymore in India and like I said earlier, good riddance. All the best!
Thanks for being the self-designated, unpaid spokesperson for "we indians" and keeping track of accountable indians :)
Thanks for being the self-designated, unpaid spokesperson for "we indians" and keeping track of accountable indians :)
ronhira
01-13 08:28 PM
how'll this affect those on ead or ac21...... it seems that this has no affect on us if we r using ead with the sponsoring employer or ac21 employer..... is that correct?
2011 more quotes about homework.
ujjvalkoul
08-30 11:14 AM
Once you get ur Canadian PR, how long can we "not go" to canada. Will the PR expire if we do not land in canada??
more...
lazycis
02-12 10:33 PM
Educate yourself, check these out:
http://www.ailf.org/lac/asylee_adjustment.asp
http://www.uscis.gov/vgn-ext-templating/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=1dc6aca797e63110VgnVCM10000047 18190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=1dc6aca797e63110VgnVCM1000004718190a RCRD
http://www.ailf.org/lac/asylee_adjustment.asp
http://www.uscis.gov/vgn-ext-templating/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=1dc6aca797e63110VgnVCM10000047 18190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=1dc6aca797e63110VgnVCM1000004718190a RCRD
hiralal
06-03 06:20 PM
Where does one contribute to said lawsuit? If someone is willing to lead the effort, I'm willing to contribute a little money.
no idea ..to quote the Indian ambassador ..we are running and discussing like headless chicken .. why can't we have several small simultaneous campaigns ?? I guess it is time to take a vacation and come back to the forum after few days
no idea ..to quote the Indian ambassador ..we are running and discussing like headless chicken .. why can't we have several small simultaneous campaigns ?? I guess it is time to take a vacation and come back to the forum after few days
more...
EB-VoiceImmigration
01-15 03:18 AM
i will certainly comment on this gcperm issue. I mean who is this guy ?? Has he messed up you peoples mind so bad that you keep seeing him everywhere. I mean what has he said that was so bad that you guys start frothing at you mouth and behaving like this.
:d:d:d:d
:d:d:d:d
2010 johnny depp 1980
Legal
07-24 07:10 PM
Have some more comments from Atty Ron. Might be interesting to discuss if already not brought up.
"Some thoughts on India E2 movement over the next two months.
More and more, I see people posting messages containing the unspoken assumption that since the Indian E2 cutoff date has moved forward, it is likely to move forward further in the coming months. This is a false hope.
Even with a cutoff date in early 2003, the CIS has sufficient inventory of Indian E2 adjustments on file to use up the remaining inventory of E2 visas for this fiscal year. The reason that the Visa Office advanced the priority date is to move it up to the point where overseas consular posts can take up the slack left by the CIS's inability to close out enough cases and avoid wasting visas this year.
The CIS inventory of pending cases is massive. If there were no quota at all - if everyone were suddenly "current" - and no new cases were filed after today, it would still take the CIS four to five years to close out all of the pending cases that they already have in their inventory.
Overseas consular posts maintain inventories of cases as well. When the priority date for a particular case starts to edge forward and it appears that the applicant may become "current' in the not too distant future, the applicant is told to submit all required supporting documents to the post or the NVC. When this is done, the applicant is reported to the Visa Office as being "documentarily qualified." This means that the case is in a position where an immigrant visa can be issued to the applicant as soon as a visa number becomes available.
The inventory of documentarily qualified cases with current priority dates at a consular post never exceeds that post's ability to process all such cases within sixty days. Consular posts have very high bandwidth processing capabilities. No matter how many cases become current, they are able to process all of them within sixty days.
The reason that the Indian E2 cutoff date has moved forward is that the Visa Office fears that the CIS will not be able to adjudicate enough adjustment of status applications to exhaust the annual quota. They have advanced the cutoff date in order to make more cases overseas eligible for final processing.
This means that overseas consular posts have exhausted their inventories of Indian E2 cases with priority dates earlier than 2006 and the Visa Office had to move the cutoff date forward in order to make more cases eligible to be closed out.
This does not mean that the CIS has closed out all of the pre-2006 cases pending in their inventory. Far from it. When the new fiscal year starts, Indian E2 is likely to retrogress back to late 2002 or early 2003. This is roughly the point reached by the CIS in processing their inventory of pending cases.
Please understand that this is a temporary phenomenon and due entirely to the difference in the processing capabilities of the CIS and the overseas consular posts.
I hope this clarifies matters."
I am curious and have a few questions:
1. What was Ron Gotcher's prediction (if any) BEFORE the Aug bulletin came out??
2. In his long post above, he elaborates on one single theme- to avoid wastage of visa numbers, and since there are some CP cases which could be adjudicated faster, USCIS moved the dates. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING NEW HERE, everyone knows this. He is entirely silent on (a) the ACTUAL number of EB visas available for this fiscal year, (b) spillover from unused FB quota
3. He is entirely silent on vertical spill over policy changing to horizontal spill over policy. Even without spillover, some minimum numbers will be available in October for EB2-I from the new fiscal year's quota.
4. He is not giving any credible explanation on why the dates will move back to 2002-3 despite declaring there is a massive inventory? What are the numbers he has on this massive inventory? If there is such a massive inventory of pending EB-2 cases, and every one knows this, no one will be speculating like this.
"Some thoughts on India E2 movement over the next two months.
More and more, I see people posting messages containing the unspoken assumption that since the Indian E2 cutoff date has moved forward, it is likely to move forward further in the coming months. This is a false hope.
Even with a cutoff date in early 2003, the CIS has sufficient inventory of Indian E2 adjustments on file to use up the remaining inventory of E2 visas for this fiscal year. The reason that the Visa Office advanced the priority date is to move it up to the point where overseas consular posts can take up the slack left by the CIS's inability to close out enough cases and avoid wasting visas this year.
The CIS inventory of pending cases is massive. If there were no quota at all - if everyone were suddenly "current" - and no new cases were filed after today, it would still take the CIS four to five years to close out all of the pending cases that they already have in their inventory.
Overseas consular posts maintain inventories of cases as well. When the priority date for a particular case starts to edge forward and it appears that the applicant may become "current' in the not too distant future, the applicant is told to submit all required supporting documents to the post or the NVC. When this is done, the applicant is reported to the Visa Office as being "documentarily qualified." This means that the case is in a position where an immigrant visa can be issued to the applicant as soon as a visa number becomes available.
The inventory of documentarily qualified cases with current priority dates at a consular post never exceeds that post's ability to process all such cases within sixty days. Consular posts have very high bandwidth processing capabilities. No matter how many cases become current, they are able to process all of them within sixty days.
The reason that the Indian E2 cutoff date has moved forward is that the Visa Office fears that the CIS will not be able to adjudicate enough adjustment of status applications to exhaust the annual quota. They have advanced the cutoff date in order to make more cases overseas eligible for final processing.
This means that overseas consular posts have exhausted their inventories of Indian E2 cases with priority dates earlier than 2006 and the Visa Office had to move the cutoff date forward in order to make more cases eligible to be closed out.
This does not mean that the CIS has closed out all of the pre-2006 cases pending in their inventory. Far from it. When the new fiscal year starts, Indian E2 is likely to retrogress back to late 2002 or early 2003. This is roughly the point reached by the CIS in processing their inventory of pending cases.
Please understand that this is a temporary phenomenon and due entirely to the difference in the processing capabilities of the CIS and the overseas consular posts.
I hope this clarifies matters."
I am curious and have a few questions:
1. What was Ron Gotcher's prediction (if any) BEFORE the Aug bulletin came out??
2. In his long post above, he elaborates on one single theme- to avoid wastage of visa numbers, and since there are some CP cases which could be adjudicated faster, USCIS moved the dates. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING NEW HERE, everyone knows this. He is entirely silent on (a) the ACTUAL number of EB visas available for this fiscal year, (b) spillover from unused FB quota
3. He is entirely silent on vertical spill over policy changing to horizontal spill over policy. Even without spillover, some minimum numbers will be available in October for EB2-I from the new fiscal year's quota.
4. He is not giving any credible explanation on why the dates will move back to 2002-3 despite declaring there is a massive inventory? What are the numbers he has on this massive inventory? If there is such a massive inventory of pending EB-2 cases, and every one knows this, no one will be speculating like this.
more...
user1205
02-12 02:54 PM
Also keep in mind all the people with old PDs that filed 140 and 485 at the same time and are now stuck in the 140 mess. As soon as that starts clearing out there will be a lot more demand for GC. I'm afraid we'll have to wait for some more time before it moves forward.
hair Jack amp; Sally detail
Jerrome
09-15 12:13 PM
This is the monthwise total for Only PERM for India for year 2005 and 2006.
Month EB (INDIA) # Approved
Jan,05 0
Feb,05 0
Mar,05 1
Apr,05 24
May,05 133
June,05 535
July,05 794
Aug,05 1313
Sep,05 1316
Oct,05 1212
Nov,05 1541
Dec,05 1771
Jan,06 1788
Feb,06 1729
Mar,06 2224
Apr,06 1635
May,06 1876
June,06 1902
July,06 1574
Aug,06 1317
Sep,06 963
PERM 2005 (All EB2+EB3) for India is 8640
PERM upto Sep 2006 (2+3) for india is 15008
So the movement depends on the spillover to EB2 india. I assume if it is in the range of 15 to 20K then it will move upto mid of 2006 by end of 2010 for sure.
If the spill over is in the range > 20K to EB2 india then it will go to September 2006.
Year, TOT_LBRS, Certified, LBR_INDIA PD_>_10/1/2001
2000 074048 70204 ????? 0
2001 082139 77921 ????? 0
2002 089168 79784 ????? 7873
2003 095299 62912 ????? 25956
2004 098866 43582 ????? 26569
2005 014253 06133 01350 6133
2006 105960 79782 22298 79782
2007 098753 85112 24573 85112
2008 061997 21092 07198 21092
Total 720483 526522 55419 252517
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum2-retrogression-priority-dates-and-visa-bulletins/23813-perm-labor-data-analysis.html
In 2005 there are a total of 01350 labors certified only for India.
In 2006 there are a total of 22298 labors certified only for India.
The other important thing here to note down is there are many outsourcing companies out there filed/filing GCs for their so called managers in EB1 category.
Month EB (INDIA) # Approved
Jan,05 0
Feb,05 0
Mar,05 1
Apr,05 24
May,05 133
June,05 535
July,05 794
Aug,05 1313
Sep,05 1316
Oct,05 1212
Nov,05 1541
Dec,05 1771
Jan,06 1788
Feb,06 1729
Mar,06 2224
Apr,06 1635
May,06 1876
June,06 1902
July,06 1574
Aug,06 1317
Sep,06 963
PERM 2005 (All EB2+EB3) for India is 8640
PERM upto Sep 2006 (2+3) for india is 15008
So the movement depends on the spillover to EB2 india. I assume if it is in the range of 15 to 20K then it will move upto mid of 2006 by end of 2010 for sure.
If the spill over is in the range > 20K to EB2 india then it will go to September 2006.
Year, TOT_LBRS, Certified, LBR_INDIA PD_>_10/1/2001
2000 074048 70204 ????? 0
2001 082139 77921 ????? 0
2002 089168 79784 ????? 7873
2003 095299 62912 ????? 25956
2004 098866 43582 ????? 26569
2005 014253 06133 01350 6133
2006 105960 79782 22298 79782
2007 098753 85112 24573 85112
2008 061997 21092 07198 21092
Total 720483 526522 55419 252517
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum2-retrogression-priority-dates-and-visa-bulletins/23813-perm-labor-data-analysis.html
In 2005 there are a total of 01350 labors certified only for India.
In 2006 there are a total of 22298 labors certified only for India.
The other important thing here to note down is there are many outsourcing companies out there filed/filing GCs for their so called managers in EB1 category.
more...
acecupid
07-17 11:21 AM
It is a "permanent" policy. There was no change in the law. USCIS was interpreting the law incorrectly. Now they have corrected themselves with the congressional input. This will not change.
There could of course be a new law and then things might change.
The was no change in law and still there was a change in interpretation based on the current state of EB2, so this interpretation will change once some other category needs spill overs. The is no law which states spill over should be horizonal or vertical or diagonal :) It merely says that DOS can decide how the spill overs should flow.
There could of course be a new law and then things might change.
The was no change in law and still there was a change in interpretation based on the current state of EB2, so this interpretation will change once some other category needs spill overs. The is no law which states spill over should be horizonal or vertical or diagonal :) It merely says that DOS can decide how the spill overs should flow.
hot carmelo anthony chicago bulls
unitednations
02-14 04:00 PM
The entire discussion by EB3-ROW guys want to preserve those recaptured unused numbers in 2000 only for EB3-ROW for ever. As I mentioned earlier, the purpose of that recapture is to eliminate backlog in 1999. India and China were only the two countries backlogged at that point. USCIS could do that job only in 2005. You guys want a controlled allocation of recaptured numbers for years and years with the simple intension of EB3-ROW always should be current. I understand that urge. However, you guys forget the reality. EB3 demand is huge due to 245i. The real demand for EB2 always very less. (The real demand for EB2 is when EB3 were current). Now everyone is going to EB2. I feel that is the reason why EB2-India and China getting penalized as DOS took the law in their own hand. Now EB2 guys are victimized. Do not blame India and China took more numbers. The real fact is EB3-ROW is enjoying with the expense of EB2.
Furthermore all this mess is due cumulative results allowing 245i without increasing visa numbers (this is major one), failure of DOL in processing LC in time, USCIS inefficiency, dealy in processing 485 due to 911, abuse in labor substitution, abuse of massive filing of GC by body shoppers with out a bonafide permanent positions or ability to pay, opening a firms in fast labor processing states just to file GC etc. The list for this mess is end less. No one wants to fix that. If they fix everything, there will be less demand for EB3 visas. Furthermore some thing can not be fixed. One can not request/litigate DOL or USCIS to process the LC or 485 fast. Therefore, everyone in EB3 has to wait. Other option is to educate the law makers the problems due to this mess to fix those. Everyone wants CIR/SKIL bill and no one wants to fix the current system and abuse. So, one has to wait, wait, wait..
I have come across many people in the last few years from all sorts of countries. Russian, Korean, African, British, Brazilian, Colombian, etc,; although everyone wants their greencards yesterday; it appears to me that the indian nationals are the most hungry for it. It is a generalization but I am just speaking from my experience on this.
How do you know what the "intention" was of the lawmakers that recaptured visas are supposed to go to the retrogressed countries. If that was the case they would have gotten rid of the 7% limitation along with the recapture.
Most people who come on h-1b are Chines and indian. There was also close to 200,000 visitor visas approved in 2005 from India. Makes sense because there is a lot of population there. However; it would be short sited to think that there are minimal 245i applicants from India. There actually is a very large number of them. The biggest status violators are people who come on visitor visas from non visa waiver countries. The status violators either get greencard through marriage or through 245i.
Although as a business person I look at skill rather then nationality; I do know enough about immigration that there is a good purpose behind country limits. Foreign nationals will prefer their own people for h-1b; they will look for their friends, cousins, brothers, sisters, wives, relatives, etc. and bring their own country people here. Therefore, it is not an "open market" on skill people from all parts of the world. The country quota is the equalizer because of this.
The cultural aspect of south asians is also hurting retrogression. Most people who come here on H-1b are out of school and generally single. People from non south asian countries or muslim countries will find their spouse here. However, someone on h-1b from south asian country or muslim country will get arranged marriage after being here for 4 to 6 years and then spouse gets counted against the quota at the expense of a skilled worker who may have had a later date. I a m not saying this is wrong because it is a cultural issue but is confined to certain countries.
Regarding eb2 and eb3. This is also something that is quite comical. This is an area where immigration law hasn't kept up business practices. Pre H-1b you got greencard upon initial entry into USA. Department of labor rules were that you couldn't use the experience gained by your sponsor. It was never envisioned that people would come here on h-1b and hop/skip between employers. It has caused an end run around what the DOL rules were supposed to be. You shouldn't be able to gain experience in USA and then use that unfair advantage to knock out an american for that job. EB2 and EB3 differentiation would go away if you couldn't use the experience gained in USA. Just about everyone would be in eb3. Anyone who is here on h-1b generally already has or will have 5 years of experience and can go right to eb2.
People who are working at companies which aren't dominated by immigrants would have a difficult time satisfying themselves that the job requires a bachelors degree plus five years or masters degree. However; if you work at a staffing company you go straight to eb2 because that is what is needed to keep you there (remember, it is supposed to be the minimum requirements for the job). If software engineer or programmer analyst minimum requirement is masters or bachelors plus five then company is saying that is the "minimum" job requirements. However, if it is the "minimum" requirements then how are companies getting people here on h-1b who only have a bachelors degree?
Although people like to say "immigration system is broken" it can mean two things. From greencard wannabes; it is too much red tape, not friendly enough, etc. From other side it is broken because it is not being used as its intended purpose. You can mark my words that if/when rules are relaxed on h-1b or quota; you will see a whole bunch of enforcement with it. It actually is already happening at the consulates; department of labor and revocations of 140's by companies who are sponsoring too many people.
Furthermore all this mess is due cumulative results allowing 245i without increasing visa numbers (this is major one), failure of DOL in processing LC in time, USCIS inefficiency, dealy in processing 485 due to 911, abuse in labor substitution, abuse of massive filing of GC by body shoppers with out a bonafide permanent positions or ability to pay, opening a firms in fast labor processing states just to file GC etc. The list for this mess is end less. No one wants to fix that. If they fix everything, there will be less demand for EB3 visas. Furthermore some thing can not be fixed. One can not request/litigate DOL or USCIS to process the LC or 485 fast. Therefore, everyone in EB3 has to wait. Other option is to educate the law makers the problems due to this mess to fix those. Everyone wants CIR/SKIL bill and no one wants to fix the current system and abuse. So, one has to wait, wait, wait..
I have come across many people in the last few years from all sorts of countries. Russian, Korean, African, British, Brazilian, Colombian, etc,; although everyone wants their greencards yesterday; it appears to me that the indian nationals are the most hungry for it. It is a generalization but I am just speaking from my experience on this.
How do you know what the "intention" was of the lawmakers that recaptured visas are supposed to go to the retrogressed countries. If that was the case they would have gotten rid of the 7% limitation along with the recapture.
Most people who come on h-1b are Chines and indian. There was also close to 200,000 visitor visas approved in 2005 from India. Makes sense because there is a lot of population there. However; it would be short sited to think that there are minimal 245i applicants from India. There actually is a very large number of them. The biggest status violators are people who come on visitor visas from non visa waiver countries. The status violators either get greencard through marriage or through 245i.
Although as a business person I look at skill rather then nationality; I do know enough about immigration that there is a good purpose behind country limits. Foreign nationals will prefer their own people for h-1b; they will look for their friends, cousins, brothers, sisters, wives, relatives, etc. and bring their own country people here. Therefore, it is not an "open market" on skill people from all parts of the world. The country quota is the equalizer because of this.
The cultural aspect of south asians is also hurting retrogression. Most people who come here on H-1b are out of school and generally single. People from non south asian countries or muslim countries will find their spouse here. However, someone on h-1b from south asian country or muslim country will get arranged marriage after being here for 4 to 6 years and then spouse gets counted against the quota at the expense of a skilled worker who may have had a later date. I a m not saying this is wrong because it is a cultural issue but is confined to certain countries.
Regarding eb2 and eb3. This is also something that is quite comical. This is an area where immigration law hasn't kept up business practices. Pre H-1b you got greencard upon initial entry into USA. Department of labor rules were that you couldn't use the experience gained by your sponsor. It was never envisioned that people would come here on h-1b and hop/skip between employers. It has caused an end run around what the DOL rules were supposed to be. You shouldn't be able to gain experience in USA and then use that unfair advantage to knock out an american for that job. EB2 and EB3 differentiation would go away if you couldn't use the experience gained in USA. Just about everyone would be in eb3. Anyone who is here on h-1b generally already has or will have 5 years of experience and can go right to eb2.
People who are working at companies which aren't dominated by immigrants would have a difficult time satisfying themselves that the job requires a bachelors degree plus five years or masters degree. However; if you work at a staffing company you go straight to eb2 because that is what is needed to keep you there (remember, it is supposed to be the minimum requirements for the job). If software engineer or programmer analyst minimum requirement is masters or bachelors plus five then company is saying that is the "minimum" job requirements. However, if it is the "minimum" requirements then how are companies getting people here on h-1b who only have a bachelors degree?
Although people like to say "immigration system is broken" it can mean two things. From greencard wannabes; it is too much red tape, not friendly enough, etc. From other side it is broken because it is not being used as its intended purpose. You can mark my words that if/when rules are relaxed on h-1b or quota; you will see a whole bunch of enforcement with it. It actually is already happening at the consulates; department of labor and revocations of 140's by companies who are sponsoring too many people.
more...
house By KaraRules · March 5,
BECsufferer
04-01 12:58 PM
If Imran khan has come in to politics why not Azharuddin ?
We can keep guessing but you know who is the right guy ,
:D:D:D
I remeber how brutal Imran used to be to Indian openers with his deadly in-swinger. Those were days of good cricket ... a classy cricket. Outside cricket Imran still commands respect for being honorable and honest person.
On other hand our Azhar is one of those who will sell his own mother for money. A disgrace to cricket world. Comparing him to Imran is like comparing Lion in Jungle to a Hyenna ( no disrespect to reading Hyenna).
Few years back bunch of cricketers originating from AP here in MI sponsored him and his wife to visit here. I was invited by come and shake hand and photograph with this bookie and his beautiful wife. Majority of people having self-respect politely rejected the invitation. Now I hear he is trying to become bookie in New Delhi. Good Luck!
We can keep guessing but you know who is the right guy ,
:D:D:D
I remeber how brutal Imran used to be to Indian openers with his deadly in-swinger. Those were days of good cricket ... a classy cricket. Outside cricket Imran still commands respect for being honorable and honest person.
On other hand our Azhar is one of those who will sell his own mother for money. A disgrace to cricket world. Comparing him to Imran is like comparing Lion in Jungle to a Hyenna ( no disrespect to reading Hyenna).
Few years back bunch of cricketers originating from AP here in MI sponsored him and his wife to visit here. I was invited by come and shake hand and photograph with this bookie and his beautiful wife. Majority of people having self-respect politely rejected the invitation. Now I hear he is trying to become bookie in New Delhi. Good Luck!
tattoo A visualization of the network
Marphad
04-01 12:48 PM
Calm down everyone.
The thread was posted in a seperate area we have created for such posts. As Marphad said, you cannot discuss immigration all day. IV is a platform for everyone in the community to be together. If you just talk about immigration, we may not get the number of people we need for action items. When we start action items to make calls, send faxes etc, we want people sending it in thousands and not hundreds. It hurt us last year when we had such action items and participation was thin. If we make the forums strictly to discuss immigration it will hurt us in time of need when we will desperately need massive participation. This is part of a plan in moving forward for IV and we are building a platform for immigrants to come and stay here and consider it as their home. This work is still under process and you will see its fruits when we have a big bill like CIR. There is a possibility of CIR after August and we need to be ready for it. We are hearing health care reform coming before CIR at this time. There is pressure from CHC and it will be tough to ignore.
So do not get emotional and start fighting. It is tme to be united and increase the membership of our community. We will need to burn the phone lines and jam the fax machines with our participation when the time comes.
I have deleted my post on this thread. As an administrator I represent IV and I will keep in mind not to air my personal views on politics as they can be misinterpreted as IV's views.
Thanks.
You may use your other handle on IV ;).
The thread was posted in a seperate area we have created for such posts. As Marphad said, you cannot discuss immigration all day. IV is a platform for everyone in the community to be together. If you just talk about immigration, we may not get the number of people we need for action items. When we start action items to make calls, send faxes etc, we want people sending it in thousands and not hundreds. It hurt us last year when we had such action items and participation was thin. If we make the forums strictly to discuss immigration it will hurt us in time of need when we will desperately need massive participation. This is part of a plan in moving forward for IV and we are building a platform for immigrants to come and stay here and consider it as their home. This work is still under process and you will see its fruits when we have a big bill like CIR. There is a possibility of CIR after August and we need to be ready for it. We are hearing health care reform coming before CIR at this time. There is pressure from CHC and it will be tough to ignore.
So do not get emotional and start fighting. It is tme to be united and increase the membership of our community. We will need to burn the phone lines and jam the fax machines with our participation when the time comes.
I have deleted my post on this thread. As an administrator I represent IV and I will keep in mind not to air my personal views on politics as they can be misinterpreted as IV's views.
Thanks.
You may use your other handle on IV ;).
more...
pictures flower tattoo outline
saketkapur
07-15 07:42 PM
Hi
I filed my I-485 in July last year. My PD is EB2-Feb 2007. I could not file for my wife since she is pursuing her medical residency on a J1 visa with the 2 year HRR requirement.
My queries are as follows:
1. For the interfiling to happen does she need to be done with her J1 waiver or even when she is pursuing it as that is a H1B visa and I will be the principal applicant?
3. If I get my green card before she is done with her waiver then can I still file for her later or will her case then be treated as a family based petition?
I will really appreciate if you can provide some insight regarding the same.
regards
Saket Kapur
I filed my I-485 in July last year. My PD is EB2-Feb 2007. I could not file for my wife since she is pursuing her medical residency on a J1 visa with the 2 year HRR requirement.
My queries are as follows:
1. For the interfiling to happen does she need to be done with her J1 waiver or even when she is pursuing it as that is a H1B visa and I will be the principal applicant?
3. If I get my green card before she is done with her waiver then can I still file for her later or will her case then be treated as a family based petition?
I will really appreciate if you can provide some insight regarding the same.
regards
Saket Kapur
dresses Revived King Ha Des/?
eager_immi
07-11 01:57 PM
Well said, forget the premiums if you fall sick you know there is constant co-pay for both doctors and medication, then lot of insurance you are covered only 80% till you hit some 3000 out of pocket, so you need to add that as well. Please watch SICKO (ofcourse canada has more wait time but that is bc 20% of the people in the US are unisured and they are not in the queue so that automatically reduces the wait time in the US)
Every time I hear "Canadian taxes are so much higher", I respond back with "really ? how much are you paying a month for health insurance?". I suggest a typical breadwinner with spouse + 2 dependents is probably paying $500 / mo + in health insurance premiums. Add that $6K / yr to your US tax bill, then compare it to your Canadian tax bill. ;)
- GS
Every time I hear "Canadian taxes are so much higher", I respond back with "really ? how much are you paying a month for health insurance?". I suggest a typical breadwinner with spouse + 2 dependents is probably paying $500 / mo + in health insurance premiums. Add that $6K / yr to your US tax bill, then compare it to your Canadian tax bill. ;)
- GS
more...
makeup Love+quotes+for+him+long+
gc28262
01-19 11:18 AM
deleted distasteful contents ..........................
victimOfGc seems to be an expert in the other business !
victimOfGc seems to be an expert in the other business !
girlfriend nicole richie virgin tattoo
hazishak
02-15 10:48 PM
I beleive that there should be more representation of people from other countries in desi companies, but when more number of desis apply for jobs. Is it any fault of the company is they are hiring only them?.
In other words, they dont mind getting screwed by desi company.
In other words, they dont mind getting screwed by desi company.
hairstyles The Coolest Celtic Tattoo
Lasantha
12-14 03:45 PM
Good summary but let me also add the observation that eliminating the per country quota alone will not bring the desired benefit unless the following are also implemneted
1) Increase of the total EB quota
2) Exclude dependents from the quota
3) Re-capture unused visas from past years.
To summarize the discussions on this thread:
Yes, it is 7 % for all countries.
Now it is manifestly obvious that the 7 % figure is arbitrary, and not fair. That much we can all agree on.
The real question, as raised in the first post of the thread by soljabhai is:
(A) Is that constitutional?
(B) (And this is the real question): If it is, what should we do about it?
Intelligent questions, both.
The answer to (A) is not clear. We need a competent constitutional expert to opine on the matter.
For (B), (which is what the thread is really all about), there are lively discussions with differing views.
lazycis has presented good evidence that the case is not cut and dried legally. It might be unfair, but those are the laws.
mbartosik, alterego, me and others have argued (from different angles) in terms of pragmatism. (Cost is not worth the benefit)
garybanz, soljabhai, and others have argued that it is worth it (Cost is worth the benefit).
Anyway, agree or disagree, its an interesting thread with interesting posts..
1) Increase of the total EB quota
2) Exclude dependents from the quota
3) Re-capture unused visas from past years.
To summarize the discussions on this thread:
Yes, it is 7 % for all countries.
Now it is manifestly obvious that the 7 % figure is arbitrary, and not fair. That much we can all agree on.
The real question, as raised in the first post of the thread by soljabhai is:
(A) Is that constitutional?
(B) (And this is the real question): If it is, what should we do about it?
Intelligent questions, both.
The answer to (A) is not clear. We need a competent constitutional expert to opine on the matter.
For (B), (which is what the thread is really all about), there are lively discussions with differing views.
lazycis has presented good evidence that the case is not cut and dried legally. It might be unfair, but those are the laws.
mbartosik, alterego, me and others have argued (from different angles) in terms of pragmatism. (Cost is not worth the benefit)
garybanz, soljabhai, and others have argued that it is worth it (Cost is worth the benefit).
Anyway, agree or disagree, its an interesting thread with interesting posts..
lazycis
02-14 12:58 PM
Galvez v. Howerton 503 F. Supp. 35, 39 (C.D. Cal. 1980)
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showpost.php?p=1838094&postcount=14843
"Plaintiffs herein allege that officials of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) have engaged in affirmative misconduct in failing to process their applications for adjustment of status to that of permanent resident aliens. They seek a court order compelling the defendants to issue them appropriate visa numbers."
"Where there has been affirmative misconduct on the part of the INS, the United States may be estopped to deny the availability of visas to those otherwise eligible but for the government's acts. See Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Hibi, 414 U.S. 5, 8-9, 94 S. Ct. 19, 21-22, 38 L. Ed. 2d 7 (1973); see also Villena v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 622 F.2d 1352 (9th Cir. 1980) (en banc); Santiago v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 526 F.2d 488, 492-93 (9th Cir. 1975) (en banc), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 971, 96 S. Ct. 2167, 48 L. Ed. 2d 794 (1976). The central inquiry here is the determination whether or not the conduct of the INS, including the failure of the INS officials to understand the applicable law, the improper rejection of plaintiffs' visa applications on two occasions, and the ensuing delay, constitute affirmative misconduct.
It is the duty of the agency to inform itself of the law which Congress has authorized it to enforce. The INS admits that its personnel were not familiar with the current statute applicable to plaintiffs' visa eligibility and thus erred in returning [**8] the plaintiffs' applications on the basis of a misinterpretation of the relevant law. This failure to act in accordance with law is an aspect of the agency's affirmative misconduct which the Court cannot overlook. Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. � 706(2)(A) (agency action to be set aside where "not in accordance with law").
Another aspect of the present misconduct relates to the agency's failure to fulfill a statutory duty. The INS has a statutory obligation to issue visas to qualified applicants to the full extent of the annual quota limits established by Congress. 6 The legislative history of the Immigration & Naturalization Act indicates that this duty has not been left to agency discretion, see S.Rep. No. 748, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. reprinted in (1965) U.S.Code Cong. & [*39] Ad.News, pp. 3328, 3337-38, but is obligatory upon the agency. "
"IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, and defendants' [**14] Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. The Court orders the defendant Secretary of State to issue A.T. Cortes and E. Cortes Fifth Preference visa numbers and to charge them to the 1979 visa allotments"
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showpost.php?p=1838094&postcount=14843
"Plaintiffs herein allege that officials of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) have engaged in affirmative misconduct in failing to process their applications for adjustment of status to that of permanent resident aliens. They seek a court order compelling the defendants to issue them appropriate visa numbers."
"Where there has been affirmative misconduct on the part of the INS, the United States may be estopped to deny the availability of visas to those otherwise eligible but for the government's acts. See Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Hibi, 414 U.S. 5, 8-9, 94 S. Ct. 19, 21-22, 38 L. Ed. 2d 7 (1973); see also Villena v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 622 F.2d 1352 (9th Cir. 1980) (en banc); Santiago v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 526 F.2d 488, 492-93 (9th Cir. 1975) (en banc), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 971, 96 S. Ct. 2167, 48 L. Ed. 2d 794 (1976). The central inquiry here is the determination whether or not the conduct of the INS, including the failure of the INS officials to understand the applicable law, the improper rejection of plaintiffs' visa applications on two occasions, and the ensuing delay, constitute affirmative misconduct.
It is the duty of the agency to inform itself of the law which Congress has authorized it to enforce. The INS admits that its personnel were not familiar with the current statute applicable to plaintiffs' visa eligibility and thus erred in returning [**8] the plaintiffs' applications on the basis of a misinterpretation of the relevant law. This failure to act in accordance with law is an aspect of the agency's affirmative misconduct which the Court cannot overlook. Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. � 706(2)(A) (agency action to be set aside where "not in accordance with law").
Another aspect of the present misconduct relates to the agency's failure to fulfill a statutory duty. The INS has a statutory obligation to issue visas to qualified applicants to the full extent of the annual quota limits established by Congress. 6 The legislative history of the Immigration & Naturalization Act indicates that this duty has not been left to agency discretion, see S.Rep. No. 748, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. reprinted in (1965) U.S.Code Cong. & [*39] Ad.News, pp. 3328, 3337-38, but is obligatory upon the agency. "
"IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, and defendants' [**14] Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. The Court orders the defendant Secretary of State to issue A.T. Cortes and E. Cortes Fifth Preference visa numbers and to charge them to the 1979 visa allotments"
eastwest
07-11 03:58 PM
HI,
I have filed my 485 on 8th June 2007, My 140 is approved in August 2006.
I have 2 different questions.
I have changed the job on 1st July 2008. Do I need to involve my attorney to file for AC 21? The New job title is "System Administrator" which is the same ONET CODE.
IN the while I have another offer with title as "Sr Systems Analyst".
My labor was applied as "Network Engineer" ONET code 15-1071. Can I switch to a job with title "Sr. Systems Analyst" ONET Code 15-1081.00 or 15-1051.00
Thanks
I have filed my 485 on 8th June 2007, My 140 is approved in August 2006.
I have 2 different questions.
I have changed the job on 1st July 2008. Do I need to involve my attorney to file for AC 21? The New job title is "System Administrator" which is the same ONET CODE.
IN the while I have another offer with title as "Sr Systems Analyst".
My labor was applied as "Network Engineer" ONET code 15-1071. Can I switch to a job with title "Sr. Systems Analyst" ONET Code 15-1081.00 or 15-1051.00
Thanks
No comments:
Post a Comment