imcdude
11-11 10:54 AM
While Pre-approved labor is ok, the priority date of the original applicant should NOT transfer over to the beneficiary of the substituted labor. The injustice is there.
wallpaper India World Cup Cricket 2011
arunmohan
04-01 03:32 AM
Widower Zardari will be marrying Kumari Mayawati just after election to unite subcontinent and bring peace to world.
Amen!!!!!!
Amen!!!!!!
dvb123
02-15 02:46 PM
Dvb, did you read the ruling? It denies relief and says that:
"We therefore join the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits in concluding that, in the current circumstances, the language Congress used precludes the INS from issuing a visa pursuant to the DV Program for a given fiscal year upon the expiration of that fiscal year. See Nyaga, 323 F.3d at 914; Iddir v. INS, 301 F.3d 492, 501 (7th Cir. 2002).8
8. Had Coraggioso sought relief prior to the expiration of the 1998 fiscal
year, our analysis may have been different."
So this case is not helpful to us, though it is good for us to be aware of its existence.
I read the end and it was unfortunate. I was talking about visa number reservation where they can reserve visa numbers for us in the future years based on the previous mistake they did. The court can compel USCIS to give visa numbers but maybe not in the same year but in a period of several years where there can put the newly applied i-485's on hold.
"We therefore join the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits in concluding that, in the current circumstances, the language Congress used precludes the INS from issuing a visa pursuant to the DV Program for a given fiscal year upon the expiration of that fiscal year. See Nyaga, 323 F.3d at 914; Iddir v. INS, 301 F.3d 492, 501 (7th Cir. 2002).8
8. Had Coraggioso sought relief prior to the expiration of the 1998 fiscal
year, our analysis may have been different."
So this case is not helpful to us, though it is good for us to be aware of its existence.
I read the end and it was unfortunate. I was talking about visa number reservation where they can reserve visa numbers for us in the future years based on the previous mistake they did. The court can compel USCIS to give visa numbers but maybe not in the same year but in a period of several years where there can put the newly applied i-485's on hold.
2011 Cricket World Cup 2011.
msp1976
02-13 03:07 PM
The 7% is a maximum.
They do not have to go to 7% if they don't want to. However; they can't go over it; if there is more demand then supply.
What about paragraph 5 that I have posted up somewhere ???
Does that allow the 7% limit to be exceeded or not ?
they can't go over it; if there is more demand then supply.
That is why we need more supply.....Once supply is more they can go over 7%...
They do not have to go to 7% if they don't want to. However; they can't go over it; if there is more demand then supply.
What about paragraph 5 that I have posted up somewhere ???
Does that allow the 7% limit to be exceeded or not ?
they can't go over it; if there is more demand then supply.
That is why we need more supply.....Once supply is more they can go over 7%...
more...
walking_dude
02-13 01:57 PM
I know that, I was part of it. Lawsuit will require more than that amount if it gets protracted. Keeping the money angle apart, how many are ready to put their names on the plaintiff list?
We (MI chapter) tried to get two members who were impacted to participate in a lawsuit filed by another organization. It was free for them, they didn't have to pay a dime. Guess what, both of them bailed out at the last moment.
I'm not discouraging anyone here. Someone please conduct a poll on contribution pledges, and active participation. Then we will get an approximate understanding of how much we can raise, and how many are willing to have their name on the the lawsuit.
Show me the money!
But we also have members making $30K fundraising effort successful in 7 days! Hence I believe if the IV core decides to explore the possibility of a lawsuit, we can raise enough money to hire an attorney for that.
We (MI chapter) tried to get two members who were impacted to participate in a lawsuit filed by another organization. It was free for them, they didn't have to pay a dime. Guess what, both of them bailed out at the last moment.
I'm not discouraging anyone here. Someone please conduct a poll on contribution pledges, and active participation. Then we will get an approximate understanding of how much we can raise, and how many are willing to have their name on the the lawsuit.
Show me the money!
But we also have members making $30K fundraising effort successful in 7 days! Hence I believe if the IV core decides to explore the possibility of a lawsuit, we can raise enough money to hire an attorney for that.
CADude
04-18 02:49 PM
immigration-law.com
04/18/2007: Further Clarification on Pending I-140 Substitution Petitions and Proposed Substitution Elimination Rule
There are a couple of clarifications we want to make on our previous posting on this issue. The supplemental information part of a regulation is not binding, but when there is a room for interpretation on specific provisions of the rule itself, it gives a guidance to the interpretation. In this regards, for now, the correction to our previous interpretation should stand. Secondly, there is no information available about this issue in the final regulation which is expected to be released sooner or later. Whatever the final version will look, it may be prudent for the employers with the certified labor certification applications to file the substitution I-140 petitions as soon as possible before the final rule is released.
04/18/2007: Clarification and Correction of Scope of Validity of Substitution of Approved Labor Certifications Under the Proposed Substitution Elimination Rule
The final rule to eliminate the substitution is expected to be released in the near future. One question that raises the body heat has been the pending I-140 substitution petitions which have yet to be approved. Under the proposed regulation, there was a provision that the substitution approved at the time of enactment of the final rule will not be affected by the elimination rule. We previously interpreted the language "substitution approved" would include the approved I-140 substitution petitions and would not include the pending I-140 substitution petitions.
We want to correct such interpretation. The substitution approved under the proposed rule appears to mean the substitution approved by the DOL and not necessarily the I-140 substitution approval. Accordingly, if the I-140 has been filed and is pending at the time enactment of the final rule, such case should not be affected by the elimination rule and remain valid. This is made clear by the following supplemental information to the proposed regulaation:
Substitution of alien beneficiaries will be prohibited as of the effective date of a final rule resulting from this NPRM and that prohibition will apply to all pending permanent labor certification applications and to approved certifications not yet filed with DHS, whether the application was filed under the prior or current regulation. This regulatory change would not affect substitutions approved prior to the final rule's effective date.
We stand corrected on this change.
04/18/2007: Further Clarification on Pending I-140 Substitution Petitions and Proposed Substitution Elimination Rule
There are a couple of clarifications we want to make on our previous posting on this issue. The supplemental information part of a regulation is not binding, but when there is a room for interpretation on specific provisions of the rule itself, it gives a guidance to the interpretation. In this regards, for now, the correction to our previous interpretation should stand. Secondly, there is no information available about this issue in the final regulation which is expected to be released sooner or later. Whatever the final version will look, it may be prudent for the employers with the certified labor certification applications to file the substitution I-140 petitions as soon as possible before the final rule is released.
04/18/2007: Clarification and Correction of Scope of Validity of Substitution of Approved Labor Certifications Under the Proposed Substitution Elimination Rule
The final rule to eliminate the substitution is expected to be released in the near future. One question that raises the body heat has been the pending I-140 substitution petitions which have yet to be approved. Under the proposed regulation, there was a provision that the substitution approved at the time of enactment of the final rule will not be affected by the elimination rule. We previously interpreted the language "substitution approved" would include the approved I-140 substitution petitions and would not include the pending I-140 substitution petitions.
We want to correct such interpretation. The substitution approved under the proposed rule appears to mean the substitution approved by the DOL and not necessarily the I-140 substitution approval. Accordingly, if the I-140 has been filed and is pending at the time enactment of the final rule, such case should not be affected by the elimination rule and remain valid. This is made clear by the following supplemental information to the proposed regulaation:
Substitution of alien beneficiaries will be prohibited as of the effective date of a final rule resulting from this NPRM and that prohibition will apply to all pending permanent labor certification applications and to approved certifications not yet filed with DHS, whether the application was filed under the prior or current regulation. This regulatory change would not affect substitutions approved prior to the final rule's effective date.
We stand corrected on this change.
more...
okuzmin
07-12 12:27 PM
lordoftherings, I doubt there is a country in the world that would fit all. I also doubt such a thing as "ideal immigration policy" exists. It is always good to have a job offer before you immigrate, but it's ultimately up to the immigrant to find out what it'll take to get on his/her feet in the new country.
After reading (and watching videos of) all those sob stories on notcanada.com and the like about doctors, nurses, engineers who can't get a job or have to study for years to get a Canadian license to practice, I wonder how much of a research those folks did prior to coming to Canada. If a medical occupation requires studying for additional time and taking exams, then you should have learned about it. If engineers of your specialty are not in high demand, you can figure it out by going through Canadian job postings and contacting employers. If you are not willing to look for a job elsewhere but Toronto, then it's your problem: perhaps in Calgary the opportunities are more readily available. I have a friend in Montreal who owns an IT recruitment company. He told me that they are sending IT folks from Ontario to Alberta, since Alberta unemployment rate for IT professionals is currently at 0.5%.
Bottom line is: research for yourself, ask different people, be flexible about where you want to live in the new country (hey, it's the country's demands you need to adjust to, not the other way around!) -- this will save you from many unpleasant surprises.
After reading (and watching videos of) all those sob stories on notcanada.com and the like about doctors, nurses, engineers who can't get a job or have to study for years to get a Canadian license to practice, I wonder how much of a research those folks did prior to coming to Canada. If a medical occupation requires studying for additional time and taking exams, then you should have learned about it. If engineers of your specialty are not in high demand, you can figure it out by going through Canadian job postings and contacting employers. If you are not willing to look for a job elsewhere but Toronto, then it's your problem: perhaps in Calgary the opportunities are more readily available. I have a friend in Montreal who owns an IT recruitment company. He told me that they are sending IT folks from Ontario to Alberta, since Alberta unemployment rate for IT professionals is currently at 0.5%.
Bottom line is: research for yourself, ask different people, be flexible about where you want to live in the new country (hey, it's the country's demands you need to adjust to, not the other way around!) -- this will save you from many unpleasant surprises.
2010 world cup 2011 champions.
jayleno
09-23 11:57 AM
Sent the e-mail to the folks in my state.
more...
Jerrome
09-24 09:53 AM
I think your analysis considers EB1(ROW)+EB2(ROW) spill over to EB3(ROW) that is not true,
EB1 Overflow ---> EB2
EB2 Overflow ---> EB2(I)+EB China
That means as per your calculation, it would be 19,282 considering 0 EB1 and EB2 filled in 2010.
As i said in my previous posts EB2 would be May 2006 by end of this year for sure.
Best case scenario considering more than 30K spill over it would be end of 2006.
You are also calculating spillover as of today with the pending cases, but the spill over happens only in Last quarter of 2010. There would be some if not more EB1+EB2 ROW applicants.
Based on following link:
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/New%20Structure/2nd%20Level%20%28Left%20Nav%20Parents%29/Green%20Card%20-%202nd%20Level/Pending%20Form%20I-485%20Reports.pdf
28.6%/5 = 5.72% for EB3-India + Spillover from EB2 and EB1, not more than 10,000 of which to "Other Workers".
28.6%/5 = 5.72% for EB2-India + spillover from EB1
28.6%/5 = 5.72% for EB1-India + spillover from EB4 and EB5
Each category is 28.6% WW Quota.
WW Quota consists of 5 country specific sub-quotas 1)India 2)China 3) Mexico 4) Philipines 5)ROW.
Based on page 1, I do math as under for Philippines categories.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota for EB4 -->7% x 140000/5=1960, Pending: 70 Quota to be spilled over to EB1= 1890
2) Quota for EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 0 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1960
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 1890 + EB5 spillover 1960 = 11858 - pending 74 = Total
11784 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 11784 =19792, Pending: 510, So total 19282 VISA numbers will be spilled
over to EB3.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 19282 spill over =27290 - 11563 Pending = 15727 VISA extra.
6) “Other Workers” – Pending: 264 TOTAL UNUSED VISAS = 15727-264 = 15463 UNUSED VISAS will go to the quota
of other countries.
Based on page 3, I do math as under for ROW categories.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota for EB4 -->7% x 140000/5=1960, Pending: 1378 Quota to be spilled over to EB1= 582
2) Quota for EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 40 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1920
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 582 + EB5 spillover 1920 = 10510 - pending 2477 = Total
8033 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 8033 =16031, Pending: 7150, So total 8881 VISA numbers will be spilled
over to EB3.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 8881 spill over =16889. Pending: 62840 -16889 = 45951 applications will
still be pending and pushed to year 2011.
Based on page 4, I do math as under for China categories.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota For EB4 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 384 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1576
2) Quota For EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 13 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1947
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 1576 + EB5 spillover 1947 = 11531 - pending 607 =
Total 10924 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 10924 =18932, Pending: 19333, So total 401 applications will be pushed to
year 2011 with pending approval.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + no spillover = 8008 – 6343 Pending = 1665 visas Extra.
6) “Other Workers” – Pending: 30 TOTAL UNUSED VISAS = 1665-30 = 1635 UNUSED VISAS will go to the quota
of other countries.
Based on page 5, I do math as under for India categories.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota for EB4 -->7% x 140000/5=1960, Pending: 123 Quota to be spilled over to EB1= 1960-123 = 1837
2) Quota for EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 13 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1960-13 = 1947
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 1837 + EB5 spillover 1947 = 11792 - pending 418 = Total
11374 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 11374 =19382, Pending: 47728, So total 28346 applications will still be
pending for year 2011.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008, no spill over. Pending: 62607 -8008 = 54599 applications will still be pending
and pushed to year 2011.
Based on page 6, I do math as under for Mexico categories.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota For EB4 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 62 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1960-62=1898
2) Quota For EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 0 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1960
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 1898 + EB5 spillover 1960 = 11866 - pending 174 =
Total 11692 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 11692 =19700, Pending: 211, So total 19489 applications will spill over to
EB3 category.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 19489 spillover = 27497 – 7878 Pending = 19619 visas Extra.
6) “Other Workers” – Pending: 8415 TOTAL UNUSED VISAS = 19619-8415 = 11204 UNUSED VISAS will go to the quota
of other countries.
TOTAL UNUSED VISAS = 15463 + 1635 + 11204 = 28302.
Assuming these unused visas from Philippines, China and Mexico will be used for India, ROW equally India will benefit additional 14151 VISAS this year. Assuming all of these go to EB2 India Pushed down figure for EB2-India for the year 2011 will be 28346 – 14151 = 14195 pending EB2-I applications ready to go to year 2011.
EB1 Overflow ---> EB2
EB2 Overflow ---> EB2(I)+EB China
That means as per your calculation, it would be 19,282 considering 0 EB1 and EB2 filled in 2010.
As i said in my previous posts EB2 would be May 2006 by end of this year for sure.
Best case scenario considering more than 30K spill over it would be end of 2006.
You are also calculating spillover as of today with the pending cases, but the spill over happens only in Last quarter of 2010. There would be some if not more EB1+EB2 ROW applicants.
Based on following link:
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/New%20Structure/2nd%20Level%20%28Left%20Nav%20Parents%29/Green%20Card%20-%202nd%20Level/Pending%20Form%20I-485%20Reports.pdf
28.6%/5 = 5.72% for EB3-India + Spillover from EB2 and EB1, not more than 10,000 of which to "Other Workers".
28.6%/5 = 5.72% for EB2-India + spillover from EB1
28.6%/5 = 5.72% for EB1-India + spillover from EB4 and EB5
Each category is 28.6% WW Quota.
WW Quota consists of 5 country specific sub-quotas 1)India 2)China 3) Mexico 4) Philipines 5)ROW.
Based on page 1, I do math as under for Philippines categories.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota for EB4 -->7% x 140000/5=1960, Pending: 70 Quota to be spilled over to EB1= 1890
2) Quota for EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 0 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1960
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 1890 + EB5 spillover 1960 = 11858 - pending 74 = Total
11784 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 11784 =19792, Pending: 510, So total 19282 VISA numbers will be spilled
over to EB3.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 19282 spill over =27290 - 11563 Pending = 15727 VISA extra.
6) “Other Workers” – Pending: 264 TOTAL UNUSED VISAS = 15727-264 = 15463 UNUSED VISAS will go to the quota
of other countries.
Based on page 3, I do math as under for ROW categories.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota for EB4 -->7% x 140000/5=1960, Pending: 1378 Quota to be spilled over to EB1= 582
2) Quota for EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 40 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1920
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 582 + EB5 spillover 1920 = 10510 - pending 2477 = Total
8033 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 8033 =16031, Pending: 7150, So total 8881 VISA numbers will be spilled
over to EB3.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 8881 spill over =16889. Pending: 62840 -16889 = 45951 applications will
still be pending and pushed to year 2011.
Based on page 4, I do math as under for China categories.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota For EB4 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 384 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1576
2) Quota For EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 13 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1947
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 1576 + EB5 spillover 1947 = 11531 - pending 607 =
Total 10924 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 10924 =18932, Pending: 19333, So total 401 applications will be pushed to
year 2011 with pending approval.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + no spillover = 8008 – 6343 Pending = 1665 visas Extra.
6) “Other Workers” – Pending: 30 TOTAL UNUSED VISAS = 1665-30 = 1635 UNUSED VISAS will go to the quota
of other countries.
Based on page 5, I do math as under for India categories.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota for EB4 -->7% x 140000/5=1960, Pending: 123 Quota to be spilled over to EB1= 1960-123 = 1837
2) Quota for EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 13 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1960-13 = 1947
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 1837 + EB5 spillover 1947 = 11792 - pending 418 = Total
11374 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 11374 =19382, Pending: 47728, So total 28346 applications will still be
pending for year 2011.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008, no spill over. Pending: 62607 -8008 = 54599 applications will still be pending
and pushed to year 2011.
Based on page 6, I do math as under for Mexico categories.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota For EB4 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 62 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1960-62=1898
2) Quota For EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 0 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1960
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 1898 + EB5 spillover 1960 = 11866 - pending 174 =
Total 11692 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 11692 =19700, Pending: 211, So total 19489 applications will spill over to
EB3 category.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 19489 spillover = 27497 – 7878 Pending = 19619 visas Extra.
6) “Other Workers” – Pending: 8415 TOTAL UNUSED VISAS = 19619-8415 = 11204 UNUSED VISAS will go to the quota
of other countries.
TOTAL UNUSED VISAS = 15463 + 1635 + 11204 = 28302.
Assuming these unused visas from Philippines, China and Mexico will be used for India, ROW equally India will benefit additional 14151 VISAS this year. Assuming all of these go to EB2 India Pushed down figure for EB2-India for the year 2011 will be 28346 – 14151 = 14195 pending EB2-I applications ready to go to year 2011.
hair ICC Cricket World Cup 2011
snthampi
07-30 01:16 PM
By the way did buy any of the stuff from them later on. I mean u r that close to them.
Or just close to her?:D
Or just close to her?:D
more...
poorslumdog
05-03 02:00 AM
singala racist won't say jai hind... try to come out of that well
Jaihind
Good try....try something else now..=:)
Jaihind
Good try....try something else now..=:)
hot world cup 2011 champions.
CADude
04-18 02:49 PM
immigration-law.com
04/18/2007: Further Clarification on Pending I-140 Substitution Petitions and Proposed Substitution Elimination Rule
There are a couple of clarifications we want to make on our previous posting on this issue. The supplemental information part of a regulation is not binding, but when there is a room for interpretation on specific provisions of the rule itself, it gives a guidance to the interpretation. In this regards, for now, the correction to our previous interpretation should stand. Secondly, there is no information available about this issue in the final regulation which is expected to be released sooner or later. Whatever the final version will look, it may be prudent for the employers with the certified labor certification applications to file the substitution I-140 petitions as soon as possible before the final rule is released.
04/18/2007: Clarification and Correction of Scope of Validity of Substitution of Approved Labor Certifications Under the Proposed Substitution Elimination Rule
The final rule to eliminate the substitution is expected to be released in the near future. One question that raises the body heat has been the pending I-140 substitution petitions which have yet to be approved. Under the proposed regulation, there was a provision that the substitution approved at the time of enactment of the final rule will not be affected by the elimination rule. We previously interpreted the language "substitution approved" would include the approved I-140 substitution petitions and would not include the pending I-140 substitution petitions.
We want to correct such interpretation. The substitution approved under the proposed rule appears to mean the substitution approved by the DOL and not necessarily the I-140 substitution approval. Accordingly, if the I-140 has been filed and is pending at the time enactment of the final rule, such case should not be affected by the elimination rule and remain valid. This is made clear by the following supplemental information to the proposed regulaation:
Substitution of alien beneficiaries will be prohibited as of the effective date of a final rule resulting from this NPRM and that prohibition will apply to all pending permanent labor certification applications and to approved certifications not yet filed with DHS, whether the application was filed under the prior or current regulation. This regulatory change would not affect substitutions approved prior to the final rule's effective date.
We stand corrected on this change.
04/18/2007: Further Clarification on Pending I-140 Substitution Petitions and Proposed Substitution Elimination Rule
There are a couple of clarifications we want to make on our previous posting on this issue. The supplemental information part of a regulation is not binding, but when there is a room for interpretation on specific provisions of the rule itself, it gives a guidance to the interpretation. In this regards, for now, the correction to our previous interpretation should stand. Secondly, there is no information available about this issue in the final regulation which is expected to be released sooner or later. Whatever the final version will look, it may be prudent for the employers with the certified labor certification applications to file the substitution I-140 petitions as soon as possible before the final rule is released.
04/18/2007: Clarification and Correction of Scope of Validity of Substitution of Approved Labor Certifications Under the Proposed Substitution Elimination Rule
The final rule to eliminate the substitution is expected to be released in the near future. One question that raises the body heat has been the pending I-140 substitution petitions which have yet to be approved. Under the proposed regulation, there was a provision that the substitution approved at the time of enactment of the final rule will not be affected by the elimination rule. We previously interpreted the language "substitution approved" would include the approved I-140 substitution petitions and would not include the pending I-140 substitution petitions.
We want to correct such interpretation. The substitution approved under the proposed rule appears to mean the substitution approved by the DOL and not necessarily the I-140 substitution approval. Accordingly, if the I-140 has been filed and is pending at the time enactment of the final rule, such case should not be affected by the elimination rule and remain valid. This is made clear by the following supplemental information to the proposed regulaation:
Substitution of alien beneficiaries will be prohibited as of the effective date of a final rule resulting from this NPRM and that prohibition will apply to all pending permanent labor certification applications and to approved certifications not yet filed with DHS, whether the application was filed under the prior or current regulation. This regulatory change would not affect substitutions approved prior to the final rule's effective date.
We stand corrected on this change.
more...
house Cricket World Cup Champions
krishmunn
06-15 01:17 PM
What is your solution to remove retrogession. Recapture bill may fetch you gc but not for all persons and after 1 or 2 years again backlog will increase to similar level. Permanent solution will be increase annual gc numbers and restrict H1b and L1 based on requirement. You are not going to get unlimited GC numbers any time but L1 numbers are unlimited(about 80k in 2007) and H1b numbers were 125K in 2007. In this situation if there is annual cap retrogession is going to become worse if atleast 50% of H1bs apply for GC every year.
This year numbers were much less due to recession,rfes and denials. But due to 195k H1bs issued upto 2003 Eb3 will not improve for another 2 years.
"H1B numbers were 125K in 2007"
Holly cow ! I always thought H1B cap is set to 65K (except for a few years in early 2000) :-)
The 125K which you mentioned is popularly used by anti-immigrant lobbys to push their argument. It includes all H1B transfers NOT only the fresh H1.
So, if X get his H1 in 2006 and change to a new company in 2007 , you will count X against 2006 as well as 2007 giving a false number. However, if X applies for a GC, it is not 2X applying for GC --- just X .
Recapture bill will help a lot in clearing the backlog. For future EB GC, if the dependents are not counted for immigrant visa, it will be much cleaner. Not all L1 and H1 apply for GC. Mostly the major Indian IT companies DO NOT sponsor GC (and as you know they are the major users of L1).
This year numbers were much less due to recession,rfes and denials. But due to 195k H1bs issued upto 2003 Eb3 will not improve for another 2 years.
"H1B numbers were 125K in 2007"
Holly cow ! I always thought H1B cap is set to 65K (except for a few years in early 2000) :-)
The 125K which you mentioned is popularly used by anti-immigrant lobbys to push their argument. It includes all H1B transfers NOT only the fresh H1.
So, if X get his H1 in 2006 and change to a new company in 2007 , you will count X against 2006 as well as 2007 giving a false number. However, if X applies for a GC, it is not 2X applying for GC --- just X .
Recapture bill will help a lot in clearing the backlog. For future EB GC, if the dependents are not counted for immigrant visa, it will be much cleaner. Not all L1 and H1 apply for GC. Mostly the major Indian IT companies DO NOT sponsor GC (and as you know they are the major users of L1).
tattoo ICC Cricket World Cup 2011
Saburi
07-23 10:35 AM
Go ahead.
Hello this question is for Lawyer, i will like to find out how can somebody find out if the I 140 is been revoked by the old employer.
Please help me out i will like to find out the way to find out as my employer told me he will revoke my I 140 but have not got any information from USCIS aslo the the online status shows case approved in sep 2006.
Please let me know if it is revoke would Uscis send a letter or the online system would say any changes online.
Thanks Saburi
Hello this question is for Lawyer, i will like to find out how can somebody find out if the I 140 is been revoked by the old employer.
Please help me out i will like to find out the way to find out as my employer told me he will revoke my I 140 but have not got any information from USCIS aslo the the online status shows case approved in sep 2006.
Please let me know if it is revoke would Uscis send a letter or the online system would say any changes online.
Thanks Saburi
more...
pictures India 2011 Champs of ICC World
SSSarkar
06-27 03:18 PM
Well said...
EVERYONE ON THIS FORUM :
PLEASE DO NOT SPREAD RUMORS ! WE ARE ALREADY STRESSED AS IT IS. WE DONT NEED ONE MORE RUMOR LIKE THIS RIGHT NOW.
IF YOU ARE TRYING TO COME UP WITH SOME SORT OF LOGIC TO SUPPORT IT, PLEASE KEEP IT TO YOURSELF, FOR GOD'S SAKE !
IF YOU ARE FEELING INSURED, HELPLESS AND WITH NO CONFIDENCE - JUST REMEMBER, ALMOST EVERYONE IS FEELING THE SAME. JUST DONT HIT THE PANIC BUTTON BASED ON NOTHING, PLEASE !
JUST FOLLOW UP WITH YOUR LAWYER AND MAKE ALL THE DOCUMENTS READY TO FILE AS SOON AS YOU CAN. THAT'S THE BEST YOU CAN DO ! IF SOMETHING HAPPENS LET IT HAPPEN. NO NEED TO LIVE IT THRU TWICE, ONCE NOW AND ONCE IT ACTUALLY HAPPENS.
PEACE.:mad:
EVERYONE ON THIS FORUM :
PLEASE DO NOT SPREAD RUMORS ! WE ARE ALREADY STRESSED AS IT IS. WE DONT NEED ONE MORE RUMOR LIKE THIS RIGHT NOW.
IF YOU ARE TRYING TO COME UP WITH SOME SORT OF LOGIC TO SUPPORT IT, PLEASE KEEP IT TO YOURSELF, FOR GOD'S SAKE !
IF YOU ARE FEELING INSURED, HELPLESS AND WITH NO CONFIDENCE - JUST REMEMBER, ALMOST EVERYONE IS FEELING THE SAME. JUST DONT HIT THE PANIC BUTTON BASED ON NOTHING, PLEASE !
JUST FOLLOW UP WITH YOUR LAWYER AND MAKE ALL THE DOCUMENTS READY TO FILE AS SOON AS YOU CAN. THAT'S THE BEST YOU CAN DO ! IF SOMETHING HAPPENS LET IT HAPPEN. NO NEED TO LIVE IT THRU TWICE, ONCE NOW AND ONCE IT ACTUALLY HAPPENS.
PEACE.:mad:
dresses ICC cricket world cup 2011
krish2005
01-14 02:19 PM
USCIS - Questions & Answers: USCIS Issues Guidance Memorandum on Establishing the "Employee-Employer Relationship" in H-1B Petitions (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=3d015869c9326210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCR D&vgnextchannel=6abe6d26d17df110VgnVCM1000004718190a RCRD)
more...
makeup Cricket World CUP 2011: India
conchshell
07-26 06:31 PM
One important point that we seem to be missing is that there are about 50,000 Indian STUDENTS (like yours truly) who come to the US each year. Most of them are grad students and invariably all of them apply for EB based GC......think about it : 50,000 students each year and even if you assume half apply for GC - that makes it 100,000 PRIMARY GC applicantions from India alone over a four year period - staggering number........
However, these students are not completely exempted from the H1B quota for each year. Whatever, if PERM filing in year 2008 has witnessed 46% drop since 2007 ... it tells us a lot.
However, these students are not completely exempted from the H1B quota for each year. Whatever, if PERM filing in year 2008 has witnessed 46% drop since 2007 ... it tells us a lot.
girlfriend ICC Cricket World Cup 2011
kshitijnt
03-29 06:06 PM
I just look at this pool and surprised that Advani is running so hot in the pool. I am from Gujarat and I can tell that advani will be worst as PM. when given a Chance in BJP ministry he had worst performance as Home minister. I think he had not managed anything in his life and after his rise in BJP, BJP lost his charm.
I think some one with good management skill like MMohan, MODI, Chidambaram etc are lot more sutiabel than Advani.
Advani should retire from politics before even Bajpai. Even lalu will be better as PM than Advani looking to how advani managed Home Ministry and how Lalu Managed Railway.
Thank you for your personal opinion. India was doing well when Vajpayee was PM. He is not some management honcho. It is a vision of the person that is more important. Manmohan is a learned man and has provided country with real good service but real power rests with Sonia and her son Rahul.
Hence. Its a question of ideology in the long run and given my background, BJP govt suits me better than Congress. So I prefer Advani over Sonia.
I think some one with good management skill like MMohan, MODI, Chidambaram etc are lot more sutiabel than Advani.
Advani should retire from politics before even Bajpai. Even lalu will be better as PM than Advani looking to how advani managed Home Ministry and how Lalu Managed Railway.
Thank you for your personal opinion. India was doing well when Vajpayee was PM. He is not some management honcho. It is a vision of the person that is more important. Manmohan is a learned man and has provided country with real good service but real power rests with Sonia and her son Rahul.
Hence. Its a question of ideology in the long run and given my background, BJP govt suits me better than Congress. So I prefer Advani over Sonia.
hairstyles India Cricket World Cup
lazycis
02-14 03:49 PM
Here is my 2 cents on this
Lets say the interested muster around plaintiffs and sue USCIS. Also, The court agrees that USCIS did not do its duty. Will the court go to the extent of ruling over INA which clearly says that unused visa numbers cannot be recaptured? Will the courts/judicial system set such a precedent where they will go against law just because the agency failed to implement it correctly? I don't think they will set such a precedent by overruling against the law set up by congress and the President who signed it. By long shot, Can the court recommend congress to fix the situation by changing the law and by allowing recapture? Possibly. Does that help and fix our issue?
Can you cite a provision of the INA that unused EB numbers cannot be reused? There is a provision that DV lottery number expire at the end of a fiscal year. The absence of such provision for EB numbers proves that Congress did not want to prevent recapture of EB or famili-based numbers. Moreover, such recapture happened several times in the past. Plus, check Galves v. Howerton ruling a few pages back.
Lets say the interested muster around plaintiffs and sue USCIS. Also, The court agrees that USCIS did not do its duty. Will the court go to the extent of ruling over INA which clearly says that unused visa numbers cannot be recaptured? Will the courts/judicial system set such a precedent where they will go against law just because the agency failed to implement it correctly? I don't think they will set such a precedent by overruling against the law set up by congress and the President who signed it. By long shot, Can the court recommend congress to fix the situation by changing the law and by allowing recapture? Possibly. Does that help and fix our issue?
Can you cite a provision of the INA that unused EB numbers cannot be reused? There is a provision that DV lottery number expire at the end of a fiscal year. The absence of such provision for EB numbers proves that Congress did not want to prevent recapture of EB or famili-based numbers. Moreover, such recapture happened several times in the past. Plus, check Galves v. Howerton ruling a few pages back.
thepaew
12-13 04:24 PM
The US Constitution is a very concise document. Here is a link to it.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
I don't think that per-country caps on immigration are unconstitutional. Please note that I am affected by this and would be very happy if the caps are lifted, but I do not think that this approach is viable and that this is the best use of our limited resources.
I also disagree with your premise that corporations want to see the caps lifted.
we, as non citizens, obviously do not have all the rights that the citizens possess. We don't know whether this rule is or is not constitutional (And as someone rightly pointed out that the expertise of a constitutional attorney is required).
However if it can be shown that certain citizens/corporations ( for example microsoft, google etc who also make efforts and lobby congress to change the law ) are unduly disadvantaged by this per country cap, then they can be plaintiff. So in a sense, we have allies in the corporate sector with tons of money (and who want to make more!) So they might be willing to support us,
if it is indeed found that the rule can be challenged.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
I don't think that per-country caps on immigration are unconstitutional. Please note that I am affected by this and would be very happy if the caps are lifted, but I do not think that this approach is viable and that this is the best use of our limited resources.
I also disagree with your premise that corporations want to see the caps lifted.
we, as non citizens, obviously do not have all the rights that the citizens possess. We don't know whether this rule is or is not constitutional (And as someone rightly pointed out that the expertise of a constitutional attorney is required).
However if it can be shown that certain citizens/corporations ( for example microsoft, google etc who also make efforts and lobby congress to change the law ) are unduly disadvantaged by this per country cap, then they can be plaintiff. So in a sense, we have allies in the corporate sector with tons of money (and who want to make more!) So they might be willing to support us,
if it is indeed found that the rule can be challenged.
AirWaterandGC
05-10 09:05 PM
Thanks cableman.
I did read that part and hence my question was if I am in the fourth/fifth year of my CA PR when I decide to go to CA, will I be allowed at least in the country.
Another question was if I am in my 4th/5th year and know that it might take me another year before I go to CA, can I apply for CA PR again, even when I already have my CA PR OR if I apply for my CA PR immediately after my current CA PR expires, would I get it again (assuming I have the necessary points)
Thanks again to everyone who tries to shed some light.
I got this from: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pub/imm-law.html#act12
Permanent residents
Persons who have been admitted to Canada as permanent residents have the right to come to the country and remain here, provided they have not lost that status or it has not been established that they have engaged in activities, such as criminal acts, that would otherwise subject them to removal.
Conditions may be imposed for a certain period on some permanent residents, such as entrepreneurs. A permanent resident must live in Canada for at least 730 days (two years) within a five-year period. In some situations, time spent outside Canada may count. All permanent residents must comply with this residency requirement or risk losing their status.
According to the website, you will lose your status if you go to Canada in the 5th year because you won't be able to attain the requirement of living in Canada for at least 730 days (two years) within a five-year period. Actually, after you pass your 3rd year, you will be in risk for the permanent status.
I did read that part and hence my question was if I am in the fourth/fifth year of my CA PR when I decide to go to CA, will I be allowed at least in the country.
Another question was if I am in my 4th/5th year and know that it might take me another year before I go to CA, can I apply for CA PR again, even when I already have my CA PR OR if I apply for my CA PR immediately after my current CA PR expires, would I get it again (assuming I have the necessary points)
Thanks again to everyone who tries to shed some light.
I got this from: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pub/imm-law.html#act12
Permanent residents
Persons who have been admitted to Canada as permanent residents have the right to come to the country and remain here, provided they have not lost that status or it has not been established that they have engaged in activities, such as criminal acts, that would otherwise subject them to removal.
Conditions may be imposed for a certain period on some permanent residents, such as entrepreneurs. A permanent resident must live in Canada for at least 730 days (two years) within a five-year period. In some situations, time spent outside Canada may count. All permanent residents must comply with this residency requirement or risk losing their status.
According to the website, you will lose your status if you go to Canada in the 5th year because you won't be able to attain the requirement of living in Canada for at least 730 days (two years) within a five-year period. Actually, after you pass your 3rd year, you will be in risk for the permanent status.
No comments:
Post a Comment