immigrationvoice1
02-13 12:17 PM
That is absolutely not true. Unused visas from under subscribed countries are made available to over subscribed countries.
And how do you support that argument please ?
And how do you support that argument please ?
wallpaper stock vector : eiffel tower,
freakin_gc
02-12 01:03 PM
Whether unused visa in EB-3 Row will go to EB3 India?
http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2008/02/house-dems-to-p.html
Good strategy. Need to make sure all EB provisions are still intact in these reforms targetted for spring & Summer of this year.
http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2008/02/house-dems-to-p.html
Good strategy. Need to make sure all EB provisions are still intact in these reforms targetted for spring & Summer of this year.
NolaIndian32
02-13 11:09 AM
What is ROW and POW, please? I have seen both used in several posts (I am hoping POW is not Prisoner of War:)) Still learning the immigration lingo!
2011 paris rome eiffel tower and
at0474
12-13 04:12 PM
I dont think that the per-country cap on immigration is "Unconstitutional." It may not seem fair to those affected but it does not violate any article of the US consititution. The country has a right to regulate its borders; that is its right. We should try to argue that the policy is counter-productive and harmful - not that it is illegal.
--Well said.
--Well said.
more...
nixstor
08-03 03:45 PM
While I accept that it is unfair, How many of the people will not take a labor substitution if they feel that the company is good and kept their books nice. Retropain, You, me and some xyz might stick to FIFO and wait in line but not every one does. I am sure 99% of the people who vote on your poll will say its unfair and must be removed. Do you still need one? I feel that substitution will be gone soon.
pointlesswait
09-15 06:26 PM
its a temp relief..not a permanent one.;)
Lets all email : uscis ombudsman office...maybe that will be a good start.
Good idea but could you clarify why "next 2-3 months"? what after that? Just curious why you put that time frame there
Lets all email : uscis ombudsman office...maybe that will be a good start.
Good idea but could you clarify why "next 2-3 months"? what after that? Just curious why you put that time frame there
more...
deepakjain
01-22 04:26 PM
Then please pack your bags and leave the country in the next flight..
Good Answer, it is easier said then done. Anyone who has been working here without any issues at work place why should he/she leave because of delay in getting GC. Yes we definitely have an uncertain future but that should not stop people like us for staying here, buying house, cars and living a decent life here in US.
Getting a GC is part of my employment process for staying here for a longer duration without any visa hassles, this should not stop atleast any Indian to live life to the fullest here in US.
Good Answer, it is easier said then done. Anyone who has been working here without any issues at work place why should he/she leave because of delay in getting GC. Yes we definitely have an uncertain future but that should not stop people like us for staying here, buying house, cars and living a decent life here in US.
Getting a GC is part of my employment process for staying here for a longer duration without any visa hassles, this should not stop atleast any Indian to live life to the fullest here in US.
2010 The Eiffel Tower
GCSOON-Ihope
10-24 11:57 AM
I 100% agree that selling or buying an LC should be absolutely prohibited.
However the principle itself makes sense in some cases.
A few years ago, a friend of mine was endlessly waiting for his LC when a co-worker of his (with an approved LC) suddenly quit to go back to his home country. The company (that was paying all the fees) then used this approved labor so that my friend could get his GC faster. Since that company was fair and honest, he never had to pay a dime for it.
So, he got his GC a couple years ago and I am still waiting...
Am I jealous? You bet! Angry? No. My friend took advantage of a legal loophole and, let's not be hypocrite here, who wouldn't have done the same in this particular situation?
But again, making a business out of those LCs should be 100% illegal.
However the principle itself makes sense in some cases.
A few years ago, a friend of mine was endlessly waiting for his LC when a co-worker of his (with an approved LC) suddenly quit to go back to his home country. The company (that was paying all the fees) then used this approved labor so that my friend could get his GC faster. Since that company was fair and honest, he never had to pay a dime for it.
So, he got his GC a couple years ago and I am still waiting...
Am I jealous? You bet! Angry? No. My friend took advantage of a legal loophole and, let's not be hypocrite here, who wouldn't have done the same in this particular situation?
But again, making a business out of those LCs should be 100% illegal.
more...
santa123
07-17 01:09 AM
Assuming that the spill overs are effected only in the last (JAS) quarter, there wont be any significant movement for EB2. Until and otherwise the supply is more than demand, EB2 will not move forward significantly.
But I wish EB2 becomes current in the near future. Correct me if i am wrong.
But I wish EB2 becomes current in the near future. Correct me if i am wrong.
hair the Eiffel Tower Light,
sadshaq12
10-26 09:42 PM
I got I140 RFE last week
Thhey are asking for 2000 tax return because case was file in 2000
tax return is about 29k which is lower then my prefered wages
my lawyer says he will file bank statement for the company which is enough but still i am not satisfy
please share your info and advise
THanks
Thhey are asking for 2000 tax return because case was file in 2000
tax return is about 29k which is lower then my prefered wages
my lawyer says he will file bank statement for the company which is enough but still i am not satisfy
please share your info and advise
THanks
more...
krishnam70
07-10 01:42 PM
Wish you the very best byeusa......
I might be moving to Canada next summer if there is no progress in my case here...My PD is Nov 2003 EB-3...I got my Canadian PR in May 2005 and I have until May 2008 to move.....So keeping my fingers crossed..I too work for a Canadian company in US.....Wish you good luck...
we have until july 2008 to move in to canada, lets see its probably bye bye usa if something does not happen until then. tired of waiting for this elusive GC, my story is verry verry similar to byeusa..
I might be moving to Canada next summer if there is no progress in my case here...My PD is Nov 2003 EB-3...I got my Canadian PR in May 2005 and I have until May 2008 to move.....So keeping my fingers crossed..I too work for a Canadian company in US.....Wish you good luck...
we have until july 2008 to move in to canada, lets see its probably bye bye usa if something does not happen until then. tired of waiting for this elusive GC, my story is verry verry similar to byeusa..
hot Gustave Eiffel cartoon 1
saketkapur
07-09 05:22 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. Will I be able to interfile for her once my PD is current and she has completed her J1 waiver?
2. 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?
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. Will I be able to interfile for her once my PD is current and she has completed her J1 waiver?
2. 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?
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
more...
house Eiffel Tower cartoon.
ganguteli
06-04 03:28 PM
The EAD/AC21 is still only available to those who are July 07 filers. There are many who have missed the oppurtunity. What many people are asking for is for something such that anyone can change a job after some given time, irrespective of Visa number availability. Even for those with EAD's, you are still restricted to be in the same field. So if you want a career move and do an MBA or acquire new skills to change your career, you cannot do that (unless EAD is for a dependent). If this is not pigeoning people, what is.
No point trying to get EAD for non AOS filers.
We should rather ask for faster processing of applications, transparency and more accountability.
EAD also has lot of restrictions and our goal should be faster green cards through faster processing and more visa numbers.
No point trying to get EAD for non AOS filers.
We should rather ask for faster processing of applications, transparency and more accountability.
EAD also has lot of restrictions and our goal should be faster green cards through faster processing and more visa numbers.
tattoo Eiffel Tower puppet
a.j.2048
03-27 01:04 PM
I suspect there will be better leaders from the generation born after 1947. The next rung of leadership like Mayawati, Modi, Nitish Kumar, Shivraj Chauhan are all born after independence.
more...
pictures Eiffel Tower - France
villamonte6100
02-18 11:17 AM
(1) There was no shortage of laypeople and even attorneys who asserted that "USCIS isn't doing anything wrong they are just following the law" when it came to FBI name checks. Fortunately for all of us sharper legal brains and sharper judges prevailed, and brought us to this happy day.
(2) On Class Actions: Villamonte, have you read the Mocanu decision (http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Mocanu%202-8-08%20LEXIS.pdf)? If not I encourage you to do so -- that was just individual cases being consolidated, but the situation is not very different -- you should pay particular attention to the part where Judge Baylson recommends a multi-district class action litigation to deal with all the other name check cases (see p. 16, para numbered 6).
The parallels between the those cases and the one being proposed are very strong.
Judge Baylson is not the only judge who has recommended a class action approach to these issues. IV members should also be aware that all we need are a few named plaintiffs, it isn't as though every IV member or even everyone wanting to sue needs to be a named plaintiff. All the judge needs to recognize is that there is a large group of applicants with same or similar grounds for suing USCIS/Emilio Gonzalez. Edit to add: IV the organization doesn't even need to be the primary plaintiff, since that will necessarily cutoff any parallel discussion with the agencies. The IV forums are just a place to organize this.
(3) Preliminary Ideas on the Grounds for Suing (courtesy lazycis):
The grounds for suing USCIS is the same as in Gonzalez v Howerton -- (a) interpreting the law incorrectly (b) not following the statutory requirement that they use up all the greencards available in a given year and therefore being guilty of affirmative misconduct. At the very least, a judge is within his rights to make them make amends -- by recapturing 2003-2004 EB greencards, since they wasted them as a result of their affirmative misconduct -- they waited for name checks or simply not processing applications - no one can say there wasn't an application backlog in 2003-2004.
(4) First Steps
What we need here is to get this matter before a good legal strategist who is familiar with (a) the two sources of affirmative misconduct (FBI name checks and cessation of processing in 2003-2004) (b) precedents and caselaw (note that most immigration law firms are good with filing paperwork, but not necessarily complex litigation, so forget about the usual suspects.) The perfect legal argument will not sprout up immediately. In the same way that the legal arguments in the name check cases were honed over time (lazycis can confirm this), this too will need some serious research and thinking.
Those of you who want everything about this case sorted out, signed, sealed, guaranteed and delivered this week will need a reality check. :)
As will those of you who think that the way to approach this is to discuss these issues without familiarizing yourself with facts and legal precedents in some detail (so arguments about slavery etc are not the ones that will win the day in court, it is arguments that can show that USCIS was not interpreting the law correctly and in doing so caused harm and that the harm can be remedied through recapture.) -- if you want to see how a case like this will work read Mocanu and Galvez. This case will not be a dramatic movie-style civil rights case about slavery, it will involve the most tedious sort of nitty gritty discussion of admin misconduct.
OTOH, for most of us, all we've got is time -- I do not foresee my Jan 2003 EB-2 India PD becoming current any time soon. I'm prepared for a long legal battle. I'd rather do something constructive** that will likely change the process than sit and wait and mope.
**: Yes, I've sent off my letters too. I think of these two things as complementary projects.
Neither of us are lawyers and I wouldn't even bother reading what you wrote. All I can say is, why don't you ask your immigration lawyer about this Class Action. Let's see what he says.
(2) On Class Actions: Villamonte, have you read the Mocanu decision (http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Mocanu%202-8-08%20LEXIS.pdf)? If not I encourage you to do so -- that was just individual cases being consolidated, but the situation is not very different -- you should pay particular attention to the part where Judge Baylson recommends a multi-district class action litigation to deal with all the other name check cases (see p. 16, para numbered 6).
The parallels between the those cases and the one being proposed are very strong.
Judge Baylson is not the only judge who has recommended a class action approach to these issues. IV members should also be aware that all we need are a few named plaintiffs, it isn't as though every IV member or even everyone wanting to sue needs to be a named plaintiff. All the judge needs to recognize is that there is a large group of applicants with same or similar grounds for suing USCIS/Emilio Gonzalez. Edit to add: IV the organization doesn't even need to be the primary plaintiff, since that will necessarily cutoff any parallel discussion with the agencies. The IV forums are just a place to organize this.
(3) Preliminary Ideas on the Grounds for Suing (courtesy lazycis):
The grounds for suing USCIS is the same as in Gonzalez v Howerton -- (a) interpreting the law incorrectly (b) not following the statutory requirement that they use up all the greencards available in a given year and therefore being guilty of affirmative misconduct. At the very least, a judge is within his rights to make them make amends -- by recapturing 2003-2004 EB greencards, since they wasted them as a result of their affirmative misconduct -- they waited for name checks or simply not processing applications - no one can say there wasn't an application backlog in 2003-2004.
(4) First Steps
What we need here is to get this matter before a good legal strategist who is familiar with (a) the two sources of affirmative misconduct (FBI name checks and cessation of processing in 2003-2004) (b) precedents and caselaw (note that most immigration law firms are good with filing paperwork, but not necessarily complex litigation, so forget about the usual suspects.) The perfect legal argument will not sprout up immediately. In the same way that the legal arguments in the name check cases were honed over time (lazycis can confirm this), this too will need some serious research and thinking.
Those of you who want everything about this case sorted out, signed, sealed, guaranteed and delivered this week will need a reality check. :)
As will those of you who think that the way to approach this is to discuss these issues without familiarizing yourself with facts and legal precedents in some detail (so arguments about slavery etc are not the ones that will win the day in court, it is arguments that can show that USCIS was not interpreting the law correctly and in doing so caused harm and that the harm can be remedied through recapture.) -- if you want to see how a case like this will work read Mocanu and Galvez. This case will not be a dramatic movie-style civil rights case about slavery, it will involve the most tedious sort of nitty gritty discussion of admin misconduct.
OTOH, for most of us, all we've got is time -- I do not foresee my Jan 2003 EB-2 India PD becoming current any time soon. I'm prepared for a long legal battle. I'd rather do something constructive** that will likely change the process than sit and wait and mope.
**: Yes, I've sent off my letters too. I think of these two things as complementary projects.
Neither of us are lawyers and I wouldn't even bother reading what you wrote. All I can say is, why don't you ask your immigration lawyer about this Class Action. Let's see what he says.
dresses Paris eiffel tower concept
meridiani.planum
07-30 06:31 AM
http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5766
posted 07-24 09:59 AM
Ron Gotcher has 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.
Ron Gotcher
this makes no sense (with all due respect to Mr Gotcher). He basically claims that PD has been moved to allow CP cases to be processed faster to avoid visa number wastage.. However he also says that there is a huge backlog of AOS cases. Looking at how many CP cases are being called for interview in mumbai and delhi (low hundreds) I dont see how CP alone can help avoid a big wastage of visas. If USCIS is still 20k short, then its the massive pile of AOS cases they should be using, just like they did last year.
Also, if they waste visa numbers this year, it would be really gross incompetence. EB2-India has gone all the way from 2000 to 2006 this year. They slack off at the start of the year, then scramble in the end. I dont know why they follow this approach knowing full well that right at the end it puts them in a soup.
posted 07-24 09:59 AM
Ron Gotcher has 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.
Ron Gotcher
this makes no sense (with all due respect to Mr Gotcher). He basically claims that PD has been moved to allow CP cases to be processed faster to avoid visa number wastage.. However he also says that there is a huge backlog of AOS cases. Looking at how many CP cases are being called for interview in mumbai and delhi (low hundreds) I dont see how CP alone can help avoid a big wastage of visas. If USCIS is still 20k short, then its the massive pile of AOS cases they should be using, just like they did last year.
Also, if they waste visa numbers this year, it would be really gross incompetence. EB2-India has gone all the way from 2000 to 2006 this year. They slack off at the start of the year, then scramble in the end. I dont know why they follow this approach knowing full well that right at the end it puts them in a soup.
more...
makeup Eiffel tower amp;amp;
rajsenthil
09-03 09:42 AM
It is sad to lose a leader who got elected democratically.
It was also sad that few people who could support SRK (does that related to our immigration issue :confused:) but comfortably felt that missing YSR is not as important as SRK.
It was also sad that few people who could support SRK (does that related to our immigration issue :confused:) but comfortably felt that missing YSR is not as important as SRK.
girlfriend quot;Eiffel Towerquot;
Macaca
06-27 06:52 AM
this depends on the number of approvals and not on the number of applications received. Even if there are tons of applications received, unless there are enough approvals happening simultaneously, dates would not retrogress in the middle of the month.
USCIS had approvals before dates moved. USCIS knows the number of such approvals.
These approvals are getting GC before approval of current applicants. If earlier approvals use up quotas, retrogression does not have to wait for current approvals.
USCIS had approvals before dates moved. USCIS knows the number of such approvals.
These approvals are getting GC before approval of current applicants. If earlier approvals use up quotas, retrogression does not have to wait for current approvals.
hairstyles MT0057 C1520, MT Digital middot; c
vinay0622
07-29 07:37 AM
While applying EAD online, by mistake I put family name as first name and first name as last name, Now I have got RFE saying service record indicates my name is different, so send birth certhificate. Do I need to send a cover letter saying this was mistake and I swapped the name by mistake.
Can It be corrected or it is very seroius mistake.
Can It be corrected or it is very seroius mistake.
ronhira
01-13 08:53 PM
This will only increat outsourcing and actually hurt US economy and jobs...too bad that "blinded" politicians do not recognize this.
they r blinded....... remember..... but they will recognize..... when most of the jobs are outsourced....
they r blinded....... remember..... but they will recognize..... when most of the jobs are outsourced....
johnamit
07-12 04:11 PM
I always has that question what is the real difference, hear people sayinig more taxes less salary and all that but don't know the actual difference yet.
Will appreciate if someone can shed more light or post a link.
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
Will appreciate if someone can shed more light or post a link.
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
No comments:
Post a Comment