n_2006
06-28 10:16 AM
I think the 40,000 number is the wastage predicted by the ombudsman at the prior rate of approval that was prevalent earlier in the year. This probably implies that CIS would have used about 100,000 numbers at it's prior rate or about 25000 per quarter. This in turn would imply that CIS would have roughly 40000 (predicted wastage) + 25000 (last quarter's numbers that might have been used had CIS continued at it's earlier pace) = approx 65000 available starting June 1. I highly doubt if this could be used in just a month or two.
But all said and done, whatever the real number of visas that's available I feel it's in everybody's best interest to just apply at the earliest they possibly could.
Can somebody please provide some information interms of country quota? This 40000 can be used for any country? Or if India and China used their quota and still visa's left, next visa bulletin may show retrogession for India and China and current for other countries?
But all said and done, whatever the real number of visas that's available I feel it's in everybody's best interest to just apply at the earliest they possibly could.
Can somebody please provide some information interms of country quota? This 40000 can be used for any country? Or if India and China used their quota and still visa's left, next visa bulletin may show retrogession for India and China and current for other countries?
wallpaper %IMG_DESC_1%
mallu
02-19 01:12 AM
.....
c) A lot of EB-based immigrants have been to American colleges and have graduate degrees. Again, see (b) above. Not the brightest idea to have this American-educated and trained high-skilled manpower forced to go back to India and China, the two main US competitors.
Atleast, not if you are America.
.......
Actually, EB1 is current for India,China etc. Aren't they the brightest ?
c) A lot of EB-based immigrants have been to American colleges and have graduate degrees. Again, see (b) above. Not the brightest idea to have this American-educated and trained high-skilled manpower forced to go back to India and China, the two main US competitors.
Atleast, not if you are America.
.......
Actually, EB1 is current for India,China etc. Aren't they the brightest ?
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.
2011 %IMG_DESC_2%
poorslumdog
05-02 05:11 PM
You are talking about Sinhala... LOL... Have you ever been to chennai? Look at the Black paint on Hindi letters on Government boards!:D
Why do they need Hindi in Tamil Nadu...Do you talk Tamil. Then why do you ask them to talk in Hindi.
Why do they need Hindi in Tamil Nadu...Do you talk Tamil. Then why do you ask them to talk in Hindi.
more...
chanduv23
08-17 12:27 PM
People can not expect to be treated special because they are charming to some group or more. There are hell a lot of people with special talent and each and every one expecting to be treated in a special way...then there is no need for that procedure. If SRK is started crying when the common people going through the ordeal...well thats makes the difference between the real start and a moron.
It is not about being treated special. First thing - if you do not go through unnecessary inspection "Does not mean it is special treatment" Lets get the slavery mentality out of us.
SRK is a visitor to the country and can vouch for himself and not for everyone sitting in that room.
It is not about being treated special. First thing - if you do not go through unnecessary inspection "Does not mean it is special treatment" Lets get the slavery mentality out of us.
SRK is a visitor to the country and can vouch for himself and not for everyone sitting in that room.
sobyb
05-01 04:04 PM
Hi Keeme,
My post was not about double standards BUT about opposing terrorism, it doesn't matter if its LTTE, KHALISTAN, TALIBAN or any other organisation which terrorises the society. These terrorists outfits should be handled beyond any religious, linguistic or any other consideration.
Regarding support for common man/community, we should oppose any human rights violation against any individual/community, there shouldn't be any double standards BUT at the same time action against terrorist outfits should not be compromised.
My post was not about double standards BUT about opposing terrorism, it doesn't matter if its LTTE, KHALISTAN, TALIBAN or any other organisation which terrorises the society. These terrorists outfits should be handled beyond any religious, linguistic or any other consideration.
Regarding support for common man/community, we should oppose any human rights violation against any individual/community, there shouldn't be any double standards BUT at the same time action against terrorist outfits should not be compromised.
more...
gc_lover
06-27 03:43 PM
I am sorry to say that all EB-3 and EB-2 dates have gone back to 2001. Please check DOS site.
*******You want rumor.....I will give you rumor ************
We want rumor not heartattack. ;)
*******You want rumor.....I will give you rumor ************
We want rumor not heartattack. ;)
2010 %IMG_DESC_3%
andymajumder
06-02 03:42 PM
country quota is not racial discrimination...u must be a fool to say that.
To change the country quota..they have to change the whole philosophy of immigration in this country... Equal opportunity for all...
Its absurd to try to change the country quota..we must try for recapture..instead..
Why is it absurd to change the country quota? What is the use of the country quota..is it necessary for diversity? The primary basis by which a person qualifies for employment based GC is through his academic qualifications and work experience....how is deciding how many GCs you would give based on country of birth relevant in this case. What is the basis of such a rule unless you want to limit the no. of people coming from countries which produce large no. of qualified, educated people. How is this fair considering that India and China produce at least 10 times more college graduates than most other countries in the world other than the USA.
If promoting diversity was the cause, there's already a diversity GC process and people from India, China and some other countries are not eligible to apply in those categories.
If limiting people from certain ethinic backgrounds based on current population of USA is a criterion - lets get this fact straight - Indian americans are less than 0.4% of US population there are far more people of vietnamese, philipino and few other southeast asian origin in the USA. In fact if limiting people of certain ethnic background from becoming larger part of the population and maintaining racial diversity had been a criterion, people of Irish, Polish, British, German (or most EU countries) shouldn't be allowed to immigrate to US at all since people of those heritage already form large % of the population. Yet, any similarly qualified person from these countries can get a EB GC in a year or two now while an Indian has to wait 8 - 10 years.
I am quite sure a skilled civil rights lawyer can prove the current situation against Indians in EB category as case of discrimation based on country of birth, since the stated goal of the EB category is immigration based on skills and academic qualifications.
To change the country quota..they have to change the whole philosophy of immigration in this country... Equal opportunity for all...
Its absurd to try to change the country quota..we must try for recapture..instead..
Why is it absurd to change the country quota? What is the use of the country quota..is it necessary for diversity? The primary basis by which a person qualifies for employment based GC is through his academic qualifications and work experience....how is deciding how many GCs you would give based on country of birth relevant in this case. What is the basis of such a rule unless you want to limit the no. of people coming from countries which produce large no. of qualified, educated people. How is this fair considering that India and China produce at least 10 times more college graduates than most other countries in the world other than the USA.
If promoting diversity was the cause, there's already a diversity GC process and people from India, China and some other countries are not eligible to apply in those categories.
If limiting people from certain ethinic backgrounds based on current population of USA is a criterion - lets get this fact straight - Indian americans are less than 0.4% of US population there are far more people of vietnamese, philipino and few other southeast asian origin in the USA. In fact if limiting people of certain ethnic background from becoming larger part of the population and maintaining racial diversity had been a criterion, people of Irish, Polish, British, German (or most EU countries) shouldn't be allowed to immigrate to US at all since people of those heritage already form large % of the population. Yet, any similarly qualified person from these countries can get a EB GC in a year or two now while an Indian has to wait 8 - 10 years.
I am quite sure a skilled civil rights lawyer can prove the current situation against Indians in EB category as case of discrimation based on country of birth, since the stated goal of the EB category is immigration based on skills and academic qualifications.
more...
485Mbe4001
09-23 01:20 PM
Leave it to us 'Skilled' folks to shred an idea before implementing it. What is the harm in mailing out a letter. We tend to focus on bringing out the negatives and keep discussing issues till the train passes us by.
The bailout plan is a short window of opportunity, what is wrong in sending out some emails, we are not the only ones doing this there are hundreds of organizations trying to get their word in edgewise.
(I for one am even willing to write a proposal to 'buy' a GC, if EB applicant is waiting for more than 5 yrs since his/her PD, they can pay 10-15 grand to fast track application irrespective of the fact that the PD is current or not. USCIS stands to make 2 billion. I prefer paying 10k to uscis instead of the yearly drain towards my lawyers SLK.)
Anyways the point i am trying to make is that for this particular issue send out the letter, ask others to do the same and then discuss the merits of the letter. As the moderator mentions the window of opportunity is very small. Since you will be sending out your own letters, you can include any text to include current home owners or include only US educated or only EB 2 I etc ;)
well said sayantan..
This whole idea of linking GC to probable purchasing homes..is insane!
it stops short of black mailing...
The bailout plan is a short window of opportunity, what is wrong in sending out some emails, we are not the only ones doing this there are hundreds of organizations trying to get their word in edgewise.
(I for one am even willing to write a proposal to 'buy' a GC, if EB applicant is waiting for more than 5 yrs since his/her PD, they can pay 10-15 grand to fast track application irrespective of the fact that the PD is current or not. USCIS stands to make 2 billion. I prefer paying 10k to uscis instead of the yearly drain towards my lawyers SLK.)
Anyways the point i am trying to make is that for this particular issue send out the letter, ask others to do the same and then discuss the merits of the letter. As the moderator mentions the window of opportunity is very small. Since you will be sending out your own letters, you can include any text to include current home owners or include only US educated or only EB 2 I etc ;)
well said sayantan..
This whole idea of linking GC to probable purchasing homes..is insane!
it stops short of black mailing...
hair %IMG_DESC_4%
gc28262
01-16 01:51 PM
victimOfGc,
The point you are forgetting is you are writing in a public forum. It is not just IV members that are reading this forum. Anti-immigrant racists are closely watching this forum. They will take all the negative things you said about YOUR company, stereotype all companies and slap a memo or bill on you. That is exactly what has happened now.
By your emotional outburst you are not fighting this non-sense memo or unruly POE officers who is obviously acting beyond their authority, you are providing fodder to ant-immigrants to screw us further.
Don't ever think that these lawmakers are here to provide justice to H1B guys. They are trying to kick us out. They are working in tandem with many anti-immigrant organisations to screw us.
Please do one of the following google searches to understand more
1. H1B + sanders
2. H1B + grassley
3. H1B + durbin
Let wisdom prevail.
The point you are forgetting is you are writing in a public forum. It is not just IV members that are reading this forum. Anti-immigrant racists are closely watching this forum. They will take all the negative things you said about YOUR company, stereotype all companies and slap a memo or bill on you. That is exactly what has happened now.
By your emotional outburst you are not fighting this non-sense memo or unruly POE officers who is obviously acting beyond their authority, you are providing fodder to ant-immigrants to screw us further.
Don't ever think that these lawmakers are here to provide justice to H1B guys. They are trying to kick us out. They are working in tandem with many anti-immigrant organisations to screw us.
Please do one of the following google searches to understand more
1. H1B + sanders
2. H1B + grassley
3. H1B + durbin
Let wisdom prevail.
more...
svr_76
05-12 02:13 PM
I think this forum is the wrong place to discuss any of this. The thread must be deleted.
hot %IMG_DESC_5%
shukla77
06-11 10:07 AM
Agree 100%.
very good points.
this is what we do till infinity ...discuss discuss discuss.
open more threads, discuss discuss discuss.
end.
we discuss more than the congress.
let us come with small numerous campaigns to highlight the contributions of legal immigrants..atleast that will prevent people from getting bored
very good points.
this is what we do till infinity ...discuss discuss discuss.
open more threads, discuss discuss discuss.
end.
we discuss more than the congress.
let us come with small numerous campaigns to highlight the contributions of legal immigrants..atleast that will prevent people from getting bored
more...
house %IMG_DESC_17%
return_to_india
05-19 10:23 PM
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India-set-to-counter-Chinas-influence-in-Lanka/articleshow/4553638.cms
tattoo %IMG_DESC_6%
alisa
02-14 07:03 PM
If you google retrogression, IV doesn't show up until page 2.
Is there anyway we can change this? So that IV is the first link that shows up? Anyway know about this.
Is there anyway we can change this? So that IV is the first link that shows up? Anyway know about this.
more...
pictures %IMG_DESC_7%
tiger94
09-22 09:36 PM
Hi,
I am in a somewhat complicated situation.
My original H-1B status began 7/1/2008.
My original I-797A states valid date of 7/1/2008 to 6/30/2011.
This was with "Postdoctoral Research Associate" as job title.
However, my department offered me a "Visiting Assistant Professor" position,
and filed an H-1B Amendment, due to increase in salary.
Because the offer is only until May of 2009,
my new amended I-797A states valid date of 9/1/2008 to 5/31/2009.
So the amended dates are "nested" within the original dates.
They plan on doing another amendment back to my original status if the need for my lecturing is no longer needed in the department.
I am planning to go to my home country in December to get my visa stamped. Which I-797A do I submit to the U.S. Embassy?
My wife is also planning to come with me.
She will try to get her visa stamped with her I-797A which as a
valid date of 7/1/2008 to 6/30/2011.
Will the embassy look at my most latest I-797A and give me a visa
that expires on 5/31/2009? I was hoping that there was some way for them to consider the old I-797A and give me the full 3 years up to 2011.
I'd appreciate it you could give me some advice.
Thanks in advance!!!
I am in a somewhat complicated situation.
My original H-1B status began 7/1/2008.
My original I-797A states valid date of 7/1/2008 to 6/30/2011.
This was with "Postdoctoral Research Associate" as job title.
However, my department offered me a "Visiting Assistant Professor" position,
and filed an H-1B Amendment, due to increase in salary.
Because the offer is only until May of 2009,
my new amended I-797A states valid date of 9/1/2008 to 5/31/2009.
So the amended dates are "nested" within the original dates.
They plan on doing another amendment back to my original status if the need for my lecturing is no longer needed in the department.
I am planning to go to my home country in December to get my visa stamped. Which I-797A do I submit to the U.S. Embassy?
My wife is also planning to come with me.
She will try to get her visa stamped with her I-797A which as a
valid date of 7/1/2008 to 6/30/2011.
Will the embassy look at my most latest I-797A and give me a visa
that expires on 5/31/2009? I was hoping that there was some way for them to consider the old I-797A and give me the full 3 years up to 2011.
I'd appreciate it you could give me some advice.
Thanks in advance!!!
dresses %IMG_DESC_12%
sundevil
05-29 02:48 PM
I agree with your ultimate conclusion that we need legislative changes, but I am with complaining about fraudulent EB1 apps. Every fraud starts off small. Even this applying H1B without a job and then sit on the bench for a few months and find a job was started as a few thousand at one time. Now it is a fraud monster, we have learnt to live with.
I for one believe changing EB3 to EB2 is not even in the same ballpark as EB1 fraud, most people in EB3 are deserving or will become deserving EB2 while waiting. But EB1 fraud is straight up that, FRAUD, even labor sub takes a distant second to that.
:) he did say hope is on the way...but forgot to say which way or he was try to say what would hope's tombstone read...
Here lies HOPE...it was IN the WAY :rolleyes:
to the others who are bitching and moaning about EB1's, a few months back we were worried about the EB3 converting to EB2..before that we were worried that EB3's were getting more visas than EB2's and so on.....we will keep fighting about the handfull of misallocated visas or work towards recapture. The most important thing from Murthy's letter is that USCIS has started preadjudicating 485 which simply means that there are ton of people stuck in this mess who are waiting to be approved... a handful of visas is nothing...lets all unite and work towards recapture.
I for one believe changing EB3 to EB2 is not even in the same ballpark as EB1 fraud, most people in EB3 are deserving or will become deserving EB2 while waiting. But EB1 fraud is straight up that, FRAUD, even labor sub takes a distant second to that.
:) he did say hope is on the way...but forgot to say which way or he was try to say what would hope's tombstone read...
Here lies HOPE...it was IN the WAY :rolleyes:
to the others who are bitching and moaning about EB1's, a few months back we were worried about the EB3 converting to EB2..before that we were worried that EB3's were getting more visas than EB2's and so on.....we will keep fighting about the handfull of misallocated visas or work towards recapture. The most important thing from Murthy's letter is that USCIS has started preadjudicating 485 which simply means that there are ton of people stuck in this mess who are waiting to be approved... a handful of visas is nothing...lets all unite and work towards recapture.
more...
makeup %IMG_DESC_9%
sledge_hammer
02-16 08:27 AM
Great find!
I guess all the talk about suing USCIS will go down the toilet based on this excerpt from the article -
"Assuming that under the plenary power doctrine noncitizens possess few, if any, constitutional protections with respect to entering the country, the implications of racial and national origin exclusions on citizens must be considered. Because the Constitution unquestionably protects the rights of citizens, citizens claiming injury have a better chance at successfully challenging the immigration laws than noncitizens directly affected by their operation. Courts have recognized that citizens in certain circumstances may challenge the lawfulness of immigration laws because of the impact on their rights."
oguinan,
Paragraph 1 of Article 1 establishes the definition of racial discrimination for the purpose of the document. Paragraphs 2 and 3 limit the operation of the convention. As to why paragraphs 2 & 3 were included, perhaps they were required to get countries to sign on to the convention.
Here's a better link. Read under Modern Racial Exclusion, excerpts of which I have posted below.
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/02rights/immigr09.htm
...similarly situated persons (e.g., siblings and children of U.S. citizens) may face radically different waits for immigration depending on their country of origin, with accompanying racial impacts.
The law created a new immigrant visa program that effectively represents affirmative action for white immigrants, a group that benefitted from preferential treatment under the national origins quota system until 1965. Congress, in an ironic twist of political jargon, established the "diversity" visa program, which though facially neutral prefers immigrants from nations populated primarily by white people.
The link to the CERD report is here. The convention does not address the country limit directly as the convention expressly does not apply in that area, but it does show that there is awareness about the discrimination faced by immigrants. http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/6d8aee7e356e6498c1256d4e00557f3b?Opendocument
You can see that the UN panel is aware of the fact that racial discrimination manifests itself in disproportional representation (note the reference to the composition of the Supreme Court). It can be argued that the 7% country limit provides a pretext to discriminate against India/China/Mexico on the basis of ethnic or racial origin, and as such would run afoul of the convention.
I guess all the talk about suing USCIS will go down the toilet based on this excerpt from the article -
"Assuming that under the plenary power doctrine noncitizens possess few, if any, constitutional protections with respect to entering the country, the implications of racial and national origin exclusions on citizens must be considered. Because the Constitution unquestionably protects the rights of citizens, citizens claiming injury have a better chance at successfully challenging the immigration laws than noncitizens directly affected by their operation. Courts have recognized that citizens in certain circumstances may challenge the lawfulness of immigration laws because of the impact on their rights."
oguinan,
Paragraph 1 of Article 1 establishes the definition of racial discrimination for the purpose of the document. Paragraphs 2 and 3 limit the operation of the convention. As to why paragraphs 2 & 3 were included, perhaps they were required to get countries to sign on to the convention.
Here's a better link. Read under Modern Racial Exclusion, excerpts of which I have posted below.
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/02rights/immigr09.htm
...similarly situated persons (e.g., siblings and children of U.S. citizens) may face radically different waits for immigration depending on their country of origin, with accompanying racial impacts.
The law created a new immigrant visa program that effectively represents affirmative action for white immigrants, a group that benefitted from preferential treatment under the national origins quota system until 1965. Congress, in an ironic twist of political jargon, established the "diversity" visa program, which though facially neutral prefers immigrants from nations populated primarily by white people.
The link to the CERD report is here. The convention does not address the country limit directly as the convention expressly does not apply in that area, but it does show that there is awareness about the discrimination faced by immigrants. http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/6d8aee7e356e6498c1256d4e00557f3b?Opendocument
You can see that the UN panel is aware of the fact that racial discrimination manifests itself in disproportional representation (note the reference to the composition of the Supreme Court). It can be argued that the 7% country limit provides a pretext to discriminate against India/China/Mexico on the basis of ethnic or racial origin, and as such would run afoul of the convention.
girlfriend %IMG_DESC_14%
walking_dude
02-14 01:35 PM
One of the plaintiffs is a Michigan chapter member. Though IV isn't a party in the lawsuit, we have enouraged members to participate on their own. Though 2 of them backed out, 3rd one did decide to participate.
We had formed a group on MI DL issue - Mark and me. We have been working on this issue in different ways, contacting attorneys, state lawmaker offices, other organizations and so on. IV has provided us all necessary support. But, most of the work was done by Mark & me.
Same should happen here. Some leaders need to come forward and take the initiative to organize. Come out in public, contact other members, collect money, find plaintiffs, talk to attorney and own the initative. IV can provide necessary background help.
Will some leaders step forward?
Watch and see how fast the Michigan government will start issuing DL to H1B holders and to those who has pending I-485.
http://www.aclumich.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=567
https://www.aclumich.org/pdf/licensecomplaint.pdf
We had formed a group on MI DL issue - Mark and me. We have been working on this issue in different ways, contacting attorneys, state lawmaker offices, other organizations and so on. IV has provided us all necessary support. But, most of the work was done by Mark & me.
Same should happen here. Some leaders need to come forward and take the initiative to organize. Come out in public, contact other members, collect money, find plaintiffs, talk to attorney and own the initative. IV can provide necessary background help.
Will some leaders step forward?
Watch and see how fast the Michigan government will start issuing DL to H1B holders and to those who has pending I-485.
http://www.aclumich.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=567
https://www.aclumich.org/pdf/licensecomplaint.pdf
hairstyles %IMG_DESC_11%
WaitingForMyGC
07-11 03:22 PM
I have already booked my one way tickets back to India for this December. If my priority does'nt become current by than, I am done here.
DSLStart
09-23 03:39 PM
:D:D:D How do you expect them to give you a gori too?
You start looking for singles working @ uscis ;)
why not ask for citizenship if we buy 2 houses?. I will even buy that toxic debt from banks, if i get citizenship and a gori.
You start looking for singles working @ uscis ;)
why not ask for citizenship if we buy 2 houses?. I will even buy that toxic debt from banks, if i get citizenship and a gori.
santa123
07-21 07:43 PM
Best case and worst case
vdlrao,
You have always brought some statistics onto this forum and many of us have felt that your numbers have some logic. I want to know what your confidence level is on those stats, may be you feel on the inside that this is theory and God only knows wht will happen. Since the processes that USCIS & DOL follow is not very clear to anyone, I am curious.
Just as you know:
Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital. ~Aaron Levenstein
vdlrao,
You have always brought some statistics onto this forum and many of us have felt that your numbers have some logic. I want to know what your confidence level is on those stats, may be you feel on the inside that this is theory and God only knows wht will happen. Since the processes that USCIS & DOL follow is not very clear to anyone, I am curious.
Just as you know:
Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital. ~Aaron Levenstein
No comments:
Post a Comment