meridiani.planum
09-13 12:52 AM
Obama is no panacea either. Why do you think someone with little experience is a liability to be second in command, but the same lack of experience is admirable quality for the first in command.
Also, Obama has been changing his positions on issues to pander to the voters, I doubt he will be any different from Bush either. The only change you are going to see is in himself -- not the way things are done. He will probably pay more of the tax monies to people who gambled with their houses (and are still not being punished for it).
Obama's lack of experience does not bother me as much as Palins because you have to see what people have done in whatever experience they have had. Obama did community service, has had a strong moral fiber in whatever he has said. Palin has already abused whatever little power she had. Being a senator Obama has atleast been exposed to world-wide issues. I bet Palin cant even locate Georgia on the map. Did you see her recent interview? In spite of it being carefully staged, see her stumble aimlessly when it comes to the question of the Bush Doctrine... The biggest foreign policy change this country made (decision to make pre-emptive attacks) and Palin does not have an opinion on it because she does not even know what it is. The interviewer had to tell her what teh Bush Doctrine is all about. Are'nt you scared of a person like that leading the US? Why does this country always pick screwed up vice presidents (Dick Cheney's approval ratings have been <30% for as long as I can recall)
Either way, from an immigration point of view (focus of this forum) we are screwed (see my previous post for stances of both presidential candidates)
Also, Obama has been changing his positions on issues to pander to the voters, I doubt he will be any different from Bush either. The only change you are going to see is in himself -- not the way things are done. He will probably pay more of the tax monies to people who gambled with their houses (and are still not being punished for it).
Obama's lack of experience does not bother me as much as Palins because you have to see what people have done in whatever experience they have had. Obama did community service, has had a strong moral fiber in whatever he has said. Palin has already abused whatever little power she had. Being a senator Obama has atleast been exposed to world-wide issues. I bet Palin cant even locate Georgia on the map. Did you see her recent interview? In spite of it being carefully staged, see her stumble aimlessly when it comes to the question of the Bush Doctrine... The biggest foreign policy change this country made (decision to make pre-emptive attacks) and Palin does not have an opinion on it because she does not even know what it is. The interviewer had to tell her what teh Bush Doctrine is all about. Are'nt you scared of a person like that leading the US? Why does this country always pick screwed up vice presidents (Dick Cheney's approval ratings have been <30% for as long as I can recall)
Either way, from an immigration point of view (focus of this forum) we are screwed (see my previous post for stances of both presidential candidates)
zephyrr
07-23 09:35 PM
Ok, taking the emotion out of proposal, i agree fully with this post.
My application with PD 2003 was stuck in BECs for more than 2 yrs. There were cases being approved in a random fashion - unfortunately, we were not organized to put enough presssure to sort out the mess and ask the BECs to follow some sane procedure.
Now that we are at the 485 stage, I think it makes a lot of sense to first try and urge USCIS to follow a simple PD+RD procedure. If the PD of a case is earlier, than adjudicate it first. Plain and simple.
I'm also happy for the greater good and the fact that people who got their labors cleared as late as 2007 are able to file for 485. The 485 filing problem, namely, being able to when PD is not current is on IVs agenda anyway and a top priority. But for people to just jump the line is more of a selfish act than 'risker' starting this thread.
Btw, I don't see anything wrong with this thread, it is not a selfish agenda. We should work together to lobby and put pressure on USCIS to make this simple procedural change of using PD and not Receipt Date. It is fair and makes absolute sense.
I agree with what you say. Yes, backlogged victims need some justice at this moment, otherwise there it is morally not good for everyone.
1. Why don't we petition first before thinking of Lawsuit. We from IV should write a letter to USCIS stating the injustice brought to the backlogged victims and how it is mentally affecting them etc. We should ask USCIS to consider these things and come up with a solution for backlogged victims instead of threatening DOS and others with Lawsuit. Since we are at their mercy, there is nothing wrong in keeping them higher up and at the same time getting what we want.
2. If the petition did not work out, then we can think about some suit. Still I don't agree with any suit as it is not going to bring justice. By the time the suit clears, you will have your GC in hand.
My application with PD 2003 was stuck in BECs for more than 2 yrs. There were cases being approved in a random fashion - unfortunately, we were not organized to put enough presssure to sort out the mess and ask the BECs to follow some sane procedure.
Now that we are at the 485 stage, I think it makes a lot of sense to first try and urge USCIS to follow a simple PD+RD procedure. If the PD of a case is earlier, than adjudicate it first. Plain and simple.
I'm also happy for the greater good and the fact that people who got their labors cleared as late as 2007 are able to file for 485. The 485 filing problem, namely, being able to when PD is not current is on IVs agenda anyway and a top priority. But for people to just jump the line is more of a selfish act than 'risker' starting this thread.
Btw, I don't see anything wrong with this thread, it is not a selfish agenda. We should work together to lobby and put pressure on USCIS to make this simple procedural change of using PD and not Receipt Date. It is fair and makes absolute sense.
I agree with what you say. Yes, backlogged victims need some justice at this moment, otherwise there it is morally not good for everyone.
1. Why don't we petition first before thinking of Lawsuit. We from IV should write a letter to USCIS stating the injustice brought to the backlogged victims and how it is mentally affecting them etc. We should ask USCIS to consider these things and come up with a solution for backlogged victims instead of threatening DOS and others with Lawsuit. Since we are at their mercy, there is nothing wrong in keeping them higher up and at the same time getting what we want.
2. If the petition did not work out, then we can think about some suit. Still I don't agree with any suit as it is not going to bring justice. By the time the suit clears, you will have your GC in hand.
rimzhim
02-12 11:30 AM
I agree with a_yaja,
We all came from H1B root. We pass that barrier and want to shut gate!!
This is not fare. Remember, when some people have opposed I 485 filling provision in Feb 15, many of our members hammered them with selfish label !
How come we suggest to stop H1B?
It should not be shut down, I agree, we came here on H1B. But the number of H1B allowed per yr should not exceed the number of GCs given every yr. that i think is what go_go_guy was saying.
We all came from H1B root. We pass that barrier and want to shut gate!!
This is not fare. Remember, when some people have opposed I 485 filling provision in Feb 15, many of our members hammered them with selfish label !
How come we suggest to stop H1B?
It should not be shut down, I agree, we came here on H1B. But the number of H1B allowed per yr should not exceed the number of GCs given every yr. that i think is what go_go_guy was saying.
Caliber
04-10 04:09 PM
Sanjus is comparing apples to oranges. ie, comparing IV to Comcast?
Reddog: We discussed enough on this Donor and Freeluncher's. You decided not to pay. Why still keep arguing about it?
Why not you provide free lunch to your neighbor's every day? Over a period of time, those neighbor's will think it is their right to get Free lunch from you.
If you are a student and not earning, you have every right to request for free access. You claim to be Highly educated and earning and you still want free ride?
Reddog: We discussed enough on this Donor and Freeluncher's. You decided not to pay. Why still keep arguing about it?
Why not you provide free lunch to your neighbor's every day? Over a period of time, those neighbor's will think it is their right to get Free lunch from you.
If you are a student and not earning, you have every right to request for free access. You claim to be Highly educated and earning and you still want free ride?
more...
nogc_noproblem
07-15 11:53 PM
Include Sep approvals as well, they can’t use all the visas in the month of Aug it self, it never happened before (in fact they wasted thousands of visas by the end of the fiscal each year in the past). This is the first time they have determined (?) to use all the visas, don’t expect 100% success in the first attempt it self. The system has not been fine tuned yet to that level of success.
For Sep, the EB2 dates will remain same or might even move further few months. Oct bulletin will be the interesting one. If there are very little approvals during Aug & Sep, it will move back considerably. If there are so many approvals in the tune of 15-20k, then EB2 PD will go back slightly (say Jan 06) but will move forward at healthy rate. Come last quarter of 2008-09, there will be quantum leap again.
only the month of AUg approvals is going to validate or invalidate...but makes sense so far. ;-)
For Sep, the EB2 dates will remain same or might even move further few months. Oct bulletin will be the interesting one. If there are very little approvals during Aug & Sep, it will move back considerably. If there are so many approvals in the tune of 15-20k, then EB2 PD will go back slightly (say Jan 06) but will move forward at healthy rate. Come last quarter of 2008-09, there will be quantum leap again.
only the month of AUg approvals is going to validate or invalidate...but makes sense so far. ;-)
NolaIndian32
04-30 01:03 PM
Thanks psvk, xlr8r, 65B4GC, asanghi, pcs and gova123!!!
Thanks for your support and contributions!!
Go IV
Thanks for your support and contributions!!
Go IV
more...
Sideliner
03-13 04:49 PM
Also, as we know the severity of the retrogation is not completely due to visa number unavailability. USCIS never used the full 140k - many years - due to the inefficiency of their process, FBI name check backlogs, may be work force shortage etc. We are beginning to see some improvements in those areas. There is an increased awareness of EB backlogs due to efforts of IV. I would say, the future is looking promising.
needhelp!
03-06 05:16 PM
Section 6: Time Limits for Agencies to Act on Requests Section 6 of the Open Government Act has two provisions that address time limits for complying with FOIA requests, and the consequences of failing to do so. Significantly, this section does not take effect until one year after the date of enactment and will apply to FOIA requests �filed on or after that effective date.� Accordingly, agencies have until December 31, 2008 to take any necessary steps to prepare for the implementation of this Section.
First, section 6(a) of the Open Government Act amends 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(6)(A) which gives the statutory time period for processing FOIA requests, and includes criteria for when that time period begins to run and when that time period may be suspended or �tolled.� Specifically, section 6(a) provides that the statutory time period commences �on the date on which the request is first received by the appropriate component of the agency, but in any event not later than ten days after the request is first received by any component of the agency that is designated in the agency�s regulations under this section to receive requests.� This provision addresses the situation where a FOIA request is received by a component of an agency that is designated to receive FOIA requests, but is not the proper component for the request at issue. In such a situation, the component that receives the request in error � provided it is a component of the agency that is designated by the agency�s regulations to receive requests � has ten working days within which to forward the FOIA request to the appropriate agency component for processing. Once the FOIA request has been forwarded and received by the appropriate agency component � which must take place within ten working days � the statutory time period to respond to the request commences.
Section 6(a) further provides for those circumstances when an agency may toll the statutory time period. Specifically, an agency �may make one request to the requester for information and toll� the statutory time period �while it is awaiting such information that it has reasonably requested from the requester.� The agency may also toll the time period �if necessary to clarify with the requester issues regarding fee assessment.� There is no limit given for the number of times an agency may go back to a requester to clarify issues regarding fee assessments � which sometimes may need to be done in stages as the records are being located and processed. In both situations, section 6(a) specifies that the requester�s response to the agency�s request �ends the tolling period.�
Second, section 6(b) addresses compliance with the FOIA�s time limits by amending 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(4)(A), the provision addressing fees. Section 6(b) adds a clause to that provision providing that �[a]n agency shall not assess search fees (or in the case of a [favored] requester [i.e., one who qualifies as an educational or noncommercial scientific institution, or as a representative of the news media] duplication fees) . . . if the agency fails to comply with any time limit under paragraph (6), if no unusual or exceptional circumstances (as those terms are defined for purposes of (6)(B) and (C), respectively) apply to the processing of the request.�
As noted in the language of the new provision, the terms �unusual circumstances� and �exceptional circumstances� are existing terms in the FOIA. �Unusual circumstances� occur when there is a need to search or collect records from field offices, or other establishments; when there is a need to search for and examine a voluminous amount of records; or when there is a need for consultation with another agency or with more than two components within the same agency. Unlike �unusual circumstances,� �exceptional circumstances� are not affirmatively defined in the FOIA, but the FOIA does provide that �exceptional circumstances� cannot include �a delay that results from a predictable agency workload of requests . . . unless the agency demonstrates reasonable progress in reducing its backlog of pending requests.� 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(6)(C)(ii). In addition, the statute provides that the �[r]efusal by a person to reasonably modify the scope of a request, or arrange an alternative time frame for processing the request . . . shall be considered as a factor in determining whether exceptional circumstances exist.� Id. at � 552(a)(6)(C)(iii).
Section 6(b) therefore precludes an agency from assessing search fees (or in the case of �favored� requesters, duplication fees), if the agency fails to comply with the FOIA�s time limits, unless �unusual� or �exceptional� circumstances �apply to the processing of the request.�
Finally, section 6(b) amends 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(6)(B)(ii), which discusses notification to requesters regarding the time limits and the option of arranging an alternative time frame for processing, by directing agencies �[t]o aid the requester� by making �available its FOIA Public Liaison, who shall assist in the resolution of any disputes between the requester and the agency.� This provision incorporates an existing aspect of Executive Order 13,392.
The Department of Justice will be providing guidance to agencies in the near future on section 6.
First, section 6(a) of the Open Government Act amends 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(6)(A) which gives the statutory time period for processing FOIA requests, and includes criteria for when that time period begins to run and when that time period may be suspended or �tolled.� Specifically, section 6(a) provides that the statutory time period commences �on the date on which the request is first received by the appropriate component of the agency, but in any event not later than ten days after the request is first received by any component of the agency that is designated in the agency�s regulations under this section to receive requests.� This provision addresses the situation where a FOIA request is received by a component of an agency that is designated to receive FOIA requests, but is not the proper component for the request at issue. In such a situation, the component that receives the request in error � provided it is a component of the agency that is designated by the agency�s regulations to receive requests � has ten working days within which to forward the FOIA request to the appropriate agency component for processing. Once the FOIA request has been forwarded and received by the appropriate agency component � which must take place within ten working days � the statutory time period to respond to the request commences.
Section 6(a) further provides for those circumstances when an agency may toll the statutory time period. Specifically, an agency �may make one request to the requester for information and toll� the statutory time period �while it is awaiting such information that it has reasonably requested from the requester.� The agency may also toll the time period �if necessary to clarify with the requester issues regarding fee assessment.� There is no limit given for the number of times an agency may go back to a requester to clarify issues regarding fee assessments � which sometimes may need to be done in stages as the records are being located and processed. In both situations, section 6(a) specifies that the requester�s response to the agency�s request �ends the tolling period.�
Second, section 6(b) addresses compliance with the FOIA�s time limits by amending 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(4)(A), the provision addressing fees. Section 6(b) adds a clause to that provision providing that �[a]n agency shall not assess search fees (or in the case of a [favored] requester [i.e., one who qualifies as an educational or noncommercial scientific institution, or as a representative of the news media] duplication fees) . . . if the agency fails to comply with any time limit under paragraph (6), if no unusual or exceptional circumstances (as those terms are defined for purposes of (6)(B) and (C), respectively) apply to the processing of the request.�
As noted in the language of the new provision, the terms �unusual circumstances� and �exceptional circumstances� are existing terms in the FOIA. �Unusual circumstances� occur when there is a need to search or collect records from field offices, or other establishments; when there is a need to search for and examine a voluminous amount of records; or when there is a need for consultation with another agency or with more than two components within the same agency. Unlike �unusual circumstances,� �exceptional circumstances� are not affirmatively defined in the FOIA, but the FOIA does provide that �exceptional circumstances� cannot include �a delay that results from a predictable agency workload of requests . . . unless the agency demonstrates reasonable progress in reducing its backlog of pending requests.� 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(6)(C)(ii). In addition, the statute provides that the �[r]efusal by a person to reasonably modify the scope of a request, or arrange an alternative time frame for processing the request . . . shall be considered as a factor in determining whether exceptional circumstances exist.� Id. at � 552(a)(6)(C)(iii).
Section 6(b) therefore precludes an agency from assessing search fees (or in the case of �favored� requesters, duplication fees), if the agency fails to comply with the FOIA�s time limits, unless �unusual� or �exceptional� circumstances �apply to the processing of the request.�
Finally, section 6(b) amends 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(6)(B)(ii), which discusses notification to requesters regarding the time limits and the option of arranging an alternative time frame for processing, by directing agencies �[t]o aid the requester� by making �available its FOIA Public Liaison, who shall assist in the resolution of any disputes between the requester and the agency.� This provision incorporates an existing aspect of Executive Order 13,392.
The Department of Justice will be providing guidance to agencies in the near future on section 6.
more...
Legal
07-18 02:28 PM
Ok, firstly, if you are really honest about your feelings, no one is really happy for another unless what the other has done is useful to you. You can wax your eloquence with claims to contrary, but you know it is true. So stop this pretensions.
Ok, you want a constructive suggestion? Rat on everyone who is doing fake jobs, is a body-shopee, bought his GC etc. That should get rid of at least 20-30% (conservative numbers). How many will support it? I guess not many.
How about asking USCIS to make the priority date of the substituted applications to be the day 140 is filed? Any takers there? I guess not.
And then people have the gall to tell us to be happy for Eb2ers, and that we are jealous.
PS: I realize that substitution is no longer possible, I mean to ask USCIS to retroactively apply the priority dates for such cases.
sc3, First of all let me express understanding of your agony and disappointment. If I were in your situation, probably I'll be talking like you.:)
You recite several unfair things. Who said there aren't any unfair things around? IV has feeble power when comapred to the massive muscle and money power of various lobbies who are stacked against us. In this context saying things that could undermine the unity of IV members can only further undermine any future efforts. Are you saying IV should "rat out" these people who have fake jobs and work for body shops?
A very dissproportionaely large number of EB3ROW and EB3I were adjudicated last June 2007, one ecould say at the expense of EB2-I. It is not unreasonable for EB2-I members to feel this way.
The question should be what to do now? There is no other way than lobbying for recapture bill.
Ok, you want a constructive suggestion? Rat on everyone who is doing fake jobs, is a body-shopee, bought his GC etc. That should get rid of at least 20-30% (conservative numbers). How many will support it? I guess not many.
How about asking USCIS to make the priority date of the substituted applications to be the day 140 is filed? Any takers there? I guess not.
And then people have the gall to tell us to be happy for Eb2ers, and that we are jealous.
PS: I realize that substitution is no longer possible, I mean to ask USCIS to retroactively apply the priority dates for such cases.
sc3, First of all let me express understanding of your agony and disappointment. If I were in your situation, probably I'll be talking like you.:)
You recite several unfair things. Who said there aren't any unfair things around? IV has feeble power when comapred to the massive muscle and money power of various lobbies who are stacked against us. In this context saying things that could undermine the unity of IV members can only further undermine any future efforts. Are you saying IV should "rat out" these people who have fake jobs and work for body shops?
A very dissproportionaely large number of EB3ROW and EB3I were adjudicated last June 2007, one ecould say at the expense of EB2-I. It is not unreasonable for EB2-I members to feel this way.
The question should be what to do now? There is no other way than lobbying for recapture bill.
continuedProgress
10-09 05:39 PM
Folks - Avoid visanow.com (Chicago) as well
more...
permfiling
08-21 03:41 PM
I am not negating anyone's personal decision here but after leaving for 10 yrs in US and still not having a GC makes me wonder why I should go to canada rather I would go to india and live there where we spent our 25 yrs or so and be part of the community etc.
Well every country has its own issues though.
Well every country has its own issues though.
desi3933
03-05 12:19 PM
I think pre-adjudication solves this catch-22 situation, and they have been pre-adjudicating quite a bit over the past two years. So, I dont think that this is an issue.
>> I think pre-adjudication solves this catch-22 situation
No. It does not.
Since, as per letter, country of chargeability is assigned at the time of approval (i.e. when immigrant visa number is assigned)
.
>> I think pre-adjudication solves this catch-22 situation
No. It does not.
Since, as per letter, country of chargeability is assigned at the time of approval (i.e. when immigrant visa number is assigned)
.
more...
franklin
09-22 11:58 PM
[[insert napoleon dynamite quote]]
I'm perplexed.... "You know, like nunchuck skills, bowhunting skills, computer hacking skills... Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills. "... or the one with him shouting at Tina the Llama to eat food?
In all seriousness, I haven't had time to celebrate or let it sink in. That'll come soon enough, after the events of last week have settled
I'm not going anywhere though. My battle may be over, but there's plenty of fight left in me :)
I'm perplexed.... "You know, like nunchuck skills, bowhunting skills, computer hacking skills... Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills. "... or the one with him shouting at Tina the Llama to eat food?
In all seriousness, I haven't had time to celebrate or let it sink in. That'll come soon enough, after the events of last week have settled
I'm not going anywhere though. My battle may be over, but there's plenty of fight left in me :)
go_guy123
08-09 11:12 AM
Hi all,
This discussion is very valuble for people like me deciding between living in Canada as PR vs H1B USA .We all know that salaries in USA are slightly better than Canada .But now the exchange rate is almost equal.
Salary:
Can a person with family(2 kids) survive in Canada with CAD 50,000 / year salary in a place like Toronto.? I heard in Canada you pay 13 % tax on anything you buy .Does 50 % of your income goes in taxes ?
HealthCare:
Also is the government sponsored health care good compared to USA .I mean do you have any wait to see specialists.Is healthcare comparable to USA.
Immigration:
In USA anyone can get a Greencard regardless of their qualifications and it depends how early you enter the GC queue.But looks like in Canada they value your educations and other qualifications.Can IT professionals (non-managers) apply for Canada PR without a job or Canadian education?
Canadian Citizenship:
Many people want to get Canadian citizenship and return to USA with TN Visa .In future ,could USA put restrictions on this .?
Please share your thoughts .
Thankyou
Yes salaries and opportunities are greater in US. I am not denying that. Actually
an Indian family friend of mine here in U of T, his wife happens to be born outside
India. I always advice them to keep an eye on opportunities in US, GC is worth the hassle for him.
With 2 kids you get tax benefits from Govt. Yes its hard. But its even harder and risky with
H1B in US. Taxes are high and so I am now planning to work as sole proprietorship
, something that I am not allowed to do in US.
Socialist Health care can never be equal to privatized health care in US.
In Canada you pay in terms of wait times (but not as bad as the private insurance lobby is portraying in US nowadays)
But if it is non emergency and needs long waiting I can get that done in India as well.
Skilled immigration is closed for non IT managers now.
Actually US has lately liberalized the TN1 visa for Canadians. It used to be 1 year but lately increased to 3 years. As H1Bs are squeezed out of US, the demand for non H1B needing people will increase and that can benefit TN1 visa holders.
This discussion is very valuble for people like me deciding between living in Canada as PR vs H1B USA .We all know that salaries in USA are slightly better than Canada .But now the exchange rate is almost equal.
Salary:
Can a person with family(2 kids) survive in Canada with CAD 50,000 / year salary in a place like Toronto.? I heard in Canada you pay 13 % tax on anything you buy .Does 50 % of your income goes in taxes ?
HealthCare:
Also is the government sponsored health care good compared to USA .I mean do you have any wait to see specialists.Is healthcare comparable to USA.
Immigration:
In USA anyone can get a Greencard regardless of their qualifications and it depends how early you enter the GC queue.But looks like in Canada they value your educations and other qualifications.Can IT professionals (non-managers) apply for Canada PR without a job or Canadian education?
Canadian Citizenship:
Many people want to get Canadian citizenship and return to USA with TN Visa .In future ,could USA put restrictions on this .?
Please share your thoughts .
Thankyou
Yes salaries and opportunities are greater in US. I am not denying that. Actually
an Indian family friend of mine here in U of T, his wife happens to be born outside
India. I always advice them to keep an eye on opportunities in US, GC is worth the hassle for him.
With 2 kids you get tax benefits from Govt. Yes its hard. But its even harder and risky with
H1B in US. Taxes are high and so I am now planning to work as sole proprietorship
, something that I am not allowed to do in US.
Socialist Health care can never be equal to privatized health care in US.
In Canada you pay in terms of wait times (but not as bad as the private insurance lobby is portraying in US nowadays)
But if it is non emergency and needs long waiting I can get that done in India as well.
Skilled immigration is closed for non IT managers now.
Actually US has lately liberalized the TN1 visa for Canadians. It used to be 1 year but lately increased to 3 years. As H1Bs are squeezed out of US, the demand for non H1B needing people will increase and that can benefit TN1 visa holders.
more...
easygoer
06-25 02:53 PM
I called Rep Lamar Smith office. The lady who picked up the phone asked me we are getting lot of calls. She asked me are you in supprot of the bill? I told her yes. I also told her that I am having master's degree from USA. My children are top student but may not get admission in some of NJ medical college just because we did not get GC since last 7 years. So we need help from Rep Lamar Smith to make USA more competitive. She also wanted to know that from where I was calling.
She told me that she will convey the message to Rep Lamar Smith.
She told me that she will convey the message to Rep Lamar Smith.
delax
07-15 07:48 PM
I already mentioned in my previous posts (multiple posts with same matter for people like you and me, see it and understand it well) how we are getting more than 50k visas just for EB2 India. I am giving it here again the visa allotments for 2006 and 2007 years when theres vertical fallouts. Now its changed to horizontal fall outs.
Due to this as many of us think its not the EB3 India which is losing, but its EB3 ROW.
Class --------------------------------------> 2006 | 2007
Total Employment-based Approvals ----------> 159,081 | 162,176
EB1 ---------------------------------------> 36,960 | 26,697
EB2 ---------------------------------------> 21,911 | 44,162
EB3 ---------------------------------------> 89,922 | 85,030
Fourth:-------------------------------------> 9,539 | 5,481
Fifth (investors) ----------------------------> 749 | 806
See the Total Employment Based Visa approvals for 2006 and 2007 159,081 and 162,176. But there are only 140,000 visas in EB category. The rest of the visas came from Family Based visas which are not used for the previous fiscal year. The share for each category: Each EB1, EB2 and EB3 should get 1/3 of 140,000 = 46,666. But due to the less demand in EB1 and EB2 ROW all the visas falling to EB3 ROW due to the Vertical falling.
EB1 ROW --> EB2 ROW --> EB3 ROW.
EB1 INDIA --> EB2 INDIA --> EB3 INDIA.
As theres not much demand for EB1 ROW and EB2 ROW, all the unused visas are going to fall to EB3 ROW. So from this time its going to be like Horizotal fall out like below.
EB1 ROW/EB1 INDIA --> EB2 ROW/ EB2India/ EB2China-->EB3ROW/EB3 INDIA.
So this time to fall any VISAS into EB3 ROW they have to pass through EB2 India/EB2 China. So this makes EB3 ROW dates would retrogress due to the decrease in visa numbers availabilty.
As I said each category would have 46,666. So EB1 and EB2 together will have around 93,332 visas. But in EB1+EB2 in 2006 about 50,000 visas approved and in 2007 about 70,000 visas approved. So for 2008 also asume the demand for EB1 and EB2 is 70,000. But the availability of VISAS are 93,332 as said above + unused family visas which come around 19,000+.
So for this 2008 fiscal year for EB2 India and China the total visa numbers availlable are
(93,332 +19,000) - 70,000 = 42,332.
So around 42 thousand + 9,800 (regular 7% of 140k) = around 52k Visas Just for India , because EB2 China was already Jan 2006 a year back. And I dont think it would take any considerable share in this 50k other than its regular 9,800 visas.
Get me back if you have any doubts.
I think this makes complete sense. If USCIS continues with the same intent/logic from this point on then 50k visas is possible. We can argue over a few thousand here and there but the increase will be substantial as compared to prior years. The big caveat to all this is that USCIS/DOS continue the horizontal spill over from this point on.
Due to this as many of us think its not the EB3 India which is losing, but its EB3 ROW.
Class --------------------------------------> 2006 | 2007
Total Employment-based Approvals ----------> 159,081 | 162,176
EB1 ---------------------------------------> 36,960 | 26,697
EB2 ---------------------------------------> 21,911 | 44,162
EB3 ---------------------------------------> 89,922 | 85,030
Fourth:-------------------------------------> 9,539 | 5,481
Fifth (investors) ----------------------------> 749 | 806
See the Total Employment Based Visa approvals for 2006 and 2007 159,081 and 162,176. But there are only 140,000 visas in EB category. The rest of the visas came from Family Based visas which are not used for the previous fiscal year. The share for each category: Each EB1, EB2 and EB3 should get 1/3 of 140,000 = 46,666. But due to the less demand in EB1 and EB2 ROW all the visas falling to EB3 ROW due to the Vertical falling.
EB1 ROW --> EB2 ROW --> EB3 ROW.
EB1 INDIA --> EB2 INDIA --> EB3 INDIA.
As theres not much demand for EB1 ROW and EB2 ROW, all the unused visas are going to fall to EB3 ROW. So from this time its going to be like Horizotal fall out like below.
EB1 ROW/EB1 INDIA --> EB2 ROW/ EB2India/ EB2China-->EB3ROW/EB3 INDIA.
So this time to fall any VISAS into EB3 ROW they have to pass through EB2 India/EB2 China. So this makes EB3 ROW dates would retrogress due to the decrease in visa numbers availabilty.
As I said each category would have 46,666. So EB1 and EB2 together will have around 93,332 visas. But in EB1+EB2 in 2006 about 50,000 visas approved and in 2007 about 70,000 visas approved. So for 2008 also asume the demand for EB1 and EB2 is 70,000. But the availability of VISAS are 93,332 as said above + unused family visas which come around 19,000+.
So for this 2008 fiscal year for EB2 India and China the total visa numbers availlable are
(93,332 +19,000) - 70,000 = 42,332.
So around 42 thousand + 9,800 (regular 7% of 140k) = around 52k Visas Just for India , because EB2 China was already Jan 2006 a year back. And I dont think it would take any considerable share in this 50k other than its regular 9,800 visas.
Get me back if you have any doubts.
I think this makes complete sense. If USCIS continues with the same intent/logic from this point on then 50k visas is possible. We can argue over a few thousand here and there but the increase will be substantial as compared to prior years. The big caveat to all this is that USCIS/DOS continue the horizontal spill over from this point on.
more...
ameryki
07-21 09:43 PM
Well, I've got a few reasons.
1. I don't like the attitude that comes along with the people that speak it.
2. I just don't like the language.
3. I don't live anywhere close to a place where I must know Hindi to survive.
4. The Indian Constitution recognises English as a subsidiary official language.
5. If I have survived as long as I have without knowing Hindi, I'm sure I can survive without knowing Hindi for the rest of my life.
Thaai mannae vanakkam!
Mate if you are an Indian there is no place in India where you can avoid Hindi. Hindi is our national language and that does not make it optional for you to speak or understand.
1. I don't like the attitude that comes along with the people that speak it.
2. I just don't like the language.
3. I don't live anywhere close to a place where I must know Hindi to survive.
4. The Indian Constitution recognises English as a subsidiary official language.
5. If I have survived as long as I have without knowing Hindi, I'm sure I can survive without knowing Hindi for the rest of my life.
Thaai mannae vanakkam!
Mate if you are an Indian there is no place in India where you can avoid Hindi. Hindi is our national language and that does not make it optional for you to speak or understand.
vbkris77
03-05 08:54 AM
Lets do it..
wandmaker
03-20 07:47 PM
I have got an RFE for 485 application. USCIS is asking me for Employment Letter, Paystubs and W2 for the employer I NEVER worked. (I have typed exact message below)
*
This is my situation-
I worked for 'Employer #1' from Jan-2000 to Jan-2005
Then I started working with 'Employer #2' from Jan-2005 to present. Employer #2 filed my H1/Labor/140/485. I am still working for Employer #2
*
However, I thought of changing job in 2006 and 'Employer X' offered me a job and sponsored my H1 and it got approved too, but I changed my mind and decided to continue with my current employer (Employer #2) and I am still with Employer #2. Please note my latest H1B was sponsored by “Employer X”, but I never worked for this Employer.
*
Please advice-
1) What should I send to USCIS? As I don’t have (can’t get) Employment Letter, Paystubs and W2 for “Employer X”
2) Would you consider this as simple case or complicated?
3) Should I hire attorney? (I self filed my 485 in July-2007)
*
*
This is the exact text - (changed Employer names)
Service records indicate that you were granted an H1-B nonimmigrant worker classification for employment from DEC 11, 2006 to DEC 11, 2009 for “Employer X"-. However, according to the G-325a submitted with your application, you had only worked for "Employer #1" from Jan-2000 to Jan-2005 and for the "Employer #2" from Jan-2005 to the present. Please provide evidence that you were employed with “Employer X". Such evidence may include copies of: employment letter, pay stubs or w2s
Thank you for your time and help.
Ask your attorney to write a letter in response to RFE and explaining the situation you never took the job with employer X though the H1B transfer or new is approved, this will clear the query of USCIS. One catch, you should have maintained a continuous employment with #2 and demonstrate the same to USCIS. Good luck!
Note H1 to L1, H4 to H1, L1 to H1 is completely different, it is change of status - H1 to H1 is not change of status, so there is no question that you recent h1 is valid and past is invalid. Get an attorney, Good weekend
*
This is my situation-
I worked for 'Employer #1' from Jan-2000 to Jan-2005
Then I started working with 'Employer #2' from Jan-2005 to present. Employer #2 filed my H1/Labor/140/485. I am still working for Employer #2
*
However, I thought of changing job in 2006 and 'Employer X' offered me a job and sponsored my H1 and it got approved too, but I changed my mind and decided to continue with my current employer (Employer #2) and I am still with Employer #2. Please note my latest H1B was sponsored by “Employer X”, but I never worked for this Employer.
*
Please advice-
1) What should I send to USCIS? As I don’t have (can’t get) Employment Letter, Paystubs and W2 for “Employer X”
2) Would you consider this as simple case or complicated?
3) Should I hire attorney? (I self filed my 485 in July-2007)
*
*
This is the exact text - (changed Employer names)
Service records indicate that you were granted an H1-B nonimmigrant worker classification for employment from DEC 11, 2006 to DEC 11, 2009 for “Employer X"-. However, according to the G-325a submitted with your application, you had only worked for "Employer #1" from Jan-2000 to Jan-2005 and for the "Employer #2" from Jan-2005 to the present. Please provide evidence that you were employed with “Employer X". Such evidence may include copies of: employment letter, pay stubs or w2s
Thank you for your time and help.
Ask your attorney to write a letter in response to RFE and explaining the situation you never took the job with employer X though the H1B transfer or new is approved, this will clear the query of USCIS. One catch, you should have maintained a continuous employment with #2 and demonstrate the same to USCIS. Good luck!
Note H1 to L1, H4 to H1, L1 to H1 is completely different, it is change of status - H1 to H1 is not change of status, so there is no question that you recent h1 is valid and past is invalid. Get an attorney, Good weekend
singhsa3
07-17 09:54 PM
Welcome back!, your are a part of the team
Hi all, this is the new ID of bigtime007. As many has noticed, I was banned for the following reason:
You have been banned for the following reason:
Disruptive posts
Date the ban will be lifted: Never
After thinking about it, I feel very very sorry for disrupting the cheerful atmosphere on this forum. It is time for champagne, not complaints. This should be a place to congratulate and applaud IV's achievements, instead of that to express one's own frustrations. People with 07 PD has the privilege to cheer when they cut in front of us, but we should not feel sad for being pushed back because it is a disruptive behavior.
Please do not list what you have done to add items in the legislation to help BEC victims, it does not look genuine any more when it is considered disruptive to express one's depression on a board specially for BEC victims.
This will be my last post, as I am sure they will ban both my ID and IP. For everyone who still reads my post, Good luck!
Hi all, this is the new ID of bigtime007. As many has noticed, I was banned for the following reason:
You have been banned for the following reason:
Disruptive posts
Date the ban will be lifted: Never
After thinking about it, I feel very very sorry for disrupting the cheerful atmosphere on this forum. It is time for champagne, not complaints. This should be a place to congratulate and applaud IV's achievements, instead of that to express one's own frustrations. People with 07 PD has the privilege to cheer when they cut in front of us, but we should not feel sad for being pushed back because it is a disruptive behavior.
Please do not list what you have done to add items in the legislation to help BEC victims, it does not look genuine any more when it is considered disruptive to express one's depression on a board specially for BEC victims.
This will be my last post, as I am sure they will ban both my ID and IP. For everyone who still reads my post, Good luck!
newyorker123
05-19 09:01 AM
Dear Mr
Thank you for contacting my office with your thoughts on immigration reform. Your correspondence is highly valuable, and I appreciate your sentiments.
Like you, I am deeply concerned about our current immigration system. I support a comprehensive immigration reform strategy that will end illegal entry and effectively address the reality that 12 million undocumented immigrants are currently living in the United States , many of whom hold jobs, make significant contributions to our economy, and have children who are American citizens.
As you know, immigration reform requires action on many fronts. The Department of Homeland Security does not have the resources to adequately protect our borders, and the system for legal immigration to our country is broken. Citizenship and Immigration Services must be reformed to eliminate the unacceptable backlog of immigration applications for legal immigrants and effectively track immigrants granted legal entry. We must also be sure that the current laws on the books - which require employers to verify immigration papers - are enforced. No one wants to make this task more onerous or burdensome, but if we reduce the demand for labor from illegal immigrants it will lead to fewer people entering this country illegally.
Agriculture is one of the most important industries in upstate New York . While some farmers can find sufficient labor locally, many can not find the workers who allow them to keep their family farms in business. I do not support cutting off the labor supply to upstate farmers who depend on seasonal workers to run their businesses. America 's farmers should not be punished for government's failure to adequately police our borders and implement a reasonable, transparent guest worker program.
Congress faces the urgent task of enacting comprehensive reforms that will preserve the traditions that have made this nation great, while addressing the security challenges we face. As debate continues on immigration, please be assured that I will work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reform a broken system in a way that protects families, respects human rights, strengthens our border security, and enforces the laws of our country.
Again, thank you for your opinion and letter. I am most appreciative. Should you have additional comments or questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. My door is always open.
For up-to-date news and information about our district, please visit my website at Congressman Paul Tonko : Home (http://tonko.house.gov) and sign up for my E-Newsletter.
Sincerely,
Paul D. Tonko
MEMBER OF CONGRESS
Thank you for your e-mail. Each and every piece of correspondence I receive is important because it allows me to better understand the New Yorkers I serve in the United States Senate.
As you can imagine, my office receives a great number of messages every day regarding a variety of issues � this is particularly true of e-mails. It makes me proud to know that my constituents take an active role in our government by corresponding with me, and I look forward to responding to your concerns in greater detail. In the meantime, I just wanted to let you know that your e-mail has been received, and to ask for your patience until I send you a more detailed response.
Again, thank you for writing. Please feel free to visit my website Senator Charles E. Schumer (http://schumer.senate.gov) to follow my work in the Senate and to learn more about the services my office can provide to you.
Warmest regards
Thank you for contacting my office with your thoughts on immigration reform. Your correspondence is highly valuable, and I appreciate your sentiments.
Like you, I am deeply concerned about our current immigration system. I support a comprehensive immigration reform strategy that will end illegal entry and effectively address the reality that 12 million undocumented immigrants are currently living in the United States , many of whom hold jobs, make significant contributions to our economy, and have children who are American citizens.
As you know, immigration reform requires action on many fronts. The Department of Homeland Security does not have the resources to adequately protect our borders, and the system for legal immigration to our country is broken. Citizenship and Immigration Services must be reformed to eliminate the unacceptable backlog of immigration applications for legal immigrants and effectively track immigrants granted legal entry. We must also be sure that the current laws on the books - which require employers to verify immigration papers - are enforced. No one wants to make this task more onerous or burdensome, but if we reduce the demand for labor from illegal immigrants it will lead to fewer people entering this country illegally.
Agriculture is one of the most important industries in upstate New York . While some farmers can find sufficient labor locally, many can not find the workers who allow them to keep their family farms in business. I do not support cutting off the labor supply to upstate farmers who depend on seasonal workers to run their businesses. America 's farmers should not be punished for government's failure to adequately police our borders and implement a reasonable, transparent guest worker program.
Congress faces the urgent task of enacting comprehensive reforms that will preserve the traditions that have made this nation great, while addressing the security challenges we face. As debate continues on immigration, please be assured that I will work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reform a broken system in a way that protects families, respects human rights, strengthens our border security, and enforces the laws of our country.
Again, thank you for your opinion and letter. I am most appreciative. Should you have additional comments or questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. My door is always open.
For up-to-date news and information about our district, please visit my website at Congressman Paul Tonko : Home (http://tonko.house.gov) and sign up for my E-Newsletter.
Sincerely,
Paul D. Tonko
MEMBER OF CONGRESS
Thank you for your e-mail. Each and every piece of correspondence I receive is important because it allows me to better understand the New Yorkers I serve in the United States Senate.
As you can imagine, my office receives a great number of messages every day regarding a variety of issues � this is particularly true of e-mails. It makes me proud to know that my constituents take an active role in our government by corresponding with me, and I look forward to responding to your concerns in greater detail. In the meantime, I just wanted to let you know that your e-mail has been received, and to ask for your patience until I send you a more detailed response.
Again, thank you for writing. Please feel free to visit my website Senator Charles E. Schumer (http://schumer.senate.gov) to follow my work in the Senate and to learn more about the services my office can provide to you.
Warmest regards
No comments:
Post a Comment