vkrishn
07-16 11:32 AM
Don't know about his company...but the attorney definitely must be quite rich with all the legal charges :D
Its all about investing in the employee and has worked so far. ROI to the company is huge if the employee is taken care of (atleast on immigration issues). Employee can just concentrate on getting the job done and making sure the best products come out of the door on time to the end user making the company profitable.
My take: Money they spend on immigration issues (Law Firm, Renewals) should be peanuts to the profit the company makes.
Its all about investing in the employee and has worked so far. ROI to the company is huge if the employee is taken care of (atleast on immigration issues). Employee can just concentrate on getting the job done and making sure the best products come out of the door on time to the end user making the company profitable.
My take: Money they spend on immigration issues (Law Firm, Renewals) should be peanuts to the profit the company makes.
wallpaper Justin Bieber - Guitar
file485
07-28 09:48 AM
that is the catchy situation...I think this employment letter from the GC sponsored employer is required until we get the GC into our hands..so the sooner we get out of this cycle the better..or else we can be asked for a fresh employment letter in an RFE which is a sticky situation for many employers/employees
GoneSouth
03-07 08:38 AM
Get a new attorney. Seriously.
2011 OMG Justin Bieber hot!
ashatara78
03-10 04:38 PM
The EB immigration system was fine before then; thus, the problem is supply/demand, not the immigration policies.
I have no comments about comparison of family vs EB but the EB immigration system was not find before then. I have friends who were in this system in the late 1980s, early 1990s and had huge problems - had to wait a long time, could not switch jobs, could not visit back home for sibling's weddings etc.
It was probably fine during the Clinton administration for a few years 1996-1999 but I only know of a few cases, not many.
I have no comments about comparison of family vs EB but the EB immigration system was not find before then. I have friends who were in this system in the late 1980s, early 1990s and had huge problems - had to wait a long time, could not switch jobs, could not visit back home for sibling's weddings etc.
It was probably fine during the Clinton administration for a few years 1996-1999 but I only know of a few cases, not many.
more...
jayZinDC
05-28 03:41 PM
I used AC21 twice. Both times I informed USCIS, EVL contained exact job description but different title. Did not have any AC21 related RFE and today got 'CP ordered email'. :) good luck to all!
Hope this helps...
Did you send the EVL to USCIS yourself or did your lawyer take care of it? Is there are specific process, document format to follow? Congrats one and all who got approved seems to be a lot of progress in the Eb-2 arena. I heard of 15 approvals of EB-2 PD03 (Jan-Apr) in my company itsef
Hope this helps...
Did you send the EVL to USCIS yourself or did your lawyer take care of it? Is there are specific process, document format to follow? Congrats one and all who got approved seems to be a lot of progress in the Eb-2 arena. I heard of 15 approvals of EB-2 PD03 (Jan-Apr) in my company itsef
actaccord
02-17 03:38 PM
have the process/steps on how to redeem those air miles ?
more...
grinch
02-27 07:21 PM
Ah great!!! thanks bluesun!
And I have a question, how do I make geometry become a light source in maya?! I know I've seen it before, but I can't find it now...
And I have a question, how do I make geometry become a light source in maya?! I know I've seen it before, but I can't find it now...
2010 Justin Bieber!
walker15
09-10 03:28 PM
Still HR5882 not yet tabled, please stay tuned I will update whatever is happening.
Still they are discussing HR6020(Illegal Alien left over at Iraq while on duty :)) and it looks like this will drag a bit. So Rep. Zoe Lofgren is fighting for that family.
Hope there will be sufficient time to discuss HR5882.
Still they are discussing HR6020(Illegal Alien left over at Iraq while on duty :)) and it looks like this will drag a bit. So Rep. Zoe Lofgren is fighting for that family.
Hope there will be sufficient time to discuss HR5882.
more...
chanduv23
02-17 10:18 AM
for the update, StarRun.
We should have done it early (by 2 weeks before and continue the same for every 2weeks) so that people who need to get air ticket & Accommodation can get it @ better pricing. Also we will start getting contribution from silent member which can help to understand the level of participation bit early so that we plan for the event perfectly (or close to perfection).
I agree. Flight tickets are discounted till the last 3 weeks, but if someone wnts to book at a later stage, they become expensive.
On another note, I think we must urge locals, and those in driving distance to really make it. People must take this very seriously.
Most EB3 have no clue whatsoever when the backlog clears. Everyone wants to just wait and discuss visa bulletins, but will not do anything. This includes EB3 ROW also.
People must step up and do some PR work.
We should have done it early (by 2 weeks before and continue the same for every 2weeks) so that people who need to get air ticket & Accommodation can get it @ better pricing. Also we will start getting contribution from silent member which can help to understand the level of participation bit early so that we plan for the event perfectly (or close to perfection).
I agree. Flight tickets are discounted till the last 3 weeks, but if someone wnts to book at a later stage, they become expensive.
On another note, I think we must urge locals, and those in driving distance to really make it. People must take this very seriously.
Most EB3 have no clue whatsoever when the backlog clears. Everyone wants to just wait and discuss visa bulletins, but will not do anything. This includes EB3 ROW also.
People must step up and do some PR work.
hair Justin Bieber#39;s HOT Vanity
Legal
07-04 09:10 PM
[QUOTE=nixstor]Excellent analysis but it does have flaws
I am sure you might have read this from murthy's website (http://www.murthy.com/news/n_dosebn.html) or not, but DOS/CA/VO officials shared this piece with them. As per the above article, final quarter quota should not open until Jul 2nd. I understand that agencies can implement and interpret certain stuff, but you cannot interpret and implement one thing on Jun 13th and another on Jul 2nd. If its written into law, that the quarterly allocation is a must, USCIS is in violation and DOS/CA/VO as well for not policing them of visa number usage.
"Essentially, the numbers are spread out during the first three quarters and whatever is left is available during the last quarter"
On reading the Murthy article it appears that the biggest mistake USCIS committed was using up the visa numbers before the 4th qtr began on 7/2/07.
USCIS did it other way around...desparately rushed to use up the numbers before the 4th qtr began....only explanation is to avoid doing additional paperwork for the July filers...
I am sure you might have read this from murthy's website (http://www.murthy.com/news/n_dosebn.html) or not, but DOS/CA/VO officials shared this piece with them. As per the above article, final quarter quota should not open until Jul 2nd. I understand that agencies can implement and interpret certain stuff, but you cannot interpret and implement one thing on Jun 13th and another on Jul 2nd. If its written into law, that the quarterly allocation is a must, USCIS is in violation and DOS/CA/VO as well for not policing them of visa number usage.
"Essentially, the numbers are spread out during the first three quarters and whatever is left is available during the last quarter"
On reading the Murthy article it appears that the biggest mistake USCIS committed was using up the visa numbers before the 4th qtr began on 7/2/07.
USCIS did it other way around...desparately rushed to use up the numbers before the 4th qtr began....only explanation is to avoid doing additional paperwork for the July filers...
more...
ramus
07-02 08:16 PM
Thanks.. Please ask others to contribute..
Contributed $100 in the evening
Contributed $100 in the evening
hot justin bieber hot
coolmanasip
03-07 10:43 AM
Yates Memo clearly says that ability to pay should not be a factor.....read below......
Question 7. Should service centers or district offices request proof of �ability to pay� from successor employers in I-140 portability cases, in other words, from the new company/employer to which someone has ported?
Answer: No. The relevant inquiry is whether the new position is in the same or similar occupational classification as the alien�s I-140 employment. It may be appropriate to confirm the legitimacy of a new employer and the job offer through an RFE to the adjustment applicant for relevant information about these issues. In an adjustment setting, public charge is also a relevant inquiry.
Question 7. Should service centers or district offices request proof of �ability to pay� from successor employers in I-140 portability cases, in other words, from the new company/employer to which someone has ported?
Answer: No. The relevant inquiry is whether the new position is in the same or similar occupational classification as the alien�s I-140 employment. It may be appropriate to confirm the legitimacy of a new employer and the job offer through an RFE to the adjustment applicant for relevant information about these issues. In an adjustment setting, public charge is also a relevant inquiry.
more...
house justin-ieber-hot-hot-justin-
GC_ASP
03-18 05:45 PM
Please see the last sentece which says "Thus, the same cut-off date for each country since the extra numbers must be made available in priority date order without regard to country".
When they use this spill over, only PD is imp not the country.
If that is the case, I am not sure why China didn't even move a single day. From the example, China should have gotten half of the unused visas. :confused:
When they use this spill over, only PD is imp not the country.
If that is the case, I am not sure why China didn't even move a single day. From the example, China should have gotten half of the unused visas. :confused:
tattoo Justin Bieber 3-D Movie come
vine93
03-18 02:14 PM
I booked for myself . Need sufficient miles for one person .He has participated last year too.
more...
pictures love justin bieber life hot
shreekhand
07-12 10:15 PM
What is the need for all this ? The visa bulletin is out but no one cares to read it I guess. Every bulletin has these or words to this effect.
"Only applicants who have a priority date earlier than the cut-off date may be allotted a number."
So the date that you see in the table is NOT eligible for visa numbers.
Thanks for good wishes and congratulations to all who become current.
Regarding cutoff date I'm hearing multiple theories -
A. if it says 1st March - then prior to that consider as active - 1st of March is not included
B. some says 1st March is included because it is like UNTIL 1st March
C. Someone told me if cutoff date fall on weekend then consider that date in. 1st March in 2006 was Wednesday - just FYI.
D. someone also told me if it falls during weekdays then consider whole week - until Friday. USCIS taking cases for whole week for processing.
Wow so many options looks like I need to poll this and then wait until next bulletin :)
Once again thanks for good wishes and Congratulations who were waiting for longer period.
-Rwe
"Only applicants who have a priority date earlier than the cut-off date may be allotted a number."
So the date that you see in the table is NOT eligible for visa numbers.
Thanks for good wishes and congratulations to all who become current.
Regarding cutoff date I'm hearing multiple theories -
A. if it says 1st March - then prior to that consider as active - 1st of March is not included
B. some says 1st March is included because it is like UNTIL 1st March
C. Someone told me if cutoff date fall on weekend then consider that date in. 1st March in 2006 was Wednesday - just FYI.
D. someone also told me if it falls during weekdays then consider whole week - until Friday. USCIS taking cases for whole week for processing.
Wow so many options looks like I need to poll this and then wait until next bulletin :)
Once again thanks for good wishes and Congratulations who were waiting for longer period.
-Rwe
dresses Justin Bieber as WE are,
pcs
11-10 09:18 PM
Pappu, Aman et all...
Let push it... this is too uch for too long !!!!
Let us have a call on this. This is high time, we do something to mobilize guys for some common cause.
Let push it... this is too uch for too long !!!!
Let us have a call on this. This is high time, we do something to mobilize guys for some common cause.
more...
makeup Ju$t!n is soooo HOT!
sroyc
07-11 04:14 PM
I posted this in another thread.
There could be two reasons for this huge forward movement for EB2.
1) They want to minimize wastage by making more visas available for CP.
2) There was some heartburn among EB2 China applicants when their PD was set to April 2004. Since there are a lot more EB2 India applicants with PD's earlier than that, they felt that most of the EB2-ROW spillover would go to India. Moving the dates forward to 2006 would ensure that EB2 China gets a decent share of the spillover.
There could be two reasons for this huge forward movement for EB2.
1) They want to minimize wastage by making more visas available for CP.
2) There was some heartburn among EB2 China applicants when their PD was set to April 2004. Since there are a lot more EB2 India applicants with PD's earlier than that, they felt that most of the EB2-ROW spillover would go to India. Moving the dates forward to 2006 would ensure that EB2 China gets a decent share of the spillover.
girlfriend Justin Bieber Hot Pics – The
ak27
02-08 08:00 PM
Varsha,
I can try to make it but I am not from his district..
I can try to make it but I am not from his district..
hairstyles justin bieber hot photos 2011.
pkak
07-09 10:50 PM
That really makes Sense, I believe USCIS/DOS are smart agencies, and wont do those kind of silly mistakes..
Whether they are smart people or not, a future department of justice investigation will find out.
http://s202395528.onlinehome.us/category/general/
However I see a way out for DOS/USCIS. They can avoid class action by claiming that they had warned the public in advance via the July 2 update to the July visa bulletin, and had modified the July visa bulletin only on July 6, after warning the public in advance. This way they can accept all applications received till July 5, and will be covered against any class action law suits.
Whether they are smart people or not, a future department of justice investigation will find out.
http://s202395528.onlinehome.us/category/general/
However I see a way out for DOS/USCIS. They can avoid class action by claiming that they had warned the public in advance via the July 2 update to the July visa bulletin, and had modified the July visa bulletin only on July 6, after warning the public in advance. This way they can accept all applications received till July 5, and will be covered against any class action law suits.
nixstor
07-04 08:56 PM
Excellent analysis but it does have flaws
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
We all understand this and what you are saying, But What is in law is more important than OB's recommendations. First of all the office of OB might not have recommended to pass on any name checks. It might have advised to some how expedite them. More over, I dont think that they take the annual report seriously. We know how many times DOS officials and USCIS officials testify before congress. Why don't they tell congress that in order to clear backlogs
a) They need FBI to expedite name checks (they might have testified about this)
b) They need to recapture visa numbers (AFAIK, they never did this because your case is not pending unless you filed for AOS/485. We are not a part of the back log)
Their biggest problem now is if all of us file for 485, we will continue to be the back log for ever on the back of USCIS for ages to come unless recapture occurs. What ever be the number 200K or 700K, they simply dont want it.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
I am sure you might have read this from murthy's website (http://www.murthy.com/news/n_dosebn.html) or not, but DOS/CA/VO officials shared this piece with them. As per the above article, final quarter quota should not open until Jul 2nd. I understand that agencies can implement and interpret certain stuff, but you cannot interpret and implement one thing on Jun 13th and another on Jul 2nd. If its written into law, that the quarterly allocation is a must, USCIS is in violation and DOS/CA/VO as well for not policing them of visa number usage.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Understood, if they can clear 60K cases in 18 days, I doubt they will have any issues clearing them in 90 days. It goes back to the point of us becoming the biggest hump on USCIS
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories “current” for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories “current” ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of “current” there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making “current” for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as “current” in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
I think we all agree that there was no need to make every category current given that we know how many will become eligible for 485 filing. How ever, The OB's office will be pretty pissed if they use him as the trump card. Also, I got the annual report from OB's office in email on Jun 12th 07. VB came out on 14th? What you are saying is USCIS has worked over night to analyze OB's report or they had access to OB's report 15-20 days ahead. Everything points to me that there was a lack of communication between the two agencies on an issue with huge stakes.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
We need to do both as the success is not guaranteed in either situation. I do not know if AILF will win the law suit. On the other side, Senators like Kennedy who control immigration issues will not give a damn in the current situation. If the issue gets to a point where USCIS & DOS officials testify before congress, the root problem will be solved. If we just win the lawsuit and get in, USCIS is only going to sulk us for 10 years in the name of security check.In the end, We should be able to portray the whole situation as if USCIS has been put in a ugly predicament to utilize visa numbers under the arcane laws. Bashing DOS & USCIS left and right now is not of any use in the long run.
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
We all understand this and what you are saying, But What is in law is more important than OB's recommendations. First of all the office of OB might not have recommended to pass on any name checks. It might have advised to some how expedite them. More over, I dont think that they take the annual report seriously. We know how many times DOS officials and USCIS officials testify before congress. Why don't they tell congress that in order to clear backlogs
a) They need FBI to expedite name checks (they might have testified about this)
b) They need to recapture visa numbers (AFAIK, they never did this because your case is not pending unless you filed for AOS/485. We are not a part of the back log)
Their biggest problem now is if all of us file for 485, we will continue to be the back log for ever on the back of USCIS for ages to come unless recapture occurs. What ever be the number 200K or 700K, they simply dont want it.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
I am sure you might have read this from murthy's website (http://www.murthy.com/news/n_dosebn.html) or not, but DOS/CA/VO officials shared this piece with them. As per the above article, final quarter quota should not open until Jul 2nd. I understand that agencies can implement and interpret certain stuff, but you cannot interpret and implement one thing on Jun 13th and another on Jul 2nd. If its written into law, that the quarterly allocation is a must, USCIS is in violation and DOS/CA/VO as well for not policing them of visa number usage.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Understood, if they can clear 60K cases in 18 days, I doubt they will have any issues clearing them in 90 days. It goes back to the point of us becoming the biggest hump on USCIS
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories “current” for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories “current” ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of “current” there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making “current” for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as “current” in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
I think we all agree that there was no need to make every category current given that we know how many will become eligible for 485 filing. How ever, The OB's office will be pretty pissed if they use him as the trump card. Also, I got the annual report from OB's office in email on Jun 12th 07. VB came out on 14th? What you are saying is USCIS has worked over night to analyze OB's report or they had access to OB's report 15-20 days ahead. Everything points to me that there was a lack of communication between the two agencies on an issue with huge stakes.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
We need to do both as the success is not guaranteed in either situation. I do not know if AILF will win the law suit. On the other side, Senators like Kennedy who control immigration issues will not give a damn in the current situation. If the issue gets to a point where USCIS & DOS officials testify before congress, the root problem will be solved. If we just win the lawsuit and get in, USCIS is only going to sulk us for 10 years in the name of security check.In the end, We should be able to portray the whole situation as if USCIS has been put in a ugly predicament to utilize visa numbers under the arcane laws. Bashing DOS & USCIS left and right now is not of any use in the long run.
vin13
11-12 03:32 PM
Isn't there a limit of 27% of visas per quarter per country per calendar year ? If that limit is there then who will take precedence ? Quarterly Spill over or that limit ?
To me I think DOS is doing 27% quota limit for first 3 quarters then they are doing spill over so there is no quarterly spill. What if they will show us that there is a limit per quarter in law and they have to follow it. Is it something like deadlock. that trying to follow one law breaks another one.
What if we end up getting response that there is some action needed from Lawmakers to correct law..
just random thoughts.
In simple math, spillover happens only when there are left overs. If they were able to allocate visas to fill the quarterly limit(say 27%) then there is no spillovers. But we know that there are leftover visa that can be allocated quarterly not annually.
We are not 100% sure of exactly how they are allocating. At the least, this effort will help us understand the current process.
To me I think DOS is doing 27% quota limit for first 3 quarters then they are doing spill over so there is no quarterly spill. What if they will show us that there is a limit per quarter in law and they have to follow it. Is it something like deadlock. that trying to follow one law breaks another one.
What if we end up getting response that there is some action needed from Lawmakers to correct law..
just random thoughts.
In simple math, spillover happens only when there are left overs. If they were able to allocate visas to fill the quarterly limit(say 27%) then there is no spillovers. But we know that there are leftover visa that can be allocated quarterly not annually.
We are not 100% sure of exactly how they are allocating. At the least, this effort will help us understand the current process.
