rimzhim
04-04 04:04 PM
[From here (http://www.ieeeusa.org/policy/issues/).
Enacting legislation to facilitate the admission of foreign professionals with advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering and managerial fields as legal permanent residents.
[/LIST]
great to hear that!
also johnifax98: if middlepersons are exploiting the system, it will help to eliminate their role. i agree that is also abuse.
Enacting legislation to facilitate the admission of foreign professionals with advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering and managerial fields as legal permanent residents.
[/LIST]
great to hear that!
also johnifax98: if middlepersons are exploiting the system, it will help to eliminate their role. i agree that is also abuse.
wallpaper 20 blank stanley cup mcconnell
apt29
11-11 03:43 PM
Before suing the USCIS, we should inform USCIS of our intentions. My idea is like this -
- Draft a letter highlighting the Statues and Rules (we can seek Attorneys help) regarding the Quarterly spill-over
- IV members/non-members would send their electronic signatures
- We would stick signatures in the electronic document
- Print this huge(hope it will be) document and deliver personally to DHS/USCIS executive officers
Any suggestions or changes are welcome.
- Draft a letter highlighting the Statues and Rules (we can seek Attorneys help) regarding the Quarterly spill-over
- IV members/non-members would send their electronic signatures
- We would stick signatures in the electronic document
- Print this huge(hope it will be) document and deliver personally to DHS/USCIS executive officers
Any suggestions or changes are welcome.
shantanup
02-11 10:05 AM
I will attend the event. I want someone to sponsor my airfare and stay.
2011 While the Stanley Cup Finals
shantanup
02-11 10:05 AM
I will attend the event. I want someone to sponsor my airfare and stay.
more...
vandanaverdia
09-10 03:48 PM
Well... We are eager & all hope to see Andy at the rally....
ArkBird
03-11 11:11 PM
More like KLPD :)
more...
fromnaija
01-19 10:59 AM
The following is a copy paste of the hopeless situation for many many of us, from the presentation paskal was referring to.
Please add more facts, figures, numbers.
There are around 147,000 employment based Visa number available every year.
Each country in the world, irrespective of population, equally share from the same bucket for Visa Number.
Total there are 100 (suppose) country in world. Each country will get 1470 Visa Number allocated / year.
This 1470 will be divided between EB1, EB2 and EB3 category
That means every category will get 490 Visa Number.
USCIS statistics show each household has at least two member. So only 245 household from India in EB3 category will get GC in a year.
Total GC application pending with USCIS is around 1MM.
In simple you are in a funnel and if you don�t act now you will be in funnel for lifetime.
There is only one thing wrong with this figure. Not all of the 100 countries will have immigrants in the EB category. The fact is that no one country can have more than 7% of the available visas i.e. 9800 of the available 140,000 EB visas per year.
Please add more facts, figures, numbers.
There are around 147,000 employment based Visa number available every year.
Each country in the world, irrespective of population, equally share from the same bucket for Visa Number.
Total there are 100 (suppose) country in world. Each country will get 1470 Visa Number allocated / year.
This 1470 will be divided between EB1, EB2 and EB3 category
That means every category will get 490 Visa Number.
USCIS statistics show each household has at least two member. So only 245 household from India in EB3 category will get GC in a year.
Total GC application pending with USCIS is around 1MM.
In simple you are in a funnel and if you don�t act now you will be in funnel for lifetime.
There is only one thing wrong with this figure. Not all of the 100 countries will have immigrants in the EB category. The fact is that no one country can have more than 7% of the available visas i.e. 9800 of the available 140,000 EB visas per year.
2010 The Stanley Cup Playoffs may
desi3933
03-10 01:43 PM
This is turning out to be TRUE.
Past week, I made this comment and some people made fun of it. But, it's turning out to be true. They are now fully focusing on EB3 and I think they will continue to do untill they finish all Eb3. Once they reached last quarter then they will make EB2-I/C current and distribute those spill-over visas across EB. They don't have to make EB3-ROW current to give some spill-over to EB3-I. What ever will be left at the end of quarter will be spilled across EB's.
I am expecting lot of REDs on this one.
Thanks,
MDix
>> Once they reached last quarter then they will make EB2-I/C current and distribute those spill-over visas across EB.
Would you mind explaining two "they" here? Whom you are referring to?
Hint: This is a trap question.
Past week, I made this comment and some people made fun of it. But, it's turning out to be true. They are now fully focusing on EB3 and I think they will continue to do untill they finish all Eb3. Once they reached last quarter then they will make EB2-I/C current and distribute those spill-over visas across EB. They don't have to make EB3-ROW current to give some spill-over to EB3-I. What ever will be left at the end of quarter will be spilled across EB's.
I am expecting lot of REDs on this one.
Thanks,
MDix
>> Once they reached last quarter then they will make EB2-I/C current and distribute those spill-over visas across EB.
Would you mind explaining two "they" here? Whom you are referring to?
Hint: This is a trap question.
more...
vdlrao
09-26 02:43 PM
Dear Reader,
Thank you for your interest in FSB. We admit that there was a
mischaracterization of the Capitol Hill rally in the story and it was
corrected as soon we realized the error.
We have changed the story to correctly identify the mission as a protest of
the long delays in securing green cards for highly-skilled workers already
in the U.S.
We will work to avoid errors like this in the future.
Best regards,
FSB
Thank you for your interest in FSB. We admit that there was a
mischaracterization of the Capitol Hill rally in the story and it was
corrected as soon we realized the error.
We have changed the story to correctly identify the mission as a protest of
the long delays in securing green cards for highly-skilled workers already
in the U.S.
We will work to avoid errors like this in the future.
Best regards,
FSB
hair nba playoffs bracket
boreal
12-28 02:35 PM
I just got my I140 approved. Waiting for 485 visa number to become avaiable. Have an offer of a better paying job in a bigger company. Can I switch Company and still carry the PD from the LC/I140 of the previous employer?
If I can port the PD date then how much time am I losing in temrs of filing for new LC and I140?
Thanks for quick response. I need to let the new employer know of my decision.
Saeed:confused:
You can only carry the PD, provided that the current I140 is not revoked. (provided it is not cancelled either due to mis-representation). You would have to restart from scratch with the LC though. You would be losing the time that has already been spent on LC/140 obviously.
If I can port the PD date then how much time am I losing in temrs of filing for new LC and I140?
Thanks for quick response. I need to let the new employer know of my decision.
Saeed:confused:
You can only carry the PD, provided that the current I140 is not revoked. (provided it is not cancelled either due to mis-representation). You would have to restart from scratch with the LC though. You would be losing the time that has already been spent on LC/140 obviously.
more...
Canadian_Dream
11-17 06:00 PM
Yes as long as you have an approved I-140 you can continue to extend H1B beyond 6 years.
The issue is not the extensions, but changing the job when you are on one of these extensions. This issue has been raised numerous times in the forums but so far things are still very murky, esp pertaining to the following:
1. What happens to your H1B status after you change your job, and then your previous employer revokes your I-140. ( To subsitute labor for someone else or simply as a matter of corporate proceudre)
2. Is your H1B status depend on the I-140 on which the extension is granted ?
So far these questions aren't answered clearly by lawyers or USCIS or folks in these forums. I hope it gets clarfied soon, becasue implications of the above cases could be as far reaching as being "out of status".
What do you mean by "Most people have run out of H1B and will have to change jobs on the extensions"? I thought that as long as you have a approved I-140, you could continue to extend your H1-B beyond the 6 years while you are waiting for your PD to be current. Isn't this true? Please explain.
The issue is not the extensions, but changing the job when you are on one of these extensions. This issue has been raised numerous times in the forums but so far things are still very murky, esp pertaining to the following:
1. What happens to your H1B status after you change your job, and then your previous employer revokes your I-140. ( To subsitute labor for someone else or simply as a matter of corporate proceudre)
2. Is your H1B status depend on the I-140 on which the extension is granted ?
So far these questions aren't answered clearly by lawyers or USCIS or folks in these forums. I hope it gets clarfied soon, becasue implications of the above cases could be as far reaching as being "out of status".
What do you mean by "Most people have run out of H1B and will have to change jobs on the extensions"? I thought that as long as you have a approved I-140, you could continue to extend your H1-B beyond the 6 years while you are waiting for your PD to be current. Isn't this true? Please explain.
hot Plusblank team cup playoffs
conundrum
10-31 05:59 PM
Received letter from USCIS regarding the FOIA.
NRC2008063282
The request has been placed in the complex track!
NRC2008063282
The request has been placed in the complex track!
more...
house The AFHL Stanley Cup chase
logiclife
04-20 02:22 PM
I will be coming with my other friend. We are commuting from Tracy / Stockton area. Anybody bringing the banners / hand signs to support STRIVE ACT?
Maybe no banners or signs because this is a town-hall style meeting and not a rally. I'll let you know if its ok to do that.
But surely, it would be good if you bring a sign/banner saying "www.immigrationvoice.org" which would help us get more coverage is its caught by the media.
Maybe no banners or signs because this is a town-hall style meeting and not a rally. I'll let you know if its ok to do that.
But surely, it would be good if you bring a sign/banner saying "www.immigrationvoice.org" which would help us get more coverage is its caught by the media.
tattoo The 2010 Stanley Cup playoffs
iv_only_hope
02-22 09:26 AM
I asked Greg Siskind about this. Heres his response:
"I did get this news about the meeting, but did not post on it as it sounded like it was not going to affect that many people. I would doubt that there are a lot of Indian EB-2s left with 2003 priority dates, but I could be wrong."
"I did get this news about the meeting, but did not post on it as it sounded like it was not going to affect that many people. I would doubt that there are a lot of Indian EB-2s left with 2003 priority dates, but I could be wrong."
more...
pictures 2011 Stanley Cup Playoffs
texcan
01-22 09:29 PM
I tell you what! There is nothing positive about having a green card. I have a green card and I don't see any difference. Same old stuff, except that I didn't gave my finger prints on my last visit abroad. I think they are extended that finger printing mechanism to green card holders too, so nothing special.
Thanks for enlightenment about GC. See if GC makes no difference at all , then we have to start living life right away. Otherwise when we get GC it will be a small burst of happiness ( as other have mentioned), and then same misery again.
Thanks for enlightenment about GC. See if GC makes no difference at all , then we have to start living life right away. Otherwise when we get GC it will be a small burst of happiness ( as other have mentioned), and then same misery again.
dresses 2011 Stanley Cup Bracket
guy03062
11-11 07:49 PM
This is great find. I am not sure why IV leadership (as an advocacy group) is not pursuing this to USCIS leadership as they are in touch with them regularly for other issues. Are we missing something here?
Under the regulation No reference to Calendar year. It mentions explicitly calendar quarter.
Immigration and Nationality Act: Section ACT 202 - Numerical Limitation to any single foreign state under Sec. 202. [8 U.S.C. 1152]
(3) Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter.
(5) 2/ RULES FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS
(A) EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
(B) LIMITING FALL ACROSS FOR CERTAIN COUNTRIES SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION (e)- In the case of a foreign state or dependent area to which subsection (e) applies, if the total number of visas issued under section 203(b) exceeds the maximum number of visas that may be made available to immigrants of the state or area under section 203(b)consistent with subsection (e) (determined without regard to this paragraph),in applying subsection (e) all visas shall be deemed to have been required for the classes of aliens specified in section 203(b).
Under the regulation No reference to Calendar year. It mentions explicitly calendar quarter.
Immigration and Nationality Act: Section ACT 202 - Numerical Limitation to any single foreign state under Sec. 202. [8 U.S.C. 1152]
(3) Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter.
(5) 2/ RULES FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS
(A) EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
(B) LIMITING FALL ACROSS FOR CERTAIN COUNTRIES SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION (e)- In the case of a foreign state or dependent area to which subsection (e) applies, if the total number of visas issued under section 203(b) exceeds the maximum number of visas that may be made available to immigrants of the state or area under section 203(b)consistent with subsection (e) (determined without regard to this paragraph),in applying subsection (e) all visas shall be deemed to have been required for the classes of aliens specified in section 203(b).
more...
makeup Pdf stanley cup playoffs
mps
04-23 09:43 PM
Hearty Congratulations !!
You have been a great contributor to this site .. please continue to do so for benefit of rest of us ..:)
You have been a great contributor to this site .. please continue to do so for benefit of rest of us ..:)
girlfriend Bracketsource http
hsm2007
09-20 07:37 PM
Hi Guys,
I am in tough spot. I was laid off from my GC sponsoring employer (A) in 2008 and joined another employer B . I did not do a AC21 notification. My dates are current and now I received an RFE to provide employment letter from current employer. The exact words of RFE are as follows:
"Submit a letter of employment attesting to applicant's current employment. This letter should be written on the company's official letterhead, citing the date the applicant began working, if a permanent full time position, the position offered, the position the applicant is currently working and the salary offered. Include corroborating evidence such as recent pay stubs, income tax returns, with all W2s or other evidence as appropriate. "
Now I am not working for original GC employer. I don't have a problem providing above from my current employer B. But whether the EVL should also mention that I am not working for GC sponsoring employer and that my current employers job profile is in same classification as previous based on AC21. Do I mention about the AC21 also in the letter? My current employer's attorneys are not that great but my current employer only wants me to use their own attorney.
Now here is the situation:
I have a job offer from another employer (Employer C) and they are in the middle of doing a H-1 transfer. In fact by tomorrow they will file the H1 paperwork. Now I don't know whether I should provide the letter from my potential new employer C . In that case, I won't be able to provide W2 or pay stubs until I join them. I have an opportunity to use my own attorney here (like murthy, Ron Gothcer..)
OR
should I provide a letter from my current employer using their attorneys and whether or not I should mention about AC21 in the employment letter.
Also they sent the RFE to my previous employer's attorney even though my current employer's attorney had sent the new G-28 forms. Can my current attorney respond to the RFE or will the response get rejected because USCIS still has old attorney on file.
Thanks.
I am in tough spot. I was laid off from my GC sponsoring employer (A) in 2008 and joined another employer B . I did not do a AC21 notification. My dates are current and now I received an RFE to provide employment letter from current employer. The exact words of RFE are as follows:
"Submit a letter of employment attesting to applicant's current employment. This letter should be written on the company's official letterhead, citing the date the applicant began working, if a permanent full time position, the position offered, the position the applicant is currently working and the salary offered. Include corroborating evidence such as recent pay stubs, income tax returns, with all W2s or other evidence as appropriate. "
Now I am not working for original GC employer. I don't have a problem providing above from my current employer B. But whether the EVL should also mention that I am not working for GC sponsoring employer and that my current employers job profile is in same classification as previous based on AC21. Do I mention about the AC21 also in the letter? My current employer's attorneys are not that great but my current employer only wants me to use their own attorney.
Now here is the situation:
I have a job offer from another employer (Employer C) and they are in the middle of doing a H-1 transfer. In fact by tomorrow they will file the H1 paperwork. Now I don't know whether I should provide the letter from my potential new employer C . In that case, I won't be able to provide W2 or pay stubs until I join them. I have an opportunity to use my own attorney here (like murthy, Ron Gothcer..)
OR
should I provide a letter from my current employer using their attorneys and whether or not I should mention about AC21 in the employment letter.
Also they sent the RFE to my previous employer's attorney even though my current employer's attorney had sent the new G-28 forms. Can my current attorney respond to the RFE or will the response get rejected because USCIS still has old attorney on file.
Thanks.
hairstyles the Stanley Cup playoffs
WAIT_FOR_EVER_GC
07-13 12:40 PM
I am in the same boat.
You can't do much. Some say opening an SR is like raising a red flag,they might want to interview you. Get an info pass will have the same effect.
So I believe we should wait and let see if the ones before us have been cleared
and if not what steps have they taken.
Just enjoy the feeling that we are current in Aug and soon our wish will come true.
Insha Allah
sorry if this has been asked...
if you are current, when can you expect to get an approval notice ?
My online I485 status continues to be in "Initial Review" stage and the last date of change on my file was back in 2008.
Is there anything we can do to shake this up or just wait.
You can't do much. Some say opening an SR is like raising a red flag,they might want to interview you. Get an info pass will have the same effect.
So I believe we should wait and let see if the ones before us have been cleared
and if not what steps have they taken.
Just enjoy the feeling that we are current in Aug and soon our wish will come true.
Insha Allah
sorry if this has been asked...
if you are current, when can you expect to get an approval notice ?
My online I485 status continues to be in "Initial Review" stage and the last date of change on my file was back in 2008.
Is there anything we can do to shake this up or just wait.
ivbabu
10-25 04:24 PM
My details are as under
nixstor
07-04 09:33 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...
Its not the paper work guys. They will love the money on EAD & AP. Its the huge backlog that will remain for ever on their hump unless a recapture occurs. Due to lack of communication or what ever, DOS made every category current. The only way they can escape from accepting our applications is by using up all numbers. Thats what they essentially did. AFAIK, DOS gets updates from USCIS and CP's across the world about the number of visas they have used in the past month. DOS then prepares the VB. Assuming USCIS told DOS that they have used 80/90K for the fiscal year so far, DOS is left with 60/50K for the last quarter of the fiscal year. How can DOS imagine/understand availability of 50/60k visas to be less demand for EB categories? This is what exactly the initial July VB said and we were all stupefied. They know this in and out and a simple request for pending number of 485's from years, approved & pending 140's since retrogression hit & that do not have a adjoining 485 should come out conservatively to 150-200K. Does DOS ask this as a part of their monthly information gathering process? Yes, they does is the simple answer. Then what led to the making VB current is the esoteric Q here. USCIS will have allocated the numbers at their own pace if the VB was not made current. As the VB was made current, USCIS was forced to use all the numbers and say that there are no numbers. Unless, we hear more stuff from the offices of DOS/USCIS in response to Rep Lofgren, every thing will be speculation.
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...
Its not the paper work guys. They will love the money on EAD & AP. Its the huge backlog that will remain for ever on their hump unless a recapture occurs. Due to lack of communication or what ever, DOS made every category current. The only way they can escape from accepting our applications is by using up all numbers. Thats what they essentially did. AFAIK, DOS gets updates from USCIS and CP's across the world about the number of visas they have used in the past month. DOS then prepares the VB. Assuming USCIS told DOS that they have used 80/90K for the fiscal year so far, DOS is left with 60/50K for the last quarter of the fiscal year. How can DOS imagine/understand availability of 50/60k visas to be less demand for EB categories? This is what exactly the initial July VB said and we were all stupefied. They know this in and out and a simple request for pending number of 485's from years, approved & pending 140's since retrogression hit & that do not have a adjoining 485 should come out conservatively to 150-200K. Does DOS ask this as a part of their monthly information gathering process? Yes, they does is the simple answer. Then what led to the making VB current is the esoteric Q here. USCIS will have allocated the numbers at their own pace if the VB was not made current. As the VB was made current, USCIS was forced to use all the numbers and say that there are no numbers. Unless, we hear more stuff from the offices of DOS/USCIS in response to Rep Lofgren, every thing will be speculation.
