WAIT_FOR_EVER_GC
06-10 12:50 PM
WAKE UP CALL FOR THOSE STILL SITTING ON THE SIDELINES
On Tuesday, when we were on the Hill doing meetings during Advocacy days, we were informed by the senior Senate office that an amendment to prevent H1 and work authorizations is in the works in the Tax bill. We immediately requested this office to oppose this amendment. Senator office expressed full support for us and shared with us that the Senator's office has already expressed opposition to such an amendment.
We would like everyone to know that just because someone has EAD, it does not mean we are in safe haven. There is no safe haven till we have approved green cards. And for those who think that they don't need to participate actively, this is a wake up call.
We have also learned that this is degree 1 amendment. This means it will be voted on on the Senate floor even when it is non-germane to the bill. We have also learned that if such an amendment comes up for vote during this difficult political climate, it appears that such an amendment will have 70 votes in the senate which makes each one of us extremely vulnerable to be forced out. Everyone on H1, L1, J1 or EAD will risk the renewal of their current application status.
IV is working on defeating this amendment. Please stay tuned for further updates.
On Tuesday, Mr. Sanders sponsored an amendment S.AMDT.4319 in bill H.R.4213
AMENDMENT PURPOSE: Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S4754
COSPONSORS(2):
Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] - 6/9/2010
Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] - 6/9/2010
Source: Congressional Record - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) (http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r111:1:./temp/~r1119eE0Na:e98:)
SA 4319. Mr. SANDERS (for himself, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Harkin) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 4213, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Employ America Act''.
(b) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security may not approve a petition by an employer for any visa authorizing employment in the United States unless the employer has provided written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that--
(1) the employer has not provided a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.) during the 12-month period immediately preceding the date on which the alien is scheduled to be hired; and
(2) the employer does not intend to provide a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to such Act.
(c) Effect of Mass Layoff.--If an employer provides a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act after the approval of a visa described in subsection (b), any visas approved during the most recent 12-month period for such employer shall expire on the date that is 60 days after the date on which such notice is provided. The expiration of a visa under this subsection shall not be subject to judicial review.
(d) Notice Requirement.--Upon receiving notification of a mass layoff from an employer, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall inform each employee whose visa is scheduled to expire under subsection (c)--
(1) the date on which such individual will no longer be authorized to work in the United States; and
(2) the date on which such individual will be required to leave the United States unless the individual is otherwise authorized to remain in the United States.
(e) Exemption.--An employer shall be exempt from the requirements under this section if the employer provides written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that the total number of the employer's workers who are United States citizens and are working in the United States have not been, and will not be, reduced as a result of a mass layoff described in subsection (c).
(f) Rulemaking.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Labor shall promulgate regulations to carry out this section, including a requirement that employers provide notice to the Secretary of Homeland Security of a mass layoff (as defined in section 2 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101)).
What should we do. I am in tell me what I need to do?
On Tuesday, when we were on the Hill doing meetings during Advocacy days, we were informed by the senior Senate office that an amendment to prevent H1 and work authorizations is in the works in the Tax bill. We immediately requested this office to oppose this amendment. Senator office expressed full support for us and shared with us that the Senator's office has already expressed opposition to such an amendment.
We would like everyone to know that just because someone has EAD, it does not mean we are in safe haven. There is no safe haven till we have approved green cards. And for those who think that they don't need to participate actively, this is a wake up call.
We have also learned that this is degree 1 amendment. This means it will be voted on on the Senate floor even when it is non-germane to the bill. We have also learned that if such an amendment comes up for vote during this difficult political climate, it appears that such an amendment will have 70 votes in the senate which makes each one of us extremely vulnerable to be forced out. Everyone on H1, L1, J1 or EAD will risk the renewal of their current application status.
IV is working on defeating this amendment. Please stay tuned for further updates.
On Tuesday, Mr. Sanders sponsored an amendment S.AMDT.4319 in bill H.R.4213
AMENDMENT PURPOSE: Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S4754
COSPONSORS(2):
Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] - 6/9/2010
Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] - 6/9/2010
Source: Congressional Record - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) (http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r111:1:./temp/~r1119eE0Na:e98:)
SA 4319. Mr. SANDERS (for himself, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Harkin) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 4213, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Employ America Act''.
(b) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security may not approve a petition by an employer for any visa authorizing employment in the United States unless the employer has provided written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that--
(1) the employer has not provided a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.) during the 12-month period immediately preceding the date on which the alien is scheduled to be hired; and
(2) the employer does not intend to provide a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to such Act.
(c) Effect of Mass Layoff.--If an employer provides a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act after the approval of a visa described in subsection (b), any visas approved during the most recent 12-month period for such employer shall expire on the date that is 60 days after the date on which such notice is provided. The expiration of a visa under this subsection shall not be subject to judicial review.
(d) Notice Requirement.--Upon receiving notification of a mass layoff from an employer, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall inform each employee whose visa is scheduled to expire under subsection (c)--
(1) the date on which such individual will no longer be authorized to work in the United States; and
(2) the date on which such individual will be required to leave the United States unless the individual is otherwise authorized to remain in the United States.
(e) Exemption.--An employer shall be exempt from the requirements under this section if the employer provides written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that the total number of the employer's workers who are United States citizens and are working in the United States have not been, and will not be, reduced as a result of a mass layoff described in subsection (c).
(f) Rulemaking.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Labor shall promulgate regulations to carry out this section, including a requirement that employers provide notice to the Secretary of Homeland Security of a mass layoff (as defined in section 2 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101)).
What should we do. I am in tell me what I need to do?
wallpaper Neil Patrick Harris and David
sanjaymk
07-18 08:58 AM
Some forums block out URL and I figured it is anyway easy for guys to search for the website using the keywords.
>>Always post URL!
Will do in this site....
Sanjay.
>>Always post URL!
Will do in this site....
Sanjay.
ronhira
04-09 07:02 PM
- the problem is with the congress, not with cis
Congress did not ask USCIS/DOS to subtract dependent visa numbers from 140K. If USCIS/DOS excludes dependent numbers from 140k, congress cannot question that because law doesn't mandate to include the dependent numbers in 140K.
-y the hell do u blame cis...... r they not allocating 140K per year
If USCIS/DOS doesn't agree to change their administration policy to exclude dependent visas from 140K after seeing our backlog, then who else do we have to blame.
Yes they are allocating 140K per year. But to who? In my view to the same applicant; one for primary applicant, another for his spouse, another for his kid, ....
Most of us here are 'keyboard ninjas'. Only very few contribute in actions and that contribution is hidden under donor forums. Without awareness of the good things happening, these keyboard-ninjas are not going to contribute in actions.
We all understand that blaming is not going to help anyone. But what else to do.
u'r saying that all these years uscis & dos was misinterpreting the law for counting dependents in the 140K count..... well, what is the army of 10,000 impotent immigration lawyers doing for last 15 years..... i know they r all dumb & sleazy..... but if that were the case someone in that useless army of 10,000 would have cared to file a lawsuit or someone in congress would have questioned uscis/dos..... the fact that no one questioned or filed for a suit just proves that uscis is interpreting the law correctly..... as much as i would like...... i am actually not convinced that its uscis fault for counting depends.... again here its the fault of the congress for framing the law like the way it is....
there are sleazy immigration lawyers who throw out this bullshit material hoping that some of it will stick, & guys like will think they r the gods..... in that sense its our fault to play right into the hands of sleazy immigration lawyers.... here r some of the creepiest of things thrown by some of these scam artist lawyers -
- fix backlog without immigration bill
- vb dates all current in 2 months
- spillover crap (this one is my favorite)
all that i'm trying to say is that we can do lot of things.... and beating down on uscis/dos is the last thing we all want to do....... becoz otherwise we waste the energy from our frustration/anger @ the wrong target......
Congress did not ask USCIS/DOS to subtract dependent visa numbers from 140K. If USCIS/DOS excludes dependent numbers from 140k, congress cannot question that because law doesn't mandate to include the dependent numbers in 140K.
-y the hell do u blame cis...... r they not allocating 140K per year
If USCIS/DOS doesn't agree to change their administration policy to exclude dependent visas from 140K after seeing our backlog, then who else do we have to blame.
Yes they are allocating 140K per year. But to who? In my view to the same applicant; one for primary applicant, another for his spouse, another for his kid, ....
Most of us here are 'keyboard ninjas'. Only very few contribute in actions and that contribution is hidden under donor forums. Without awareness of the good things happening, these keyboard-ninjas are not going to contribute in actions.
We all understand that blaming is not going to help anyone. But what else to do.
u'r saying that all these years uscis & dos was misinterpreting the law for counting dependents in the 140K count..... well, what is the army of 10,000 impotent immigration lawyers doing for last 15 years..... i know they r all dumb & sleazy..... but if that were the case someone in that useless army of 10,000 would have cared to file a lawsuit or someone in congress would have questioned uscis/dos..... the fact that no one questioned or filed for a suit just proves that uscis is interpreting the law correctly..... as much as i would like...... i am actually not convinced that its uscis fault for counting depends.... again here its the fault of the congress for framing the law like the way it is....
there are sleazy immigration lawyers who throw out this bullshit material hoping that some of it will stick, & guys like will think they r the gods..... in that sense its our fault to play right into the hands of sleazy immigration lawyers.... here r some of the creepiest of things thrown by some of these scam artist lawyers -
- fix backlog without immigration bill
- vb dates all current in 2 months
- spillover crap (this one is my favorite)
all that i'm trying to say is that we can do lot of things.... and beating down on uscis/dos is the last thing we all want to do....... becoz otherwise we waste the energy from our frustration/anger @ the wrong target......
2011 David
eb3retro
01-30 02:33 PM
Hello all,
A few days ago I started a thread where laid off folks can post their qualifications and people who know of job openings can let them know.
Unfortunately, yesterday I received an email saying that an RFE was raised about my 485. My PD is Sept 2005 in EB3. WTH is my case being processed now? I saw in some other threads also that people with further off PDs are getting RFEs. Can someone shed some light on what the RFE may be about?
I used AC21 earlier last year after completing 180 days of filing 485 and got a new H1 approved. My 140 is approved and my previous employer has not revoked it. They only revoked the H1 and that too about 7 months ago. My new (now ex) employer hasnt revoked my H1 yet.
How long does it take for the RFE to come? I suppose it will goto my old company's lawyer though they are nice folks and will let me know.
i dont get it, u r a EB3- india (ur profile says that) with SEp 05 PD and you got an RFE on 485? Cos, i know uscis did not even touch eb3 india with any PD of even 2002. something is not right?
A few days ago I started a thread where laid off folks can post their qualifications and people who know of job openings can let them know.
Unfortunately, yesterday I received an email saying that an RFE was raised about my 485. My PD is Sept 2005 in EB3. WTH is my case being processed now? I saw in some other threads also that people with further off PDs are getting RFEs. Can someone shed some light on what the RFE may be about?
I used AC21 earlier last year after completing 180 days of filing 485 and got a new H1 approved. My 140 is approved and my previous employer has not revoked it. They only revoked the H1 and that too about 7 months ago. My new (now ex) employer hasnt revoked my H1 yet.
How long does it take for the RFE to come? I suppose it will goto my old company's lawyer though they are nice folks and will let me know.
i dont get it, u r a EB3- india (ur profile says that) with SEp 05 PD and you got an RFE on 485? Cos, i know uscis did not even touch eb3 india with any PD of even 2002. something is not right?
more...
shana04
01-20 05:35 AM
Friends,
Just to educate you all.
All Mexico border cities (from USA) require that you need to carry Passport all the times and it is mandatory. Even if you travel by Air, car, bus or train.
If any one is planning to go to a border city especially around texas carry your passport and any legal Id (secondary). If not any border security patrol officer can stop and that is legal.
This has been there for long time and if you have any friends especially close to border cities in Texas would know it, pls confirm.
This is real info.
Well, this is NOT a cooked up story. This happened to me yesterday at Harlingen (HRL) Texas airport.
On January 16, 2008, I went to Mexico for H1-B visa stamping at Matamoras US consulate. I got my H1-B visa stamped and returned to Brownville, Texas.
On January 17, 2008, I was at Harlingen (HRL), Texas airport for my final destination.
One of the TSA security personnel�s is in process of verifying my ticket before proceeding to security check. As every one knows, we must present one of the government issued PHOTO-ID to them to clear the security check. I have shown my driver license and he has cleared the security check (name check).
I was about to proceed further for security screening; mean while, a Police Officer came to me and asked me following questions.
Sir, are you a US citizen?
I said, No
Then, he asked me, can I see your immigration documents.
I have shown my passport to the police officer.
He looked at H1-B visa and I-94 and asked me; who do you work for?
I said my employer�s name.
Later, he gave me my passport back.
Now,
I have asked the Police Officer few questions
1. Sir, I�m in domestic traveling, is it mandatory to carry my immigration documents at all times?
Police Officer said, as per the US LAW, all non-immigrants must carry immigration documents and passport at all times.
2. What would you have done to me, if I had failed to present my passport?
Police office said, I could have DEPORTED you.
3. Sir, it is not possible for any one to carry passport at all times. Could the LAW allow me to carry photo copies of my passport and immigrations documents?
Police office said, No. Technically, you must carry original documents at all times.
I would advice you to carry Passport at all times.
I did not know this until Police Officer told me about this LAW.
P.S: BTW, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) level is in �ORGANE�.
Just to educate you all.
All Mexico border cities (from USA) require that you need to carry Passport all the times and it is mandatory. Even if you travel by Air, car, bus or train.
If any one is planning to go to a border city especially around texas carry your passport and any legal Id (secondary). If not any border security patrol officer can stop and that is legal.
This has been there for long time and if you have any friends especially close to border cities in Texas would know it, pls confirm.
This is real info.
Well, this is NOT a cooked up story. This happened to me yesterday at Harlingen (HRL) Texas airport.
On January 16, 2008, I went to Mexico for H1-B visa stamping at Matamoras US consulate. I got my H1-B visa stamped and returned to Brownville, Texas.
On January 17, 2008, I was at Harlingen (HRL), Texas airport for my final destination.
One of the TSA security personnel�s is in process of verifying my ticket before proceeding to security check. As every one knows, we must present one of the government issued PHOTO-ID to them to clear the security check. I have shown my driver license and he has cleared the security check (name check).
I was about to proceed further for security screening; mean while, a Police Officer came to me and asked me following questions.
Sir, are you a US citizen?
I said, No
Then, he asked me, can I see your immigration documents.
I have shown my passport to the police officer.
He looked at H1-B visa and I-94 and asked me; who do you work for?
I said my employer�s name.
Later, he gave me my passport back.
Now,
I have asked the Police Officer few questions
1. Sir, I�m in domestic traveling, is it mandatory to carry my immigration documents at all times?
Police Officer said, as per the US LAW, all non-immigrants must carry immigration documents and passport at all times.
2. What would you have done to me, if I had failed to present my passport?
Police office said, I could have DEPORTED you.
3. Sir, it is not possible for any one to carry passport at all times. Could the LAW allow me to carry photo copies of my passport and immigrations documents?
Police office said, No. Technically, you must carry original documents at all times.
I would advice you to carry Passport at all times.
I did not know this until Police Officer told me about this LAW.
P.S: BTW, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) level is in �ORGANE�.
alex99
11-01 12:33 PM
Bumping..
more...
h1techSlave
07-28 03:04 PM
Would you be offended if the image of Ganesh is used on a sack of rice or sugar or a bottle of cooking oil? If not, then what's the problem in using it on an alcoholic beverage bottle?
I always thought in the same angle. Why people are so jittery about alcohol? Alcohol is harmless in reasonable quantities. It is bad when consumed excessively; so are oil, rice etc. What's the big deal about alcohol alone?
I always thought in the same angle. Why people are so jittery about alcohol? Alcohol is harmless in reasonable quantities. It is bad when consumed excessively; so are oil, rice etc. What's the big deal about alcohol alone?
2010 Neil Patrick Harris and David
ilikekilo
10-16 10:26 AM
U could get notarized at ur local banks or at ur work place if u ahve anyone who has a license
i believe you dont have to put in any recpt # 's just your name...
and also anyone knows the fax #??
i believe you dont have to put in any recpt # 's just your name...
and also anyone knows the fax #??
more...
ak_2006
09-09 02:37 PM
I feel like there will be no special help from anybody including IV. I am not blaming IV for this as they have to fight for all. We (EBI) need lead the fight to do something.
But many of us not willing to do spend time/money for this cause. If a person can't do those, switch jobs, and find jobs where we can start processing in EB2, or ask current employers to apply in EB2.
But many of us not willing to do spend time/money for this cause. If a person can't do those, switch jobs, and find jobs where we can start processing in EB2, or ask current employers to apply in EB2.
hair Neil Patrick Harris
stucklabor
07-24 10:15 PM
.. there should definitely be some policy interpretation at the discretion of the USCIS
1) The law does not explicitly state that the visa number availability is a pre-requisite for filing the application
2) If you are interpreting it based on the words ....
"an immigrant visa is immediately available to him at the time his application is filed"
Then according to 245(a)(2)....
"the alien is eligible to receive an immigrant visa and is admissible to the United States for permanent residence, and "
....concurrent filing of I-140/I-485 should also be illegal because at the time of filing I-140 there is no determination of whether the alien is eligible to recieve the EB visa. If so how can USCIS allow filing of I-485 at that time.
Dude/Dudette, I give up. The alien's eligibility and admissibility is decided at I-485 stage - FBI name checks, medical tests ring a bell? The law explicitly states that visa number availabililty is a pre-requisite for the adjustment of status application in 245(a)(3). If you can't understand - or choose to refuse to understand - plain English, have fun arguing with yourself.
1) The law does not explicitly state that the visa number availability is a pre-requisite for filing the application
2) If you are interpreting it based on the words ....
"an immigrant visa is immediately available to him at the time his application is filed"
Then according to 245(a)(2)....
"the alien is eligible to receive an immigrant visa and is admissible to the United States for permanent residence, and "
....concurrent filing of I-140/I-485 should also be illegal because at the time of filing I-140 there is no determination of whether the alien is eligible to recieve the EB visa. If so how can USCIS allow filing of I-485 at that time.
Dude/Dudette, I give up. The alien's eligibility and admissibility is decided at I-485 stage - FBI name checks, medical tests ring a bell? The law explicitly states that visa number availabililty is a pre-requisite for the adjustment of status application in 245(a)(3). If you can't understand - or choose to refuse to understand - plain English, have fun arguing with yourself.
more...
Jelena
07-14 08:23 AM
Yes, this letter is a bit late but it's still very well-written an exactly to the point. I couldn't help but nodding all the way through.
My lawyer (company's lawyer, to be exact) didn't even bother telling me about either July bulletin or July 2nd fiasco - I found about it in the Internet.
My lawyer (company's lawyer, to be exact) didn't even bother telling me about either July bulletin or July 2nd fiasco - I found about it in the Internet.
hot Neil Patrick Harris and David
varshadas
02-09 08:26 PM
Yes, I will send in the details for the telcon shortly
more...
house Neil Patrick Harris and David
angelfire76
02-13 05:06 PM
You honestly believe that our problems are comprable to the suffering that the real victims of ethnic cleansing go through?
2 different kinds of torture. The mental and the physical. Even though the extent to which we are being made to suffer (voluntary though) is not even close to the ethnic cleansing, all this anxiety about one's future is sure to send us to an early grave.
You cannot treat people like doormats, removing them when not needed as much. Business is a 2-way street.
2 different kinds of torture. The mental and the physical. Even though the extent to which we are being made to suffer (voluntary though) is not even close to the ethnic cleansing, all this anxiety about one's future is sure to send us to an early grave.
You cannot treat people like doormats, removing them when not needed as much. Business is a 2-way street.
tattoo neil-patrick-harris-david-
supers789
11-22 10:28 AM
Ok. Here is a question I have.
I know one can get 3 years extensions once 140 is approved even with previous employer. The question is -
Assume EB2 140 is approved for previous employer has PD June 2004, and then one changes the job. By the time his 6 years of H1B gets over, June 2004 becomes current. Now the person cannot file 485 since 140 was approved for old employe whom he has left an year back. Will the person still get 3 years of extension on H1B?
I was thinking, u get 3 years extension due to retrogession.. so with the fact that PD is current, how will you still get 3 years of extension?
Thanks.
I know one can get 3 years extensions once 140 is approved even with previous employer. The question is -
Assume EB2 140 is approved for previous employer has PD June 2004, and then one changes the job. By the time his 6 years of H1B gets over, June 2004 becomes current. Now the person cannot file 485 since 140 was approved for old employe whom he has left an year back. Will the person still get 3 years of extension on H1B?
I was thinking, u get 3 years extension due to retrogession.. so with the fact that PD is current, how will you still get 3 years of extension?
Thanks.
more...
pictures Neil Patrick Harris David
amitjoey
07-05 01:44 PM
Order Details - Jul 5, 2007 11:09 AM PDT
Google Order #448537035986231 Print
Shipping Status Qty Item Price
Not yet shipped 1 Contribute 100 $100.00
Total: $100.00
Thanks waiting4gc.
Google Order #448537035986231 Print
Shipping Status Qty Item Price
Not yet shipped 1 Contribute 100 $100.00
Total: $100.00
Thanks waiting4gc.
dresses Neil Patrick Harris and his
spaceguy
10-26 09:29 AM
Eb3 India
PD- Jan 2004
Got EAD,FP and AP
PD- Jan 2004
Got EAD,FP and AP
more...
makeup Neil Patrick Harris, David
perm2gc
01-10 09:33 PM
http://www.canadiandesi.com/read.php?TID=16132
girlfriend Neil Patrick Harris and David
venky321
08-22 09:36 AM
Seriously, why are you giving OP such a hard time? She only came here looking for help.
I am not sure if she is illegal or not, but atleast you could have told her that politely instead of taunting her with it.
OP, just so you know, the majority of the posters here have to endure long long waits for their US green cards, greater than 10 years sometimes. Because of that they tend to become hyper sensitive when it comes to immigration matters, especially when they think someone is stepping out of line and trying to manipulate the system. Dont mean to imply at all , thats what you are doing.
Your case is too complicated and I haven't come across such a scenario; I'd suggest talking to an attorney; while it might be expensive, some attorneys might be willing to talk to you free for a few minutes, for a basic consultation. Atleast you may find out if you are legal or not.
I am not sure if she is illegal or not, but atleast you could have told her that politely instead of taunting her with it.
OP, just so you know, the majority of the posters here have to endure long long waits for their US green cards, greater than 10 years sometimes. Because of that they tend to become hyper sensitive when it comes to immigration matters, especially when they think someone is stepping out of line and trying to manipulate the system. Dont mean to imply at all , thats what you are doing.
Your case is too complicated and I haven't come across such a scenario; I'd suggest talking to an attorney; while it might be expensive, some attorneys might be willing to talk to you free for a few minutes, for a basic consultation. Atleast you may find out if you are legal or not.
hairstyles neil patrick harris david
ragu
02-19 09:03 PM
are nil. Politicians are not going to touch immigration even with a 10 foot pole right now.
I'm one of those who say with pride that I can create jobs and buy houses. Then why will not congress or policy makers not touch this. As some here said it depends upon what we think about ourselves. I know many people who like to work under someone even after 10-15 years, my brother is like that, and I know many more like me who want to start companies, employ many people, and do bigger things. Both may be right in their own ways, but if you project yourself like me, then the doors will open.. Show enterprise..
I'm one of those who say with pride that I can create jobs and buy houses. Then why will not congress or policy makers not touch this. As some here said it depends upon what we think about ourselves. I know many people who like to work under someone even after 10-15 years, my brother is like that, and I know many more like me who want to start companies, employ many people, and do bigger things. Both may be right in their own ways, but if you project yourself like me, then the doors will open.. Show enterprise..
eb3_nepa
04-10 08:07 AM
Instead of letting members open 4 different threads, it is best that IV core itself opens the thread in RED so that it catches people's eyes and they post their comments in one spot rather than 4. AND it helps highlight the fact the bulletin is actually out.
vbkris77
04-10 12:28 PM
What you said is absolutely true. EB1 Last year and the year before saw lot more approvals than usual. My reasoning is that even though EB1 was current for all along, they never really approved I140s to give them GC. So In the overall clearing of I140s, CIS cleared lot more EB1 cases and became approved during last 2 years. If you look at the I140 completion in the dash board, it will be very much clear that the completions came down to 4 digits for each month from 5 digits. Receipts continued to be less than 5K per month.
This year, we may see a big dip in EB1 cases and larger EB2 spillover. EB4 spillover is ruled out after this bulletin.
Here are the details for last year and years before:
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
This year, we may see a big dip in EB1 cases and larger EB2 spillover. EB4 spillover is ruled out after this bulletin.
Here are the details for last year and years before:
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
No comments:
Post a Comment