indyanguy
01-28 07:54 PM
Indian Guy, the link is
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1#
But, I am not sure if Chintu is here to host it.,
It takes me to the homepage :(
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1#
But, I am not sure if Chintu is here to host it.,
It takes me to the homepage :(
wallpaper Trendy Hairstyles with Bangs
NolaIndian32
09-01 11:06 AM
Alright guys, I cannot tell you how excited I am to report that i got a call this morning from my attorney and my online case status also states that Card Production was ordered for my case!!!
After 8 long years.....i finally have been approved for permanent residency. After 7 years, i will finally, with peace of mind, go back to India to visit my family. Thanks to IV, everyone's help on these forums for helping me keep my sanity over the past 2 years....
After 15 years in the US, I will finally have my green card in hand soon.
-Nola
After 8 long years.....i finally have been approved for permanent residency. After 7 years, i will finally, with peace of mind, go back to India to visit my family. Thanks to IV, everyone's help on these forums for helping me keep my sanity over the past 2 years....
After 15 years in the US, I will finally have my green card in hand soon.
-Nola
sparky123
05-01 09:28 PM
My details:
Applied: June 2007
Audit received: October 2007
Audit replied: November 2007
Been stuck ever since....am willing to contribute anything I can to get all of us out of this deadlock.
Applied: June 2007
Audit received: October 2007
Audit replied: November 2007
Been stuck ever since....am willing to contribute anything I can to get all of us out of this deadlock.
2011 Medium trendy hairstyle
AllVNeedGcPc
05-26 11:04 AM
... same old cards with 2 years validity.
...are they gonna go to the lawyer's this time?
...are they gonna go to the lawyer's this time?
more...
Green_Always
06-13 11:41 PM
This is really Crazy....
People are waiting form 2001 for GC and these guys have open flood gates.. and I have been seeing approvals for 2003 / 2004 cases.. and no wonder they will approve next month cases also..
Where is the Justice?
Not sure.. how this kind of advanced country can do things like this very happazzard with out proper process and procedures.
Not sure what they are up to..
Probally they will get more papers on illegals now..
only thing they have to outsource this process to India / China.. to move things fast.
Dont know if we need to laugh or cry at these people procedure and process..
Hope things will go as First In First Out which is ethical and justification way to move things.
Hope some one from high level of USCIS looks at my message and take necessary actions and set right there process and procedures..
no other words to explain this Irony of Life..
TKS & RGRDS.
People are waiting form 2001 for GC and these guys have open flood gates.. and I have been seeing approvals for 2003 / 2004 cases.. and no wonder they will approve next month cases also..
Where is the Justice?
Not sure.. how this kind of advanced country can do things like this very happazzard with out proper process and procedures.
Not sure what they are up to..
Probally they will get more papers on illegals now..
only thing they have to outsource this process to India / China.. to move things fast.
Dont know if we need to laugh or cry at these people procedure and process..
Hope things will go as First In First Out which is ethical and justification way to move things.
Hope some one from high level of USCIS looks at my message and take necessary actions and set right there process and procedures..
no other words to explain this Irony of Life..
TKS & RGRDS.
485Mbe4001
06-19 12:47 PM
Enforcement First
The right way to reform immigration.
An NRO Primary Document
Editor's note: This letter was released this morning by John Fonte of the Hudson Institute.
Prominent Conservatives and Civic Leaders Urge President Bush and Congress to Back Enforcement First on Immigration
Leading conservatives and civic leaders have signed an �open letter� on immigration declaring that �border and interior enforcement must be funded, operational, implemented, and proven successful � and only then can we debate the status of current illegal immigrants, or the need for new guest worker programs.�
The signers include William Bennett, Robert Bork, William F Buckley, Ward Connerly, Newt Gingrich, David Horowitz, David Keene, John Leo, Herbert London, Rich Lowry, Daniel Pipes, Phyllis Schlafly, and Thomas Sowell among others.
Hudson Senior Fellow John Fonte, who organized the letter, said:
�We want to commend the members of Congress who have supported enforcement first including 85% of all Congressional Republicans, 36 Democrats in the House and 4 in the Senate.�
�We particularly want to thank Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and House chairmen Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and Peter King (R-NY) for their leadership role in putting America�s national interests in border and interior enforcement first.�
As a matter of organizational policy, Hudson Institute does not take stances on pending legislation.
�First Things First on Immigration: An Open Letter to President Bush, Senate Majority Leader Frist, and Speaker of the House, Hastert�
Recently, columnist Thomas Sowell wrote: �It will take time to see how various new border control methods work out in practice and there is no reason to rush ahead to deal with people already illegally in this country before the facts are in on how well the borders have been secured.�
We the undersigned agree with this statement. In 1986, Congress passed �comprehensive� immigration reform that included amnesty for around 3 million illegal immigrants, border enforcement, and interior enforcement (employer sanctions). Amnesty came, but enforcement was never seriously implemented either at the border or in the interior.
Let us not make this mistake again. We favor what Newt Gingrich has described as �sequencing.� First border and interior enforcement must be funded, operational, implemented, and proven successful � and only then can we debate the status of current illegal immigrants, or the need for new guest worker programs. We are in the middle of a global war on terror. 2006 is not 1986. Today, we need proof that enforcement (both at the border and in the interior) is successful before anything else happens. As Ronald Reagan used to say �trust, but verify.�
The majority of Republicans in the Senate opposed the recently passed Hagel-Martinez bill. Senator Vitter (R-LA) said that because border enforcement will not be in place, �this [bill] will in fact make the illegal immigration problem much bigger.� The No. 3 Republican in the Senate, Senator Rick Santorum (PA) said, �We need a border-security bill first.� Senator Vitter, Senator Santorum, the majority of Senate Republicans, and the majority of House Republicans are right � we need proven enforcement before we do anything else. Adopting cosmetic legislation to appear to be �doing something� about enforcement, but which actually makes the situation worse, is not statesmanship, it is demagogy.
We thank the majority of the Senate Republicans (33 in all) and the seven Democrats who supported the Isakson amendment, which insists upon verifiable benchmarks for border security before considering other issues. Moreover, we say �Thank You� to Jim Sensenbrenner, Peter King, and the bi-partisan House majority including 36 Democrats, that passed HR 4437. We may quibble with a clause here and there, but you in the House and the majority of Senate Republicans are right to emphasize that the Congress and the President must deal with enforcement first and other issues later. Stand fast; the American people are overwhelmingly with you.
Signed,
William B. Allen, Professor of Political Science at Michigan State University
William J. Bennett, former Secretary of Education under President Reagan, former Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy under former President George H.W. Bush
Thomas L. Bock, National Commander of the American Legion
Robert H. Bork, Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute, former Solicitor General, acting Attorney General, Supreme Court nominee, U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge
William F. Buckley, Jr., founder and Editor-at-Large of National Review
Peter Collier, founding Publisher of Encounter Books, cofounder of Center for the Study of Popular Culture
Ward Connerly, former Regent at the University of California, founder and Chairman of the American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI), winner of the 2005 Bradley Prize for Outstanding Intellectual Achievement
T. Kenneth Cribb, former domestic policy advisor for President Ronald Reagan
Glynn Custred, Professor of Anthropology at California State University, Hayward, and coauthor of the California Civil Rights Initiative, Proposition 209
John C. Eastman, Professor of Law at Chapman University School of Law, Director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence
John Fonte, Senior Fellow and Director of the Center of American Common Culture at the Hudson Institute
David Frum, former speechwriter for George W. Bush, Resident Fellow at American Enterprise Institute
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., founder and President of the Center for Security Policy
Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Chairman of the Gingrich Group, Senior Fellow at American Enterprise Institute
Jonah Goldberg, Editor-at-Large of the National Review Online, national syndicated columnist
Victor Davis Hanson, Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, recipient of the 1991 American Philological Association Excellence in Teaching Award
David Horowitz, cofounder of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture, Editor of FrontPageMag.com
Fred C. Ikl�, former Undersecretary of Defense under Reagan, former Director of U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
David Keene, Chairman of the American Conservative Union
Brian Kennedy, President of the Claremont Institute, Publisher of the Claremont Review of Books
Roger Kimball, Managing Editor of The New Criterion
Alan Charles Kors, Professor of History at the University of Pennsylvania
Mark Krikorian, Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies
Michael A. Ledeen, Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute
Seth Leibsohn, Fellow at the Claremont Institute
John Leo, columnist and Contributing Editor to U.S. News and World Report
Herbert London, President of the Hudson Institute
Kathryn Jean Lopez, Editor of National Review Online
Rich Lowry, Editor of National Review
Heather Mac Donald, John M. Olin Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, winner of the 2005 Bradley Prize for Outstanding Intellectual Achievement
John O�Sullivan, Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute, Editor-at-Large of National Review
Juliana Pilon, Research Professor at the Institute for World Politics
Daniel Pipes, founder and Director of the Middle East Forum and Campus Watch, former member of the board of the U.S. Institute of Peace
Andrew �Andy� Ramirez, Chairman of the Friends of Border Patrol
Phyllis Schlafly, founder and President of Eagle Forum
Thomas Sowell, Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow on Public Policy at the Hoover Institution, winner of the 2003 Bradley Prize for Outstanding Intellectual Achievement
Shelby Steele, Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, winner of the 2006 Bradley Prize for Outstanding Intellectual Achievement
Stephen Steinlight, Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, former National Affairs Director of the American Jewish Committee, and Vice President of the National Conference of Christians and Jews
Thomas G. West, Director and Senior Fellow of the Claremont Institute, Professor of Politics at the University of Dallas
The right way to reform immigration.
An NRO Primary Document
Editor's note: This letter was released this morning by John Fonte of the Hudson Institute.
Prominent Conservatives and Civic Leaders Urge President Bush and Congress to Back Enforcement First on Immigration
Leading conservatives and civic leaders have signed an �open letter� on immigration declaring that �border and interior enforcement must be funded, operational, implemented, and proven successful � and only then can we debate the status of current illegal immigrants, or the need for new guest worker programs.�
The signers include William Bennett, Robert Bork, William F Buckley, Ward Connerly, Newt Gingrich, David Horowitz, David Keene, John Leo, Herbert London, Rich Lowry, Daniel Pipes, Phyllis Schlafly, and Thomas Sowell among others.
Hudson Senior Fellow John Fonte, who organized the letter, said:
�We want to commend the members of Congress who have supported enforcement first including 85% of all Congressional Republicans, 36 Democrats in the House and 4 in the Senate.�
�We particularly want to thank Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and House chairmen Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and Peter King (R-NY) for their leadership role in putting America�s national interests in border and interior enforcement first.�
As a matter of organizational policy, Hudson Institute does not take stances on pending legislation.
�First Things First on Immigration: An Open Letter to President Bush, Senate Majority Leader Frist, and Speaker of the House, Hastert�
Recently, columnist Thomas Sowell wrote: �It will take time to see how various new border control methods work out in practice and there is no reason to rush ahead to deal with people already illegally in this country before the facts are in on how well the borders have been secured.�
We the undersigned agree with this statement. In 1986, Congress passed �comprehensive� immigration reform that included amnesty for around 3 million illegal immigrants, border enforcement, and interior enforcement (employer sanctions). Amnesty came, but enforcement was never seriously implemented either at the border or in the interior.
Let us not make this mistake again. We favor what Newt Gingrich has described as �sequencing.� First border and interior enforcement must be funded, operational, implemented, and proven successful � and only then can we debate the status of current illegal immigrants, or the need for new guest worker programs. We are in the middle of a global war on terror. 2006 is not 1986. Today, we need proof that enforcement (both at the border and in the interior) is successful before anything else happens. As Ronald Reagan used to say �trust, but verify.�
The majority of Republicans in the Senate opposed the recently passed Hagel-Martinez bill. Senator Vitter (R-LA) said that because border enforcement will not be in place, �this [bill] will in fact make the illegal immigration problem much bigger.� The No. 3 Republican in the Senate, Senator Rick Santorum (PA) said, �We need a border-security bill first.� Senator Vitter, Senator Santorum, the majority of Senate Republicans, and the majority of House Republicans are right � we need proven enforcement before we do anything else. Adopting cosmetic legislation to appear to be �doing something� about enforcement, but which actually makes the situation worse, is not statesmanship, it is demagogy.
We thank the majority of the Senate Republicans (33 in all) and the seven Democrats who supported the Isakson amendment, which insists upon verifiable benchmarks for border security before considering other issues. Moreover, we say �Thank You� to Jim Sensenbrenner, Peter King, and the bi-partisan House majority including 36 Democrats, that passed HR 4437. We may quibble with a clause here and there, but you in the House and the majority of Senate Republicans are right to emphasize that the Congress and the President must deal with enforcement first and other issues later. Stand fast; the American people are overwhelmingly with you.
Signed,
William B. Allen, Professor of Political Science at Michigan State University
William J. Bennett, former Secretary of Education under President Reagan, former Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy under former President George H.W. Bush
Thomas L. Bock, National Commander of the American Legion
Robert H. Bork, Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute, former Solicitor General, acting Attorney General, Supreme Court nominee, U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge
William F. Buckley, Jr., founder and Editor-at-Large of National Review
Peter Collier, founding Publisher of Encounter Books, cofounder of Center for the Study of Popular Culture
Ward Connerly, former Regent at the University of California, founder and Chairman of the American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI), winner of the 2005 Bradley Prize for Outstanding Intellectual Achievement
T. Kenneth Cribb, former domestic policy advisor for President Ronald Reagan
Glynn Custred, Professor of Anthropology at California State University, Hayward, and coauthor of the California Civil Rights Initiative, Proposition 209
John C. Eastman, Professor of Law at Chapman University School of Law, Director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence
John Fonte, Senior Fellow and Director of the Center of American Common Culture at the Hudson Institute
David Frum, former speechwriter for George W. Bush, Resident Fellow at American Enterprise Institute
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., founder and President of the Center for Security Policy
Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Chairman of the Gingrich Group, Senior Fellow at American Enterprise Institute
Jonah Goldberg, Editor-at-Large of the National Review Online, national syndicated columnist
Victor Davis Hanson, Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, recipient of the 1991 American Philological Association Excellence in Teaching Award
David Horowitz, cofounder of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture, Editor of FrontPageMag.com
Fred C. Ikl�, former Undersecretary of Defense under Reagan, former Director of U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
David Keene, Chairman of the American Conservative Union
Brian Kennedy, President of the Claremont Institute, Publisher of the Claremont Review of Books
Roger Kimball, Managing Editor of The New Criterion
Alan Charles Kors, Professor of History at the University of Pennsylvania
Mark Krikorian, Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies
Michael A. Ledeen, Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute
Seth Leibsohn, Fellow at the Claremont Institute
John Leo, columnist and Contributing Editor to U.S. News and World Report
Herbert London, President of the Hudson Institute
Kathryn Jean Lopez, Editor of National Review Online
Rich Lowry, Editor of National Review
Heather Mac Donald, John M. Olin Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, winner of the 2005 Bradley Prize for Outstanding Intellectual Achievement
John O�Sullivan, Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute, Editor-at-Large of National Review
Juliana Pilon, Research Professor at the Institute for World Politics
Daniel Pipes, founder and Director of the Middle East Forum and Campus Watch, former member of the board of the U.S. Institute of Peace
Andrew �Andy� Ramirez, Chairman of the Friends of Border Patrol
Phyllis Schlafly, founder and President of Eagle Forum
Thomas Sowell, Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow on Public Policy at the Hoover Institution, winner of the 2003 Bradley Prize for Outstanding Intellectual Achievement
Shelby Steele, Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, winner of the 2006 Bradley Prize for Outstanding Intellectual Achievement
Stephen Steinlight, Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, former National Affairs Director of the American Jewish Committee, and Vice President of the National Conference of Christians and Jews
Thomas G. West, Director and Senior Fellow of the Claremont Institute, Professor of Politics at the University of Dallas
more...
camarasa
07-11 05:50 PM
Nope. Only taking the applications and entering them into the system.
Approvals will anyway be in the order of PDs.
Cool srikondoji - my bad - I missunderstood you.
Approvals will anyway be in the order of PDs.
Cool srikondoji - my bad - I missunderstood you.
2010 hot Hairstyle: Long layers
axp817
05-03 09:20 PM
Just got the email. Finally!
Post Decision Activity
On May 3, 2011, we mailed you a notice that we have approved this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS.
Application was at NSC. Last SLUD was in Sept 2010. No RFE on either 140 or 485.
Post Decision Activity
On May 3, 2011, we mailed you a notice that we have approved this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS.
Application was at NSC. Last SLUD was in Sept 2010. No RFE on either 140 or 485.
more...
GCKaIntezar
01-03 10:03 PM
Got a fellow retrogression victim to sign-up as a member today.
Welcome on board kkomurav!
-GCKaIntezar
Welcome on board kkomurav!
-GCKaIntezar
hair Hairstyle: long gorgeous with
raju123
02-06 02:43 PM
Numbersusa reported HR 2
http://www.numbersusa.com/index
Senate Minimum Wage Bill Avoided Immigration Increases
It has come to our attention that some believe that the dreadful McCain-Kennedy amnesty scheme was dropped into the bill during its passage through the Senate, but NumbersUSA�s analysis of that chamber�s proceedings indicates that those damaging provisions were not, in fact, amended into the measure before it was sent back to the House on February 1.
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) did propose an amendment to that effect, but it was neither substantively discussed nor adopted before passage of the underlying bill. In addition, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced and subsequently withdrew an amendment that would have provided amnesty to illegal alien farmworkers.
On the positive side, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) offered an amendment to H.R. 2, the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007, which would have dramatically increased civil fines on employers who hire illegal aliens. Sen. Sessions called it a �comprehensive wage reform� measure, playing off the �comprehensive immigration reform� term used by open borders advocates. He said his amendment was an appropriate addition to that particular measure � legislation designed to increase the wages of working Americans � because the salaries of low-skilled workers have lagged behind due to the large influx of illegal aliens.
Although Democratic leaders refused to let Sen. Sessions' initial amendment reach the Senate floor, a second Sessions proposal was adopted that day by a 94-0 vote. It would prohibit any government contractor caught using illegal labor from future government contracts for ten years. It is expected to face serious opposition by business and union lobbyists when the bill reaches conference committee.
Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) also introduced and withdrew a positive amendment that would have required that the employers of temporary unskilled foreign agricultural workers (H-2As) pay the greater of either the Federal minimum wage or a newly defined prevailing wage.
http://www.numbersusa.com/index
Senate Minimum Wage Bill Avoided Immigration Increases
It has come to our attention that some believe that the dreadful McCain-Kennedy amnesty scheme was dropped into the bill during its passage through the Senate, but NumbersUSA�s analysis of that chamber�s proceedings indicates that those damaging provisions were not, in fact, amended into the measure before it was sent back to the House on February 1.
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) did propose an amendment to that effect, but it was neither substantively discussed nor adopted before passage of the underlying bill. In addition, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced and subsequently withdrew an amendment that would have provided amnesty to illegal alien farmworkers.
On the positive side, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) offered an amendment to H.R. 2, the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007, which would have dramatically increased civil fines on employers who hire illegal aliens. Sen. Sessions called it a �comprehensive wage reform� measure, playing off the �comprehensive immigration reform� term used by open borders advocates. He said his amendment was an appropriate addition to that particular measure � legislation designed to increase the wages of working Americans � because the salaries of low-skilled workers have lagged behind due to the large influx of illegal aliens.
Although Democratic leaders refused to let Sen. Sessions' initial amendment reach the Senate floor, a second Sessions proposal was adopted that day by a 94-0 vote. It would prohibit any government contractor caught using illegal labor from future government contracts for ten years. It is expected to face serious opposition by business and union lobbyists when the bill reaches conference committee.
Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) also introduced and withdrew a positive amendment that would have required that the employers of temporary unskilled foreign agricultural workers (H-2As) pay the greater of either the Federal minimum wage or a newly defined prevailing wage.
more...
GCAmigo
02-02 07:40 AM
If you read closely, it appears like the 290,000 immigrant visas would be true for years from now on and for years 2001-2005 (the diffrence between current limit and this section). If that's the case and if that becomes a law, there is possibility there will be no backlog after that for some time...short time probably. Please correct me if I am wrongly reading this section. But for me, it appears it applies retroactively and will add the diffrence (150k a year) between years 2001-2005. If my calculation and understanding is correct, once this act becomes a law, the first year there would be 290k + 600k from years 2001-2005 ......I am not sure if my understanding is correct. I prey it is..
IV Core nothing has been passed as yet.. & they sure are better informed than us..even if it is passed by Senate, we still have a long way to go.. the Debate etc.. before this becomes an Act..
IV Core nothing has been passed as yet.. & they sure are better informed than us..even if it is passed by Senate, we still have a long way to go.. the Debate etc.. before this becomes an Act..
hot Long hair? Go for long layers
ruchigup
09-04 10:34 AM
congrats SoP
more...
house Hairstyles With Bangs
amitjoey
12-19 03:41 PM
We have reached 40%. To reach 50% we need $6000 more. If more people can contribute, we can reach this in no time.
The core and a lot of serious members have already contributed.
There are 2 mind sets of people on this forum:
1) I have contributed $500+ , I do not need to contribute $20 more, In anycase what is my
$20 going to do?.
2) I have never contributed, but I am ashamed of making my first contribution of only $20.
(Although that is what I am comfortable doing at this time.)
Both the above mindsets are wrong because If we have 7000+ members, out of which say 1000 have already contributed, that leaves us with 6000 members. If 6000 members contribute $1 each, we are at $ 6000 - 50% met.
Now all are not going to do it.
So you see $20 is still a good amount to start.
For the future, we definately need more members. So the add a member campaign is very important.
The core and a lot of serious members have already contributed.
There are 2 mind sets of people on this forum:
1) I have contributed $500+ , I do not need to contribute $20 more, In anycase what is my
$20 going to do?.
2) I have never contributed, but I am ashamed of making my first contribution of only $20.
(Although that is what I am comfortable doing at this time.)
Both the above mindsets are wrong because If we have 7000+ members, out of which say 1000 have already contributed, that leaves us with 6000 members. If 6000 members contribute $1 each, we are at $ 6000 - 50% met.
Now all are not going to do it.
So you see $20 is still a good amount to start.
For the future, we definately need more members. So the add a member campaign is very important.
tattoo long haircuts with angs and
amslonewolf
10-08 03:54 PM
Your analysis doesn't include the impact of LC substitutions that happened.
more...
pictures long haircuts with angs
vdlrao
10-12 04:15 PM
Chronography of facts
EB was current from AUGUST 1999 until April 2000.
This warning was issued in the March 2000 VB:
VISA AVAILABILITY FOR APRIL(2000)
�Demand for immigrant visa numbers by INS for AOS cases in all categories, continues to be steady but has not reached the level requiring action at this time. It is anticipated that INS demand for numbers will require the establishment of visa cut-off dates for April in some or all of the CHINA-mainland born and INDIA Employment categories�.
In May 2000. EB2 was retrogressed to 01JUL97 for China and 01APR99 for India
In December 2000 VB the big announcement came:
Greater availability of EB immigrant visas: On October 17th, the President signed P.L. 106-313. Title I of this law is known as the "American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000" and contains amendments to the INA regarding EB immigrant visas.
In fiscal years 1999 and 2000, due in part to the per-country limits, the annual limit for EB immigrant visas was not reached. P.L. 106-313 makes the following changes in an attempt to rectify the situation with regard to per-country limits:
Section 106 recaptures those EB visa numbers that were available but not used in fiscal years 1999 and 2000, creating a "pool" of approximately 130,000 numbers. These numbers could be made available to applicants in the EB1, EB2 and EB3 preference categories beginning in fiscal year 2001.
Section 104 removes the per-country limit in instances where the overall applicant demand for EB visas is less than the numbers available without regard to those limits. This determination will be made quarterly, based on a comparison of the overall demand versus the available numbers. If the total number of available EB visas is greater than the number of qualified applicants who may otherwise be issued such visas (during the same period), the per-country limitations on EB visas will be lifted for the remainder of that quarter.
In May 2001 EB2 became current again for both India and China.
July 2001 VB:
EMPLOYMENT-BASED PREFERENCE CATEGORIES:
All categories have become "Current" for July, and are expected to remain so for the remainder of FY-2001. The cut-off date movement in all oversubscribed categories has been extremely rapid during the past year. This is because the FY-2001 limit is approximately 50,000 higher than normal, and legislative changes removed the per-country limitation if there are otherwise unused EB numbers available.
All categories are expected to remain "Current" for the foreseeable future.
January 2005 VB
OVERSUBSCRIPTION OF EB3 FOR CHINA, INDIA, AND THE PHILPPINES
June 2005 VB
EMPLOYMENT VISA AVAILABILITY DURING THE REMAINDER OF FY-2005
During the past month there has been a significant increase in the amount of numbers being used by CIS offices for AOS applicants. This level of demand has significantly depleted the supply of EB numbers available under the annual limit. Recent discussions with CIS have made it clear that their backlog reduction efforts will sustain or increase the current level of demand. Therefore, continued visa availability in the EB categories cannot be guaranteed during the final quarter of FY-2005. If demand continues at the current rate, it will be necessary to oversubscribe many or all of the EB categories on a Worldwide basis. Such oversubscription could result in the establishment of cut-off dates, retrogression of already established dates, or some categories becoming �unavailable�.
July 2005 VB
EMPLOYMENT VISA AVAILABILITY FOR JULY AND THE REMAINDER OF FY-2005
EB3 and Third Other Worker categories have reached their annual limits and no further FY-2005 allocations are possible for the period July through September.
September 2005 VB
EMPLOYMENT VISA AVAILABILITY DURING FY-2006
The backlog reduction efforts of both CIS, and the DOL continue to result in very heavy demand for EB numbers. It is anticipated that the amount of such cases will be sufficient to use all available numbers in many categories. As a result cut-off dates in the EB3 category will apply to the China, India, and Philippines chargeabilities beginning in October, and it is possible that Mexico may be added to this list. In addition, it is anticipated that heavy demand will require the establishment of a EB3 cut-off date on a Worldwide basis by December.
The amount of Employment demand for applicants from China and India is also likely to result in the oversubcription of the EB1 and B2 categories for those chargeability areas. The establishment of such cut-off dates is expected to occur no later than December.
The level of demand in the Employment categories is expected to be far in excess of the annual limits, and once established, cut-off date movements are likely to be slow.
October 2005 VB:
EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCE VISA AVAILABILTIY
Item D in the September VB announcing the September cut-off dates provided information regarding the prospects of visa availability during the early months of FY-2006. Many categories have become oversubscribed for October, and cut-off dates established due to continued heavy demand for numbers by CIS for adjustment of status cases. Forward movement of the cut-off dates in these categories is likely to be limited.
And IV was born.
Have a nice weekend.
Very Good Post to know what has happened so far for EB category.
EB was current from AUGUST 1999 until April 2000.
This warning was issued in the March 2000 VB:
VISA AVAILABILITY FOR APRIL(2000)
�Demand for immigrant visa numbers by INS for AOS cases in all categories, continues to be steady but has not reached the level requiring action at this time. It is anticipated that INS demand for numbers will require the establishment of visa cut-off dates for April in some or all of the CHINA-mainland born and INDIA Employment categories�.
In May 2000. EB2 was retrogressed to 01JUL97 for China and 01APR99 for India
In December 2000 VB the big announcement came:
Greater availability of EB immigrant visas: On October 17th, the President signed P.L. 106-313. Title I of this law is known as the "American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000" and contains amendments to the INA regarding EB immigrant visas.
In fiscal years 1999 and 2000, due in part to the per-country limits, the annual limit for EB immigrant visas was not reached. P.L. 106-313 makes the following changes in an attempt to rectify the situation with regard to per-country limits:
Section 106 recaptures those EB visa numbers that were available but not used in fiscal years 1999 and 2000, creating a "pool" of approximately 130,000 numbers. These numbers could be made available to applicants in the EB1, EB2 and EB3 preference categories beginning in fiscal year 2001.
Section 104 removes the per-country limit in instances where the overall applicant demand for EB visas is less than the numbers available without regard to those limits. This determination will be made quarterly, based on a comparison of the overall demand versus the available numbers. If the total number of available EB visas is greater than the number of qualified applicants who may otherwise be issued such visas (during the same period), the per-country limitations on EB visas will be lifted for the remainder of that quarter.
In May 2001 EB2 became current again for both India and China.
July 2001 VB:
EMPLOYMENT-BASED PREFERENCE CATEGORIES:
All categories have become "Current" for July, and are expected to remain so for the remainder of FY-2001. The cut-off date movement in all oversubscribed categories has been extremely rapid during the past year. This is because the FY-2001 limit is approximately 50,000 higher than normal, and legislative changes removed the per-country limitation if there are otherwise unused EB numbers available.
All categories are expected to remain "Current" for the foreseeable future.
January 2005 VB
OVERSUBSCRIPTION OF EB3 FOR CHINA, INDIA, AND THE PHILPPINES
June 2005 VB
EMPLOYMENT VISA AVAILABILITY DURING THE REMAINDER OF FY-2005
During the past month there has been a significant increase in the amount of numbers being used by CIS offices for AOS applicants. This level of demand has significantly depleted the supply of EB numbers available under the annual limit. Recent discussions with CIS have made it clear that their backlog reduction efforts will sustain or increase the current level of demand. Therefore, continued visa availability in the EB categories cannot be guaranteed during the final quarter of FY-2005. If demand continues at the current rate, it will be necessary to oversubscribe many or all of the EB categories on a Worldwide basis. Such oversubscription could result in the establishment of cut-off dates, retrogression of already established dates, or some categories becoming �unavailable�.
July 2005 VB
EMPLOYMENT VISA AVAILABILITY FOR JULY AND THE REMAINDER OF FY-2005
EB3 and Third Other Worker categories have reached their annual limits and no further FY-2005 allocations are possible for the period July through September.
September 2005 VB
EMPLOYMENT VISA AVAILABILITY DURING FY-2006
The backlog reduction efforts of both CIS, and the DOL continue to result in very heavy demand for EB numbers. It is anticipated that the amount of such cases will be sufficient to use all available numbers in many categories. As a result cut-off dates in the EB3 category will apply to the China, India, and Philippines chargeabilities beginning in October, and it is possible that Mexico may be added to this list. In addition, it is anticipated that heavy demand will require the establishment of a EB3 cut-off date on a Worldwide basis by December.
The amount of Employment demand for applicants from China and India is also likely to result in the oversubcription of the EB1 and B2 categories for those chargeability areas. The establishment of such cut-off dates is expected to occur no later than December.
The level of demand in the Employment categories is expected to be far in excess of the annual limits, and once established, cut-off date movements are likely to be slow.
October 2005 VB:
EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCE VISA AVAILABILTIY
Item D in the September VB announcing the September cut-off dates provided information regarding the prospects of visa availability during the early months of FY-2006. Many categories have become oversubscribed for October, and cut-off dates established due to continued heavy demand for numbers by CIS for adjustment of status cases. Forward movement of the cut-off dates in these categories is likely to be limited.
And IV was born.
Have a nice weekend.
Very Good Post to know what has happened so far for EB category.
dresses bob black hairstyle
nkhari
07-19 08:26 AM
dude,
I totally agree with you. This is NOT FAIR. TOTALLY NOT.
I wish CIS can put in procedures to take care of this issue.
Should you start the flower campaign to get this noticed and make them process the applications in the order of PD and not RD.
IV fought for others.
All others will not agree, because they are happy and feel lucky.
But trust in god and ask his fairness and I am sure when the PD cut-off is set, you will definitely see the result as being fair.
I totally agree with you. This is NOT FAIR. TOTALLY NOT.
I wish CIS can put in procedures to take care of this issue.
Should you start the flower campaign to get this noticed and make them process the applications in the order of PD and not RD.
IV fought for others.
All others will not agree, because they are happy and feel lucky.
But trust in god and ask his fairness and I am sure when the PD cut-off is set, you will definitely see the result as being fair.
more...
makeup long haircuts with angs and
abracadabra102
09-01 08:22 PM
Look my friend, there is no logic like RD vs PD. If there were I would have had my green card before most here even filed their 485s. My 485 is pending for over 4 yrs now.
I have had people with PDs after me, RDs after me, all sorts approved and I am waiting.
This is a game of luck and chance.
The USCIS process is chaotic and disorganised in the way they do things. If you are lucky you get your approval earlier, if you are not, your application languishes in some salt mine in Utah or wherever else NSC stores their pending applications.
I think I saw this in one of the ombudsman's reports to congress. A certain percentage of files are misplaced/lost every year. I have a sinking feeling - mine could be one of these. If so, I will have to wait until someone at USCIS stumbles on it :-). I agree completely with you and there is really no way to predict how USCIS processes GC's. USCIS incompetence is boundless.
I have had people with PDs after me, RDs after me, all sorts approved and I am waiting.
This is a game of luck and chance.
The USCIS process is chaotic and disorganised in the way they do things. If you are lucky you get your approval earlier, if you are not, your application languishes in some salt mine in Utah or wherever else NSC stores their pending applications.
I think I saw this in one of the ombudsman's reports to congress. A certain percentage of files are misplaced/lost every year. I have a sinking feeling - mine could be one of these. If so, I will have to wait until someone at USCIS stumbles on it :-). I agree completely with you and there is really no way to predict how USCIS processes GC's. USCIS incompetence is boundless.
girlfriend With long hair, layers are the
immitul
08-23 12:56 AM
Hi
I applied for H1B and Change of Status in April 2007 and got approval for the same in August 2007.
I have to go to India so, I want to know Can I Travel outside US and re-enter on H4 visa (which is valid till 2009) before October 1st?(Before H1 becomes effective)
I am aware of the fact that you can not travel outside US while your application is pending. But in my case I have the approval. So is it possible?
Thanks
You can come back to US on H4, but you may have to apply for change of status from h4 to h1 again, to be able to work in US.
I applied for H1B and Change of Status in April 2007 and got approval for the same in August 2007.
I have to go to India so, I want to know Can I Travel outside US and re-enter on H4 visa (which is valid till 2009) before October 1st?(Before H1 becomes effective)
I am aware of the fact that you can not travel outside US while your application is pending. But in my case I have the approval. So is it possible?
Thanks
You can come back to US on H4, but you may have to apply for change of status from h4 to h1 again, to be able to work in US.
hairstyles Long hairstyles with angs are
justAnotherFile
06-29 01:35 PM
Here is what the attorney firm (one of the top ones in the nation) used by my company sent. They are trying to file all applications by July 1st week.
The fact that they are not dismissing this as a rumour means that they accept there is a "chance" however small that may be that the USCIS can stop accepting applications and they can do nothing about it at that point.
Yes in a way they are cushioning themselves, by sending out these client alerts, so that they are not held at fault if this may happen. But if there was absolutely no chance for this to happen they would certainly have dismissed it outright as a rumour.
---------------------------------
July Adjustment of Status Filings May Be At Risk
Recent rumors have called into question the accuracy of the Department of State's July 2007 Visa Bulletin, which announced that all employment-based categories, with the exception of the "Other Workers" category, will be "current" (i.e. immigrant visa numbers will be available) as of July 1, 2007. These rumors have suggested that United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may potentially, notwithstanding the July Visa Bulletin, not accept adjustment of status filings for all, or a part, of July.
Fueling concern over this possibility is the fact that, during June, USCIS took the unprecedented step of refusing to accept adjustment applications in the third preference "Other Workers" category filed after June 6, even though the bulletin showed numbers available throughout the month. USCIS took this step evidently after receiving notice from the State Department, outside the visa bulletin process, that the available numbers had been exhausted. There are strong legal reasons supporting the argument that this action by USCIS was improper. Nevertheless, the fear is that USCIS will take a similar step with respect to all or some employment-based adjustment of status filings made during July.
The widespread belief among immigration experts is that, even if USCIS accepts all employment-based adjustment of status cases sent for filing in July, there will quickly be another rapid retrogression of immigrant visa availability. This would result in potentially many thousands of newly-filed adjustment cases remaining at USCIS for quite some time while applicants wait for the immigrant visa numbers to again become current.
Obviously, a decision by USCIS not to accept adjustment of status applications for some or all employment-based categories during all or part of July would be a devastating development for companies and foreign national employees who have relied on the July Visa Bulletin and are preparing to file adjustments. Many organizations, including ***** and the Global Personnel Alliance, are working to determine the true position of USCIS and the Department of State on this issue and to advocate for USCIS to accept all adjustments filed during the entire month of July in accordance with the July Visa Bulletin. We will send an update when definitive information is available.
The fact that they are not dismissing this as a rumour means that they accept there is a "chance" however small that may be that the USCIS can stop accepting applications and they can do nothing about it at that point.
Yes in a way they are cushioning themselves, by sending out these client alerts, so that they are not held at fault if this may happen. But if there was absolutely no chance for this to happen they would certainly have dismissed it outright as a rumour.
---------------------------------
July Adjustment of Status Filings May Be At Risk
Recent rumors have called into question the accuracy of the Department of State's July 2007 Visa Bulletin, which announced that all employment-based categories, with the exception of the "Other Workers" category, will be "current" (i.e. immigrant visa numbers will be available) as of July 1, 2007. These rumors have suggested that United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may potentially, notwithstanding the July Visa Bulletin, not accept adjustment of status filings for all, or a part, of July.
Fueling concern over this possibility is the fact that, during June, USCIS took the unprecedented step of refusing to accept adjustment applications in the third preference "Other Workers" category filed after June 6, even though the bulletin showed numbers available throughout the month. USCIS took this step evidently after receiving notice from the State Department, outside the visa bulletin process, that the available numbers had been exhausted. There are strong legal reasons supporting the argument that this action by USCIS was improper. Nevertheless, the fear is that USCIS will take a similar step with respect to all or some employment-based adjustment of status filings made during July.
The widespread belief among immigration experts is that, even if USCIS accepts all employment-based adjustment of status cases sent for filing in July, there will quickly be another rapid retrogression of immigrant visa availability. This would result in potentially many thousands of newly-filed adjustment cases remaining at USCIS for quite some time while applicants wait for the immigrant visa numbers to again become current.
Obviously, a decision by USCIS not to accept adjustment of status applications for some or all employment-based categories during all or part of July would be a devastating development for companies and foreign national employees who have relied on the July Visa Bulletin and are preparing to file adjustments. Many organizations, including ***** and the Global Personnel Alliance, are working to determine the true position of USCIS and the Department of State on this issue and to advocate for USCIS to accept all adjustments filed during the entire month of July in accordance with the July Visa Bulletin. We will send an update when definitive information is available.
ImmiLosers
01-14 05:42 PM
What are your plays for tomorrow?
If I do not see nervousness in the markets then I think tomorrow I am going to buy Oracle, Wal-Mart, Devon and may be Cisco. Expected return by BOB's inauguration 10%.
For Novices - do not buy SMALL Cap and Do not buy stocks < $5 (as suggested by Chintu25)
If I do not see nervousness in the markets then I think tomorrow I am going to buy Oracle, Wal-Mart, Devon and may be Cisco. Expected return by BOB's inauguration 10%.
For Novices - do not buy SMALL Cap and Do not buy stocks < $5 (as suggested by Chintu25)
sayantan76
04-10 09:26 PM
You are right. But many people came here at the middle of their carrier and they are struck here with their children education etc., They are bound to be here and there is no way. Further, in my country, there are still reservation policies in everything, which may prevent the kids in going in for the education line they like. I donot want to explain this more as I may be degrading my own mother country. In a nutshell, everyone who wish to be a citizen of this country will have lot of valid reasons for getting a citizenship in this country.
isn't the effect of reservation the same as the effect of affirmative action?
If your kid gets high scores in SAT but does not get into an ivy league college because your ethnicity is over-represented - but some other kid with much lower scores gets in (and its not a hypothetical scenario - happens every admission season and i sincerely hope does not happen to your loved ones).....where does that leave your logic??
i see your point that people do have their own reasons for desiring US citizenships - but sometimes its also important to take a step back and see what one is giving up!
isn't the effect of reservation the same as the effect of affirmative action?
If your kid gets high scores in SAT but does not get into an ivy league college because your ethnicity is over-represented - but some other kid with much lower scores gets in (and its not a hypothetical scenario - happens every admission season and i sincerely hope does not happen to your loved ones).....where does that leave your logic??
i see your point that people do have their own reasons for desiring US citizenships - but sometimes its also important to take a step back and see what one is giving up!