JalwaeJana
11-12 04:16 PM
If EB2 I becomes current , who benefits its EB3 I as the spillover will go EB3 India as India is the most retrogressed country. Our effort does not impact ROW EB2 as they are current any way. EB2 China will also benefit as spill over will help them. So supporting quarterly spillover is in EB3 India's. Make EB2 C and all over flow goes to EB3 I. Finally by opposing this it will not help EB3 I any way unless it makes you happy to see everybody suffer as long as you are suffering.
wallpaper hot paramore wallpaper - 83501
dhesha
07-18 10:18 PM
called uscis to ask when july 2 filers are likely to get receipt notice.She said because of the load of apps expected it might take about 4 to 6 wks.I hope july 2 filers don t have to pay huge penalty for filing on the very ifirst eligible day:( (something to worry about till this journey ends i guess):(
this 4 to 6 weeks is from 2nd July or 17 July?
this 4 to 6 weeks is from 2nd July or 17 July?
chanduv23
03-17 10:08 AM
Substitute labors for EB2 should not IMPACT the delay more than 3 to 6 months. The reason is total EB2 labor india cases approved in 2004 itself is 3500(Straight out of DOL database, published on this forum last year). Some of these cases may have been substituted, worst case, lets say 100% of them applied to I-485. Now the number is 3 times that of 3500. that is 10500(including spouse and 1 child on average).
Another thing you need to consider is If anycase had a PD before sept 2004 and was filed for I-485 before July 2007. That must have got the approval unless there was a namecheck delay.
That should reduce the number to half., 5500(including dependent cases). This is my educated guess, Please dont pick on me. It wont help anybody.
Below are 3 categories left as per my analysis....
1) the applications filed in or after july 2007 OR
2) applications had a PD after sept 2004
3) Namecheck delayed cases.
Chances are that the volume of Subsitutions and porting PD is massive in July , 2007. Almost every Tom, Dick and Harry filed for 485 at that time. News spread like wild fire about the availability of visas and lawyers and consulting companies wanted to do maximum utilization and maximum business. People applied substituted labors for their cousins, friends etc.... and got EAD and AP, May not be working for the sponsering employer.
Another thing you need to consider is If anycase had a PD before sept 2004 and was filed for I-485 before July 2007. That must have got the approval unless there was a namecheck delay.
That should reduce the number to half., 5500(including dependent cases). This is my educated guess, Please dont pick on me. It wont help anybody.
Below are 3 categories left as per my analysis....
1) the applications filed in or after july 2007 OR
2) applications had a PD after sept 2004
3) Namecheck delayed cases.
Chances are that the volume of Subsitutions and porting PD is massive in July , 2007. Almost every Tom, Dick and Harry filed for 485 at that time. News spread like wild fire about the availability of visas and lawyers and consulting companies wanted to do maximum utilization and maximum business. People applied substituted labors for their cousins, friends etc.... and got EAD and AP, May not be working for the sponsering employer.
2011 Riot Wallpaper
jonty_11
07-11 01:52 PM
If they want to make money, they no need to say that abt 2 year EAD at all.
And also most of the EAD renewals are free of cost who filed after 30th June 30 2007.
man this is US...here prices of goods are jacked up and then a big SALE sign is posted on the front door....
Same for EAD...hey! will give u 2 year EADs, but only if your PD is not close...and then they make most of ours PDs close to the Cut off date..and Oops...now only 1 year EAD
And also most of the EAD renewals are free of cost who filed after 30th June 30 2007.
man this is US...here prices of goods are jacked up and then a big SALE sign is posted on the front door....
Same for EAD...hey! will give u 2 year EADs, but only if your PD is not close...and then they make most of ours PDs close to the Cut off date..and Oops...now only 1 year EAD
more...
pmamp
07-05 01:48 PM
I think atleast the forums section should be made restricted to contributing members. I see many newcomers (both paying and freebies) come to this site and hoping to get a quick guidence on their immigration issue. They come here becasue they know a) they will get some answer quickly b) that answer will make sense and experinced users here who have gone through similar situation will share their insights.
Those are major outcomes or results for not paying any dime.
I can understand someone's concern about asking everyone to pay certain amount. But most of us here are earning decent wages and can contribute atleast 3$ a month (or 25$ a year) for such a service.
If those members want to contribute more as many of us do then they are most welcome to do so.
In $$$ terms of the 12K + members we can retain 40% (about 5K) and each of them contributes atleast 25$ a year (one time payment) = $75,000.00
Remember this $75K is only based on basic membership fees. Any dropouts or reduced rate of conversion will be compensated by those '20$ a month' paying members (roughly by 1 as to 10).
In short, I support this idea of having majority of forums under restricted umbrella.
- PMAMP
Those are major outcomes or results for not paying any dime.
I can understand someone's concern about asking everyone to pay certain amount. But most of us here are earning decent wages and can contribute atleast 3$ a month (or 25$ a year) for such a service.
If those members want to contribute more as many of us do then they are most welcome to do so.
In $$$ terms of the 12K + members we can retain 40% (about 5K) and each of them contributes atleast 25$ a year (one time payment) = $75,000.00
Remember this $75K is only based on basic membership fees. Any dropouts or reduced rate of conversion will be compensated by those '20$ a month' paying members (roughly by 1 as to 10).
In short, I support this idea of having majority of forums under restricted umbrella.
- PMAMP
varshadas
01-31 10:01 AM
Please let me know if we can have a conference call tonight to finalize the flyer. We have to close out the flyer today.
Thanks,
Varsha
Thanks,
Varsha
more...
decipher
04-21 09:40 PM
The meeting was primarily about undocumented workers and family re-unification. It seemed to be organized by the Latino community and so conducted mainly in Spanish (There was a English translator for others).
There was a decent turnout of IV members but were ultimately overwhelmed by the undocumented crowd.
The congressman talked about immigration as a whole and specifically about the provisions for undocumented workers in his bill. He was asked a couple of questions about legal immigration during Q&A but he did not address them very satisfactorily.
After the meeting, I was concerned that he might not be completely aware of the legal immigration issues. However, I learned that he knows about the issues after talking to IV. Personally, I wish that he had talked a little about legal immigration provisions also in the meeting though.
There was a decent turnout of IV members but were ultimately overwhelmed by the undocumented crowd.
The congressman talked about immigration as a whole and specifically about the provisions for undocumented workers in his bill. He was asked a couple of questions about legal immigration during Q&A but he did not address them very satisfactorily.
After the meeting, I was concerned that he might not be completely aware of the legal immigration issues. However, I learned that he knows about the issues after talking to IV. Personally, I wish that he had talked a little about legal immigration provisions also in the meeting though.
2010 wallpaper paramore.
weasley
11-12 05:17 PM
VIN13
Appreciate your effort. I will send these letters to my congressman and senator. I will ask my friends who are citizens also to do the same.
What else you want us to do?
Thanks.
Contact your congressman and use the draft to help get clarrification/resolution. If they cannot help resolve, but can get an appointment with a higher official then one of us can go meet them. Some of us are willing to fly/drive.. at our own expense to meet the official.
I know atleast 3 members including me who would be meeting lawmakers of our respective constituencies. When we meet the lawmakers we plan to discuss about our provisions in the CIR(Recapture, country cap,...) and then in the interim we would request them to help us resolve the quarterly spillover.
Appreciate your effort. I will send these letters to my congressman and senator. I will ask my friends who are citizens also to do the same.
What else you want us to do?
Thanks.
Contact your congressman and use the draft to help get clarrification/resolution. If they cannot help resolve, but can get an appointment with a higher official then one of us can go meet them. Some of us are willing to fly/drive.. at our own expense to meet the official.
I know atleast 3 members including me who would be meeting lawmakers of our respective constituencies. When we meet the lawmakers we plan to discuss about our provisions in the CIR(Recapture, country cap,...) and then in the interim we would request them to help us resolve the quarterly spillover.
more...
varshadas
12-14 09:12 AM
Hello All,
This is a reminder to all to join the conference call tonight at 9.00 PM.
Thanks,
Varsha
This is a reminder to all to join the conference call tonight at 9.00 PM.
Thanks,
Varsha
hair Paramore
justAnotherFile
07-25 12:24 PM
"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".
Dude I apologize if my line of argument is irritating you so much. btw 245(a)(3) is not plain english its legalese. And I'm not the one arguing with myself there are others in this thread who read the law along the same lines. Anyway this forum is for debate and thats what we are doing.
Probably this option is not attractive to you that you are so pissed with it.
Btw I'm contacting some attorneys on my personal expense to interpret this.
If they reach the same conclusion as you I'll be happy to accept it, i have no issues and I'll post it on this thread.
But the fact is at this point I still believe there may just be a 1% chance.
Dude I apologize if my line of argument is irritating you so much. btw 245(a)(3) is not plain english its legalese. And I'm not the one arguing with myself there are others in this thread who read the law along the same lines. Anyway this forum is for debate and thats what we are doing.
Probably this option is not attractive to you that you are so pissed with it.
Btw I'm contacting some attorneys on my personal expense to interpret this.
If they reach the same conclusion as you I'll be happy to accept it, i have no issues and I'll post it on this thread.
But the fact is at this point I still believe there may just be a 1% chance.
more...
ajthakur
07-14 05:17 PM
What options do I have now
hot hair paramore wallpapers.
unknown123
12-10 08:38 PM
With all the porting nonsense going on eb2 will move backward and eb3 will inch forward slowly. We might end up with eb2 and eb3 in 2002. congrats to all the people who ported, the only thing you accomplished is you made sure eb2 does not progress (it does not mean you have have moved forward by porting, it just means that you have made sure you have prevented original eb2 guys from getting green card), the people who ported wont gain any benefit but they will make it worse for everyone, they have to file a second i140 which will take at least another 1 year to clear and after 1 year when the ported 140's clear the eb2 will go back to 2002. You have also accomplished another great feat, DOL is going to make it impossible to file eb2 in IT jobs so even genuine people are screwed. Before people start giving red dots and justifying there porting I have an message for you, your behavior is no different from the people who did labor substitution, the end result was DOL ended labor substitution and the result of all this porting is DOL has made it impossible to get eb2 even for genuine cases. Just because others are doing it does not mean you can do it, obviously it is wrong therefore dol removed labor substitution and now dol is making it impossible to get eb2 for IT jobs even for genuine cases. 90 % of people doing this porting are desi consulting employees, they wine and complain about desi consulting companies as blood suckers (justifiably) but they themselves are bloodsuckers on the EB2 community by doing this eb3 to eb2 porting.
Boss EB3 to EB2 porting is only possible, if you qualifies for EB2.. so what's your problem anyway
Boss EB3 to EB2 porting is only possible, if you qualifies for EB2.. so what's your problem anyway
more...
house free Paramore wallpapers
vin13
11-12 03:26 PM
Guys
So are we having a conference call or have we decided that we should individually write letter that has already been drafted.
Contact your congressman and use the draft to help get clarrification/resolution. If they cannot help resolve, but can get an appointment with a higher official then one of us can go meet them. Some of us are willing to fly/drive.. at our own expense to meet the official.
I know atleast 3 members including me who would be meeting lawmakers of our respective constituencies. When we meet the lawmakers we plan to discuss about our provisions in the CIR(Recapture, country cap,...) and then in the interim we would request them to help us resolve the quarterly spillover.
So are we having a conference call or have we decided that we should individually write letter that has already been drafted.
Contact your congressman and use the draft to help get clarrification/resolution. If they cannot help resolve, but can get an appointment with a higher official then one of us can go meet them. Some of us are willing to fly/drive.. at our own expense to meet the official.
I know atleast 3 members including me who would be meeting lawmakers of our respective constituencies. When we meet the lawmakers we plan to discuss about our provisions in the CIR(Recapture, country cap,...) and then in the interim we would request them to help us resolve the quarterly spillover.
tattoo paramore wallpaper
go_gc_way
01-03 03:24 PM
bump !
more...
pictures wallpaper paramore wallpaper
nomi
12-11 02:23 PM
Originally Posted by god_bless_you
SO if USCIS wants to make a new rule of filing I485 for the one whose I 140 is cleared and priority date is not current, It CAN DO That RULE Right?
We do not need any Congress approval for that Right?
If so can we explore this option??
Originally Posted by Nomi
I agree with you. Why we don`t explore this option ???? USCIS make so many rule by itself then why they don`t make this rule to file 485 while PD is not current without going in Senate. Like they start premium processing of I-140. They make this rule without any bill in US Senate. correct me if I am wrong
I think, core team should look this option or ask us to find more information about it. I think, core team can meet with high official from USCIS.
what do you guys think about it ??
thx.
SO if USCIS wants to make a new rule of filing I485 for the one whose I 140 is cleared and priority date is not current, It CAN DO That RULE Right?
We do not need any Congress approval for that Right?
If so can we explore this option??
Originally Posted by Nomi
I agree with you. Why we don`t explore this option ???? USCIS make so many rule by itself then why they don`t make this rule to file 485 while PD is not current without going in Senate. Like they start premium processing of I-140. They make this rule without any bill in US Senate. correct me if I am wrong
I think, core team should look this option or ask us to find more information about it. I think, core team can meet with high official from USCIS.
what do you guys think about it ??
thx.
dresses phone wallpaper
rajeshalex
07-13 06:57 PM
Can IV use FOIA to
1 get the visa numbers allocated by USCIS for the past one year ?
2 pending 485 applns grouped by country/EB category/priority date?
I think this will clear lot of speculations/and if needed we can do something regarding the visa number wastage/retrogression.
Rajesh
1 get the visa numbers allocated by USCIS for the past one year ?
2 pending 485 applns grouped by country/EB category/priority date?
I think this will clear lot of speculations/and if needed we can do something regarding the visa number wastage/retrogression.
Rajesh
more...
makeup -9 Paramore Wallpapers
shantanup
03-16 05:44 PM
Infinite_Patience_GC,
Though I don't like your language and attitude, you have a valid point. I honestly feel that those who have used labor substitution should not get their green cards earlier than me.
Though I don't like your language and attitude, you have a valid point. I honestly feel that those who have used labor substitution should not get their green cards earlier than me.
girlfriend Wallpaper - Paramore
chmur
02-21 10:18 PM
I'd posted elsewhere about my Feb 13, 2008 conversation with the DOS official who sets cutoff dates:
But his statement at the AILA meeting has been bothering me so I talked to him again today. Here is what he said -- that he is considering not only the EB-1 India excess, but the entire EB-1 worldwide excess being given to oversubscribed EB-2! I asked him about his earlier statement and he said that he had had a chance to look at the numbers and determine that unlike recent years EB-1 worldwide is not using numbers up at a rate that would max out EB-1 usage. BUT. He is waiting for USCIS to give him an estimate of the number of EB-2 India applications that would become eligible if he moves the cutoff dates up to 12/1/03, he will set the date ONLY after he gets that data and determines that there won't be too many within that cutoff date.
I also asked him to confirm that he was relying on his interpretation of Section 202(a)(5) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558 dbe) of the INA in order to proceed with this spillover. This is his current interpretation of that section -- spillover from EB-1 to EB-2 IF there appears to be a worldwide excess in EB-1, when there is no worldwide excess in EB-1 then country specific spillover for example, from EB-1 India to EB-2 India only etc. In past years like FY06, EB-1 ROW was looking maxed out, so barely any spillover from EB-1 to oversubscribed EB-2.
is there not a better nuance way to divulge the details without revealing the source.
What if someone at DOS creates problem for this gentlemen for discussing the PD's with you ahead .
Please exercise caution
But his statement at the AILA meeting has been bothering me so I talked to him again today. Here is what he said -- that he is considering not only the EB-1 India excess, but the entire EB-1 worldwide excess being given to oversubscribed EB-2! I asked him about his earlier statement and he said that he had had a chance to look at the numbers and determine that unlike recent years EB-1 worldwide is not using numbers up at a rate that would max out EB-1 usage. BUT. He is waiting for USCIS to give him an estimate of the number of EB-2 India applications that would become eligible if he moves the cutoff dates up to 12/1/03, he will set the date ONLY after he gets that data and determines that there won't be too many within that cutoff date.
I also asked him to confirm that he was relying on his interpretation of Section 202(a)(5) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558 dbe) of the INA in order to proceed with this spillover. This is his current interpretation of that section -- spillover from EB-1 to EB-2 IF there appears to be a worldwide excess in EB-1, when there is no worldwide excess in EB-1 then country specific spillover for example, from EB-1 India to EB-2 India only etc. In past years like FY06, EB-1 ROW was looking maxed out, so barely any spillover from EB-1 to oversubscribed EB-2.
is there not a better nuance way to divulge the details without revealing the source.
What if someone at DOS creates problem for this gentlemen for discussing the PD's with you ahead .
Please exercise caution
hairstyles Paramore Paramore Wallpaper
![paramore wallpapers. [1] Paramore wallpaper](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vr63xFHr0P8rA1bSlYiahI0G0gLf24seZwFr6Al6hKyCo1TQ6Am2zCp0eMziOAG6738e0mJ_2O5-dfPhPlXITPbqBI=s0-d "[1] Paramore wallpaper")
crazyghoda
01-30 01:14 PM
What I am not understanding is - why are they even looking at my case now? There are 4 years of applicants ahead of me, why cant the USCIS process those applications first?
I have a sickening feeling that this is going to become more and more common in this economic situation. There must a push from above to reduce the backlogs and if they cannot approve the cases they are going to find a way to deny them on some pretext or other.
I have a sickening feeling that this is going to become more and more common in this economic situation. There must a push from above to reduce the backlogs and if they cannot approve the cases they are going to find a way to deny them on some pretext or other.
jonty_11
07-09 06:36 PM
I came across this law about the departmental control of numerical limitations, and I'd appreciate it if you all could post your interpretations of the same.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
text in bold has a GREY area....'plus remaining balance from previous months.'
They can always say the additional approvals were left over from previous months...
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
text in bold has a GREY area....'plus remaining balance from previous months.'
They can always say the additional approvals were left over from previous months...
squishy
03-07 07:45 AM
same here :p: