nk2006
09-11 12:11 PM
http://seeker.dice.com/olc/thread.jspa?threadID=9965&start=0&tstart=0
Lot of people are working hard to defeat this bill including Programmers guild. We need to act fast and aggressively. I think this postponment of the bill gave us another chance to lobby it strongly.
Wow those guys/gals are fed with so many lies - numbers usa and programmers guild is projecting this bill as if creation of "new" half a million visas and propagating that so many new "foreigners" will take up jobs. Do they understand the word "recapture" and also these are unused 'greencard' recapture - many of beneficiaries are in us for way too long and they are not going to change the job market a bit.
Lot of people are working hard to defeat this bill including Programmers guild. We need to act fast and aggressively. I think this postponment of the bill gave us another chance to lobby it strongly.
Wow those guys/gals are fed with so many lies - numbers usa and programmers guild is projecting this bill as if creation of "new" half a million visas and propagating that so many new "foreigners" will take up jobs. Do they understand the word "recapture" and also these are unused 'greencard' recapture - many of beneficiaries are in us for way too long and they are not going to change the job market a bit.
wallpaper girl with rown hair
Openarms
12-08 03:04 PM
Did anybody get actual response from USCIS yet??
Ramba
07-04 07:25 PM
Everyone blaming CIS/DOS needs to understand some basics behind this mess. Before going to conclude anything, first, one should read all the ombudsman reports for last 3 or 4 years. Former INS or current USCIS�s functions and operations were not questionable and not known to public till ombudsman office was established. Ombudsman has helped customers and keep helping to improve efficiency of CIS. Ombudsman main concern (or goal) have been over the 4 years are
1. Primarily reducing backlogs in any application type particularly 485 and timely approval of any application.
2. Abolish the need for interim benefits like EAD, AP etc. If they approve 485 in 6 months, then most of us do not require EAD and AP.
3. Reduce the wastage of EB visas, as unused EB visas can not be carried over to next year (use it or lose it). Since 1992, about 200,000 EB visas were lost permanently. In 2003 alone, they issued only 64,000 EB visas and lost 88,000.
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Now lets come to July Visa bulletin mess.
Because of tight holding of visa cutoff dates for EB3 and EB2 for the first 8 months of 2007 (From Oct 2006 to May 2007) USCIS approved only 66,000 485s. For the next 4 months they have about 60K to 70K numbers available. If they approve the pending 485s with slower speed or old cut off dates, there is a potential estimated loss of 40,000 EB visas by Sep 2007. Thats why, based on ombudsman recommendation, DOS moved considerably the cut off date for June. When they took inventory in May, there are about 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications were pending due to non-availability of visa numbers. The �documentarily qualified 485 applications� mean the application filed long time back and processed by USCIS and cleared the FBI name and criminal check, and found eligible for green card. Apart from 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications, there is thousands of 485 applications (documentarily not yet qualified) pending due to name check. When DOS checked with USCIS they found only 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications (in all EB categories put together) are pending. However, the available visas are more than 40,000 (60to 70K). Then they made with out consulting properly with USCIS they made �current� for all EB categories. This is how they determine �current� or �over-subscribed� and how they establish cutoff dates.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered �Current.�
Whenever the total of documentarily qualified applicants in a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for the particular month, the category is considered to be �oversubscribed� and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories �current� for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories �current� ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of �current� there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making �current� for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as �current� in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
1. Primarily reducing backlogs in any application type particularly 485 and timely approval of any application.
2. Abolish the need for interim benefits like EAD, AP etc. If they approve 485 in 6 months, then most of us do not require EAD and AP.
3. Reduce the wastage of EB visas, as unused EB visas can not be carried over to next year (use it or lose it). Since 1992, about 200,000 EB visas were lost permanently. In 2003 alone, they issued only 64,000 EB visas and lost 88,000.
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Now lets come to July Visa bulletin mess.
Because of tight holding of visa cutoff dates for EB3 and EB2 for the first 8 months of 2007 (From Oct 2006 to May 2007) USCIS approved only 66,000 485s. For the next 4 months they have about 60K to 70K numbers available. If they approve the pending 485s with slower speed or old cut off dates, there is a potential estimated loss of 40,000 EB visas by Sep 2007. Thats why, based on ombudsman recommendation, DOS moved considerably the cut off date for June. When they took inventory in May, there are about 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications were pending due to non-availability of visa numbers. The �documentarily qualified 485 applications� mean the application filed long time back and processed by USCIS and cleared the FBI name and criminal check, and found eligible for green card. Apart from 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications, there is thousands of 485 applications (documentarily not yet qualified) pending due to name check. When DOS checked with USCIS they found only 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications (in all EB categories put together) are pending. However, the available visas are more than 40,000 (60to 70K). Then they made with out consulting properly with USCIS they made �current� for all EB categories. This is how they determine �current� or �over-subscribed� and how they establish cutoff dates.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered �Current.�
Whenever the total of documentarily qualified applicants in a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for the particular month, the category is considered to be �oversubscribed� and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories �current� for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories �current� ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of �current� there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making �current� for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as �current� in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
2011 girls with light brown hair
andycool
07-12 04:56 PM
E. APPLICABILITY OF INA SECTION 202(a)(5)(A)AS IT RELATES TO THE ALLOCATION OF �OTHERWISE UNUSED� NUMBERS
INA Section 202(a)(5)(A), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act (AC21), provides that if total demand will be insufficient to use all available numbers in a particular Employment preference category in a calendar quarter, then the otherwise unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limits. This provision helps to assure that all available Employment preference numbers may be used. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5)(A) has occasionally allowed oversubscribed countries such as China-mainland born and India to utilize large quantities of Employment First and Second preference numbers that would have otherwise gone unused.
For example, let us assume that 11,600 Employment Second preference numbers are available in a calendar quarter. There is heavy Employment Second preference demand by China-mainland born and India applicants; however, each country is oversubscribed and would ordinarily be limited to about 800 of the available numbers due to the prorating provisions of INA Section 202(e). Applicants from other countries that have not yet reached their per-country limit have reported a total demand of 6,500 numbers. After taking the worldwide demand into account, it is determined that as a result of the China-mainland born and India per-country limits only 8,100 of the total available Employment Second preference numbers would be used in that quarter. In this instance, the otherwise unused 3,500 numbers could then be made available to China-mainland born and India regardless of their per-country limits. Should that occur, the same cut-off date would be applied to each country, since numbers must be provided strictly in priority date order regardless of chargeability. In this instance, greater number use by one country would indicate a higher rate of demand by applicants from that country with earlier priority dates.
According to this there should be a quarterly spillover ...:confused: but it looks like spillover is happening only in last quarter :D
INA Section 202(a)(5)(A), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act (AC21), provides that if total demand will be insufficient to use all available numbers in a particular Employment preference category in a calendar quarter, then the otherwise unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limits. This provision helps to assure that all available Employment preference numbers may be used. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5)(A) has occasionally allowed oversubscribed countries such as China-mainland born and India to utilize large quantities of Employment First and Second preference numbers that would have otherwise gone unused.
For example, let us assume that 11,600 Employment Second preference numbers are available in a calendar quarter. There is heavy Employment Second preference demand by China-mainland born and India applicants; however, each country is oversubscribed and would ordinarily be limited to about 800 of the available numbers due to the prorating provisions of INA Section 202(e). Applicants from other countries that have not yet reached their per-country limit have reported a total demand of 6,500 numbers. After taking the worldwide demand into account, it is determined that as a result of the China-mainland born and India per-country limits only 8,100 of the total available Employment Second preference numbers would be used in that quarter. In this instance, the otherwise unused 3,500 numbers could then be made available to China-mainland born and India regardless of their per-country limits. Should that occur, the same cut-off date would be applied to each country, since numbers must be provided strictly in priority date order regardless of chargeability. In this instance, greater number use by one country would indicate a higher rate of demand by applicants from that country with earlier priority dates.
According to this there should be a quarterly spillover ...:confused: but it looks like spillover is happening only in last quarter :D
more...
feedfront
10-21 01:26 PM
Hi Guys
At last today is my day.. online status changed to "Card Production Order" :)
Hope every one will get soon.
Thanks
onemorecame
Congrats dude, I had told you to hang in there and you would hear something in a week or two.
At last today is my day.. online status changed to "Card Production Order" :)
Hope every one will get soon.
Thanks
onemorecame
Congrats dude, I had told you to hang in there and you would hear something in a week or two.
singhsa3
03-04 12:41 PM
Already, spoken to couple of them. Anyways, the point is not that I get the mortgage, the point is that we get our GC or Admin fixes done.
shop around...talk to different lenders....there are many of them that understand that the ead is renewable. its up to u as a consumer how to make ur case.
shop around...talk to different lenders....there are many of them that understand that the ead is renewable. its up to u as a consumer how to make ur case.
more...
ajay
12-08 04:57 PM
I also got a response with some number. I don't know how much of it is going to help us in knowing the situation.
2010 pretty girls with light brown
kumarc123
10-18 05:34 PM
Well,
I posted a suggestin on here, and some genius gave me a red. Well I quiet don't understand the purpose of red or green? Does green mean we will get more money or faster GC?
Well to all my iv friends, we all have the right to give suggestions, so lets not critique each other when we disagree, we really need to be joint and motivated to work for our rights.
Look at this,
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081018/wl_afp/euimmigration
Immigrants in Eu are fighting for their rights, what are we doing?
Some smart guy gave me red for the suggestion I made earlier, my friend if it makes you happy to critique me, then critique me more. I can understand your frustration and pain. Instead of challenging that towards each other, lets all use it in a focused manner for something more constructive.
I posted a suggestin on here, and some genius gave me a red. Well I quiet don't understand the purpose of red or green? Does green mean we will get more money or faster GC?
Well to all my iv friends, we all have the right to give suggestions, so lets not critique each other when we disagree, we really need to be joint and motivated to work for our rights.
Look at this,
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081018/wl_afp/euimmigration
Immigrants in Eu are fighting for their rights, what are we doing?
Some smart guy gave me red for the suggestion I made earlier, my friend if it makes you happy to critique me, then critique me more. I can understand your frustration and pain. Instead of challenging that towards each other, lets all use it in a focused manner for something more constructive.
more...
conchshell
07-28 11:00 AM
Instead of discussing this matter on IV forum ... please report it to Vishwa Hindu Parishad ( www.vhp.org ) They are actively searching for such issues.
hair pretty girls with light brown
rayoflight
05-27 06:38 PM
Well you can certainly make copies but I was talking about making 'color' copies. As far as I know making color copies is illegal.
more...
speddi
07-13 09:25 AM
I applied for I-140 in July 2007 using a substitute labor EB2 (from a different company) with a priority date of Nov 2005 and it got approved in May 2008.
During the same July fiasco, my employer at that time applied for I-485 with a priority date of August 2006.
I didn't apply for priority date porting after the substitute labor I-140 got approved because I didn't have the approval notice.
I read somewhere that even though I didn't apply for porting of the date, USCIS will consider the earlier date. How far is this true? How can I find out my correct priority date?
Thank you
During the same July fiasco, my employer at that time applied for I-485 with a priority date of August 2006.
I didn't apply for priority date porting after the substitute labor I-140 got approved because I didn't have the approval notice.
I read somewhere that even though I didn't apply for porting of the date, USCIS will consider the earlier date. How far is this true? How can I find out my correct priority date?
Thank you
hot pretty girls with light brown
arnab221
04-22 01:22 PM
Decipher and GSC999 have totally contradictory opinions . Not sure whom to believe here .:D . There seems to have been 2 sets of opinons here of the members who attended the rally.
more...
house pretty girls with light brown
Openarms
02-03 11:03 AM
This is the only strongest point we have ever had. So let us push or aks for help Obama administration.
If they can bring people based on merits( regardless of country ) to work they should do the same for green card. If not the system should be fair and strong.... not to open back doors for people to persuade to come to this country and be work like horse.
If they can bring people based on merits( regardless of country ) to work they should do the same for green card. If not the system should be fair and strong.... not to open back doors for people to persuade to come to this country and be work like horse.
tattoo pretty girls with light brown
apahilaj
04-23 06:43 PM
All,
Opened my email this morning to see the card production ordered email (time stamp in my inbox reads 2:15 am PST 4/23/08); the approval date was 4/23/08.
Been in meetings all day so not even a chance to call anyone about it.
Yay!
Good luck to all my fellow sufferers!
Googler
Does that mean that we won't get any inside news from Mr. Oppenheimer (if I spelled his name correctly) any more..?:) Just kidding.
Enjoy your freedom. Congratulations!
Opened my email this morning to see the card production ordered email (time stamp in my inbox reads 2:15 am PST 4/23/08); the approval date was 4/23/08.
Been in meetings all day so not even a chance to call anyone about it.
Yay!
Good luck to all my fellow sufferers!
Googler
Does that mean that we won't get any inside news from Mr. Oppenheimer (if I spelled his name correctly) any more..?:) Just kidding.
Enjoy your freedom. Congratulations!
more...
pictures Girl With Long Brown Hair
dankusam
12-12 09:39 PM
Hi could someone please show me how to write the letter to explain reason for AP? Should I explain why I am leaving or emphasize on the need to come back?
Also, in the e-filing form the oversea address is not required as it does on the paper form, should I provide it anyway as the supporting doc?
Thanks much!!
Also, in the e-filing form the oversea address is not required as it does on the paper form, should I provide it anyway as the supporting doc?
Thanks much!!
dresses girl with rown hair and
mpadapa
09-26 10:00 AM
Just wrote an email to the editor...Hopefully he learns and corrects the article..
more...
makeup rown hair girl
PBECVictim
06-12 10:00 AM
White House spokesman Tony Snow said on �American Morning� he expects Republicans to band together to add amendments to the bill, and it could be voted on by the end of Tuesday � after senators take up the energy bill.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/
girlfriend pretty girls with light brown
nixstor
07-03 12:26 PM
I admit, it seems discriminatory to say you can't get your GC now because you're from this country or that country but these "high volume" countries have created the current back log through their sheer numbers and sometimes multiple applications, not the system. The system is fair to ALL and for some group to say that it isn't fair because all of that group isn't getting what they want is unjust to the rest of us. I knew I would be pounced upon when I submitted my original post and it only proves my point of personal agendas; sometimes I wonder what the "I" in "IV" really stands for? Don't be so arrogant as to believe that your higher education should give you more rights than others - that doesn't fly with me! I am frustrated with this forum because of this arrogance and I may not visit too much longer!
I do have one question for all of you who are in favor of eliminating the per country limit; do you support an eventual road to citizenship for the large group of people who dominate the "other side" of immigration? If you don't, some may think you hipocritical to want the rules changed for yourselves!
Sheer number of applications from the high volume countries has created the backlog?? Are you saying/wishing that these people should not have come in the first place to avoid the backlog?? My friend, backlogs did not happen completely because of the sheer number of applications and gaming. Backlogs happened primarily because of wasted visa numbers and issues surrounding it. If there was no visa number wastage the priority dates would have been around 2-3 years behind as opposed to 7 or 8 years. There are gamers in every system. If a system does not work for people as it is supposed to, gamers do so to get out of the system. Not that IV condones such things but it happens in any system, when the system is broken.
The I in IV definitely does not stand for me only or for any one only. I along with V only makes sense. I by itself does not get IV any where.
So removing the per country limit would remove the "bias" off these countries and move it to the ones with lower populations; so, in essence the discrimination would be reversed?
On one hand you are saying that there is a bias towards lower population countries now and you are ok with it, just because you happen to benefit from it. Is that what you mean?
If retrogressed countries are asking for 75% of the numbers reserved to them rather than having one line for all, You have a good point in saying that the bias is shifting towards retrogressed countries. There is no such provision like that. The provision creates one line depending on when you entered the line. You enter the line ahead, you get it first.
So keeping the limits intact is NOT a bias to you? You can't have it both ways. What do you think is a solution? The point system you referred to came with the same 10% limit on the retrogressed countries. What difference does it make to a retrogressed person with 96 out of 100 points, but still needs to wait for 4 years, while some one from Krakozhia walks away in 6 months with 60 points. B T W , you also said that higher education deserves more does not fly with you. I am not sure how you want points to be assigned, other than education and experience. Don't let the fear and protectionist thought take over the logical and rational thought.
The "other side" of immigration is an entirely different topic. Their issues and our issues, their path to the end line and ours are entirely different. We can't simply compare apples and oranges and call people hypocrites. That said, I personally support it and feel that it will happen at some point depending on the majority in both houses and one party will suffer for the decisions it made. As a by stander, I sympathize with the situation the "other side" has been in. I have a full plate to work on.
I do have one question for all of you who are in favor of eliminating the per country limit; do you support an eventual road to citizenship for the large group of people who dominate the "other side" of immigration? If you don't, some may think you hipocritical to want the rules changed for yourselves!
Sheer number of applications from the high volume countries has created the backlog?? Are you saying/wishing that these people should not have come in the first place to avoid the backlog?? My friend, backlogs did not happen completely because of the sheer number of applications and gaming. Backlogs happened primarily because of wasted visa numbers and issues surrounding it. If there was no visa number wastage the priority dates would have been around 2-3 years behind as opposed to 7 or 8 years. There are gamers in every system. If a system does not work for people as it is supposed to, gamers do so to get out of the system. Not that IV condones such things but it happens in any system, when the system is broken.
The I in IV definitely does not stand for me only or for any one only. I along with V only makes sense. I by itself does not get IV any where.
So removing the per country limit would remove the "bias" off these countries and move it to the ones with lower populations; so, in essence the discrimination would be reversed?
On one hand you are saying that there is a bias towards lower population countries now and you are ok with it, just because you happen to benefit from it. Is that what you mean?
If retrogressed countries are asking for 75% of the numbers reserved to them rather than having one line for all, You have a good point in saying that the bias is shifting towards retrogressed countries. There is no such provision like that. The provision creates one line depending on when you entered the line. You enter the line ahead, you get it first.
So keeping the limits intact is NOT a bias to you? You can't have it both ways. What do you think is a solution? The point system you referred to came with the same 10% limit on the retrogressed countries. What difference does it make to a retrogressed person with 96 out of 100 points, but still needs to wait for 4 years, while some one from Krakozhia walks away in 6 months with 60 points. B T W , you also said that higher education deserves more does not fly with you. I am not sure how you want points to be assigned, other than education and experience. Don't let the fear and protectionist thought take over the logical and rational thought.
The "other side" of immigration is an entirely different topic. Their issues and our issues, their path to the end line and ours are entirely different. We can't simply compare apples and oranges and call people hypocrites. That said, I personally support it and feel that it will happen at some point depending on the majority in both houses and one party will suffer for the decisions it made. As a by stander, I sympathize with the situation the "other side" has been in. I have a full plate to work on.
hairstyles stock photo : Pretty girl
nixstor
10-15 02:17 PM
Please explain, What is the space limitation issue on IV as login? In that case, I should have some :confused:
Nothing you should worry about. Its just that my upload along with postwas failing. Hence I uploaded it on megaupload. Click the word Megaupload or Google docs in my post above and download the template.
Nothing you should worry about. Its just that my upload along with postwas failing. Hence I uploaded it on megaupload. Click the word Megaupload or Google docs in my post above and download the template.
shaxami
04-05 09:23 AM
has anybody contacted senator office or congress person office on this issue. They are sometimes very helpful in handling matters of red-tape.
nonimmi
03-14 05:42 PM
We sent a letter to USCIS to revoke the existing G-28.
We just sent a letter and 485 receipt for me and my husband.
Just wanted to let u know.
Thanks for sharing the info. Did you get any new attorney?
We just sent a letter and 485 receipt for me and my husband.
Just wanted to let u know.
Thanks for sharing the info. Did you get any new attorney?