same_old_guy
11-10 03:42 PM
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3779
qualified_trash
08-27 09:48 PM
IV does not represent people like you. Now get the hell out of here.
You may not agree with what everyone says on these forums. It is not your business to ask them to get out.
You may not agree with what everyone says on these forums. It is not your business to ask them to get out.
dontcareaboutGC
03-19 11:24 AM
Ignore this if this is a repost!
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security,
and International Law
Hearing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Government Perspectives
on Immigration Statistics
Testimony of Charles Oppenheim
Chief, Immigrant Control and Reporting Division
Visa Services Office
U.S. Department of State
June 6, 2007
2:00 p.m.
2141 Rayburn House Office Building
Chairman Lofgren, Ranking Member King, and distinguished members of
the Committee, it is a pleasure to be here this afternoon to answer
your questions and provide an overview of our immigrant visa control
and reporting program operated by the U.S. Department of State. The
Department of State is responsible for administering the provisions of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) related to the numerical
limitations on immigrant visa issuances. At the beginning of each
month, the Visa Office (VO) receives a report from each consular post
listing totals of documentarily-qualified immigrant visa applicants in
categories subject to numerical limitation. Cases are grouped in three
different categories: 1) foreign state chargeability, 2) preference,
and 3) priority date.
Foreign state chargeability for visa purposes refers to the fact that
an immigrant is chargeable to the numerical limitation for the foreign
state or dependent area in which the immigrant's place of birth is
located. Exceptions are provided for a child (unmarried and under 21
years of age) or spouse accompanying or following to join a principal
to prevent the separation of family members, as well as for an
applicant born in the United States or in a foreign state of which
neither parent was a native or resident. Alternate chargeability is
desirable when the visa cut-off date for the foreign state of a parent
or spouse is more advantageous than that of the applicant's foreign
state.
As established by the Immigration and Nationality Act, preference is
the visa category that can be assigned based on relationships to U.S.
citizens or legal permanent residents. Family-based immigration falls
under two basic categories: unlimited and limited. Preferences
established by law for the limited category are:
Family First Preference (F1): Unmarried sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their minor children, if any.
Family Second Preference (F2): Spouses, minor children, and unmarried
sons and daughters of lawful permanent residents.
Family Third Preference (F3): Married sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their spouses and minor children.
Family Fourth Preference (F4): Brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens
and their spouses and minor children provided the U.S. citizen is at
least 21 years of age.
The Priority Date is normally the date on which the petition to accord
the applicant immigrant status was filed, generally with U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). VO subdivides the annual
preference and foreign state limitations specified by the INA into
monthly allotments. The totals of documentarily-qualified applicants
which have been reported to VO are compared each month with the
numbers available for the next regular allotment. The determination of
how many numbers are available requires consideration of several
variables, including: past number use; estimates of future number use
and return rates; and estimates of USCIS demand based on cut-off date
movements. Once this consideration is completed, the cutoff dates are
established and numbers are allocated to reported applicants in order
of their priority dates, the oldest dates first.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy
all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is
considered "Current." For example: If the monthly allocation target is
10,000, and we only have 5,000 applicants, the category can be
"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.
The cut-off date is the priority date of the first
documentarily-qualified applicant who could not be accommodated for a
visa number. For example, if the monthly target is 10,000 and we have
25,000 applicants, then we would need to establish a cut-off date so
that only 10,000 numbers would be allocated. In this case, the cut-off
would be the priority date of the 10,001st applicant.
Only persons with a priority date earlier than a cut-off date are
entitled to allotment of a visa number. The cut-off dates are the 1st,
8th, 15th, and 22nd of a month, since VO groups demand for numbers
under these dates. (Priority dates of the first through seventh of a
month are grouped under the 1st, the eighth through the 14th under the
8th, etc.) VO attempts to establish the cut-off dates for the
following month on or about the 8th of each month. The dates are
immediately transmitted to consular posts abroad and USCIS, and also
published in the Visa Bulletin and online at the website
www.travel.state.gov. Visa allotments for use during that month are
transmitted to consular posts. USCIS requests visa allotments for
adjustment of status cases only when all other case processing has
been completed. I am submitting the latest Visa Bulletin for the
record or you can click on: Visa Bulletin for June 2007.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE SYSTEM AND CLARIFICATION OF SOME
FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS:
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified
at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every
applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date
been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, visa allotments
are made only on the basis of the total applicants reported
�documentarily qualified� (or, theoretically ready for interview) each
month. Demand for visa numbers can fluctuate from one month to
another, with the inevitable impact on cut-off dates.
If an applicant is reported documentarily qualified but allocation of
a visa number is not possible because of a visa availability cut-off
date, the demand is recorded at VO and an allocation is made as soon
as the applicable cut-off date advances beyond the applicant's
priority date. There is no need for such applicant to be reported a
second time.
Visa numbers are always allotted for all documentarily-qualified
applicants with a priority date before the relevant cut-off date, as
long as the case had been reported to VO in time to be included in the
monthly calculation of visa availability. Failure of visa number
receipt by the overseas processing office could mean that the request
was not dispatched in time to reach VO for the monthly allocation
cycle, or that information on the request was incomplete or inaccurate
(e.g., incorrect priority date).
Allocations to Foreign Service posts outside the regular monthly cycle
are possible in emergency or exceptional cases, but only at the
request of the office processing the case. Note that, should
retrogression of a cut-off date be announced, VO can honor
extraordinary requests for additional numbers only if the applicant's
priority date is earlier than the retrogressed cut-off date. Not all
numbers allocated are actually used for visa issuance; some are
returned to VO and are reincorporated into the pool of numbers
available for later allocation during the fiscal year. The rate of
return of unused numbers may fluctuate from month to month, just as
demand may fluctuate. Lower returns mean fewer numbers available for
subsequent reallocation. Fluctuations can cause cut-off date movement
to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly
possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches
the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7 percent is a
cap, which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed.
Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The
country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the
annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This
limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled,
however. A portion of the numbers provided to the Family Second
preference category is exempt from this per-country cap. The American
Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (AC21) removed the
per-country limit in any calendar quarter in which overall applicant
demand for Employment-based visa numbers is less than the total of
such numbers available.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by
documentarily-qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds
the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation,
that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may
require the establishment of a cut-off date which is earlier than that
which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The
prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same
percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual
limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off
dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off
dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
The committee submitted several questions that fell outside of VO�s
area of work, therefore, I have provided in my written testimony today
the answers only to those questions that the Department of State can
answer. Thank you for this opportunity.
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security,
and International Law
Hearing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Government Perspectives
on Immigration Statistics
Testimony of Charles Oppenheim
Chief, Immigrant Control and Reporting Division
Visa Services Office
U.S. Department of State
June 6, 2007
2:00 p.m.
2141 Rayburn House Office Building
Chairman Lofgren, Ranking Member King, and distinguished members of
the Committee, it is a pleasure to be here this afternoon to answer
your questions and provide an overview of our immigrant visa control
and reporting program operated by the U.S. Department of State. The
Department of State is responsible for administering the provisions of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) related to the numerical
limitations on immigrant visa issuances. At the beginning of each
month, the Visa Office (VO) receives a report from each consular post
listing totals of documentarily-qualified immigrant visa applicants in
categories subject to numerical limitation. Cases are grouped in three
different categories: 1) foreign state chargeability, 2) preference,
and 3) priority date.
Foreign state chargeability for visa purposes refers to the fact that
an immigrant is chargeable to the numerical limitation for the foreign
state or dependent area in which the immigrant's place of birth is
located. Exceptions are provided for a child (unmarried and under 21
years of age) or spouse accompanying or following to join a principal
to prevent the separation of family members, as well as for an
applicant born in the United States or in a foreign state of which
neither parent was a native or resident. Alternate chargeability is
desirable when the visa cut-off date for the foreign state of a parent
or spouse is more advantageous than that of the applicant's foreign
state.
As established by the Immigration and Nationality Act, preference is
the visa category that can be assigned based on relationships to U.S.
citizens or legal permanent residents. Family-based immigration falls
under two basic categories: unlimited and limited. Preferences
established by law for the limited category are:
Family First Preference (F1): Unmarried sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their minor children, if any.
Family Second Preference (F2): Spouses, minor children, and unmarried
sons and daughters of lawful permanent residents.
Family Third Preference (F3): Married sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their spouses and minor children.
Family Fourth Preference (F4): Brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens
and their spouses and minor children provided the U.S. citizen is at
least 21 years of age.
The Priority Date is normally the date on which the petition to accord
the applicant immigrant status was filed, generally with U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). VO subdivides the annual
preference and foreign state limitations specified by the INA into
monthly allotments. The totals of documentarily-qualified applicants
which have been reported to VO are compared each month with the
numbers available for the next regular allotment. The determination of
how many numbers are available requires consideration of several
variables, including: past number use; estimates of future number use
and return rates; and estimates of USCIS demand based on cut-off date
movements. Once this consideration is completed, the cutoff dates are
established and numbers are allocated to reported applicants in order
of their priority dates, the oldest dates first.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy
all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is
considered "Current." For example: If the monthly allocation target is
10,000, and we only have 5,000 applicants, the category can be
"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.
The cut-off date is the priority date of the first
documentarily-qualified applicant who could not be accommodated for a
visa number. For example, if the monthly target is 10,000 and we have
25,000 applicants, then we would need to establish a cut-off date so
that only 10,000 numbers would be allocated. In this case, the cut-off
would be the priority date of the 10,001st applicant.
Only persons with a priority date earlier than a cut-off date are
entitled to allotment of a visa number. The cut-off dates are the 1st,
8th, 15th, and 22nd of a month, since VO groups demand for numbers
under these dates. (Priority dates of the first through seventh of a
month are grouped under the 1st, the eighth through the 14th under the
8th, etc.) VO attempts to establish the cut-off dates for the
following month on or about the 8th of each month. The dates are
immediately transmitted to consular posts abroad and USCIS, and also
published in the Visa Bulletin and online at the website
www.travel.state.gov. Visa allotments for use during that month are
transmitted to consular posts. USCIS requests visa allotments for
adjustment of status cases only when all other case processing has
been completed. I am submitting the latest Visa Bulletin for the
record or you can click on: Visa Bulletin for June 2007.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE SYSTEM AND CLARIFICATION OF SOME
FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS:
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified
at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every
applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date
been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, visa allotments
are made only on the basis of the total applicants reported
�documentarily qualified� (or, theoretically ready for interview) each
month. Demand for visa numbers can fluctuate from one month to
another, with the inevitable impact on cut-off dates.
If an applicant is reported documentarily qualified but allocation of
a visa number is not possible because of a visa availability cut-off
date, the demand is recorded at VO and an allocation is made as soon
as the applicable cut-off date advances beyond the applicant's
priority date. There is no need for such applicant to be reported a
second time.
Visa numbers are always allotted for all documentarily-qualified
applicants with a priority date before the relevant cut-off date, as
long as the case had been reported to VO in time to be included in the
monthly calculation of visa availability. Failure of visa number
receipt by the overseas processing office could mean that the request
was not dispatched in time to reach VO for the monthly allocation
cycle, or that information on the request was incomplete or inaccurate
(e.g., incorrect priority date).
Allocations to Foreign Service posts outside the regular monthly cycle
are possible in emergency or exceptional cases, but only at the
request of the office processing the case. Note that, should
retrogression of a cut-off date be announced, VO can honor
extraordinary requests for additional numbers only if the applicant's
priority date is earlier than the retrogressed cut-off date. Not all
numbers allocated are actually used for visa issuance; some are
returned to VO and are reincorporated into the pool of numbers
available for later allocation during the fiscal year. The rate of
return of unused numbers may fluctuate from month to month, just as
demand may fluctuate. Lower returns mean fewer numbers available for
subsequent reallocation. Fluctuations can cause cut-off date movement
to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly
possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches
the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7 percent is a
cap, which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed.
Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The
country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the
annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This
limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled,
however. A portion of the numbers provided to the Family Second
preference category is exempt from this per-country cap. The American
Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (AC21) removed the
per-country limit in any calendar quarter in which overall applicant
demand for Employment-based visa numbers is less than the total of
such numbers available.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by
documentarily-qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds
the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation,
that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may
require the establishment of a cut-off date which is earlier than that
which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The
prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same
percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual
limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off
dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off
dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
The committee submitted several questions that fell outside of VO�s
area of work, therefore, I have provided in my written testimony today
the answers only to those questions that the Department of State can
answer. Thank you for this opportunity.
ItIsNotFunny
12-03 12:03 PM
Bump ^^^^
more...
cha79
06-05 03:22 PM
Hi illinois_alum and sanjayc,
I have very similar questions except for our situation. Both me and wife have valid H-1B and H-4 and need to apply for our EAD extension (we are maintaining them in parallel). Can you suggest what should be our response to these in such case:
1. Manner of Last Entry : Should it be H-1B?
2. Current Immigration Status : H-1B? We never used EAD/AP to work or travel
6. Eligibility status: Should we just menton (c)(9) or have to add "FILED I-485" too?
Thanks for your help.
I have very similar questions except for our situation. Both me and wife have valid H-1B and H-4 and need to apply for our EAD extension (we are maintaining them in parallel). Can you suggest what should be our response to these in such case:
1. Manner of Last Entry : Should it be H-1B?
2. Current Immigration Status : H-1B? We never used EAD/AP to work or travel
6. Eligibility status: Should we just menton (c)(9) or have to add "FILED I-485" too?
Thanks for your help.
sobers
05-31 03:46 PM
Clearly IV-QGA has a long ways to go before it an be featured in the 'big league'. Despite its short existence, its commendable what IV-QGA has been able to accomplish.
=========
National Immigration Forum: Angela Kelley, Christina DeConcini, Lynn Tramonte
The Forum, the leading pro-immigrant advocacy group, has just expanded its lobbying arm by adding DeConcini, who was formerly with the Catholic Legal Immigration Network. The Forum “brings together strange bedfellows,” Kelley, its deputy director, said. She said groups that normally have little in common, such as the Chamber of Commerce, organized labor and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, join to work toward a “rational, constructive immigration policy.” Tramonte is the Forum’s senior policy communications associate.
Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR): Paul Egan, Brian Bilbray
Egan is the group’s director for government relations. FAIR is seeking a moratorium on most immigration to give the country time to develop a comprehensive reform strategy. Former Rep. Bilbray (R-Calif.) is on FAIR’s board of advisers and runs the group’s congressional task force. One lobbyist said Bilbray’s “incredible access” to the House of Representatives has helped FAIR in its work on immigration reform.
* Bilbray is competing in a special election on June 6 to replace Duke Cunningham. If this guys wins, it will surely galvanize the Anti-Immigration forces in Congress and on the Hill.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/50thdistrict/20060327-9999-1n6bilbray.html
McCains cancels appearance at fundraiser:
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,197579,00.html
NumbersUSA.com: Rosemary Jenks, James Edwards
Jenks is the in-house lobbyist for the group. She said that while NumbersUSA originally was involved in the impact of immigration on the labor market, the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, “made it clear we also need to look at security.” Edwards, who is with Olive, Edwards & Brinkman, also said that immigration is currently seen “through the lens of security.” A legislative director for former Rep. Ed Bryant (R-Tenn.), Edwards worked on immigration issues when lawmakers passed immigration reform in the 104th Congress. At the time, Bryant was a member of the House Judiciary Committee’s Immigration, Border Security and Claims Subcommittee. Edwards also co-wrote The Congressional Politics of Immigration Reform, published in 1998.
Agricultural Coalition for Immigration Reform (ACIR): Monte Lake, Craig Regelbrugge, Sharon Hughes
This ad hoc coalition includes more than 100 organizations with a “substantial labor need,” said co-chairman Regelbrugge, who is also the senior director of government relations for the American Nursery & Landscape Association. The group wants to ensure that agriculture employers have access to a seasonal work force to make certain the country has a “safe and secure food supply.” While individual members of the coalition pitch in, ACIR is also relying on some outside help. Lake is a partner with McGuiness Norris & Williams. The former deputy attorney general of California said that before the 2001 terrorist attacks, the group was close to achieving its goal of helping to reform immigration in a way that allowed access to seasonal workers while instituting a system of “earned immigration.” Hughes is the executive vice president of the National Council of Agricultural Employers and a key component in coordinating ACIR’s grassroots campaign.
United to Secure America: William Crosby, Wright Andrews
In the first half of this year, the group spent more than $600,000 in lobbying fees, including $180,000 each to Butera & Andrews, Podesta Mattoon and Timothy R Rupli & Associates. The group advocates boosting national security through allowing what it calls a “manageable number” of immigrants and non-immigrant visitors. One source praised the access of Crosby, a former GOP chief counsel on the House Rules Committee and 27-year Hill veteran who now works for the Livingston Group, as especially valuable.
American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA): Judith Golub, Marshall Fitz
Golub is the senior director of advocacy and public affairs for the 9,000-member group and Fitz is the associate director. AILA aims to educate Congress and the public about the benefits of an immigration policy that allows refugees and workers to enter the country.
=========
National Immigration Forum: Angela Kelley, Christina DeConcini, Lynn Tramonte
The Forum, the leading pro-immigrant advocacy group, has just expanded its lobbying arm by adding DeConcini, who was formerly with the Catholic Legal Immigration Network. The Forum “brings together strange bedfellows,” Kelley, its deputy director, said. She said groups that normally have little in common, such as the Chamber of Commerce, organized labor and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, join to work toward a “rational, constructive immigration policy.” Tramonte is the Forum’s senior policy communications associate.
Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR): Paul Egan, Brian Bilbray
Egan is the group’s director for government relations. FAIR is seeking a moratorium on most immigration to give the country time to develop a comprehensive reform strategy. Former Rep. Bilbray (R-Calif.) is on FAIR’s board of advisers and runs the group’s congressional task force. One lobbyist said Bilbray’s “incredible access” to the House of Representatives has helped FAIR in its work on immigration reform.
* Bilbray is competing in a special election on June 6 to replace Duke Cunningham. If this guys wins, it will surely galvanize the Anti-Immigration forces in Congress and on the Hill.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/50thdistrict/20060327-9999-1n6bilbray.html
McCains cancels appearance at fundraiser:
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,197579,00.html
NumbersUSA.com: Rosemary Jenks, James Edwards
Jenks is the in-house lobbyist for the group. She said that while NumbersUSA originally was involved in the impact of immigration on the labor market, the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, “made it clear we also need to look at security.” Edwards, who is with Olive, Edwards & Brinkman, also said that immigration is currently seen “through the lens of security.” A legislative director for former Rep. Ed Bryant (R-Tenn.), Edwards worked on immigration issues when lawmakers passed immigration reform in the 104th Congress. At the time, Bryant was a member of the House Judiciary Committee’s Immigration, Border Security and Claims Subcommittee. Edwards also co-wrote The Congressional Politics of Immigration Reform, published in 1998.
Agricultural Coalition for Immigration Reform (ACIR): Monte Lake, Craig Regelbrugge, Sharon Hughes
This ad hoc coalition includes more than 100 organizations with a “substantial labor need,” said co-chairman Regelbrugge, who is also the senior director of government relations for the American Nursery & Landscape Association. The group wants to ensure that agriculture employers have access to a seasonal work force to make certain the country has a “safe and secure food supply.” While individual members of the coalition pitch in, ACIR is also relying on some outside help. Lake is a partner with McGuiness Norris & Williams. The former deputy attorney general of California said that before the 2001 terrorist attacks, the group was close to achieving its goal of helping to reform immigration in a way that allowed access to seasonal workers while instituting a system of “earned immigration.” Hughes is the executive vice president of the National Council of Agricultural Employers and a key component in coordinating ACIR’s grassroots campaign.
United to Secure America: William Crosby, Wright Andrews
In the first half of this year, the group spent more than $600,000 in lobbying fees, including $180,000 each to Butera & Andrews, Podesta Mattoon and Timothy R Rupli & Associates. The group advocates boosting national security through allowing what it calls a “manageable number” of immigrants and non-immigrant visitors. One source praised the access of Crosby, a former GOP chief counsel on the House Rules Committee and 27-year Hill veteran who now works for the Livingston Group, as especially valuable.
American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA): Judith Golub, Marshall Fitz
Golub is the senior director of advocacy and public affairs for the 9,000-member group and Fitz is the associate director. AILA aims to educate Congress and the public about the benefits of an immigration policy that allows refugees and workers to enter the country.
more...
rajs
04-04 03:43 PM
my case is pending from 2004
visa numbers for PD are current but still no action on my case
i dint even get a reply for the enquire i made in Jan 2009
so for me its like a showoff story by USCIS :confused:
visa numbers for PD are current but still no action on my case
i dint even get a reply for the enquire i made in Jan 2009
so for me its like a showoff story by USCIS :confused:
buehler
07-13 03:38 PM
The software has an AI program that determines how likely you are to get a GC based on the info that you gave while registering and shows the square accordingly. So if you have
one green sqaure you will get it in 4-6 years
two green squares means 2-4 years
one red square means that your name is stuck in FBI name check and could take 6-8 years
two red squares means your deportation hearing is coming up any time now
three red squares means you are a most wanted criminal :D :D
Actually the square colors are determined by the judgment calls made fellow members. You can make this call by clicking on the weight scale image above each post. Now if only you would give me a favorable vote for explaining this in detail.:)
one green sqaure you will get it in 4-6 years
two green squares means 2-4 years
one red square means that your name is stuck in FBI name check and could take 6-8 years
two red squares means your deportation hearing is coming up any time now
three red squares means you are a most wanted criminal :D :D
Actually the square colors are determined by the judgment calls made fellow members. You can make this call by clicking on the weight scale image above each post. Now if only you would give me a favorable vote for explaining this in detail.:)
more...
maalelsi
02-22 09:46 PM
I went to web site and it still shows Jan processing dates.
How is it possible?
How is it possible?
burnt
12-12 03:39 PM
No questions asked about visa or 485. Just had to show my passport and AP document :)
Thanks for the response. My wife has started working on EAD. So when she comes back, will she have to enter on AP? And as you said, they would not ask for I-485 receipts...Correct? I don't have I-485 receipts and I am just scared that if they ask for it, and I don't have it, then what happens...
Do you know of someone who was asked for the I-485 receipts on their way back?
Thanks for the response. My wife has started working on EAD. So when she comes back, will she have to enter on AP? And as you said, they would not ask for I-485 receipts...Correct? I don't have I-485 receipts and I am just scared that if they ask for it, and I don't have it, then what happens...
Do you know of someone who was asked for the I-485 receipts on their way back?
more...
mbartosik
01-30 04:19 PM
Tomorrow we will have something more substantial to release.
I would recommend that tomorrow when we release this that people phone up the local media, speaking with someone is better than email.
I would recommend that tomorrow when we release this that people phone up the local media, speaking with someone is better than email.
kirupa
01-06 12:57 PM
"Conflict of Interest" is my middle name...s.
:P
:P
more...
alien2006
08-08 07:33 AM
guys many of us are considering going back to india.. any idea on whether those who have 40 credits will be eligible for social security from india...
also any adivice o what is the best way to transfer 401 to india.. withdraw immeditately or wait till 591/2 years..
Try this website - http://groups.msn.com/R2INRIFinanceAndInvestments for good info if you want to go back to India.
also any adivice o what is the best way to transfer 401 to india.. withdraw immeditately or wait till 591/2 years..
Try this website - http://groups.msn.com/R2INRIFinanceAndInvestments for good info if you want to go back to India.
dollar500
04-09 07:30 PM
I am currently on H1 and have EAD through my wife (>180 d) (EB3 5/04). I am in a catch 22 situation. I am gettting a fellowship in one of the best program in the nation.
The problem is they dont want to sponser H1. Now if I utilize the EAD then there is always a risk associated. ALso my wife have to use AC21 to move to this place as well.
Have anybody been in this situation before? Is there anything to negotiate to push them to sponser H1b for me. Can you get H1b from a moonlighting position?
I'd appreciate the help. I really want to join this place and feel that they also really want me as a fellow. They just dont have enough courage to speak up in front of hospital corporate offices.
The problem is they dont want to sponser H1. Now if I utilize the EAD then there is always a risk associated. ALso my wife have to use AC21 to move to this place as well.
Have anybody been in this situation before? Is there anything to negotiate to push them to sponser H1b for me. Can you get H1b from a moonlighting position?
I'd appreciate the help. I really want to join this place and feel that they also really want me as a fellow. They just dont have enough courage to speak up in front of hospital corporate offices.
more...
drirshad
07-29 06:50 AM
old pork chops arn't gonna get any good ideas so better show some courtesy ......
eb3retro
03-15 01:15 PM
Filing 485 during visa unavailability, should not be the concern in this bill. Why our people are worrying about filing AOS when visa number unavailable? Man, this should not be our concern at all. Our main concern should be reinstating the AC21 provision that allow the oversubscribed countries to use excess visas in each EB category. Specter removed very important provision that eliminate per country limit in EB visas for oversubscribed countries. This is a big blow to India, China. It will stop all the benefits from this bill.
If the current form of specter bill passes, there is no benefit to any of us. If EB visa increased to 290K, excluding dependents from counting from FY 2001, recapturing unused visa from 2001 to 2005, and excluding EB1 (OR+EA) and EB2 (MS+3) from count, that drastically increase the visa numbers. The increase is unimaginable, and I feel that it will be about 4 to 5 times than current 140K numbers. If all the listed provisions appears in the final bill, the visa number will always be �current� for all countries for many years, provided AC21 (elimination of per country limit if demand is less than supply) reinstated. If this happens, no one needs to worry about filing AOS when visa number unavailable. That situation never arises.
If current form of Specter bill passes, all the new numbers created thro above listed provisions, will not give any benefit to India/China. DOS simply say per country limit is 10% only no matter what. Remember that, 10% is total of FB+EB numbers. (480000+290000). India and China FB numbers are also heavily backlogged. Therefore our main concern is to reinstate AC21 provision not filing AOS, and keep pressure to keep the listed provisions (EB visa increased to 290K, excluding dependents from counting from FY 2001, recapturing unused visa from 2001 to 2005, and excluding EB1 (OR+EA) and EB2 (MS+3)) in the final bill
this person is bringing some valid points to ponder. People please go through her posting and i agree with her regarding the numbers is still 10% only for india. we need to fight for removing the per country limit, or else, we may probably be in this retrogression mess for quite sometime.
If the current form of specter bill passes, there is no benefit to any of us. If EB visa increased to 290K, excluding dependents from counting from FY 2001, recapturing unused visa from 2001 to 2005, and excluding EB1 (OR+EA) and EB2 (MS+3) from count, that drastically increase the visa numbers. The increase is unimaginable, and I feel that it will be about 4 to 5 times than current 140K numbers. If all the listed provisions appears in the final bill, the visa number will always be �current� for all countries for many years, provided AC21 (elimination of per country limit if demand is less than supply) reinstated. If this happens, no one needs to worry about filing AOS when visa number unavailable. That situation never arises.
If current form of Specter bill passes, all the new numbers created thro above listed provisions, will not give any benefit to India/China. DOS simply say per country limit is 10% only no matter what. Remember that, 10% is total of FB+EB numbers. (480000+290000). India and China FB numbers are also heavily backlogged. Therefore our main concern is to reinstate AC21 provision not filing AOS, and keep pressure to keep the listed provisions (EB visa increased to 290K, excluding dependents from counting from FY 2001, recapturing unused visa from 2001 to 2005, and excluding EB1 (OR+EA) and EB2 (MS+3)) in the final bill
this person is bringing some valid points to ponder. People please go through her posting and i agree with her regarding the numbers is still 10% only for india. we need to fight for removing the per country limit, or else, we may probably be in this retrogression mess for quite sometime.
more...
shirish
02-23 02:32 PM
who really cares what they put up on those stupdi dates,
they can make up anything and call the that as a law, no body to question them, not checks and balances
Thats true, When my I-140 was approved, as per the site my date was atleast 2 months away, but i received the approval notice. :)
they can make up anything and call the that as a law, no body to question them, not checks and balances
Thats true, When my I-140 was approved, as per the site my date was atleast 2 months away, but i received the approval notice. :)
sanjay02
06-29 08:35 PM
I guess the cases that are pre-adjucated are called for interview.
drirshad
08-08 11:16 AM
how much is 40 credits ...........
lord_labaku
12-08 02:17 AM
1. Yes there is shortcut. Join desi software company. You will get forged diplomas.
2/3. Not applicable. Refer 1 above
4. Current job market is great. Obama is going to reverse outsourcing. All software job from India & china will come back to USA. But for china return job you need to know some mandarin. But no certificate needed refer 1. Above
5. I made such a transition recently I was mortgage securities bundler at lehman bros. Now I am successful engineer
6. Salaries start at around 150k per year even in places like north Dakota. But since engineers understand log scale, salaries grow exponentially
Hope this helps
2/3. Not applicable. Refer 1 above
4. Current job market is great. Obama is going to reverse outsourcing. All software job from India & china will come back to USA. But for china return job you need to know some mandarin. But no certificate needed refer 1. Above
5. I made such a transition recently I was mortgage securities bundler at lehman bros. Now I am successful engineer
6. Salaries start at around 150k per year even in places like north Dakota. But since engineers understand log scale, salaries grow exponentially
Hope this helps
texanguy
06-10 12:40 PM
i think you are missing the point. this will put things in perspective, that current stupid and archaic practice of giving 1 year AP to India and China EB folks is outdated and that current delays are more to the tune of 10 + years. This will create awareness!!!
I support this !
I do not support this.
one, We simply do not want a temporary fix to our big genuine bureaucratic issue. and two, we are not alone, there are others who are filing/have filed labor/i140s and are waiting to file 485s.
also, it will mellow down our resolve to overcome this injustice.
money is really not the issue, as if they issue a 10 year EAD, they are definitely gonna make it that much more expensive, and USCIS cannot delay EAD APs, as that would make our case even stronger.
I support this !
I do not support this.
one, We simply do not want a temporary fix to our big genuine bureaucratic issue. and two, we are not alone, there are others who are filing/have filed labor/i140s and are waiting to file 485s.
also, it will mellow down our resolve to overcome this injustice.
money is really not the issue, as if they issue a 10 year EAD, they are definitely gonna make it that much more expensive, and USCIS cannot delay EAD APs, as that would make our case even stronger.
No comments:
Post a Comment