nlssubbu
07-25 01:29 PM
priti8888
Visa Allotment or Assigning of Visas by USCIS - I cannot digest the assumption that USCIS/DOS/DOL are fools and there is no coordination among them to know who from which country has applied for GC under which category. These Govt. agencies are so efficient that they can even go through these forums and connect IDs here to applications. It is a piece of cake for them to find out the entire background of an applicant as soon as even the LC is filed. They very well know who is stuck with which employer in which state and what stage and to whom they are approving the GCs. If the employers are Americans, they can even call the DOL and ask them to hold the LC approval because they know that once their employees get their GCs they will quit them.
I am not trying to be negative and pessimistic, but please think about the chances of immigrants sueing these Govt. agencies during any of the stages in GC process and winning the lawsuit. And ofcourse, the immigration lawyers are too happy with the retrogressions and the way the immigration system works in this country.
Hi,
This issue was discussed in detail in Ombudsman report in 2006. Please look from page 29 which gives detail description of the inability to give accurate numbers and communicate effectively between USCIS and DOS.
It clearly states that DOS was unable to determin exact numbers and could not co-ordinate with DOL / USCIS regarding cut-off date, by country numbers and also the total number of cards issued resulting in not all allocated numbers are approved as well.
Thanks
Visa Allotment or Assigning of Visas by USCIS - I cannot digest the assumption that USCIS/DOS/DOL are fools and there is no coordination among them to know who from which country has applied for GC under which category. These Govt. agencies are so efficient that they can even go through these forums and connect IDs here to applications. It is a piece of cake for them to find out the entire background of an applicant as soon as even the LC is filed. They very well know who is stuck with which employer in which state and what stage and to whom they are approving the GCs. If the employers are Americans, they can even call the DOL and ask them to hold the LC approval because they know that once their employees get their GCs they will quit them.
I am not trying to be negative and pessimistic, but please think about the chances of immigrants sueing these Govt. agencies during any of the stages in GC process and winning the lawsuit. And ofcourse, the immigration lawyers are too happy with the retrogressions and the way the immigration system works in this country.
Hi,
This issue was discussed in detail in Ombudsman report in 2006. Please look from page 29 which gives detail description of the inability to give accurate numbers and communicate effectively between USCIS and DOS.
It clearly states that DOS was unable to determin exact numbers and could not co-ordinate with DOL / USCIS regarding cut-off date, by country numbers and also the total number of cards issued resulting in not all allocated numbers are approved as well.
Thanks
wallpaper Julia Roberts has an attack of
santb1975
05-23 10:23 PM
We had one recurring contribution sign up today
donsimahajan
06-20 05:58 PM
You guys should update the tracker as you get your approvals, remember.
http://www.trackins.com/immigrationtrackers/philadelphia-backlog-tracker/
http://www.trackins.com/immigrationtrackers/philadelphia-backlog-tracker/
2011 Julia Roberts - new face of
fruity
07-23 03:22 AM
I was also asked to resubmit ds230. my pd is dec 2005. With the VB being current now what are the probable dates for the OCt VB?
more...
Milind123
09-13 07:55 PM
milind123...
U r doing a great job... I am sure we will have many first time contributors get inspired by your fabulous initiative!
GO IV!!!
Thank you vandanaverdia. People who have never contributed please take this chance to contribute. Just need two more people to help me equal my yesterday's personal contribution.
BTW why is the third person the most difficult to get? If my memory serves me correct, it is easy to start a round and also close it. Where are you 'the elusive third'?
U r doing a great job... I am sure we will have many first time contributors get inspired by your fabulous initiative!
GO IV!!!
Thank you vandanaverdia. People who have never contributed please take this chance to contribute. Just need two more people to help me equal my yesterday's personal contribution.
BTW why is the third person the most difficult to get? If my memory serves me correct, it is easy to start a round and also close it. Where are you 'the elusive third'?
andy garcia
10-01 10:23 AM
Some unused EB #s were recaptured for families in following year. For example, in 1994 there were 29,430 (column 2) unused EB #s. However, 27,721 (= 253,721 (column 3) - 226,000 (family quota)) of these #s were recaptured for families. Thus, only 29,430 - 27,721 = 1,709 (column 4) were un-recaptured.
Also, 50,000 unused EB #s from 01-04 were recaptured for Schedule A.
Finally, unused EB #s in 99 and 00 were recaptured, hopefully for EB.
Thus, unused EB #s are more important then un-recaptured EB #s (mentioned above) since some of them have not been recaptured for EB.
The unused EB #s is 506,384 (total column 2) - 98,941 (99 recaptured for EB) - 31,098 (00 recaptured for EB) = 376, 345
Annual Report to Congress June 2007 (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOMB_Annual_Report_2007.pdf)
Macaca;
Here is where the confusion lies with respect to unused, wasted, etc.
The Immigration Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-649) restructured the immigrant categories of admission and made other modifications to the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The 1990 Act divided the preference classes into two general categories: family-sponsored(FS) and
employment-based(EB). Limits on the number of visas issued in these two categories are determined annually.
FS limits�The worldwide level for FS preferences is calculated as:
480,000 minus the number of aliens who were issued visas or adjusted to legal permanent residence in the previous fiscal year as
immediate relatives of U.S.citizens
children born subsequent to the issuance of a visa to an accompanying parent
children born abroad to lawful permanent residents on temporary trips abroad
plus unused EB preferences in the previous fiscal year.
The 1990 Act specifies that the family-sponsored limit may not go below a minimum of 226,000 in any year.
EB limits�The 1990 Act specifies that the worldwide limit on EB preference immigrants is equal to 140,000 plus unused FS-preference visas in the previous year.
Also, 50,000 unused EB #s from 01-04 were recaptured for Schedule A.
Finally, unused EB #s in 99 and 00 were recaptured, hopefully for EB.
Thus, unused EB #s are more important then un-recaptured EB #s (mentioned above) since some of them have not been recaptured for EB.
The unused EB #s is 506,384 (total column 2) - 98,941 (99 recaptured for EB) - 31,098 (00 recaptured for EB) = 376, 345
Annual Report to Congress June 2007 (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOMB_Annual_Report_2007.pdf)
Macaca;
Here is where the confusion lies with respect to unused, wasted, etc.
The Immigration Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-649) restructured the immigrant categories of admission and made other modifications to the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The 1990 Act divided the preference classes into two general categories: family-sponsored(FS) and
employment-based(EB). Limits on the number of visas issued in these two categories are determined annually.
FS limits�The worldwide level for FS preferences is calculated as:
480,000 minus the number of aliens who were issued visas or adjusted to legal permanent residence in the previous fiscal year as
immediate relatives of U.S.citizens
children born subsequent to the issuance of a visa to an accompanying parent
children born abroad to lawful permanent residents on temporary trips abroad
plus unused EB preferences in the previous fiscal year.
The 1990 Act specifies that the family-sponsored limit may not go below a minimum of 226,000 in any year.
EB limits�The 1990 Act specifies that the worldwide limit on EB preference immigrants is equal to 140,000 plus unused FS-preference visas in the previous year.
more...
diptam
08-06 08:59 AM
I'm finding it hard in getting the 7001 from employer - they are saying that its not our pplicy to nag USCIS on matters like I-140 stuck for 16 months. Basically they are very happy that i'm stuck and they can continue siphoning fat chunk of my billing ..... but they never say it that way, always say nice and good things on my face.
what to do ? Shall i send only the letter to Ombudsman ? While working with Local congressman's office i sent a letter and they allowed me to sign consent form on behalf of my employer. I mean my employer was supposed to sign the consent form but CM's office knows employers will never sign so they got around it just to help me.
Can we do something like that here - sign on the 7001 and write "on behalf of the employer " ???
Raydon, thanks for expressing your situation. But I still feel we are not requesting TSC to expedite our cases. All we are asking his, please do justice to us and follow the FIFO for the I-140 petitions. TSC has been consistently approving cases filed in recently and just continuing to ignore our cases. If you can explain your attorney, I am sure he will understand. Or atleast have him, fill out form 7001 on your behalf and send his own letter explaining the situation to Ombudsman's office.
I understand that I-140 is employer petition, but it ulitmately belongs to you. So you need to do whatever you can do some how convince your employer or attorney to assist you one time. I-485 is your petition, and you do not need any consent, if you need to send a letter to Ombudsman's office. So please try your best and see if you can mail the form & letter to Ombudsman's office.
what to do ? Shall i send only the letter to Ombudsman ? While working with Local congressman's office i sent a letter and they allowed me to sign consent form on behalf of my employer. I mean my employer was supposed to sign the consent form but CM's office knows employers will never sign so they got around it just to help me.
Can we do something like that here - sign on the 7001 and write "on behalf of the employer " ???
Raydon, thanks for expressing your situation. But I still feel we are not requesting TSC to expedite our cases. All we are asking his, please do justice to us and follow the FIFO for the I-140 petitions. TSC has been consistently approving cases filed in recently and just continuing to ignore our cases. If you can explain your attorney, I am sure he will understand. Or atleast have him, fill out form 7001 on your behalf and send his own letter explaining the situation to Ombudsman's office.
I understand that I-140 is employer petition, but it ulitmately belongs to you. So you need to do whatever you can do some how convince your employer or attorney to assist you one time. I-485 is your petition, and you do not need any consent, if you need to send a letter to Ombudsman's office. So please try your best and see if you can mail the form & letter to Ombudsman's office.
2010 julia-roberts-smile
superdesi2100
09-10 11:25 AM
Thanks for all the efforts. Donated 100$ via paypal. Coming to the rally as well.
more...
reddog
03-12 10:52 AM
Not true. Anybody donates will get Donor status. This is started for last few days, so people who donated in last few days get this. Pappu mentioned that he is planning to cross reference this with old donations but not sure whats happening there.
This is how You release code to PROD? no user testing at all?
and the entire paid thing is the beginning of the end. not good.
why didnt we even have a poll on this? crazy crazy idea.
This is how You release code to PROD? no user testing at all?
and the entire paid thing is the beginning of the end. not good.
why didnt we even have a poll on this? crazy crazy idea.
hair Cartoon: Julia Roberts
jay
07-07 12:40 AM
Can Patton Boggs do better? Haven't we had more legislative success, I mean traction, when we partnered with Quinn Gillespie? Are we receiving sound advice on which of our grievances require legislative action and which ones can be redressed by a mere change in policy on the part of the executive? It looks like most of our current problems were not ushered in by any new law, but rather by a stroke of a pen in a memo by the incompetent and indifferent INS, USCIS, DOL and the State Department. No change in law was needed to make then deny us concurrent filing in Oct 2005 and allow it in July 2007. No change in law was required to deny us visa revalidation. One could argue that no change in law is required to belatedly use unused visas from the previous years. The list goes on. It should be easier to lobby a handful of buffoons in the executive branch with real power than 500+ buffoons on Capitol Hill. Has Patton Boggs served us well?
more...
makemygc
07-06 02:07 PM
I doubt it, uscis used up 60k visas in one month just to make sure we dont get any ead, why in the world after doing all this nonsense would they accept our applications.
Well...this is the same argument we gave when we first heard about the July VB rumour in june but no one belived. I hope badluck's lawyer brings us some good luck but this is hard to believe this time.
Well...this is the same argument we gave when we first heard about the July VB rumour in june but no one belived. I hope badluck's lawyer brings us some good luck but this is hard to believe this time.
hot Julia Roberts Photos, Julia
CaliHoneB
07-24 01:56 PM
Pardon my intrusion here! I searched various forums but I couldn't get any solid threads on visa number because it is so common term the search always yields wrong threads! so can some one tell me..what is a visa number after filing 485? is it same a A # ? or is there another number besides A#? Do we see it on 485 reciept? if not how do I find out? I
They have preassigned Visa numbers to cases that were pending in USCIS(NOT the ones filed in JUNE)...even though the PD was not current according to June Visa Bulletein... Eg: COnsider your approval and mine..We filed for 485 in 2004.. These cases are preadjudicated and just waiting for Visa number to become avilable..Once the july bulletein came into effect(or according to rumor even before) they assigned visa numbers to all pre approved cases that were pending...AGAIN USCIS DID NOT ASSIGN VISA NUMBERS TO CASES FILED IN JUNE
They have preassigned Visa numbers to cases that were pending in USCIS(NOT the ones filed in JUNE)...even though the PD was not current according to June Visa Bulletein... Eg: COnsider your approval and mine..We filed for 485 in 2004.. These cases are preadjudicated and just waiting for Visa number to become avilable..Once the july bulletein came into effect(or according to rumor even before) they assigned visa numbers to all pre approved cases that were pending...AGAIN USCIS DID NOT ASSIGN VISA NUMBERS TO CASES FILED IN JUNE
more...
house Julia Roberts #39;Charlie
sunny1000
07-06 06:24 PM
And how does it not apply to AOS.
For Consular processing people have to plan trips and get medical and all that.
Why doesnt the same analogy apply to AOS. - Please explain...:confused:
The difference is that AOS is handled by USCIS and the CP is done by DOS. It is the USCIS which ran out of the 60000 visas (supposedly) before July 1st even though DOS opened those numbers up for the entire July.
Now, DOS is saying to USCIS " you guys used your quota even before the rush started and so, we won't give you any more visa numbers but, we will continue to honor our quota via CP which we accounted for July". Just my interpretation. Don't shoot the messenger ;)
For Consular processing people have to plan trips and get medical and all that.
Why doesnt the same analogy apply to AOS. - Please explain...:confused:
The difference is that AOS is handled by USCIS and the CP is done by DOS. It is the USCIS which ran out of the 60000 visas (supposedly) before July 1st even though DOS opened those numbers up for the entire July.
Now, DOS is saying to USCIS " you guys used your quota even before the rush started and so, we won't give you any more visa numbers but, we will continue to honor our quota via CP which we accounted for July". Just my interpretation. Don't shoot the messenger ;)
tattoo Julia Roberts “loves” Clive
rfarkiya
07-15 01:21 PM
I am in San Diego.... I am in....
more...
pictures Julia Roberts
desi485
11-20 09:20 PM
Typically, if someone is doing a AC21 jump + H1b transfer, it means that the h1b gets transferred to the new employer and the new employer is the h1b petitioner. If the h1b is based on an approved 140 - the beneficiary gets it for 3 years and unless the person is completing his 3 years with the new employer when the 140 revoke happens, the h1b is still valid unless the new employer decides he will cancel it or the person is layed off and thats when the person is in deep trouble because he/she does not have EAD. Correct me if I am wrong. H1b revocation by ex employer may not affect the candidate because candidate already did a transfer
I am not 100% sure but if person has not completed 6 years, he can continue till he completes 6 years. If person has already crossed 6 years limit, H1 extension or transfer does not stand valid without any underlying pending AOS. This is what RG termed as opposite to conventional internet wisdom. Also, the law requires to provide a notice to cancel EAD, but not to cancel H1B. Correct me if I am wrong!
I am not 100% sure but if person has not completed 6 years, he can continue till he completes 6 years. If person has already crossed 6 years limit, H1 extension or transfer does not stand valid without any underlying pending AOS. This is what RG termed as opposite to conventional internet wisdom. Also, the law requires to provide a notice to cancel EAD, but not to cancel H1B. Correct me if I am wrong!
dresses Julia Roberts, Photoshoot
kaisersose
04-30 03:39 PM
This was directed to people who were current. If you are from India, China, Mexico, Philippines, get used to waiting. Your backlog is due to numerical limits. And this won't change (the way I see it)
Yes, it appears people on this forum are still confused about backlogs due to unavailable visa numbers and backlog due to CIS having too many 485s to process.
They are 2 different things.
Yes, it appears people on this forum are still confused about backlogs due to unavailable visa numbers and backlog due to CIS having too many 485s to process.
They are 2 different things.
more...
makeup 1990s photo | Julia Roberts
texanmom
09-12 12:23 PM
Please post a draft of all the letters here so we can use them/ modify them if necessary.
girlfriend Angry Julia Roberts
ind_game
05-18 10:52 AM
I had another LUD on 05/18/2009 my I-485 case. Not sure what they are looking for in my file.
hairstyles Julia Roberts in Lancome ad
.jpg "Oscar winner Julia Roberts")
gc_wow
02-18 03:07 PM
It is April new numbers for the quarter will be available.My guess is EB2 I will move beyond April 1 2004.Once it crossess 2004 then it will be almost in 2006 not many cases in 2005.
immi_twinges
07-20 05:37 PM
My take is that Sen. Cornyn's bill is too ambitious and tries to solve ALL the problems. It is never going to fly, especially in this political environment.
We should focus on EB retrogression relief and try to get in only the absolute minimum relief needed to eliminate current backlogs.
In my opinion, this is the absolute minimum:
1) Clear DOL backlogs in BECs
2) Recapture lost visa numbers
3) Dont count dependants
4) Raise per-country cap to 10%
If we can only these rolled in to amendment, it should be easy to pass. We can start an awareness initiative to educate the senators and ensure it passes. If we shoot for too much, its next to impossible. Thats the sad reality.
Lets ask first ..to fix the USCIS lethargy..
We should focus on EB retrogression relief and try to get in only the absolute minimum relief needed to eliminate current backlogs.
In my opinion, this is the absolute minimum:
1) Clear DOL backlogs in BECs
2) Recapture lost visa numbers
3) Dont count dependants
4) Raise per-country cap to 10%
If we can only these rolled in to amendment, it should be easy to pass. We can start an awareness initiative to educate the senators and ensure it passes. If we shoot for too much, its next to impossible. Thats the sad reality.
Lets ask first ..to fix the USCIS lethargy..
smmakani
04-14 02:39 PM
IV friends ,
Last week my lawyer has asked for copy of Driving License of me and my wife for filing the H1-B and H4 extension.
Then one of my friend told me that INS is asking for copy of the driving license for filing the h1-B extension.
My employer is supposed to file my 3 year Extension based on I-140 in Dec this year( Dec 2007) but my Licences expires on Sept 2008, So I will I be just getting the extension till Sept 2008 and Not 3 year extension.
Any Idea on that
I have already submitted my driving license to my lawyer.
Please Let me know because I was couting on that I will get 3 year extension this time :(
I never heard this before. I got the 3 year extension after 6 years but I never submitted copy of Driving License. I don't think the extension has anything to do with Driving license expiry date. The extension effective date starts from your previous H1B expiry date.
Last week my lawyer has asked for copy of Driving License of me and my wife for filing the H1-B and H4 extension.
Then one of my friend told me that INS is asking for copy of the driving license for filing the h1-B extension.
My employer is supposed to file my 3 year Extension based on I-140 in Dec this year( Dec 2007) but my Licences expires on Sept 2008, So I will I be just getting the extension till Sept 2008 and Not 3 year extension.
Any Idea on that
I have already submitted my driving license to my lawyer.
Please Let me know because I was couting on that I will get 3 year extension this time :(
I never heard this before. I got the 3 year extension after 6 years but I never submitted copy of Driving License. I don't think the extension has anything to do with Driving license expiry date. The extension effective date starts from your previous H1B expiry date.
No comments:
Post a Comment