webm
06-06 01:56 PM
It sounds NSC is approving lot of EB2 cases these past few months..good for EB2 folks with PD current..:)
----------------------
PD EB3-I Oct ,2001 (TSC)
----------------------
PD EB3-I Oct ,2001 (TSC)
wallpaper Kobe Bryant Game Seven of the
onemorecame
10-05 01:21 PM
Congratulations�
greyhair
02-12 01:56 PM
This whole thread is about what Ron Gotcher published. I didn't start this thread. I am only contributing my view that based on available information some things make sense and some dont. The things that do make some sense is wastage of visa numbers in 2010. We have some facts to support the "theory" but not enough.
What doesn't make sense is Ron's assertion that USCIS wasted 13K EB visas in 2009. Facts simply don't support that.
Does this help? (Again this is my view... don't want to push it onto others)
I disagree. This thread is not about some immigration lawyer. This thread is about visa numbers wasted due to USCIS inefficiency. That's what the title of the thread says. Why do I or anybody else care about some immigration lawyer? Why is he/she relevant if its specifically proven with facts that there is no wastage of visa number. You continue to advertise the name of the immigration lawyer. The reason I say this is because in my experience immigration lawyers comment on these issues as if they have direct access to USCIS Director or god. Even after disproving the visa wastage theory with facts you still continue to over analyze immigration body shop instead of discussing the issue. I am just wondering, why would you that? Are you that immigration lawyer or employee of his law firm? Just curious.
What doesn't make sense is Ron's assertion that USCIS wasted 13K EB visas in 2009. Facts simply don't support that.
Does this help? (Again this is my view... don't want to push it onto others)
I disagree. This thread is not about some immigration lawyer. This thread is about visa numbers wasted due to USCIS inefficiency. That's what the title of the thread says. Why do I or anybody else care about some immigration lawyer? Why is he/she relevant if its specifically proven with facts that there is no wastage of visa number. You continue to advertise the name of the immigration lawyer. The reason I say this is because in my experience immigration lawyers comment on these issues as if they have direct access to USCIS Director or god. Even after disproving the visa wastage theory with facts you still continue to over analyze immigration body shop instead of discussing the issue. I am just wondering, why would you that? Are you that immigration lawyer or employee of his law firm? Just curious.
2011 Kobe Bryant - 2010 NBA Finals
tnite
08-15 04:39 PM
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3761.html
Not bad for EB2 India/China ,the dates are the same as june bulletin
Not bad for EB2 India/China ,the dates are the same as june bulletin
more...
BlueSunD
03-09 08:40 PM
I�m trying to finish all the work I�ve got so I can finally spend some time to finish my entry. It�s kind of bothering not being able to add all the things you want this time, but soulty�s right, you can do it later. I would like to catch some sleep tonight too... but guess that will have to wait too :P
Jaime
09-12 03:06 PM
EVERYONE, we're meeting in DC next Tuesday!!! You can STILL MAKE IT!!! WE NEED YOU THERE!!!!
more...
cshen
12-27 07:34 AM
Here is the link where I posted in Chinese
http://www.mitbbs.com/mitbbs_article_t.php?board=Immigration&gid=14675155&ftype=0&dingflag=1e link where I posted in Chinese
http://www.mitbbs.com/mitbbs_article_t.php?board=Immigration&gid=14675155&ftype=0&dingflag=1e link where I posted in Chinese
2010 kobe bryant family photos 2010
hara_patta_for_rico
07-09 07:05 PM
I came across this law about the departmental control of numerical limitations, and I'd appreciate it if you all could post your interpretations of the same.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
Clause B is not the only thing. In any quarter they are not supposed to issue any more than 27% of 140,000(100%) = 37800. according to Clause A. After June 15th they issued 140,000 - 66000 = 74000. What about the last quarter quota of 37800? Where did it go? It was not supposed to be used before July.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
Clause B is not the only thing. In any quarter they are not supposed to issue any more than 27% of 140,000(100%) = 37800. according to Clause A. After June 15th they issued 140,000 - 66000 = 74000. What about the last quarter quota of 37800? Where did it go? It was not supposed to be used before July.
more...
Sunx_2004
07-15 01:53 PM
I agree, Don't waste single minute and consult attorney if you haven'nt done so..
Good luck
ajthakur,
U r covered under AC-21 if I-140 is not revoked by your previous employer.
Be truthful to USCIS and using a very good attorney firm drat AC-21 and Employment verification letter to USCIS. Since your PD is current chances are after reviewing the new employment letter USCIS might approve your case.
Please dont waste time in on this forum, instead spend some money to consult Rajeev Khanna or Sheela Murthy, it is worth spending every penny on the advice and their services for invoking AC-21.
Per your RFE notice it looks like, USCIS is only interested in verifying your current employment in the similar profession. good employment verification letter and AC-21 draft is good to save your GC.
RFE might have triggered due to previous H1B transfer, it has nothing to do with your employer revoking I-140. Trust me lot of desi consulting companies dont want to take any "Panga" with USCIS and 99% of the time they just ignore employees leaving them. So dont worry, dial in Murthy or Khanna consulting services and see what's their take on your case. If you are getting any help from new Employer's attorney that will be free of cost to you.
Bottomline you need a competent attorney for answering this RFE and invoking AC-21.
Good luck
ajthakur,
U r covered under AC-21 if I-140 is not revoked by your previous employer.
Be truthful to USCIS and using a very good attorney firm drat AC-21 and Employment verification letter to USCIS. Since your PD is current chances are after reviewing the new employment letter USCIS might approve your case.
Please dont waste time in on this forum, instead spend some money to consult Rajeev Khanna or Sheela Murthy, it is worth spending every penny on the advice and their services for invoking AC-21.
Per your RFE notice it looks like, USCIS is only interested in verifying your current employment in the similar profession. good employment verification letter and AC-21 draft is good to save your GC.
RFE might have triggered due to previous H1B transfer, it has nothing to do with your employer revoking I-140. Trust me lot of desi consulting companies dont want to take any "Panga" with USCIS and 99% of the time they just ignore employees leaving them. So dont worry, dial in Murthy or Khanna consulting services and see what's their take on your case. If you are getting any help from new Employer's attorney that will be free of cost to you.
Bottomline you need a competent attorney for answering this RFE and invoking AC-21.
hair Kobe Bryant amp; Derek Fisher
tabletpc
12-20 04:42 PM
..Yes, I did. In fact, many times...""
Then go have blast tonight...you are perfectly fine. Atleast now can we laugh..!!!!:)
Then go have blast tonight...you are perfectly fine. Atleast now can we laugh..!!!!:)
more...
sandiboy
08-15 02:29 PM
Would rather be interested to see the Processing times update for this month
hot Kobe Bryant Remains on Top of
ckichannagari
06-10 08:44 PM
sent the message ..
I will be asking 6 more friends to do the same.
I will be asking 6 more friends to do the same.
more...
house tattoo kobe bryant wallpaper
rockstart
08-10 03:43 PM
10th is almost over and I thought we had this trend that when USCIS wants to maintain status quo they publish bulletin early in the month and if the bulletin is delayed there is strong probablity that there will be some positive movement
tattoo kobe bryant wallpapers 2010. Kobe Bryant Wallpaper by
sparky_jones
03-12 08:30 AM
This once again proves that most of the popular immigration attorneys and other parties claiming to have "inside" information really don't have much more access to information than the rest of us.
more...
pictures kobe bryant wallpaper mvp.
RNGC
09-19 04:36 PM
Million thanks to IV's superior organization. I am glad that my friends and I attended this event. It's just a little sad to see the local news channels reported the small protests by illegal immigrants in the Prince William County in MD but not our well-organized rally. Many people passing by us still think we are undocumented. I fully support the ideas from other members that we should highlight "LEGAL" everywhere.
I am suprised too!!! I just saw couple news agencies covering this rally....IV organisers did a great job in pulling this one....
but I am just curious to know why there was very little TV coverage for this event.....
I am suprised too!!! I just saw couple news agencies covering this rally....IV organisers did a great job in pulling this one....
but I am just curious to know why there was very little TV coverage for this event.....
dresses Kobe Bryant Desktop Wallpaper
softcrowd
03-19 11:16 AM
85,000 PERM cases certified in 2007. 2007 is a typical heavy filing year still...
One year 140,000 EB based visas available. If some how some of the back logs are eliminated, the future looks good as 140K for a year and less than 100K labor certifications per year. If the USCIS process with maximum visa/year, it is possible.
http://www.usavisanow.com/perm07.pdf
see a chart
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pezNTiCXNupwoSrZGE4kqcg&gid=1
You can not just equate the number of certified labors to the Visa numbers as the former one does not include dependents in it.
One year 140,000 EB based visas available. If some how some of the back logs are eliminated, the future looks good as 140K for a year and less than 100K labor certifications per year. If the USCIS process with maximum visa/year, it is possible.
http://www.usavisanow.com/perm07.pdf
see a chart
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pezNTiCXNupwoSrZGE4kqcg&gid=1
You can not just equate the number of certified labors to the Visa numbers as the former one does not include dependents in it.
more...
makeup kobe bryant wallpapers 2010. Net Description: Kobe Bryant
paskal
07-16 06:18 PM
only the media can do this for us
they like exposes' don't they?
now how can we get them interested
would the nyt reporter that wrote a story on Numbers USA be interested in a follwo up on their tactics?
they like exposes' don't they?
now how can we get them interested
would the nyt reporter that wrote a story on Numbers USA be interested in a follwo up on their tactics?
girlfriend When Kobe Bryant decides that
vdlrao
09-26 02:43 PM
Dear Reader,
Thank you for your interest in FSB. We admit that there was a
mischaracterization of the Capitol Hill rally in the story and it was
corrected as soon we realized the error.
We have changed the story to correctly identify the mission as a protest of
the long delays in securing green cards for highly-skilled workers already
in the U.S.
We will work to avoid errors like this in the future.
Best regards,
FSB
Thank you for your interest in FSB. We admit that there was a
mischaracterization of the Capitol Hill rally in the story and it was
corrected as soon we realized the error.
We have changed the story to correctly identify the mission as a protest of
the long delays in securing green cards for highly-skilled workers already
in the U.S.
We will work to avoid errors like this in the future.
Best regards,
FSB
hairstyles kobe bryant 5 rings wallpaper.
ramus
07-03 06:25 AM
Lets contribute... We have big day ahead of us..
desi3933
01-30 02:43 PM
I agree with the point above, but does this even apply to CrazyGhoda/OP? Because, he already has I485/AOS pending, which is a legal presence in the US in itself. Hence, I don't see him accruing any "out of status/illegal presence" days. He "MIGHT" have to show a future/current employer who is sponsoring his GC, depending on what his RFE asks for.
Please comment.
You didn't get it. One could have filed I-485 and still accruing out-of-status days. Hint - Employment history and salary details since last admission.
Please note that I am not implying that CrazyGhoda is accumulating out-of-status, I don't have all the details for his case.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
Please comment.
You didn't get it. One could have filed I-485 and still accruing out-of-status days. Hint - Employment history and salary details since last admission.
Please note that I am not implying that CrazyGhoda is accumulating out-of-status, I don't have all the details for his case.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
amitjoey
01-18 11:48 AM
Guys, this is the time to show the core group that we are a bunch of people thankful that there is IV to help us fight this fight.
We need to stand united and raise awareness and sign up for the $20minimum a month recurring contribution.
I understand that some of you do intend to contribute and have contributed generously in the past,
But here are some mindsets, All of us fall in these 4 mindsets.
1) you probably think "why should I sign up for a monthly recurring contribution program". I am a generous contributor and I contribute almost monthly anyways.
2) I have contributed enough.
3) I will contribute if I feel like, when I see something comming out of this effort.
4) I do not have to contribute.
If you are in category 1).I can tell you, I understand because I have been a generous contributer in the past. But guys, the reason I signed up for a monthly recurring contribution is that it helps IV know that 'X' amount of funds are guaranted every month, this way they can better plan.
Category 2) Contributed enough - Okay why dont just sign up for a minimum amount of $20/month once more. What is enough is not enough.
Category 3) This has been discussed, I do not want to talk about this category of members.
Category 4) Again - No Comments-
Lets show the core team that all of us fall in the first 2 categories.
The last thing we want the core to do is bite their fingers over funds. We want do not want the core to get stressed out over funds. They have enough real work to do already.
Inspite of being a serious team player, and a generous contributor it took me two days to sign up for the recurring monthly contribution program, so I give all of the ones that have not set up a monthly recurring contribution benefit of doubt. But this is our last chance, I urge you to be one of the 1000 people we need for this effort.
We need to stand united and raise awareness and sign up for the $20minimum a month recurring contribution.
I understand that some of you do intend to contribute and have contributed generously in the past,
But here are some mindsets, All of us fall in these 4 mindsets.
1) you probably think "why should I sign up for a monthly recurring contribution program". I am a generous contributor and I contribute almost monthly anyways.
2) I have contributed enough.
3) I will contribute if I feel like, when I see something comming out of this effort.
4) I do not have to contribute.
If you are in category 1).I can tell you, I understand because I have been a generous contributer in the past. But guys, the reason I signed up for a monthly recurring contribution is that it helps IV know that 'X' amount of funds are guaranted every month, this way they can better plan.
Category 2) Contributed enough - Okay why dont just sign up for a minimum amount of $20/month once more. What is enough is not enough.
Category 3) This has been discussed, I do not want to talk about this category of members.
Category 4) Again - No Comments-
Lets show the core team that all of us fall in the first 2 categories.
The last thing we want the core to do is bite their fingers over funds. We want do not want the core to get stressed out over funds. They have enough real work to do already.
Inspite of being a serious team player, and a generous contributor it took me two days to sign up for the recurring monthly contribution program, so I give all of the ones that have not set up a monthly recurring contribution benefit of doubt. But this is our last chance, I urge you to be one of the 1000 people we need for this effort.
No comments:
Post a Comment