svr_76
06-10 02:04 PM
exactly..and our best approach would be to also reach other lobbying/groups that represents the employers impact by this to determine a directed/specific approach.
wallpaper love you poems for oyfriend.
pappu
04-09 03:31 PM
Visa Bulletin for May 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4805.html)
nixstor
07-05 01:46 PM
I'll just go back to forums of the leading lady immigration lawyer....
Yeahaaaaaaaaa! Great!
20 USD per month + satisfaction of fighting for a cause
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< (very very less than)
15 min Murthy session for 225 USD
Beautifcukingful
Yeahaaaaaaaaa! Great!
20 USD per month + satisfaction of fighting for a cause
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< (very very less than)
15 min Murthy session for 225 USD
Beautifcukingful
2011 love you poems your oyfriend
andycool
03-16 02:04 PM
141,020 visa numbers used in FY2009
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV.pdf
Look at the last page.
The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is 140,000. So the usage was actually more.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
Hello Desi,
"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 an earlier cut-off date 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.)
Furthermore, Section 202(a)(2) reads, �2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed seven percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or two percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.� The seven percent per-country limit specified in INA 202(a)(2) is considered to be for both Family-sponsored and Employment-based numbers combined.
Allocation of visa numbers under Section 202(e) is accomplished as follows:
1. If based on historical patterns or current demand it appears that during a fiscal year number use by aliens chargeable to a particular country will exceed the per-country numerical limit for both the Family and Employment preferences combined, that country would be considered oversubscribed. Both the Family and Employment preferences would be subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1).
2. Sometimes during a fiscal year it may become apparent that because of a lack of demand in the Family preferences, number use by aliens chargeable to an oversubscribed country will be well within the per-country numerical limit. In such case the excess Family numbers would be made available to the Employment preferences subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1). Each of the first three Employment categories would receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and each of the Fourth and Fifth preference categories 7.1%. (Fall-across would likewise apply if an oversubscribed country lacked sufficient demand in the Employment preferences but had excess demand in the Family preferences.)
If a foreign state other than an oversubscribed country has little Family preference demand but considerable Employment preference demand, the otherwise unused Family numbers fall across to Employment (and vice versa) for purposes of that foreign state�s annual numerical limit. For example, in FY-2009 South Korea used a grand total of 15,899 Family and Employment preference numbers, of which 1,688 were Family numbers and 14,211 were Employment numbers. This grand total was well within the FY-2009 per-country numerical limit of 25,620 Family and Employment numbers combined, so South Korea was not oversubscribed. The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.
This is from April Visa Bulletin , according to this S korea got 14,211 visas from FB ( spill over from FB - EB) then dont you think the total EB visas issued in 2009 should be around 150000 instead of 141000....
I am little confused...
your comment will be greatly appreciated ;)
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV.pdf
Look at the last page.
The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is 140,000. So the usage was actually more.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
Hello Desi,
"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 an earlier cut-off date 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.)
Furthermore, Section 202(a)(2) reads, �2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed seven percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or two percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.� The seven percent per-country limit specified in INA 202(a)(2) is considered to be for both Family-sponsored and Employment-based numbers combined.
Allocation of visa numbers under Section 202(e) is accomplished as follows:
1. If based on historical patterns or current demand it appears that during a fiscal year number use by aliens chargeable to a particular country will exceed the per-country numerical limit for both the Family and Employment preferences combined, that country would be considered oversubscribed. Both the Family and Employment preferences would be subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1).
2. Sometimes during a fiscal year it may become apparent that because of a lack of demand in the Family preferences, number use by aliens chargeable to an oversubscribed country will be well within the per-country numerical limit. In such case the excess Family numbers would be made available to the Employment preferences subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1). Each of the first three Employment categories would receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and each of the Fourth and Fifth preference categories 7.1%. (Fall-across would likewise apply if an oversubscribed country lacked sufficient demand in the Employment preferences but had excess demand in the Family preferences.)
If a foreign state other than an oversubscribed country has little Family preference demand but considerable Employment preference demand, the otherwise unused Family numbers fall across to Employment (and vice versa) for purposes of that foreign state�s annual numerical limit. For example, in FY-2009 South Korea used a grand total of 15,899 Family and Employment preference numbers, of which 1,688 were Family numbers and 14,211 were Employment numbers. This grand total was well within the FY-2009 per-country numerical limit of 25,620 Family and Employment numbers combined, so South Korea was not oversubscribed. The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.
This is from April Visa Bulletin , according to this S korea got 14,211 visas from FB ( spill over from FB - EB) then dont you think the total EB visas issued in 2009 should be around 150000 instead of 141000....
I am little confused...
your comment will be greatly appreciated ;)
more...
nomi
12-11 02:23 PM
Originally Posted by god_bless_you
SO if USCIS wants to make a new rule of filing I485 for the one whose I 140 is cleared and priority date is not current, It CAN DO That RULE Right?
We do not need any Congress approval for that Right?
If so can we explore this option??
Originally Posted by Nomi
I agree with you. Why we don`t explore this option ???? USCIS make so many rule by itself then why they don`t make this rule to file 485 while PD is not current without going in Senate. Like they start premium processing of I-140. They make this rule without any bill in US Senate. correct me if I am wrong
I think, core team should look this option or ask us to find more information about it. I think, core team can meet with high official from USCIS.
what do you guys think about it ??
thx.
SO if USCIS wants to make a new rule of filing I485 for the one whose I 140 is cleared and priority date is not current, It CAN DO That RULE Right?
We do not need any Congress approval for that Right?
If so can we explore this option??
Originally Posted by Nomi
I agree with you. Why we don`t explore this option ???? USCIS make so many rule by itself then why they don`t make this rule to file 485 while PD is not current without going in Senate. Like they start premium processing of I-140. They make this rule without any bill in US Senate. correct me if I am wrong
I think, core team should look this option or ask us to find more information about it. I think, core team can meet with high official from USCIS.
what do you guys think about it ??
thx.
BlueSunD
03-10 12:42 AM
nice image thirdworldman! :thumb:
more...
coolmanasip
03-13 10:34 AM
I believe you can get an interim EAD from local USCIS office once the application has been pending for 3 months...
2010 love you poems your oyfriend.
24fps
02-04 02:41 PM
For people who don't know, Country Cap goes by Country of Birth , not country of citizenship...So if you are born in India but now you are canadian Citizen, you will still be counted as Indian for EB based Green Card allocation, isn't this a blatent racist agenda. I have a letter from Congresswoman Zoe Logfren's office, which clearly says 'I will work on removing arbitrary country quota on employement based Green Cards', we just need to pursue her...
its not racism its just an old rule
u can be indian but born in a different country and you could avail of ROW benefits, my friend is indian but was born in europe as his father was workin there at that time and then moved back to india and now he got his GC in under 2 years in EB2
racism is purely based on your ethnicity
its not racism its just an old rule
u can be indian but born in a different country and you could avail of ROW benefits, my friend is indian but was born in europe as his father was workin there at that time and then moved back to india and now he got his GC in under 2 years in EB2
racism is purely based on your ethnicity
more...
rambo45
09-26 02:56 PM
I got a similar reply as above from CNN
hair love you poems your oyfriend.
anurakt
12-27 06:49 PM
Dude,
That is what they are afraid off. They want you to go to your home country and not sneak into their country.
Many ppl go through European airports during transit and then ask for Political asyslum. Many Tamil Tigers did that so did sardars during khalistan times.
This all started after 9/11 , having a valid US visa means that you have gone through the security check...else when u apply for transit visa, they do these checks for you......
That is what they are afraid off. They want you to go to your home country and not sneak into their country.
Many ppl go through European airports during transit and then ask for Political asyslum. Many Tamil Tigers did that so did sardars during khalistan times.
This all started after 9/11 , having a valid US visa means that you have gone through the security check...else when u apply for transit visa, they do these checks for you......
more...
bpratap
02-11 07:35 PM
If someone port their EB3 i-485 to EB2, say somebody who's PD is in 2002.
Does his Visa number go waste or it will be re-used for another case.
this is with presumption that the cases are pre-adjudicated
Does his Visa number go waste or it will be re-used for another case.
this is with presumption that the cases are pre-adjudicated
hot i love you poems
dilber
06-26 05:28 PM
May be you scared the USCIS with your phone calls and they just wanted you out of their systems. So that you don't rally other people and then they might have to really become efficient.:cool:
BTW really happy for you... enjoy:o
I got a red for this with comment "bhaag saale, really happy for you? kaam c=dhanda nahi hai kya?"
Translation: Get lost you idiot, happy for you? don't you have any other work?
Not that I care about it too much but shouldn't highly skilled people be more responsible, and courteous. :cool:
BTW really happy for you... enjoy:o
I got a red for this with comment "bhaag saale, really happy for you? kaam c=dhanda nahi hai kya?"
Translation: Get lost you idiot, happy for you? don't you have any other work?
Not that I care about it too much but shouldn't highly skilled people be more responsible, and courteous. :cool:
more...
house i love you boyfriend poems
vandanaverdia
09-10 03:08 PM
You are sick of extending your visa/ EAD every year!!!
For those who are on visas, need to extend their visas every year after the first 3 years have passed. Those who are on EAD, need to extend their permits & AP every year!
For those who are on visas, need to extend their visas every year after the first 3 years have passed. Those who are on EAD, need to extend their permits & AP every year!
tattoo house love you poems your
sanju
04-04 03:01 PM
The Durbin-Grassley bill would prohibit employers from hiring H-1B employees who are then outsourced to other companies. This is a method that some companies use to evade restrictions on hiring H-1Bs.
http://durbin.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=271783
Open your eyes and look clearly. This bill is designed to put an end to any competition for middle aged racist engineers afraid of competition from people who fit the profile of the membership of IV. Some members on the forum seem to think that this bill contain provisions to protect H-1b workers, but that is not true. This bill is designed to mean that current workers on H-1 are taking away American jobs as the protection proposed by the bill were not there when most of the forum members came on H1b. This bill was written by Ron Hira and IEEE. If nothing else then we need to understand that Ron Hira et al, are not in love with any of us. They represent middle aged racist engineers in US who are scared of competition and globalization. So please stop day dreaming and expecting that this bill would have anything to protect/benefit green card applicants. I understand/share the frustration with body-shoppers/consulting companies. Why whine about consulting companies and, work for them at the same time. If you are so good then why don't you switch jobs. Accenture, PWC, D&T, Bearing Point, Oracle consulting etc. also do consulting, what about them. Supporting this or any other bill from Sen. Grassley is suicidal. It’s acting like the 90% of ignorant Republican base, who earn less than 30K/yr and still support the party that oppose welfare reform and give tax breaks to the richest.
Taking out frustration on consulting companies doesn’t help us. If the green card process would work in the intended manner, none of us will be beholden to the employer. And there will be no room for frustration. Any employer would take advantage of such loopholes in the process where employee is beholden to the employer. But the thing is, employers or consulting companies did not create the currently broken green card process, neither did they create the backlog. The lawmakers, who did not attend to the immigration system for more than a decade, are responsible for the current system. And organizations like IEEE are responsible for opposing any meaningful reform on H1B/green card issues. Now they are using the situation to their advantage by tainting a pictures if we all the people in US, waiting for their green cards, should not have been in US if the system proposed by the bill was in place. And it is astonishing to see people calling to support a bill wihtout knowing its contents. So why blame our problems on consulting companies? You think IEEE drafted this bill for people who match the profile of IV members? This bill was has been drafted with the objective to secure the position of middle aged racist engineers, who do not want to upgrade their skills and who are scared of young minds ready to compete and learn new things.
http://durbin.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=271783
Open your eyes and look clearly. This bill is designed to put an end to any competition for middle aged racist engineers afraid of competition from people who fit the profile of the membership of IV. Some members on the forum seem to think that this bill contain provisions to protect H-1b workers, but that is not true. This bill is designed to mean that current workers on H-1 are taking away American jobs as the protection proposed by the bill were not there when most of the forum members came on H1b. This bill was written by Ron Hira and IEEE. If nothing else then we need to understand that Ron Hira et al, are not in love with any of us. They represent middle aged racist engineers in US who are scared of competition and globalization. So please stop day dreaming and expecting that this bill would have anything to protect/benefit green card applicants. I understand/share the frustration with body-shoppers/consulting companies. Why whine about consulting companies and, work for them at the same time. If you are so good then why don't you switch jobs. Accenture, PWC, D&T, Bearing Point, Oracle consulting etc. also do consulting, what about them. Supporting this or any other bill from Sen. Grassley is suicidal. It’s acting like the 90% of ignorant Republican base, who earn less than 30K/yr and still support the party that oppose welfare reform and give tax breaks to the richest.
Taking out frustration on consulting companies doesn’t help us. If the green card process would work in the intended manner, none of us will be beholden to the employer. And there will be no room for frustration. Any employer would take advantage of such loopholes in the process where employee is beholden to the employer. But the thing is, employers or consulting companies did not create the currently broken green card process, neither did they create the backlog. The lawmakers, who did not attend to the immigration system for more than a decade, are responsible for the current system. And organizations like IEEE are responsible for opposing any meaningful reform on H1B/green card issues. Now they are using the situation to their advantage by tainting a pictures if we all the people in US, waiting for their green cards, should not have been in US if the system proposed by the bill was in place. And it is astonishing to see people calling to support a bill wihtout knowing its contents. So why blame our problems on consulting companies? You think IEEE drafted this bill for people who match the profile of IV members? This bill was has been drafted with the objective to secure the position of middle aged racist engineers, who do not want to upgrade their skills and who are scared of young minds ready to compete and learn new things.
more...
pictures love you poems your oyfriend.
Abhinaym
09-10 01:24 PM
Most of you either have a firewall or a proxy server to go out to the internet at your work locations, which allows for only TCP port 80. So if you are unsuccessful in getting the real player to work, try this:
when real player opens do the following:
click on tools->preferences->network transport->
then check the "manually configure connection settings"
click on RTSP settings and uncheck everything except "Attempt to use HTTP for all contents" click OK.
Next
click on PNA settings and uncheck everything except "Attempt to use HTTP for all contents" click OK.
Enjoy!!
Would the Sys Admin know if you've done that? :D
when real player opens do the following:
click on tools->preferences->network transport->
then check the "manually configure connection settings"
click on RTSP settings and uncheck everything except "Attempt to use HTTP for all contents" click OK.
Next
click on PNA settings and uncheck everything except "Attempt to use HTTP for all contents" click OK.
Enjoy!!
Would the Sys Admin know if you've done that? :D
dresses i love you poems for him.
angelfire76
09-28 04:33 PM
Having worked for short periods of time in Germany and Netherlands, I would say that they very much make you feel that you are a foreigner, you can never fit in and are most unwelcome in the country. What irked me is the attitude that they will take your money gladly but don't want you there.
In fact when I was looking for accomodation in Stuttgart the first thing the landlords asked me was "When are you going to leave?".
The US may have it's faults, but I've never been asked that question by property owners, only by consulate officers.
No thanks, I would rather move back to India than work as a third-class citizen in Europe. :mad:
Somebody said our own Asian migrants are against us. I can see their viewpoint. We are perceived to pose a threat to the well-being of their children and they do have a sense of entitlement just because they happened to come here earlier. Can't change that attitude. We can also see that in some people who haven't yet got their green cards or are newly minted resident "aliens". E.g. Entitlement due to Master's degree from US, Consultants vs FTE, Desi company consultants vs American company consultants etc. Did we ever stop and think that the system does not even need to play "Divide and Conquer" in a house already divided?
I frankly think that to an average joe in the US all of us are just another brown guy or chinaman etc. (apologies to the non Asian members of IV) and we don't need to feel that we are somehow superior to the other immigrant.
In fact when I was looking for accomodation in Stuttgart the first thing the landlords asked me was "When are you going to leave?".
The US may have it's faults, but I've never been asked that question by property owners, only by consulate officers.
No thanks, I would rather move back to India than work as a third-class citizen in Europe. :mad:
Somebody said our own Asian migrants are against us. I can see their viewpoint. We are perceived to pose a threat to the well-being of their children and they do have a sense of entitlement just because they happened to come here earlier. Can't change that attitude. We can also see that in some people who haven't yet got their green cards or are newly minted resident "aliens". E.g. Entitlement due to Master's degree from US, Consultants vs FTE, Desi company consultants vs American company consultants etc. Did we ever stop and think that the system does not even need to play "Divide and Conquer" in a house already divided?
I frankly think that to an average joe in the US all of us are just another brown guy or chinaman etc. (apologies to the non Asian members of IV) and we don't need to feel that we are somehow superior to the other immigrant.
more...
makeup i love you poems for
kondur_007
04-10 10:28 AM
Does anyone have numbers for spillover last year category wise? I mean, last year how many EB4, EB5 and EB1 left out visas got spilled over to EB2? Thanks...
Here are the details for last year and years before:
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
Here are the details for last year and years before:
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
girlfriend love you poems for oyfriend.
looivy
01-24 03:34 PM
IV members,
We need to come up with some great ideas like "flower campaign". Something that will mobilize IV members.
Let us not be pessimistic. There are thousand of reasons that one can think of why the new administration may not act soon. But that should not stop us from making our cause being heard. The new adminsitration has been taking many decisions that are not economy related. Economy is their #1 priority but it is not their only priority.
The visa recapture issue has been pending for a long time now (atleast 3 years). Either we continue to wait and suffer and remain frustrated or we take some action. Choice is ours.
PS: Let us be civil. I second using non-accusatory language on this forum.
We need to come up with some great ideas like "flower campaign". Something that will mobilize IV members.
Let us not be pessimistic. There are thousand of reasons that one can think of why the new administration may not act soon. But that should not stop us from making our cause being heard. The new adminsitration has been taking many decisions that are not economy related. Economy is their #1 priority but it is not their only priority.
The visa recapture issue has been pending for a long time now (atleast 3 years). Either we continue to wait and suffer and remain frustrated or we take some action. Choice is ours.
PS: Let us be civil. I second using non-accusatory language on this forum.
hairstyles i love you poems for your
sandiboy
08-15 02:29 PM
Would rather be interested to see the Processing times update for this month
shantak
03-17 11:24 AM
PD: March 2005
India
I140 approved
No FP yet
I-485 July
EAD and FP approved
India
I140 approved
No FP yet
I-485 July
EAD and FP approved
nosightofgc
01-19 07:29 AM
Very interesting. When we applied for 485/EAD/AP, our lawyer specifically asked for color passport copies of the first few pages. I went ahead and made copies of all pages. Am I in trouble?
Color photocopy of passport, immigration documents, currency notes, etc. (a list of 8-10 items) are totally illegal in USA. You may face legal consequences. I have color copiers both photo and laser. User manual clearly states that.
I am not sure why B/W copy could be illegal. Most of univerisities recommend students to keep a photocopy of immigration documents safely. See these sites
http://www.beloit.edu/~oie/int_students/f-1_maintain_status.html.
http://www.isso.cornell.edu/immigration/f1/f1.php
http://www.beloit.edu/~oie/int_students/f-1_maintain_status.html
http://iso.truman.edu/index.php?type=current&id=f1
These photocopies are supposed to be kept safely and seperately from originals and supposed be used for requesting replacement while originals are lost. These photocopies are not supposed to be shown to anybody else otherwise. Trying showing photocopies to govt. officials such as police, dmv, immigration officers, etc. - there will be questions on this. But when requesting replacement of a lost I20 or a lost passport by providing a photocopy of original, question related to photocopy (B/W) will not be asked.
Color photocopy of passport, immigration documents, currency notes, etc. (a list of 8-10 items) are totally illegal in USA. You may face legal consequences. I have color copiers both photo and laser. User manual clearly states that.
I am not sure why B/W copy could be illegal. Most of univerisities recommend students to keep a photocopy of immigration documents safely. See these sites
http://www.beloit.edu/~oie/int_students/f-1_maintain_status.html.
http://www.isso.cornell.edu/immigration/f1/f1.php
http://www.beloit.edu/~oie/int_students/f-1_maintain_status.html
http://iso.truman.edu/index.php?type=current&id=f1
These photocopies are supposed to be kept safely and seperately from originals and supposed be used for requesting replacement while originals are lost. These photocopies are not supposed to be shown to anybody else otherwise. Trying showing photocopies to govt. officials such as police, dmv, immigration officers, etc. - there will be questions on this. But when requesting replacement of a lost I20 or a lost passport by providing a photocopy of original, question related to photocopy (B/W) will not be asked.
No comments:
Post a Comment