ramaonline
04-22 04:05 PM
I attended the meeting and was there until 6:30 pm - The latinos were present in full strength, and some were distributing handouts to oppose the STRIVE bill.
The banners put up by illegal immigrants were more prominent than the lone banner which one of our members had brought. One banner was for the bill and another against the bill.
Our members asked a few questions, but the majority were posed from the illegal immigrant community and was about raids, deportation, family etc. Regardless, Title V is what matters to us and if the bill passes, Title V passes so we must support the bill as this is the only bill other than SKIL which addresses issues facing legal immigrants. In case the bill runs into a roadblock I hope the congressman can take Title V out of the bill and introduce a new bill for legal immigrants.
The Congressman also said he has the support of 180 democrats in the House and it takes 218 members to get the bill passed. He requested us to call local republican congressmen/women & get their support for the bill.
Note that this bill also allows u to file ead/485 even if a visa number is not available by paying an extra $500.
Check this link for the title 5 text
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1645
The banners put up by illegal immigrants were more prominent than the lone banner which one of our members had brought. One banner was for the bill and another against the bill.
Our members asked a few questions, but the majority were posed from the illegal immigrant community and was about raids, deportation, family etc. Regardless, Title V is what matters to us and if the bill passes, Title V passes so we must support the bill as this is the only bill other than SKIL which addresses issues facing legal immigrants. In case the bill runs into a roadblock I hope the congressman can take Title V out of the bill and introduce a new bill for legal immigrants.
The Congressman also said he has the support of 180 democrats in the House and it takes 218 members to get the bill passed. He requested us to call local republican congressmen/women & get their support for the bill.
Note that this bill also allows u to file ead/485 even if a visa number is not available by paying an extra $500.
Check this link for the title 5 text
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1645
wallpaper Wallpapers Ubuntu
Dhundhun
07-12 08:06 PM
i believe the argument that this sudden jump was made to help eb2 china is pure hogwash
I think so.
Unless USCIS took all the pains to compile all EB2 qualified doculements and then to find out on what day China and India EB2 numbers become equal.
It is hard to comprehend.
I think so.
Unless USCIS took all the pains to compile all EB2 qualified doculements and then to find out on what day China and India EB2 numbers become equal.
It is hard to comprehend.
actaccord
02-25 09:19 AM
.
2011 License
shyamkishore
02-07 07:05 PM
My Dear IV Members,
I would like to open up my house for IV members during the advocacy days. I live in Herndon, VA about 25 miles from DC. I can accommodate up to 3 or 4 members if they can manage. DC is pretty much commutable from my house using the public transport.
Due to my work situation at present I am not sure if I will be able to participate actively. But I will be trying my best to at least make it for a day.
Regards,
Shyam
I would like to open up my house for IV members during the advocacy days. I live in Herndon, VA about 25 miles from DC. I can accommodate up to 3 or 4 members if they can manage. DC is pretty much commutable from my house using the public transport.
Due to my work situation at present I am not sure if I will be able to participate actively. But I will be trying my best to at least make it for a day.
Regards,
Shyam
more...
go_gc_way
12-31 07:47 PM
I thought you said you posted in detroit website as well? Have you not?
YES, WILLBLUCKY, POSTED ON 28TH
DID NOT KNOW FOR DETROIT, WILL UP DATE THE TABLE LATER.
http://www.viaindia.com/apps/ads/details.aspx?id=137194&mid=18&CAT=Announcements
Relax, it is accessed 58 times so far.
YES, WILLBLUCKY, POSTED ON 28TH
DID NOT KNOW FOR DETROIT, WILL UP DATE THE TABLE LATER.
http://www.viaindia.com/apps/ads/details.aspx?id=137194&mid=18&CAT=Announcements
Relax, it is accessed 58 times so far.
logiclife
12-21 10:28 PM
You should've thought about this that whole year that you were goofin' off! Why are you bringing this up at this late juncture, anyway? Your PD is Dec, 2004. What makes you your petition will trigger an RFE for not working during 2001? You raise a very perplexing and contradicting query...
Hey, take it easy big guy/gal.
You are acting as if instead of being gainfully employed, he was sitting around and playing golf or something and that put him out of status.
Go easy on the judging part, coz you could be goofing off for a while too and if you are goofing off for a while, its not like after a week of goofing off, you are going to throw in the towel and take the next plane back home. In a country that has employed and harbored 11 million illegals, who dont even have a passport, those who are legally present and 'goofing off' for a while between 2 legitimate jobs that require excrutiating process of h1 sponsorship are the least of anyone's problems. In fact, the section 245(k) says that it is OK to goof off as long as goofing off is less than 180 days. And if the goofing off was before your last entry into usa, it doesnt even matter, regardless of whether it was less than 180 or more than 180 days. If US CONGRESS legitimizes, who are you to be the bigger judge.
IF the economy tanks, then a lot of us will be 'goofing off' in 2008 and 2009.
When someone is 'goofing off', that someone is concerned about paying the rent, managing to buy groceries and borrowing money off of credit cards to pay the bill, and during the 'goofing off' people dont sit by on a bench and think..."hmm...what will happen when I file my 485 and will this 'goofing off' hurt me at the time".
Hey, take it easy big guy/gal.
You are acting as if instead of being gainfully employed, he was sitting around and playing golf or something and that put him out of status.
Go easy on the judging part, coz you could be goofing off for a while too and if you are goofing off for a while, its not like after a week of goofing off, you are going to throw in the towel and take the next plane back home. In a country that has employed and harbored 11 million illegals, who dont even have a passport, those who are legally present and 'goofing off' for a while between 2 legitimate jobs that require excrutiating process of h1 sponsorship are the least of anyone's problems. In fact, the section 245(k) says that it is OK to goof off as long as goofing off is less than 180 days. And if the goofing off was before your last entry into usa, it doesnt even matter, regardless of whether it was less than 180 or more than 180 days. If US CONGRESS legitimizes, who are you to be the bigger judge.
IF the economy tanks, then a lot of us will be 'goofing off' in 2008 and 2009.
When someone is 'goofing off', that someone is concerned about paying the rent, managing to buy groceries and borrowing money off of credit cards to pay the bill, and during the 'goofing off' people dont sit by on a bench and think..."hmm...what will happen when I file my 485 and will this 'goofing off' hurt me at the time".
more...
hsingh82
06-11 09:36 AM
Reply I received:
Thank you for contacting my offices. Your correspondence has been received, and we will respond to you as quickly as possible. A copy of your message is attached below for your records.
If you need immediate assistance regarding an urgent problem you are experiencing with the federal government, visit the "Help With Federal Agencies" section of the website for details on how to proceed so that your difficulties are brought to my attention as soon as possible.
If you are seeking information or services from my offices that are NOT related to my Legislative duties, please visit my "Services For Texans" section for more information.
Warmest Regards,
U.S. Senator John Cornyn
Thank you for contacting my offices. Your correspondence has been received, and we will respond to you as quickly as possible. A copy of your message is attached below for your records.
If you need immediate assistance regarding an urgent problem you are experiencing with the federal government, visit the "Help With Federal Agencies" section of the website for details on how to proceed so that your difficulties are brought to my attention as soon as possible.
If you are seeking information or services from my offices that are NOT related to my Legislative duties, please visit my "Services For Texans" section for more information.
Warmest Regards,
U.S. Senator John Cornyn
2010 Blue Ubuntu Linux Wallpaper
another one
07-09 02:26 PM
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Azulay Horn & Seiden, LLC Files Class Action Law Suit against the US Government for Refusing to Accept Green Card Applications
Chicago (July 9, 2007) � In the shadow of the debate about comprehensive immigration reform tens of thousands of skilled employment based immigrants awaiting their opportunity to legally apply for green cards have been unfairly denied the opportunity due to potential deliberate miscommunication � and an attempt to collect higher filing fees � from the U.S. Department of State and the and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the agency that processes visa and citizenship requests.
On June 12, the State Department announced in its monthly Visa Bulletin that beginning July 2 and for at least the entire month of July, all skilled workers seeking employer-sponsored green cards would be eligible to apply. However, on July 2, the State Department announced that they were breaking with 30 years of tradition and issued an update claiming that no more green cards were available because �the sudden backlog reduction efforts by Citizenship and Immigration Services offices during the past month.� USCIS followed and said that as a result they were going to reject the green card applications of anyone who applied relying on the July Bulletin. This meant that the thousands of immigrants who followed the government�s instructions and obtained the correct paperwork actually had no chance to receive a green card.
In response, Azulay Horn & Seiden, LLC, the largest immigration law firm based in Chicago and fourth largest in the United States, on Friday July 6, filed a class-action law suit on behalf of its clients and all those like them, against Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the Department of State, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, the Department of Homeland Security, and USCIS, and Emilio Gonzalez, and F. Gerard Heinauer of USCIS for announcing that they would refuse to accept the green card applications on behalf of the skilled workers. The suit seeks a ruling that would keep applications filed in accordance with the original July Visa Bulletin from being rejected.
Azulay Horn & Seiden is the first firm to act proactively and file a complaint. �These are legal immigrants who have followed all the rules,� explained Ira Azulay, CEO of the firm. �They are productive members of our society and deserve to be treated fairly by our federal government. The State Department and USCIS acted against their own rules and 30 years of historical practice when they updated the Visa Bulletin and reneged on their historical obligations. They need to be held accountable for their actions and do right by these people. Acting any other way sends the horrible message that following the rules is worthless.�
The representative plaintiff in the case is Chicagoan Gabriela Ptasinska, a native of Poland who is lawfully present in the United States on a non-immigrant visa, working as a land planner with Manhard Consulting, Ltd. Given the Bulletin, Ptasinska and thousands of legal immigrants across the country worked to obtain the necessary documentation for their chance to receive a green card only to have it snatched away on July.
�I am a law-abiding, hardworking member of American society and have worked relentlessly to lawfully become a permanent resident of America,� said Ptasinska. �Now I feel like the rug has been pulled out from under me. I held-up my end of the bargain by doing everything the government told me to do, but USCIS did not keep their word.�
Mr. Azulay is available to discuss with the media the class-action suit and the impact of the government�s recent actions. A copy of the complaint in the matter of Gabriela Ptasinska, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. U.S. Dept. of State, Condoleeza Rice, U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Emilio Gonzalez, and F. Gerard Heinauer, Case No. 07 C 3795, can be downloaded from Azulay, Horn & Seiden�s website at www.ahslaw.com. People interested in joining the class can also visit the website to provide their information.
Azulay, Horn & Seiden, LLC (www.ahslaw.com) is Chicago�s largest immigration law firm and the fourth largest immigration firm in the country. AHS provides comprehensive US immigration legal services for businesses and individuals (including visa petitions, green card services, consular assistance, naturalization proceedings, immigration representation in all U.S. Courts, and appellate work), immigration consulting to businesses, as well as immigration related legal services (e.g. family law, criminal law). Its main office is located at 205 N. Michigan Ave., 40th Floor, Chicago, IL 60601, with other offices in Florida, Wisconsin, and Manila, Philippines. For more information contact them at 312.832.9200 or by email at info@ahslaw.com.
Azulay Horn & Seiden, LLC Files Class Action Law Suit against the US Government for Refusing to Accept Green Card Applications
Chicago (July 9, 2007) � In the shadow of the debate about comprehensive immigration reform tens of thousands of skilled employment based immigrants awaiting their opportunity to legally apply for green cards have been unfairly denied the opportunity due to potential deliberate miscommunication � and an attempt to collect higher filing fees � from the U.S. Department of State and the and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the agency that processes visa and citizenship requests.
On June 12, the State Department announced in its monthly Visa Bulletin that beginning July 2 and for at least the entire month of July, all skilled workers seeking employer-sponsored green cards would be eligible to apply. However, on July 2, the State Department announced that they were breaking with 30 years of tradition and issued an update claiming that no more green cards were available because �the sudden backlog reduction efforts by Citizenship and Immigration Services offices during the past month.� USCIS followed and said that as a result they were going to reject the green card applications of anyone who applied relying on the July Bulletin. This meant that the thousands of immigrants who followed the government�s instructions and obtained the correct paperwork actually had no chance to receive a green card.
In response, Azulay Horn & Seiden, LLC, the largest immigration law firm based in Chicago and fourth largest in the United States, on Friday July 6, filed a class-action law suit on behalf of its clients and all those like them, against Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the Department of State, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, the Department of Homeland Security, and USCIS, and Emilio Gonzalez, and F. Gerard Heinauer of USCIS for announcing that they would refuse to accept the green card applications on behalf of the skilled workers. The suit seeks a ruling that would keep applications filed in accordance with the original July Visa Bulletin from being rejected.
Azulay Horn & Seiden is the first firm to act proactively and file a complaint. �These are legal immigrants who have followed all the rules,� explained Ira Azulay, CEO of the firm. �They are productive members of our society and deserve to be treated fairly by our federal government. The State Department and USCIS acted against their own rules and 30 years of historical practice when they updated the Visa Bulletin and reneged on their historical obligations. They need to be held accountable for their actions and do right by these people. Acting any other way sends the horrible message that following the rules is worthless.�
The representative plaintiff in the case is Chicagoan Gabriela Ptasinska, a native of Poland who is lawfully present in the United States on a non-immigrant visa, working as a land planner with Manhard Consulting, Ltd. Given the Bulletin, Ptasinska and thousands of legal immigrants across the country worked to obtain the necessary documentation for their chance to receive a green card only to have it snatched away on July.
�I am a law-abiding, hardworking member of American society and have worked relentlessly to lawfully become a permanent resident of America,� said Ptasinska. �Now I feel like the rug has been pulled out from under me. I held-up my end of the bargain by doing everything the government told me to do, but USCIS did not keep their word.�
Mr. Azulay is available to discuss with the media the class-action suit and the impact of the government�s recent actions. A copy of the complaint in the matter of Gabriela Ptasinska, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. U.S. Dept. of State, Condoleeza Rice, U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Emilio Gonzalez, and F. Gerard Heinauer, Case No. 07 C 3795, can be downloaded from Azulay, Horn & Seiden�s website at www.ahslaw.com. People interested in joining the class can also visit the website to provide their information.
Azulay, Horn & Seiden, LLC (www.ahslaw.com) is Chicago�s largest immigration law firm and the fourth largest immigration firm in the country. AHS provides comprehensive US immigration legal services for businesses and individuals (including visa petitions, green card services, consular assistance, naturalization proceedings, immigration representation in all U.S. Courts, and appellate work), immigration consulting to businesses, as well as immigration related legal services (e.g. family law, criminal law). Its main office is located at 205 N. Michigan Ave., 40th Floor, Chicago, IL 60601, with other offices in Florida, Wisconsin, and Manila, Philippines. For more information contact them at 312.832.9200 or by email at info@ahslaw.com.
more...
bostonqa
04-24 01:33 PM
I also got my "Card production ordered" status few days back.
however I also received a mail for biometrics appointment of 05/02?
the biometrics letter date is 4/14 and my "Card production" status change was on 04/21.
why would they send me a biometrics appointment and then approve my 485 and issue me a GC? is this common?
should I still go for the biometrics appointment or just ignore it, I'm assuming that i'd have my physical GC in had before 05/02
---------------------------------------------
PD - JULY 2003 EB2 RIR
Concurrent I-140/I-485: No (I-140 Approved Earlier)
Mailed From State: MA
Mailed to (state NSC/TSC): NSC
Received at (state NSC/TSC): NSC
Transferred to TSC (state Yes/No): Yes
485 Receipt Date : June 14th 2007
485 Notice Date : July 2nd 2007
MY FP Completed : 08/02
485 LUD - 08/02, 08/02
however I also received a mail for biometrics appointment of 05/02?
the biometrics letter date is 4/14 and my "Card production" status change was on 04/21.
why would they send me a biometrics appointment and then approve my 485 and issue me a GC? is this common?
should I still go for the biometrics appointment or just ignore it, I'm assuming that i'd have my physical GC in had before 05/02
---------------------------------------------
PD - JULY 2003 EB2 RIR
Concurrent I-140/I-485: No (I-140 Approved Earlier)
Mailed From State: MA
Mailed to (state NSC/TSC): NSC
Received at (state NSC/TSC): NSC
Transferred to TSC (state Yes/No): Yes
485 Receipt Date : June 14th 2007
485 Notice Date : July 2nd 2007
MY FP Completed : 08/02
485 LUD - 08/02, 08/02
hair Wallpaper Ubuntu Logo 3D light
ramus
07-04 05:53 PM
Please send email to core members or PM them or give them a call for more info on this...
I understand you have concers about fund drive. While you get your answer can you please follow other action item and spend little time on media drive/writing your story...
Hope you do it soon..
Thanks a lot..
I see that you have changed the title to " contribute funds for continued advocacy efforts" from "contribute funds for Lawsuit"
Does that mean the fund drive was not really to fund expensive lawsuit!!
And still nobody has answered the original questions raised by other members about how IV is going to complemnt AILF in lawsuit with fund drive.
I understand you have concers about fund drive. While you get your answer can you please follow other action item and spend little time on media drive/writing your story...
Hope you do it soon..
Thanks a lot..
I see that you have changed the title to " contribute funds for continued advocacy efforts" from "contribute funds for Lawsuit"
Does that mean the fund drive was not really to fund expensive lawsuit!!
And still nobody has answered the original questions raised by other members about how IV is going to complemnt AILF in lawsuit with fund drive.
more...
sandeepsriv
01-18 11:50 AM
I have just contributed $20 and although I have not signed up for recurring but I will try to contribute every month.
Sandeep
Sandeep
hot Luxury Ubuntu Wallpaper by
sroyc
07-11 04:43 PM
There is a lot of hurtburn among folks here abt a lot of things...Does that mean USCIS is going to cater to every case of heartburn. I dont think so.
What else would explain EB2 China's PD going back to EB2 India's PD (April 2004) when visas from EB2-ROW were made available and then both PD's moving to June 2006 (which was EB2 China's PD before it became unavailable)?
They could have set it to March 2005 and it would have been enough to exhaust the remaining EB2-ROW visas left considering the number of EB2 India applicants in the backlog. The fact is that there are not enough EB2 China applicants left in 2003/2004/2005. The only way they can get a fair share of the EB2-ROW spillover was if PD's for both EB2 India and China were moved to 2006.
What else would explain EB2 China's PD going back to EB2 India's PD (April 2004) when visas from EB2-ROW were made available and then both PD's moving to June 2006 (which was EB2 China's PD before it became unavailable)?
They could have set it to March 2005 and it would have been enough to exhaust the remaining EB2-ROW visas left considering the number of EB2 India applicants in the backlog. The fact is that there are not enough EB2 China applicants left in 2003/2004/2005. The only way they can get a fair share of the EB2-ROW spillover was if PD's for both EB2 India and China were moved to 2006.
more...
house Ubuntu Wallpaper for 10.04
rpulipati
10-31 10:18 AM
This poll people are the most affected in the retrogression and I can see that 700 people has voted so far.
Official number may be much large, x2, x3 or x10.
Without no law change, we will be here for years to come.
Support IV.
Official number may be much large, x2, x3 or x10.
Without no law change, we will be here for years to come.
Support IV.
tattoo Ubuntu World Wallpaper
girijas
09-10 11:01 AM
There were discussing the first bill - something about horses.
They have gone to recess and will be back at 1pm. I guess they will start with the horses again and then the next two bills concerning humans and we are next - the aliens :)
They have gone to recess and will be back at 1pm. I guess they will start with the horses again and then the next two bills concerning humans and we are next - the aliens :)
more...
pictures Ubuntu Wallpapers - Fobri
vdlrao
09-10 08:42 AM
did any one did math...
EB1 - all current
|
|
\/
EB2 - World current
|
|
\/
EB2 - India / China
|
| ( When above EB2 India/China gets current 2-3years? )
\/
EB3 All
|
|
\/
EB3 I/C ( When EB1 , EB2 is Current , all visa numbers will flood to EB3 right ? so may be in 4-5 years EB3 may get current ? )
EB1 - all current
|
|
\/
EB2 Applications with old Priority Dates (Mostly EB2 - India / China)
|
|
\/
|
| ( When above EB2 India/China gets current 2-3years? )
\/
EB3 Applications with old Priority Dates (Mostly EB3 - India / China/ Mexico)
.
EB1 - all current
|
|
\/
EB2 - World current
|
|
\/
EB2 - India / China
|
| ( When above EB2 India/China gets current 2-3years? )
\/
EB3 All
|
|
\/
EB3 I/C ( When EB1 , EB2 is Current , all visa numbers will flood to EB3 right ? so may be in 4-5 years EB3 may get current ? )
EB1 - all current
|
|
\/
EB2 Applications with old Priority Dates (Mostly EB2 - India / China)
|
|
\/
|
| ( When above EB2 India/China gets current 2-3years? )
\/
EB3 Applications with old Priority Dates (Mostly EB3 - India / China/ Mexico)
.
dresses Wallpaper Ubuntu Vs. Vista
nirenjoshi
03-09 12:53 PM
EB3 ROW has been retrogressed as predicted in Oh's website.
All non-India EB3 are at March 03 now....
Will they keep them at March 03 for few months and give a bump to EB3?
Something is cooking...Otherwise they wouldn't retrogress ROW by almost 2 years...
From the bulletin -
E. RETROGRESSON OF THE WORLDWIDE, MEXICO, AND PHILIPPINES EMPLOYMENT THIRD PREFERENCE CUT-OFF DATES FOR APRIL
Despite the established cut-off date having been held for the past five months in an effort to keep demand within the average monthly usage targets, the amount of demand being received from Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) Offices for adjustment of status cases remains extremely high. Therefore, it has been necessary to retrogress the April cut-off dates in an attempt to hold demand within the FY-2009 annual limit. Since over 60 percent of the Worldwide and Philippines Employment Third preference CIS demand received this year has been for applicants with priority dates prior to January 1, 2004, the cut-off date has been retrogressed to 01MAR03 to help ensure that the amount of future demand is significantly reduced. As indicated in the last sentence of Item A, paragraph 1, of this bulletin, this cut-off date will be applied immediately. It should also be noted that further retrogression or �unavailability� at any time cannot be ruled out.
It has also been necessary to retrogress the Employment Third Preference Other Worker cut-off date for all countries in order to hold the issuance level within the annual limit.
All non-India EB3 are at March 03 now....
Will they keep them at March 03 for few months and give a bump to EB3?
Something is cooking...Otherwise they wouldn't retrogress ROW by almost 2 years...
From the bulletin -
E. RETROGRESSON OF THE WORLDWIDE, MEXICO, AND PHILIPPINES EMPLOYMENT THIRD PREFERENCE CUT-OFF DATES FOR APRIL
Despite the established cut-off date having been held for the past five months in an effort to keep demand within the average monthly usage targets, the amount of demand being received from Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) Offices for adjustment of status cases remains extremely high. Therefore, it has been necessary to retrogress the April cut-off dates in an attempt to hold demand within the FY-2009 annual limit. Since over 60 percent of the Worldwide and Philippines Employment Third preference CIS demand received this year has been for applicants with priority dates prior to January 1, 2004, the cut-off date has been retrogressed to 01MAR03 to help ensure that the amount of future demand is significantly reduced. As indicated in the last sentence of Item A, paragraph 1, of this bulletin, this cut-off date will be applied immediately. It should also be noted that further retrogression or �unavailability� at any time cannot be ruled out.
It has also been necessary to retrogress the Employment Third Preference Other Worker cut-off date for all countries in order to hold the issuance level within the annual limit.
more...
makeup This wallpaper has the mixture
Hope_GC
07-16 08:05 PM
Guys Looking at this false propagandas my blood boils after paying whole lot of taxes... we get to see these claims. :mad:
girlfriend linux wallpapers ubuntu
sunny1000
07-02 02:07 AM
I talked to my Professor where I did my masters and he agreed to sign the online petition. He is one of top researchers in his field. Imagine if we can get signatures from such great . Professors, outstanding Scientists, CEO's and Directors of big companies, Journalists (like the one who wrote nice article in Washington post about legal immigration) and probably Bill Gates. This would create great attention for our cause. They are lots of people out there who support legal immigration and its time to bring them together and show it to the world in a petition.
If anyone thinks this is a good idea, can you just leave a message saying that you support it. At least we know how many people are interested in this forum.
I will gladly sign this petition as well.
Can you please ask your professor to call Rep.Lamar Smith to voice his support for the Lofgren bills? That would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks.
If anyone thinks this is a good idea, can you just leave a message saying that you support it. At least we know how many people are interested in this forum.
I will gladly sign this petition as well.
Can you please ask your professor to call Rep.Lamar Smith to voice his support for the Lofgren bills? That would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks.
hairstyles Ubuntu 9.04 Wallpapers
Jaime
09-12 02:05 PM
Come on guys! We need thosands of us in DC! For those still debating, email us, we will help you with funds and logistics! LET'S GO GUYS!!! THIS IS OUR CHANCE!!!! WE HAVE GOVERNORS AND BUSINESS ON OUR SIDE, BUT ESPECIALLY WE HAVE TRUTH ON OUR SIDE!!!! LET'S GO TOGETHER TO DC!!!!
newbie09
08-05 07:57 PM
Need help!!!
I'm in US on L1 with company A, company B filed for H1B in Apr'09, H1 is not yet approved, and my L1 is also expiring in Nov'09. Since I'm not sure if I will get H1 approved, I have applied for L1 extension with company A.
My question is:
1. What will happen if I get H1 approved before Oct'09? Will I have to leave Company A and start working for compay B (H1) from 1st Oct even when L1 extension is in process?
2. If L1 extension is approved before 1st Oct, will I be able to continue working for comapny A, even if my H1 is approved?
Basically I don't want to be out of status or do anything against visa rules.
Please guide me on this situation.
I'm in US on L1 with company A, company B filed for H1B in Apr'09, H1 is not yet approved, and my L1 is also expiring in Nov'09. Since I'm not sure if I will get H1 approved, I have applied for L1 extension with company A.
My question is:
1. What will happen if I get H1 approved before Oct'09? Will I have to leave Company A and start working for compay B (H1) from 1st Oct even when L1 extension is in process?
2. If L1 extension is approved before 1st Oct, will I be able to continue working for comapny A, even if my H1 is approved?
Basically I don't want to be out of status or do anything against visa rules.
Please guide me on this situation.
vbkris77
04-10 12:28 PM
What you said is absolutely true. EB1 Last year and the year before saw lot more approvals than usual. My reasoning is that even though EB1 was current for all along, they never really approved I140s to give them GC. So In the overall clearing of I140s, CIS cleared lot more EB1 cases and became approved during last 2 years. If you look at the I140 completion in the dash board, it will be very much clear that the completions came down to 4 digits for each month from 5 digits. Receipts continued to be less than 5K per month.
This year, we may see a big dip in EB1 cases and larger EB2 spillover. EB4 spillover is ruled out after this bulletin.
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.
This year, we may see a big dip in EB1 cases and larger EB2 spillover. EB4 spillover is ruled out after this bulletin.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment