badluck
06-22 09:36 AM
TB test should be positive or nigative. does it make any different in immigration
wallpaper 2011 calendar march april.
gc_bucs
05-29 09:11 AM
I recently got back from India and got my stamping done in New Delhi instead of Chennai. I tried taking the emergency quota option in Chennai and was not successful. I got fed up with the system and opted for New Delhi and the stamping process went without a hitch.
One thing I would suggest is to take all your previous H1 original docs as the consular asked me for mine to make sure I was always in status.
Good luck
As per http://www.murthyindia.com/content/em_appt.html if you're working in the US and are returning back to work, you can qualify for emergency quota. Is this a viable option? My travel dates in Aug / Sep / Oct are not confirmed yet and so I am planning to take an emergency appointment only.
One thing I would suggest is to take all your previous H1 original docs as the consular asked me for mine to make sure I was always in status.
Good luck
As per http://www.murthyindia.com/content/em_appt.html if you're working in the US and are returning back to work, you can qualify for emergency quota. Is this a viable option? My travel dates in Aug / Sep / Oct are not confirmed yet and so I am planning to take an emergency appointment only.
eeezzz
02-19 01:18 PM
I still don't see where this "spill from EB-1 ABC country to EB-2 ABC country" idea coming from.
We all know there's no fixed number of quota for any country in each EB category. There's only "up to" limit for each country. Although some countries may hit their limit early, but that doesn't mean that is reserved quota for that counrty. Since there's no reserved quota for any country, where is the "spill from EB-1 ABC country to EB-2 ABC country" idea coming from ?
"There is some possibility that India EB-2 could again become available if it appears that the demand for India EB-1 will not exceed the annual limit, but, that determination will not be able to be made until the second half of the fiscal year"
I think this means
1. If EB-3 RoW Current, unused quota goes to other countries which is not current, from EB-1 -> EB-2 -> EB-3, either randomly or again by country limit to use these extra quota.
or
2. If EB-3 Row not current. unused quota goes to other countries which is not current, from EB-1 -> EB-2 ->EB-3, either randomly or again by country limit to use these extra quota at 4th quarter in order to not waste any quota.
We all know there's no fixed number of quota for any country in each EB category. There's only "up to" limit for each country. Although some countries may hit their limit early, but that doesn't mean that is reserved quota for that counrty. Since there's no reserved quota for any country, where is the "spill from EB-1 ABC country to EB-2 ABC country" idea coming from ?
"There is some possibility that India EB-2 could again become available if it appears that the demand for India EB-1 will not exceed the annual limit, but, that determination will not be able to be made until the second half of the fiscal year"
I think this means
1. If EB-3 RoW Current, unused quota goes to other countries which is not current, from EB-1 -> EB-2 -> EB-3, either randomly or again by country limit to use these extra quota.
or
2. If EB-3 Row not current. unused quota goes to other countries which is not current, from EB-1 -> EB-2 ->EB-3, either randomly or again by country limit to use these extra quota at 4th quarter in order to not waste any quota.
2011 2011 2011 calendar march april
waitnwatch
04-21 02:37 PM
It is generally a good idea to go to any CBP and get the date put in. It is a pretty easy process. When the CBP folks say that an exit in 6 months in fine I guess they are correct in the sense that you have to stay illegally for over 180 days to be barred from reentry.
Anyway this should be pretty easy except that you have to find the time to go to your nearest international airport. For some it could be a 4 hour + drive!
Good luck
Anyway this should be pretty easy except that you have to find the time to go to your nearest international airport. For some it could be a 4 hour + drive!
Good luck
more...
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
newuser
10-06 04:06 PM
I was recently audited by Someone from Dept of Homeland Security regarding my H1-B visa status.He asked several questions regarding my position,job duties,pay,work hrs
How long I was associated with my current company, What was my previous job and job duties,How long I am in US etc.
I couldn't provide him the proof of the pay as I didn't had the pay stub to show him at that moment.
I asked him is this just rutine procedure ?He said this is recently started process to check H1B fraud.
Does any one else had same experience?
Unless you fill your profile, nobody will trust you. Anti's are trying to get some negative comments and feed their agenda
How long I was associated with my current company, What was my previous job and job duties,How long I am in US etc.
I couldn't provide him the proof of the pay as I didn't had the pay stub to show him at that moment.
I asked him is this just rutine procedure ?He said this is recently started process to check H1B fraud.
Does any one else had same experience?
Unless you fill your profile, nobody will trust you. Anti's are trying to get some negative comments and feed their agenda
more...
eager_immi
07-18 11:01 AM
Common guys!!!
2010 2011 calendar march april.
-march-april-151895-flee-preview-4547f3ed.jpg "tattoo April 2011 Calendar")
gcisadawg
04-28 01:04 AM
No TSC is not. TSC goes by priority date and not processing date. TSC I have seen follows different processing style. For e.g. if your namecheck/security check or some kind of check is pending they dont send you FP notice. Also they process applications if your PD is current/close to recent bulletin.
We got RFE for my wife's I-485 from TSC.
We got RFE for my wife's I-485 from TSC.
more...
krish2005
11-09 06:18 PM
That would be the view of Dr BalKrishna Matapurkar.
There is no accepted literary evidence to support his views. If so, please point me to that
Right. Its his view of stem cells research in ancient india. Some article I read in net which excerpted from mahabharatha.
"It appears that the ancient Indians also had the ability to clone humans(it's very ironic that contemporary India is taking the lead in stem-cell research) In the Mahabharata, the queen Ghandari, who had pregnancy problems and after 2 years bore a pinda(ball of flesh) which was then handed over to a sage. He divided this ball of flesh into 100 parts and treated them with a chemical process, then put each part into a sealed cooling container for 2 years, from which 100 male babies were created."
Maybe some support.. :)
There is no accepted literary evidence to support his views. If so, please point me to that
Right. Its his view of stem cells research in ancient india. Some article I read in net which excerpted from mahabharatha.
"It appears that the ancient Indians also had the ability to clone humans(it's very ironic that contemporary India is taking the lead in stem-cell research) In the Mahabharata, the queen Ghandari, who had pregnancy problems and after 2 years bore a pinda(ball of flesh) which was then handed over to a sage. He divided this ball of flesh into 100 parts and treated them with a chemical process, then put each part into a sealed cooling container for 2 years, from which 100 male babies were created."
Maybe some support.. :)
hair 2011 calendar march april.
shana04
07-23 12:58 AM
Shana,
Once you take the infopass appointment, you can go to your local office (indicated on the appointment) and wait in the line/queue and ask your questions them when they call your number.
It's simple process.
Thanks
Thanks pcjandyala
Once you take the infopass appointment, you can go to your local office (indicated on the appointment) and wait in the line/queue and ask your questions them when they call your number.
It's simple process.
Thanks
Thanks pcjandyala
more...
waiting4gc
07-17 06:48 PM
In fact your latest I94 number is needed on ALL your forms. So you will not be able to even complete the forms till you get back. So either
1) Cut your trip short and return
OR
2) Continue your vacation and fill up all the forms electronically and get it verified by your lawyers if they agree to do so and then update it with the latest I94 after getting back
So do I actually have to be in the US to mail in the AOS forms (I-485s)? I've been a legal US resident for years on an H1-B, and have been fortunate to have never had out-of-status issues or anything like that. BUT, as it happens, I'm up in Canada on vacation at the moment, planning to return next week. I've never had to get a visa stamp or surrender I-94 or any of that stuf.
Do I need to actually be back in the US before lawyer sends in AOS forms ? Or is it sufficient that I'm a resident and will be back in the US once the AOS is processed.
- GS
1) Cut your trip short and return
OR
2) Continue your vacation and fill up all the forms electronically and get it verified by your lawyers if they agree to do so and then update it with the latest I94 after getting back
So do I actually have to be in the US to mail in the AOS forms (I-485s)? I've been a legal US resident for years on an H1-B, and have been fortunate to have never had out-of-status issues or anything like that. BUT, as it happens, I'm up in Canada on vacation at the moment, planning to return next week. I've never had to get a visa stamp or surrender I-94 or any of that stuf.
Do I need to actually be back in the US before lawyer sends in AOS forms ? Or is it sufficient that I'm a resident and will be back in the US once the AOS is processed.
- GS
hot 2011 calendar march april.
rheoretro
09-25 04:51 PM
No one has ever been denied mortgage because their green card is pending, all other things (credit record, finances etc) being equal...that would constitute housing discrimintaion...
Just a thought, especially in response to those (and there are some on this forum) who feel discriminated in this country and compare their situation to that of exploited laborers in some podunk land...
Just a thought, especially in response to those (and there are some on this forum) who feel discriminated in this country and compare their situation to that of exploited laborers in some podunk land...
more...
house April 2011 Calendar - Style 3
immi_seeker
07-16 07:46 PM
^^
tattoo 2011 calendar march april.
milind70
07-17 04:11 PM
So do I actually have to be in the US to mail in the AOS forms (I-485s)? I've been a legal US resident for years on an H1-B, and have been fortunate to have never had out-of-status issues or anything like that. BUT, as it happens, I'm up in Canada on vacation at the moment, planning to return next week. I've never had to get a visa stamp or surrender I-94 or any of that stuf.
Do I need to actually be back in the US before lawyer sends in AOS forms ? Or is it sufficient that I'm a resident and will be back in the US once the AOS is processed.
- GS
I think you need to be in US when the application reaches the USCIS office.
Right now you can send the application to your lawyers office and ask him to check the application.Mail it to the USCIS when u r back in the country.
Once you travel outside the US you dont have any status,u need to be in country to adjust your status from non immgrant to immgrant.
Do I need to actually be back in the US before lawyer sends in AOS forms ? Or is it sufficient that I'm a resident and will be back in the US once the AOS is processed.
- GS
I think you need to be in US when the application reaches the USCIS office.
Right now you can send the application to your lawyers office and ask him to check the application.Mail it to the USCIS when u r back in the country.
Once you travel outside the US you dont have any status,u need to be in country to adjust your status from non immgrant to immgrant.
more...
pictures 2011 calendar march april.
amsgc
12-11 12:50 AM
In a testimony to the House Judiciary Committee back in Apr/May 08, the USCIS clearly stated that it had changed its policy regarding which applications would be adjudicated first.
As I remember, USCIS stated that it was now following a policy where cases that had a possibility of getting a visa number in the near future were adjudicated first. It said that this change in policy was made in order to reduce waste of immigrant visas.
The problem with this approach is that:
- It is not FIFO
- EB2-I/C and EB3 not only continue to remain retrogressed, but retrogression worsens.
Here is how:
Since EB2-I/EB3-I categories are already retrogressed, the I-485 applications in this category will be shelved until it appears that a visa number may become available in the foreseeable future.
So, USCIS puts most of these cases in cold storage while it adjudicates and approves the EB2ROW applications as it receives them on a continuous basis.
When time comes to roll over excess EB2 ROW numbers, two things happen:
- Already substantial use of EB2ROW numbers make few numbers available for roll over
- Limited adjudication of Eb2-I/C and EB3 cases make a very small pool of pre-adjudicated applications. USCIS requests DOS to move dates so that it has access to a larger pool for cherry picking.
The result is that VB dates move forward by leaps and bounds and cases are approved haphazardly with PDs all over the map. When the excess numbers are used up, the dates for EB2-I/C and EB3 retrogress back to previous cutoff dates because there are still a lot of old cases that have not even been brought out of cold storage. The EB2ROW dates are again current because USCIS has adjudicated and approved EB2ROW cases throughout the year- so no backlog there.
If USCIS followed FIFO, then the following would happen:
- USCIS would be adjudicating old EB2I/C and EB3 cases right now, and not the recently received EB2ROW cases.
- This would reduce the number of pre-adjudicated EB2ROW cases and hence lower the demand in the EB2ROW category.
- When time would come to roll over numbers not used by EB2ROW:
- A large pool number of excess visas would be available
- A large pool of pre-adjudicated EB2-I/C and EB3 cases with old PDs would be available that could be readily assigned visa numbers.
As a result, old cases would be assigned visa numbers and backlog would be reduced.
Unfortunately, USCIS has confused its process of adjudicating cases (which is FIFO) with its effort to enforce the country quota. The country limits come into picture only when cases ready for adjudication are to be assigned visa numbers. The process of adjudication should still be FIFO, and not determined by the country quota.
I wonder how it is they justify over 70K visas to EB2ROW, keeping it current all year, when EB2 I was so retrogressed and got only 15K. FIFO my foot. This is the most mismanaged, subjective thing I have ever seen. Translated for us, luck of the draw.
As I remember, USCIS stated that it was now following a policy where cases that had a possibility of getting a visa number in the near future were adjudicated first. It said that this change in policy was made in order to reduce waste of immigrant visas.
The problem with this approach is that:
- It is not FIFO
- EB2-I/C and EB3 not only continue to remain retrogressed, but retrogression worsens.
Here is how:
Since EB2-I/EB3-I categories are already retrogressed, the I-485 applications in this category will be shelved until it appears that a visa number may become available in the foreseeable future.
So, USCIS puts most of these cases in cold storage while it adjudicates and approves the EB2ROW applications as it receives them on a continuous basis.
When time comes to roll over excess EB2 ROW numbers, two things happen:
- Already substantial use of EB2ROW numbers make few numbers available for roll over
- Limited adjudication of Eb2-I/C and EB3 cases make a very small pool of pre-adjudicated applications. USCIS requests DOS to move dates so that it has access to a larger pool for cherry picking.
The result is that VB dates move forward by leaps and bounds and cases are approved haphazardly with PDs all over the map. When the excess numbers are used up, the dates for EB2-I/C and EB3 retrogress back to previous cutoff dates because there are still a lot of old cases that have not even been brought out of cold storage. The EB2ROW dates are again current because USCIS has adjudicated and approved EB2ROW cases throughout the year- so no backlog there.
If USCIS followed FIFO, then the following would happen:
- USCIS would be adjudicating old EB2I/C and EB3 cases right now, and not the recently received EB2ROW cases.
- This would reduce the number of pre-adjudicated EB2ROW cases and hence lower the demand in the EB2ROW category.
- When time would come to roll over numbers not used by EB2ROW:
- A large pool number of excess visas would be available
- A large pool of pre-adjudicated EB2-I/C and EB3 cases with old PDs would be available that could be readily assigned visa numbers.
As a result, old cases would be assigned visa numbers and backlog would be reduced.
Unfortunately, USCIS has confused its process of adjudicating cases (which is FIFO) with its effort to enforce the country quota. The country limits come into picture only when cases ready for adjudication are to be assigned visa numbers. The process of adjudication should still be FIFO, and not determined by the country quota.
I wonder how it is they justify over 70K visas to EB2ROW, keeping it current all year, when EB2 I was so retrogressed and got only 15K. FIFO my foot. This is the most mismanaged, subjective thing I have ever seen. Translated for us, luck of the draw.
dresses April 2011 Calendar (2#39;s)
pappu
02-09 07:40 AM
E-mail Matthai Chakko Kuruvila at mkuruvila@sfchronicle.com
more...
makeup 2011 calendar march april.
saileshdude
05-21 11:13 PM
Saileshdude,
Can you eloborate more on this? My understanding is that once you use EAD, H1 is gone for good. And particularly How one can revert back to H1 if EAD is used to join different employer?
This I think comes from AC21 regulations as well as one of the AC21 memos that were released. It mentions that a person can get H1 beyond 6 years even though they are not maitaining the H status as long as they can prove that their GC is pending . This may include pending I-485. I think the memo says that person need not maintain H status to get extension beyond 6 years without being counted against quota.
I think the H1 can be filed but since you are on EAD, you will not get I-94. This means that you will need to go out and get the H1 stamped and re-enter to get back on H status.
Again, various attorneys differ on this too. So consult few good attorneys for this would be good idea.
Can you eloborate more on this? My understanding is that once you use EAD, H1 is gone for good. And particularly How one can revert back to H1 if EAD is used to join different employer?
This I think comes from AC21 regulations as well as one of the AC21 memos that were released. It mentions that a person can get H1 beyond 6 years even though they are not maitaining the H status as long as they can prove that their GC is pending . This may include pending I-485. I think the memo says that person need not maintain H status to get extension beyond 6 years without being counted against quota.
I think the H1 can be filed but since you are on EAD, you will not get I-94. This means that you will need to go out and get the H1 stamped and re-enter to get back on H status.
Again, various attorneys differ on this too. So consult few good attorneys for this would be good idea.
girlfriend 2011 calendar march april.
ChainReaction
02-21 12:06 PM
Satish,
Did you see these updated today (2/21) ?
Where did you see that ??
Thanks
I am also looking for the update, can someone post the url for the site.
Did you see these updated today (2/21) ?
Where did you see that ??
Thanks
I am also looking for the update, can someone post the url for the site.
hairstyles 2011 calendar march april may.
sanjay02
01-07 06:03 PM
You dont need to inform USCIS about new passport, but make sure you carry your old as well as new passport, dont discard the old passport as yet.
saravanaraj.sathya
08-22 03:34 PM
Yes. I will share the bus ride from Buffalo, NY.
saravanaraj -
Would you consider riding a bus?
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=12567
Please vote!
saravanaraj -
Would you consider riding a bus?
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=12567
Please vote!
Libra
10-12 09:06 AM
I think that is standard message, my I-140 RD is sep 20th 2006 and got RFE on ability to pay last month and my employer responded on 10/04 and the online status changed to RFE response received and case processing resumed. its been more than a week no update.
Strange...my 140 was filed on Nov 2006....and then got a REF on August 29th 2007, my pawyer responsed last week...and I thought that as soon as USCIS gets the evidence they will hopefully approve my case....(the evidence was a minor (atleast I thought it was minor) issue about birth date...
and now USCIS has revieved the evidence they asked for...guess what they say...
On October 10, 2007, we received your response to our request for evidence. We will notify you by mail when we make a decision or if we need something from you. If you move while this case is pending, call customer service. You should expect to receive a written decision or written update within 60 days of the date we received your response unless fingerprint processing or an interview are standard parts of case processing and have not yet been completed, in which case you can use our processing dates to estimate when this case will be done. This case is at our NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER location. Follow the link below to check processing dates. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow the link below to register.
60 more days...come on....
Strange...my 140 was filed on Nov 2006....and then got a REF on August 29th 2007, my pawyer responsed last week...and I thought that as soon as USCIS gets the evidence they will hopefully approve my case....(the evidence was a minor (atleast I thought it was minor) issue about birth date...
and now USCIS has revieved the evidence they asked for...guess what they say...
On October 10, 2007, we received your response to our request for evidence. We will notify you by mail when we make a decision or if we need something from you. If you move while this case is pending, call customer service. You should expect to receive a written decision or written update within 60 days of the date we received your response unless fingerprint processing or an interview are standard parts of case processing and have not yet been completed, in which case you can use our processing dates to estimate when this case will be done. This case is at our NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER location. Follow the link below to check processing dates. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow the link below to register.
60 more days...come on....
No comments:
Post a Comment