abracadabra102
02-09 04:45 PM
They wasted 580 EB3 India visas last year (2009).
Total available EB3 India GC Visas per year: 2802
Used: 2222
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV_2.pdf
A third of 7% is the upper limit for EB3 I. They can issue fewer Visas based on demand from other countries. Having said that, South Korea and Philippines got more than their fair share. There may be some reason for this.
Total available EB3 India GC Visas per year: 2802
Used: 2222
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV_2.pdf
A third of 7% is the upper limit for EB3 I. They can issue fewer Visas based on demand from other countries. Having said that, South Korea and Philippines got more than their fair share. There may be some reason for this.
wallpaper Funny Sex Jokes
curiouscinci
10-17 06:33 PM
Hi, I am working for Company ABC on L1 B, I-94 valid till mid2008.
I will get married in Feb08 and bring my spouse on L2 visa here.
She intends to work in the US. I understand that I can get her EAD.
If her employer processes her GC . Am I eligible to be added on that.
Basically, if her GC processing starts, is it possible for me to work here irrespective of my visa status.
Kindly advise on this scenario. We both want to work in the US and I want to switch job provided she is able to continue to work also.
I will get married in Feb08 and bring my spouse on L2 visa here.
She intends to work in the US. I understand that I can get her EAD.
If her employer processes her GC . Am I eligible to be added on that.
Basically, if her GC processing starts, is it possible for me to work here irrespective of my visa status.
Kindly advise on this scenario. We both want to work in the US and I want to switch job provided she is able to continue to work also.
diptam
07-01 09:44 PM
Updated my profile.
At this time, IV is analyzing the impact of the speculation around the July visa bulletin closure, and is reaching out to attorneys, including AILA and planning next steps. tomorrow being a working day will also help us get more information and opportunity to reach appropriate levels of government . We will share more information with you as soon as there are developments. In the meanwhile, you should go about business as usual, and file your 485/140 applications as planned.
IMPORTANT: At this time, you are encouraged to update your user profiles on IV with the most current information and the best way to reach you. If we have an urgent action item, we may also send newsletters to all members.
At this time, IV is analyzing the impact of the speculation around the July visa bulletin closure, and is reaching out to attorneys, including AILA and planning next steps. tomorrow being a working day will also help us get more information and opportunity to reach appropriate levels of government . We will share more information with you as soon as there are developments. In the meanwhile, you should go about business as usual, and file your 485/140 applications as planned.
IMPORTANT: At this time, you are encouraged to update your user profiles on IV with the most current information and the best way to reach you. If we have an urgent action item, we may also send newsletters to all members.
2011 Funny picture – Stronger sex
Openarms
11-06 10:49 AM
This is the only thread and issue that helps a lot of people in the process. If USCIS send the numbers correctly then we better of assuming when is our GC turn is. We will know the real picture and it will definitely open lot of peoples eyes to act in the future... So "Immigrants" please send the letters.
more...
amitjoey
01-02 04:14 PM
Is there any way to find out the number of members in IV. I talked about IV with a lot of my friends and 6 of them have become members. It would be nice to know the number of members in IV just like we know the Percentage of Target Met for $ contributions.
From Pappu's post- total Members till now 7,921.
From Pappu's post- total Members till now 7,921.
paulavijit
03-17 09:03 AM
Guy you are forgetting the 7% per country quota for issuing GC. Applicants from a particular country can only get 7% of the total GC available in a year.
Total employment based quota per year is 140,000 and 7% of it is 9800. So at the most only 9800 Indians can get GC per year. This count also includes the dependents.
So even if your PD is current and you have filed your I-485 but there may be more than 9800 Indians with the same status and hence only the first 9800 will get GC that year.
There are more than 100,000 primary Indian applicants who have filed their I-485 and assuming a average Indian family size of 3, there are 300,000 who are waiting for GC. Only 9800 can get in a year. So if the law does not change this backlog will finish in more than 30 years.
Total employment based quota per year is 140,000 and 7% of it is 9800. So at the most only 9800 Indians can get GC per year. This count also includes the dependents.
So even if your PD is current and you have filed your I-485 but there may be more than 9800 Indians with the same status and hence only the first 9800 will get GC that year.
There are more than 100,000 primary Indian applicants who have filed their I-485 and assuming a average Indian family size of 3, there are 300,000 who are waiting for GC. Only 9800 can get in a year. So if the law does not change this backlog will finish in more than 30 years.
more...
johnifanx98
04-04 03:48 PM
You are confused on this. IEEE is against increase of H1B visas. They have never said anything about GCs. If they have, show me where.
those who will feel abused are ones with advanced degrees from the US but did not get their H1B only to find someone from India has gotten an H1B. That person will feel abused because of the time (and maybe money) spent in getting the advanced degree.
Yes. And this is not my definition. When H1B becomes a way to make money for those bodyshoppers, it's really abused.
And I agree that it's also a abuse if an employer pay under-prevailing to a US master. But based on current situation, it's not that obvious. I think many ICC are going too far.
those who will feel abused are ones with advanced degrees from the US but did not get their H1B only to find someone from India has gotten an H1B. That person will feel abused because of the time (and maybe money) spent in getting the advanced degree.
Yes. And this is not my definition. When H1B becomes a way to make money for those bodyshoppers, it's really abused.
And I agree that it's also a abuse if an employer pay under-prevailing to a US master. But based on current situation, it's not that obvious. I think many ICC are going too far.
2010 Sex jokes. Funny cartoon.
AirWaterandGC
07-15 02:20 PM
How much time do you have to respond to the RFE ? Do you have to provide pay stubs too from your old employer ?
I filed for 485 during July 2007. My 140 was already approved. Due to some problems I quit my employer in August 2007. My previous employer was a desi blood sucker. I was fed up & decided to quit after working for him for 3 years. I applied for H1 transfer with a new employer based on approved 140. I got H1 approval for another 3 years. Currently I am working for the new H1 sponsoring employer. I also received an EAD card based on pending 485 for one year. I didnt notify USICS of job change in July.
I applied for EAD extension this year. The application for EAD extension is pending. I got a following RFE on my 485:
Please state whether or not you are currently working for your I-140 petitioner.
You must submit a currently dated letter from you permanent employer, describing your present job duties & position in the organization, your proferred position (if different from your current one), the date you began employement & the offered salary & wage. The letter must also indicate whether the terms & conditions of your employement based visa petition (or labor certification) continue to exist.
I am not in good terms with my previous employer so I cant ask him for a letter. I can ask my new employer for such a letter.
Will USCIS come to know I quite Employer A before completing 180 days?
Also is it possible that 140 was revoked by my previous employer?
What document should I send to USCIS now?
I filed for 485 during July 2007. My 140 was already approved. Due to some problems I quit my employer in August 2007. My previous employer was a desi blood sucker. I was fed up & decided to quit after working for him for 3 years. I applied for H1 transfer with a new employer based on approved 140. I got H1 approval for another 3 years. Currently I am working for the new H1 sponsoring employer. I also received an EAD card based on pending 485 for one year. I didnt notify USICS of job change in July.
I applied for EAD extension this year. The application for EAD extension is pending. I got a following RFE on my 485:
Please state whether or not you are currently working for your I-140 petitioner.
You must submit a currently dated letter from you permanent employer, describing your present job duties & position in the organization, your proferred position (if different from your current one), the date you began employement & the offered salary & wage. The letter must also indicate whether the terms & conditions of your employement based visa petition (or labor certification) continue to exist.
I am not in good terms with my previous employer so I cant ask him for a letter. I can ask my new employer for such a letter.
Will USCIS come to know I quite Employer A before completing 180 days?
Also is it possible that 140 was revoked by my previous employer?
What document should I send to USCIS now?
more...
Madhuri
07-05 01:24 PM
Exactly! Sooner or later free riders will realize and join.
Those who care about IV efforts ,who care about themselves and GC will definitely join and those who wanted this site to be non paid will realize and will also join as paid members later on.
Those who care about IV efforts ,who care about themselves and GC will definitely join and those who wanted this site to be non paid will realize and will also join as paid members later on.
hair Screenshots Funny Sex Jokes
cableching
07-11 03:02 PM
I think movement in EB-3 for India nad Chine will be difficult, as most of the folks from ROW apply under EB3 and most of the applicants in EB2 are from India and Chine?
As a result EB-3 quota is used up easily and the per country limits apply for Indians and Chinese. Where as for EB-2, the per country limits do not apply as the ROW applicants are not that many.
As a result EB-3 quota is used up easily and the per country limits apply for Indians and Chinese. Where as for EB-2, the per country limits do not apply as the ROW applicants are not that many.
more...
willIWill
11-11 06:01 PM
Questions about Quarterly Spill Over with respect to Yearly Country Limit.
Since we are on this Topic, Do any IV Users know or can point links to articles/statute for the following questions to gain a better understanding ?
- Is the ‘Yearly per Country Quota’ broken down and established for every Quarter? I.e. 1/4th of the 7% yearly limit
- So if assuming the quarterly Country quota holds and the USCIS does the spillover to the over subscribed countries in one quarter.
Then for the next quarter what numbers will they assess for the quota count? Is it just the standard quarterly limit or the ‘quarterly limit + the spill over that they did the previous quarter’? And what if that exceeds the 7% yearly limit and how will they proceed forward from there.
Thanks.
Since we are on this Topic, Do any IV Users know or can point links to articles/statute for the following questions to gain a better understanding ?
- Is the ‘Yearly per Country Quota’ broken down and established for every Quarter? I.e. 1/4th of the 7% yearly limit
- So if assuming the quarterly Country quota holds and the USCIS does the spillover to the over subscribed countries in one quarter.
Then for the next quarter what numbers will they assess for the quota count? Is it just the standard quarterly limit or the ‘quarterly limit + the spill over that they did the previous quarter’? And what if that exceeds the 7% yearly limit and how will they proceed forward from there.
Thanks.
hot Buy sex Funny toy, massager,
dealsnet
03-19 08:17 AM
See Ron Gotcher's Immigration news letter.
http://imminfo.com/resources/newsletter/2008-03Newsletter.pdf
http://imminfo.com/resources/newsletter/2008-03Newsletter.pdf
more...
house Sexy Sex Funny Commercial
stirGC
02-17 04:11 PM
I toally agree with Retrohatao. If we don't raise this issue soon, most of the members will suffer later on this, say 1-4 more years waiting?
tattoo Funny Bunny Sex!
senthil1
02-19 12:28 AM
What do you wish? You need gc the moment you enter the country? If anyone who stays 5 years get green card.That is excellent if legal or illegal immigrant. This is apart from 140K regular quota. This will reduce backlog substantially.
If you are lazy enough to contact your representative and Obama, you should not complain for not getting your voice heard. Each and every email matter. Also contact Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee [D, TX-18] on her website. contact all. It wont take 5 minutes.
Dear (Congressman/woman, Pres. Obama):
Recently an immigration bill was presented in the congress. The HR 264 is embarrassing for legal immigrants.
1) People who are illegal here for more than 5 years will get green card/path to citizenship but people who are legally here for 4 years and 11 months gets nothing.
2) HR 264 says "continuous presence of 5 years". Of course illegal immigrants can't leave the country and they will fulfill this requirement, but legal immigrants can leave country so might have left country for even 3 or 4 months in last 5-6 years to visit home country or any other reason including business. Although brief discontinuity is said to be okay but what if some legal immigrant leave country to be his/her parents for 2 months in last 5 years? So, this continuous presence rule is tailor cut to include illegal immigrants and exclude legal immigrants.
Is this what law abiding get when they follow rules? I request you to make sure that legal immigrants are ahead of illegals in every way. An illegal should not be awarded for being in US for 5 years while a legal, law abiding, tax paying legal immigrant is offered nothing for being in US for 3 or 4 years.
Kind regards
(Your name)
https://writerep.house.gov/htbin/wrep_save
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
Now click on the links above and copy paste this stuff there. IT IS IMPORTANT....
If you are lazy enough to contact your representative and Obama, you should not complain for not getting your voice heard. Each and every email matter. Also contact Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee [D, TX-18] on her website. contact all. It wont take 5 minutes.
Dear (Congressman/woman, Pres. Obama):
Recently an immigration bill was presented in the congress. The HR 264 is embarrassing for legal immigrants.
1) People who are illegal here for more than 5 years will get green card/path to citizenship but people who are legally here for 4 years and 11 months gets nothing.
2) HR 264 says "continuous presence of 5 years". Of course illegal immigrants can't leave the country and they will fulfill this requirement, but legal immigrants can leave country so might have left country for even 3 or 4 months in last 5-6 years to visit home country or any other reason including business. Although brief discontinuity is said to be okay but what if some legal immigrant leave country to be his/her parents for 2 months in last 5 years? So, this continuous presence rule is tailor cut to include illegal immigrants and exclude legal immigrants.
Is this what law abiding get when they follow rules? I request you to make sure that legal immigrants are ahead of illegals in every way. An illegal should not be awarded for being in US for 5 years while a legal, law abiding, tax paying legal immigrant is offered nothing for being in US for 3 or 4 years.
Kind regards
(Your name)
https://writerep.house.gov/htbin/wrep_save
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
Now click on the links above and copy paste this stuff there. IT IS IMPORTANT....
more...
pictures Eye Love Sex, Funny by Ron
alisa
01-21 02:13 AM
Anyone??
This is all for EB-3.
I think this is the best case scenario.
Pardon my ignorance, but I am assuming that EB-2 eats up from EB-3's numbers, and so EB-2 wait times will be better than what is estimated here for EB-3, at the expense of the EB-3 waiting times ofcourse.
For India:
Depletion_rate = 10500/year
Accumulation_rate = 19500/year
For ROW:
Depletion_rate = 25000/year (Kinda curves-fits to retire all 2001 backlog by 2006, and 2002 backlog by 2008)
Accumulation_rate = 19500/year (Estimated to be the same as that of India)
All numbers rounded off. No
For 2001: Year_current = 2001 + (123194/Depletion_rate)
For 2002: Year_current = 2002 + (160274/Depletion_rate)
For 2003 and later
Year_current = Year_applied + ( (Year_applied-2002)*(Accumulation_rate-Depletion_rate) + 160274) / Depletion_rate
Here are the results. YA is year applied. YC is Year your PD will be current.
No processing delay assumed.
...........India.. ROW
D_rate 10000 25000
A_rate 19500 19500
YA YC YC
2001 2013 2006
2002 2018 2008
2003 2020 2009
2004 2022 2010
2005 2024 2011
2006 2026 2012
2007 2028 2012
2008 2030 2013
2009 2032 2014
2010 2034 2015
I am open to suggestions on how this model can be improved.
If this model, and these estimates are reasonably accurate, lets come out with our own visa bulletin.
This is all for EB-3.
I think this is the best case scenario.
Pardon my ignorance, but I am assuming that EB-2 eats up from EB-3's numbers, and so EB-2 wait times will be better than what is estimated here for EB-3, at the expense of the EB-3 waiting times ofcourse.
For India:
Depletion_rate = 10500/year
Accumulation_rate = 19500/year
For ROW:
Depletion_rate = 25000/year (Kinda curves-fits to retire all 2001 backlog by 2006, and 2002 backlog by 2008)
Accumulation_rate = 19500/year (Estimated to be the same as that of India)
All numbers rounded off. No
For 2001: Year_current = 2001 + (123194/Depletion_rate)
For 2002: Year_current = 2002 + (160274/Depletion_rate)
For 2003 and later
Year_current = Year_applied + ( (Year_applied-2002)*(Accumulation_rate-Depletion_rate) + 160274) / Depletion_rate
Here are the results. YA is year applied. YC is Year your PD will be current.
No processing delay assumed.
...........India.. ROW
D_rate 10000 25000
A_rate 19500 19500
YA YC YC
2001 2013 2006
2002 2018 2008
2003 2020 2009
2004 2022 2010
2005 2024 2011
2006 2026 2012
2007 2028 2012
2008 2030 2013
2009 2032 2014
2010 2034 2015
I am open to suggestions on how this model can be improved.
If this model, and these estimates are reasonably accurate, lets come out with our own visa bulletin.
dresses Road Signs Story for Sex with
WAIT_FOR_EVER_GC
07-13 03:44 PM
I am current now (PD: Feb 16th,06) and last time when i was current in 2008 for a month i got an RFE. Even though the attorney replied to the RFE in 3 days, all my case status shows is RFE response received.
Ours is a big company and close 2000 people applied for 485 during the July 2007 fiasco and we were asked to send the G28 forms to the attorney by mail with no signature reqd. Apparently almost every got an RFE for that.
I wish i could get to know if RFE was all taken care of and my case is pending for a VISA number. Any way to know if thats the case gurus?
Why did you not open an SR. I was in the same situation, my company replied back to the RFE and the status still says we recieved your RFE. I opened an SR to find out my position this March, they said they are waiting for visa to get current.
Try opening an SR and just find status.
Ours is a big company and close 2000 people applied for 485 during the July 2007 fiasco and we were asked to send the G28 forms to the attorney by mail with no signature reqd. Apparently almost every got an RFE for that.
I wish i could get to know if RFE was all taken care of and my case is pending for a VISA number. Any way to know if thats the case gurus?
Why did you not open an SR. I was in the same situation, my company replied back to the RFE and the status still says we recieved your RFE. I opened an SR to find out my position this March, they said they are waiting for visa to get current.
Try opening an SR and just find status.
more...
makeup Fabulously Funny
ozone123
07-16 09:25 PM
Just posted this reply at http://www.numbersusa.com/helpform
Hello,
I happened to come across your fax initiative "Ask your Members of Congress to oppose the SKIL Act H-1B increases".
Seems like you have got many facts wrong.
I'm surprised that an advocacy group as yours would try to make statements that would dilute your own credibility.
Below are some corrections,
"(1) The six-year visas allow foreign workers to bring in their families, and guarantee thousands of anchor babies."
The above statement is a matter of perspective. People can still come on visitor visas and have babies here.In any case, I personally do know of people who have gone back to their own countries to have their babies.
"(2) H-1B salaries are tax-exempt - no FICA, no federal or state income taxes. They can live at the same level as tax-paying Americans at a lower cost. Therefore, Congress allows foreigners to "low-ball" American workers."
The above statement in COMPLETELY incorrect.
Everyone on H1-B is required to pay federal, state, medicaid, Social Security and other taxes that any other native employee would pay.
On the other hand, H1-B employees dont stand to gain from the Social Security when they relocate back to their country after 6 years.
(3) H-1Bs can leave the job they came to fill and seek other jobs, not necessarily in the "hard to fill" category.
This is incorrect too.H1-B requires labor clearance and specific skills, even for h1-b transfers.
(4) Most H-1Bs are of a "protected" ethnic group, so H-1Bs have an affirmative action preference when competing with Americans for the same jobs.
You got to be kidding.There is no such thing.
I would appreciate it if you can quote any official source of this info.
Well,I'm sure that the well versed senators and congressmen will be aware of these facts, and you are only losing you own credibility with them.
The trust will be out soon.
Sincerely.
XXXXX
Hello,
I happened to come across your fax initiative "Ask your Members of Congress to oppose the SKIL Act H-1B increases".
Seems like you have got many facts wrong.
I'm surprised that an advocacy group as yours would try to make statements that would dilute your own credibility.
Below are some corrections,
"(1) The six-year visas allow foreign workers to bring in their families, and guarantee thousands of anchor babies."
The above statement is a matter of perspective. People can still come on visitor visas and have babies here.In any case, I personally do know of people who have gone back to their own countries to have their babies.
"(2) H-1B salaries are tax-exempt - no FICA, no federal or state income taxes. They can live at the same level as tax-paying Americans at a lower cost. Therefore, Congress allows foreigners to "low-ball" American workers."
The above statement in COMPLETELY incorrect.
Everyone on H1-B is required to pay federal, state, medicaid, Social Security and other taxes that any other native employee would pay.
On the other hand, H1-B employees dont stand to gain from the Social Security when they relocate back to their country after 6 years.
(3) H-1Bs can leave the job they came to fill and seek other jobs, not necessarily in the "hard to fill" category.
This is incorrect too.H1-B requires labor clearance and specific skills, even for h1-b transfers.
(4) Most H-1Bs are of a "protected" ethnic group, so H-1Bs have an affirmative action preference when competing with Americans for the same jobs.
You got to be kidding.There is no such thing.
I would appreciate it if you can quote any official source of this info.
Well,I'm sure that the well versed senators and congressmen will be aware of these facts, and you are only losing you own credibility with them.
The trust will be out soon.
Sincerely.
XXXXX
girlfriend funny sex names. funny graphs
gimme_GC2006
04-06 11:29 PM
good post ek_bechara!
ppl, think for yourself. don't believe in the rumor unless it happens to YOU!
btw, GCs are in separate immigration line at the airport, so I seriously doubt any H1B interview happened "right in front" of a GC holder. That's pure .. well you know what!
When is your next india trip.?
in 2006, In JFK, (this is not from friend->friend->friend->friend), Citizens and non-Citizens formed two lines..right next to each other..few officers were dedicated to USC, some of them to others..when there were no USC, they handled H1Bs
Now how did I notice it all this in 10 mins or so..well..that explains..it has to be a rumour.
:D
ppl, think for yourself. don't believe in the rumor unless it happens to YOU!
btw, GCs are in separate immigration line at the airport, so I seriously doubt any H1B interview happened "right in front" of a GC holder. That's pure .. well you know what!
When is your next india trip.?
in 2006, In JFK, (this is not from friend->friend->friend->friend), Citizens and non-Citizens formed two lines..right next to each other..few officers were dedicated to USC, some of them to others..when there were no USC, they handled H1Bs
Now how did I notice it all this in 10 mins or so..well..that explains..it has to be a rumour.
:D
hairstyles prostitute, sex | 7
sc3
10-16 06:05 PM
What happened to your sense of judgment, whoever said that USCIS is doing it maliciously? They reacted for sure but within legal boundaries. I do not understand why you keep twisted people’s answers.
I havent twisted anyone's answers. When you (and others) say "reacted" you mean that they are intentionally shafting you in some way. Do you dispute that? Why is the very first response to this idea something to the tune of "..and see the cutoff go back to ice ages". It clearly shows that people are saying USCIS will "revolt" against you (not necessarily in as many words).
That is exactly I am saying, I am asking why should it be this way, this is totally wrong. They should go by PD. Even if my application was not moved to another centre mine still would not have gotten approved because I applied in Aug and not July. I mentioned that to tell you that I have to wait even more now.
Now if you ask me why I applied in Aug and not in Jul, it is because my family was not in US at that time. If you had told me beforehand about the impending fiasco I wouldn’t have sent them in the first place. I had to call them back and cancel my trip spending hundreds of $s.
Why is it not sustainable, now you are defending something that is wrong, why should I have to wait though my GC was started ages before?
Let's see here; I don't need to know why you did not apply earlier, that is your personal matter. But answer me this.
I have a PD of late 2002 (EB3), and haven't been able to apply due to personal reasons. Now when the PD becomes current. I apply and the following bulletin further advances the PD. Do you think that I should be given preference over someone who had no personal obligations and applied in 2007, that is to say, should the entire system be ground to a halt because I am a late filer?
Now put yourself in the earlier RD's applicant? What will be your answer? Do you think someone who delays for personal reason be given a free pass just because he has an earlier PD??
I know you dont want to hear it, but the current system of RD based processing is a good system. Your grouse probably is that they advanced the PDs so much further when there was enough demand from earlier PDs. If you argue on that premise, I will be very supportive. But I am insensitive to "I have an earlier PD, so I should get my GC first".
PD has its place in the system, however it does not play a role in processing order.
Just because I said USCIS is doing something wrong (not following processing order..) doesn’t mean I said that DOS did something right.. you keep assuming things..
You were blaming USCIS for the Perm/BEC debacle, I did not assume anything you haven't already said.
Again you are running your imagination wild, who blamed all the other things on USCIS?..
I guess your computer has a bug, it is not showing the winkies and the smiles properly. Get a technician to look at it.
Dude, show me one post of mine which said anything against the idea. I even gave a green for what he is trying to do, at least he is doing something while the rest of us are watching….
I was responding to "bec", and you ended up debating the issue by supporting the idea that USCIS retaliated because of the July 07. I guess that makes it fair play for people to assume that you are against the original idea. I you consider it to be overreaching to make such connection, I apologize for that.
I havent twisted anyone's answers. When you (and others) say "reacted" you mean that they are intentionally shafting you in some way. Do you dispute that? Why is the very first response to this idea something to the tune of "..and see the cutoff go back to ice ages". It clearly shows that people are saying USCIS will "revolt" against you (not necessarily in as many words).
That is exactly I am saying, I am asking why should it be this way, this is totally wrong. They should go by PD. Even if my application was not moved to another centre mine still would not have gotten approved because I applied in Aug and not July. I mentioned that to tell you that I have to wait even more now.
Now if you ask me why I applied in Aug and not in Jul, it is because my family was not in US at that time. If you had told me beforehand about the impending fiasco I wouldn’t have sent them in the first place. I had to call them back and cancel my trip spending hundreds of $s.
Why is it not sustainable, now you are defending something that is wrong, why should I have to wait though my GC was started ages before?
Let's see here; I don't need to know why you did not apply earlier, that is your personal matter. But answer me this.
I have a PD of late 2002 (EB3), and haven't been able to apply due to personal reasons. Now when the PD becomes current. I apply and the following bulletin further advances the PD. Do you think that I should be given preference over someone who had no personal obligations and applied in 2007, that is to say, should the entire system be ground to a halt because I am a late filer?
Now put yourself in the earlier RD's applicant? What will be your answer? Do you think someone who delays for personal reason be given a free pass just because he has an earlier PD??
I know you dont want to hear it, but the current system of RD based processing is a good system. Your grouse probably is that they advanced the PDs so much further when there was enough demand from earlier PDs. If you argue on that premise, I will be very supportive. But I am insensitive to "I have an earlier PD, so I should get my GC first".
PD has its place in the system, however it does not play a role in processing order.
Just because I said USCIS is doing something wrong (not following processing order..) doesn’t mean I said that DOS did something right.. you keep assuming things..
You were blaming USCIS for the Perm/BEC debacle, I did not assume anything you haven't already said.
Again you are running your imagination wild, who blamed all the other things on USCIS?..
I guess your computer has a bug, it is not showing the winkies and the smiles properly. Get a technician to look at it.
Dude, show me one post of mine which said anything against the idea. I even gave a green for what he is trying to do, at least he is doing something while the rest of us are watching….
I was responding to "bec", and you ended up debating the issue by supporting the idea that USCIS retaliated because of the July 07. I guess that makes it fair play for people to assume that you are against the original idea. I you consider it to be overreaching to make such connection, I apologize for that.
immigrant2007
08-12 08:10 AM
Guys,
I have thought of one more idea..
We know very well that by current interpretation EB3 is permanently fixed to the back of the line. NO EB3 will get processed until the last EB2 who files in the year 2013 gets approved, (counting out the regular quota).
And why are we here? Many believe (or know) that it is because of the 245(i) amnesty signed by Clinton and Bush.
Isn't it ironic that the illegals that were put in the line are not being moved back as the line expands? Why only we legals? Maybe there is some scope to challenge the 245(i) visa number allocation and point out that legal immigrants are waiting in line then how can you admit illegals in front
Anyone having the facts and numbers of 245(i)?
I have asked this question over and over again but Iv doesn't seem to entertain it. IV number crunchers are busy developing and applying patent for a sofware on GC estimation.
245(i) consumed EB3 worldwide quota and is responsilbe to backlog along with deliberate delay by USCIs.
But thas history now, what do we do in future matter more...I think If economy doesn't improves EB3s are infor a big shock.
Post election if Republicans win then they will do their best to deny GCs to all backlog guys so that they can enjoy thier loot (Social secuirty,foreclosed homes)...
I have thought of one more idea..
We know very well that by current interpretation EB3 is permanently fixed to the back of the line. NO EB3 will get processed until the last EB2 who files in the year 2013 gets approved, (counting out the regular quota).
And why are we here? Many believe (or know) that it is because of the 245(i) amnesty signed by Clinton and Bush.
Isn't it ironic that the illegals that were put in the line are not being moved back as the line expands? Why only we legals? Maybe there is some scope to challenge the 245(i) visa number allocation and point out that legal immigrants are waiting in line then how can you admit illegals in front
Anyone having the facts and numbers of 245(i)?
I have asked this question over and over again but Iv doesn't seem to entertain it. IV number crunchers are busy developing and applying patent for a sofware on GC estimation.
245(i) consumed EB3 worldwide quota and is responsilbe to backlog along with deliberate delay by USCIs.
But thas history now, what do we do in future matter more...I think If economy doesn't improves EB3s are infor a big shock.
Post election if Republicans win then they will do their best to deny GCs to all backlog guys so that they can enjoy thier loot (Social secuirty,foreclosed homes)...
h1b_forever
03-09 01:10 PM
I am getting Red for this. Great.
Some people seem to feel better by giving others red.
Some people seem to feel better by giving others red.
0 comments:
Post a Comment