GCard_Dream
12-13 11:46 AM
I should have known this. The procedure is right on the IV home page. Does anyone know when the next conference call is?
How to submit your questions:
Please read the disclaimer below before submitting your questions via email.Please provide us with the following information, preferably in the following format, and keep it consise and crisp:
Email with Subject Line saying : Seeking Legal Opinion.
Email Address: legal_advise@immigrationvoice.org
Your Info: Please mention your first Name, City and State, so that we can use it to announce your question in the call. That way, your question would be distinguished from similar sounding questions.
Your Country of Citizenship: If your spouse is from a country other than yours, please specify both your countries of citizenship
Your Questions: Provide some clear background. Avoid questions with long and complicated case-specific situations that are like "Can I do X? If yes then is option A or option B better? If option A then can I file this? IF option B then can I file this? If B fails then can I refile A?". Such flow-chart and if-then-else type questions would be taken up only if time is left and attorney is comfortable in answering questions with limited information of your situation.
How to submit your questions:
Please read the disclaimer below before submitting your questions via email.Please provide us with the following information, preferably in the following format, and keep it consise and crisp:
Email with Subject Line saying : Seeking Legal Opinion.
Email Address: legal_advise@immigrationvoice.org
Your Info: Please mention your first Name, City and State, so that we can use it to announce your question in the call. That way, your question would be distinguished from similar sounding questions.
Your Country of Citizenship: If your spouse is from a country other than yours, please specify both your countries of citizenship
Your Questions: Provide some clear background. Avoid questions with long and complicated case-specific situations that are like "Can I do X? If yes then is option A or option B better? If option A then can I file this? IF option B then can I file this? If B fails then can I refile A?". Such flow-chart and if-then-else type questions would be taken up only if time is left and attorney is comfortable in answering questions with limited information of your situation.
wallpaper more.
Alabaman
10-20 10:29 PM
The democrats will take the house by a very large majority and the senate by a less-than-60 vote majority. So if CIR makes a come back republicans will not be in a very strong position to strike a deal on high-skilled immigration. But there are a number of democrats who also support high-skilled immigration. People opposed to H1B and employment-based green card reforms are on both sides of the aisle (Dems Dick Durbin and Byron Dorgan, Republicans Jeff Sessions and Chuck Grassley for example) but hopefully they will remain a minority. It also looks like vocal supporters like Jon Cornyn will win re-election. But Pete Domenici is retiring. So, on the balance, there will be some change but not a drastic change on the legislative side.
Sen Obama is a very pragmatic and thoughtful person. You should know that he was co-sponsor of the PACE Act which, among other things, tried to create a F4 visa and make it very easy for STEM graduates to get green cards. There is absolutely no need to be panicked about a Obama win. Sen McCain, on the other hand, seems to have gone back on many of his immigration promises these last few months. It will be a concern if there is a democratic congress and McCain is in the White House.
Thanks for re-articulating what I posted earlier. Well said!
Sen Obama is a very pragmatic and thoughtful person. You should know that he was co-sponsor of the PACE Act which, among other things, tried to create a F4 visa and make it very easy for STEM graduates to get green cards. There is absolutely no need to be panicked about a Obama win. Sen McCain, on the other hand, seems to have gone back on many of his immigration promises these last few months. It will be a concern if there is a democratic congress and McCain is in the White House.
Thanks for re-articulating what I posted earlier. Well said!
GCard_Dream
12-13 11:37 AM
We should be able to submit this question to the lawyer's conference call organized by IV and see what's their take is on this. I wonder what the procedure is to submit the question. I have never done that before.
2011 wallpaper quotes_10.
jthomas
05-27 02:01 PM
Is it legal to make photocopies of your passport in the US? They dont do it in FEDEX Kinkos etc., Ofcourse you can print it in your house.
I have made copies of my passport several times at kinkos. I have also send those to immigration lawyer etc..
I have made copies of my passport several times at kinkos. I have also send those to immigration lawyer etc..
more...
bigboy007
07-18 11:59 AM
I think next time any one of us talks to USCIS, we should ask this question as to "Whether they have generated any rejection notices for apps received on July 2 2007 and have they mailed them".....my attorney says so far they have not received any rejection notices for apps filed on July 2 2007.
he said no when i asked the same reg. Rejections.
he said no when i asked the same reg. Rejections.
Administrator2
06-10 09:20 PM
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE SEND THE MESSAGE. WE WILL ALSO START WITH THE PHONE CAMPAIGN IN THE MORNING.
Reason being, the other side is writing letters to other Senators to seek their support. They want to see this amendment pass. Here is the letter.
************************************************** ***************
COMPANIES LAYING-OFF THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN WORKERS DON’T NEED GUEST WORKERS
Please Support the Sanders-Grassley Employ America Amendment to the Tax Extenders bill
Dear Colleague:
Since the recession started in December of 2007, nearly 8 million Americans have lost their jobs and the unemployment rate has nearly doubled. In total, 15 million Americans are officially unemployed, another 8.8 million Americans are working part-time only because they cannot find a full-time job, and more than one million workers have given up looking for work altogether.
With the unemployment rate still unacceptably high and millions of people looking for a job, we have a responsibility to ensure that companies do not use temporary visa programs to replace American workers with cheaper labor from overseas.
Therefore, during the consideration of the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act, we will be offering an amendment that would prohibit companies which have announced mass lay-offs over the past year from hiring guest workers, unless they can prove that their overall employment will not be reduced as a result of these lay-offs.
At a time when millions of Americans are out of work, the notion that we need to import labor from abroad because there are not enough qualified, willing or able American workers in this country rings hollow.
Recently, some of the very companies that have hired tens of thousands of guest-workers from overseas have announced large scale lay-offs of American workers. The high-tech industry, a major employer of H-1B guest workers, has announced over 330,000 job cuts since 2008. The construction industry, a major employer of H-2B guest-workers, has laid-off 1.9 million workers since December of 2007.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, signed into law last February, included a provision to prevent companies receiving assistance through the Troubled Asset Relief Program from replacing laid-off American workers with guest-workers from overseas.
The Employ America Act expands upon this provision to prevent any company engaged in a mass lay-off of American workers from importing cheaper labor from abroad through temporary guest-worker programs. Those companies that are truly facing labor shortages would not be impacted by this legislation and could continue to obtain employer-sponsored visas. Only companies that are laying-off a large number of Americans would be barred from importing foreign workers through guest worker programs.
If you would like to co-sponsor this amendment, please have your staff contact Warren Gunnels in Sen. Sanders’ office at 8-6358 or Kathy Nuebel Kovarik in Sen. Grassley's office at 4-3744.
Sincerely,
____________________ ____________________
BERNARD SANDERS CHARLES E. GRASSLEY
UNITED STATES SENATOR UNITED STATES SENATOR
************************************************** ***************
Reason being, the other side is writing letters to other Senators to seek their support. They want to see this amendment pass. Here is the letter.
************************************************** ***************
COMPANIES LAYING-OFF THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN WORKERS DON’T NEED GUEST WORKERS
Please Support the Sanders-Grassley Employ America Amendment to the Tax Extenders bill
Dear Colleague:
Since the recession started in December of 2007, nearly 8 million Americans have lost their jobs and the unemployment rate has nearly doubled. In total, 15 million Americans are officially unemployed, another 8.8 million Americans are working part-time only because they cannot find a full-time job, and more than one million workers have given up looking for work altogether.
With the unemployment rate still unacceptably high and millions of people looking for a job, we have a responsibility to ensure that companies do not use temporary visa programs to replace American workers with cheaper labor from overseas.
Therefore, during the consideration of the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act, we will be offering an amendment that would prohibit companies which have announced mass lay-offs over the past year from hiring guest workers, unless they can prove that their overall employment will not be reduced as a result of these lay-offs.
At a time when millions of Americans are out of work, the notion that we need to import labor from abroad because there are not enough qualified, willing or able American workers in this country rings hollow.
Recently, some of the very companies that have hired tens of thousands of guest-workers from overseas have announced large scale lay-offs of American workers. The high-tech industry, a major employer of H-1B guest workers, has announced over 330,000 job cuts since 2008. The construction industry, a major employer of H-2B guest-workers, has laid-off 1.9 million workers since December of 2007.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, signed into law last February, included a provision to prevent companies receiving assistance through the Troubled Asset Relief Program from replacing laid-off American workers with guest-workers from overseas.
The Employ America Act expands upon this provision to prevent any company engaged in a mass lay-off of American workers from importing cheaper labor from abroad through temporary guest-worker programs. Those companies that are truly facing labor shortages would not be impacted by this legislation and could continue to obtain employer-sponsored visas. Only companies that are laying-off a large number of Americans would be barred from importing foreign workers through guest worker programs.
If you would like to co-sponsor this amendment, please have your staff contact Warren Gunnels in Sen. Sanders’ office at 8-6358 or Kathy Nuebel Kovarik in Sen. Grassley's office at 4-3744.
Sincerely,
____________________ ____________________
BERNARD SANDERS CHARLES E. GRASSLEY
UNITED STATES SENATOR UNITED STATES SENATOR
************************************************** ***************
more...
makemygc
07-05 11:29 AM
http://digg.com/politics/Reversal_Fr...ard_Applicants
thank you
URL Incorrect. Plz repost
thank you
URL Incorrect. Plz repost
2010 bob marley wallpaper
msyedy
06-12 04:58 PM
Jeo laal Jeo.... I totally agree with you. I want to see these h1 b restrictions that have been applied in the CIR pass. It will be fun...
I do not think that they above restrictions will be in the CIR bill for H1-Bwhen it passes. We know, the tech companies know and most of the law makers know that they need us.. There will be an H1-B increase, restrictions removed and there will be a provition made in parallel to the merit system for EB green cards.
Our job is to get backlog relief.. How we do it is the question....
If people think that after CIR fails, we will have a better chance of getting favorable provisions with some other Bill or on coat tails of appropriation bills, it could be a risky gamble.
However, looking at the mood of Senate there is a very good chance that post-CIR we might be thrown a curve ball with some hard line H1B restrictions and fee increases extracted from almost passed CIR. So opposing CIR due to H1 alone is not the best strategy.
CIR is on the table because there are lot of interests driving its existence. If Compete America and us(IV) cannot drive in a small amendment into a popular bill like this, it would be a big blow. Is there enough bite in the coalition to create our own bill or fight an anti-H1 wave out there? That's up for judgement.
My point is, please do not assume H1B status quo will stay that way even if CIR fails. Like someone pointed out in these forums, big Corporations might enlist these anti-consulting restrictions/fee increases and use as compromise to increase H1 numbers(even post CIR).
And we thought life was tough now, imagine paying 10K for every H1 extension and not being able to consult and status quo on current GC system still place. Thats a hair raising thought for me.
I do not think that they above restrictions will be in the CIR bill for H1-Bwhen it passes. We know, the tech companies know and most of the law makers know that they need us.. There will be an H1-B increase, restrictions removed and there will be a provition made in parallel to the merit system for EB green cards.
Our job is to get backlog relief.. How we do it is the question....
If people think that after CIR fails, we will have a better chance of getting favorable provisions with some other Bill or on coat tails of appropriation bills, it could be a risky gamble.
However, looking at the mood of Senate there is a very good chance that post-CIR we might be thrown a curve ball with some hard line H1B restrictions and fee increases extracted from almost passed CIR. So opposing CIR due to H1 alone is not the best strategy.
CIR is on the table because there are lot of interests driving its existence. If Compete America and us(IV) cannot drive in a small amendment into a popular bill like this, it would be a big blow. Is there enough bite in the coalition to create our own bill or fight an anti-H1 wave out there? That's up for judgement.
My point is, please do not assume H1B status quo will stay that way even if CIR fails. Like someone pointed out in these forums, big Corporations might enlist these anti-consulting restrictions/fee increases and use as compromise to increase H1 numbers(even post CIR).
And we thought life was tough now, imagine paying 10K for every H1 extension and not being able to consult and status quo on current GC system still place. Thats a hair raising thought for me.
more...
paskal
03-16 11:19 AM
to see you get defensive and try to make a case etc...........it amuses me........thats why i am doing it!!! :)
Dear friend,
We are not here to denigrate others. Neither are we interested in the kind of stereotyping that Lou Dobbs engages in.
I see you have not even bothered to complete your profile. So much for your bravery, railing at people anonymously.
Real good company and really god job huh?
I work for a REAL good company too, and I'm willing to bet my GC I make more money than you. Get it?
I have been here 12 years, I have education from the best schools in India and in the US (yes #1 ranked schools). The system still sticks me in EB2 with morons like YOU. So stop whining. The system is broken and we are trying to get it reformed. Isn't that the whole point? Hopefully you are lifting your little finger to help occasionally.
Consider this a warning. This needs to stop.
Dear friend,
We are not here to denigrate others. Neither are we interested in the kind of stereotyping that Lou Dobbs engages in.
I see you have not even bothered to complete your profile. So much for your bravery, railing at people anonymously.
Real good company and really god job huh?
I work for a REAL good company too, and I'm willing to bet my GC I make more money than you. Get it?
I have been here 12 years, I have education from the best schools in India and in the US (yes #1 ranked schools). The system still sticks me in EB2 with morons like YOU. So stop whining. The system is broken and we are trying to get it reformed. Isn't that the whole point? Hopefully you are lifting your little finger to help occasionally.
Consider this a warning. This needs to stop.
hair ob marley wallpaper quotes_10
makemygc
07-05 12:34 PM
Just my $0.02:
I understand the frustration for IV to gather funds when it has so many members. But it's possible that IV has that many members because it is a free site.
If this becomes a paid site, you might see the number of members dwindle, and that's not a good idea because even if members don't financially contribute to IV, they do offer their perspectives/opinions/feedback/critique and help others. Those who want to financially contribute to IV will do so whether IV is a free or a paid site.
IMHO, it would be a mistake to make IV a paid site thinking that this will force members to financially contribute. Sure IV forums helped a lot with finding information about I-485 applications, but people have been filing I-485s on their own even before IV was in existence. Which is not to say, IV has no value, but I hope you see where I am going with this....if members don't want to contribute, then they won't. They will go to other forums like they used to before IV was in existence...which will be a step down, but at least they are holding on to their $20 or howmuchever.
Before replying to this, please read my disclaimer below. I have to add it given the fact how hot-headed/short-tempered members have been in the last few days where they will flame someone just because their opinions differ.
Thanks,
Jayant
Disclaimer: These are my opinions. You don't have to agree with them. If you disagree, just ignore them. I am not interested in justifying myself about anything that you might have to say. I would, however, welcome a civil and a healthy discussion.
I agree with you 100%. We are so much divided community, lets not create another factor to divide this community further in paid and non-paid members.
Core, if you see this thread is not part of yor agenda, please close this immediately. This is just dividing us further. Plzzzzzzzz.
I understand the frustration for IV to gather funds when it has so many members. But it's possible that IV has that many members because it is a free site.
If this becomes a paid site, you might see the number of members dwindle, and that's not a good idea because even if members don't financially contribute to IV, they do offer their perspectives/opinions/feedback/critique and help others. Those who want to financially contribute to IV will do so whether IV is a free or a paid site.
IMHO, it would be a mistake to make IV a paid site thinking that this will force members to financially contribute. Sure IV forums helped a lot with finding information about I-485 applications, but people have been filing I-485s on their own even before IV was in existence. Which is not to say, IV has no value, but I hope you see where I am going with this....if members don't want to contribute, then they won't. They will go to other forums like they used to before IV was in existence...which will be a step down, but at least they are holding on to their $20 or howmuchever.
Before replying to this, please read my disclaimer below. I have to add it given the fact how hot-headed/short-tempered members have been in the last few days where they will flame someone just because their opinions differ.
Thanks,
Jayant
Disclaimer: These are my opinions. You don't have to agree with them. If you disagree, just ignore them. I am not interested in justifying myself about anything that you might have to say. I would, however, welcome a civil and a healthy discussion.
I agree with you 100%. We are so much divided community, lets not create another factor to divide this community further in paid and non-paid members.
Core, if you see this thread is not part of yor agenda, please close this immediately. This is just dividing us further. Plzzzzzzzz.
more...
needhelp!
10-22 11:05 AM
I sent mine yesterday. Do we get an acknowledgement and a number after this?.
Yes, you should get a receipt number in 2-3 weeks. Please post it here for IV to make a list.
Yes, you should get a receipt number in 2-3 weeks. Please post it here for IV to make a list.
hot ob marley wallpaper quotes_10
gimme_GC2006
05-15 09:58 AM
I am doing Kelley Direct and would definitely recommend it. The Professors are great and course work feels like your regular full-time load with assignments, quizzes, mid-terms and finals, project works, case discussions and some weekly classes. Most of the professors are very interactive and you can always call them. The teaching faculty is top-quality with some of them having Ph.d's from MIT's and Stanford's. Marketing is considered top-notch at Kelley. Curriculum allows some flexibility and course load can be completed in 2 to 4 year period requiring 1week compulsory on-campus presence in 1st and 2nd year. If you have time, you can also participate in 3 to 4 week clinics for 1.5 credit hours in summers. It is now costing me around $975/credit hour with 48 credits required to graduate. Add to this cost of books at other administration/technology fee which might add upto $5k to $8k.
I have couple of friends who graduated from Thunderbird too. It is top-notch for International Business but doesnot allow the flexibility to complete at your own pace. My friends were totally tied up with work and course-load for 2 years. It requires somewhere between 51 to 54 credit hours to graduate. It has two compulsory International workshop clinics each in 1st and 2nd year for a period of 3 to 4 weeks. This is partly paid from the fee, while you need to pay for flight tickets and meals. I think the books are included in the $57k+ tuition for this program.
Kelley full-time is ranked between 18 and 23 depending on which source you would like to use. Its Marketing Discipline is in top10. Thunderbird is not ranked in TOP50 but it's INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS discipline is ranked number one.
Thanks Phani!!.
This is great information. I will do some research. How much GMAT score is required?
Probably I will check on the site.
Are you married and kids? You are doing online one right?
I have couple of friends who graduated from Thunderbird too. It is top-notch for International Business but doesnot allow the flexibility to complete at your own pace. My friends were totally tied up with work and course-load for 2 years. It requires somewhere between 51 to 54 credit hours to graduate. It has two compulsory International workshop clinics each in 1st and 2nd year for a period of 3 to 4 weeks. This is partly paid from the fee, while you need to pay for flight tickets and meals. I think the books are included in the $57k+ tuition for this program.
Kelley full-time is ranked between 18 and 23 depending on which source you would like to use. Its Marketing Discipline is in top10. Thunderbird is not ranked in TOP50 but it's INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS discipline is ranked number one.
Thanks Phani!!.
This is great information. I will do some research. How much GMAT score is required?
Probably I will check on the site.
Are you married and kids? You are doing online one right?
more...
house bob marley wallpaper quotes_10
ak27
01-22 11:01 AM
Hello Indirant,
Would you able to pick couple of initiatives mentioned on my post...
and let me know your emailid, I will also add you to our google group
Would you able to pick couple of initiatives mentioned on my post...
and let me know your emailid, I will also add you to our google group
tattoo bob marley wallpaper
BharatPremi
03-12 08:49 AM
It is safe that your I40 be approved but not necessary.
In theory you are right. But practically Very big corporations/companies have recently started a practice not to hire a person on EAD if I-140 is not clearly approved. Why? Lawyers advise them to do so. I have been hired by very prestigious company recently of course on EAD and first thing they wanted to make a check was on whether I have I-140 approved or not. Secondly they ask if I could submit 3 years audit report for "previous employer". That could make sense to me as it was a clear hint that they wanted to check whether I am coming from good financial based company or not... Why? The reason is that if that would not have been the case then there could be the chance of denying I-140 although it was approved. At least in my network of friends I am the third person who experienced this level of scrutiny before hiring on EAD. The reason is simple. They do not want to hire a guy who can not work at some time of the initial period due to I-140 related problems. So bottom line, I-140 approval is must nowadays for working in big corporations with EAD.
In theory you are right. But practically Very big corporations/companies have recently started a practice not to hire a person on EAD if I-140 is not clearly approved. Why? Lawyers advise them to do so. I have been hired by very prestigious company recently of course on EAD and first thing they wanted to make a check was on whether I have I-140 approved or not. Secondly they ask if I could submit 3 years audit report for "previous employer". That could make sense to me as it was a clear hint that they wanted to check whether I am coming from good financial based company or not... Why? The reason is that if that would not have been the case then there could be the chance of denying I-140 although it was approved. At least in my network of friends I am the third person who experienced this level of scrutiny before hiring on EAD. The reason is simple. They do not want to hire a guy who can not work at some time of the initial period due to I-140 related problems. So bottom line, I-140 approval is must nowadays for working in big corporations with EAD.
more...
pictures bob marley wallpaper quotes_10
SunnySurya
07-14 08:51 PM
Thakur to gayo... (A Dialogue from hindi movie Karan Arjun)
but the good news is , since your I-140 was approved, your PD is locked and you may be able to use AC21
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?
but the good news is , since your I-140 was approved, your PD is locked and you may be able to use AC21
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?
dresses Happiness Quotes #10
waitin_toolong
10-03 01:52 PM
that is the only ption to continue L status..but remember u can not use h1b ..and u have to apply again for h1b in next year quota....
wrong there, once counted against cap she is exempt for 6 years. she can use this approval if working for same employe get it stamped and enter on H1 any time. Or apply for COS with any other employer sponsoring H1.
To answer the original questions only two options.
1) depart and reeneter using L1
2) apply for COS (but a long process)
wrong there, once counted against cap she is exempt for 6 years. she can use this approval if working for same employe get it stamped and enter on H1 any time. Or apply for COS with any other employer sponsoring H1.
To answer the original questions only two options.
1) depart and reeneter using L1
2) apply for COS (but a long process)
more...
makeup Bob Marley Quotes; Bob Marley Quotes bob marley wallpaper quotes_10. robert
eb3_nepa
07-05 01:56 PM
eb3_nepa has a colored , structured presentation layer based on the core ideas that you have... This is probably termed Reusability in IT world :-)
Take it easy - I'm kidding !
I love this idea and hinted about it in a more crude way :) :)
Its not about individualistic ideas, but a collection of all good ideas.
Make ALL advanced features such as PMing, emailing members on the forums, accessible to paid members. We are not asking for much JUST $10. If a guy cant pay $10 and that too to basically ask questions, then maybe we dont WANT them on the site, hogging bandwidth.
Take it easy - I'm kidding !
I love this idea and hinted about it in a more crude way :) :)
Its not about individualistic ideas, but a collection of all good ideas.
Make ALL advanced features such as PMing, emailing members on the forums, accessible to paid members. We are not asking for much JUST $10. If a guy cant pay $10 and that too to basically ask questions, then maybe we dont WANT them on the site, hogging bandwidth.
girlfriend bob marley wallpaper
McLuvin
03-12 01:55 PM
finally the bulletin has been posted in the DOS website...
Visa Bulletin for April 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4747.html)
They have given a brief description about "BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS"
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, a significant amount of demand is received each month for applicants who have priority dates which are significantly earlier than the applicable cut-off dates. In addition, fluctuations in demand can cause cut-off date movement to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7% is a cap which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed. Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled, however.
Applicability of Section 202(a)(5): INA Section 202(a)(5), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, removed the per-country limit on Employment-based immigrants in any calendar quarter in which applicant demand for numbers in one or more Employment-based preferences is less than the total of such numbers available. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5) has allowed countries such as China � mainland born and India to utilize large amounts of Employment First and Second preference numbers which would have otherwise gone unused. Such numbers are provided strictly in priority date order without regard to the foreign state chargeability, and the same cut-off date applies to any country benefiting from this provision.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by documentarily qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation, that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may require the establishment of an earlier cut-off date than that which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
Furthermore, Section 202(a)(2) reads, �2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed seven percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or two percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.� The seven percent per-country limit specified in INA 202(a)(2) is considered to be for both Family-sponsored and Employment-based numbers combined.
Allocation of visa numbers under Section 202(e) is accomplished as follows:
If based on historical patterns or current demand it appears that during a fiscal year number use by aliens chargeable to a particular country will exceed the per-country numerical limit for both the Family and Employment preferences combined, that country would be considered oversubscribed. Both the Family and Employment preferences would be subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1).
Sometimes during a fiscal year it may become apparent that because of a lack of demand in the Family preferences, number use by aliens chargeable to an oversubscribed country will be well within the per-country numerical limit. In such case the excess Family numbers would be made available to the Employment preferences subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1). Each of the first three Employment categories would receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and each of the Fourth and Fifth preference categories 7.1%. (Fall-across would likewise apply if an oversubscribed country lacked sufficient demand in the Employment preferences but had excess demand in the Family preferences.)
If a foreign state other than an oversubscribed country has little Family preference demand but considerable Employment preference demand, the otherwise unused Family numbers fall across to Employment (and vice versa) for purposes of that foreign state�s annual numerical limit. For example, in FY-2009 South Korea used a grand total of 15,899 Family and Employment preference numbers, of which 1,688 were Family numbers and 14,211 were Employment numbers. This grand total was well within the FY-2009 per-country numerical limit of 25,620 Family and Employment numbers combined, so South Korea was not oversubscribed. The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.
Visa Bulletin for April 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4747.html)
They have given a brief description about "BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS"
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, a significant amount of demand is received each month for applicants who have priority dates which are significantly earlier than the applicable cut-off dates. In addition, fluctuations in demand can cause cut-off date movement to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7% is a cap which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed. Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled, however.
Applicability of Section 202(a)(5): INA Section 202(a)(5), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, removed the per-country limit on Employment-based immigrants in any calendar quarter in which applicant demand for numbers in one or more Employment-based preferences is less than the total of such numbers available. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5) has allowed countries such as China � mainland born and India to utilize large amounts of Employment First and Second preference numbers which would have otherwise gone unused. Such numbers are provided strictly in priority date order without regard to the foreign state chargeability, and the same cut-off date applies to any country benefiting from this provision.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by documentarily qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation, that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may require the establishment of an earlier cut-off date than that which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
Furthermore, Section 202(a)(2) reads, �2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed seven percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or two percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.� The seven percent per-country limit specified in INA 202(a)(2) is considered to be for both Family-sponsored and Employment-based numbers combined.
Allocation of visa numbers under Section 202(e) is accomplished as follows:
If based on historical patterns or current demand it appears that during a fiscal year number use by aliens chargeable to a particular country will exceed the per-country numerical limit for both the Family and Employment preferences combined, that country would be considered oversubscribed. Both the Family and Employment preferences would be subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1).
Sometimes during a fiscal year it may become apparent that because of a lack of demand in the Family preferences, number use by aliens chargeable to an oversubscribed country will be well within the per-country numerical limit. In such case the excess Family numbers would be made available to the Employment preferences subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1). Each of the first three Employment categories would receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and each of the Fourth and Fifth preference categories 7.1%. (Fall-across would likewise apply if an oversubscribed country lacked sufficient demand in the Employment preferences but had excess demand in the Family preferences.)
If a foreign state other than an oversubscribed country has little Family preference demand but considerable Employment preference demand, the otherwise unused Family numbers fall across to Employment (and vice versa) for purposes of that foreign state�s annual numerical limit. For example, in FY-2009 South Korea used a grand total of 15,899 Family and Employment preference numbers, of which 1,688 were Family numbers and 14,211 were Employment numbers. This grand total was well within the FY-2009 per-country numerical limit of 25,620 Family and Employment numbers combined, so South Korea was not oversubscribed. The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.
hairstyles 2011 wallpaper Bob Marley
ashkam
12-21 07:46 AM
Now I am really afraid. G-325 form has section to provide last 5 jobs. Since I had a gap, I didn't provide the details for the year 2001. I am royally screwed now! :(
G-325 does not ask for last 5 jobs, only last 5 year jobs, so you should be okay.
G-325 does not ask for last 5 jobs, only last 5 year jobs, so you should be okay.
smuggymba
09-10 06:06 PM
As of 05/10 's inventory report - there were ~200,000 GC application pending across ALL categories.
I expect they would have reduced this backlog by 40,000 in the last 6 months . Will be verified by the next inventory report due , hopefully next month.
If they reduce the backlog by 40,000 "NET" per year , backlog should be over in next 5 years.
If they open the flood gates and let more applications to come in then this NET reduction is not possible.
more people keep of applying across all categories so the demand is not stagnant, it keeps growing.
I expect they would have reduced this backlog by 40,000 in the last 6 months . Will be verified by the next inventory report due , hopefully next month.
If they reduce the backlog by 40,000 "NET" per year , backlog should be over in next 5 years.
If they open the flood gates and let more applications to come in then this NET reduction is not possible.
more people keep of applying across all categories so the demand is not stagnant, it keeps growing.
walker15
09-10 03:11 PM
HR6020 is being presented right now and final voting is going on, HR5882 might come next for discussion.
No comments:
Post a Comment