maine_gc
01-08 09:03 AM
Any Kentucky residents who are interested in meeting the lawmakers. Please email me your details and click on the link in my signature to join the KY State Chapter
wallpaper Another Gold Star For a
baburob2
01-11 01:00 PM
that's is just a summary, it is missing out other parts. the spouses, chidren etc are exempted from the quota and that would give a massive boost too .
look at numbersusa for more on it.
look at numbersusa for more on it.
Wendyzhu77
08-21 03:42 PM
I believe they already answered the question: they claimed the previous allocation scheme was wrong and the current is correct. There is nothing more you can possibly get by questioning on this issue. Even if there is anything behind the curtain, that explanation covers everything perfectly and there is nothing you can do about it.
We can definitely question them on how their understanding changed on visa spill over distribution.
We can definitely question them on how their understanding changed on visa spill over distribution.
2011 OCZ DDR2 PC2-6400 Gold 16GB
gaz
04-01 10:01 AM
Perhaps a little over-generalized.
Non-Donors like me have contributed to advocacy days. You still think we are free loaders?
not to hijack the conversation - but at some point, IV needs to distinguish between a donor, a contributor and a freeloader.
e.g. donors get access to all threads, contributors specific threads for which they have contributed and freeloaders general threads only. i guess that means setting up contributions at the thread level - not sure if thats possible right now.
Non-Donors like me have contributed to advocacy days. You still think we are free loaders?
not to hijack the conversation - but at some point, IV needs to distinguish between a donor, a contributor and a freeloader.
e.g. donors get access to all threads, contributors specific threads for which they have contributed and freeloaders general threads only. i guess that means setting up contributions at the thread level - not sure if thats possible right now.
more...
gc28262
06-14 12:00 AM
I would like to point out the differences between H1B and L1
1. There is a yearly limit for H1B (65k + 20K) but L1s are limitless.
2. A minimum wage need clause is there for H1B but minimum wage is not required to be paid for L1s. There are people in L1A visas who are supposed to be Senior Managers are sometimes paid less than 60K per annum by these offshore companies. As although they are brough in L1A visa they are in fact developers.
3. Almost 99% of the L1s are from offshore companies whose main intention is to send the project/job to offshore, most of the H1Bs do not have this intention.
4. L1s cannot change their employer, so they are bound to follow what their offshore employer ask them to do i.e try to take the job offshore, H1Bs can change employers, they will not try to send the job to offshore as they will then eventually have tomove back to offshore.
So if we clearify these points even to the antis, I hope they will understand who is the real culprint for the employment scarcity. Each of these companies are moving thousands of jobs out of this country making the problems for Citizens/Green Card holders/H1Bs.
99.99% of all the L1s are not used as they were intended when the law was signed.
All these may be true. No matter how you convince antis, they won't support any foriegn worker here. They want all of us out.
Even if authorities bans all these L1s, outsourcing will not stop. On the contrary it will intensify.
Before the 2001 recession, many companies were reluctant to outsource their work to India or other countries. When recession hit in 2001, many companies overcame this inhibition and started outsourcing jobs in large scale.
If companies find more stumbling blocks to operate their business, they will find even more innovative ways to overcome those. Remember India is no longer a back office for a low end work now. Many companies have even moved their R&D to India.
1. There is a yearly limit for H1B (65k + 20K) but L1s are limitless.
2. A minimum wage need clause is there for H1B but minimum wage is not required to be paid for L1s. There are people in L1A visas who are supposed to be Senior Managers are sometimes paid less than 60K per annum by these offshore companies. As although they are brough in L1A visa they are in fact developers.
3. Almost 99% of the L1s are from offshore companies whose main intention is to send the project/job to offshore, most of the H1Bs do not have this intention.
4. L1s cannot change their employer, so they are bound to follow what their offshore employer ask them to do i.e try to take the job offshore, H1Bs can change employers, they will not try to send the job to offshore as they will then eventually have tomove back to offshore.
So if we clearify these points even to the antis, I hope they will understand who is the real culprint for the employment scarcity. Each of these companies are moving thousands of jobs out of this country making the problems for Citizens/Green Card holders/H1Bs.
99.99% of all the L1s are not used as they were intended when the law was signed.
All these may be true. No matter how you convince antis, they won't support any foriegn worker here. They want all of us out.
Even if authorities bans all these L1s, outsourcing will not stop. On the contrary it will intensify.
Before the 2001 recession, many companies were reluctant to outsource their work to India or other countries. When recession hit in 2001, many companies overcame this inhibition and started outsourcing jobs in large scale.
If companies find more stumbling blocks to operate their business, they will find even more innovative ways to overcome those. Remember India is no longer a back office for a low end work now. Many companies have even moved their R&D to India.
redsox2009
04-04 04:09 PM
We know EB2 - I dates have not moved since Oct ,2010 .
So India regular quota for the last six months : 5800/2 = 1900 .
Since dates have not moved, I am assuming 1900 should also be considered towards porting.
so my conclusion is so far 1200 + 1900 = 3100 porting already took place. (though only 1900 really got GC)
I think you meant to say 2800 not 5800. I'm correcting your statement.
So India regular quota for the last six months : 2800/2 = 1400
Since dates have not moved, I am assuming 1400 should also be considered towards porting.
so my conclusion is so far 1200 + 1400 = 2600 porting already took place. (though only 1400 really got GC)
So India regular quota for the last six months : 5800/2 = 1900 .
Since dates have not moved, I am assuming 1900 should also be considered towards porting.
so my conclusion is so far 1200 + 1900 = 3100 porting already took place. (though only 1900 really got GC)
I think you meant to say 2800 not 5800. I'm correcting your statement.
So India regular quota for the last six months : 2800/2 = 1400
Since dates have not moved, I am assuming 1400 should also be considered towards porting.
so my conclusion is so far 1200 + 1400 = 2600 porting already took place. (though only 1400 really got GC)
more...
cse_us
03-25 04:53 PM
!!!!!
I knew friends in Kaiser who were hired on H1 and got GC through Kaiser..
How the hell can they justify filing new GCs, but not accepting EAD!?
Kaiser stopped hiring on H1 since 2003. They used to hire on EADs until last week.
I knew friends in Kaiser who were hired on H1 and got GC through Kaiser..
How the hell can they justify filing new GCs, but not accepting EAD!?
Kaiser stopped hiring on H1 since 2003. They used to hire on EADs until last week.
2010 Motorola RAZR V3i Gold
suriajay12
03-12 07:53 AM
Looks like this thread is dying.. Is Sarala who created this, still around???
more...
bobzibub
06-22 09:03 AM
We are a husband and wife, both filing.
My priority date is Oct 06 and my wife's will be July 1st. (or so.)
My wife's company is a large multinational and her job is secure. My company is small and not making oodles of money right now.
So I consider my wife's to be solid and slow and mine to be less solid but faster.
I predict that mine will get approved before hers and they'll drop hers. But because I simply do not trust USCIS to process them without a hitch, we're filing twice. Shotgun theory.
Our lawyers seem to concur. If our PDs were the same and our companies were similar, it probably wouldn't be worth filing twice.
My question is regarding the EADs and APs. I believe that I should file through her because they are more "solid" applications. I assume that the EAD/AP will be processed prior to the 485 and priority date does not affect them. Her job is more secure than mine and so her EAD would be too..
Am I wrong?
My priority date is Oct 06 and my wife's will be July 1st. (or so.)
My wife's company is a large multinational and her job is secure. My company is small and not making oodles of money right now.
So I consider my wife's to be solid and slow and mine to be less solid but faster.
I predict that mine will get approved before hers and they'll drop hers. But because I simply do not trust USCIS to process them without a hitch, we're filing twice. Shotgun theory.
Our lawyers seem to concur. If our PDs were the same and our companies were similar, it probably wouldn't be worth filing twice.
My question is regarding the EADs and APs. I believe that I should file through her because they are more "solid" applications. I assume that the EAD/AP will be processed prior to the 485 and priority date does not affect them. Her job is more secure than mine and so her EAD would be too..
Am I wrong?
hair Seemingly bathed in gold
485Mbe4001
05-17 04:08 PM
Thanks, i will send them and email.
No, It is not for 140 and i wasnt asked for it when i appliedway back in 2002.
I didn't experience getting a duplicate certificate, but I think you can try the following service to get such certificate.
http://yourmaninindia.com/cgi-bin/taskdisplay.cgi?catid=1&subid=4
No, It is not for 140 and i wasnt asked for it when i appliedway back in 2002.
I didn't experience getting a duplicate certificate, but I think you can try the following service to get such certificate.
http://yourmaninindia.com/cgi-bin/taskdisplay.cgi?catid=1&subid=4
more...
Ramba
08-21 12:46 PM
Yes, the same law can be interpreted like this:
EB1-ROW unused visa will go to EB2-ROW
EB2-ROW unused visa will go to EB3-ROW
Same for each country.
But its not happening. What actually is happening that they are giving unused visa from EB1-ROW to EB2-ROW to EB2-I/C. WHY?
So EB3-ROW is retrogressed bcoz it doesn't get any spillover and hence it affect EB3-I.
So where is the correct interpretation? Does any body know?
Don't take me wrong here. I don't favor EB3-ROW or any particular category. I am EB3-I with PD Nov 2002.
This was the law till 2000 (vertical spill over). After 2000, because of AC21, the INA got changed to horizontal spillover. This means each employment catagories are seperatly free from country quota if demand is less than supply in each catagory. If you analyze word by word in the language of the AC21 act, you will understand. Unfortunally (fortunatly for EB3) DOS has not interpreted the law correctly till 2006. Now they are interpreting correctly.
5) 2/ RULES FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS-
(A) EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) ]for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
EB1-ROW unused visa will go to EB2-ROW
EB2-ROW unused visa will go to EB3-ROW
Same for each country.
But its not happening. What actually is happening that they are giving unused visa from EB1-ROW to EB2-ROW to EB2-I/C. WHY?
So EB3-ROW is retrogressed bcoz it doesn't get any spillover and hence it affect EB3-I.
So where is the correct interpretation? Does any body know?
Don't take me wrong here. I don't favor EB3-ROW or any particular category. I am EB3-I with PD Nov 2002.
This was the law till 2000 (vertical spill over). After 2000, because of AC21, the INA got changed to horizontal spillover. This means each employment catagories are seperatly free from country quota if demand is less than supply in each catagory. If you analyze word by word in the language of the AC21 act, you will understand. Unfortunally (fortunatly for EB3) DOS has not interpreted the law correctly till 2006. Now they are interpreting correctly.
5) 2/ RULES FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS-
(A) EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) ]for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
hot Gold is a very serious
pani_6
09-12 08:01 PM
NUM USA and opponents think that the Bill was postponed and are again trying to spread lies its thier effort that got it postponed..Dont believe that lies..infact it was tactical postponement to get it passed ;)
They are launching a misinformation campaign ..The bill has a good chance of passing..plz call
They are launching a misinformation campaign ..The bill has a good chance of passing..plz call
more...
house Finding a Gold Nugget in
pappu
10-16 11:23 AM
I also spoke to Terry at NSC once. She is very nice and will try to tell you as many details as possible.
@ Alterego: Dude, when the responses you are getting are basically "under review, wait 90 days", it is much nicer to know details like storage area, exam area, and where your file is.
"storage area, exam area, and where your file is"
It is funny. :)
Is this information given to everyone or few?
If it is given to few then why not everyone?
Is this information accurate?
If IOs have this information, then this means they have very detailed information about the application. However posts from members show that it is not the case at all times.
Lack of information is driving everyone in a chaos and people make mass calls frequently to get information. USCIS should be providing all basic information on cases on case status area of the website. This would reduce number of calls to USCIS and reduce such posts where each conversation with an IO generates some information and misinformation on forums. This feeds to rumors and incorrect information circulated on forums. While such information helps generate lot of threads, page views and ad revenue for other websites, As an organization we should be cautioning people about this.
On the donor forum we have posted some tips what you can do get your greencard. There is no need to make calls everyday trying to get status. If your application is outside processing time, you can simply open a service request. There are other options like Ombudsman and local Congressman's office. We have also posted to our members that if if you have tried all options everywhere and you are in a desperate situation, Immigration voice will help its continued donor members.
In my opinion posts such as "storage area, exam area, and where your file is, pre-approved" only drive curiosity and mass calls that will not help processing of your case. We as an educated and mature community should not fall for such information on the forums.
@ Alterego: Dude, when the responses you are getting are basically "under review, wait 90 days", it is much nicer to know details like storage area, exam area, and where your file is.
"storage area, exam area, and where your file is"
It is funny. :)
Is this information given to everyone or few?
If it is given to few then why not everyone?
Is this information accurate?
If IOs have this information, then this means they have very detailed information about the application. However posts from members show that it is not the case at all times.
Lack of information is driving everyone in a chaos and people make mass calls frequently to get information. USCIS should be providing all basic information on cases on case status area of the website. This would reduce number of calls to USCIS and reduce such posts where each conversation with an IO generates some information and misinformation on forums. This feeds to rumors and incorrect information circulated on forums. While such information helps generate lot of threads, page views and ad revenue for other websites, As an organization we should be cautioning people about this.
On the donor forum we have posted some tips what you can do get your greencard. There is no need to make calls everyday trying to get status. If your application is outside processing time, you can simply open a service request. There are other options like Ombudsman and local Congressman's office. We have also posted to our members that if if you have tried all options everywhere and you are in a desperate situation, Immigration voice will help its continued donor members.
In my opinion posts such as "storage area, exam area, and where your file is, pre-approved" only drive curiosity and mass calls that will not help processing of your case. We as an educated and mature community should not fall for such information on the forums.
tattoo Why Buy Gold?
Canadian_Dream
10-02 03:41 PM
Nope, I got only one set. A friend of mine got two set he and his spouse filed each other as dependent.
Here is a question for multiple I485 Filers:
Did you get multiple fingerprinting notices for each applicant too?
Here is a question for multiple I485 Filers:
Did you get multiple fingerprinting notices for each applicant too?
more...
pictures Gold.jpg
waitnwatch
08-21 12:11 PM
The law unambiguously states that for employment based categories - EB1 spillover should first go to EB2 and whatever is not required by both EB1 and EB2 will spillover to EB3. If the USCIS has been doing something different previously they were actually not following the letter of the law.
Here are the relevant sections of the INA which unambiguosly states the above.
Here is what Section 203 of the Immigration and Nationality Act states -
EB1 -
(1) Priority workers. - Visas shall first be made available in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (4) and (5),...............
EB2 -
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of exceptional ability. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraph (1) ...............
EB3 -
(3) Skilled workers, professionals, and other workers.-
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (1) and (2), .........
Here are the relevant sections of the INA which unambiguosly states the above.
Here is what Section 203 of the Immigration and Nationality Act states -
EB1 -
(1) Priority workers. - Visas shall first be made available in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (4) and (5),...............
EB2 -
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of exceptional ability. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraph (1) ...............
EB3 -
(3) Skilled workers, professionals, and other workers.-
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (1) and (2), .........
dresses OCZ DDR2 PC2-8800 Gold Dual
crksd
10-16 05:23 PM
:) Well, I was on F-1 before that for 2.5 years, so it wasn't that quick either. But then again, I'm not complaining.
more...
makeup Gold shoe
eager_immi
06-25 07:49 AM
if she applied for H1B the first package the lawyer sumitted should have copies of her I-20 and EAD. Look through the package you may find a copy in it.
i think the card was mailed directly to us
not sure the University would have a copy
wondering if the employer would have kept one this long...
i think the card was mailed directly to us
not sure the University would have a copy
wondering if the employer would have kept one this long...
girlfriend Gold Making Tips from a WoW
pappu
11-06 03:28 PM
Check this:
http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Liang%2010-30-07.pdf
Defendants assert that the background check is a complex
process that must accommodate an extremely large volume of requests
from the USCIS. Given the backlog of name-check requests and the
FBI�s limited resources, they maintain that the delay of two and a
half years in processing Mr. Liang�s background check is not
unreasonable. There is some validity to these points, and the
Court appreciates that the name-check process is indeed complex and
resource-intensive. But limited resources or not, a common-sense
rule of reason dictates that if the FBI was performing background
checks with due diligence, it would not take two and a half years
to process Mr. Liang�s name. While the Court is sympathetic to the
demands placed on the FBI and the limited ability of the USCIS to
control how the FBI allocates its resources, a lack of sufficient
resources devoted to name-check operations is a matter for the
agencies to take up between themselves or with Congress. The
executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its
statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those
duties have been met.
See Dong, 2007 WL 2601107 at *11 (�[I]t is
not the place of the judicial branch to weigh a plaintiff�s clear
right to administrative action against the agency�s burdens in
complying.�).
Moreover, although there is no Congressionally mandated
timetable for the processing of I-485 applications, Congress has by
statute expressed its view of what a reasonable amount of time is:
�It is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days
after the initial filing of the application.� 8 U.S.C. � 1571.
The Court recognizes that this statute was enacted prior to the
events of September 11, 2001, and that the burdens on agencies with
responsibility for immigration matters have since increased.
Nonetheless, Plaintiffs� applications have been pending for five
times the length of the period identified by Congress.
Defendants argue that expediting Mr. Liang�s name check will
prejudice other applicants who have been waiting longer than he -in some cases, since as long as December, 2002.
While this would
be unfortunate, Defendants� failure to fulfill their statutory duty
to other applicants has no bearing on whether they have fulfilled
their statutory duty to Plaintiffs, and thus cannot serve as a
basis for denying Plaintiffs� motion.
While Defendants worry that
granting Plaintiffs relief may reward �the more litigious
applicants� or encourage other applicants to file lawsuits,
�perhaps recognizing this possibility will provide the defendants
with adequate incentive to begin processing [I-485] applications in
a lawful and timely fashion in order to obviate the applicants�
need to resort to the courts for redress.� Dong, 2007 WL 2601107
at *12.
http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Liang%2010-30-07.pdf
Defendants assert that the background check is a complex
process that must accommodate an extremely large volume of requests
from the USCIS. Given the backlog of name-check requests and the
FBI�s limited resources, they maintain that the delay of two and a
half years in processing Mr. Liang�s background check is not
unreasonable. There is some validity to these points, and the
Court appreciates that the name-check process is indeed complex and
resource-intensive. But limited resources or not, a common-sense
rule of reason dictates that if the FBI was performing background
checks with due diligence, it would not take two and a half years
to process Mr. Liang�s name. While the Court is sympathetic to the
demands placed on the FBI and the limited ability of the USCIS to
control how the FBI allocates its resources, a lack of sufficient
resources devoted to name-check operations is a matter for the
agencies to take up between themselves or with Congress. The
executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its
statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those
duties have been met.
See Dong, 2007 WL 2601107 at *11 (�[I]t is
not the place of the judicial branch to weigh a plaintiff�s clear
right to administrative action against the agency�s burdens in
complying.�).
Moreover, although there is no Congressionally mandated
timetable for the processing of I-485 applications, Congress has by
statute expressed its view of what a reasonable amount of time is:
�It is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days
after the initial filing of the application.� 8 U.S.C. � 1571.
The Court recognizes that this statute was enacted prior to the
events of September 11, 2001, and that the burdens on agencies with
responsibility for immigration matters have since increased.
Nonetheless, Plaintiffs� applications have been pending for five
times the length of the period identified by Congress.
Defendants argue that expediting Mr. Liang�s name check will
prejudice other applicants who have been waiting longer than he -in some cases, since as long as December, 2002.
While this would
be unfortunate, Defendants� failure to fulfill their statutory duty
to other applicants has no bearing on whether they have fulfilled
their statutory duty to Plaintiffs, and thus cannot serve as a
basis for denying Plaintiffs� motion.
While Defendants worry that
granting Plaintiffs relief may reward �the more litigious
applicants� or encourage other applicants to file lawsuits,
�perhaps recognizing this possibility will provide the defendants
with adequate incentive to begin processing [I-485] applications in
a lawful and timely fashion in order to obviate the applicants�
need to resort to the courts for redress.� Dong, 2007 WL 2601107
at *12.
hairstyles Buy Gold and Repatriating
gc28262
10-05 02:00 PM
When I call through vonage phone, the wireless internet connection to other computers is getting lost. Is this the problem others have too?
Is it having another router in between your vonage phone and cable /DSL connection solve the problem?
Any thoughts? Has anyone inquired this with vonage folks?
Vonage won't affect any wireless connections.
Do you use a cordless phone ?
The wireless transmission from your cordless phone maybe affecting the transmissions from your wireless router.
Is it having another router in between your vonage phone and cable /DSL connection solve the problem?
Any thoughts? Has anyone inquired this with vonage folks?
Vonage won't affect any wireless connections.
Do you use a cordless phone ?
The wireless transmission from your cordless phone maybe affecting the transmissions from your wireless router.
makemygc
06-29 07:26 PM
yeah enjoy ur weekend. if you have filed ur application then chill and if not then ....what r u doing , lazy boy...move ur ass and courier it now.....hahahhhaha.
well i courier-ed it to my attorney to be supposedly mail out by today but now that law firm is not even responding...so even if move my ass or move my other body parts ...its not going to change any darn thing....I know u must definitely be moving all the way from top to bottom...best of luck..
well i courier-ed it to my attorney to be supposedly mail out by today but now that law firm is not even responding...so even if move my ass or move my other body parts ...its not going to change any darn thing....I know u must definitely be moving all the way from top to bottom...best of luck..
PD_Dec2002
06-29 04:45 PM
Wait for the Updates from USICS today/monday morning...If they didnt give any statement considering a lot of rumors/activity , defintely some bad news is in store ......
On the flip side, if this is only a rumor, then USCIS/DOS won't comment at all.
Thanks,
Jayant
On the flip side, if this is only a rumor, then USCIS/DOS won't comment at all.
Thanks,
Jayant