swo
08-16 01:38 AM
I am wondering what part RD will paly in this new visa bulletin. In may case, I have PD of April 2002 (EB3-ROW) but RD of March 2007.
I guess they will still go by RD and I have to wait for 5-6 months. Please correct me If I am wrong?
You are in GREAT shape. You are current as of September. As long as there is no retrogression you should be good as soon as your security checks are cleared.
A 6 months wait is not unreasonable. I'd be happy with that if I was you!
I guess they will still go by RD and I have to wait for 5-6 months. Please correct me If I am wrong?
You are in GREAT shape. You are current as of September. As long as there is no retrogression you should be good as soon as your security checks are cleared.
A 6 months wait is not unreasonable. I'd be happy with that if I was you!
wallpaper but she is attended the rumored Dakota+fanning+new+moon
kondur_007
07-12 04:30 PM
E. APPLICABILITY OF INA SECTION 202(a)(5)(A)AS IT RELATES TO THE ALLOCATION OF �OTHERWISE UNUSED� NUMBERS
INA Section 202(a)(5)(A), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act (AC21), provides that if total demand will be insufficient to use all available numbers in a particular Employment preference category in a calendar quarter, then the otherwise unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limits. This provision helps to assure that all available Employment preference numbers may be used. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5)(A) has occasionally allowed oversubscribed countries such as China-mainland born and India to utilize large quantities of Employment First and Second preference numbers that would have otherwise gone unused.
For example, let us assume that 11,600 Employment Second preference numbers are available in a calendar quarter. There is heavy Employment Second preference demand by China-mainland born and India applicants; however, each country is oversubscribed and would ordinarily be limited to about 800 of the available numbers due to the prorating provisions of INA Section 202(e). Applicants from other countries that have not yet reached their per-country limit have reported a total demand of 6,500 numbers. After taking the worldwide demand into account, it is determined that as a result of the China-mainland born and India per-country limits only 8,100 of the total available Employment Second preference numbers would be used in that quarter. In this instance, the otherwise unused 3,500 numbers could then be made available to China-mainland born and India regardless of their per-country limits. Should that occur, the same cut-off date would be applied to each country, since numbers must be provided strictly in priority date order regardless of chargeability. In this instance, greater number use by one country would indicate a higher rate of demand by applicants from that country with earlier priority dates.
This is simply the explanation as to why will EB2 India get a huge number and not so much for EB2 China (so when year end statistics come out, there would not be too much noise about why EB2 India got several thousands of visa numbers more than any other category).
Indication that EB2 India will get huge numbers...this is just explanation as to why:)
INA Section 202(a)(5)(A), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act (AC21), provides that if total demand will be insufficient to use all available numbers in a particular Employment preference category in a calendar quarter, then the otherwise unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limits. This provision helps to assure that all available Employment preference numbers may be used. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5)(A) has occasionally allowed oversubscribed countries such as China-mainland born and India to utilize large quantities of Employment First and Second preference numbers that would have otherwise gone unused.
For example, let us assume that 11,600 Employment Second preference numbers are available in a calendar quarter. There is heavy Employment Second preference demand by China-mainland born and India applicants; however, each country is oversubscribed and would ordinarily be limited to about 800 of the available numbers due to the prorating provisions of INA Section 202(e). Applicants from other countries that have not yet reached their per-country limit have reported a total demand of 6,500 numbers. After taking the worldwide demand into account, it is determined that as a result of the China-mainland born and India per-country limits only 8,100 of the total available Employment Second preference numbers would be used in that quarter. In this instance, the otherwise unused 3,500 numbers could then be made available to China-mainland born and India regardless of their per-country limits. Should that occur, the same cut-off date would be applied to each country, since numbers must be provided strictly in priority date order regardless of chargeability. In this instance, greater number use by one country would indicate a higher rate of demand by applicants from that country with earlier priority dates.
This is simply the explanation as to why will EB2 India get a huge number and not so much for EB2 China (so when year end statistics come out, there would not be too much noise about why EB2 India got several thousands of visa numbers more than any other category).
Indication that EB2 India will get huge numbers...this is just explanation as to why:)
grinch
03-11 03:21 PM
pretty cool grinch....gotta work on your lighting a bit...:beam:.
ahh man i know...
Maya lighting is so hard to get right, I need to learn mental ray though...
I only know the basics...
Anyone know any good tutorials on "light linking"
ahh man i know...
Maya lighting is so hard to get right, I need to learn mental ray though...
I only know the basics...
Anyone know any good tutorials on "light linking"
2011 new moon dakota fanning jane1
optimist578
01-31 01:46 PM
If one gets an H-1B approval now (Jan/Feb), can he start working right away? Or does he have to wait till the start of fiscal year, October?
What if the employer is an NGO or NPO? I believe, it is not counted against the H-1 quota but in that case, can he start working right away?
What if the employer is an NGO or NPO? I believe, it is not counted against the H-1 quota but in that case, can he start working right away?
more...
abhijitp
07-24 01:35 PM
1) is it safer to wait for RN and then submit this letter as evidence quoting the A# assigned, I think that would be wise for a concurrenly filed application. My lawyer said that if its concurrently filed, the letter accompanying the i-140 is sufficient and 2 letters are not required. But if the i-485 is on it own then an employment letter must accompany the form.
Different lawyers are providing different opinions on this. To follow the letter of the law, you MUST submit the employer letter.
OR
2) is it a better idea to submit a new I-485 rightaway along with the letter, What is reasoning behind this. Are you expecting a rejection? Why not wait for the RN and then send in the letter? Have you spoken to your lawyer?
To follow the letter of the law, you MUST submit the employer letter. My lawyer says it is extremely unlikely you will receive a rejection for this especially since USCIS says it is okay to submit without Medical clearance. In my opinion, this is a lame excuse. I am happy to wait for RN, if only there is the guarantee USCIS will issue one, and won't reject my packet rightaway!
OR
3) should such people just wait hoping they will receive an RFE (I don't like this one at all) whenever the case is opened? For initial evidence items I believed that it would be automatically rejected if not included, HOWEVER, with the new press release from USCIS on July 23, if i-485s WITHOUT medical reports will be accepted, then what is an employment letter?I hope that is true. AILA seems to be working on this. I am happy to believe it if USCIS issues a press release to that effect... high hopes:-)
pls find above the answers.
Different lawyers are providing different opinions on this. To follow the letter of the law, you MUST submit the employer letter.
OR
2) is it a better idea to submit a new I-485 rightaway along with the letter, What is reasoning behind this. Are you expecting a rejection? Why not wait for the RN and then send in the letter? Have you spoken to your lawyer?
To follow the letter of the law, you MUST submit the employer letter. My lawyer says it is extremely unlikely you will receive a rejection for this especially since USCIS says it is okay to submit without Medical clearance. In my opinion, this is a lame excuse. I am happy to wait for RN, if only there is the guarantee USCIS will issue one, and won't reject my packet rightaway!
OR
3) should such people just wait hoping they will receive an RFE (I don't like this one at all) whenever the case is opened? For initial evidence items I believed that it would be automatically rejected if not included, HOWEVER, with the new press release from USCIS on July 23, if i-485s WITHOUT medical reports will be accepted, then what is an employment letter?I hope that is true. AILA seems to be working on this. I am happy to believe it if USCIS issues a press release to that effect... high hopes:-)
pls find above the answers.
delax
07-19 08:55 PM
We need a realistic estimate of how many applications are pending with PD in 2004, which really seems like the bottleneck. Another thing to bear in mind is the conversion from EB3->EB2. That is also going to hinder the movement of EB2. There are a lot of people trying to use that route.
Here you go - conversion should not impact this as the number of LC approvals remains the same:
Here are all the LC approvals for India in the last seven years.
Year, Total LC Approved, Total India
2007 85112 24573
2006 79782 22298
2005 6133 1350
2004 43582 No Info
2003 62912 No Info
2002 79784 No Info
2001 77921 No Info
2000 70204 No Info
Lets assume about 25% of pre-PERM LCs are India based on post-PERM data. Thus for fiscal 2004 (Oct 2003 thru Sep 2004) the total LC number is 43,852. Assume 25% of that to be India based on PERM data. That gives about 11,000 India LCs in 2004 alone (All EB categories combined). If you assume an average of 2.5 dependents then the number of visas required for all India EB categories for 2004 is 27,500 (11,000*2.5). The regular quota for EB2 and EB3 combined is only about 9,800. That means 17,700 visas have to come from somewhere. I dont think those many visas are remaining for this year. Be prepared to see FIFO thrown under the bus and approvals with PDs that are all over the place. Please critique this analysis without piling on. Thoughts?
Here you go - conversion should not impact this as the number of LC approvals remains the same:
Here are all the LC approvals for India in the last seven years.
Year, Total LC Approved, Total India
2007 85112 24573
2006 79782 22298
2005 6133 1350
2004 43582 No Info
2003 62912 No Info
2002 79784 No Info
2001 77921 No Info
2000 70204 No Info
Lets assume about 25% of pre-PERM LCs are India based on post-PERM data. Thus for fiscal 2004 (Oct 2003 thru Sep 2004) the total LC number is 43,852. Assume 25% of that to be India based on PERM data. That gives about 11,000 India LCs in 2004 alone (All EB categories combined). If you assume an average of 2.5 dependents then the number of visas required for all India EB categories for 2004 is 27,500 (11,000*2.5). The regular quota for EB2 and EB3 combined is only about 9,800. That means 17,700 visas have to come from somewhere. I dont think those many visas are remaining for this year. Be prepared to see FIFO thrown under the bus and approvals with PDs that are all over the place. Please critique this analysis without piling on. Thoughts?
more...
sherlock01
09-10 04:33 PM
Talking about horses and your user id WhiteStallion is surreal. Dude looks like they are after all discussing a bill right up your alley :D
No offence. Just Kidding!!
Nice humour!
No offence. Just Kidding!!
Nice humour!
2010 NEW MOON Preview #39;Jacob#39;s
bigboy007
06-11 01:35 PM
If you really believe that this bogus bill will become a Law, then also see the real picture, that is why I posted the other Ifs.
This Bill is titled as "Employ America Act". By having the GC, you are not an American. If you do not know the rule here it is, GC is a "Privilege", and it is not a "Right". So if this Bill passes all these people with alerady having GC will also need to pack their Bags and Go. That is the reality, dude.
So again and again do not fall over it. If you respond to this Bill, and Vote "No" against it, you are trying to send wrong messages to the originators of the bill, that we are scared. Why you guys are making everyone scared, when there is nothing to be scared about.
So hitting YES you are going to convey you are bold and ready to leave the country middle of this night with your kids leaving studies ? what is your profile though are you really an Prospective immigrant i doubt it.
This Bill is titled as "Employ America Act". By having the GC, you are not an American. If you do not know the rule here it is, GC is a "Privilege", and it is not a "Right". So if this Bill passes all these people with alerady having GC will also need to pack their Bags and Go. That is the reality, dude.
So again and again do not fall over it. If you respond to this Bill, and Vote "No" against it, you are trying to send wrong messages to the originators of the bill, that we are scared. Why you guys are making everyone scared, when there is nothing to be scared about.
So hitting YES you are going to convey you are bold and ready to leave the country middle of this night with your kids leaving studies ? what is your profile though are you really an Prospective immigrant i doubt it.
more...
gc_lover
07-18 09:54 AM
I checked with somebody who has hired Rajiv Khanna as his lawyer. He said that those who had filed in July are fine and there is no need to re-file it.
I am still waiting to hear from my lawyer though.
I am still waiting to hear from my lawyer though.
hair Dakota Fanning Interview. She talks about new moon. I dont own anything.
rb_248
02-20 03:08 PM
Thats positive news. Thanks.
more...
EB3_SEP04
05-26 05:31 PM
An officer's duty is to ask for papers. And for just few questions you are upset.
Just think about in the other way.
What if the officer gets upset while you remain silent....
You don't have to post such experience as everybody knows what would happen.
Clearly dude, you have no idea what you are talking about. we are not talking about a situation like what to do if a thug holds you at gunpoint and asked for money. we talking about a Govt rule or law. it's about what is right and what is wrong. The officer could throw a bad word at you like "i am pretty sure you are terrorist" which would be in our favor. worst case he would shoot me, but chances of that happening are next to zero.
I want to remain silent, raise suspicion, make them scramble to find out who i am, make them feel like working hard only to find out that I have made a fool of them. That's the only way they would realize how stupid the rule is.
Just imagin that Sunday 1000 people had remained silent, they would have to call to their superiors for more officers, more cars, more laptops, documents, more running around, etc. That would have become an issue in the state senate where the budget is already tight, they are fighting for pennies and the nonsense border patrol has spent millions in a day to find NOTHING (because ALL illegals had escapped by saying one word "CITIZEN").
BUT... it needs guts to do that, not sure if you fall in that category.
Just think about in the other way.
What if the officer gets upset while you remain silent....
You don't have to post such experience as everybody knows what would happen.
Clearly dude, you have no idea what you are talking about. we are not talking about a situation like what to do if a thug holds you at gunpoint and asked for money. we talking about a Govt rule or law. it's about what is right and what is wrong. The officer could throw a bad word at you like "i am pretty sure you are terrorist" which would be in our favor. worst case he would shoot me, but chances of that happening are next to zero.
I want to remain silent, raise suspicion, make them scramble to find out who i am, make them feel like working hard only to find out that I have made a fool of them. That's the only way they would realize how stupid the rule is.
Just imagin that Sunday 1000 people had remained silent, they would have to call to their superiors for more officers, more cars, more laptops, documents, more running around, etc. That would have become an issue in the state senate where the budget is already tight, they are fighting for pennies and the nonsense border patrol has spent millions in a day to find NOTHING (because ALL illegals had escapped by saying one word "CITIZEN").
BUT... it needs guts to do that, not sure if you fall in that category.
hot vampire Dakota Fanning,
aristotle
07-18 03:11 AM
Can all the July 2nd filers update this thread if
- you have your application rejected and returned.
OR
- you get a receipt number or have your check cashed.
Please login and subscribe to this thread.
- you have your application rejected and returned.
OR
- you get a receipt number or have your check cashed.
Please login and subscribe to this thread.
more...
house Dakota+fanning+new+moon+
prioritydate
01-17 07:32 PM
I think whatever OP said is true.
tattoo Dakota Fanning set to appear
WeldonSprings
08-27 11:16 AM
Anybody has numbers for No. of EB Visas processed for June ad July 08. Till May 08 total 113475 has been processed. So, total remaining would be 50000.
Aug. 08 somewehere 6000 were processed.
I485 Receipt I485 Pending I485-processed FB I-485 EB I-485
Oct-07 237915 842231 50548 42500 8048
Nov-07 51773 845691 48313 42500 5813
Dec-07 35020 833141 47570 42500 5070
Jan-08 35771 813238 55674 42500 13174
Feb-08 38210 787516 63932 42500 21432
Mar-08 43548 762938 68126 42500 25626
Apr-08 50951 742597 71292 42500 28792
May-08 45357 739934 48020 42500 5520
* Data from USCIS months processing report
** Oct 07 Receipt number changed from 137915 to 237915 (just looked incorrect)
** FB is flat (730k-220k CP / 12 months)
We have 113475 EB I-485 processed until May 08 (in 8 months), if we take 80% acceptance rate the number of visa used will be 90780 and if we use 90% acceptance rate USCIS may have used 102127 visas.
Aug. 08 somewehere 6000 were processed.
I485 Receipt I485 Pending I485-processed FB I-485 EB I-485
Oct-07 237915 842231 50548 42500 8048
Nov-07 51773 845691 48313 42500 5813
Dec-07 35020 833141 47570 42500 5070
Jan-08 35771 813238 55674 42500 13174
Feb-08 38210 787516 63932 42500 21432
Mar-08 43548 762938 68126 42500 25626
Apr-08 50951 742597 71292 42500 28792
May-08 45357 739934 48020 42500 5520
* Data from USCIS months processing report
** Oct 07 Receipt number changed from 137915 to 237915 (just looked incorrect)
** FB is flat (730k-220k CP / 12 months)
We have 113475 EB I-485 processed until May 08 (in 8 months), if we take 80% acceptance rate the number of visa used will be 90780 and if we use 90% acceptance rate USCIS may have used 102127 visas.
more...
pictures Dakota Fanning ( New Moon)
ivbabu
10-25 04:24 PM
My details are as under
dresses New Moon. Dakota Fanning
sparky_jones
03-12 08:30 AM
This once again proves that most of the popular immigration attorneys and other parties claiming to have "inside" information really don't have much more access to information than the rest of us.
more...
makeup Actress Dakota Fanning, who
arudalas
09-10 02:41 PM
www.cspan.org/watch/index.asp
girlfriend As you can see, Dakota#39;s Jane
vghc
07-03 12:40 PM
If you read my earlier response, you would not be asking me this question. Just to repeat myself, I completely agree with you that wives and kids should not be included to the EB GC quota!
Fine...then there's a comon ground......:)
I don't like this Indian,China vs the ROW talk. Its just bloody depressing.
Fine...then there's a comon ground......:)
I don't like this Indian,China vs the ROW talk. Its just bloody depressing.
hairstyles The 19-year-old Twilight
file485
12-22 08:34 AM
this is our history...
1.was working with employer B in June 07(when PD was current for EB2/Oct 2003-India)...went to attorney to file 485 with approved 140 thru ex employer A. filled in all the paperwork for 485,but the attorney was asking for a current employment letter from B with exact skills mentioned on labor and the employer B was not ready to give such a letter and hence we planned to find a new employer and file for 485 in July.
2. In June end found this new current employer C and planned to file 485 in July and all the fiasco scene happened...anyway...in August we filed the 485 with a current employer letter from C with all the skills matching the labor..till here fine.
NOW...we got a copy of the bunch of 48 documents sent to INS from the atnys office...I had given the latest 325a form
current employer C : July 07 - current
employer B : Jan 2006 - June 2007
employer A : June 2003 - Dec 2005 (who filed for labor/i140)
the shitty paralegal now submitted the 325a from submitted in June 07 where the current employer B was the latest.... + the current employment letter of C + 485 employment offer letter from A
She had whitened out the date on the 325a form signed on June 07 and changed it to Aug 07 to my utter shock....
when I call back..she says we will handle any RFE's...
quite worried as the 325a form already says something like 'all info disclosed is truthful'... etc and the fine print..
pls post your thoughts and comments..
hope I dint confuse
1.was working with employer B in June 07(when PD was current for EB2/Oct 2003-India)...went to attorney to file 485 with approved 140 thru ex employer A. filled in all the paperwork for 485,but the attorney was asking for a current employment letter from B with exact skills mentioned on labor and the employer B was not ready to give such a letter and hence we planned to find a new employer and file for 485 in July.
2. In June end found this new current employer C and planned to file 485 in July and all the fiasco scene happened...anyway...in August we filed the 485 with a current employer letter from C with all the skills matching the labor..till here fine.
NOW...we got a copy of the bunch of 48 documents sent to INS from the atnys office...I had given the latest 325a form
current employer C : July 07 - current
employer B : Jan 2006 - June 2007
employer A : June 2003 - Dec 2005 (who filed for labor/i140)
the shitty paralegal now submitted the 325a from submitted in June 07 where the current employer B was the latest.... + the current employment letter of C + 485 employment offer letter from A
She had whitened out the date on the 325a form signed on June 07 and changed it to Aug 07 to my utter shock....
when I call back..she says we will handle any RFE's...
quite worried as the 325a form already says something like 'all info disclosed is truthful'... etc and the fine print..
pls post your thoughts and comments..
hope I dint confuse
neelu
12-11 05:09 PM
USCIS cannot do anything on the matter. INA is clear on the AOS conditions, one of which is "An immigrant visa is IMMEDIATELY available at time of filing for adjustment of status" (INA 245, 8 USC 1225)
INA should be changed which should be done through a legislative process, not through any rule making.
As I understand the above, the law only says when you can file for AOS (to change which a legislative process is required).
The above still does not throw any more light on the technicality which disallows concurrent filing. Does it?
Was concurrent processing facility removed through a congressional action (legislation)? If not, why is it required to reinstate it?
Is this a valid argument? If it is, then this particular request should be directed towards a body such as USCIS, etc and not the congress.
Any comments?
INA should be changed which should be done through a legislative process, not through any rule making.
As I understand the above, the law only says when you can file for AOS (to change which a legislative process is required).
The above still does not throw any more light on the technicality which disallows concurrent filing. Does it?
Was concurrent processing facility removed through a congressional action (legislation)? If not, why is it required to reinstate it?
Is this a valid argument? If it is, then this particular request should be directed towards a body such as USCIS, etc and not the congress.
Any comments?
gk_2000
08-10 08:41 PM
So according to this interpretation EB1 also will be retrogressed till everybody from previous years gets gc !
Good point. But there should be no holy cows where justice is concerned
Good point. But there should be no holy cows where justice is concerned
No comments:
Post a Comment