DoggyStyle
07-21 10:31 PM
I knew the call was a BS. I don't want to waste my prepaid calling card. Real job ads are hard to come by these days, and H1b job ads
don't exist any more.:D
don't exist any more.:D
wallpaper Quotes about Children quot;Pretty
jthomas
05-31 01:46 AM
...
whiteStallion
12-02 05:50 PM
I'm certain you cannot do that. While applying for H1B Visa, you can use experience in lieu of education, but while Perm/I140, they consider only 1 degree. Either its Masters or its Bachelors...even both of them are not considered as aggregates.
If your attorney is planning that way, he may not have handled such cases before... :eek:
You cannot substitute degree with experience while applying for Perm/I140.
... My attorney is planning to use 2 years of my experience to compensate for the additional 1 year of bachelors degree...
If your attorney is planning that way, he may not have handled such cases before... :eek:
You cannot substitute degree with experience while applying for Perm/I140.
... My attorney is planning to use 2 years of my experience to compensate for the additional 1 year of bachelors degree...
2011 quotes on job. Leaving-Job-
longq
12-20 03:41 PM
Hello IV and its core members,
I am one of the members of the forum and suffering due to the severe retrogression of EB visas. I highly appreciate IV�s effort to bring some legislative relief to address the severe backlogs in EB visas. I too participated in all IVs campaign in urging the law makers to bring some relief for this crisis. However, I have some concern here; about the method followed U.S DOS in allocating EB visas particularly in EB2 category for India and China. I am worried whether U.S DOS is violating the INA 202 (a), by suspending AC21 provision that eliminates country quota in EB categories. If they are violating by mistake, it is our responsibility to notify/clarify with them or we need to understand the law clearly. This is very important. Because, even if 110th congress passes SKIL bill, if DOS violates the AC21 law then it will not help applicants from oversubscribed countries (India and China). Here is my analysis based on following facts.
The cutoff date for EB2 India has moved just 7 days since last 9 months. However EB2 �Row has been current. EB2- ROW has never retrogressed before. EB3 ROW has seen considerable movement in last 9 months.
There may be four possible separate or combination of following reasons for the freeze of cutoff dates for India in EB2 at Jan 2003.
1. The backlog elimination effort of DOL pumped massive approved labor certificates from BEC. There may be tons of EB2 applicants from India and China with PD in the year 2001 and 2002 might have applied 485s based on recent approvals from BEC. However I doubt that. Because, in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003, EB3 India and China were �current�. No body cared about filing EB2 labor certification till the later part of 2004. Most lawyers preferred to file EB3 as it was easy, and there were no difference between EB3 and EB2 at that time. First ever indication for EB3 retrogression was issued by DOS only in later part of 2004. I doubt so many people have filed EB2-labor till 2003, keeping in mind that EB3 will retrogress in 2004 or future. Traditionally EB2 has been less demanding compare to EB1 and EB3.
2. Perhaps, there may be a huge demand by ROW (Due to PERM) to consume all the 86% of visa numbers in EB2 category in every month that prompts DOS to allocate only 7% to India and China. I doubt this too, because India and China itself consume about 60% of EB2 visas.
3. There may be lot of EB3 Indians and Chinese with PD 2001 and 2002 porting their PD from EB3 to EB2 by filing new LC and EB2-I-140. This may escalate the demand. However, how many will do this? How many employers will to do this �favor� for their employees? A real US employer/big corporations will not do double time work for an employee. Only consulting/staffing companies will do this. I think this may be a small group (or may not be?).
4. There may be another possible reason. There may be something wrong with U.S.DOS in allocating visa numbers in EB2 category, as per section 202 (a) of current INA. They may be issuing only 2800 (7% of 40,000) visas to India and China in EB2 and redirecting unused EB2 numbers to EB3 category. They may be imposing hard country cap in EB2 (Suspending AC21 law as per their VB Nov 2005). There is a large room for this speculation, due to the pattern of cutoff date movement in EB2 category. This is just a speculation. This argument/speculation is valid if DOS has issued less than 40,000 EB2 visas in FY 2006 as mandated by the law, and issued those numbers (40,000 minus actually issued) to EB3-ROW. In my view, it violates section 203 (b) (2) of the INA. One has to wait till they release statistics for FY 2006, to see how many EB2 visas are issued in that FY.
Here is some detailed analysis that says why it violates the law.
Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 203 a and b of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets numbers for each preference categories with in FB and EB.
Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320. This section also explains how to handle unused numbers with respect to country quota.
Even before AC21 rule enacted in 2000, there was no �hard� country cap as per INA then. Here is the section of INA before year 2000, describes how to allocate unused visas, if overall/total demand for FB an EB visas are less than supply*.
INA 202 (a) (3)
�Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a-Family category) and (b-Employment category) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter�.
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
After 2000 (After AC21) the following law was added to INA in the section 202.
INA 202 (a) (5) (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.
As per my simple interpretation of above AC21 rule, DOS should allocate unused visas by ROW �EB2 (ROW- countries other than India and China in EB2 category) for the first two months of any calendar quarter to over-subscribed countries (India & China) at the third month of that calendar quarter. They should not allocate to lower Preference category (EB3), if demand is more in higher preference category (EB2) to consume all the visa numbers in that preference category. They should allocate visas to all the documentarily qualified applicants in that (EB2) preference category, irrespective of country of birth. If they followed this rule/law, there may be a considerable movement in cut-off dates for India and China in Dec 2005, Mar, June and Sep of 2006 in EB2 (last month of each calendar quarter in a fiscal year). We have not witnessed such movement in last 1.5 years. No one knows how DOS is allocating numbers. They may be allocating only 7% visas to India and China in EB2 category very strictly, every month, and allocating unused numbers to EB3 category, by suspending AC21 law as indicated in their Nov 2005 Visa Bulletin. If they do so, it is against the law, at least in my interpretation of AC21 rule that eliminates country quota in EB categories.
DOS can not interpret above AC21 rule that eliminates per country limit applies �totally� to all EB categories put together, not by individual preference categories. I.e. If they say they will issue more than 2,800 visas to EB2- India per year (more than 7% of 40,000), provided overall demand for EB visas are less than 140,000. If they interpret the law like this, then there is no need for section 202(a) (5) (A) due to AC21 law. The law before AC21 {i.e. section 202 (a) (3)} itself address the elimination of country quota in both FB and EB category*. Then, section 202(a) (5) (A) is a duplicate wording of section 202(a) (3). So, this section of AC21 law becomes a redundant/duplicate law. Then, there is no meaning of employment �preference� category if they interpret �totally or overall worldwide demand�. In other words, a non-Indian/Chinese restaurant cook (EB3) is more preferred than a NIW PhDs (EB2) from India or China. Is it the intend of the congress when enacting AC21 law in removing per country limitation in EB category? Is it the American Competitiveness in 21st century? I highly doubt that.
Now it is the time to ask US DOS, how they are allocating visa number in EB2 category. If DOS interpreting the law differently, then we need to ask the law makers (Congress) what is their original intension behind the section 202(a)(5)(A) when they drafted the AC21 law in 2000 and how it is differ from 202 (a) (3).
Perhaps Core IV team can initiate to discuss/consult this issue with an immigration lawyer and place an enquiry with DOS or Law makers, if needed.
(*Note: DOS do not mix FB and EB categories for visa number allocation/calculation to meet the per country limit. They keep both in separate track to meet separately the 7% limit)
I am one of the members of the forum and suffering due to the severe retrogression of EB visas. I highly appreciate IV�s effort to bring some legislative relief to address the severe backlogs in EB visas. I too participated in all IVs campaign in urging the law makers to bring some relief for this crisis. However, I have some concern here; about the method followed U.S DOS in allocating EB visas particularly in EB2 category for India and China. I am worried whether U.S DOS is violating the INA 202 (a), by suspending AC21 provision that eliminates country quota in EB categories. If they are violating by mistake, it is our responsibility to notify/clarify with them or we need to understand the law clearly. This is very important. Because, even if 110th congress passes SKIL bill, if DOS violates the AC21 law then it will not help applicants from oversubscribed countries (India and China). Here is my analysis based on following facts.
The cutoff date for EB2 India has moved just 7 days since last 9 months. However EB2 �Row has been current. EB2- ROW has never retrogressed before. EB3 ROW has seen considerable movement in last 9 months.
There may be four possible separate or combination of following reasons for the freeze of cutoff dates for India in EB2 at Jan 2003.
1. The backlog elimination effort of DOL pumped massive approved labor certificates from BEC. There may be tons of EB2 applicants from India and China with PD in the year 2001 and 2002 might have applied 485s based on recent approvals from BEC. However I doubt that. Because, in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003, EB3 India and China were �current�. No body cared about filing EB2 labor certification till the later part of 2004. Most lawyers preferred to file EB3 as it was easy, and there were no difference between EB3 and EB2 at that time. First ever indication for EB3 retrogression was issued by DOS only in later part of 2004. I doubt so many people have filed EB2-labor till 2003, keeping in mind that EB3 will retrogress in 2004 or future. Traditionally EB2 has been less demanding compare to EB1 and EB3.
2. Perhaps, there may be a huge demand by ROW (Due to PERM) to consume all the 86% of visa numbers in EB2 category in every month that prompts DOS to allocate only 7% to India and China. I doubt this too, because India and China itself consume about 60% of EB2 visas.
3. There may be lot of EB3 Indians and Chinese with PD 2001 and 2002 porting their PD from EB3 to EB2 by filing new LC and EB2-I-140. This may escalate the demand. However, how many will do this? How many employers will to do this �favor� for their employees? A real US employer/big corporations will not do double time work for an employee. Only consulting/staffing companies will do this. I think this may be a small group (or may not be?).
4. There may be another possible reason. There may be something wrong with U.S.DOS in allocating visa numbers in EB2 category, as per section 202 (a) of current INA. They may be issuing only 2800 (7% of 40,000) visas to India and China in EB2 and redirecting unused EB2 numbers to EB3 category. They may be imposing hard country cap in EB2 (Suspending AC21 law as per their VB Nov 2005). There is a large room for this speculation, due to the pattern of cutoff date movement in EB2 category. This is just a speculation. This argument/speculation is valid if DOS has issued less than 40,000 EB2 visas in FY 2006 as mandated by the law, and issued those numbers (40,000 minus actually issued) to EB3-ROW. In my view, it violates section 203 (b) (2) of the INA. One has to wait till they release statistics for FY 2006, to see how many EB2 visas are issued in that FY.
Here is some detailed analysis that says why it violates the law.
Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 203 a and b of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets numbers for each preference categories with in FB and EB.
Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320. This section also explains how to handle unused numbers with respect to country quota.
Even before AC21 rule enacted in 2000, there was no �hard� country cap as per INA then. Here is the section of INA before year 2000, describes how to allocate unused visas, if overall/total demand for FB an EB visas are less than supply*.
INA 202 (a) (3)
�Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a-Family category) and (b-Employment category) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter�.
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
After 2000 (After AC21) the following law was added to INA in the section 202.
INA 202 (a) (5) (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.
As per my simple interpretation of above AC21 rule, DOS should allocate unused visas by ROW �EB2 (ROW- countries other than India and China in EB2 category) for the first two months of any calendar quarter to over-subscribed countries (India & China) at the third month of that calendar quarter. They should not allocate to lower Preference category (EB3), if demand is more in higher preference category (EB2) to consume all the visa numbers in that preference category. They should allocate visas to all the documentarily qualified applicants in that (EB2) preference category, irrespective of country of birth. If they followed this rule/law, there may be a considerable movement in cut-off dates for India and China in Dec 2005, Mar, June and Sep of 2006 in EB2 (last month of each calendar quarter in a fiscal year). We have not witnessed such movement in last 1.5 years. No one knows how DOS is allocating numbers. They may be allocating only 7% visas to India and China in EB2 category very strictly, every month, and allocating unused numbers to EB3 category, by suspending AC21 law as indicated in their Nov 2005 Visa Bulletin. If they do so, it is against the law, at least in my interpretation of AC21 rule that eliminates country quota in EB categories.
DOS can not interpret above AC21 rule that eliminates per country limit applies �totally� to all EB categories put together, not by individual preference categories. I.e. If they say they will issue more than 2,800 visas to EB2- India per year (more than 7% of 40,000), provided overall demand for EB visas are less than 140,000. If they interpret the law like this, then there is no need for section 202(a) (5) (A) due to AC21 law. The law before AC21 {i.e. section 202 (a) (3)} itself address the elimination of country quota in both FB and EB category*. Then, section 202(a) (5) (A) is a duplicate wording of section 202(a) (3). So, this section of AC21 law becomes a redundant/duplicate law. Then, there is no meaning of employment �preference� category if they interpret �totally or overall worldwide demand�. In other words, a non-Indian/Chinese restaurant cook (EB3) is more preferred than a NIW PhDs (EB2) from India or China. Is it the intend of the congress when enacting AC21 law in removing per country limitation in EB category? Is it the American Competitiveness in 21st century? I highly doubt that.
Now it is the time to ask US DOS, how they are allocating visa number in EB2 category. If DOS interpreting the law differently, then we need to ask the law makers (Congress) what is their original intension behind the section 202(a)(5)(A) when they drafted the AC21 law in 2000 and how it is differ from 202 (a) (3).
Perhaps Core IV team can initiate to discuss/consult this issue with an immigration lawyer and place an enquiry with DOS or Law makers, if needed.
(*Note: DOS do not mix FB and EB categories for visa number allocation/calculation to meet the per country limit. They keep both in separate track to meet separately the 7% limit)
more...
bkarnik
04-10 04:21 PM
The majority of the USCIS system is based on regulation, not law. The same goes for DOL. Many lawyers have argued that the entire LC/PERM system was created by administrative fiat i.e. it goes way beyond what is laid out in the law.
Having said that, it doesn't appear the the DoJ or DHS will make any changes in their byzantine regulations unless forced by Congress. Consider AC21 which is a law that was made effective >5 years ago but has still not been codified into USCIS regulations!
Morpheus:
I totally agree with you, and that is what surprised me in starting this thread. However, it appears that as recently as 2004, the DHS changed the EAD regulations to extend the validity by more than 1 year in certain cases. I am wondering if it might be worthwhile for the IV core to utilize some resources to try and get the DHS to change the regulation and issue EAD after I140 approval. I feel that we have a good argument considering the facts: a) once I-140 is approved, there is a approval by the USCIS to the employer to hire the alien as a permanent employee and; b) by issuing the EAD at this stage, the USCIS is not in anyway tampering with the GC quotas.
Thoughts??
Having said that, it doesn't appear the the DoJ or DHS will make any changes in their byzantine regulations unless forced by Congress. Consider AC21 which is a law that was made effective >5 years ago but has still not been codified into USCIS regulations!
Morpheus:
I totally agree with you, and that is what surprised me in starting this thread. However, it appears that as recently as 2004, the DHS changed the EAD regulations to extend the validity by more than 1 year in certain cases. I am wondering if it might be worthwhile for the IV core to utilize some resources to try and get the DHS to change the regulation and issue EAD after I140 approval. I feel that we have a good argument considering the facts: a) once I-140 is approved, there is a approval by the USCIS to the employer to hire the alien as a permanent employee and; b) by issuing the EAD at this stage, the USCIS is not in anyway tampering with the GC quotas.
Thoughts??
gjoe
08-24 10:30 AM
I see everyone firing at each other (junior members, members, senior members, moderators and super administrators).
Here are my two cents to keep yourself calm, composed and dignified
1) Empathy will win friends and support
2) Sympathy you will have only when someone is humble and meek
3) If you lack both the society will ignore you
PS: In a fight the weak always get support, the big and strong are on their own. if they lose no one to cheer them up nor comforts.
Ladies and Gentlemen, you are the only one who can make your choice.
Here are my two cents to keep yourself calm, composed and dignified
1) Empathy will win friends and support
2) Sympathy you will have only when someone is humble and meek
3) If you lack both the society will ignore you
PS: In a fight the weak always get support, the big and strong are on their own. if they lose no one to cheer them up nor comforts.
Ladies and Gentlemen, you are the only one who can make your choice.
more...
ganguteli
03-27 09:31 AM
The reason is...probably we are not toiling that hard....As long as one has a paying job, things go reasonably smooth.....and we dont toil as much as it is made out to be.
The issue comes only when one loses the job...and had to play catch-up with immigration to keep us in status.
That is also the reason why you don't get mass participation in legal immigration activities.
I presume people are just happy with the status-quo! They think of going that extra length only when that status quo gets disrupted..
My 2 cents!
People will do anything only when they are in trouble. Before that they are happy with their status and would rather spend their time and dollars on fun things in life. Only when reality hits hard they will do anything. A fragmented effort will never be successful. Imagine if this driver License is taken up by thousands of people in a state and they march to the governor office on a day. This issue will make national headlines and state will correct it soon.
The issue comes only when one loses the job...and had to play catch-up with immigration to keep us in status.
That is also the reason why you don't get mass participation in legal immigration activities.
I presume people are just happy with the status-quo! They think of going that extra length only when that status quo gets disrupted..
My 2 cents!
People will do anything only when they are in trouble. Before that they are happy with their status and would rather spend their time and dollars on fun things in life. Only when reality hits hard they will do anything. A fragmented effort will never be successful. Imagine if this driver License is taken up by thousands of people in a state and they march to the governor office on a day. This issue will make national headlines and state will correct it soon.
2010 love quotes with pictures
ram77
05-31 12:00 PM
Thanks for the post.
more...
h1techSlave
11-09 02:16 PM
AP applied at: NSE.
on: Sept 7th.
mode of application: online + mail in all copies via good old USPS.
Status on 11/09: Card production.
No physical card yet, but so far so good.
on: Sept 7th.
mode of application: online + mail in all copies via good old USPS.
Status on 11/09: Card production.
No physical card yet, but so far so good.
hair Quotes: (On leaving home)
jnayar2006
04-01 06:40 PM
sent 10 n 11
more...
mbawa2574
07-07 07:19 PM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qP79UslTUr8
hot quotes for leaving
Rajeev
11-03 03:02 PM
It is high time, we support this initiative from Senator Menendez.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum16-iv-agenda-and-legislative-updates/1624351-bill-s0185-active-again-please-call-your-senators-for-support.html#post2013464
"It seems that the bill S 1085 (the Reuniting Families Act (RFA) has become active again. I received e-mails from Senator Menedez and Senator Lautenberg talking about the bill. Senator Menendex mentioned the recapture employment-based visas that haven't been used in past years so that they may be used in future years. Among other things, he also mentioned that he will continue to address the concerns of employment-based visas in the context of comprehensive immigration reform. He is the sponsor of the S 1085 bill.
Senetor Lautenberg mentioned "Under current immigration law, employment-based immigration is limited to 140,000 visas, or green cards, per year. The process for obtaining employment-based visas can take years to complete, causing many of these visas to go unused. There is also an annual per-country limit that caps at seven percent the number of employment-based immigrants that can come from any one country. In some instances, this per-country cap causes employers to consider country of origin, not talent, when hiring foreign workers.
A bill has been introduced in the Senate that would address some of these delays and caps. The �Reuniting American Families Act� (S. 1085) would recapture unused employment-based visas from prior years. This bill would allow the Department of Homeland Security to issue any unused visas from Fiscal Years 1992-2007 and in the future roll over any unused visas from one year to the next. It would also increase the per-country cap for employment-based visas to ten percent of the annual total."
It seems that Senator Menendez is doing a lot of work to bring relief to all immigrants including employment based. It may be brought in the lame-duck session in December.
Please call your Senators to co-sponsor/support this bill."
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum16-iv-agenda-and-legislative-updates/1624351-bill-s0185-active-again-please-call-your-senators-for-support.html#post2013464
"It seems that the bill S 1085 (the Reuniting Families Act (RFA) has become active again. I received e-mails from Senator Menedez and Senator Lautenberg talking about the bill. Senator Menendex mentioned the recapture employment-based visas that haven't been used in past years so that they may be used in future years. Among other things, he also mentioned that he will continue to address the concerns of employment-based visas in the context of comprehensive immigration reform. He is the sponsor of the S 1085 bill.
Senetor Lautenberg mentioned "Under current immigration law, employment-based immigration is limited to 140,000 visas, or green cards, per year. The process for obtaining employment-based visas can take years to complete, causing many of these visas to go unused. There is also an annual per-country limit that caps at seven percent the number of employment-based immigrants that can come from any one country. In some instances, this per-country cap causes employers to consider country of origin, not talent, when hiring foreign workers.
A bill has been introduced in the Senate that would address some of these delays and caps. The �Reuniting American Families Act� (S. 1085) would recapture unused employment-based visas from prior years. This bill would allow the Department of Homeland Security to issue any unused visas from Fiscal Years 1992-2007 and in the future roll over any unused visas from one year to the next. It would also increase the per-country cap for employment-based visas to ten percent of the annual total."
It seems that Senator Menendez is doing a lot of work to bring relief to all immigrants including employment based. It may be brought in the lame-duck session in December.
Please call your Senators to co-sponsor/support this bill."
more...
house quotes (by leaving them in
little_willy
08-22 01:55 PM
Its beyond me, why would EB3 go back to 2001 when new numbers will be available beginning Oct 07. Disappointed and mad
No surprises for me at least. There will be only 816 new EB3 visas available for any country in October. This will move the dates at the most by a month or two and this will continue for ever until a new legislation is passed, that is why DC rally is all the more important and everyone should focus on that to bring in a change.
For folks wondering how I came to the 816 visa number
Total GC available = 140000
7% country limit = 9800
split for EB3 = 3266
spread for each qtr = 816
Good Luck to all and don't have high expectations because you will be disappointed when the bulletin comes out.
No surprises for me at least. There will be only 816 new EB3 visas available for any country in October. This will move the dates at the most by a month or two and this will continue for ever until a new legislation is passed, that is why DC rally is all the more important and everyone should focus on that to bring in a change.
For folks wondering how I came to the 816 visa number
Total GC available = 140000
7% country limit = 9800
split for EB3 = 3266
spread for each qtr = 816
Good Luck to all and don't have high expectations because you will be disappointed when the bulletin comes out.
tattoo quotes for leaving
Waitingnvain
07-17 12:22 PM
I think you might be getting stressed out for no reason vis-a-vis the job market. Most of the people applying (~500k by your estimates) are already on H-1B or L-1. The number of spouses getting EAD is another question.
Just imagine what will happen to the market flooded with EADs. Job market for H1Bs will totally be down. No US companies will hire H1Bs if they get somebody with an EAD. Tonnes of Junior developers and S/W testers will in the market driving the billing rates down even further. It's better to pack up and leave. I have heard from one of the forums here that an estimated 500K people will file this month since all PDs are current. EB-3 mexico + phillipines togther alone will be close to 300K. God help the Job market.
Also minimum wait time will be 500K/140K ~ 4 yrs before they get to process your GC. Add to that the time for namecheck backlog 2+ yrs. So total 6+ yrs before getting GC........
lotr
Just imagine what will happen to the market flooded with EADs. Job market for H1Bs will totally be down. No US companies will hire H1Bs if they get somebody with an EAD. Tonnes of Junior developers and S/W testers will in the market driving the billing rates down even further. It's better to pack up and leave. I have heard from one of the forums here that an estimated 500K people will file this month since all PDs are current. EB-3 mexico + phillipines togther alone will be close to 300K. God help the Job market.
Also minimum wait time will be 500K/140K ~ 4 yrs before they get to process your GC. Add to that the time for namecheck backlog 2+ yrs. So total 6+ yrs before getting GC........
lotr
more...
pictures quotes for leaving.
Brightsider
11-25 04:55 PM
Commendable Job!!!
Please accept my compliments, Pappu and the team.
My suggestions for your meeting with USCIS:-
1. In the interest of transparency, let them also publish data about monthly filings in each of the EB categories. It will reduce uncertainty further.
2. Provide separate numbers for family-based and employment-based cases in their monthly progress reports. To a large extent, this can be obviated by regularly updating the pendency figures published in Sept 09.
3. Include the CP data in the same report along with I-485 data. Becomes easier to compile the big picture and analyze it.
Now, since we dont have any academic interest in the subject,
4. Press the case for recapture of lost visas
5. Have quarterly spillover. Implementation of suggestion (1) will be an enabling factor.
:):):)
Please accept my compliments, Pappu and the team.
My suggestions for your meeting with USCIS:-
1. In the interest of transparency, let them also publish data about monthly filings in each of the EB categories. It will reduce uncertainty further.
2. Provide separate numbers for family-based and employment-based cases in their monthly progress reports. To a large extent, this can be obviated by regularly updating the pendency figures published in Sept 09.
3. Include the CP data in the same report along with I-485 data. Becomes easier to compile the big picture and analyze it.
Now, since we dont have any academic interest in the subject,
4. Press the case for recapture of lost visas
5. Have quarterly spillover. Implementation of suggestion (1) will be an enabling factor.
:):):)
dresses Fergie in Fergie Leaving Salon
Munna Bhai
05-15 03:46 PM
I believe Mbhai did a dis-service by negating good advice. What is the guarantee that the 2nd women that this guy marries will not ask for divorce? The best thing he can do is find a way to reconcile, unless there is marital infidility.
I believe "snathan" story was inspiring and addressed the true problem of that individual and every indivudual's life. Trust me, when you all get your GC's ...it will be these things that will matter to all of you, rather than anything else.
I think we, in this forum, should get more mature in handling others personnel issues. The reason I was against that "snathan" story was that we are trying to play goody goody for no reason. We are in a country where the divorce rate is the highest..then why don't we open this forum for all of those people..let's play good Samaritan to everyone...
I believe "snathan" story was inspiring and addressed the true problem of that individual and every indivudual's life. Trust me, when you all get your GC's ...it will be these things that will matter to all of you, rather than anything else.
I think we, in this forum, should get more mature in handling others personnel issues. The reason I was against that "snathan" story was that we are trying to play goody goody for no reason. We are in a country where the divorce rate is the highest..then why don't we open this forum for all of those people..let's play good Samaritan to everyone...
more...
makeup 170 notes #quote #quotes
jthomas
04-13 05:27 PM
Thanks IV core members for helping a member in our community. this will help me to support IV's agenda in future.
Jose Thomas
Jose Thomas
girlfriend tattoo quotes for leaving.
shirish
02-13 11:46 AM
I received LUDs on my 485 and my wife's 485 and my H1 (Which was recently extended) and Already approved 140.
I have not used AC21 or any thing that would change any thing in my case.
So i guess LUDs may not be tied to AC21 use.
I received a soft lud on my H1B approved in Nov 2007. All other cases do not have any LUD. I guess it is just the system touching these records as routine maintainence.
I have not used AC21 or any thing that would change any thing in my case.
So i guess LUDs may not be tied to AC21 use.
I received a soft lud on my H1B approved in Nov 2007. All other cases do not have any LUD. I guess it is just the system touching these records as routine maintainence.
hairstyles Quotes-on-Leaving-a-
gc4me
12-03 03:39 PM
I called the customer service # on 11/04 and the guy told me that he is sending email reguest for my FP and I got FP notice (my attorney's office also got one) on 11/13. Hope this helps.
WaldenPond
03-16 12:20 PM
Here are comments from Senator Specter about the developments.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=ag6IQySOv77w&refer=us
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=ag6IQySOv77w&refer=us
kiran_k02
08-05 09:16 PM
My Status
NC pending since Sep 30, 2007 (Should be able to approve my case on 180 day rule).
I140 AD: Jun, 30-2007
I485 ND: Sep 21, 2007 --AD ??
PD: Sep-2004.
NC pending since Sep 30, 2007 (Should be able to approve my case on 180 day rule).
I140 AD: Jun, 30-2007
I485 ND: Sep 21, 2007 --AD ??
PD: Sep-2004.
No comments:
Post a Comment