nogreen4decade
07-16 06:18 PM
Wishful thinking - Would be nice if the court went against AZ and asked the congress and senate to resolve the issue soon through legislative action. Republicans will be against any sort of amnesty, so not a thing will happen till November, but there may be chances of piecemeal legislations to address legal immigration issues if Republicans get the majority.
I have paid over $10 K in attorney fees so far and Obama wants to legalize the illegals who broke the law by granting them amnesty and asking them to pay a "fine"? If this happened in our home country, wouldn't we all do the same and think the same as the people of Arizona? I'm in favor of AZ taking this initiative .
I agree with you on amnesty. And I usually agree with republicans on immigration law reforms. Surprisingly, they have been fair. But I dont think AZ new law falls into this republican agenda. I live in Phoenix. I can see the racist motivation behind it.
Ironically, dont forget that if there are no illegals, noone would be talking about any kind of immigration reform!
Here are 3 scenarios, when this law become effective and how it makes legals suffer again!
1) Let us say they stop citizens. They can always say "we are citizens and we dont have to show you any papers". And they are safe that way
2) Let us say they stop legal non-immigrant visa holders, which is my case. In this case, I have to say that I am not a citizen and I will be asked to show papers. I lived in this country for 11 years. My papers are more complicated that even I get confused. And not only that, it is such a pain to carry them all the time. What if I lose them?
3) Let us say they stop an illegal. Since the illegal immigrant already broke the law once, he/she would have no problem breaking it again saying, "I am a citizen. I dont have to show you any papers!"
So what would this law achieve at that time? Just that legals would get more headache!
I have paid over $10 K in attorney fees so far and Obama wants to legalize the illegals who broke the law by granting them amnesty and asking them to pay a "fine"? If this happened in our home country, wouldn't we all do the same and think the same as the people of Arizona? I'm in favor of AZ taking this initiative .
I agree with you on amnesty. And I usually agree with republicans on immigration law reforms. Surprisingly, they have been fair. But I dont think AZ new law falls into this republican agenda. I live in Phoenix. I can see the racist motivation behind it.
Ironically, dont forget that if there are no illegals, noone would be talking about any kind of immigration reform!
Here are 3 scenarios, when this law become effective and how it makes legals suffer again!
1) Let us say they stop citizens. They can always say "we are citizens and we dont have to show you any papers". And they are safe that way
2) Let us say they stop legal non-immigrant visa holders, which is my case. In this case, I have to say that I am not a citizen and I will be asked to show papers. I lived in this country for 11 years. My papers are more complicated that even I get confused. And not only that, it is such a pain to carry them all the time. What if I lose them?
3) Let us say they stop an illegal. Since the illegal immigrant already broke the law once, he/she would have no problem breaking it again saying, "I am a citizen. I dont have to show you any papers!"
So what would this law achieve at that time? Just that legals would get more headache!
wallpaper 2004 tsunami wavefield at 1
manand24
08-01 10:44 AM
Folks,
Just now i called up USCIS (1-800-375-5283 Option 1,2,2,6,2,2,1) since my App was mailed more than 4 weeks.
The lady who picked up was nice enough to explain me the revised ETA for receipting from 4 weeks to 60 Calendar days. She also said that they generally receipts in 2 weeks (not even 4 weeks) but because of this rush that ETA is set to 60 days. She appreciated all of our anxiety and re-assured me that i dont have to call after 60 days because the receipt will be definitely with me ( if everything is filed correctly as per rules )
One thing i found funny - she explained me that this Rush is just for avoiding the 'Fee Increase' - She has no idea about the Retrogression and stuffs like that :)
Good luck guys - chat with you after another 29 days !!
I also just got off the phone with USCIS, I am July 2nd filer with no receipts yet. The nice lady at USCIS customer service told me that due the increase in the in-flux of applications, it is taking USCIS longer to generate the receipt notices. She told me to call them back after 2 weeks.
Just now i called up USCIS (1-800-375-5283 Option 1,2,2,6,2,2,1) since my App was mailed more than 4 weeks.
The lady who picked up was nice enough to explain me the revised ETA for receipting from 4 weeks to 60 Calendar days. She also said that they generally receipts in 2 weeks (not even 4 weeks) but because of this rush that ETA is set to 60 days. She appreciated all of our anxiety and re-assured me that i dont have to call after 60 days because the receipt will be definitely with me ( if everything is filed correctly as per rules )
One thing i found funny - she explained me that this Rush is just for avoiding the 'Fee Increase' - She has no idea about the Retrogression and stuffs like that :)
Good luck guys - chat with you after another 29 days !!
I also just got off the phone with USCIS, I am July 2nd filer with no receipts yet. The nice lady at USCIS customer service told me that due the increase in the in-flux of applications, it is taking USCIS longer to generate the receipt notices. She told me to call them back after 2 weeks.
pd_recapturing
08-11 05:25 PM
Can anyone tell what will be the status of a person who has used AC21 , and does not get the EAD renewal before the existing EAD expires ? Assume 140 has been approved, 180 days has been passed and got the EAD renewal receipt.
I am exactly in same situation. Based on my research, you need to stop working on the day your EAD gets expired if your new EAD has not been approved. EAD renewal receipt notice is not going to help. I would stop working if this situation arrives.
I am exactly in same situation. Based on my research, you need to stop working on the day your EAD gets expired if your new EAD has not been approved. EAD renewal receipt notice is not going to help. I would stop working if this situation arrives.
2011 Sumatra-Andaman Island sumatra 2004 earthquake and tsunami.
s_r_e_e
08-31 10:10 PM
Even today i came across a friend saying according to his so and so friends thinking , EB2 should move very fast as last time it jumped from 2002 - 2004 or what ever in 2 months !!!!... There are lot of people who dont understand the depth of the problem , the yearly limit , country quota etc..
I think the only way to make them understand is to tell that since 1 million people are in queue and only 140K GC per year , your GC will take any where from 8-15 years.. :)
I think the only way to make them understand is to tell that since 1 million people are in queue and only 140K GC per year , your GC will take any where from 8-15 years.. :)
more...
Lasantha
01-04 10:39 AM
So do you mean to say that this is allowed in India? I mean polygamy. I never knew that.
A freind of mine came across a gentleman, who is here on work visa and he is facing a unique problem. He is married to two persons and wants to bring his whole family here in the USA. He was looking for answer if he can get both his spouses and kids here on H4 visas. Currently both of them and his kids are in India. Interesting hmmm :D
A freind of mine came across a gentleman, who is here on work visa and he is facing a unique problem. He is married to two persons and wants to bring his whole family here in the USA. He was looking for answer if he can get both his spouses and kids here on H4 visas. Currently both of them and his kids are in India. Interesting hmmm :D
sats123
06-19 04:11 PM
I do have copy of labor approval but I donot have copy of job description that they filed for labor. I also have copy of 140 approval.
I don't think I can get letters from HR (there are couple of people who handles everything from getting timesheets to posting payslips) as they very loyal to my employer.
Then I guess my only options are
- give it a try to file through another attorney with paystubs and without employer letter.
- forget about $5000 and proceed.
I don't think I can get letters from HR (there are couple of people who handles everything from getting timesheets to posting payslips) as they very loyal to my employer.
Then I guess my only options are
- give it a try to file through another attorney with paystubs and without employer letter.
- forget about $5000 and proceed.
more...
vedicman
11-03 10:59 AM
"Obviously the GOP had a big night tonight, maybe historical," said Craig Shirley, a Ronald Reagan biographer and longtime GOP adviser. "However, they ran largely as anti-Obama, which is not a governing philosophy. I say 'maybe historical' because the voters went for the Republicans for what they opposed and not what they proposed. History is made by what you do and not by what you won't do.
"Beginning on Wednesday, the GOP will have to decide what it stands for and what it will offer the American people."
This election is nonetheless significant for several reasons. First, the House of Representative has now switched hands between the two major parties three times in the last nine elections. This suggests that volatility in the House of Representatives is now a constant in political life. It is unlikely that in the near future either party will dominate the House the way the Democrats did for much of the last seven decades of the 20th Century. The Republicans may hold on to the House longer than the Democrats just have, but it will likely be only for a handful of terms, not a handful of decades as the Democrats did between 1955-1994.
Second, and more importantly, with control of the government now divided between the two parties, it will no longer be easy for the Republicans to blame the Democrats for the state of the economy. Nor will it be possible for the Republicans to simply say no to everything that is proposed in Washington. That strategy was useful when the Republicans were completely out of power, but the context has now changed.
This may lead to better bipartisan cooperation in Washington, but that is unlikely, particularly given the a real possibility that economic recovery will not happen by 2012, not because of the failure of politicians in Washington to address the problem, but because of the depth and seriousness of the problem itself. Given the difficulty of fixing the economy, even if both parties were willing to cooperate towards that end, the more potent strategy would be for both parties to increase the partisan rancor in Washington by blaming each other, accusing the other side of destroying the country and the like.
Dug the hole for 8 years, expect prosperity in 18 months!!!!
"Beginning on Wednesday, the GOP will have to decide what it stands for and what it will offer the American people."
This election is nonetheless significant for several reasons. First, the House of Representative has now switched hands between the two major parties three times in the last nine elections. This suggests that volatility in the House of Representatives is now a constant in political life. It is unlikely that in the near future either party will dominate the House the way the Democrats did for much of the last seven decades of the 20th Century. The Republicans may hold on to the House longer than the Democrats just have, but it will likely be only for a handful of terms, not a handful of decades as the Democrats did between 1955-1994.
Second, and more importantly, with control of the government now divided between the two parties, it will no longer be easy for the Republicans to blame the Democrats for the state of the economy. Nor will it be possible for the Republicans to simply say no to everything that is proposed in Washington. That strategy was useful when the Republicans were completely out of power, but the context has now changed.
This may lead to better bipartisan cooperation in Washington, but that is unlikely, particularly given the a real possibility that economic recovery will not happen by 2012, not because of the failure of politicians in Washington to address the problem, but because of the depth and seriousness of the problem itself. Given the difficulty of fixing the economy, even if both parties were willing to cooperate towards that end, the more potent strategy would be for both parties to increase the partisan rancor in Washington by blaming each other, accusing the other side of destroying the country and the like.
Dug the hole for 8 years, expect prosperity in 18 months!!!!
2010 October 2010 Sumatra
akgind
07-13 08:24 PM
I completely empathize with you, salcom3. My daughter is in similar boat.
Apart from what IV might do, each of us should write immediately to as many Senators and House Members as possible with our own story, pointing out the unfair treatment of those who are trying to play by the rules.
I totally agree with you akgind.
Here is my daughter's case:
1994 she was 8 years old when we brought her to USA
2002 asylum case was denied, we had to go back to our country (we didn't stay illegaly)
2002 after one month we came back, with H-1 visa, daughter with H-4
2003 I applied for LC
2006 My daughter turned 21 - She had to change status to F-1 (of course college fees were triple). She is out of LC process because of her age.
2007 LC approved, she is still F-1 and paying a lot of money in tuition.
I mean, these kids like my daughter (and I am sure there are thousands like her), deserve a break too. If the DREAM ACT is going to benefit illegal persons, it should also benefit children that have waited for their parents' LC process for long years only to see their hopes destroyed.
Apart from what IV might do, each of us should write immediately to as many Senators and House Members as possible with our own story, pointing out the unfair treatment of those who are trying to play by the rules.
I totally agree with you akgind.
Here is my daughter's case:
1994 she was 8 years old when we brought her to USA
2002 asylum case was denied, we had to go back to our country (we didn't stay illegaly)
2002 after one month we came back, with H-1 visa, daughter with H-4
2003 I applied for LC
2006 My daughter turned 21 - She had to change status to F-1 (of course college fees were triple). She is out of LC process because of her age.
2007 LC approved, she is still F-1 and paying a lot of money in tuition.
I mean, these kids like my daughter (and I am sure there are thousands like her), deserve a break too. If the DREAM ACT is going to benefit illegal persons, it should also benefit children that have waited for their parents' LC process for long years only to see their hopes destroyed.
more...
24fps
02-27 04:55 PM
I think its pretty immature for members to draw moral judgments and post those remarks here, all thats required is to tell the OP that this forum is for redressing Legal immigrant based issue (primarily dealing with the Green-Card delays etc), to tell the OP to take her "sob story" or " not being sorry" and pulling up moral judgments is just plan immature, period.
hair The quake struck Aceh province
mantric
02-16 09:34 PM
i think CP filers have a valid point to argue for relief. clearly there is an injury to CP filers as the dates were moved forward creating the impression that they will continue to do so or at least hold steady. legal opinion was also in favor of CP based on individual circumstances in many cases. many of these filers already underwent a lengthy BEC process, which newer Perm/I-485 filers never went through. the government flip flop is the cause of this additional injury.
instead of asking for specific fixes to be put in, CP filers should articulate this problem clearly and get legal opinion as to possible relief measures.
great point mr internet then I think CP filiers should other way to make their efforts and should not participate in letter campaign since there are lot of people who are waiting in CP queue.....anyway are you British...it seems to me from your reply:rolleyes:
instead of asking for specific fixes to be put in, CP filers should articulate this problem clearly and get legal opinion as to possible relief measures.
great point mr internet then I think CP filiers should other way to make their efforts and should not participate in letter campaign since there are lot of people who are waiting in CP queue.....anyway are you British...it seems to me from your reply:rolleyes:
more...
harsh
12-20 10:10 PM
Great news. By some distance this is the best news on skilled immigration front this year. This will allow all the H4 dependents who have spent time on H4 for more than 6 years to start working if they get a job with H1B.
Where did you find this memo "the"? Is it already implemented or is this something USCIS is proposing?
Where did you find this memo "the"? Is it already implemented or is this something USCIS is proposing?
hot quake
NKR
06-02 08:45 AM
Later my wife made me realize that family life is most important as long as we are together, country of residence does not matter. When our son was born last month, I truly felt 'damn GC'.. funnily got approved in the same week:
Congratulations. I wish the baby all the very best in life. With regards to GC, yes, sometimes you get things when you are least expecting it.
Congratulations. I wish the baby all the very best in life. With regards to GC, yes, sometimes you get things when you are least expecting it.
more...
house 9.1 Sumatra Earthquake
pooja_34
12-22 03:08 PM
Again, incorrect english - Why dont you go learn english and then post here - Till then use your local language forums only !
I am not in the bed with you to take your direction
I am not in the bed with you to take your direction
tattoo Fear for new tsunami after
El_Guapo
05-05 05:16 PM
Welcome. I urge you to browse this wonderful site and try to gather more information as to what IV has to offer and its history.
BTW: "sub prime" has nothing to do with the real estate market or the location of the house. It is a financial term to describe a "risk" category invented for the layman. People who got loans even though they do not have the 'prime' credit rating and paid zero down payment are the ones who are walking away from their houses. These foreclosed houses can be anywhere and probably in better locations than not, as their prices would not have precipitously climbed during 2003-2006 crazy years.
Yup, I know what sub prime is and more. What I meant to say was more that 60% of the foreclosure was due to the sub prime crisis. A lot of these come from the Low Income Group and were sucked into the ARM with 5 yr fixed and variable therafter. They usually don't buy homes in a $500,000 community. They bought houses in a 150K community. Most of the houses in those areas are not what a typical, highly skilled immigrant earning good money would be interested in buying. Atleast not in my area. But you are right. These houses could be in good areas too. With 12 million foreclosed homes, say 6 million are in good areas and with 500K immigrants in line, perhaps buying 250K houses, its about 4% of the foreclosure market. Now tell me, how can that help the economy?
BTW: "sub prime" has nothing to do with the real estate market or the location of the house. It is a financial term to describe a "risk" category invented for the layman. People who got loans even though they do not have the 'prime' credit rating and paid zero down payment are the ones who are walking away from their houses. These foreclosed houses can be anywhere and probably in better locations than not, as their prices would not have precipitously climbed during 2003-2006 crazy years.
Yup, I know what sub prime is and more. What I meant to say was more that 60% of the foreclosure was due to the sub prime crisis. A lot of these come from the Low Income Group and were sucked into the ARM with 5 yr fixed and variable therafter. They usually don't buy homes in a $500,000 community. They bought houses in a 150K community. Most of the houses in those areas are not what a typical, highly skilled immigrant earning good money would be interested in buying. Atleast not in my area. But you are right. These houses could be in good areas too. With 12 million foreclosed homes, say 6 million are in good areas and with 500K immigrants in line, perhaps buying 250K houses, its about 4% of the foreclosure market. Now tell me, how can that help the economy?
more...
pictures Experience on Off-Sumatra
senocular
02-03 07:01 AM
Originally posted by Guig0
now i�m ashaned coz i don�t have any vote at all :(
your reflections were good too! ...I just didnt want to be associated with anything related to spam :!:
:)
now i�m ashaned coz i don�t have any vote at all :(
your reflections were good too! ...I just didnt want to be associated with anything related to spam :!:
:)
dresses Sumatra-Andaman Tsunami:
waitingnwaiting
11-12 09:45 AM
That means Eb-2 I screwed....for several months.
God bless all our Eb2-I guys.
They are very much better off now. Their dates will be all current in one-two years. We in EB3 have to wait 20 years. So couple of month wait is nothing.
God bless all our Eb2-I guys.
They are very much better off now. Their dates will be all current in one-two years. We in EB3 have to wait 20 years. So couple of month wait is nothing.
more...
makeup A few places in Sumatra like
varshadas
03-26 06:12 AM
Hi ivy55 and anyone else waiting for people to join them, please do not wait for people to meet the law makers. Go ahead and schedule your appointments and if no one responds, please go alone.
Thanks,
Varsha
Thanks,
Varsha
girlfriend Sumatra tsunami
Canadian_Dream
09-14 04:17 PM
Most people here fail to realize the cost of immigration is very heavy at a personal level, especially in globalized economy. If we assume that average wait time for Green Card is 7-9 years (earlier it use to be 4-6 years) consier the following:
1. Professional Growth: This one takes the biggest hit. I know many people at my work who have got GC in past 4-5 years after the usual wait time, they have hit the wall in the career front. Their peak productive years when they were to rise exponentially are gone in waiting. Now most of them are lost in corporate America looking for a place where they can somehow make up for the lost years. I don't think they have found it yet. Most believe that going to home countries might help to find that niche and make up for the growth. This solution might work when the economies of Asia are growing at 8-10% but no one knows for sure in long term.
2. Financial Growth: A lot of investment opportunities are lost becasue no one wants to make a long term invetsment commitments in the state of limbo. Besides that most households have to live on single income source making their earnings below average household income. Even after getting GC one cannot make up for this loss. This creates a permanent under class and I not sure what kinds discontent it leads to.
3. Others: Family (Spouse's professional and others) and presonal stress that one has to go through during the wating years.
I wonder if there is a study outlining these impacts. This is become all the more relevant when the standard of living and opportunites at home are closing the gap rapidly. Getting GC use to outweigh these cost in the past (90's) but lately questions are bound raise on one's mind if this price is justified.
1. Professional Growth: This one takes the biggest hit. I know many people at my work who have got GC in past 4-5 years after the usual wait time, they have hit the wall in the career front. Their peak productive years when they were to rise exponentially are gone in waiting. Now most of them are lost in corporate America looking for a place where they can somehow make up for the lost years. I don't think they have found it yet. Most believe that going to home countries might help to find that niche and make up for the growth. This solution might work when the economies of Asia are growing at 8-10% but no one knows for sure in long term.
2. Financial Growth: A lot of investment opportunities are lost becasue no one wants to make a long term invetsment commitments in the state of limbo. Besides that most households have to live on single income source making their earnings below average household income. Even after getting GC one cannot make up for this loss. This creates a permanent under class and I not sure what kinds discontent it leads to.
3. Others: Family (Spouse's professional and others) and presonal stress that one has to go through during the wating years.
I wonder if there is a study outlining these impacts. This is become all the more relevant when the standard of living and opportunites at home are closing the gap rapidly. Getting GC use to outweigh these cost in the past (90's) but lately questions are bound raise on one's mind if this price is justified.
hairstyles The 9.1 magnitude Sumatra
amit_p27
06-19 02:26 PM
Guys Got approved today morning........... Thanks to everyone on this forum for infinite information........... Will be back when ready for the Citizenship application..................:D
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS E-MAIL ***
The last processing action taken on your case
Receipt Number: LIN0XXXXXXXX
Application Type: I485 , APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
Current Status: Notice mailed welcoming the new permanent resident.
On June 19, 2007, we mailed you a notice that we had registered this customer's new permanent resident status. Please follow any instructions on the notice. Your new permanent resident card should be mailed within 60 days following this registration or after you complete any ADIT processing referred to in the welcome notice, whichever is later. If you move before you get your new card call customer service. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow the link below to register.
If you have questions or concerns about your application or the case status results listed above, or if you have not received a decision from USCIS within the current processing time listed*, please contact USCIS Customer Service at (800) 375-5283.
*Current processing times can be found on the USCIS website at www.uscis.gov under Case Status and Processing Dates.
*** Please do not respond to this e-mail message.
Sincerely,
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PD- Dec 2002, I485-RD- Dec 2003.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS E-MAIL ***
The last processing action taken on your case
Receipt Number: LIN0XXXXXXXX
Application Type: I485 , APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
Current Status: Notice mailed welcoming the new permanent resident.
On June 19, 2007, we mailed you a notice that we had registered this customer's new permanent resident status. Please follow any instructions on the notice. Your new permanent resident card should be mailed within 60 days following this registration or after you complete any ADIT processing referred to in the welcome notice, whichever is later. If you move before you get your new card call customer service. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow the link below to register.
If you have questions or concerns about your application or the case status results listed above, or if you have not received a decision from USCIS within the current processing time listed*, please contact USCIS Customer Service at (800) 375-5283.
*Current processing times can be found on the USCIS website at www.uscis.gov under Case Status and Processing Dates.
*** Please do not respond to this e-mail message.
Sincerely,
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PD- Dec 2002, I485-RD- Dec 2003.
varshadas
03-26 06:12 AM
Hi ivy55 and anyone else waiting for people to join them, please do not wait for people to meet the law makers. Go ahead and schedule your appointments and if no one responds, please go alone.
Thanks,
Varsha
Thanks,
Varsha
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)
