newuser
04-21 07:46 PM
Could someone post the meeting notes.
wallpaper tribal tattoo pictures for men
Ennada
12-10 09:11 AM
and EB2-India by a month; yaaaaay :)
Looking at the way they moved the dates last year, we can expect reasonable movements only in April VB. Strictly based on last year's trend, we could see dates reaching 2005 in April and possibly 2007 in August.
Looking at the way they moved the dates last year, we can expect reasonable movements only in April VB. Strictly based on last year's trend, we could see dates reaching 2005 in April and possibly 2007 in August.
GC_US_64
12-26 03:58 PM
We cannot save for our children's college in college savings plan as every plan needs a GC.
2011 Cross Tattoo Designs for Men
downthedrain
02-02 07:09 PM
Here is the text under the attachment section
The record contains a letter from your prospective employer. The letter indicates that you have been employed by XXXXXX company as a Senior Software Engineer. However, the record does not contain any evidence which establishes the salary or compensation package being offered. Therefore you must submit a currently issued letter or other evidence from the prospective permanent employer indicating that the salary or compensation package being offered.
PD Mar 2002
485 RD SEP 2007
The record contains a letter from your prospective employer. The letter indicates that you have been employed by XXXXXX company as a Senior Software Engineer. However, the record does not contain any evidence which establishes the salary or compensation package being offered. Therefore you must submit a currently issued letter or other evidence from the prospective permanent employer indicating that the salary or compensation package being offered.
PD Mar 2002
485 RD SEP 2007
more...
srinivas_o
06-10 04:00 PM
Sent and forwarded to 3 of my friends.
OPPOSE the Sanders-Grassley-Harkin amendment S.AMDT.4319 in bill H.R.4213 which severely hurts Competitiveness, Innovation and creating jobs in America
It will only take less then 1 minute of your time to click this link ImmigrationVoice.org - Advocacy -- OPPOSE the Sanders-Grassley-Harkin amendment S.AMDT.4319 in bill H.R.4213 which severely hurts Competitiveness, Innovation and creating jobs in America (http://immigrationvoice.capwiz.com/immigrationvoice/issues/alert/?alertid=15130466)
and send the message out
Please post this link on other forums and mail to friends asking them to join this action item.
OPPOSE the Sanders-Grassley-Harkin amendment S.AMDT.4319 in bill H.R.4213 which severely hurts Competitiveness, Innovation and creating jobs in America
It will only take less then 1 minute of your time to click this link ImmigrationVoice.org - Advocacy -- OPPOSE the Sanders-Grassley-Harkin amendment S.AMDT.4319 in bill H.R.4213 which severely hurts Competitiveness, Innovation and creating jobs in America (http://immigrationvoice.capwiz.com/immigrationvoice/issues/alert/?alertid=15130466)
and send the message out
Please post this link on other forums and mail to friends asking them to join this action item.
leoindiano
03-17 09:59 AM
Substitute labors for EB2 should not IMPACT the delay more than 3 to 6 months. The reason is total EB2 labor india cases approved with PD in 2004 itself is 3500(Straight out of DOL database, published on this forum last year). Some of these cases may have been substituted, worst case, lets say 100% of them applied to I-485. Now the number is 3 times that of 3500. that is 10500(including spouse and 1 child on average).
Another thing you need to consider is If anycase had a PD before sept 2004 and was filed for I-485 before July 2007. That must have got the approval unless there was a namecheck delay.
That should reduce the number to half., 5500(including dependent cases). This is my educated guess, Please dont pick on me. It wont help anybody.
Below are 3 categories left in 2004 as per my analysis....
1) the applications filed in or after july 2007 OR
2) applications had a PD after sept 2004
3) Namecheck delayed cases.
Another thing you need to consider is If anycase had a PD before sept 2004 and was filed for I-485 before July 2007. That must have got the approval unless there was a namecheck delay.
That should reduce the number to half., 5500(including dependent cases). This is my educated guess, Please dont pick on me. It wont help anybody.
Below are 3 categories left in 2004 as per my analysis....
1) the applications filed in or after july 2007 OR
2) applications had a PD after sept 2004
3) Namecheck delayed cases.
more...
karthkc
07-14 06:27 PM
I filed for 485 during July 2007. My 140 was already approved. Due to some problems I quit my employer in August 2007. My previous employer was a desi blood sucker. I was fed up & decided to quit after working for him for 3 years. I applied for H1 transfer with a new employer based on approved 140. I got H1 approval for another 3 years. Currently I am working for the new H1 sponsoring employer. I also received an EAD card based on pending 485 for one year. I didnt notify USICS of job change in July.
I applied for EAD extension this year. The application for EAD extension is pending. I got a following RFE on my 485:
Please state whether or not you are currently working for your I-140 petitioner.
You must submit a currently dated letter from you permanent employer, describing your present job duties & position in the organization, your proferred position (if different from your current one), the date you began employement & the offered salary & wage. The letter must also indicate whether the terms & conditions of your employement based visa petition (or labor certification) continue to exist.
I am not in good terms with my previous employer so I cant ask him for a letter. I can ask my new employer for such a letter.
Will USCIS come to know I quite Employer A before completing 180 days?
Also is it possible that 140 was revoked by my previous employer?
What document should I send to USCIS now?
Nowhere in this post, do I see the fact that the OP used AC21 when he moved in August 2007.
Does not AC21 come in when you have used EAD to move instead of a H1 transfer?
In my understanding, by doing a H1 transfer rather than invoking AC21, the OP preserved the status of the original petition unless the employer revoked the I140 for fraud. If that's the case, shouldn't the RFE be worded differently?
If that's not the case, all the OP has to do is craft a response to the RFE with an Employment Verification Letter from his current employer attesting to the similar nature of job etc.. and move forward.
Either way, an attorney would be the safest bet..
I applied for EAD extension this year. The application for EAD extension is pending. I got a following RFE on my 485:
Please state whether or not you are currently working for your I-140 petitioner.
You must submit a currently dated letter from you permanent employer, describing your present job duties & position in the organization, your proferred position (if different from your current one), the date you began employement & the offered salary & wage. The letter must also indicate whether the terms & conditions of your employement based visa petition (or labor certification) continue to exist.
I am not in good terms with my previous employer so I cant ask him for a letter. I can ask my new employer for such a letter.
Will USCIS come to know I quite Employer A before completing 180 days?
Also is it possible that 140 was revoked by my previous employer?
What document should I send to USCIS now?
Nowhere in this post, do I see the fact that the OP used AC21 when he moved in August 2007.
Does not AC21 come in when you have used EAD to move instead of a H1 transfer?
In my understanding, by doing a H1 transfer rather than invoking AC21, the OP preserved the status of the original petition unless the employer revoked the I140 for fraud. If that's the case, shouldn't the RFE be worded differently?
If that's not the case, all the OP has to do is craft a response to the RFE with an Employment Verification Letter from his current employer attesting to the similar nature of job etc.. and move forward.
Either way, an attorney would be the safest bet..
2010 hot aries tattoo designs for
gcnirvana
07-12 04:50 PM
I think you are in. Good Luck!
Mine is 3/21/06. So close...yet seems like so far :(
Hi,
My PD is March 1st 2006. Just wondering is March 1st is in or out? i.e. cut off is March 2nd or March 1st?
thanks,
Rwe
Mine is 3/21/06. So close...yet seems like so far :(
Hi,
My PD is March 1st 2006. Just wondering is March 1st is in or out? i.e. cut off is March 2nd or March 1st?
thanks,
Rwe
more...
jsb
03-09 12:27 PM
This is horrible. Does not make much sense.
No significant, if any, movement, even though it is supposed be a new quarter?
No significant, if any, movement, even though it is supposed be a new quarter?
hair hot Art Tribal Tattoo Designs
stucklabor
07-24 10:15 PM
.. there should definitely be some policy interpretation at the discretion of the USCIS
1) The law does not explicitly state that the visa number availability is a pre-requisite for filing the application
2) If you are interpreting it based on the words ....
"an immigrant visa is immediately available to him at the time his application is filed"
Then according to 245(a)(2)....
"the alien is eligible to receive an immigrant visa and is admissible to the United States for permanent residence, and "
....concurrent filing of I-140/I-485 should also be illegal because at the time of filing I-140 there is no determination of whether the alien is eligible to recieve the EB visa. If so how can USCIS allow filing of I-485 at that time.
Dude/Dudette, I give up. The alien's eligibility and admissibility is decided at I-485 stage - FBI name checks, medical tests ring a bell? The law explicitly states that visa number availabililty is a pre-requisite for the adjustment of status application in 245(a)(3). If you can't understand - or choose to refuse to understand - plain English, have fun arguing with yourself.
1) The law does not explicitly state that the visa number availability is a pre-requisite for filing the application
2) If you are interpreting it based on the words ....
"an immigrant visa is immediately available to him at the time his application is filed"
Then according to 245(a)(2)....
"the alien is eligible to receive an immigrant visa and is admissible to the United States for permanent residence, and "
....concurrent filing of I-140/I-485 should also be illegal because at the time of filing I-140 there is no determination of whether the alien is eligible to recieve the EB visa. If so how can USCIS allow filing of I-485 at that time.
Dude/Dudette, I give up. The alien's eligibility and admissibility is decided at I-485 stage - FBI name checks, medical tests ring a bell? The law explicitly states that visa number availabililty is a pre-requisite for the adjustment of status application in 245(a)(3). If you can't understand - or choose to refuse to understand - plain English, have fun arguing with yourself.
more...
sunitharay
08-09 12:20 AM
I am spending sleepless nights worrying...and regarding resubmitting, is it not a waste submitting it twice - will they encash the checks twice?
OR
it seems to be a better idea to just enclose the RN # and submit the EVL separately...
OR
it seems to be a better idea to just enclose the RN # and submit the EVL separately...
hot Sleeve Tattoo Ideas for Men
pmb76
07-16 09:15 PM
Someone mentioned that IV has the same web fax facility. Can someone tell us how to use this facility. I registered with the numbersusa site and used their own fax to send out our message. I used the first name, last name and address form fields to put in our message like, "Bunch of Lies", "H1 pay all taxes", Numbersusa is spreading false information". Lets beat them at their own game by sending faxes ourselves and also using their fax service to spread our message. If its a good idea, please register on their site and send out faxes with our message.
Well said. I totally agree with you. Admin please bump up this thread so we may correct the facts on behalf of numbersusa :D
Well said. I totally agree with you. Admin please bump up this thread so we may correct the facts on behalf of numbersusa :D
more...
house tribal tattoo designs for
StarSun
02-23 08:52 AM
Poster to spread the word.. (http://immigrationvoice.org/wiki/images/a/a7/Myposter.pdf)
tattoo tribal designs for men. tribal
seahawks
07-26 08:49 AM
are they encouraging prinicipal aliens to "batter" spouses, so that they will be given permission to work:) Isn't spouses not able to work a pain by itself? Geez
more...
pictures The Best Tribal Tattoo Designs
nozerd
03-09 01:16 PM
Guys,
I have been here 18 yrs and still waiting. You are lucky if you get it in 16 yrs. Ofcourse not all my 18 yrs have been in GC queue.
Hey who are you calling BS ???? :rolleyes:
I have been in the US 15 years and counting.
-a
I have been here 18 yrs and still waiting. You are lucky if you get it in 16 yrs. Ofcourse not all my 18 yrs have been in GC queue.
Hey who are you calling BS ???? :rolleyes:
I have been in the US 15 years and counting.
-a
dresses Man with neck tribal tattoo
sukhwinderd
02-16 07:49 PM
so many people stuck in backlog in DC/VA area and not even 5 came up for help.
i am hopeful of more contributions, please dont let me down.
thanks
i am hopeful of more contributions, please dont let me down.
thanks
more...
makeup Cool Tribal Tattoo Ideas For
transpass
04-10 12:07 PM
Here are the details for last year and years before:
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
Thanks Kondur. That was a very good presentation of the numbers. I very much appreciate it.
Now,
1. Why did EB1 last year needed spillover visas, although it was current all the time? If a category is current, isn't that it has less demand than allocated numbers?
2. As per May bulletin, EB4 might need a cut off. So we cannot expect any spillover from EB4. So that is clear. Now the spillover chances are from EB5, EB2 ROW and EB1(?). I am including EB1 because, given the current economy over the past year, should there be a better possibility of more spillover from EB2 ROW and EB1 compared to last year?
3. Also why are the total EB numbers different in different fiscal years (e.g., 141020 in FY2009, 162949 in FY 2008 and 154497 in FY2007)? In FYs 2007 and 2008 did the extra visas come from Family based while it did not for FY 2009? If so, why is it so?
4. Based on Pending 485 data of March 2010, I barely see few hundred EB4s. And hardly considerable number of EB1s. What's going on? If we go by this data, we should be getting good chunk of spillover numbers...
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Green%20Card/Green%20Card%20Through%20a%20Job/Employment%20Based%20I-485%20Pending%20Inventory-Total%203-8-2010.pdf
Thanks,
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
Thanks Kondur. That was a very good presentation of the numbers. I very much appreciate it.
Now,
1. Why did EB1 last year needed spillover visas, although it was current all the time? If a category is current, isn't that it has less demand than allocated numbers?
2. As per May bulletin, EB4 might need a cut off. So we cannot expect any spillover from EB4. So that is clear. Now the spillover chances are from EB5, EB2 ROW and EB1(?). I am including EB1 because, given the current economy over the past year, should there be a better possibility of more spillover from EB2 ROW and EB1 compared to last year?
3. Also why are the total EB numbers different in different fiscal years (e.g., 141020 in FY2009, 162949 in FY 2008 and 154497 in FY2007)? In FYs 2007 and 2008 did the extra visas come from Family based while it did not for FY 2009? If so, why is it so?
4. Based on Pending 485 data of March 2010, I barely see few hundred EB4s. And hardly considerable number of EB1s. What's going on? If we go by this data, we should be getting good chunk of spillover numbers...
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Green%20Card/Green%20Card%20Through%20a%20Job/Employment%20Based%20I-485%20Pending%20Inventory-Total%203-8-2010.pdf
Thanks,
girlfriend tribal tattoo designs for men.
little_willy
10-15 06:14 PM
Nixtor - In the poll question you talk about providing your receipt number but I don't see any mentions about that in the document. Do you expect us to include our receipt # with this request. Please clarify.
hairstyles hot Finding Tribal Tattoo
tooclose
07-12 06:49 PM
Hi,
My PD is March 1st 2006. Just wondering is March 1st is in or out? i.e. cut off is March 2nd or March 1st?
thanks,
Rwe
Well my PD is 3-Mar-2006. So close but too far. :mad:
My PD is March 1st 2006. Just wondering is March 1st is in or out? i.e. cut off is March 2nd or March 1st?
thanks,
Rwe
Well my PD is 3-Mar-2006. So close but too far. :mad:
cestmoi
01-11 11:46 PM
Am I blind or is part 2 missing one more option?
None of the options apply to me below as I will be applying for employment based Green Card as I have a L1A visa (unless I'm not supposed to be filling out i-485?)
a. An immigrant petition giving me an immediately available immigrant visa number has been approved (attach a copy of the approval notice, or a relative, special immigrant juvenile, or special immigrant military visa petition filed...
b. My spouse or parent applied for adjustment of status or was granted lawful permanent residence in an immigrant visa category that allows derivative status for spouses and children
c. I entered as a K-1 fiance(e) of a US citizen whom I married within 90 days of entry...
d. I was granted asylum or derivative asylum status as the spouse or child of a person granted asylum and am eligible for adjustment.
e. I am a native or citizen of Cuba admitted or paroled into the US after Jan 1, 1959...
f. I am the husband, wife or minor unmarried child of a Cuban described above in (e)....
g. I have continously resided in the US since before Jan 1, 1972
h. Other basis of eligibility. Explain (for example, I was admitted as a refugee, my status has not been terminated, and I have been physically present in the US for 1 year...
None of the options apply to me below as I will be applying for employment based Green Card as I have a L1A visa (unless I'm not supposed to be filling out i-485?)
a. An immigrant petition giving me an immediately available immigrant visa number has been approved (attach a copy of the approval notice, or a relative, special immigrant juvenile, or special immigrant military visa petition filed...
b. My spouse or parent applied for adjustment of status or was granted lawful permanent residence in an immigrant visa category that allows derivative status for spouses and children
c. I entered as a K-1 fiance(e) of a US citizen whom I married within 90 days of entry...
d. I was granted asylum or derivative asylum status as the spouse or child of a person granted asylum and am eligible for adjustment.
e. I am a native or citizen of Cuba admitted or paroled into the US after Jan 1, 1959...
f. I am the husband, wife or minor unmarried child of a Cuban described above in (e)....
g. I have continously resided in the US since before Jan 1, 1972
h. Other basis of eligibility. Explain (for example, I was admitted as a refugee, my status has not been terminated, and I have been physically present in the US for 1 year...
bank_king2003
02-12 02:05 PM
Would you mind asking source/link for "another 13,000 shifted over"?
As per this link - family based numbers were totally used up for FY2008
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY08-AR-TableV.pdf
Family based visa used for FY2008 = 226,105 against 226,000 available.
I suggest that you follow your own advice and read & understand what is being posted in this thread. What do you think? Is this information or "message" correct?
______________________
Not a legal advice.
hold on guys!!! i was the one who started this thread because i was not sure if ron was right or not but i guess seeing desi3933 comments that he is right and ron may not have the proof to justify this time.
it is good if we can get some proof of uscis wasting/not using visa but untill then please dont blame each other..
I feel the arguments desi3933 is giving.... makes most of the sense as compared to the last reply by ron which was like a general response instead of showing root cause of 13k visa lost.
peace V
As per this link - family based numbers were totally used up for FY2008
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY08-AR-TableV.pdf
Family based visa used for FY2008 = 226,105 against 226,000 available.
I suggest that you follow your own advice and read & understand what is being posted in this thread. What do you think? Is this information or "message" correct?
______________________
Not a legal advice.
hold on guys!!! i was the one who started this thread because i was not sure if ron was right or not but i guess seeing desi3933 comments that he is right and ron may not have the proof to justify this time.
it is good if we can get some proof of uscis wasting/not using visa but untill then please dont blame each other..
I feel the arguments desi3933 is giving.... makes most of the sense as compared to the last reply by ron which was like a general response instead of showing root cause of 13k visa lost.
peace V
