vkrishn
07-28 03:25 AM
Sure with dead bobhead braincells of yours, nobody expects your self image to be high enough. Its not for wimps wearing zippers to the side like you. If you are man enough come and talk to me, and will see who gets handcuffed.
Talk to you about what? Amway?:D Whole point is we don't Amway guys chasing us with your cheesy lines or "brilliant" ideas.. So stop chasing us! Go rope in your relatives or any other insane person.
Why would i want to talk to a Amway guy when i am saying i don;t want to. If one comes to me and talks about Amway and does not understand the word "NO", "I AM NOT INTERESTED" and keeps chasing me he will face the law.
Now if you are a man/women/whatever and if you talk to me about AMWAY be ready to face the music!
Talk to you about what? Amway?:D Whole point is we don't Amway guys chasing us with your cheesy lines or "brilliant" ideas.. So stop chasing us! Go rope in your relatives or any other insane person.
Why would i want to talk to a Amway guy when i am saying i don;t want to. If one comes to me and talks about Amway and does not understand the word "NO", "I AM NOT INTERESTED" and keeps chasing me he will face the law.
Now if you are a man/women/whatever and if you talk to me about AMWAY be ready to face the music!
wallpaper pictures Beautiful Goldendoodle Puppies goldendoodle puppy red.
gcnotfiledyet
06-12 03:28 PM
You mean bureaucracy from Indian administration and also from US (since they both have to work together) - forget it man - it will never happen
I am glad you were not involved in nuclear deal that just happened against all odds. Can you even imagine US giving waiver exclusively for India, while during clinton years they opposed everything about India citing NPT?
I am glad you were not involved in nuclear deal that just happened against all odds. Can you even imagine US giving waiver exclusively for India, while during clinton years they opposed everything about India citing NPT?
lord_labaku
02-13 12:32 AM
Before the Y2K problem, the most common route for Indians to migrate to the US (EB category) was this -->
TOEFL
GRE
Admission into US university (most likely for masters)
Scholarship or loan
MS/Phd in US
Internship using OPT
Job/ H1
Since this involved multiple non trivial steps; the barrier for entry was pretty high that prevented mass migration.
There were procedural delays (in some states with a lot of Indian population ( oh yeah; labor certs used to take 3-5 years esp in California, Texas & Northeast; but you could get labor cert faster in south dakota or such less densely populated places; but once you hit the 485 stage, you were certain of a GC within a few months )
And then along with Y2K came TCS, Wipro, Infosys, & infinite other bodyshops that suddenly changed the equation. No need for TOEFL, GRE. No need to fight for scholarship; no need for TA. no need for RA; no need for MS; in a lot of cases, no need for even UG degree in computers/engg. The requirements ranged from having all 10 fingers in place to knowing the right people in the bodyshop company to land an assignment in the US. Once placed at a client site, it was just a matter of finding the right opportunity to get the client to sponsor your H1. I am sure there were a lot other ways the H1 & L1 visas were abused.
So the situation changed from just procedural delays to procedural delays + extra influx of Indians due to H1/L1 visa misuse.
Ofcourse, we can only blame the inefficiencies of the USCIS/INS/DOL system & silently turn the other way when malpractices & visa abuse were rampant (I guess still is) in the IT bodyshop industry.
I am sure this rant will seem extremely prejudicial. But just for a slight moment; think about why all this happened.
TOEFL
GRE
Admission into US university (most likely for masters)
Scholarship or loan
MS/Phd in US
Internship using OPT
Job/ H1
Since this involved multiple non trivial steps; the barrier for entry was pretty high that prevented mass migration.
There were procedural delays (in some states with a lot of Indian population ( oh yeah; labor certs used to take 3-5 years esp in California, Texas & Northeast; but you could get labor cert faster in south dakota or such less densely populated places; but once you hit the 485 stage, you were certain of a GC within a few months )
And then along with Y2K came TCS, Wipro, Infosys, & infinite other bodyshops that suddenly changed the equation. No need for TOEFL, GRE. No need to fight for scholarship; no need for TA. no need for RA; no need for MS; in a lot of cases, no need for even UG degree in computers/engg. The requirements ranged from having all 10 fingers in place to knowing the right people in the bodyshop company to land an assignment in the US. Once placed at a client site, it was just a matter of finding the right opportunity to get the client to sponsor your H1. I am sure there were a lot other ways the H1 & L1 visas were abused.
So the situation changed from just procedural delays to procedural delays + extra influx of Indians due to H1/L1 visa misuse.
Ofcourse, we can only blame the inefficiencies of the USCIS/INS/DOL system & silently turn the other way when malpractices & visa abuse were rampant (I guess still is) in the IT bodyshop industry.
I am sure this rant will seem extremely prejudicial. But just for a slight moment; think about why all this happened.
2011 Our Goldendoodle Puppies
Googler
02-12 01:38 PM
I have the same question. State dept moves the date just so that the visa numbers are used for that category. If a category is retrogressed, then it can't really be "undersubscribed".
This was listed at the bottom of the page in the March VB in state dept's website:
The cut-off date movement for March in several Employment categories has been greater than those experienced in recent months. Advancement of the cut-off dates at this time should prevent a situation later in the fiscal year where there are large amounts of numbers available but not enough time to use them. If the expected increase in CIS number use materializes, future cut-off date movements could slow or stop.
Mods should merge two identical threads. See my post in the other thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=222365&postcount=12
This was listed at the bottom of the page in the March VB in state dept's website:
The cut-off date movement for March in several Employment categories has been greater than those experienced in recent months. Advancement of the cut-off dates at this time should prevent a situation later in the fiscal year where there are large amounts of numbers available but not enough time to use them. If the expected increase in CIS number use materializes, future cut-off date movements could slow or stop.
Mods should merge two identical threads. See my post in the other thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=222365&postcount=12
more...
sunny1000
12-13 03:30 PM
The OP was whether the country quota is constitutional. My interest was to find out if the current laws and regulations are violated by the country quota.
As lazycis pointed out, SC seems to uphold the current situation.
I was not looking into arguing in a court whether a particular regulation is fair or not. The law is what it is (what I or you consider fair or unfair is immaterial), question was : Is the law being implemented or not? Seems like it is.
To change the law, we as IV are lobbying and meeting lawmakers already.
Unless a constitutional lawyer says otherwise, I see no reason to pursue the country quota in a court, considering lazycis post.
You are right. The courts have long taken a position wherein they give a lot leeway to the Congress and the Executive when it comes to Foreign policy and immigration definitely falls under foreign policy.
As lazycis pointed out, SC seems to uphold the current situation.
I was not looking into arguing in a court whether a particular regulation is fair or not. The law is what it is (what I or you consider fair or unfair is immaterial), question was : Is the law being implemented or not? Seems like it is.
To change the law, we as IV are lobbying and meeting lawmakers already.
Unless a constitutional lawyer says otherwise, I see no reason to pursue the country quota in a court, considering lazycis post.
You are right. The courts have long taken a position wherein they give a lot leeway to the Congress and the Executive when it comes to Foreign policy and immigration definitely falls under foreign policy.
roseball
07-10 12:35 PM
Can anyone recommend any good IT consulting companies in Canada?
I need a permanent job offer to qualify for the points but most of the jobs for my skill set are either contract jobs or for relocation to USA. Please help.
Try www.cgi.com.
Its one of the top consulting companies in Canada which hire for full time positions....One of my colleagues moved to Canada last year and got a decent offer from CGI in Toronto.........Keep in mind that salaries in Canada when compared to US are not that great, not to mention high taxes.....But the peace of mind and stress free life is priceless.....
I need a permanent job offer to qualify for the points but most of the jobs for my skill set are either contract jobs or for relocation to USA. Please help.
Try www.cgi.com.
Its one of the top consulting companies in Canada which hire for full time positions....One of my colleagues moved to Canada last year and got a decent offer from CGI in Toronto.........Keep in mind that salaries in Canada when compared to US are not that great, not to mention high taxes.....But the peace of mind and stress free life is priceless.....
more...
grupak
12-14 01:13 PM
--Grupak, I wasn't talking about the law here. It was villamonte, I was just requesting him to be polite. The thing I agreed about him was that we cannot call country cap quota as discrimination.
I know, I accidently quoted you instead of villamonte6100. Sorry about that.
I know, I accidently quoted you instead of villamonte6100. Sorry about that.
2010 My Puppy Dexter theee
gopinathan
07-28 08:19 PM
not true fellow ex-IBO. you will be surprised as how many others are there. we (desis) have a special section for ourselves ofcourse :)
.... Unfortunately, a big number of people who are involved in this biz are Desis.
How can you ask personal questions to someone you don't know and just met? I can't comprehend it.
.... Unfortunately, a big number of people who are involved in this biz are Desis.
How can you ask personal questions to someone you don't know and just met? I can't comprehend it.
more...
villamonte6100
02-18 11:17 AM
(1) There was no shortage of laypeople and even attorneys who asserted that "USCIS isn't doing anything wrong they are just following the law" when it came to FBI name checks. Fortunately for all of us sharper legal brains and sharper judges prevailed, and brought us to this happy day.
(2) On Class Actions: Villamonte, have you read the Mocanu decision (http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Mocanu%202-8-08%20LEXIS.pdf)? If not I encourage you to do so -- that was just individual cases being consolidated, but the situation is not very different -- you should pay particular attention to the part where Judge Baylson recommends a multi-district class action litigation to deal with all the other name check cases (see p. 16, para numbered 6).
The parallels between the those cases and the one being proposed are very strong.
Judge Baylson is not the only judge who has recommended a class action approach to these issues. IV members should also be aware that all we need are a few named plaintiffs, it isn't as though every IV member or even everyone wanting to sue needs to be a named plaintiff. All the judge needs to recognize is that there is a large group of applicants with same or similar grounds for suing USCIS/Emilio Gonzalez. Edit to add: IV the organization doesn't even need to be the primary plaintiff, since that will necessarily cutoff any parallel discussion with the agencies. The IV forums are just a place to organize this.
(3) Preliminary Ideas on the Grounds for Suing (courtesy lazycis):
The grounds for suing USCIS is the same as in Gonzalez v Howerton -- (a) interpreting the law incorrectly (b) not following the statutory requirement that they use up all the greencards available in a given year and therefore being guilty of affirmative misconduct. At the very least, a judge is within his rights to make them make amends -- by recapturing 2003-2004 EB greencards, since they wasted them as a result of their affirmative misconduct -- they waited for name checks or simply not processing applications - no one can say there wasn't an application backlog in 2003-2004.
(4) First Steps
What we need here is to get this matter before a good legal strategist who is familiar with (a) the two sources of affirmative misconduct (FBI name checks and cessation of processing in 2003-2004) (b) precedents and caselaw (note that most immigration law firms are good with filing paperwork, but not necessarily complex litigation, so forget about the usual suspects.) The perfect legal argument will not sprout up immediately. In the same way that the legal arguments in the name check cases were honed over time (lazycis can confirm this), this too will need some serious research and thinking.
Those of you who want everything about this case sorted out, signed, sealed, guaranteed and delivered this week will need a reality check. :)
As will those of you who think that the way to approach this is to discuss these issues without familiarizing yourself with facts and legal precedents in some detail (so arguments about slavery etc are not the ones that will win the day in court, it is arguments that can show that USCIS was not interpreting the law correctly and in doing so caused harm and that the harm can be remedied through recapture.) -- if you want to see how a case like this will work read Mocanu and Galvez. This case will not be a dramatic movie-style civil rights case about slavery, it will involve the most tedious sort of nitty gritty discussion of admin misconduct.
OTOH, for most of us, all we've got is time -- I do not foresee my Jan 2003 EB-2 India PD becoming current any time soon. I'm prepared for a long legal battle. I'd rather do something constructive** that will likely change the process than sit and wait and mope.
**: Yes, I've sent off my letters too. I think of these two things as complementary projects.
Neither of us are lawyers and I wouldn't even bother reading what you wrote. All I can say is, why don't you ask your immigration lawyer about this Class Action. Let's see what he says.
(2) On Class Actions: Villamonte, have you read the Mocanu decision (http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Mocanu%202-8-08%20LEXIS.pdf)? If not I encourage you to do so -- that was just individual cases being consolidated, but the situation is not very different -- you should pay particular attention to the part where Judge Baylson recommends a multi-district class action litigation to deal with all the other name check cases (see p. 16, para numbered 6).
The parallels between the those cases and the one being proposed are very strong.
Judge Baylson is not the only judge who has recommended a class action approach to these issues. IV members should also be aware that all we need are a few named plaintiffs, it isn't as though every IV member or even everyone wanting to sue needs to be a named plaintiff. All the judge needs to recognize is that there is a large group of applicants with same or similar grounds for suing USCIS/Emilio Gonzalez. Edit to add: IV the organization doesn't even need to be the primary plaintiff, since that will necessarily cutoff any parallel discussion with the agencies. The IV forums are just a place to organize this.
(3) Preliminary Ideas on the Grounds for Suing (courtesy lazycis):
The grounds for suing USCIS is the same as in Gonzalez v Howerton -- (a) interpreting the law incorrectly (b) not following the statutory requirement that they use up all the greencards available in a given year and therefore being guilty of affirmative misconduct. At the very least, a judge is within his rights to make them make amends -- by recapturing 2003-2004 EB greencards, since they wasted them as a result of their affirmative misconduct -- they waited for name checks or simply not processing applications - no one can say there wasn't an application backlog in 2003-2004.
(4) First Steps
What we need here is to get this matter before a good legal strategist who is familiar with (a) the two sources of affirmative misconduct (FBI name checks and cessation of processing in 2003-2004) (b) precedents and caselaw (note that most immigration law firms are good with filing paperwork, but not necessarily complex litigation, so forget about the usual suspects.) The perfect legal argument will not sprout up immediately. In the same way that the legal arguments in the name check cases were honed over time (lazycis can confirm this), this too will need some serious research and thinking.
Those of you who want everything about this case sorted out, signed, sealed, guaranteed and delivered this week will need a reality check. :)
As will those of you who think that the way to approach this is to discuss these issues without familiarizing yourself with facts and legal precedents in some detail (so arguments about slavery etc are not the ones that will win the day in court, it is arguments that can show that USCIS was not interpreting the law correctly and in doing so caused harm and that the harm can be remedied through recapture.) -- if you want to see how a case like this will work read Mocanu and Galvez. This case will not be a dramatic movie-style civil rights case about slavery, it will involve the most tedious sort of nitty gritty discussion of admin misconduct.
OTOH, for most of us, all we've got is time -- I do not foresee my Jan 2003 EB-2 India PD becoming current any time soon. I'm prepared for a long legal battle. I'd rather do something constructive** that will likely change the process than sit and wait and mope.
**: Yes, I've sent off my letters too. I think of these two things as complementary projects.
Neither of us are lawyers and I wouldn't even bother reading what you wrote. All I can say is, why don't you ask your immigration lawyer about this Class Action. Let's see what he says.
hair puppies dog cute dogs
ramus
07-03 09:43 PM
No problem.. Fund drive is important ...
sorry :D
this one time pls allow us to post contribution thread here..
sorry :D
this one time pls allow us to post contribution thread here..
more...
justAnotherFile
06-27 10:15 PM
My 2 cents.
USCIS does not control the PD dates, State dept does. The state dept will change the PD's to when it runs out of visas to provide USCIS.
Case 1: Assume USCIS and State dept are in close touch over the currently approvable I-485s which can consume visas starting July 1
If USCIS has 40K such approvable apps, then the State Dept (being in close coordination with USCIS abt numbers) would have just moved the dates to Nov 2005 for EB-2 India the date when it retrogressed and similarly to the date when EB-3 retrogression first happened for India.
The fact that they did not do this means they do not have the sufficient numbers of approvable ones. Now the new ones filed in June or July will not become approvable until at least 90 days. So if they are hoping that some of the "new" 485 petitions filed in June/July will be straightforward enuf to approve in 4 months, they have to keep dates at current at least until July end.
Case 2: USCIS and State dept are not coordinating "closely" over the approvable numbers
This means the State dept arbitrarily changed the dates to Current instead of consulting with USCIS that they have 40K approvable petitions. And why woudl they in that case make the numbers unavailable in mid-july in that case?
Lastly even if the numbers can become Unavailable it has to be announced by State Dept. So worst case scenario it can become "U" in July 11-15, which makes the claim by Matthew-OH that it can become unavailable in July first week itself ridiculous.
USCIS does not control the PD dates, State dept does. The state dept will change the PD's to when it runs out of visas to provide USCIS.
Case 1: Assume USCIS and State dept are in close touch over the currently approvable I-485s which can consume visas starting July 1
If USCIS has 40K such approvable apps, then the State Dept (being in close coordination with USCIS abt numbers) would have just moved the dates to Nov 2005 for EB-2 India the date when it retrogressed and similarly to the date when EB-3 retrogression first happened for India.
The fact that they did not do this means they do not have the sufficient numbers of approvable ones. Now the new ones filed in June or July will not become approvable until at least 90 days. So if they are hoping that some of the "new" 485 petitions filed in June/July will be straightforward enuf to approve in 4 months, they have to keep dates at current at least until July end.
Case 2: USCIS and State dept are not coordinating "closely" over the approvable numbers
This means the State dept arbitrarily changed the dates to Current instead of consulting with USCIS that they have 40K approvable petitions. And why woudl they in that case make the numbers unavailable in mid-july in that case?
Lastly even if the numbers can become Unavailable it has to be announced by State Dept. So worst case scenario it can become "U" in July 11-15, which makes the claim by Matthew-OH that it can become unavailable in July first week itself ridiculous.
hot Golden doodle puppy
gc28262
09-26 11:13 AM
I sent the email to my local congress man who has an anti-immigrant stance.
Here is the response I got from him( It is probably a standard response for financial crisis)
---message starts------
Thank you for contacting me regarding our country's financial crisis and the administration's bailout proposal. It is good to hear your thoughts on this very important situation facing our country and I share in your concerns.
As you know, Treasury Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke testified recently before Congress about their proposal to spend $700 billion to purchase the debt of financial institutions, improve our credit situation, and stabilize our economy. I reviewed the proposal carefully and, like you, I had serious concerns about this proposal such as the blanket authority removing Congressional or legal oversight, the implied reward for unwise financial behaviors at the expense of honest Americans, and the long-term expense to tax payers without a mechanism to press criminal charges upon those who are responsible for this situation.
As a consequence, I offered an alternative measure. According to the Department of Treasury, there are two problems that need to be addressed: the short term liquidity emergency, and the long-term toxic mortgage asset holdings. To address the liquidity emergency, my plan would reduce all personal and corporate capital gains taxes to zero percent for one year, reduce the Federal Funds Rate (FFR) to zero percent for one month with a reoccurring month to month option, and allow the Department of Treasury to loan current funds to lending institutions at the rate of inflation plus three percent or LIBOR plus three percent. This plan would get the markets moving and allow Congress adequate time to address the mortgage assets situation while we investigate those corporations or government regulators who may be criminally negligent.
One of my most important roles as your Congressman is to be a responsible steward of tax payer funds and, while my proposal remains an option, there are many proposals still being debated and it is unclear what the final product will look like. I will be sure to keep you informed of what happens as we move forward.
---message ends------
Here is the response I got from him( It is probably a standard response for financial crisis)
---message starts------
Thank you for contacting me regarding our country's financial crisis and the administration's bailout proposal. It is good to hear your thoughts on this very important situation facing our country and I share in your concerns.
As you know, Treasury Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke testified recently before Congress about their proposal to spend $700 billion to purchase the debt of financial institutions, improve our credit situation, and stabilize our economy. I reviewed the proposal carefully and, like you, I had serious concerns about this proposal such as the blanket authority removing Congressional or legal oversight, the implied reward for unwise financial behaviors at the expense of honest Americans, and the long-term expense to tax payers without a mechanism to press criminal charges upon those who are responsible for this situation.
As a consequence, I offered an alternative measure. According to the Department of Treasury, there are two problems that need to be addressed: the short term liquidity emergency, and the long-term toxic mortgage asset holdings. To address the liquidity emergency, my plan would reduce all personal and corporate capital gains taxes to zero percent for one year, reduce the Federal Funds Rate (FFR) to zero percent for one month with a reoccurring month to month option, and allow the Department of Treasury to loan current funds to lending institutions at the rate of inflation plus three percent or LIBOR plus three percent. This plan would get the markets moving and allow Congress adequate time to address the mortgage assets situation while we investigate those corporations or government regulators who may be criminally negligent.
One of my most important roles as your Congressman is to be a responsible steward of tax payer funds and, while my proposal remains an option, there are many proposals still being debated and it is unclear what the final product will look like. I will be sure to keep you informed of what happens as we move forward.
---message ends------
more...
house pictures Goldendoodle puppy
belmontboy
08-15 04:17 PM
Welcome to our troubles Mr SRK.
Nobody cared for hapless NRI's all these days.
One fine day, Mr SRK gets the treatment, and suddenly everybody starts jumping.
Nice to see every Brown skinned being treated the same way.
Nobody cared for hapless NRI's all these days.
One fine day, Mr SRK gets the treatment, and suddenly everybody starts jumping.
Nice to see every Brown skinned being treated the same way.
tattoo Golden doodle puppy in a
advad
07-16 01:49 AM
Hi there,
Here is my situation, any help to resolve this is appreciated.
- My self (primary) & my wife's(derivative) I-485's (PD June 2002) were filed in March 2007.
- My I-485 was approved in July 2007, my wife's was pending due to NC.
- My wife's employer filed PERM (PD June 2007) & then filed I-140 in March 2008.
- We recently contacted NSC regarding my wife's case status, we received a letter from them stating that, her I485 is waiting for I-140 to get approved.
They linked her new I-140 to her pending I-485 that was filed as derivative.Is this USCIS error?.How to correct this error and have them consider her I-485 application as a derivative application?.
Thanks for your help.
[COLOR="Blue"]Your attorney should get in touch with the USCIS.This situation can be sorted out with informing the USCIS. In case you require any assistance please get in touch with me.
Thanks for your response.My attorney sent a letter explaining the situation along with relevant documents.How long does it take to get updated?.It's been 3 week s and i still don't see any updates to the case.
How can i get your contact info?.
Thanks
Here is my situation, any help to resolve this is appreciated.
- My self (primary) & my wife's(derivative) I-485's (PD June 2002) were filed in March 2007.
- My I-485 was approved in July 2007, my wife's was pending due to NC.
- My wife's employer filed PERM (PD June 2007) & then filed I-140 in March 2008.
- We recently contacted NSC regarding my wife's case status, we received a letter from them stating that, her I485 is waiting for I-140 to get approved.
They linked her new I-140 to her pending I-485 that was filed as derivative.Is this USCIS error?.How to correct this error and have them consider her I-485 application as a derivative application?.
Thanks for your help.
[COLOR="Blue"]Your attorney should get in touch with the USCIS.This situation can be sorted out with informing the USCIS. In case you require any assistance please get in touch with me.
Thanks for your response.My attorney sent a letter explaining the situation along with relevant documents.How long does it take to get updated?.It's been 3 week s and i still don't see any updates to the case.
How can i get your contact info?.
Thanks
more...
pictures Puppies, Cute Puppy Names,
kumarc123
07-25 10:19 AM
I doubt it whether he knows about the USCIS has changed the spill overs to horizontal fall outs and due to that the number of visas added to EB2 India/China. The horizontal spill over is giving a greatest adventage to EB2 India and making it run to catch up CURRENT. I see in the link http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5456&page=8 , in one post he is predicting " I expect to see substantial worldwide EB3 movement during the next fiscal year." . But its not true because the EB3 world wide wont have many visas as before from now on. The EB3 world wide will move based on the 7% quota but not more than that.
Well I agree with you and some other members. Most of these lawyers don't know crap what they are talking about. I have my white lawyer, so far the experience has been good with him, but when I asked about the current dates, he was quiet perplexed.
The fact is , no one has done calculation like we IV members, also in Ron's post nothing was mentioned about horizontal or vertical movement. All the comments made by this lawyer are more on subjective and speculative lines.
Ron Gotcher is simply doing a guess work here,
It's reverse psychology, create a little tension among applicants, and the lawyers will get more clients for answers. Believe it or not, IV has affected a lot lawyers business, as now members here are more educated in filling up different forms themselves. Somehow I feel, even a firm like Murthy law looks up to IV for latest updates.
Well I agree with you and some other members. Most of these lawyers don't know crap what they are talking about. I have my white lawyer, so far the experience has been good with him, but when I asked about the current dates, he was quiet perplexed.
The fact is , no one has done calculation like we IV members, also in Ron's post nothing was mentioned about horizontal or vertical movement. All the comments made by this lawyer are more on subjective and speculative lines.
Ron Gotcher is simply doing a guess work here,
It's reverse psychology, create a little tension among applicants, and the lawyers will get more clients for answers. Believe it or not, IV has affected a lot lawyers business, as now members here are more educated in filling up different forms themselves. Somehow I feel, even a firm like Murthy law looks up to IV for latest updates.
dresses CUTE CUTE GOLDENDOODLE PUPPYS-
mpadapa
07-23 12:02 PM
vdlrao, I looked at the DHS data there seems to be lot of discrepancy in the EB and FB numbers shown in that document and the DOS statistics (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/statistics/statistics_1476.html)
But if you look at the last page where they discuss the EB limits, the document self contradicts. For example they say 2007 EB limit is 147,148 but based on their Table 2 (page 3) the EB limit comes out to 143,771 ( 140K + (226K - 222,229)). Also they have a foot note saying that DOS sets the EB/FB limits.
I've a spreadsheet which has the calculated EB limit for FY (2003-2007), the numbers I arrived at is very close to those reported in the September bulletins. If U wanna take a look at it, please PM u'r email ID, I can send it to U.
mpadapa, I am getting 31,100 unused Family Based Visas for 2007 fiscal year from
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/LPR_FR_2007.pdf
.
DHS bulletin is not updated correctly like Employment Based AC21 VISAS? Please let me know.
But if you look at the last page where they discuss the EB limits, the document self contradicts. For example they say 2007 EB limit is 147,148 but based on their Table 2 (page 3) the EB limit comes out to 143,771 ( 140K + (226K - 222,229)). Also they have a foot note saying that DOS sets the EB/FB limits.
I've a spreadsheet which has the calculated EB limit for FY (2003-2007), the numbers I arrived at is very close to those reported in the September bulletins. If U wanna take a look at it, please PM u'r email ID, I can send it to U.
mpadapa, I am getting 31,100 unused Family Based Visas for 2007 fiscal year from
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/LPR_FR_2007.pdf
.
DHS bulletin is not updated correctly like Employment Based AC21 VISAS? Please let me know.
more...
makeup Goldendoodle Puppies!
samay
07-15 05:18 PM
Hi there,
Here is my situation, any help to resolve this is appreciated.
- My self (primary) & my wife's(derivative) I-485's (PD June 2002) were filed in March 2007.
- My I-485 was approved in July 2007, my wife's was pending due to NC.
- My wife's employer filed PERM (PD June 2007) & then filed I-140 in March 2008.
- We recently contacted NSC regarding my wife's case status, we received a letter from them stating that, her I485 is waiting for I-140 to get approved.
They linked her new I-140 to her pending I-485 that was filed as derivative.Is this USCIS error?.How to correct this error and have them consider her I-485 application as a derivative application?.
Thanks for your help.
[COLOR="Blue"]Your attorney should get in touch with the USCIS.This situation can be sorted out with informing the USCIS. In case you require any assistance please get in touch with me.
Here is my situation, any help to resolve this is appreciated.
- My self (primary) & my wife's(derivative) I-485's (PD June 2002) were filed in March 2007.
- My I-485 was approved in July 2007, my wife's was pending due to NC.
- My wife's employer filed PERM (PD June 2007) & then filed I-140 in March 2008.
- We recently contacted NSC regarding my wife's case status, we received a letter from them stating that, her I485 is waiting for I-140 to get approved.
They linked her new I-140 to her pending I-485 that was filed as derivative.Is this USCIS error?.How to correct this error and have them consider her I-485 application as a derivative application?.
Thanks for your help.
[COLOR="Blue"]Your attorney should get in touch with the USCIS.This situation can be sorted out with informing the USCIS. In case you require any assistance please get in touch with me.
girlfriend 2011 Goldendoodle Puppies
onemoredesi
05-19 08:57 AM
Thanks for the advice friends.
My brother applied and got his GC approved through labor substitution. It was really safe in the past. With the proposed bill to abandon the labor substitution, I'm a little concerned if it is alright to proceed.
I've talked to one of the attorney's and he mentioned that the Labor substitution will not likely go away as during the comment period they received a number of objections. But, nothing is certain.
My other concern is if the proposed immigration bill does some good to the legal immigrants, then whatever I am doing will be a waste and I'll be losing all of what I have in my current company (I am very well setlled in a multinational company in a good position). I am torn apart whether to take that risk or to stay put in the existing company.
When do you think the BEC's might complete the processing of existing backlogged applications?
When do you think any of these amendments will be implemented?
Lots of questions.. Your responses are highly appreciated.
Thx,
1MoreDesi!
My brother applied and got his GC approved through labor substitution. It was really safe in the past. With the proposed bill to abandon the labor substitution, I'm a little concerned if it is alright to proceed.
I've talked to one of the attorney's and he mentioned that the Labor substitution will not likely go away as during the comment period they received a number of objections. But, nothing is certain.
My other concern is if the proposed immigration bill does some good to the legal immigrants, then whatever I am doing will be a waste and I'll be losing all of what I have in my current company (I am very well setlled in a multinational company in a good position). I am torn apart whether to take that risk or to stay put in the existing company.
When do you think the BEC's might complete the processing of existing backlogged applications?
When do you think any of these amendments will be implemented?
Lots of questions.. Your responses are highly appreciated.
Thx,
1MoreDesi!
hairstyles Goldendoodle puppy
ita
04-20 07:44 PM
You missing one thing in your stats .Year.You were looking at post independence records?No don't' answer me get yourself the answer.You go check your stats.I shared this link before ,which you so mightily pushed aside.
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:prdjEwwFXSUJ:www.francoisgautier.co m/Written%2520Material/Christian%2520India.doc+is+india+heading+towards+c hristianity&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
That's why I say read everything I write then you wouldn't be here with your rant about hate crap.
Also no I never went through the numbers from VHP/RSS.As some one from Hyderabad I'm very well aware about how good the official stats are.I'm aware of the tricks wherein a minority family of 15 says they are just 4 .
A quick fact check : Muslims are about 13.5% and christians are about 2% of india's population. So instead of 30% of india belonging to these two groups per your numbers, it is actually closer to 15%.
I must say you defined yourself right.Educated Illiterate.I'll give that one to you.
A lie told 100 times can be made to look like truth.You can throw this crap at any anyone trying to reason out sense into your types.
Empty stomachs were refused food post tsunami until they agreed to take up certain religion by the so called preachers of religion. Post Tsunami many villages (entire villages) were abused and converted.(People who lost almost everything in the calamity suddenly have all the time in the world to think about religious freedom and conversion volunraity right?)
Just know this you are fooling no one with words like secularism,religious freedom which you use when it suits you.
Quite a religious freedom .
You have something sensible to say start saying with facts.Not with that tried out 'spreading fear and hatred' crap.
It is religious freedom, not religious conversion. And thanks for enlightening us about the global plan to decimate indians by racking up numbers on their side. Are all of the indians coming to US have a similar plan because I am not aware of it.
Spreading fear and hatred using lies and stoking communal feeling to get votes is nothing new. Seeing educated people do it with such fervour is new.
Shows your desperation.Please don't turn this into personal attack or religious attack.Talk sensible stuff or resign.I won't take your personal digs.
Are all of the indians coming to US have a similar plan because I am not aware of it.
When India shines with the efforts of sensible people you shine too(only to come to US and talk about 'fear and hatred crap')
If India sinks because of your illiterate tactics, know this, you may be fine but there will scores of people from all religions in not so good situation as the selfish breed like you would be in.
A quick fact check : Muslims are about 13.5% and christians are about 2% of india's population. So instead of 30% of india belonging to these two groups per your numbers, it is actually closer to 15%.Right wing extremists group use these exagerrated numbers to drive more gullible people into their communal parties. But you get those numbers from VHP/RSS. Check it tomorrow and it could be close to 40% !
It is religious freedom, not religious conversion. And thanks for enlightening us about the global plan to decimate indians by racking up numbers on their side. Are all of the indians coming to US have a similar plan because I am not aware of it.
Spreading fear and hatred using lies and stoking communal feeling to get votes is nothing new. Seeing educated people do it with such fervour is new.
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:prdjEwwFXSUJ:www.francoisgautier.co m/Written%2520Material/Christian%2520India.doc+is+india+heading+towards+c hristianity&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
That's why I say read everything I write then you wouldn't be here with your rant about hate crap.
Also no I never went through the numbers from VHP/RSS.As some one from Hyderabad I'm very well aware about how good the official stats are.I'm aware of the tricks wherein a minority family of 15 says they are just 4 .
A quick fact check : Muslims are about 13.5% and christians are about 2% of india's population. So instead of 30% of india belonging to these two groups per your numbers, it is actually closer to 15%.
I must say you defined yourself right.Educated Illiterate.I'll give that one to you.
A lie told 100 times can be made to look like truth.You can throw this crap at any anyone trying to reason out sense into your types.
Empty stomachs were refused food post tsunami until they agreed to take up certain religion by the so called preachers of religion. Post Tsunami many villages (entire villages) were abused and converted.(People who lost almost everything in the calamity suddenly have all the time in the world to think about religious freedom and conversion volunraity right?)
Just know this you are fooling no one with words like secularism,religious freedom which you use when it suits you.
Quite a religious freedom .
You have something sensible to say start saying with facts.Not with that tried out 'spreading fear and hatred' crap.
It is religious freedom, not religious conversion. And thanks for enlightening us about the global plan to decimate indians by racking up numbers on their side. Are all of the indians coming to US have a similar plan because I am not aware of it.
Spreading fear and hatred using lies and stoking communal feeling to get votes is nothing new. Seeing educated people do it with such fervour is new.
Shows your desperation.Please don't turn this into personal attack or religious attack.Talk sensible stuff or resign.I won't take your personal digs.
Are all of the indians coming to US have a similar plan because I am not aware of it.
When India shines with the efforts of sensible people you shine too(only to come to US and talk about 'fear and hatred crap')
If India sinks because of your illiterate tactics, know this, you may be fine but there will scores of people from all religions in not so good situation as the selfish breed like you would be in.
A quick fact check : Muslims are about 13.5% and christians are about 2% of india's population. So instead of 30% of india belonging to these two groups per your numbers, it is actually closer to 15%.Right wing extremists group use these exagerrated numbers to drive more gullible people into their communal parties. But you get those numbers from VHP/RSS. Check it tomorrow and it could be close to 40% !
It is religious freedom, not religious conversion. And thanks for enlightening us about the global plan to decimate indians by racking up numbers on their side. Are all of the indians coming to US have a similar plan because I am not aware of it.
Spreading fear and hatred using lies and stoking communal feeling to get votes is nothing new. Seeing educated people do it with such fervour is new.
amdavad
07-09 03:07 PM
Hi,
We recently received USA GC. We also received Canadian PR approval. Now can we go and land in Canada to complete Canadian PR process and come back to USA and live here?
Can there be any issue at POE (either side) as we will have two PR?
We recently received USA GC. We also received Canadian PR approval. Now can we go and land in Canada to complete Canadian PR process and come back to USA and live here?
Can there be any issue at POE (either side) as we will have two PR?
samay
07-30 04:22 PM
Hi,
1) My I-485(EB2-India) application file has two I-140 receipts (both of these are EB2) one of these I-140 is approved and the other was denied and a Motion to Reopen has been filed for this. How will the two EB2 I-140s affect my I-485 application?
2) I got a RFE for my I-1485 on June 17th 2008, asking for a I-140 approval notice. As we do not have a physical approval (never received the approval, may be lost in mail) notice my current attorney responded to the I-485 RFE and included the first I-140 receipt notice and also a copy of the approval email received from USCIS. The attorney also included the details of the second I-140 i.e the Motion to Reopen (I-290B) notice. Is the approach a good one?
3) My attorney also requested to consider the approved I-140 for adjucating the I-485 for me and my wife since the approved I-140 was filed and approved before filing the I-1485 and also we were married before the I-485 was filed. Will USCIS consider this request?
4) Also, will USCIS have a copy of my I-140 approval notice and will they use that and consider my I-485 case?
5) Will a Infopass appointment help in anyways?
My PERM labor was approved in May 2006 and my priority date is current for August 2008. The I-485 RFE response was received by USCIS on July 16th 2008 and my I-485 processing has resumed. I was wondering if USCIS will consider my approved I-140 for processing my I-485. Also, any other suggestions you could give me would be appreciated.
I am a little confused - Were two separate I-140 applications filed for you. If not why was a motion to reopen filed by your attorney if you received an approval notice. I am wondering why your attorney did not just inform the USCIS that they issued two receipts for the same case. As far as I can tell right now you should wait for the processing of your case. On another note even though your priority date is current your service center might not be processing cases with your filing date.
1) My I-485(EB2-India) application file has two I-140 receipts (both of these are EB2) one of these I-140 is approved and the other was denied and a Motion to Reopen has been filed for this. How will the two EB2 I-140s affect my I-485 application?
2) I got a RFE for my I-1485 on June 17th 2008, asking for a I-140 approval notice. As we do not have a physical approval (never received the approval, may be lost in mail) notice my current attorney responded to the I-485 RFE and included the first I-140 receipt notice and also a copy of the approval email received from USCIS. The attorney also included the details of the second I-140 i.e the Motion to Reopen (I-290B) notice. Is the approach a good one?
3) My attorney also requested to consider the approved I-140 for adjucating the I-485 for me and my wife since the approved I-140 was filed and approved before filing the I-1485 and also we were married before the I-485 was filed. Will USCIS consider this request?
4) Also, will USCIS have a copy of my I-140 approval notice and will they use that and consider my I-485 case?
5) Will a Infopass appointment help in anyways?
My PERM labor was approved in May 2006 and my priority date is current for August 2008. The I-485 RFE response was received by USCIS on July 16th 2008 and my I-485 processing has resumed. I was wondering if USCIS will consider my approved I-140 for processing my I-485. Also, any other suggestions you could give me would be appreciated.
I am a little confused - Were two separate I-140 applications filed for you. If not why was a motion to reopen filed by your attorney if you received an approval notice. I am wondering why your attorney did not just inform the USCIS that they issued two receipts for the same case. As far as I can tell right now you should wait for the processing of your case. On another note even though your priority date is current your service center might not be processing cases with your filing date.
