add78
09-24 04:41 PM
IV has been discussing about the possibility of one for two solution (partial). The idea is to request congress to exempt EB applicants & their dependents from numerical limits of the Immigrant visas, if they buy a home. It is my belief that market sentiment is the most important thing in any financial market(s) and the housing prospects look pretty bleak. There are lot of members in the EB community that have NOT bought their own home, even though they could afford one because of the uncertainty with EB GC. IV's idea is to bridge the financial committees and judiciary committees in the House/Senate and see if corresponding Chairman/Ranking members are willing to listen. Things are moving so fast with the 700bn USD bail out plan and we will NOT have time to do things the normal way, through our counsel. We have to present this idea to the corresponding staff members of key members of congress (see list below) and see if this gets traction now or going forward.
Are there any influential members in either house that are also pro-EB that we are especially targeting? I mean since House and Senate is debating on the bailout plan now and with McCain going back to DC to reach some agreement, there will be different ideas that can be included in the bailout, if we can get our idea across a few influential and sympathetic Representatives, they might come up with some proposal that will include this. I am sure Core is working with our lobbyists on this so I urge everyone to please send out emails.
Are there any influential members in either house that are also pro-EB that we are especially targeting? I mean since House and Senate is debating on the bailout plan now and with McCain going back to DC to reach some agreement, there will be different ideas that can be included in the bailout, if we can get our idea across a few influential and sympathetic Representatives, they might come up with some proposal that will include this. I am sure Core is working with our lobbyists on this so I urge everyone to please send out emails.
wallpaper Does It: Melissa Joan Hart
samay
07-14 06:43 AM
Hi,
I (EB3-India, PD Nov 2002) got approved last year. We were only able to file my wife;s I-484 days before my approval. We are still waiting for her GC as my PD is no longer current. Is there any way she can get her GC quickly?
Thanks,
485_spouse
Sorry she will have to wait for the your PD to get current.
I (EB3-India, PD Nov 2002) got approved last year. We were only able to file my wife;s I-484 days before my approval. We are still waiting for her GC as my PD is no longer current. Is there any way she can get her GC quickly?
Thanks,
485_spouse
Sorry she will have to wait for the your PD to get current.
syzygy
07-12 04:57 PM
And also add the amount we are paying on regular basis to law firms to talking to their para legals, mental stress and percentage what contracting companies with hold along with amount we are losing because we are not in stable situation to invest in things like real estate.
I always has that question what is the real difference, hear people sayinig more taxes less salary and all that but don't know the actual difference yet.
Will appreciate if someone can shed more light or post a link.
I always has that question what is the real difference, hear people sayinig more taxes less salary and all that but don't know the actual difference yet.
Will appreciate if someone can shed more light or post a link.
2011 Witchquot;) Connecticut
satishku_2000
01-23 04:58 PM
I appreciate that, I dont want IV to be dragged into any unnecessary controversy ..
more...
dixie
05-10 05:03 PM
even if labor market tests are the right way to go, there is no justification for the enormous bureacracy involved in the US EB system. Consider the time it takes to clear labor certification .. 4-6 months under PERM.Then why another 4-6 years after that to issue the green card ? If the person has already proven he is in a speciality occupation, why the additional bureacracy, and retrogression in the name of "diversity" ? Current policy just smacks of ambivalence.. immigrants are needed for the economy, yet the rules dont acknowledge their utility by offering a painless path to permanent residency.
humdesi
11-16 09:29 PM
DOL cannot do anything about labor sub. USCIS must stop using old PD. FOr this, we need to appeal to USCIS. Do you know who to address the letter?
We should all contact the ombudsman. Write to him TODAY.
Explain that labor substitution and PD porting is evil because it lets people unfairly get ahead in line. Otherwise EB2 will also soon retrogress to EB3 level.
Here's the link:
http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/editorial_0501.shtm
Write today!
We should all contact the ombudsman. Write to him TODAY.
Explain that labor substitution and PD porting is evil because it lets people unfairly get ahead in line. Otherwise EB2 will also soon retrogress to EB3 level.
Here's the link:
http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/editorial_0501.shtm
Write today!
more...
snram4
01-17 10:14 AM
Even if it is ok to fight how much resource IV have it to fight multiple issues. Resource means not just money but also time, manpower and effort. Most of the issues can be resolved if EB reform is done as people need not renew H1b as most can get GC within 3 years. Law clearly tells that there should be valid job position for H1b at the time of filing. For consulting bodyshoppers will bring persons here and search for job. That is clearly violation of law.
But certainly it can be requested to USCIS to change if geneunie persons are impacted. If memorendum is violation of law then USCIS will face lawsuit and you can also do that
There is no such requirement for fresh H1B as well as renewal as per Law. That is why we call it an ILLEGAL memo. We all need to fight this together.
NB: I am not a specialist in law
But certainly it can be requested to USCIS to change if geneunie persons are impacted. If memorendum is violation of law then USCIS will face lawsuit and you can also do that
There is no such requirement for fresh H1B as well as renewal as per Law. That is why we call it an ILLEGAL memo. We all need to fight this together.
NB: I am not a specialist in law
2010 Every guy I know my age had
msyedy
03-19 01:02 PM
Try this http://britishexpats.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=33
If you need help post there ....other small questions I can help u (free)
I am not a lawyer, but I can do it for you. I can gaurantee that you will get it if I do it. It is very very very simple. You can do it too.
But you think by moviing to Canada you will be in a better position.
I am a canadian immigrant and have been in US since I got my canadian GC because they do not have any jobs, I just took it during recession so that I can go to canada if laid off and it will be easier for me to come back to america.
Many of my friends have moved back to US after migrating because of the unemployement reasons. High Taxes.
It is upto you, I wish you best of luck, If you want to move
If you need help post there ....other small questions I can help u (free)
I am not a lawyer, but I can do it for you. I can gaurantee that you will get it if I do it. It is very very very simple. You can do it too.
But you think by moviing to Canada you will be in a better position.
I am a canadian immigrant and have been in US since I got my canadian GC because they do not have any jobs, I just took it during recession so that I can go to canada if laid off and it will be easier for me to come back to america.
Many of my friends have moved back to US after migrating because of the unemployement reasons. High Taxes.
It is upto you, I wish you best of luck, If you want to move
more...
paskal
12-13 01:28 PM
--Any country's immigration policy has to have some control measures built into it. I cannot imagine any country opening its gates wide open for the entire world to migrate into her without any limitations. So the question is, whom to "restrict" and whom to allow? This leads to the same argument, do you see this "restriction" as discrimination? There are others who see as fair "reservation" for them.
there is no "reservation", the nature of the clause is a cap, it does not give another country a minimum quota, it is written as a restrictive provision. and again- just because it benefits someone else does not make discrimination "right", in the strictest sense. right and wrong when it comes to discrimination are not relative. and if you believe they are, it's mighty slippery slope my friend because it does not take time to find yourself on the other side.
--Good question. If we look at what qualifies a country to be included in the lottery program (oversubscription etc?), it would again lead to the "balancing" intent with regards to immigration.
so why the double dipping? if the balancing is done, why the country quota? the result is that as i said more bangladeshis come in than indians...so what does over subscription mean in the end? again...why the need for the diversity lottery? the country quota already balances things....or not?
"either it's wrong or right. the caste system is wrong, from every side of the fence. it may benefit some and hurt others. but it's wrong, wrong and wrong.
same for this country quota. sure it helps some, and looks good from "their side of the fence". that does not change the fact that it is wrong."
--You are opining that it is wrong. You cannot state that it is a fact
you sound suspiciously supportive of the caste system. i will say it again. such a system is wrong. i do not care which side of the fence you are on. was depriving blacks from voting wrong? or was it ok from the white side of the fence? please think before you post.
there is a difference between "something benefiting me so i justify it and fight to keep it" and being right or fair. everyone fights to keep what they have. sorry, still not right. and if you still feel the caste system can be justified as right from your (or any) side of the fence then let's stop here, we have no common ground. and i speak as someone with sufficiently "high caste" to have not suffered from it (so you know my side of the fence).
one last thing, i find it hard to believe you are terming as "right" the idea that I as an individual should be held back 10 years longer than my colleague because of where i was born. any way i look at it...sorry...just not right.
there is no "reservation", the nature of the clause is a cap, it does not give another country a minimum quota, it is written as a restrictive provision. and again- just because it benefits someone else does not make discrimination "right", in the strictest sense. right and wrong when it comes to discrimination are not relative. and if you believe they are, it's mighty slippery slope my friend because it does not take time to find yourself on the other side.
--Good question. If we look at what qualifies a country to be included in the lottery program (oversubscription etc?), it would again lead to the "balancing" intent with regards to immigration.
so why the double dipping? if the balancing is done, why the country quota? the result is that as i said more bangladeshis come in than indians...so what does over subscription mean in the end? again...why the need for the diversity lottery? the country quota already balances things....or not?
"either it's wrong or right. the caste system is wrong, from every side of the fence. it may benefit some and hurt others. but it's wrong, wrong and wrong.
same for this country quota. sure it helps some, and looks good from "their side of the fence". that does not change the fact that it is wrong."
--You are opining that it is wrong. You cannot state that it is a fact
you sound suspiciously supportive of the caste system. i will say it again. such a system is wrong. i do not care which side of the fence you are on. was depriving blacks from voting wrong? or was it ok from the white side of the fence? please think before you post.
there is a difference between "something benefiting me so i justify it and fight to keep it" and being right or fair. everyone fights to keep what they have. sorry, still not right. and if you still feel the caste system can be justified as right from your (or any) side of the fence then let's stop here, we have no common ground. and i speak as someone with sufficiently "high caste" to have not suffered from it (so you know my side of the fence).
one last thing, i find it hard to believe you are terming as "right" the idea that I as an individual should be held back 10 years longer than my colleague because of where i was born. any way i look at it...sorry...just not right.
hair To them, I#39;m Sabrina and
weasley
08-16 06:31 PM
SK2006 and snathan:
I do not agree.
First, there is no "profiling" in India. Everyone gets frisked and security at airports in India is top class.
Rules are rules, provided they apply equally to americans and Indians. otherwise its profiling or discrimination.
In 2000 December, I was travelling to Sydney from Mumbai Airport. I was held and later interviewed separately by a Tamil Speaking officer. Just because my name resembled like Srilankan Tamil. They wanted to ensure that I am not LTTE/or refugee travelling to Australia. Well, I was not offended. I just thought if these idiots have been careful before then would have avoided assasination of Rajiv Gandhi.
I do not agree.
First, there is no "profiling" in India. Everyone gets frisked and security at airports in India is top class.
Rules are rules, provided they apply equally to americans and Indians. otherwise its profiling or discrimination.
In 2000 December, I was travelling to Sydney from Mumbai Airport. I was held and later interviewed separately by a Tamil Speaking officer. Just because my name resembled like Srilankan Tamil. They wanted to ensure that I am not LTTE/or refugee travelling to Australia. Well, I was not offended. I just thought if these idiots have been careful before then would have avoided assasination of Rajiv Gandhi.
more...
soma
02-12 10:52 PM
how abt IV core leading us here or how abt murthy and other IV supporters who are immigration lawyers too.
hot melissa joan hart sabrina.
paskal
02-14 08:23 PM
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Why_Sania_wont_be_hounded_in_the_US_for_insulting_ flag/articleshow/2783772.cms
The Supreme court has the right to strike down laws effecting people
my friend you really need to dig deeper into stuff...most things are more than meets the eye. courts are very reluctant to strike down laws. the supreme court will strike down a federal law ONLY if it's against the constitution itself...ie there has to be a fundamental problem. this is true both in the US and in India.
the fact that a law inconveniences people is just not enough ground.
The Supreme court has the right to strike down laws effecting people
my friend you really need to dig deeper into stuff...most things are more than meets the eye. courts are very reluctant to strike down laws. the supreme court will strike down a federal law ONLY if it's against the constitution itself...ie there has to be a fundamental problem. this is true both in the US and in India.
the fact that a law inconveniences people is just not enough ground.
more...
house hairstyles Melissa Joan Hart
Legal
07-23 10:20 PM
Thanks !! I had a quick question ..the rules for the spillover, is that a law or does that depend on USCIS or DOS ?
In other words can they change the rules for spillover once again ..say next year ?
I still feel there is small hope for EB3-ww and maybe even EB3-I ...majority of the EB2 cases were filed during july fiasco ..what if they have not been processed yet ? i.e. they will keep moving the dates fwd till it becomes current (if that still does not use up the visas) ..then they would move EB3-ww dates fwd ..once again this is wishing and dreaming :)
For USCIS, 2007 was "let's reduce some backlog in EB3-category" year.
It looks like 2008 is " let's reduce some backlog in EB2-category" year.
On both occassions they hid their plans in right in front of us, and said "gotcha" to every one- AILA, IV prognosticators and Ron Gotchers of this world.
I doubt USCIS will openly Re-revise the horizontal spill over policy. If they do that they may be challenged again forcing them to Re-Re-revise which will make them look even more stupider than they do now.
There are other means by which USCIS can deliver justice- mafia style- but within the current law. They need additional help from DOS,DOL, etc.
examples- (1) Generally sit on EB-2 adjudications, delay them and say there are unused EB2 numbers and allow them to spill over to EB-3
(2) Clamp down even further on PERM - stretch it from 8 months to 36 months for every applicant including EB2-ROW, make even more unused numbers available to clear backlogs.
p.s
I do not harbor any ill-will towards ROW or any other category. I honestly think above things are possible. :)
In other words can they change the rules for spillover once again ..say next year ?
I still feel there is small hope for EB3-ww and maybe even EB3-I ...majority of the EB2 cases were filed during july fiasco ..what if they have not been processed yet ? i.e. they will keep moving the dates fwd till it becomes current (if that still does not use up the visas) ..then they would move EB3-ww dates fwd ..once again this is wishing and dreaming :)
For USCIS, 2007 was "let's reduce some backlog in EB3-category" year.
It looks like 2008 is " let's reduce some backlog in EB2-category" year.
On both occassions they hid their plans in right in front of us, and said "gotcha" to every one- AILA, IV prognosticators and Ron Gotchers of this world.
I doubt USCIS will openly Re-revise the horizontal spill over policy. If they do that they may be challenged again forcing them to Re-Re-revise which will make them look even more stupider than they do now.
There are other means by which USCIS can deliver justice- mafia style- but within the current law. They need additional help from DOS,DOL, etc.
examples- (1) Generally sit on EB-2 adjudications, delay them and say there are unused EB2 numbers and allow them to spill over to EB-3
(2) Clamp down even further on PERM - stretch it from 8 months to 36 months for every applicant including EB2-ROW, make even more unused numbers available to clear backlogs.
p.s
I do not harbor any ill-will towards ROW or any other category. I honestly think above things are possible. :)
tattoo melissa joan hart eye
pmat
05-10 08:10 AM
I also don't believe in all the crap about cost of living in Canada. Toronto is the hub in Canada that has most of the jobs, but the cost of living is nowhere near to big US cities such as NY, San Francisco, etc. Based on my research, you can easily get a nice 4 bedroom SFH in Toronto suburbs for less than 300K.
Once again, eb2waiter, a baseless statement in "Canada is not a land of opportunity". No one owes you a living. You have to work for it. If you're such a good IT worker, become a consultant or open up your own business doing so. You can't expect someone to hand you a job. Like someone else stated, if your skills are in demand and a good communicator, you'll be fine.
And yes, I had a US job offer before arriving here.
And if you're already here as a student, well, I can't think of a better way to research the job market from within - job fairs, colleagues, etc.
Also, I don't see your point - if you're an immigrant student in Canada, there is no issue of foreign credentials. Any professional distinction earned in Canada lands you on the same footing as any citizen. So again, please stop spreading bad information.
Once again, eb2waiter, a baseless statement in "Canada is not a land of opportunity". No one owes you a living. You have to work for it. If you're such a good IT worker, become a consultant or open up your own business doing so. You can't expect someone to hand you a job. Like someone else stated, if your skills are in demand and a good communicator, you'll be fine.
And yes, I had a US job offer before arriving here.
And if you're already here as a student, well, I can't think of a better way to research the job market from within - job fairs, colleagues, etc.
Also, I don't see your point - if you're an immigrant student in Canada, there is no issue of foreign credentials. Any professional distinction earned in Canada lands you on the same footing as any citizen. So again, please stop spreading bad information.
more...
pictures 2011 Melissa Joan Hart does
chanduv23
02-13 10:39 AM
You are right chanduv. If ppl are not even participating in letter campaign itself what to expect abt all this lawsuit stuff.
We must learn from the Jews, Italians, Patels, the african amerifcan comunity, the anti immigrants - what unity can achieve.
We seldom see them blaming their community efforts - they are strong and America is the apt place for them because they are strong. They built the system for themselves.
We are always followers - divided - fighting among ourselves - challenging our own credibility.
I do not want to deviate the intent of this thread. let it continue - but every topic must have a reality check.
We must learn from the Jews, Italians, Patels, the african amerifcan comunity, the anti immigrants - what unity can achieve.
We seldom see them blaming their community efforts - they are strong and America is the apt place for them because they are strong. They built the system for themselves.
We are always followers - divided - fighting among ourselves - challenging our own credibility.
I do not want to deviate the intent of this thread. let it continue - but every topic must have a reality check.
dresses wallpaper Melissa Joan Hart
illusions
05-11 04:34 PM
Kodi,
From the bottom of your heart can you tell the forum that there was no discrimination against Tamils in Sri Lanka after its independence from Great Britain.
venetian, you could say that the Tamils in SL were just as a much discriminated in SL as the Muslims in India.
There is no such Genocide happening in SL as some claim. As a matter of fact the LTTE ethnically cleansed the Muslims from the NE of the country in the 90's, yet the Muslims in SL didn't bare arms against the LTTE.
Mind you the civil war in SL is against the LTTE, not the Tamils.
From the bottom of your heart can you tell the forum that there was no discrimination against Tamils in Sri Lanka after its independence from Great Britain.
venetian, you could say that the Tamils in SL were just as a much discriminated in SL as the Muslims in India.
There is no such Genocide happening in SL as some claim. As a matter of fact the LTTE ethnically cleansed the Muslims from the NE of the country in the 90's, yet the Muslims in SL didn't bare arms against the LTTE.
Mind you the civil war in SL is against the LTTE, not the Tamils.
more...
makeup makeup Melissa Joan Hart,
sk2006
08-15 07:14 PM
I completely agree with you that we should never forget our roots or our motherland. India is far better than US when it comes to family values and many other things. However, this story has nothing to do about standing up for our own country/motherland. Every person who has a common name with terrorist names has had troubles at POE since 9/11. So who cares if he is SRK or anyone for that matter. When Colin Powell was the chief of security under Bush administration he had to go through airport security just like any other common person. The TSA here in US treats everyone the same. Do you think ministers or celebrities in India follow any security procedures ? Every now and then you hear of ministers and celebrities involved in smuggling scandals.
There are good and bad things about every nation. IMHO, security procedures in US are the far better than India and apply the same way to everyone unlike in India. If you are so concerned about standing up for your motherland, what are you doing in the US ? Should I be calling you a traitor ? My point is, this case of SRK has nothing to do with loyality to motherland or racism. It is an unfortunate aftermath of 9/11 and we all know its been happening at POE.
I think this is a very good post.
To add to this:
This incident has nothing to do with India. It just happened that SRK was from India.
After 9/11 we all know security measures are tight and rightly so.
For them it does not matter if it is
1. SR Khan who works in movies or
2. XYZ Khan who is a computer programmer or a cab driver.
If the name flashes in the computers they do the required checks.
Do you feel people with Muslim sounding names are targeted more?
No wonder, it is likely. DO NOT Blame USA TSA for that. Blame Osama Bin Laden for putting innocent Muslims through this.
There are good and bad things about every nation. IMHO, security procedures in US are the far better than India and apply the same way to everyone unlike in India. If you are so concerned about standing up for your motherland, what are you doing in the US ? Should I be calling you a traitor ? My point is, this case of SRK has nothing to do with loyality to motherland or racism. It is an unfortunate aftermath of 9/11 and we all know its been happening at POE.
I think this is a very good post.
To add to this:
This incident has nothing to do with India. It just happened that SRK was from India.
After 9/11 we all know security measures are tight and rightly so.
For them it does not matter if it is
1. SR Khan who works in movies or
2. XYZ Khan who is a computer programmer or a cab driver.
If the name flashes in the computers they do the required checks.
Do you feel people with Muslim sounding names are targeted more?
No wonder, it is likely. DO NOT Blame USA TSA for that. Blame Osama Bin Laden for putting innocent Muslims through this.
girlfriend Melissa Joan Hart
Munna Bhai
01-26 08:01 AM
Hello,
My I-140 is approved and I have a PD of Feb 2006.
One of my colleague whose job description is little different then mine has a PD of Sep 2003 and his Labour got approved but he left the company.
So is there anyway his approved labor is useful to me. What are the ifs,buts etc.
----------------
I changed your thread title. when you start a new thread make your thread title descriptive for all members to easily sift through threads- Admin
My I-140 is approved and I have a PD of Feb 2006.
One of my colleague whose job description is little different then mine has a PD of Sep 2003 and his Labour got approved but he left the company.
So is there anyway his approved labor is useful to me. What are the ifs,buts etc.
----------------
I changed your thread title. when you start a new thread make your thread title descriptive for all members to easily sift through threads- Admin
hairstyles Melissa Joan Hart (Sabrina
485Mbe4001
09-23 05:38 PM
You can always edit your letter with comments that suit your case. The objective is to send a letter to support the idea. They they work out the details if and when they discuss it.
OK... I support the initiative because it will remove some people ahead of me in line. However, I bought a house last week with 3% downpayment on FHA loan, and now how can I justify writing an email with the draft that urges for GCs only for those who paid 20% downpayment?
Can you give me some thoughts on this so that I can make my selfish mind to agree on writing this email to congress?
OK... I support the initiative because it will remove some people ahead of me in line. However, I bought a house last week with 3% downpayment on FHA loan, and now how can I justify writing an email with the draft that urges for GCs only for those who paid 20% downpayment?
Can you give me some thoughts on this so that I can make my selfish mind to agree on writing this email to congress?
ocpmachine
09-15 10:43 AM
This thread is getting very interesting with all the logical calculations and predictions, thanks OP.
One aspect that was missed in the discussions so far is, during Aug-Sep'08 many folks with 2005/06 PD's got their GC, USCIS picked these cases on random and not sure how many with 2005/06 PD's were approved but it a sizeable number, so this reduces the pending numbers for 2005/06 PD cases as well. I am predicting by Sep'10 we should see all of 2006 PD's cleared up.
-Cheers
One aspect that was missed in the discussions so far is, during Aug-Sep'08 many folks with 2005/06 PD's got their GC, USCIS picked these cases on random and not sure how many with 2005/06 PD's were approved but it a sizeable number, so this reduces the pending numbers for 2005/06 PD cases as well. I am predicting by Sep'10 we should see all of 2006 PD's cleared up.
-Cheers
unitednations
02-13 02:41 PM
Again wrong information by you and trying to hide background or historical information. Either USDOS/USCIS has not mismanaged the numbers in 2005. Claiming India and China was given more than they entitled to is wrong . They (DOS) did everything right till 2005. Now only they are violating. One has to study the historical issues before 1999. Before 1999, both India and China (both EB2 and EB3) were retrogressed heavily and backlogged. However ROW was current in all EB catagories. There was no retrogression in ROW. It was always current before 1999.
For example, here is March 1999 VB
All Charge-
ability Areas CHINA-
Except Those mainland
Listed born INDIA MEXICO PHILIPPINES
Employment-
Based
1st C 22JAN98 C C C
2nd C 08SEP96 08SEP97 C C
3rd C 01JAN95 08FEB96 C C
As a part of AC21 act in 2000, the unused numbers (about 100,000) were recaptured to eliminate the backlogs in EB categories. The reason was this recapture to remove retrogression in India and China, as because that was only two countries backlogged at that point.
After that ac21 law, there were additional 100,000 visas available apart from 140,000 visas every year. DOS has given 100,000 additional visas to USCIS in 2000 itself to consume it. Because of USCIS slowness/inefficiency in processing 485s between 1999 and 2004, they even did not have processed the yearly quota. Therefore the recaptured visas were remain unused for 5 years because of USCIS inefficiency. Therefore, at some point, it has to be consumed. Therefore USCIS did backlog elimination drive in 2005 (6 months processing of 485s ) to use all the recaptured visas. The original intension to remove backlogs in India and China. That was done by USCIS. USCIS can not hold that recaptured numbers for ever (by imposing 7% limit in India and China) how the future demands will be in EB3-ROW. Far example, if ROW demands 200,000 EB3 visas in year 2020, USCIS/DOS can not hold that AC21 numbers (that were recaptured in 2000) for ROW to be consumed in 2020, by imposing 7% limit. No one can anticipate future demands.
Theoretically speaking those numbers belongs (AC21 recaptured numbers came only from EB1 and EB2 pool) belongs to EB1 and EB2 category. EB3 never gave any unused numbers in previous years. Ideally speaking, those numbers should have been issued to EB2 category first to eliminate backlogs in EB2 then only to EB3 ROW. Infact, all the ac21 numbers were used to eliminate retro in EB3 only. In 2005 they issed only 44,000 EB2 compare to about 150,000 visas in EB3. This is big injustice to EB2 India and China.
Bottom line is EB3-ROW is enjoying with the expense of EB2 India and China.
I don't think so. 7% limit has been there for a very long time. Unused visas from prior years for ac21 purposes were still subject to 7% in current year. The 7% rule was unchanged.
It seems that you think that the unused visas from prior year were not subject to 7%. There is nothing of the sort that allows this.
For example, here is March 1999 VB
All Charge-
ability Areas CHINA-
Except Those mainland
Listed born INDIA MEXICO PHILIPPINES
Employment-
Based
1st C 22JAN98 C C C
2nd C 08SEP96 08SEP97 C C
3rd C 01JAN95 08FEB96 C C
As a part of AC21 act in 2000, the unused numbers (about 100,000) were recaptured to eliminate the backlogs in EB categories. The reason was this recapture to remove retrogression in India and China, as because that was only two countries backlogged at that point.
After that ac21 law, there were additional 100,000 visas available apart from 140,000 visas every year. DOS has given 100,000 additional visas to USCIS in 2000 itself to consume it. Because of USCIS slowness/inefficiency in processing 485s between 1999 and 2004, they even did not have processed the yearly quota. Therefore the recaptured visas were remain unused for 5 years because of USCIS inefficiency. Therefore, at some point, it has to be consumed. Therefore USCIS did backlog elimination drive in 2005 (6 months processing of 485s ) to use all the recaptured visas. The original intension to remove backlogs in India and China. That was done by USCIS. USCIS can not hold that recaptured numbers for ever (by imposing 7% limit in India and China) how the future demands will be in EB3-ROW. Far example, if ROW demands 200,000 EB3 visas in year 2020, USCIS/DOS can not hold that AC21 numbers (that were recaptured in 2000) for ROW to be consumed in 2020, by imposing 7% limit. No one can anticipate future demands.
Theoretically speaking those numbers belongs (AC21 recaptured numbers came only from EB1 and EB2 pool) belongs to EB1 and EB2 category. EB3 never gave any unused numbers in previous years. Ideally speaking, those numbers should have been issued to EB2 category first to eliminate backlogs in EB2 then only to EB3 ROW. Infact, all the ac21 numbers were used to eliminate retro in EB3 only. In 2005 they issed only 44,000 EB2 compare to about 150,000 visas in EB3. This is big injustice to EB2 India and China.
Bottom line is EB3-ROW is enjoying with the expense of EB2 India and China.
I don't think so. 7% limit has been there for a very long time. Unused visas from prior years for ac21 purposes were still subject to 7% in current year. The 7% rule was unchanged.
It seems that you think that the unused visas from prior year were not subject to 7%. There is nothing of the sort that allows this.
