bfadlia
02-16 02:57 PM
I still fail to see how country caps on Employment Based immigration serve the purpose of diversity. Look, people from India/China with H1B visas and pending AOS applications are already here, right? They are here and will be here regardless of whether they get GCs now or after 10 years. Many of them bought houses, have families, American born kids. How making them wait for years is gonna serve the purpose of diversity? You think if an Indian guy will be using AC21/EAD for years, going to finger printing every year, going through secondary security check on airports, in time he is gonna evolve into something less Indian? It's gonna be the same people but with different documents in their pockets.
For diversity purposes there is lottery, and the purpose of that lottery is exactly that - the diversity. Also, if the government wants diversity, they should have immigration program like Canada has. Where people are issued permanent residency BEFORE coming to the country and spending years working for that country.
bestia, the people here keep saying "i don't see the reasoning in x, then x must be wrong and should change"
u believe US intended diversity in DV lottery only and by mistake put it in DV, FB and EB.. you are entitled to your opinion, but good luck getting someone to take u seriosly with this argument
again..i only mentioned race when people kept saying we (certainly their race) are better and brighter, outside correcting that context i would never have discussed it this way.
peace.. have a soccer game now.. c u later
For diversity purposes there is lottery, and the purpose of that lottery is exactly that - the diversity. Also, if the government wants diversity, they should have immigration program like Canada has. Where people are issued permanent residency BEFORE coming to the country and spending years working for that country.
bestia, the people here keep saying "i don't see the reasoning in x, then x must be wrong and should change"
u believe US intended diversity in DV lottery only and by mistake put it in DV, FB and EB.. you are entitled to your opinion, but good luck getting someone to take u seriosly with this argument
again..i only mentioned race when people kept saying we (certainly their race) are better and brighter, outside correcting that context i would never have discussed it this way.
peace.. have a soccer game now.. c u later
wallpaper The stunning wedding dress
chanduv23
03-16 01:07 PM
Verify with another lawyer also, basically your experience starts only after you graduate (after getting your degree and not after finishing college ie say you completed ur degree in may 2000 and recieved your degree in Dec 2000, your experience prior to Dec 2000 may not count)
Do verify this with a good lawyer.
Do verify this with a good lawyer.
chanduv23
07-04 11:28 AM
While it is totally understandable that everyone get angry when rubbed in the wrong way - we must all remember that we are immigrants in this country and the country is currently driven by perception about job loses, terror plots, security threats etc..
In discussion forums or free speech forums, be very very careful - it is easy to trigger anger and get into heated discussions.
Please tone down the rhetoric and also tell your friends also.
In discussion forums or free speech forums, be very very careful - it is easy to trigger anger and get into heated discussions.
Please tone down the rhetoric and also tell your friends also.
2011 Frock off: Princess Diana#39;s
vdlrao
07-21 11:43 PM
vdlrao, Thanks for the great analysis.
I am using DOS visa statistics and I arrived at EB quota numbers for 2008 as 162,707. There were 22,707 unused FB visa's in 2007 based on the DOS visa statistics @ http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/statistics/statistics_1476.html
Typically the actual EB quota for the FY is revised in the September bulletin. I am not sure if DOS has already taken into account the new EB quota number for the Aug bulletin. If they hadn't taken into account the new quota number then we should see some forward movement in the Sep bulletin.
However the 28,795 AC-21 recaptured visa's U are talking about has already been used in 2002, please take a look at the below mentioned link for details regarding the usage of those visa's.
http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2003%20AppD.pdf
All the AC-21 recaptured visa's has been used by now.
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.
I am using DOS visa statistics and I arrived at EB quota numbers for 2008 as 162,707. There were 22,707 unused FB visa's in 2007 based on the DOS visa statistics @ http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/statistics/statistics_1476.html
Typically the actual EB quota for the FY is revised in the September bulletin. I am not sure if DOS has already taken into account the new EB quota number for the Aug bulletin. If they hadn't taken into account the new quota number then we should see some forward movement in the Sep bulletin.
However the 28,795 AC-21 recaptured visa's U are talking about has already been used in 2002, please take a look at the below mentioned link for details regarding the usage of those visa's.
http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2003%20AppD.pdf
All the AC-21 recaptured visa's has been used by now.
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...
GCwaitforever
06-21 04:11 PM
The problem lies with entire GC process being Employer-centric. Employee is just a pawn in the game. Employers can do whatever they want. The market test for LCA conducted by DOL itself is so ridiculous. How would a test conducted in 2002 be any relevant for a Greencard application that would be approved six or eight years from that date?
swo
07-13 03:16 AM
Buying a home in CAN $ 200000 in year 2007 will give you $ 5000 top in Year 2030
Home appreciation in Canada is strong and sustainable. The recent anomoly of soaring prices in the US, all experts agree, was driven by loose lending policies, and the sorts of bad loans that are simply not permitted in Canada. As a result, they are now not experiencing the same depreciation that is being felt in many US cities.
Housing prices in Canada do of course vary tremendously. And go through cycles. Vancouver is very expensive. Toronto is close on its heels. But to suggest homes don't increase value in Canada is perhaps the dumbest of the many dumb things you've said here.
I mean here we are in the middle of what all economists argue is a gloomy US housing market and you try and come up with nonsensical criticisms of the Canadian housing market.
Where do you get these utterly baseless comments? Use facts when you make an argument. They are more helpful to readers than rants without substance.
Disseminate real information. Information that you can bring to light that may actually enlighten me and many others.
Ranting? Well that's rather less helpful.
Home appreciation in Canada is strong and sustainable. The recent anomoly of soaring prices in the US, all experts agree, was driven by loose lending policies, and the sorts of bad loans that are simply not permitted in Canada. As a result, they are now not experiencing the same depreciation that is being felt in many US cities.
Housing prices in Canada do of course vary tremendously. And go through cycles. Vancouver is very expensive. Toronto is close on its heels. But to suggest homes don't increase value in Canada is perhaps the dumbest of the many dumb things you've said here.
I mean here we are in the middle of what all economists argue is a gloomy US housing market and you try and come up with nonsensical criticisms of the Canadian housing market.
Where do you get these utterly baseless comments? Use facts when you make an argument. They are more helpful to readers than rants without substance.
Disseminate real information. Information that you can bring to light that may actually enlighten me and many others.
Ranting? Well that's rather less helpful.
more...
Green_Always
08-15 05:42 PM
Why should it be a surprise?
How do PoE officers know if he is a film star in some foreign language movies?
Even if they knew, why is SRK so special that he should not be checked?
There was an instance when a pop singer from India(Daler Mehdi) was accused of smugling illegal immigrants disguised as musicians. Point is, if somebody is a celebrity, that does not make him/her un touchable?
I agree 100% simply Indian Media make more of this. I know only one face of SRK, who knows such big guys what they are into ?
How do PoE officers know if he is a film star in some foreign language movies?
Even if they knew, why is SRK so special that he should not be checked?
There was an instance when a pop singer from India(Daler Mehdi) was accused of smugling illegal immigrants disguised as musicians. Point is, if somebody is a celebrity, that does not make him/her un touchable?
I agree 100% simply Indian Media make more of this. I know only one face of SRK, who knows such big guys what they are into ?
2010 This dress has become one of
krishnam70
07-10 06:58 PM
yes there are numerous articles about that too. Atleast for IT folks things are ok
more...
gc28262
01-17 11:10 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
This law was made by snram4 in his backyard ! :cool: No lawyer in US is aware of this.
There were indians who served British East India company during Indian Independence struggle.
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
This law was made by snram4 in his backyard ! :cool: No lawyer in US is aware of this.
There were indians who served British East India company during Indian Independence struggle.
hair royal wedding dresses
drirshad
08-08 04:47 PM
I am one of the July 2nd filer, EB2 India, PD is April 2005 filed 485 at NSC but got a receipt# starting with WAC. First I-485 receipt notice was send me with RD 07/02/2007. I again got the second I-485 transfer notice in September with RD 09/26/2007 saying my case has been transferred back to NSC office as they have jurisdiction over it.
Called IO today says as my application receipt# starts with WAC it will processed by the CSC processing dates that is stuck at May 2006 rather than the NSC processing dates that is at 10th August 2007 making my 485 eligible for processing.
Is this information from IO valid, what can be done to come out of this problems. Looks like there has been some TSC approvals for WAC receipts but no news on NSC.
Called IO today says as my application receipt# starts with WAC it will processed by the CSC processing dates that is stuck at May 2006 rather than the NSC processing dates that is at 10th August 2007 making my 485 eligible for processing.
Is this information from IO valid, what can be done to come out of this problems. Looks like there has been some TSC approvals for WAC receipts but no news on NSC.
more...
mchundi
01-09 02:11 PM
I just got to this site via from immigration portal.
I have been reading a lot in the other forum and here about the ways to cure retrogression. Lobbying for more Visa's and other things that were part of the S.1932 bill are fine, however these things are not going to solve the retrogression problem even if such a bill gets passed.
No one seems to be talking about the real problem that is Labor Substitution. Abolishing Labor Substitution will itself take care of every retrogression problem.
The INS does not have the right tools to police the misue of this rule. This is resutling in a lot of problems for even those employees whose Labor's get substituted even if they are still working in the same company.
Any effort to reform immigration should start with first reforming the Labor Substitution rule (if not completely abolish).
I know that all the companies/employers and the lawyers community are against removing the Labor substitution, therefore it will never be removed, but atleast it should be reformed so that it can be better policed so that no one is able to misuse it and play with peoples lives. And in turn add to retregression.
Following reforms are needed in Labor Substitution.
- First thing in the Labor Substitution reform is related to the Priority date. The Priority Date for a substituted Labor should the date when the Labor is substituted (or the I-140 filing date). It should not be be the date when the Labor was originally filed. This in itself will solve 90% of the problems related to retrogression.
- When a Labor is substituted it should be verified immediately to find if there is any I-140 or I-485 that is pending based on this Labor. If so then the Labor should be rejected immediately. Currently this is not done at the time the Labor is substituted, therefore the resulting 485 filing just amounts to add up into the backlog of Visa Number requirement, until the priority date becomes current for this 485.
- If an employee invokes the AC21 then that Labor should not be allowed to be substituted.
- There should be a limit to the time until which a Labor can be substituted. This could be debatable and could have other consequences, as the INS could invalidate any GC application that is been pending for more than the this duration.
In short the Labour substitution rule is in a mess and is getting miused a lot. People are getting fooled by the employers, and ultimately its making the retrogression more worse.
neocor
Probably true,
I think the DOL/USCIS(I dont know who) is moving in this direction.
The real problem is the 7% limit per country and the time it takes for one to go thru the 3 steps.
There r several people who have started G.C process several times for different reasons. This slows them (DOL/USCIS) down and remember this is like a chain reaction until u stop applying for a G.C or AC21 kicks in.
Bill Clinton signed some immigration relief for the illegal immigrants just before he left without allocating any resources to process them. Close to 300,000 illegal immigrants filed their labor before Apr 2001. This brought the DOL to a halt and it couldnot recover for 2 years. Finally the BEC's were created to resolve the mess created by the new law. They did not sove the problem but addressed it to some extent. For some it became worse.
In the meantime several VISA numbers went unused because the DOL probably scrutinized the cases more thoroughly and probably there were more rejections by USCIS
The reason why so many people look for loop holes is because of the inordinate delay in the process.
I guess the situation will only become worse unless those who got their labor get to apply for 485 and get portability thru AC21 or dropout altogether.
The problem with labor is partly addressed thru PERM. Over the next couple of years the BEC's eliminate the backlog and soon everybody will be in the hunt for the VISA numbers.
The best that can be done now is the fight for more VISA numbers and be able to file for I485 whether a VISA number is available or not or anything that addresses this like
1: increase the overall VISA numbers (McGain && Kennedy)
2: capture unused VISA numbers
3: Cap not being applicable for those with Masters degree in ---- && 3+ years exp before starting the G.C process (Sen. Chuk hagel)
4: Being able to file I-485 even with no VISA number(failed S-1932)
--MC
I have been reading a lot in the other forum and here about the ways to cure retrogression. Lobbying for more Visa's and other things that were part of the S.1932 bill are fine, however these things are not going to solve the retrogression problem even if such a bill gets passed.
No one seems to be talking about the real problem that is Labor Substitution. Abolishing Labor Substitution will itself take care of every retrogression problem.
The INS does not have the right tools to police the misue of this rule. This is resutling in a lot of problems for even those employees whose Labor's get substituted even if they are still working in the same company.
Any effort to reform immigration should start with first reforming the Labor Substitution rule (if not completely abolish).
I know that all the companies/employers and the lawyers community are against removing the Labor substitution, therefore it will never be removed, but atleast it should be reformed so that it can be better policed so that no one is able to misuse it and play with peoples lives. And in turn add to retregression.
Following reforms are needed in Labor Substitution.
- First thing in the Labor Substitution reform is related to the Priority date. The Priority Date for a substituted Labor should the date when the Labor is substituted (or the I-140 filing date). It should not be be the date when the Labor was originally filed. This in itself will solve 90% of the problems related to retrogression.
- When a Labor is substituted it should be verified immediately to find if there is any I-140 or I-485 that is pending based on this Labor. If so then the Labor should be rejected immediately. Currently this is not done at the time the Labor is substituted, therefore the resulting 485 filing just amounts to add up into the backlog of Visa Number requirement, until the priority date becomes current for this 485.
- If an employee invokes the AC21 then that Labor should not be allowed to be substituted.
- There should be a limit to the time until which a Labor can be substituted. This could be debatable and could have other consequences, as the INS could invalidate any GC application that is been pending for more than the this duration.
In short the Labour substitution rule is in a mess and is getting miused a lot. People are getting fooled by the employers, and ultimately its making the retrogression more worse.
neocor
Probably true,
I think the DOL/USCIS(I dont know who) is moving in this direction.
The real problem is the 7% limit per country and the time it takes for one to go thru the 3 steps.
There r several people who have started G.C process several times for different reasons. This slows them (DOL/USCIS) down and remember this is like a chain reaction until u stop applying for a G.C or AC21 kicks in.
Bill Clinton signed some immigration relief for the illegal immigrants just before he left without allocating any resources to process them. Close to 300,000 illegal immigrants filed their labor before Apr 2001. This brought the DOL to a halt and it couldnot recover for 2 years. Finally the BEC's were created to resolve the mess created by the new law. They did not sove the problem but addressed it to some extent. For some it became worse.
In the meantime several VISA numbers went unused because the DOL probably scrutinized the cases more thoroughly and probably there were more rejections by USCIS
The reason why so many people look for loop holes is because of the inordinate delay in the process.
I guess the situation will only become worse unless those who got their labor get to apply for 485 and get portability thru AC21 or dropout altogether.
The problem with labor is partly addressed thru PERM. Over the next couple of years the BEC's eliminate the backlog and soon everybody will be in the hunt for the VISA numbers.
The best that can be done now is the fight for more VISA numbers and be able to file for I485 whether a VISA number is available or not or anything that addresses this like
1: increase the overall VISA numbers (McGain && Kennedy)
2: capture unused VISA numbers
3: Cap not being applicable for those with Masters degree in ---- && 3+ years exp before starting the G.C process (Sen. Chuk hagel)
4: Being able to file I-485 even with no VISA number(failed S-1932)
--MC
hot Princess Diana#39;s Elizabeth
oguinan
02-15 09:14 PM
Nope. Article 1 Paragraph 3 just states that the convention does not apply in those cases. The definition of racial discrimination stands. You should read through the US response to the last review under the CERD (in 2003) and check the responses on immigration policy.
Do you have a specific link? There are a number of immigration related documents in the 2003 session, mostly related to the southern border.
I'm not a lawyer - but I do know that the spirit Article 1 Paragraph 2 of the document says that immigration and naturalization laws are somehow "not the same" as other laws when testing for racial discrimination. The spirit of the document is clear - otherwise why provide the second paragraph at all? I think that the case of Bhagat Singh Thind which I cited earlier clearly did show racial discrimination by any reasonable test.
I noticed that you changed my quoted text in the previous post. I'm not sure how that fits in with the traditions and practice of the forums here - but I'd appreciate you mentioning it in the text of your post.
Do you have a specific link? There are a number of immigration related documents in the 2003 session, mostly related to the southern border.
I'm not a lawyer - but I do know that the spirit Article 1 Paragraph 2 of the document says that immigration and naturalization laws are somehow "not the same" as other laws when testing for racial discrimination. The spirit of the document is clear - otherwise why provide the second paragraph at all? I think that the case of Bhagat Singh Thind which I cited earlier clearly did show racial discrimination by any reasonable test.
I noticed that you changed my quoted text in the previous post. I'm not sure how that fits in with the traditions and practice of the forums here - but I'd appreciate you mentioning it in the text of your post.
more...
house makeup princess diana wedding
BharatPremi
07-13 01:43 AM
Canada immigration is simple & straight forward.
No expensive lawyers are required or any lengthy procedures. Just self do. Also look at the currency rate of US and Canada almost same... Tax is a little high but medical is fully covered.
You need to fill forms,send all your education, papers etc and LO ! you are done and get PR Card. Some of my friends got it in less than 2 yrs.
go to http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/index.asp and you can apply on your own.
P.S: I am not an lawyer. Just another frusted GC wait, wait no reply candidate.
Canadian Immigration is simple.. But then what? Are you ready to live your life in socialist welfare state? Buying a home in CAN $ 200000 in year 2007 will give you $ 5000 top in Year 2030.. Are you ready for that? Do not choose Good apples from the basket. This guy got a job from Microsoft does not mean that easily you would get settled...One thing I do not understand is why so much zeal about Canadian immigration on American immigration forums.. Is it some mental syndrome to make people part of your own guilt?
By the way my very nearest relatives and friends have choosen (Many are in IT as well..) Canada to get settled... Some live there since last 20 years... I know how Canada works... And believe me if you get USA GC done.. Canada is not worth considering....More or less Canada is not that a dynamic society... It is still 16th Century European mind set... I can understand someone may get it done as backup but here it seems that some of the people are out to the mission .. And I have a problem there. If somebody is in really a bad shape of US Green card and all doors are going to be closed soon and considering Canada.. That is understandable... But living in US, stating to love USA and writing to drive others out of USA looks contradictory to me.. Hypocrates... US GC is broken and f@@cked up so what .. Try to fight it out as long as you can...And believe me not everbody's grapes are sour yet.
Other thing, with decision of corporates you can not take decisiion to unsettle your life.. Argument: Microsoft decides to go to Canada and is hirring you .. What can go wrong...many things can go wrong.. you do not know and many things cannot be proved.. With myself it already happened.. In year 2001 Bubble burst my then employer gave me a choice to move to Canada ( Exactly Microsoft kind of public declaration.. Company is also very prestigious and more or less you can consider it of the size of Microsoft).... I took decision not to go and so I was out of the company.. Some friends went there.. after 2 years laid off.. Those 2 years they got American salary on Canadian land (Dream, huh !!!!!!!!) ,, But then what after lay off.. One of them had to sit 6 months to get proper job.. Way less salary... Can this happen to everybody? May not be..But the bottom line is you will have to fiight out the hurdles.. Here you have GC Process hurdle.. In canada you may not have that but you may be having other 100 hurdles... What will you do then? WIll you go to Australia? ...There are 600 countries so at the most you can do 600 migrations :-) By the way both of my friends now want to come back to USA after getting citizenship and their families do not want to move as they have mentally fed up with this move from country to country.. So wise up... my friend
No expensive lawyers are required or any lengthy procedures. Just self do. Also look at the currency rate of US and Canada almost same... Tax is a little high but medical is fully covered.
You need to fill forms,send all your education, papers etc and LO ! you are done and get PR Card. Some of my friends got it in less than 2 yrs.
go to http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/index.asp and you can apply on your own.
P.S: I am not an lawyer. Just another frusted GC wait, wait no reply candidate.
Canadian Immigration is simple.. But then what? Are you ready to live your life in socialist welfare state? Buying a home in CAN $ 200000 in year 2007 will give you $ 5000 top in Year 2030.. Are you ready for that? Do not choose Good apples from the basket. This guy got a job from Microsoft does not mean that easily you would get settled...One thing I do not understand is why so much zeal about Canadian immigration on American immigration forums.. Is it some mental syndrome to make people part of your own guilt?
By the way my very nearest relatives and friends have choosen (Many are in IT as well..) Canada to get settled... Some live there since last 20 years... I know how Canada works... And believe me if you get USA GC done.. Canada is not worth considering....More or less Canada is not that a dynamic society... It is still 16th Century European mind set... I can understand someone may get it done as backup but here it seems that some of the people are out to the mission .. And I have a problem there. If somebody is in really a bad shape of US Green card and all doors are going to be closed soon and considering Canada.. That is understandable... But living in US, stating to love USA and writing to drive others out of USA looks contradictory to me.. Hypocrates... US GC is broken and f@@cked up so what .. Try to fight it out as long as you can...And believe me not everbody's grapes are sour yet.
Other thing, with decision of corporates you can not take decisiion to unsettle your life.. Argument: Microsoft decides to go to Canada and is hirring you .. What can go wrong...many things can go wrong.. you do not know and many things cannot be proved.. With myself it already happened.. In year 2001 Bubble burst my then employer gave me a choice to move to Canada ( Exactly Microsoft kind of public declaration.. Company is also very prestigious and more or less you can consider it of the size of Microsoft).... I took decision not to go and so I was out of the company.. Some friends went there.. after 2 years laid off.. Those 2 years they got American salary on Canadian land (Dream, huh !!!!!!!!) ,, But then what after lay off.. One of them had to sit 6 months to get proper job.. Way less salary... Can this happen to everybody? May not be..But the bottom line is you will have to fiight out the hurdles.. Here you have GC Process hurdle.. In canada you may not have that but you may be having other 100 hurdles... What will you do then? WIll you go to Australia? ...There are 600 countries so at the most you can do 600 migrations :-) By the way both of my friends now want to come back to USA after getting citizenship and their families do not want to move as they have mentally fed up with this move from country to country.. So wise up... my friend
tattoo princess diana wedding gown.
franklin
02-13 03:09 PM
I take up the challenge. I'm ROW, maybe this is the spur that will make me participate somewhat.
Yes, such a pity there was no one from the ROW group present in DC
Yes, such a pity there was no one from the ROW group present in DC
more...
pictures Princess Diana#39;s royal wedding
kuhelica2000
02-12 08:21 PM
Per country limit applies to every country in exactly the same way. It doesn't discriminate between Chad or China. So, how is it discrimination? And think about it- in Olympics soccer/basketball every country can send only one team. Should China and India be allowed to send more teams since they have a larger population? We should try to increase the number of GCs.
No matter which side you are on, the quota system sucks. Period.
1) Once you start receiving benefits out of being born in a particular country/ race/ sex/ religion, a notion of "entitlement" quickly builds up within you. This adversely affects your ability to perform, for you just don't have to work hard enough!
2) If you are punished for being born in a particular country/ race/ sex/ religion, you have no incentive to perform, as you won't get what you deserve no matter how hard you work!
How about this... during every Olympics, most number of Gold Medals are won by Americans. Now imagine a rule that prevents more than 7% of all Gold Medals going to people born in any one country. How does that sound?
I will myself hate it if athletes from India (who haven't won anything in the Olympics till date) started winning gold medals simply because other countries cannot receive more than 7%!
Of course, removing country caps will face opposition, but it should still happen, just because it is the right thing!
No matter which side you are on, the quota system sucks. Period.
1) Once you start receiving benefits out of being born in a particular country/ race/ sex/ religion, a notion of "entitlement" quickly builds up within you. This adversely affects your ability to perform, for you just don't have to work hard enough!
2) If you are punished for being born in a particular country/ race/ sex/ religion, you have no incentive to perform, as you won't get what you deserve no matter how hard you work!
How about this... during every Olympics, most number of Gold Medals are won by Americans. Now imagine a rule that prevents more than 7% of all Gold Medals going to people born in any one country. How does that sound?
I will myself hate it if athletes from India (who haven't won anything in the Olympics till date) started winning gold medals simply because other countries cannot receive more than 7%!
Of course, removing country caps will face opposition, but it should still happen, just because it is the right thing!
dresses Princess Diana
mallu
02-16 12:14 PM
.......Even if I had said that there is fraud and corruption in India, it would not be considered as a racist comment. Every year Transparency International generates a list of most corrupt nations. Ever wonder why India is on that list. Ever wonder why out of all places only in India US visa officers are instructed to do technical interview for IT visa applicants? You are living in complete denial and trying to play the race card whenever you get an opportunity.
There may be truth in it. But not completely so. There are are lot of well qualified and experienced people. But there may be frauds too.
Fraud and corruption is prevalent everywhere incuding India and a prepondernece of the bodyshops are nothing but a factory of producing overnight "IT Talents". Accept this is as one of the problem of this retrogression.
Again it is a mixture of all kind of types coming through the consultants.
So, the issue is that there are lot of qualified and experienced people in India that are willing to come to USA to seek better opportunities ( although these says , the students from top universities of India may not want to come here ) and i believe it is not that the consultant companies dump 'all who can walk' into USA. There may be a certain percentage that are 'deficient'.
So, my main point is that , by virtue of larger population, India has larger number of graduates/employable folks. Plus many of them learn English ( if i need to communicate with people in other parts of India, i use English ) , may be with thick accent.
There may be truth in it. But not completely so. There are are lot of well qualified and experienced people. But there may be frauds too.
Fraud and corruption is prevalent everywhere incuding India and a prepondernece of the bodyshops are nothing but a factory of producing overnight "IT Talents". Accept this is as one of the problem of this retrogression.
Again it is a mixture of all kind of types coming through the consultants.
So, the issue is that there are lot of qualified and experienced people in India that are willing to come to USA to seek better opportunities ( although these says , the students from top universities of India may not want to come here ) and i believe it is not that the consultant companies dump 'all who can walk' into USA. There may be a certain percentage that are 'deficient'.
So, my main point is that , by virtue of larger population, India has larger number of graduates/employable folks. Plus many of them learn English ( if i need to communicate with people in other parts of India, i use English ) , may be with thick accent.
more...
makeup Princess Diana dresses sell
longq
02-13 03:53 PM
Before AC21, the spill over goes vertically.
After AC21, the spill over should go horizontally. But it is not going so. There is something going behind the screen. There is some reason for DOS is doing so. The law is not gray in this respect. It can be easily litigated, if they issued less than 40,000 EB2 visas and more than 40,000 EB3 visas. Nov 2005 VB is not a law. It is a statement by DOS. The law is section 202 of INA.
In both cases (before and after AC21) allocation of unused visas should go in a last month of calnder quarter. Both sec 202 3 a and 202 a 5 says "in a calender quarter" ..
Before AC21
3) Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter.
After AC21..
(A) EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
Now ROW experts, post your comment for this hypothitical example ..
Lets assume there are 100 unused visas in EB2 catagory in a calender quarter. Worldwide EB damand is more than 140,000. Now, how will you assisn those numbers if it is before AC21 period and if it is after AC21 period.
If you say in both cases it goes to EB3-ROW, then we are not stupid to listien.
After AC21, the spill over should go horizontally. But it is not going so. There is something going behind the screen. There is some reason for DOS is doing so. The law is not gray in this respect. It can be easily litigated, if they issued less than 40,000 EB2 visas and more than 40,000 EB3 visas. Nov 2005 VB is not a law. It is a statement by DOS. The law is section 202 of INA.
In both cases (before and after AC21) allocation of unused visas should go in a last month of calnder quarter. Both sec 202 3 a and 202 a 5 says "in a calender quarter" ..
Before AC21
3) Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter.
After AC21..
(A) EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
Now ROW experts, post your comment for this hypothitical example ..
Lets assume there are 100 unused visas in EB2 catagory in a calender quarter. Worldwide EB damand is more than 140,000. Now, how will you assisn those numbers if it is before AC21 period and if it is after AC21 period.
If you say in both cases it goes to EB3-ROW, then we are not stupid to listien.
girlfriend Princess Diana and Prince
sammyb
02-14 01:53 PM
to close this thread and/or change settings so that no further new posts allowed... We have had enough on this ... it is now better to rest this topic in peace...
hairstyles princess diana wedding dress.
gc4me
02-14 08:22 AM
Guys/Gals,
Looks like endless discussion is going on here..
I think that USCIS has done some injustice with EB3 ROW. And I would like to talk to an attorney about the possibilities to sue the USCIS about this. I need some people with me so that we can better explain our issues and form a group to ease the process.
Please send me PM if you agree with my view and want to go forward.
Looks like endless discussion is going on here..
I think that USCIS has done some injustice with EB3 ROW. And I would like to talk to an attorney about the possibilities to sue the USCIS about this. I need some people with me so that we can better explain our issues and form a group to ease the process.
Please send me PM if you agree with my view and want to go forward.
jaithran
01-14 09:24 AM
First of all, I am neither a donor nor a person interested in spending any of my time & energy (Except filing documents and visiting forums like IV once in a while to check progress) in running behind this GC stuff, as that�s not my priority-simple. But I wish and would really be happy if I get my GC quicker as it got its benefits. Having said that, I am not against any kind of efforts volunteered by people/group, who are very serious about GC and I really respect and appreciate their efforts, but I think I have the freedom to express my sincere opinion.
Plainspeak really make some sense here because sometimes just getting satisfied with a patch up solution would be a bigger disaster in longer run. As person being here in US for a decade and being in the GC Queue for half a decade, I strongly believe EB2-I is never going to be current anymore and EB3-I is never going to get any spill over from the DV bill if passed in its current format. So the option left here is either take whatever you get and hope for the best OR (EB2 and EB3) together fight/work for the right thing to happen, instead of being silent just because you may be a beneficiary of the current format, though it�s not right. I hope everyone here will agree and accept that the right thing would be EB-3 getting at least 50% of spill over whatever EB-2 gets. IV may not succeed in that effort but IV being silent can never be justified.
Also Volunteering is something which you do for the benefit of others without any expectation and I really appreciate all the volunteers here for their efforts but, some of them often directly/indirectly pass derogatory comments on non-donors and non-volunteers especially when they differ on views and immediately they ask, how many congress men you met? � Which is inappropriate and it�s like saying either agree with what we say or shut up, if you are a not a volunteer or donor. And nothing wrong in you having a policy like that but in that case you can restrict the write access to only volunteers and donors. I am also totally against any non-donors/non-volunteers making derogatory comments on volunteers/donors as they deserve more appreciation than derogatory comments for what they do.
Plainspeak really make some sense here because sometimes just getting satisfied with a patch up solution would be a bigger disaster in longer run. As person being here in US for a decade and being in the GC Queue for half a decade, I strongly believe EB2-I is never going to be current anymore and EB3-I is never going to get any spill over from the DV bill if passed in its current format. So the option left here is either take whatever you get and hope for the best OR (EB2 and EB3) together fight/work for the right thing to happen, instead of being silent just because you may be a beneficiary of the current format, though it�s not right. I hope everyone here will agree and accept that the right thing would be EB-3 getting at least 50% of spill over whatever EB-2 gets. IV may not succeed in that effort but IV being silent can never be justified.
Also Volunteering is something which you do for the benefit of others without any expectation and I really appreciate all the volunteers here for their efforts but, some of them often directly/indirectly pass derogatory comments on non-donors and non-volunteers especially when they differ on views and immediately they ask, how many congress men you met? � Which is inappropriate and it�s like saying either agree with what we say or shut up, if you are a not a volunteer or donor. And nothing wrong in you having a policy like that but in that case you can restrict the write access to only volunteers and donors. I am also totally against any non-donors/non-volunteers making derogatory comments on volunteers/donors as they deserve more appreciation than derogatory comments for what they do.
go_guy123
06-14 05:58 PM
You have got the same Indian mentality that most of the people here that once we got a GC and citizenship let us close the doors behind us.
....
Who are you to judge the people coming after you that they are not skilled or the best and brightest.
Well he is a permanent resident of US and soon to be USC and majority of US citizens
want reduced immigration to US and can vote in elections accordingly.
Immigration is such a hot topic I dont see Obama doing anything before his second term.
....
Who are you to judge the people coming after you that they are not skilled or the best and brightest.
Well he is a permanent resident of US and soon to be USC and majority of US citizens
want reduced immigration to US and can vote in elections accordingly.
Immigration is such a hot topic I dont see Obama doing anything before his second term.
