rajarao
10-30 01:24 PM
I hope the 70 is not correct. I sent in the FOIA request (notarized) and also mobilized few of my friends. The number 70 is incorrect, because it does not allow me to vote there, otherwise I am sure it would be atleast 71.
I'm surprised only 70 members are interested in accurate prediction of future VB movements, and orderly processing of 485 applications instead of the current random lottery!
It would help lot of us make informed decisions if we were to know how many are in the queue and how long we have to wait.We can spend much of the wasted Tracking, VB prediction time with our families. Don't you think it's important? And that your time is too precious to be wasted over such pursuits?
I'm surprised only 70 members are interested in accurate prediction of future VB movements, and orderly processing of 485 applications instead of the current random lottery!
It would help lot of us make informed decisions if we were to know how many are in the queue and how long we have to wait.We can spend much of the wasted Tracking, VB prediction time with our families. Don't you think it's important? And that your time is too precious to be wasted over such pursuits?
wallpaper Che Guevara Tattoos
hara_patta_for_rico
07-09 07:05 PM
I came across this law about the departmental control of numerical limitations, and I'd appreciate it if you all could post your interpretations of the same.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
Clause B is not the only thing. In any quarter they are not supposed to issue any more than 27% of 140,000(100%) = 37800. according to Clause A. After June 15th they issued 140,000 - 66000 = 74000. What about the last quarter quota of 37800? Where did it go? It was not supposed to be used before July.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
Clause B is not the only thing. In any quarter they are not supposed to issue any more than 27% of 140,000(100%) = 37800. according to Clause A. After June 15th they issued 140,000 - 66000 = 74000. What about the last quarter quota of 37800? Where did it go? It was not supposed to be used before July.
nixstor
07-02 10:46 PM
Guys,
Below is what Rajiv Khanna thinks. You can find it on http://www.forclients.com/cmsd/node/81 . I am not trying to play spoil sport here. I feel that we should be working towards recapturing the unused visa numbers / being able to file for 485, instead of focusing on costly law suits, given that the chances of winning are slim. I hope that I will be proven wrong as Rajiv hopes. You might ask me about the chances of getting them recaptured. That might be slim as well, but that will get rid of the base problem which is retrogression, if at all we are successful. Just my thoughts. The last para of Rajiv's post summarizes very clearly why the court will dismiss the case, even if they find DOS & USCIS to be wrong. I can confidently tell you that USCIS is not going to give rejection notices to any one in the next 45 days. They know that the more they delay the rejection notices, the more the time it will take for plaintiffs to file a case. By that time the VB will come up with some dates instead of "U". As Rajiv said, there might have been many instances of these lawsuits in which USCIS got away. I doubt, if we can even touch the DOS on this because, CA/VO is just one part of DOS and DOS is too powerful to be touched
Q. Can we file a lawsuit?
A. Here is a legal answer as I see it. I hope I am proven wrong. I will elaborate further in our conference call. In my view, the lawsuit has a slim chance of succeess, but not in DC circuit. Our circuit is not likely to interfere with the exec easily. The strongest point is that govt. is changing a long standing practice, which requires rule-making under APA. The govt. will, of course, argue that they have issued amendments in the past and that this practice does not affect substantive rights. That would probably fly in the face of AC21 portability benefit which is, no doubt a substantive right.
Mootness is not a problem usually, because in a putative class action, we can always add more plaintiffs. Also, there are exceptions to mootness that could see a suit through.
I have not looked at the issues in great detail. Nevertheless, I think, the biggest problem is, if we dont get a hearing and an order within the month of July, the Court may have to dismiss the suit for inabaility to order relief (against the statute). This situation has occurred many, many times in the context of DV lottery cases.
Below is what Rajiv Khanna thinks. You can find it on http://www.forclients.com/cmsd/node/81 . I am not trying to play spoil sport here. I feel that we should be working towards recapturing the unused visa numbers / being able to file for 485, instead of focusing on costly law suits, given that the chances of winning are slim. I hope that I will be proven wrong as Rajiv hopes. You might ask me about the chances of getting them recaptured. That might be slim as well, but that will get rid of the base problem which is retrogression, if at all we are successful. Just my thoughts. The last para of Rajiv's post summarizes very clearly why the court will dismiss the case, even if they find DOS & USCIS to be wrong. I can confidently tell you that USCIS is not going to give rejection notices to any one in the next 45 days. They know that the more they delay the rejection notices, the more the time it will take for plaintiffs to file a case. By that time the VB will come up with some dates instead of "U". As Rajiv said, there might have been many instances of these lawsuits in which USCIS got away. I doubt, if we can even touch the DOS on this because, CA/VO is just one part of DOS and DOS is too powerful to be touched
Q. Can we file a lawsuit?
A. Here is a legal answer as I see it. I hope I am proven wrong. I will elaborate further in our conference call. In my view, the lawsuit has a slim chance of succeess, but not in DC circuit. Our circuit is not likely to interfere with the exec easily. The strongest point is that govt. is changing a long standing practice, which requires rule-making under APA. The govt. will, of course, argue that they have issued amendments in the past and that this practice does not affect substantive rights. That would probably fly in the face of AC21 portability benefit which is, no doubt a substantive right.
Mootness is not a problem usually, because in a putative class action, we can always add more plaintiffs. Also, there are exceptions to mootness that could see a suit through.
I have not looked at the issues in great detail. Nevertheless, I think, the biggest problem is, if we dont get a hearing and an order within the month of July, the Court may have to dismiss the suit for inabaility to order relief (against the statute). This situation has occurred many, many times in the context of DV lottery cases.
2011 che guevara tattoo.
tushar123
02-13 05:26 PM
Its funny to see that people call this ethinic cleansing.... it is the right of America to punish people who disobey the law. reservation now in india is a better example which deprives people from certain community to persue higher education or employment in govt jobs.
more...
illusions
03-18 10:32 AM
Ron Gotcher - "I can't take credit for passing along what I heard. I do believe, however, that an analysis of the data strongly supports the conclusion that substantial additional forward movement in cutoff dates is likely between now and July.", he also goes to say that EB3 ROW will be current, by July, lets hope there is some significant movement.
thomachan72
11-11 03:59 PM
I am surprised that this thread is still active. Usually by this time somebody from the core group puts a statement and that usually closes the discussion. I am sure this will happen soon since atleast a few posters have been requesting asistance from Pappu regarding this issue. I am just waiting for that post to come...dont know when. Hey pappu why are you taking so long......why dont you post and tell all our friends who are currently so emotional about the reality of pursuing the legal option...
more...
ilikekilo
08-15 06:18 PM
I think its not going to budge after this for 3 months or so, till they calculate all the applications received and do the math. Hopefully it will move forwards then, however (less likely) it can move backwards too ( I have seen strangest patterns with the bulletins)
i agree with u on this
i agree with u on this
2010 che guevara tattoo.
javadeveloper
01-30 12:15 PM
have you submitted the new G-28 form when you changed employers?
You can go back to your original GC sponsoring employer also right?
You can go back to your original GC sponsoring employer also right?
more...
seahawks
07-26 08:58 AM
The underlying reason to stop cocurrent filing as I understand was non availability of visas and of course no proper system in place for FIFO. Well, my memory could be fading, but I think the reason was not to over use quota systems. Cocurrent filing was allowed, because there was a delay in processing time but the visas were available, now there is no delay in processing time, well i don't agree that is true, but visas are not available. There was no organized way within different centers in approving cases, some centers approved cases faster which meant, other centers did not have the visas available when they got their act together and so on.
So, with check and balances, if you are not allowed to file 485 until visa numbers are available, they dont have to build in a checks and balances from their side of the equation on keeping track of that:).
So, with check and balances, if you are not allowed to file 485 until visa numbers are available, they dont have to build in a checks and balances from their side of the equation on keeping track of that:).
hair Maradona: Argentina (manager)
brawn81
11-06 11:56 AM
Thanks
more...
kumar1
12-11 12:05 PM
Agreed! But when you call your bank to send you a debit card, they send it in days if not in weeks....that shows a sign of inter-dependability and a sense of need for each other. Sort of...I need you, you need me. You do not have to file MTR if they don't send you a debit card within 10 days.
Compare that with US consulate and DOS VISA bulletin and GC process...
Everyone goes to Bank and do transactions , that doesn't mean that we only need Bank and Bank doesn't need us and our deposits.
Compare that with US consulate and DOS VISA bulletin and GC process...
Everyone goes to Bank and do transactions , that doesn't mean that we only need Bank and Bank doesn't need us and our deposits.
hot Alberto Korda – Che Guevara
thirdworldman
02-23 03:04 PM
I haven't forgotten, but I haven't had time either. I'm going away for the weekend and won't be able to work on it until after Monday.
more...
house hot Che Guevara tattoo che guevara tattoo. che guevara tattoo
Legal_In_A_Limbo
03-07 11:27 AM
In my husband's case we dont have that much time.
Here what our plan is:-
1. Self file G-28.
2. Follow up with an infopass appt. with in a month.
Rest god willing. What ever is going to happen will happen. No one can stop it from happening.
Here what our plan is:-
1. Self file G-28.
2. Follow up with an infopass appt. with in a month.
Rest god willing. What ever is going to happen will happen. No one can stop it from happening.
tattoo Tattoo Soccer Maradona
immigration07
08-15 08:20 PM
Sept Bulletin out - http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3761.html
I'm unable to understand well why EB3 is "U". :mad:
Friends, please share your thoughts. Let us discuss.........
use yur brain...else let it go.........................
I'm unable to understand well why EB3 is "U". :mad:
Friends, please share your thoughts. Let us discuss.........
use yur brain...else let it go.........................
more...
pictures CHE GUEVARA PORTRAIT
delax
07-13 10:48 AM
everybody ..I think 70% of green card filers know that Murthy is money maker and does not help our community much at all...
she is just making up to show to world that she is doing some help for us..
we still have to appreciate her efforts tahts all.
MONEY MAKER - who isnt a money maker. Welcome to the world of Capitalism. I dont think any of us are in a position to comment on whether she helps our community or not. Here is a fact - On her call last week she mentioned that the Murthy Law Firm is one of the biggest financial contributor to AILF - who by the way are ready to file the class action lawsuit. If the lawsuit is successfull and given AILF's funding source - will you exclude yourself from the potential benefit because Murthy's funds were used to support the litigation - who's piggybacking now :)
Again - Its not one against the other - Please bear in mind the DUE PROCESS of LAW has been violated by USCIS resulting in a curtailment of your substantive rights (EAD, Parole, AC21 etc). I would not care who fights on my behalf so long as the outcome is to correct the earlier mistake.
she is just making up to show to world that she is doing some help for us..
we still have to appreciate her efforts tahts all.
MONEY MAKER - who isnt a money maker. Welcome to the world of Capitalism. I dont think any of us are in a position to comment on whether she helps our community or not. Here is a fact - On her call last week she mentioned that the Murthy Law Firm is one of the biggest financial contributor to AILF - who by the way are ready to file the class action lawsuit. If the lawsuit is successfull and given AILF's funding source - will you exclude yourself from the potential benefit because Murthy's funds were used to support the litigation - who's piggybacking now :)
Again - Its not one against the other - Please bear in mind the DUE PROCESS of LAW has been violated by USCIS resulting in a curtailment of your substantive rights (EAD, Parole, AC21 etc). I would not care who fights on my behalf so long as the outcome is to correct the earlier mistake.
dresses Che Guevara - I don#39;t know who
Ramba
04-07 05:27 PM
Rumor, rumor, and more rumors. We Indians get a kick out of this stuff, dont we? This actually happened with me couple of weeks ago.
POE: San Francisco. I hold a completely different job compared to my Masters degree. I was asked what qualifications I have to hold a job in marketing when my background was technology. I gave an explanation and the VO looked up and smile. He said, you memorized your answers well. I said, I've been doing it for the last five years. He laughed and said, you guys are smart cookies. Have fun, summer is around. NEXT.
Note to people who like to spread Bullshit: Please STOP spreading horsemanure. Unless your paperwork is completely out of whack, no VO at the POE has the RIGHT/AUTHORITY to send you back. I spoke to an immigration lawyer at a party couple of months ago. He said deportation procedures are not that simple. The VO has to call DHS and Immigration Services. Once they take over the case, it takes 12 to 24 hours to do a background check. Until that time, the person is held in custody at the Airport. A decent bed and food is provided. If the documents check out incorrect then authorities in the home country are informed and so is the Embassy in United States. DHS and USCIS allow folks from (Indian embassy) to interview the candidate (potential value target: crime recod back home, etc). If the embassy decides that the documents were forged then it will send a memo to the Indian Airport and ask the Indian police to book a case after the person arrives. The process is much detailed than making a call to somebody's father or father-in-law and asking, DO YOU NEED XYZ for this job.
So all this is dino-dung. Stop wasting time at your desk and do something productive.
Let the red-dots rain.
As you mentioned it can be a rumor. Or, it may be a very rare isolated case. However, I would like to say few words for the inspection and admission process at POE. There may be a lot of regulation regarding denying admission at POE. Ultimatly, it is upto the IO at POE to follow it or not. One cannot argue (or complaint with the supervisor) with them in the long line at POE to ask them to follow the rules and regulations; or you do not have your lawyer standing next to you in the line. You do not have much option at POE. If they want to flex their muscles, they can do it and deny the admission to any one without proper reason. Even if you have a valid visa and other documents US admission is not always gurenteed. However, 99.9% it wont happen. If the unemployment rate continue like this, it will not be a unusual to hear these kind of stories. Bottom line is IO at POE and consular officers at embassy has tremondus power; it is not easy (or question their decision) to overcome their decision.
POE: San Francisco. I hold a completely different job compared to my Masters degree. I was asked what qualifications I have to hold a job in marketing when my background was technology. I gave an explanation and the VO looked up and smile. He said, you memorized your answers well. I said, I've been doing it for the last five years. He laughed and said, you guys are smart cookies. Have fun, summer is around. NEXT.
Note to people who like to spread Bullshit: Please STOP spreading horsemanure. Unless your paperwork is completely out of whack, no VO at the POE has the RIGHT/AUTHORITY to send you back. I spoke to an immigration lawyer at a party couple of months ago. He said deportation procedures are not that simple. The VO has to call DHS and Immigration Services. Once they take over the case, it takes 12 to 24 hours to do a background check. Until that time, the person is held in custody at the Airport. A decent bed and food is provided. If the documents check out incorrect then authorities in the home country are informed and so is the Embassy in United States. DHS and USCIS allow folks from (Indian embassy) to interview the candidate (potential value target: crime recod back home, etc). If the embassy decides that the documents were forged then it will send a memo to the Indian Airport and ask the Indian police to book a case after the person arrives. The process is much detailed than making a call to somebody's father or father-in-law and asking, DO YOU NEED XYZ for this job.
So all this is dino-dung. Stop wasting time at your desk and do something productive.
Let the red-dots rain.
As you mentioned it can be a rumor. Or, it may be a very rare isolated case. However, I would like to say few words for the inspection and admission process at POE. There may be a lot of regulation regarding denying admission at POE. Ultimatly, it is upto the IO at POE to follow it or not. One cannot argue (or complaint with the supervisor) with them in the long line at POE to ask them to follow the rules and regulations; or you do not have your lawyer standing next to you in the line. You do not have much option at POE. If they want to flex their muscles, they can do it and deny the admission to any one without proper reason. Even if you have a valid visa and other documents US admission is not always gurenteed. However, 99.9% it wont happen. If the unemployment rate continue like this, it will not be a unusual to hear these kind of stories. Bottom line is IO at POE and consular officers at embassy has tremondus power; it is not easy (or question their decision) to overcome their decision.
more...
makeup Che Guevara tattoo
chanduv23
09-12 11:08 AM
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/sep2007/db20070911_591357.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index _businessweek+exclusives
Everyone must come to the rally
Everyone must come to the rally
girlfriend che guevara wallpaper
rimagupta
07-05 03:26 AM
Not sure if our assumption of "only 100k already applied" is correct. In 2005, there were approximately 250,000 EB green cards granted - the numbers are close to 147,000 for both 2006 and 2007. I'm not exactly sure, but there were at least 200,000 more EB approvals from 2002-2004.
There were 200,000 EB1 cases approximately from 2001-7 (In 2005, EB1 approvals were close to 40k out of a total of 250k GCs). If only 100k LCs/PERMs from 2001-7 were able to apply for 485 then it means 400k (250+147+147+200 - 200-150) applications that were adjudicated from 2002-2007 were from 2000 or prior to 2000 cases. Could this be true?
In addition, many 2001+applications are still stuck at namecheck.
Besides, all EB2 ROW cases filed under PERM were able to file for 485. These alone may contribute to at least 70k PERMS.
Source:
http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/editorial_0482.shtm
others: various law firm sites, including
www.ilw.com
http://pubweb.fdbl.com/news1.nsf/9abe5d703b986cff86256e310080943a/41399c23bb40f2ff8525730c007f830a?OpenDocument
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated new 485 filings. : 700K is conservative. May be wrong too.
LC s certified from BEC: about 200K (from 2001 to 2005 filings)
PERM Certifed labor: About 200K (from Mar 2005 to June 2007)
Total LC: 400K. Let us assume 100K already appliled. Lets say 300K is affected by retrogression.
The dependents for 300k will be 450K (1.5 times primary)
So total AOS applicants will be 750K just based on LC. Excluding EB1.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
There were 200,000 EB1 cases approximately from 2001-7 (In 2005, EB1 approvals were close to 40k out of a total of 250k GCs). If only 100k LCs/PERMs from 2001-7 were able to apply for 485 then it means 400k (250+147+147+200 - 200-150) applications that were adjudicated from 2002-2007 were from 2000 or prior to 2000 cases. Could this be true?
In addition, many 2001+applications are still stuck at namecheck.
Besides, all EB2 ROW cases filed under PERM were able to file for 485. These alone may contribute to at least 70k PERMS.
Source:
http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/editorial_0482.shtm
others: various law firm sites, including
www.ilw.com
http://pubweb.fdbl.com/news1.nsf/9abe5d703b986cff86256e310080943a/41399c23bb40f2ff8525730c007f830a?OpenDocument
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated new 485 filings. : 700K is conservative. May be wrong too.
LC s certified from BEC: about 200K (from 2001 to 2005 filings)
PERM Certifed labor: About 200K (from Mar 2005 to June 2007)
Total LC: 400K. Let us assume 100K already appliled. Lets say 300K is affected by retrogression.
The dependents for 300k will be 450K (1.5 times primary)
So total AOS applicants will be 750K just based on LC. Excluding EB1.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
hairstyles 2011 Che Guevara Tattoo che guevara tattoo. Kyle Cotterman - Che Guevara.
yabadaba
02-20 03:19 PM
few weeks :D
from our polls in the past we came to a general consensus that there is a significant amount of filers between pre 2003 - 2005 march. Once u go over that hump...the date should move to dec 2005 because of the conservative approach most of the lawyers had with filing PERM in the initial days
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=101115
from our polls in the past we came to a general consensus that there is a significant amount of filers between pre 2003 - 2005 march. Once u go over that hump...the date should move to dec 2005 because of the conservative approach most of the lawyers had with filing PERM in the initial days
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=101115
WillIWin?
07-23 04:00 PM
I sent you a PM. Can you please take a look ?
Thanks!
Thanks!
vin13
11-10 11:07 PM
Guys..
I have been watching and participating in this drama for a long time....
We must go to court for the correct interpretation and enforcement of UNUSED VISA from ROW / undersubscribed catagories. THERE IS NO CASE FOR EVEN WAITING FOR ONE QUARTER. 20,000 VISA are available unused at a given time, they should ALL be immediately allocated to the guys in the Q.
This will benefit all EB 2 / EB 3
We really should not have any debate about loosing the case etc... Let us try and loose the case... At least , we will have the satisfaction of trying...
If your are with me please respond to this thread
We MUST take the advantage of low VISA usage in this recession and cut the line by tens of thousand
Seriously guys,
We worked on putting a draft letter to address quarterly spillover just yesterday. We even planned for a conference call. We ended up with just two of us. The draft letter is still out there in Donor forum:Quarterly spillover
There is more talk than people wanting to really do something. We cannot get people to attend a conference call. How can we expect to mobilize to go to court?
Here is the draft. See if some of you can use it to fight the cause.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr. Charles Oppenheim,
First of all we would like to congratulate the administration for taking the right steps by changing the USCIS website and making detailed information available to the applicants. We would like to also thank the administration for proactively working on I485 cases and pre-adjudicating them.
We are writing to get clarification regarding the law that control the unused VISA numbers falling across to other countries here after referred as �Spill-over� process. Looking at the VISA date movement over previous few years in last calendar quarter made us believe that Spill-over followed by USCIS is yearly and not quarterly.
The law being referred as defined in Immigration and Nationality Act: Section ACT 202 - Numerical Limitation to any single foreign state under Sec. 202. [8 U.S.C. 1152]
(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.
(5) 2/ RULES FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS
(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.
(B) LIMITING FALL ACROSS FOR CERTAIN COUNTRIES SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION (e)- In the case of a foreign state or dependent area to which subsection (e) applies, if the total number of visas issued under section 203(b) exceeds the maximum number of visas that may be made available to immigrants of the state or area under section 203(b)consistent with subsection (e) (determined without regard to this paragraph),in applying subsection (e) all visas shall be deemed to have been required for the classes of aliens specified in section 203(b).
Our interpretation of the Section 202(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act states that if total demand will be insufficient to use all available numbers in a particular Employment preference category in a *calendar quarter*, then the unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual �per-country� limit. We feel that *quarterly Spill-over helps* both the administration as well as applicants.
Quarterly Spill-over will benefit administration by:
1) Steady VISA movement will increase visibility for the administration in turn will help administration to forecast forward movement of VISA dates.
2) Spill-over when issued quarterly, effectively reduces/minimizes chances of visas wastages as the burden is not pushed at the end of fiscal year.
3) Balanced workload for the immigration officers and card issue helping USCIS to better manage efficiently, as Spill-over is divided in 4 quarters, rather only in last quarter.
4) Spill-over when issued quarterly means saving administrative effort, time and money in processing EAD, Advance parole applications for the petitioners who may get GCs as much as 9 months earlier and who are near Approval dates.
5) Effective forward movement of VISA dates will give opportunity for potential applicants to file I-485 earlier, which in turn will bring steady new workload to administration.
Quarterly Spill-over will benefit Applicants by:
1) Existing applicants potentially will be able to get their permanent residencies 6-8 months in advance.
2) New petitioners will be able to file their I-485, EAD and AP sooner due to Forward movement in VISA dates.
3) Streamlined VISA movement helps retrogressed Applicants effectively estimate their approval dates to plan their future appropriately.
As explained above by following quarterly Spill-over process as defined by law will be WIN-WIN for administration and applicants. We would appreciate your kind clarification/action on implementation of this existing rule. Thanks,
I have been watching and participating in this drama for a long time....
We must go to court for the correct interpretation and enforcement of UNUSED VISA from ROW / undersubscribed catagories. THERE IS NO CASE FOR EVEN WAITING FOR ONE QUARTER. 20,000 VISA are available unused at a given time, they should ALL be immediately allocated to the guys in the Q.
This will benefit all EB 2 / EB 3
We really should not have any debate about loosing the case etc... Let us try and loose the case... At least , we will have the satisfaction of trying...
If your are with me please respond to this thread
We MUST take the advantage of low VISA usage in this recession and cut the line by tens of thousand
Seriously guys,
We worked on putting a draft letter to address quarterly spillover just yesterday. We even planned for a conference call. We ended up with just two of us. The draft letter is still out there in Donor forum:Quarterly spillover
There is more talk than people wanting to really do something. We cannot get people to attend a conference call. How can we expect to mobilize to go to court?
Here is the draft. See if some of you can use it to fight the cause.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr. Charles Oppenheim,
First of all we would like to congratulate the administration for taking the right steps by changing the USCIS website and making detailed information available to the applicants. We would like to also thank the administration for proactively working on I485 cases and pre-adjudicating them.
We are writing to get clarification regarding the law that control the unused VISA numbers falling across to other countries here after referred as �Spill-over� process. Looking at the VISA date movement over previous few years in last calendar quarter made us believe that Spill-over followed by USCIS is yearly and not quarterly.
The law being referred as defined in Immigration and Nationality Act: Section ACT 202 - Numerical Limitation to any single foreign state under Sec. 202. [8 U.S.C. 1152]
(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.
(5) 2/ RULES FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS
(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.
(B) LIMITING FALL ACROSS FOR CERTAIN COUNTRIES SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION (e)- In the case of a foreign state or dependent area to which subsection (e) applies, if the total number of visas issued under section 203(b) exceeds the maximum number of visas that may be made available to immigrants of the state or area under section 203(b)consistent with subsection (e) (determined without regard to this paragraph),in applying subsection (e) all visas shall be deemed to have been required for the classes of aliens specified in section 203(b).
Our interpretation of the Section 202(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act states that if total demand will be insufficient to use all available numbers in a particular Employment preference category in a *calendar quarter*, then the unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual �per-country� limit. We feel that *quarterly Spill-over helps* both the administration as well as applicants.
Quarterly Spill-over will benefit administration by:
1) Steady VISA movement will increase visibility for the administration in turn will help administration to forecast forward movement of VISA dates.
2) Spill-over when issued quarterly, effectively reduces/minimizes chances of visas wastages as the burden is not pushed at the end of fiscal year.
3) Balanced workload for the immigration officers and card issue helping USCIS to better manage efficiently, as Spill-over is divided in 4 quarters, rather only in last quarter.
4) Spill-over when issued quarterly means saving administrative effort, time and money in processing EAD, Advance parole applications for the petitioners who may get GCs as much as 9 months earlier and who are near Approval dates.
5) Effective forward movement of VISA dates will give opportunity for potential applicants to file I-485 earlier, which in turn will bring steady new workload to administration.
Quarterly Spill-over will benefit Applicants by:
1) Existing applicants potentially will be able to get their permanent residencies 6-8 months in advance.
2) New petitioners will be able to file their I-485, EAD and AP sooner due to Forward movement in VISA dates.
3) Streamlined VISA movement helps retrogressed Applicants effectively estimate their approval dates to plan their future appropriately.
As explained above by following quarterly Spill-over process as defined by law will be WIN-WIN for administration and applicants. We would appreciate your kind clarification/action on implementation of this existing rule. Thanks,
0 comments:
Post a Comment