walker15
09-10 03:28 PM
Still HR5882 not yet tabled, please stay tuned I will update whatever is happening.
Still they are discussing HR6020(Illegal Alien left over at Iraq while on duty :)) and it looks like this will drag a bit. So Rep. Zoe Lofgren is fighting for that family.
Hope there will be sufficient time to discuss HR5882.
Still they are discussing HR6020(Illegal Alien left over at Iraq while on duty :)) and it looks like this will drag a bit. So Rep. Zoe Lofgren is fighting for that family.
Hope there will be sufficient time to discuss HR5882.
wallpaper About Dakota Fanning
andycool
03-16 02:04 PM
141,020 visa numbers used in FY2009
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV.pdf
Look at the last page.
The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is 140,000. So the usage was actually more.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
Hello Desi,
"Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by documentarily qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation, that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may require the establishment of an earlier cut-off date than that which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
Furthermore, Section 202(a)(2) reads, �2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed seven percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or two percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.� The seven percent per-country limit specified in INA 202(a)(2) is considered to be for both Family-sponsored and Employment-based numbers combined.
Allocation of visa numbers under Section 202(e) is accomplished as follows:
1. If based on historical patterns or current demand it appears that during a fiscal year number use by aliens chargeable to a particular country will exceed the per-country numerical limit for both the Family and Employment preferences combined, that country would be considered oversubscribed. Both the Family and Employment preferences would be subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1).
2. Sometimes during a fiscal year it may become apparent that because of a lack of demand in the Family preferences, number use by aliens chargeable to an oversubscribed country will be well within the per-country numerical limit. In such case the excess Family numbers would be made available to the Employment preferences subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1). Each of the first three Employment categories would receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and each of the Fourth and Fifth preference categories 7.1%. (Fall-across would likewise apply if an oversubscribed country lacked sufficient demand in the Employment preferences but had excess demand in the Family preferences.)
If a foreign state other than an oversubscribed country has little Family preference demand but considerable Employment preference demand, the otherwise unused Family numbers fall across to Employment (and vice versa) for purposes of that foreign state�s annual numerical limit. For example, in FY-2009 South Korea used a grand total of 15,899 Family and Employment preference numbers, of which 1,688 were Family numbers and 14,211 were Employment numbers. This grand total was well within the FY-2009 per-country numerical limit of 25,620 Family and Employment numbers combined, so South Korea was not oversubscribed. The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.
This is from April Visa Bulletin , according to this S korea got 14,211 visas from FB ( spill over from FB - EB) then dont you think the total EB visas issued in 2009 should be around 150000 instead of 141000....
I am little confused...
your comment will be greatly appreciated ;)
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV.pdf
Look at the last page.
The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is 140,000. So the usage was actually more.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
Hello Desi,
"Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by documentarily qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation, that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may require the establishment of an earlier cut-off date than that which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
Furthermore, Section 202(a)(2) reads, �2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed seven percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or two percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.� The seven percent per-country limit specified in INA 202(a)(2) is considered to be for both Family-sponsored and Employment-based numbers combined.
Allocation of visa numbers under Section 202(e) is accomplished as follows:
1. If based on historical patterns or current demand it appears that during a fiscal year number use by aliens chargeable to a particular country will exceed the per-country numerical limit for both the Family and Employment preferences combined, that country would be considered oversubscribed. Both the Family and Employment preferences would be subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1).
2. Sometimes during a fiscal year it may become apparent that because of a lack of demand in the Family preferences, number use by aliens chargeable to an oversubscribed country will be well within the per-country numerical limit. In such case the excess Family numbers would be made available to the Employment preferences subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1). Each of the first three Employment categories would receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and each of the Fourth and Fifth preference categories 7.1%. (Fall-across would likewise apply if an oversubscribed country lacked sufficient demand in the Employment preferences but had excess demand in the Family preferences.)
If a foreign state other than an oversubscribed country has little Family preference demand but considerable Employment preference demand, the otherwise unused Family numbers fall across to Employment (and vice versa) for purposes of that foreign state�s annual numerical limit. For example, in FY-2009 South Korea used a grand total of 15,899 Family and Employment preference numbers, of which 1,688 were Family numbers and 14,211 were Employment numbers. This grand total was well within the FY-2009 per-country numerical limit of 25,620 Family and Employment numbers combined, so South Korea was not oversubscribed. The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.
This is from April Visa Bulletin , according to this S korea got 14,211 visas from FB ( spill over from FB - EB) then dont you think the total EB visas issued in 2009 should be around 150000 instead of 141000....
I am little confused...
your comment will be greatly appreciated ;)
nonimmi
03-14 05:42 PM
We sent a letter to USCIS to revoke the existing G-28.
We just sent a letter and 485 receipt for me and my husband.
Just wanted to let u know.
Thanks for sharing the info. Did you get any new attorney?
We just sent a letter and 485 receipt for me and my husband.
Just wanted to let u know.
Thanks for sharing the info. Did you get any new attorney?
2011 Dakota Fanning!
chicago60607
09-10 05:36 PM
Hey Yall,
I just called the House Judiciary Committee to inquire about the webcast link not working and the reason sited was that "thats due to the hearing postponed until tomorrow".
So, no more hearing for the day and it resumes tomorrow. I did forget to ask for what time it starts, may be someone else can check on it.
I just called the House Judiciary Committee to inquire about the webcast link not working and the reason sited was that "thats due to the hearing postponed until tomorrow".
So, no more hearing for the day and it resumes tomorrow. I did forget to ask for what time it starts, may be someone else can check on it.
more...
sanjaymm
11-17 05:00 PM
I got a confirmation that my request for information has been put on a complex track.
dummgelauft
08-21 09:28 AM
You are an illegal. Go back to Canada, and try properly.
more...
arunmohan
05-11 02:23 AM
Friends,
Time is right now to recapture the visa numbers.
"No army can stop an idea whose time has come." --Victor Hugo.
We need to raise funds for the sole purpose of passing the EB Visa Re-Capture Bill!
I agree with you, this is a right time to go for visa recapture. We don't have to mention anywhere for H1B. This will be just for visa recapture.
Time is right now to recapture the visa numbers.
"No army can stop an idea whose time has come." --Victor Hugo.
We need to raise funds for the sole purpose of passing the EB Visa Re-Capture Bill!
I agree with you, this is a right time to go for visa recapture. We don't have to mention anywhere for H1B. This will be just for visa recapture.
2010 Pictures of Dakota Fanning
canleo98
11-22 02:24 AM
I am unable to find USCIS internal I-140 adjudication manual. This could be my lifeline. Someone please provide link for it. Thanks!
Here is your lifeline :D :) :
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/afm_ch22_091206R.pdf
Here is your lifeline :D :) :
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/afm_ch22_091206R.pdf
more...
arunmohan
02-04 02:12 PM
For people who don't know, Country Cap goes by Country of Birth , not country of citizenship...So if you are born in India but now you are canadian Citizen, you will still be counted as Indian for EB based Green Card allocation, isn't this a blatent racist agenda. I have a letter from Congresswoman Zoe Logfren's office, which clearly says 'I will work on removing arbitrary country quota on employement based Green Cards', we just need to pursue her...
I sent you a PM.
I sent you a PM.
hair Dakota Fanning.
vdlrao
09-10 08:42 AM
did any one did math...
EB1 - all current
|
|
\/
EB2 - World current
|
|
\/
EB2 - India / China
|
| ( When above EB2 India/China gets current 2-3years? )
\/
EB3 All
|
|
\/
EB3 I/C ( When EB1 , EB2 is Current , all visa numbers will flood to EB3 right ? so may be in 4-5 years EB3 may get current ? )
EB1 - all current
|
|
\/
EB2 Applications with old Priority Dates (Mostly EB2 - India / China)
|
|
\/
|
| ( When above EB2 India/China gets current 2-3years? )
\/
EB3 Applications with old Priority Dates (Mostly EB3 - India / China/ Mexico)
.
EB1 - all current
|
|
\/
EB2 - World current
|
|
\/
EB2 - India / China
|
| ( When above EB2 India/China gets current 2-3years? )
\/
EB3 All
|
|
\/
EB3 I/C ( When EB1 , EB2 is Current , all visa numbers will flood to EB3 right ? so may be in 4-5 years EB3 may get current ? )
EB1 - all current
|
|
\/
EB2 Applications with old Priority Dates (Mostly EB2 - India / China)
|
|
\/
|
| ( When above EB2 India/China gets current 2-3years? )
\/
EB3 Applications with old Priority Dates (Mostly EB3 - India / China/ Mexico)
.
more...
Sakthisagar
06-11 10:46 AM
Thank You for doing this, Great work.
Sent two times yesterday and today after the change in the content.
May GOD Bless
Sent two times yesterday and today after the change in the content.
May GOD Bless
hot Dakota Fanning kiss beautiful
minicopter
01-08 08:36 PM
Guys,
I think you got it all wrong. A fresher/consultant who has the balls to put 5-6 fake yrs of experience in his resume certainly deserves a token of appreciation.
Why dont you ppl understand that there is a common selection process called an Interview and you have to go thru that to get a job and if a fresher beats an experienced guy in that process, to hell with that experienced guy, where has he hidden all his experience when a fresher could make it.
If you were a recruiter and you see a fresher and an experienced guy(4-5) competing/working at the same level for the same job, you have to see the fresher as a guy with a much greater learning graph and skill set.
I have seen guys coming on H1 after slogging 4-5 yrs in India and I think freshers/MS graduates are much better than them, in the way they talk, dress, think, behave....etc....
All you exeperienced guys out there who get scared of competeion in the market, especially from freshers, I strongly recommend u summon all the courage and prepare to be sliced by the sleeker edge.
Amen!!
I think you got it all wrong. A fresher/consultant who has the balls to put 5-6 fake yrs of experience in his resume certainly deserves a token of appreciation.
Why dont you ppl understand that there is a common selection process called an Interview and you have to go thru that to get a job and if a fresher beats an experienced guy in that process, to hell with that experienced guy, where has he hidden all his experience when a fresher could make it.
If you were a recruiter and you see a fresher and an experienced guy(4-5) competing/working at the same level for the same job, you have to see the fresher as a guy with a much greater learning graph and skill set.
I have seen guys coming on H1 after slogging 4-5 yrs in India and I think freshers/MS graduates are much better than them, in the way they talk, dress, think, behave....etc....
All you exeperienced guys out there who get scared of competeion in the market, especially from freshers, I strongly recommend u summon all the courage and prepare to be sliced by the sleeker edge.
Amen!!
more...
house Dakota Fanning ppsl 02 dakota
mps
07-23 04:58 PM
My attorney has specifically advised us that we don't have to file again. My application reached NSC on July 2nd.
Continuing on this forum with more generic title
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10383
Per Greg Siskind -- July 2nd filers might have to file again, as all July 2nd application were rejected. Check out the link below as well as the comment section for the blog
Greg Siskind is reporting the following about July2nd rejection here
http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2007/07/faqs-part-1.html
part of above post --
USCIS did not state how cases filed and rejected on the 2nd are to be handled other than to say that properly filed applications would be accepted. This presumably covers the many cases filed after the second that were held, but it doesn�t explain what will happen to the cases received earlier. We hope USCIS will issue special instructions to issue July 2nd receipt dates to those who are able to document they attempted to file. We presume some folks are still waiting on their July 2nd cases to be returned and are debating refiling new cases rather than waiting. Unfortunately, there is a risk of not getting the package back before August 17th and some people will need to refile without proof of the earlier filing. Hopefully, again, USCIS will institute a process for such individuals to avoid being penalized.
USCIS has not announced any details yet on how it will determine which cases get 2007 visa numbers that might still be available. We also don�t know yet how cases will be processed that are not in the batch of cases that get green card numbers this year. For those who will have to get numbers in future years, applications should be worked by the order of the priority date. So applicants with labor certifications approved some time back, for example, should go before people in the same category with later priority dates.
For individuals filing cases not requiring a labor certification (such as Schedule A cases and national interest waivers), the priority date is the date of filing. Because there may be hundreds of thousands of applications received between July 2nd and August 17th with many of these cases not requiring a labor certification, the date during this six week period a case is filed could make a big difference in terms of when a case will complete processing. And, again, getting that July 2nd priority date for those who filed early and were rejected could make a big difference in when their cases are ultimately processed through to completion.
Continuing on this forum with more generic title
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10383
Per Greg Siskind -- July 2nd filers might have to file again, as all July 2nd application were rejected. Check out the link below as well as the comment section for the blog
Greg Siskind is reporting the following about July2nd rejection here
http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2007/07/faqs-part-1.html
part of above post --
USCIS did not state how cases filed and rejected on the 2nd are to be handled other than to say that properly filed applications would be accepted. This presumably covers the many cases filed after the second that were held, but it doesn�t explain what will happen to the cases received earlier. We hope USCIS will issue special instructions to issue July 2nd receipt dates to those who are able to document they attempted to file. We presume some folks are still waiting on their July 2nd cases to be returned and are debating refiling new cases rather than waiting. Unfortunately, there is a risk of not getting the package back before August 17th and some people will need to refile without proof of the earlier filing. Hopefully, again, USCIS will institute a process for such individuals to avoid being penalized.
USCIS has not announced any details yet on how it will determine which cases get 2007 visa numbers that might still be available. We also don�t know yet how cases will be processed that are not in the batch of cases that get green card numbers this year. For those who will have to get numbers in future years, applications should be worked by the order of the priority date. So applicants with labor certifications approved some time back, for example, should go before people in the same category with later priority dates.
For individuals filing cases not requiring a labor certification (such as Schedule A cases and national interest waivers), the priority date is the date of filing. Because there may be hundreds of thousands of applications received between July 2nd and August 17th with many of these cases not requiring a labor certification, the date during this six week period a case is filed could make a big difference in terms of when a case will complete processing. And, again, getting that July 2nd priority date for those who filed early and were rejected could make a big difference in when their cases are ultimately processed through to completion.
tattoo Dakota Fanning
hara_patta_for_rico
07-10 08:12 AM
It seems several persons are already discrediting the lawsuit and from the comments I have seen, it is apparent that some have not read the entire complaint.
In order to understand how a civil lawsuit works one needs to understand that in a complaint, one makes no legal arguments, does not cite case or precedent law but only cites the simple facts. The other side can respond to the complaint and deny or accept the allegations in part or in whole. Many cases do not go to trial, they end up in settlements or are decided through summary judgement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_judgment) (for the plaintiff or the defendants) if the case has undisputable matters of facts and one of the parties petitions for it. Several processes also take place ie Discovery long before an actual trial. I recommend reading the following wikipedia entry to familiarize one at a high level with the processes and rules involved:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Rule_of_Civil_Procedure
To get to the core legal arguments behind the case, one needs to read the counts (they are only stated and not argued/expounded on starting pg 13). Namely those are:
COUNT I: VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) (constitutional rights issue)
COUNT II: VIOLATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedures_Act)
COUNT III: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT (http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title4/civ00036.htm)
COUNT IV: EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT (http://www.hhs.gov/dab/guidelines/eaja.html)
COUNT V: PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promissory_estoppel#Promissory_estoppel)
There are several laws cited above, its thus puzzling to see requests for one to cite the laws USCIS/DOS is accused of violating when its all there in the lawsuit. The plaintiff has the burden of proving the counts they have stated at the appropriate time and not in the complaint. One does not play all their cards in the initial complaint.
Even more puzzling is the persistent fear that there would be retributory action from USCIS. Judges do not take kindly to such behavior and USCIS would have no chance defending itself on charges of retaliatory actions.
Thank you for getting some sanity into the conversation....atleast some people are realising that actions, especially those perpetrated by Govt Agencies, are watched closely. They will be held accountable, whether one likes it or not . If the lawyers want to profit from all of this, let it be so, as long as the voice of a troubled community is heard in a court of law. That is just the first step....
In order to understand how a civil lawsuit works one needs to understand that in a complaint, one makes no legal arguments, does not cite case or precedent law but only cites the simple facts. The other side can respond to the complaint and deny or accept the allegations in part or in whole. Many cases do not go to trial, they end up in settlements or are decided through summary judgement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_judgment) (for the plaintiff or the defendants) if the case has undisputable matters of facts and one of the parties petitions for it. Several processes also take place ie Discovery long before an actual trial. I recommend reading the following wikipedia entry to familiarize one at a high level with the processes and rules involved:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Rule_of_Civil_Procedure
To get to the core legal arguments behind the case, one needs to read the counts (they are only stated and not argued/expounded on starting pg 13). Namely those are:
COUNT I: VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) (constitutional rights issue)
COUNT II: VIOLATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedures_Act)
COUNT III: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT (http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title4/civ00036.htm)
COUNT IV: EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT (http://www.hhs.gov/dab/guidelines/eaja.html)
COUNT V: PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promissory_estoppel#Promissory_estoppel)
There are several laws cited above, its thus puzzling to see requests for one to cite the laws USCIS/DOS is accused of violating when its all there in the lawsuit. The plaintiff has the burden of proving the counts they have stated at the appropriate time and not in the complaint. One does not play all their cards in the initial complaint.
Even more puzzling is the persistent fear that there would be retributory action from USCIS. Judges do not take kindly to such behavior and USCIS would have no chance defending itself on charges of retaliatory actions.
Thank you for getting some sanity into the conversation....atleast some people are realising that actions, especially those perpetrated by Govt Agencies, are watched closely. They will be held accountable, whether one likes it or not . If the lawyers want to profit from all of this, let it be so, as long as the voice of a troubled community is heard in a court of law. That is just the first step....
more...
pictures New Moon star Dakota Fanning
dvb123
02-03 10:03 AM
I cannot post the company name here because it maybe a copyright issue. A consulting company advertises ROW guys/gals to join their company .It tells a story about a ROW guy who worked in a fortune 500 company for 5 years but they did not file a green card for him. He joined SAGA and got his green card immediately and the whole process from PERM - GC card took less than 9 months.
I think his perm got cleared in less than 3 months and he must have filed i-140/i-485 concurrently. Thus he must have got a GC in 9 months.
Congratulations to XYZ for receiving his Green Card from XYZ as well. XYZ had applied for his labor on 1/30/2007 and received his final Green Card approval on 9/13/2007- that is less than 9 months. His case was filed under the EB2 category. He is a citizen on South America who was working for IBM for 5 years and was no where with his Green Card with the them. He then made a transition to XYZ and we filed his case immediately and today his final stage, I-485, has been approved as well.
I think his perm got cleared in less than 3 months and he must have filed i-140/i-485 concurrently. Thus he must have got a GC in 9 months.
Congratulations to XYZ for receiving his Green Card from XYZ as well. XYZ had applied for his labor on 1/30/2007 and received his final Green Card approval on 9/13/2007- that is less than 9 months. His case was filed under the EB2 category. He is a citizen on South America who was working for IBM for 5 years and was no where with his Green Card with the them. He then made a transition to XYZ and we filed his case immediately and today his final stage, I-485, has been approved as well.
dresses Dakota Fanning cheerleaded
nomi
12-12 04:57 PM
All of the documents in this link are written by
"Micheal Aytes /s/,
Acting Associate Director, Domestic Operations
U.S. of Citizenship and Immigration Services
Department of Homeland Security"
I wonder if he is the person we should be talking to. Although the document does not indicate which city he works in. He should at leats be able to tell us who in USCIS makes these decisions if he is not the right person.
Also I was not able to find anything about not allowing concurrently to file 140/485 applications. Where was this information published? Does anyone know?
12/11/2006: USCIS Considers Termination of Concurrent Filing (140/485)
According to the USCIS rule-making agenda, the USCIS is to propose to terminate current concurrent I-140 and I-485 filing. The proposed rule is scheduled to be published in March 2007 with 60-day comment period. It is thus not imminent, but in the later part of next year(Oops!), the immigrant community may see a totally different filing procedure including electronic registration and filing just like current PERM labor certificaiton application procedure. Once the concurrent filing is terminated, the immigrants may experience a terrible pain as related to maintenance of nonimmigrant status pending I-140 petition, eligibility for 245K benefit, plus unavailability of EAD and AP pending I-140 petition, AC-21 180-day portability, etc. etc. Should the I-140 petition processing be dragged, the pain will be extremely unbearable
http://www.immigration-law.com/
"Micheal Aytes /s/,
Acting Associate Director, Domestic Operations
U.S. of Citizenship and Immigration Services
Department of Homeland Security"
I wonder if he is the person we should be talking to. Although the document does not indicate which city he works in. He should at leats be able to tell us who in USCIS makes these decisions if he is not the right person.
Also I was not able to find anything about not allowing concurrently to file 140/485 applications. Where was this information published? Does anyone know?
12/11/2006: USCIS Considers Termination of Concurrent Filing (140/485)
According to the USCIS rule-making agenda, the USCIS is to propose to terminate current concurrent I-140 and I-485 filing. The proposed rule is scheduled to be published in March 2007 with 60-day comment period. It is thus not imminent, but in the later part of next year(Oops!), the immigrant community may see a totally different filing procedure including electronic registration and filing just like current PERM labor certificaiton application procedure. Once the concurrent filing is terminated, the immigrants may experience a terrible pain as related to maintenance of nonimmigrant status pending I-140 petition, eligibility for 245K benefit, plus unavailability of EAD and AP pending I-140 petition, AC-21 180-day portability, etc. etc. Should the I-140 petition processing be dragged, the pain will be extremely unbearable
http://www.immigration-law.com/
more...
makeup Dakota Fanning and Ashley
payur
01-16 09:12 PM
Contributing $20/month
Scheduled $20
Good luck and best wishes.
Success!!!
Scheduled $20
Good luck and best wishes.
Success!!!
girlfriend More Dakota Fanning Looks
webm
04-29 09:00 AM
I opened the mailbox at home this evening and to my complete surprise -- the physical card! Sudden burst of efficiency at USCIs, 6 days from approval to actual delivery of card.
Good luck to everyone else!
Enjoy the Green on hand!!
Good luck to everyone else!
Enjoy the Green on hand!!
hairstyles Dakota Fanning Is A Better
WeldonSprings
10-17 11:58 AM
USCIS NSC and TSC is cutting the line in approval of I-140 aplications and is not following First In First Out policy.
This affects not only the I-140 applications, but pending I-485 (EB-2) applications too.
USCIS NSC and TSC is approving I-140 applications for EB-1 and EB-2 ROW cases filed six months ago, and letting them go ahead and grab the coveted visa number.
However, they are not approving EB-2 India and China I-140 applications, because of non-availability of visa numbers.
This is causing an issue with the horizontal spill-over effect as described in the Immigration and Nationality Act.
EB-2 India and China waiting patiently since 2004 should have gotten those visa numbers via spill-over effect, not used by Rest of World, if USCIS had not approved their I-140 application, since they joined the line after the EB-2 India and China folks. This is blatant misjudgment and misorganization.
Please refer to immigration-law.com for full message, but here is the part of it:
The I-140 petitions have been experiencing a significant dely and witnessed a irregular pattern in processing times between the stand-alone I-140 filing cases and the I-140/I-485 concurrently filed cases. Here are some questions and answered which are revealed in the USCIS National Stakeholder Meeting on September 30, 2008:
Question: In TSC and NSC, there is dramatic delay for last July/August concurrently filed I-140. At the same time, TSC quickly approved many non-concurrently filed I-140 with application mailing dates later than last August and even in 2008. So far, the average waiting time for concurrent filers > 300 days and for non-concurrent is around 80 days, according to some voluntary tracking data. Is that delay caused by the Plus Pilot program installed in TSC in Feb 2008, under which the entire I-140 and I-485 package is reviewed by one officer? If so, does that mean I-140s won't be processed and approved until the petitioner's Priority Date becomes Current? A delay of processing, and then denial, in I-140 adjudication could cause serious could cause serious problems for I-485 portability.
Response: Visa availability has been the primary focus at the Texas Service Center and the Nebraska Service Center for concurrent filings and stand alone I-485s. In recent weeks, we have identified I-140 petitions that have been held up because of visas are not available. These filings are placed in the workflow by I-140 processing date within the range of those that were processed after having been filed independent of an adjustment application. The instance of delayed I-140 adjudication should decrease significantly. Petitions that are outside of the posted processing dates can be raised to our attention through the 1 800 customer service number. Officers in the Call Centers will issue a service request if a call about the status of an application is received one day beyond the processing time listed on the website.
This affects not only the I-140 applications, but pending I-485 (EB-2) applications too.
USCIS NSC and TSC is approving I-140 applications for EB-1 and EB-2 ROW cases filed six months ago, and letting them go ahead and grab the coveted visa number.
However, they are not approving EB-2 India and China I-140 applications, because of non-availability of visa numbers.
This is causing an issue with the horizontal spill-over effect as described in the Immigration and Nationality Act.
EB-2 India and China waiting patiently since 2004 should have gotten those visa numbers via spill-over effect, not used by Rest of World, if USCIS had not approved their I-140 application, since they joined the line after the EB-2 India and China folks. This is blatant misjudgment and misorganization.
Please refer to immigration-law.com for full message, but here is the part of it:
The I-140 petitions have been experiencing a significant dely and witnessed a irregular pattern in processing times between the stand-alone I-140 filing cases and the I-140/I-485 concurrently filed cases. Here are some questions and answered which are revealed in the USCIS National Stakeholder Meeting on September 30, 2008:
Question: In TSC and NSC, there is dramatic delay for last July/August concurrently filed I-140. At the same time, TSC quickly approved many non-concurrently filed I-140 with application mailing dates later than last August and even in 2008. So far, the average waiting time for concurrent filers > 300 days and for non-concurrent is around 80 days, according to some voluntary tracking data. Is that delay caused by the Plus Pilot program installed in TSC in Feb 2008, under which the entire I-140 and I-485 package is reviewed by one officer? If so, does that mean I-140s won't be processed and approved until the petitioner's Priority Date becomes Current? A delay of processing, and then denial, in I-140 adjudication could cause serious could cause serious problems for I-485 portability.
Response: Visa availability has been the primary focus at the Texas Service Center and the Nebraska Service Center for concurrent filings and stand alone I-485s. In recent weeks, we have identified I-140 petitions that have been held up because of visas are not available. These filings are placed in the workflow by I-140 processing date within the range of those that were processed after having been filed independent of an adjustment application. The instance of delayed I-140 adjudication should decrease significantly. Petitions that are outside of the posted processing dates can be raised to our attention through the 1 800 customer service number. Officers in the Call Centers will issue a service request if a call about the status of an application is received one day beyond the processing time listed on the website.
vdlrao
09-10 08:42 AM
did any one did math...
EB1 - all current
|
|
\/
EB2 - World current
|
|
\/
EB2 - India / China
|
| ( When above EB2 India/China gets current 2-3years? )
\/
EB3 All
|
|
\/
EB3 I/C ( When EB1 , EB2 is Current , all visa numbers will flood to EB3 right ? so may be in 4-5 years EB3 may get current ? )
EB1 - all current
|
|
\/
EB2 Applications with old Priority Dates (Mostly EB2 - India / China)
|
|
\/
|
| ( When above EB2 India/China gets current 2-3years? )
\/
EB3 Applications with old Priority Dates (Mostly EB3 - India / China/ Mexico)
.
EB1 - all current
|
|
\/
EB2 - World current
|
|
\/
EB2 - India / China
|
| ( When above EB2 India/China gets current 2-3years? )
\/
EB3 All
|
|
\/
EB3 I/C ( When EB1 , EB2 is Current , all visa numbers will flood to EB3 right ? so may be in 4-5 years EB3 may get current ? )
EB1 - all current
|
|
\/
EB2 Applications with old Priority Dates (Mostly EB2 - India / China)
|
|
\/
|
| ( When above EB2 India/China gets current 2-3years? )
\/
EB3 Applications with old Priority Dates (Mostly EB3 - India / China/ Mexico)
.
grupak
03-15 06:40 PM
Dude, No one has been waiting on purpose! Do you even have a clue what was going on in 2002/03/04/05... Even though numbers were current the Labor process used to take 3-4 years! If your labor is not clear then having 485 current is not going to do much... The perm process was started in 2005!Just consider yourself lucky that atleast you have an organization like IV working for you and they was instrumental in gettin atleast EAD for you and your spouse!!
EB3->EB2 also is contributing to this.
Irrespective of the details, it should be clear that EB2 and EB3 for a lot of IV members will be backlogged. Wait times for later priority dates >2004 will be long.
So, the best thing to do is get involved actively in IV action items. Else be prepared to wait and wait and wait.
EB3->EB2 also is contributing to this.
Irrespective of the details, it should be clear that EB2 and EB3 for a lot of IV members will be backlogged. Wait times for later priority dates >2004 will be long.
So, the best thing to do is get involved actively in IV action items. Else be prepared to wait and wait and wait.
0 comments:
Post a Comment