Macaca
09-19 08:16 AM
Lawmakers will decide to bring up the issue and vote on the bill. Attend all Lawmaker meetings.
In this meeting, the staffer will give you his/her business card. Follow up with the staffer after the meeting, specially when the bill is coming up for vote.
In this meeting, the staffer will give you his/her business card. Follow up with the staffer after the meeting, specially when the bill is coming up for vote.
wallpaper Mark Zuckerberg and
kutra
03-03 06:51 PM
Some of the data can be obtained from here
http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/PERM_Data_FY07_Announcement.pdf
of course it is not complete but gives a good glimpse.
Now, you show me your 10 billion dollars :)
My 10 billion dollars can be found here: http://www.prankplace.com/funnymoney.htm :D
BTW, your PDF is data for people who filed under PERM in 2007, and not for the audience you are including in your letter.
Anyway, I am going to stop playing devil's advocate and let you manage this. Just make sure you don't invite unnecessary attention by asking outlets to come peeking here.
http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/PERM_Data_FY07_Announcement.pdf
of course it is not complete but gives a good glimpse.
Now, you show me your 10 billion dollars :)
My 10 billion dollars can be found here: http://www.prankplace.com/funnymoney.htm :D
BTW, your PDF is data for people who filed under PERM in 2007, and not for the audience you are including in your letter.
Anyway, I am going to stop playing devil's advocate and let you manage this. Just make sure you don't invite unnecessary attention by asking outlets to come peeking here.
sweet_jungle
03-12 01:08 PM
I am a july 2nd filer and have changed job 2 times in the past one month and I have no intention to let know USCIS because
a) There is no mandatory law that states that we should do it.
b) I personally feel that sending AC21 documents will trigger an RFE for sure,(in the other case, there are chances that u may not get this).
c) Lawyer is asking for $1500 for doing nothing on this.
d) I am prepared to deal with the RFE if it comes thru.
All of the above I did for changing my 7 year old employer who exactly knew that I cannot change job and kept me in the same position for 7 years even though I was exemplary in my job performance.
What about the H1? Your sponsoring employer needs to revoke H1. Won't INS come to know through that?
a) There is no mandatory law that states that we should do it.
b) I personally feel that sending AC21 documents will trigger an RFE for sure,(in the other case, there are chances that u may not get this).
c) Lawyer is asking for $1500 for doing nothing on this.
d) I am prepared to deal with the RFE if it comes thru.
All of the above I did for changing my 7 year old employer who exactly knew that I cannot change job and kept me in the same position for 7 years even though I was exemplary in my job performance.
What about the H1? Your sponsoring employer needs to revoke H1. Won't INS come to know through that?
2011 mark zuckerberg girlfriend
unseenguy
02-13 08:22 PM
The real face of America, as we used to see it in India is in full light. Hypocrisy under the name of protecting country's job. I agree with Ash's post that in its substance that unlike holocaust, we are not being killed, however; we are being thrown out just like ethnic Indians were thrown out of Uganda by its dictator. This is not much different.
I understand some people making an argument that this is demand vs supply. But what logic does it make to go aggressively after those who have spent 5-10 years in this country and followed almost everything legally? and at the same time those who are voters , provide them benefits with our tax paid money.
Problem is not them , problem is us. We left our country sick of reservation etc., So our community was sidelined by the politicians in India and we came here foregoing our "voting rights". Hence politicians here dont care about us. We gave up where we belonged to looking for "shortcut" to success only to be deceived by opportunist Americans dangling carrots of green cards and better life.
They are career politicians and they care only about elections and votes. So this is nothing but vote bank politics.
I understand some people making an argument that this is demand vs supply. But what logic does it make to go aggressively after those who have spent 5-10 years in this country and followed almost everything legally? and at the same time those who are voters , provide them benefits with our tax paid money.
Problem is not them , problem is us. We left our country sick of reservation etc., So our community was sidelined by the politicians in India and we came here foregoing our "voting rights". Hence politicians here dont care about us. We gave up where we belonged to looking for "shortcut" to success only to be deceived by opportunist Americans dangling carrots of green cards and better life.
They are career politicians and they care only about elections and votes. So this is nothing but vote bank politics.
more...
jkays94
07-10 02:39 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.
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.
neverbefore
07-15 05:27 PM
My case is exactly same as yours except my PD is Feb 27th and I received an RFE for Birth Certificate when the dates went current in 2008 August. Since then I saw LUD's for 3 weeks and then its been all quiet I am hoping that means application was pre adjudicated.
Folks, we had an interview in December of 2008 and the IO said that had the dates been current, she would have approved our 485.
Now that we should get current from August 1, can you hazard a guess as to what might most likely happen? Do you think we might get a biometrics notice once again since fingerprints expire after 1 year (my understanding)? Or do you think we might get a CPO notice? Or some other third thing?
Please enlighten. :confused:
Thanks and best regards.
Folks, we had an interview in December of 2008 and the IO said that had the dates been current, she would have approved our 485.
Now that we should get current from August 1, can you hazard a guess as to what might most likely happen? Do you think we might get a biometrics notice once again since fingerprints expire after 1 year (my understanding)? Or do you think we might get a CPO notice? Or some other third thing?
Please enlighten. :confused:
Thanks and best regards.
more...
go_gc_way
01-13 10:37 PM
http://www.laborlawtalk.com/showthread.php?p=850460#post850460
http://www.indiacause.com/services/advt/advt_lst_one.asp?srno=10394
perm2gc, very good efforts .... I am hopeful, with members like you , we will inch towards our goal "GC".
At the same time, I hope other members take time and help IV action items.
http://www.indiacause.com/services/advt/advt_lst_one.asp?srno=10394
perm2gc, very good efforts .... I am hopeful, with members like you , we will inch towards our goal "GC".
At the same time, I hope other members take time and help IV action items.
2010 Mark+zuckerberg+priscilla+
Nil
03-17 12:10 PM
of course i would not vote for any preferential treatment of qualification over category.
But in case certain people are heard of separately (example: folks with US education or prior experience qualifying them for a different category, as also the number of years they have paid taxes), it will only benefit the remaining.
The Masters degree exemption / extra number of H1 visas actually do not overload the total number of visas available as an instance.
But in case certain people are heard of separately (example: folks with US education or prior experience qualifying them for a different category, as also the number of years they have paid taxes), it will only benefit the remaining.
The Masters degree exemption / extra number of H1 visas actually do not overload the total number of visas available as an instance.
more...
hebron
08-10 06:13 PM
I feel frustrated at some peoples' unwillingness to admit that EB3 needs IV's help now more than ever. They are saying that nothing much can be done for EB3, as INS merely corrected its wrong interpretation in visa allocation
But, if we are all willing to put our hearts and minds to it we can surely come up with new ideas that will help our cause. Surely, laws are written so that justice can happen. So if justice is not happening, the law would have some answer, somewhere.
Let me put forward my idea.
The INA language says that until EB2 is not current, there will be no spillover to EB3. Agreed. But I would contend that this statement is on a year to year basis. That is, if in the year 2002 (for example) all EB2 has been satisfied, then the spillovers should go to year 2002 EB3.
Is this something IV can point out and fight for? Can EB3 members put their money and efforts in this direction? Let me know if this sounds worthwhile
Hi gk_2000, May be I am the only one who doesn't understand the idea. If you don't mind could you please explain what you proposed with examples?
But, if we are all willing to put our hearts and minds to it we can surely come up with new ideas that will help our cause. Surely, laws are written so that justice can happen. So if justice is not happening, the law would have some answer, somewhere.
Let me put forward my idea.
The INA language says that until EB2 is not current, there will be no spillover to EB3. Agreed. But I would contend that this statement is on a year to year basis. That is, if in the year 2002 (for example) all EB2 has been satisfied, then the spillovers should go to year 2002 EB3.
Is this something IV can point out and fight for? Can EB3 members put their money and efforts in this direction? Let me know if this sounds worthwhile
Hi gk_2000, May be I am the only one who doesn't understand the idea. If you don't mind could you please explain what you proposed with examples?
hair Mark Zuckerberg And Priscilla Chan Pictures. Boston native priscilla dec
gulute
06-11 02:11 PM
done
more...
insbaby
07-18 05:02 AM
USCIS did not say that they will return the application and they should be refilled.
With their announcement on July 17th, they have about 16 more days in this month left. It is a heavy workload for them to reject all the petitions (minimum 200K packages) which is unnecessary work and cost enourmous amount of money.
Also they will not invite another problem if the do not give sufficient time to the clients to file, what if someone receives the package Auguest 15. That will be another mess up.
It looks like SCs have rejected some applications on the same day (July 2nd), those applicants should have already received them(on July 3rd or 4th). They have to refile. Rejections after July 17th may not be true.
My lawer says:
Your application has reached INS on July 2nd and upon the statement from USIC on July 17th, it will be accepted.
With their announcement on July 17th, they have about 16 more days in this month left. It is a heavy workload for them to reject all the petitions (minimum 200K packages) which is unnecessary work and cost enourmous amount of money.
Also they will not invite another problem if the do not give sufficient time to the clients to file, what if someone receives the package Auguest 15. That will be another mess up.
It looks like SCs have rejected some applications on the same day (July 2nd), those applicants should have already received them(on July 3rd or 4th). They have to refile. Rejections after July 17th may not be true.
My lawer says:
Your application has reached INS on July 2nd and upon the statement from USIC on July 17th, it will be accepted.
hot About mark zuckerberg met
SunnySurya
07-28 12:08 PM
In my case, you are the Judge , Jury and the excutioner.
In your case, it will be the government and legal system of the USA and actually there is law preventing such things. So I was not kidding.
The transcripts on this thread will serve as a record, if need be..
And what about giving your IP address to authorities because you incited my religious feelings?
In your case, it will be the government and legal system of the USA and actually there is law preventing such things. So I was not kidding.
The transcripts on this thread will serve as a record, if need be..
And what about giving your IP address to authorities because you incited my religious feelings?
more...
house girlfriend mark zuckerberg
mbawa2574
02-17 08:56 AM
I am sorry if I offended anyone. I don't recall how.
and by the way, my friend, you really really need a life :-) That's the last thing you'll hear from me on this subject.
peace out
Thanks again for supporting IV. Only point I was against was your support of racism of 40's. Anywaz I understand that you want to convey some other message but probably used the wrong link. Peace and Unity !!
and by the way, my friend, you really really need a life :-) That's the last thing you'll hear from me on this subject.
peace out
Thanks again for supporting IV. Only point I was against was your support of racism of 40's. Anywaz I understand that you want to convey some other message but probably used the wrong link. Peace and Unity !!
tattoo mark zuckerberg girlfriend
webm
03-17 04:56 PM
Spillover is not handled within category: It is handled from top preference to lower preference. Spillover pattern is as under. It is circular and cyclic with broken link from EB3 to EB4.
Just for a reference read "EMPLOYMENT-BASED PREFERENCES" on following bulletin link.
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4177.html
So legal pattern for spillover is as under.
--------------------------------------
EB1 -> EB2
EB1->EB2 -> EB3. ( This is legally defined but never happens as EB2 has a
larger demand.)
EB4->EB1
Note: Nothing goes from EB3 to any category and practical reality is that
nothing extra comes to EB3 as EB2 is always hungry:)
In April what happened was not "really a Spillover, the loose term what we use on this board" but the use of Section "D. INDIA EMPLOYMENT SECOND PREFERENCE VISA AVAILABILITY" in the bulletin.
USCIS found that EB2-ROW seems to be having less applicants against "total number of visas which can be granted this year" so if it does not use them then will be wasted. So USCIS again checked the database and found that EB2-India seems to be having considerable load so it decided to divert those numbers for EB2-India. USCIS can do that as per mentioned section and for such kind of awards "per country limit" is not applicable and that is perfectly legal.
well said dude!!!
Just for a reference read "EMPLOYMENT-BASED PREFERENCES" on following bulletin link.
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4177.html
So legal pattern for spillover is as under.
--------------------------------------
EB1 -> EB2
EB1->EB2 -> EB3. ( This is legally defined but never happens as EB2 has a
larger demand.)
EB4->EB1
Note: Nothing goes from EB3 to any category and practical reality is that
nothing extra comes to EB3 as EB2 is always hungry:)
In April what happened was not "really a Spillover, the loose term what we use on this board" but the use of Section "D. INDIA EMPLOYMENT SECOND PREFERENCE VISA AVAILABILITY" in the bulletin.
USCIS found that EB2-ROW seems to be having less applicants against "total number of visas which can be granted this year" so if it does not use them then will be wasted. So USCIS again checked the database and found that EB2-India seems to be having considerable load so it decided to divert those numbers for EB2-India. USCIS can do that as per mentioned section and for such kind of awards "per country limit" is not applicable and that is perfectly legal.
well said dude!!!
more...
pictures mark zuckerberg girlfriend
feedfront
09-17 12:40 PM
My attorney has not received it yet.
dresses #39;fiancee#39;? Engaged or not:
unitednations
12-22 02:34 PM
this is our history...
1.was working with employer B in June 07(when PD was current for EB2/Oct 2003-India)...went to attorney to file 485 with approved 140 thru ex employer A. filled in all the paperwork for 485,but the attorney was asking for a current employment letter from B with exact skills mentioned on labor and the employer B was not ready to give such a letter and hence we planned to find a new employer and file for 485 in July.
2. In June end found this new current employer C and planned to file 485 in July and all the fiasco scene happened...anyway...in August we filed the 485 with a current employer letter from C with all the skills matching the labor..till here fine.
NOW...we got a copy of the bunch of 48 documents sent to INS from the atnys office...I had given the latest 325a form
current employer C : July 07 - current
employer B : Jan 2006 - June 2007
employer A : June 2003 - Dec 2005 (who filed for labor/i140)
the shitty paralegal now submitted the 325a from submitted in June 07 where the current employer B was the latest.... + the current employment letter of C + 485 employment offer letter from A
She had whitened out the date on the 325a form signed on June 07 and changed it to Aug 07 to my utter shock....
when I call back..she says we will handle any RFE's...
quite worried as the 325a form already says something like 'all info disclosed is truthful'... etc and the fine print..
pls post your thoughts and comments..
hope I dint confuse
Pretty confusing situation. Don't know why you even put in an experience letter from a company which doesn't have anything to do with the petition.
I am aware of a couple of cases where uscis did deny on such issues (g-325a not matching up with h-1b approvals, etc.). However, affidavits and such to say it was an honest mistake took care of the issue.
You might be able to appreciate this story:
I worked on an ability to pay case for a company in ohio. Person got approved and was then waiting for 485 approval.
He contacts me many months later and tells me that he got this rfe. The jest of the rfe was:
You claim to have never filed a 485 adjustment of status application. However; our search of records show that you filed a 485 on xxx date in xx office as a marriage base applicant. It appears that you are not eligible for a waiver of the interview requirement for adjustment of status.
Now; i truly believe that his current wife (from india) never knew about this marriage (his family and friends didn't know either). he tried to blame it on his lawyer that they never asked him and they just defaulted that he never filed for a 485. Pretty weak excuse. However; they responded to the 485 that everything was in such a rush to file the 485 that he didn't have a chance to look it all over and it was an honest mistake. He didn't get called for an interview and they approved his case.
Now; if the record of his marriage base application had shown that he was caught in fraudulent marriage; he never got divorced and re-married or there was something that went wrong with his earlier case then it may have been a different story. However; since nothing was wrong with that application; the officer let him off the hook because it was an honest mistake.
1.was working with employer B in June 07(when PD was current for EB2/Oct 2003-India)...went to attorney to file 485 with approved 140 thru ex employer A. filled in all the paperwork for 485,but the attorney was asking for a current employment letter from B with exact skills mentioned on labor and the employer B was not ready to give such a letter and hence we planned to find a new employer and file for 485 in July.
2. In June end found this new current employer C and planned to file 485 in July and all the fiasco scene happened...anyway...in August we filed the 485 with a current employer letter from C with all the skills matching the labor..till here fine.
NOW...we got a copy of the bunch of 48 documents sent to INS from the atnys office...I had given the latest 325a form
current employer C : July 07 - current
employer B : Jan 2006 - June 2007
employer A : June 2003 - Dec 2005 (who filed for labor/i140)
the shitty paralegal now submitted the 325a from submitted in June 07 where the current employer B was the latest.... + the current employment letter of C + 485 employment offer letter from A
She had whitened out the date on the 325a form signed on June 07 and changed it to Aug 07 to my utter shock....
when I call back..she says we will handle any RFE's...
quite worried as the 325a form already says something like 'all info disclosed is truthful'... etc and the fine print..
pls post your thoughts and comments..
hope I dint confuse
Pretty confusing situation. Don't know why you even put in an experience letter from a company which doesn't have anything to do with the petition.
I am aware of a couple of cases where uscis did deny on such issues (g-325a not matching up with h-1b approvals, etc.). However, affidavits and such to say it was an honest mistake took care of the issue.
You might be able to appreciate this story:
I worked on an ability to pay case for a company in ohio. Person got approved and was then waiting for 485 approval.
He contacts me many months later and tells me that he got this rfe. The jest of the rfe was:
You claim to have never filed a 485 adjustment of status application. However; our search of records show that you filed a 485 on xxx date in xx office as a marriage base applicant. It appears that you are not eligible for a waiver of the interview requirement for adjustment of status.
Now; i truly believe that his current wife (from india) never knew about this marriage (his family and friends didn't know either). he tried to blame it on his lawyer that they never asked him and they just defaulted that he never filed for a 485. Pretty weak excuse. However; they responded to the 485 that everything was in such a rush to file the 485 that he didn't have a chance to look it all over and it was an honest mistake. He didn't get called for an interview and they approved his case.
Now; if the record of his marriage base application had shown that he was caught in fraudulent marriage; he never got divorced and re-married or there was something that went wrong with his earlier case then it may have been a different story. However; since nothing was wrong with that application; the officer let him off the hook because it was an honest mistake.
more...
makeup Priscilla Chan: Mark
sprash
01-30 02:35 PM
Wow! Thanks a lot for posting such detailed RFE information. This really helps a lot in understanding what I may be asked.
My GC sponsoring employer revoked my H1 last year itself. I could see the change in status back then itself within a month of having left them. Nothing happenned after that. I got a new H1 from my (then) new employer and things continued as before. This employer has not yet revoked my H1 (from what I can see) and its probably because they are almost going under. There are less than 25 people left in the company so I doubt that they will have spent the money to go and revoke all the H1s of the folks they laid off.
Maybe its like someone suggested - USCIS is pre-processing my 485 based on received date since I mailed my app very early on in July 2007.
Yes, I believe thats what they might be doing - preprocessing. There was no obvious 'trigger' event that caused RFE on my case either. They raised these RFEs even though I had not changed my sponsoring employer or transferred my h1b. I have a feeling they preprocessed mine too.
I don't mean to scare you (just prepare you for the worst) --- you might want to talk to some desi consultants and make an arrangement that in case the RFE is employment verification, they give you pay stubs from the time you were laid off. As you can see from my RFE, you might need to show your recent paystubs and employment verification. Yes, it will be a financial loss for you, but without these I believe your case can get rejected (gurus correct me if I'm wrong!).
Again I am is just hypothesizing your situation, your case might be entirely different. This is 'just in case'.....
My GC sponsoring employer revoked my H1 last year itself. I could see the change in status back then itself within a month of having left them. Nothing happenned after that. I got a new H1 from my (then) new employer and things continued as before. This employer has not yet revoked my H1 (from what I can see) and its probably because they are almost going under. There are less than 25 people left in the company so I doubt that they will have spent the money to go and revoke all the H1s of the folks they laid off.
Maybe its like someone suggested - USCIS is pre-processing my 485 based on received date since I mailed my app very early on in July 2007.
Yes, I believe thats what they might be doing - preprocessing. There was no obvious 'trigger' event that caused RFE on my case either. They raised these RFEs even though I had not changed my sponsoring employer or transferred my h1b. I have a feeling they preprocessed mine too.
I don't mean to scare you (just prepare you for the worst) --- you might want to talk to some desi consultants and make an arrangement that in case the RFE is employment verification, they give you pay stubs from the time you were laid off. As you can see from my RFE, you might need to show your recent paystubs and employment verification. Yes, it will be a financial loss for you, but without these I believe your case can get rejected (gurus correct me if I'm wrong!).
Again I am is just hypothesizing your situation, your case might be entirely different. This is 'just in case'.....
girlfriend Mark Zuckerberg is tying the knot soon, according to Bill Gates. But his rep
greencard_fever
07-20 11:14 PM
I'm having less and less faith in the claims made by members that USCIS is inefficient and clueless. ok, they have been and continue to be in many areas:):). However, they have a game plan this time. In retrospect, we know they had a game plan in June 07 also.
There are several unknown variables (repeatedly and extensively discussed here)which make accurate prediction impossible for us. However, USCIS has the numbers of RIPE CASES. And they moved the dates based on the availability of remaining GC numbers for this fiscal AND the ripe cases.
They could have moved it to just Dec 2005, instead they moved it all the way to June 2006.
Best\ optimistic scenario- Most EB-2-I cases upto June 2006 will be adjudicated before Oct 1st.
Conservative scenario-Upto at least Dec 2005 PD all cases will be adjudicated , and a few CP cases into early 2006 will be adjudicated. With spillovers happening in each quarter, the PD should continue to move.
Hello Gurus,
I have red in many places that there is some cases which are "Low hanging fruits" or "Ripe cases" when they say this what exactly this means? my understand is that for USCIS every case which has all proper supporting documents then they will adjudicate that case no matter what if VISA number available, can some one help in understanding what is "Low hanging fruits" or "Ripe cases" :confused::confused:
There are several unknown variables (repeatedly and extensively discussed here)which make accurate prediction impossible for us. However, USCIS has the numbers of RIPE CASES. And they moved the dates based on the availability of remaining GC numbers for this fiscal AND the ripe cases.
They could have moved it to just Dec 2005, instead they moved it all the way to June 2006.
Best\ optimistic scenario- Most EB-2-I cases upto June 2006 will be adjudicated before Oct 1st.
Conservative scenario-Upto at least Dec 2005 PD all cases will be adjudicated , and a few CP cases into early 2006 will be adjudicated. With spillovers happening in each quarter, the PD should continue to move.
Hello Gurus,
I have red in many places that there is some cases which are "Low hanging fruits" or "Ripe cases" when they say this what exactly this means? my understand is that for USCIS every case which has all proper supporting documents then they will adjudicate that case no matter what if VISA number available, can some one help in understanding what is "Low hanging fruits" or "Ripe cases" :confused::confused:
hairstyles Pajama pants on search mark
WAIT_FOR_EVER_GC
06-10 02:03 PM
Why r we fighting over pity things like EAD needs employment letter, their political position
etc. Wait for pappu's update and try getting as many people as you can to support this issue. We need a good head count to win this.
etc. Wait for pappu's update and try getting as many people as you can to support this issue. We need a good head count to win this.
2ndJuly
09-11 11:53 AM
Here is the info from NumbersUSA:
Vote on Foreign-Worker Bills Postponed Amid Growing Opposition
Updated Thursday, September 11, 2008, 10:00 AM
The House Judiciary Committee yesterday postponed consideration of bills containing massive foreign worker increases (H.R. 5882 and H.R. 5924) after the committee's debate stalled during discussions on the armed forces amnesty bill (H.R. 6020). The committee is expected to resume consideration of all three bills on September 18
Vote on Foreign-Worker Bills Postponed Amid Growing Opposition
Updated Thursday, September 11, 2008, 10:00 AM
The House Judiciary Committee yesterday postponed consideration of bills containing massive foreign worker increases (H.R. 5882 and H.R. 5924) after the committee's debate stalled during discussions on the armed forces amnesty bill (H.R. 6020). The committee is expected to resume consideration of all three bills on September 18
mirage
07-02 08:03 AM
I think you guys keep forgetting IV's success of getting it's amendments as brownback amendment in the CIR last fall. The beauty was the amendment was not even discussed or debated or voted by the senate as it was added by Sen. specter as manager's amendment. So don't make loose statements about IV.
0 comments:
Post a Comment