vishwak
02-09 01:49 PM
What exactly is this???
wallpaper over that Prince Edward.
qesehmk
02-12 12:27 PM
Folks,
lets put the "you said .. I said" aside and just evaluate the definition of "assigned" and "used" visa numbers.
- correct me if I am wrong but I think Ron implies - "some numbers are assigned but then not used. These numbers still show up as used in the data report (since they were assigned)".
We have established that there is no document to support this but can we find out if this assumption can be true?
One can only infer based some facts and some assumptions.
Fact - Fallen new 485 demand (28% or more)
Fact - Law requires quarterly spillover.
Fact (?) - DoS allocated 30% of visas in Q1 (is it a fact?)
Fact - Dates did not move significantly
So all of these things fit together well only if one of the following is true
a) USCIS is utlizing the allocated visas.
b) EB3 to EB2 conversion is substantial enough to not warrant any movement in dates.
Regarding Ron's claim of 13K wasted in 2009. That is where I said I have a hard time accepting that. Because in 2009 EB did not receive any spillover from FB (to my best knowledge) and in 2009 EB did consumer 140K visas.
lets put the "you said .. I said" aside and just evaluate the definition of "assigned" and "used" visa numbers.
- correct me if I am wrong but I think Ron implies - "some numbers are assigned but then not used. These numbers still show up as used in the data report (since they were assigned)".
We have established that there is no document to support this but can we find out if this assumption can be true?
One can only infer based some facts and some assumptions.
Fact - Fallen new 485 demand (28% or more)
Fact - Law requires quarterly spillover.
Fact (?) - DoS allocated 30% of visas in Q1 (is it a fact?)
Fact - Dates did not move significantly
So all of these things fit together well only if one of the following is true
a) USCIS is utlizing the allocated visas.
b) EB3 to EB2 conversion is substantial enough to not warrant any movement in dates.
Regarding Ron's claim of 13K wasted in 2009. That is where I said I have a hard time accepting that. Because in 2009 EB did not receive any spillover from FB (to my best knowledge) and in 2009 EB did consumer 140K visas.
spicy_guy
07-28 11:36 AM
But I do understand your point though, FYI. I already left them last summer in good terms and I still have good relationship with them. I also referred few of my friends (who had bad experience with their employers and wanted to come out) to ECG and never heard any issues from them yet :)
Other than the above, I really do NOT have anything else with them, TRUST ME dude!!!
Cool. Hard to find such Desi companies.
Other than the above, I really do NOT have anything else with them, TRUST ME dude!!!
Cool. Hard to find such Desi companies.
2011 Enchanted.
va_il
07-04 07:48 PM
Details behind your theory and their source information please
more...
sunny1000
04-25 12:27 PM
Congrats Googler! Wish you the very best. We appreciate all the inputs from you and hope that you will stick around with IV!!
ebizash
06-11 10:23 AM
Sent to IL lawmakers.
Forwarded to a few friends.
Forwarded to a few friends.
more...
virald
07-18 12:08 AM
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.
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.
2010 Enchanted, Made of Honor,
vandanaverdia
09-11 01:51 PM
GC is not too close....
September 18 is not far away...
Come to DC and bridge the gap!!!!
GO IV!!!!!!
September 18 is not far away...
Come to DC and bridge the gap!!!!
GO IV!!!!!!
more...
gimmegc
07-13 06:57 PM
We should compare the processing date at NSC / TSC with the erroneous receipt date they show in the online case status. Their computer systems are more likely to have recorded that date than the presumably hand-typed receipt date on our I-485 receipt notices......
My actual receipt date is July 2nd, but the online case status shows Aug23 rd, i'm not expecting anything to happen until TSC proc. date gets past Aug 23rd.
Hi srkamath
My actual RD is 2nd July, my notices show it as 30th of July. Do you think we should try you get that corrected? Is that posssible at all?
Thanks
My actual receipt date is July 2nd, but the online case status shows Aug23 rd, i'm not expecting anything to happen until TSC proc. date gets past Aug 23rd.
Hi srkamath
My actual RD is 2nd July, my notices show it as 30th of July. Do you think we should try you get that corrected? Is that posssible at all?
Thanks
hair Enchanted begins as an
qesehmk
02-12 01:28 PM
pbuckeye, , You are still more concerned about what immigration body shop has to say than the facts and numbers on the ground. I am confused :confused:
This whole thread is about what Ron Gotcher published. I didn't start this thread. I am only contributing my view that based on available information some things make sense and some dont. The things that do make some sense is wastage of visa numbers in 2010. We have some facts to support the "theory" but not enough.
What doesn't make sense is Ron's assertion that USCIS wasted 13K EB visas in 2009. Facts simply don't support that.
Does this help? (Again this is my view... don't want to push it onto others)
This whole thread is about what Ron Gotcher published. I didn't start this thread. I am only contributing my view that based on available information some things make sense and some dont. The things that do make some sense is wastage of visa numbers in 2010. We have some facts to support the "theory" but not enough.
What doesn't make sense is Ron's assertion that USCIS wasted 13K EB visas in 2009. Facts simply don't support that.
Does this help? (Again this is my view... don't want to push it onto others)
more...
ivgclive
03-11 11:54 PM
Great, wonderful, unbelievable.
I was assured that EB3-I would not move beyond one month until my son turns 18, which is another 17 years.
They moved it 3 months ahead so soon.
Woowwww.. There is a valid reason for them to be "Pleased to announce the cut-off dates..."
I was assured that EB3-I would not move beyond one month until my son turns 18, which is another 17 years.
They moved it 3 months ahead so soon.
Woowwww.. There is a valid reason for them to be "Pleased to announce the cut-off dates..."
hot Enchanted premiere
kaisersose
07-14 05:56 PM
Should I send a AC21 letter to USCIS along with my new employment letter?
Who is the best attorney for such cases?
Is it possible that my prevous employer hasn't revoked 140? How can I know that? I have received RFE after one year after filing the case. Is there any way I can know the date when my previous employer did revoke the 140 ( in case he did)?
Of course, you know your problems best, but it was obviously irresponsible of you to quit before letting 180 days pass after applying for 485.
Here is the problem. The letter of employment you send to CIS must have a start date which will expose your violation of the 180 day rule. So unless you lie here, you are likely in in trouble. Your best bet is to suck it up and return to your sponsoring employer. That will ensure your case 100%. Any other option is risky.
Go to a knowledged attorney. Khanna, Murthy, Gotcher etc., are the names I know.
Who is the best attorney for such cases?
Is it possible that my prevous employer hasn't revoked 140? How can I know that? I have received RFE after one year after filing the case. Is there any way I can know the date when my previous employer did revoke the 140 ( in case he did)?
Of course, you know your problems best, but it was obviously irresponsible of you to quit before letting 180 days pass after applying for 485.
Here is the problem. The letter of employment you send to CIS must have a start date which will expose your violation of the 180 day rule. So unless you lie here, you are likely in in trouble. Your best bet is to suck it up and return to your sponsoring employer. That will ensure your case 100%. Any other option is risky.
Go to a knowledged attorney. Khanna, Murthy, Gotcher etc., are the names I know.
more...
house THE KINGDOM was ENCHANTED!
singhsa3
03-04 12:54 PM
By the in PA they don't give you Drivers License if you are on EAD if your EAD validity is less than a year.
tattoo or Prince Edward,
nomi
12-12 04:25 PM
I read news on oh law firm few days back that USCIS is planning to abandon concurrent filing (I140 + I-485). So when USCIS has power to disallow that, then they may have power to allow file I-485 when visa not available. This is just my thought. Anyway it does not hurt to find it out from USCIS officials, rather than asking some lawyer or interpret our own.
Also when we ask lawyer about this, we may not get positive response as they may fear of loosing fees of countless H1B visa transfers.
I agree with you. Lawyer and Attorneys are not our friends. where will they make money once we get our green cards. We should direct meet with head of the USCIS. We are all legal here and pays our tax and playing important role in this country.
Also when we ask lawyer about this, we may not get positive response as they may fear of loosing fees of countless H1B visa transfers.
I agree with you. Lawyer and Attorneys are not our friends. where will they make money once we get our green cards. We should direct meet with head of the USCIS. We are all legal here and pays our tax and playing important role in this country.
more...
pictures in fantasy #39;#39;Enchanted.#39;#39;
sunny1000
07-24 11:26 PM
The below is the answer I got from my attorney.
"You are right in stating there should be a employer letter, which would be required if we are filing the I-485 with an approved I-140. It would not be required if it is filed currently with the I-140, which is submitted with the employer letter."
"You are right in stating there should be a employer letter, which would be required if we are filing the I-485 with an approved I-140. It would not be required if it is filed currently with the I-140, which is submitted with the employer letter."
dresses He was also the prince in
ukats02
10-20 09:00 AM
If you download and read Obama's immigration plan (PDF), it is more or less the same ( Vs MacCain's plan). Except for no mention in specific words about increasing the H1 #'s or GC #'s, the plan actually makes note of the hardships faced by legal immigrants. The problem is acknowledged and they accept that the legal immigrations system is broken, which to me, means that they will try to fix it.
-Ukats.
-Ukats.
more...
makeup James Marsden -- Prince Edward
suriajay12
02-19 07:21 AM
And who do you think is going to process the paperwork for illegals? ... guess again, the same agency that is processing for Legal would-be-could-be immigrants. So how is it not going to increase processing time which would ultimately result in further delay?
Moreover, it doesn't matter wether their is delay or not. Simply, putting illegals in front of legals is ethically, morally and legally wrong!!
There is a difference.. In this case (>5 years), it will also include clauses or something that will not jeopardize your status. Compare requirements we have to meet in different stages and in this case. In LC, 140... you are at the mercy of many agencies, including mood of the officier who looks at your case, economic conditions, your employer, etc etc.. endless list . In this case you are just dependent upon yourself and if you can prove you were in the US for >5 years in whatever ways you can, then you are good. I know some who dont meet this 5 years may be disappointed, but they must find a way to include themselves if they can make sense. But not just cut the line.
To prove >5 year legally in US is fully on you.. which is VERY good. Support it.
Moreover, it doesn't matter wether their is delay or not. Simply, putting illegals in front of legals is ethically, morally and legally wrong!!
There is a difference.. In this case (>5 years), it will also include clauses or something that will not jeopardize your status. Compare requirements we have to meet in different stages and in this case. In LC, 140... you are at the mercy of many agencies, including mood of the officier who looks at your case, economic conditions, your employer, etc etc.. endless list . In this case you are just dependent upon yourself and if you can prove you were in the US for >5 years in whatever ways you can, then you are good. I know some who dont meet this 5 years may be disappointed, but they must find a way to include themselves if they can make sense. But not just cut the line.
To prove >5 year legally in US is fully on you.. which is VERY good. Support it.
girlfriend Enchanted Nina the dancer#39;s
pv2715
07-13 10:24 AM
It is not a contradiction to the previous statement.
Cut-off-date = 1 ==> PDs before 1st can file (i.e mar-01 cut-off date mean pds till apr-30 can file)
Cut-off-date = 8 ==> PDs before 8 can file (i.e pds 1 to 7 since they are in one bucket)
Cut-off-date = 15 ==> PDs before 15 can file (specifically pds in bucket 8-14 can file)
etc...
Hope it helps. As others predicted, I really think the numbers will not move back. You will get your GC soon.
Yagw,
I understand this is a mute point of debate for most of us and I am trying to clarify a statement made in the PDF document for the benefit of people whose PDs fall under these days. Under the operational guidelines issued, it appears that any PD that falls under days 1-7 of calendar month falls under the cutoff day 1 and so on.
Cut-off-date = 1 ==> PDs before 1st can file (i.e mar-01 cut-off date mean pds till apr-30 can file)
Cut-off-date = 8 ==> PDs before 8 can file (i.e pds 1 to 7 since they are in one bucket)
Cut-off-date = 15 ==> PDs before 15 can file (specifically pds in bucket 8-14 can file)
etc...
Hope it helps. As others predicted, I really think the numbers will not move back. You will get your GC soon.
Yagw,
I understand this is a mute point of debate for most of us and I am trying to clarify a statement made in the PDF document for the benefit of people whose PDs fall under these days. Under the operational guidelines issued, it appears that any PD that falls under days 1-7 of calendar month falls under the cutoff day 1 and so on.
hairstyles Enchanted Movie Download Free
vine93
10-22 06:54 PM
I also faxed it today.
cestmoi
01-11 11:46 PM
Am I blind or is part 2 missing one more option?
None of the options apply to me below as I will be applying for employment based Green Card as I have a L1A visa (unless I'm not supposed to be filling out i-485?)
a. An immigrant petition giving me an immediately available immigrant visa number has been approved (attach a copy of the approval notice, or a relative, special immigrant juvenile, or special immigrant military visa petition filed...
b. My spouse or parent applied for adjustment of status or was granted lawful permanent residence in an immigrant visa category that allows derivative status for spouses and children
c. I entered as a K-1 fiance(e) of a US citizen whom I married within 90 days of entry...
d. I was granted asylum or derivative asylum status as the spouse or child of a person granted asylum and am eligible for adjustment.
e. I am a native or citizen of Cuba admitted or paroled into the US after Jan 1, 1959...
f. I am the husband, wife or minor unmarried child of a Cuban described above in (e)....
g. I have continously resided in the US since before Jan 1, 1972
h. Other basis of eligibility. Explain (for example, I was admitted as a refugee, my status has not been terminated, and I have been physically present in the US for 1 year...
None of the options apply to me below as I will be applying for employment based Green Card as I have a L1A visa (unless I'm not supposed to be filling out i-485?)
a. An immigrant petition giving me an immediately available immigrant visa number has been approved (attach a copy of the approval notice, or a relative, special immigrant juvenile, or special immigrant military visa petition filed...
b. My spouse or parent applied for adjustment of status or was granted lawful permanent residence in an immigrant visa category that allows derivative status for spouses and children
c. I entered as a K-1 fiance(e) of a US citizen whom I married within 90 days of entry...
d. I was granted asylum or derivative asylum status as the spouse or child of a person granted asylum and am eligible for adjustment.
e. I am a native or citizen of Cuba admitted or paroled into the US after Jan 1, 1959...
f. I am the husband, wife or minor unmarried child of a Cuban described above in (e)....
g. I have continously resided in the US since before Jan 1, 1972
h. Other basis of eligibility. Explain (for example, I was admitted as a refugee, my status has not been terminated, and I have been physically present in the US for 1 year...
rc0878
03-19 03:24 PM
Let's hope the following happens....coz EB3 seekers like me are also waiting for a long time.
May be I am not aware, say the dates move to 2005, then whoever has a PD till 2005 and has a pending 485, is bound to get GC approved, or incase the dates move back, then he/she is stuck again?
RC
Not only EB2, EB3 India also will move to April 2005, atleast for couple of months before this FY ends, to use the 140K numbers.
May be I am not aware, say the dates move to 2005, then whoever has a PD till 2005 and has a pending 485, is bound to get GC approved, or incase the dates move back, then he/she is stuck again?
RC
Not only EB2, EB3 India also will move to April 2005, atleast for couple of months before this FY ends, to use the 140K numbers.
0 comments:
Post a Comment