sats123
04-01 03:39 PM
I faxed to AZ senators
wallpaper hulk Wallpaper
snathan
07-08 12:17 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^
gcformeornot
08-21 10:07 AM
I guess this is wrong. I did talk to the OIG this morning and was told that this is a fraud and they can investigate the case
Please.
Please.
2011 Hulk Wallpaper (558835) -
Lasantha
01-04 10:39 AM
So do you mean to say that this is allowed in India? I mean polygamy. I never knew that.
A freind of mine came across a gentleman, who is here on work visa and he is facing a unique problem. He is married to two persons and wants to bring his whole family here in the USA. He was looking for answer if he can get both his spouses and kids here on H4 visas. Currently both of them and his kids are in India. Interesting hmmm :D
A freind of mine came across a gentleman, who is here on work visa and he is facing a unique problem. He is married to two persons and wants to bring his whole family here in the USA. He was looking for answer if he can get both his spouses and kids here on H4 visas. Currently both of them and his kids are in India. Interesting hmmm :D
more...
psaxena
11-19 03:59 PM
whose gonna do this???? Show me one who is going to do this..
I don't see anyone coming forward. So yeah please continue.
Also anyone for a seperate quota for JHUMRI TALIYA? Like me they are intelligent smart and focussed most of all they are willing to do something. So how about a seperate quota for JHUMRI TALIYA?
Come on this way we will get the GC much before than anyone else...
I don't see anyone coming forward. So yeah please continue.
Also anyone for a seperate quota for JHUMRI TALIYA? Like me they are intelligent smart and focussed most of all they are willing to do something. So how about a seperate quota for JHUMRI TALIYA?
Come on this way we will get the GC much before than anyone else...
Ramba
04-01 06:53 PM
Contact attoreny ASAP why/how it has happened. As he represnts you, USCIS acts upon his request to withdraw. However, he has to make such requsest only upon your written communication to withdraw the application. Therefore, find out whose mistake it is (law firm or USCIS). If it is the law firm mistake ( if you have not requested your attorney to withdraw your 485), contact him to rectify his mistake. That means, he has to put his full effort to get the application back to USCIS. You can even sue them for a hefty amount for the damages they have done. If it is a USCIS mistake, MTR may work well, to get back the 485 in line. As the primary applicant already received the GC, it is tricky. So, contact another atttorney for second opinion and contact AILA, if required.
more...
maddipati1
07-27 08:18 PM
BTW, great thinking.. posting the link in advance
u r a Skilled .... but keeps a lil bug in the logic :-)
S
u r a Skilled .... but keeps a lil bug in the logic :-)
S
2010 The Hulk Wallpapers
gc_check
11-03 08:53 AM
Possibility of CIR happening diminishes each day passing by and as always every one acknowledge Immigration Reform as an important issue, but the reality, it is not as important as the other issues, economy, jobs, housing crisis, etc .
Only window the Democrats have to do something about CIR is in the lame duck session, but it is easy said than done and could cause a deep divide among the parties that already have a bitter relation. If not in lame-duck session, then nothing untill after 2012 election.. that pushes to 2013.
One of the promise Obama ran the first presidential election on was CIR and if none is done on that, he probably should write off the Latino votes, without which he cannot win again. Also getting a CIR through the Republican controlled house, that the Senate also agrees on -- don't think it will happen and well.. Also time now is to plan on re-election strategy for 2012 election for Obama and team.
Only slim chance is before this congress term ends and not sure, if they can get something through. There is a very slim chance it might occur.. but again Media and special interest groups could blow it up too...
Will have to see how it goes.. or if the blame game / finger pointing keeps continuing...
Only window the Democrats have to do something about CIR is in the lame duck session, but it is easy said than done and could cause a deep divide among the parties that already have a bitter relation. If not in lame-duck session, then nothing untill after 2012 election.. that pushes to 2013.
One of the promise Obama ran the first presidential election on was CIR and if none is done on that, he probably should write off the Latino votes, without which he cannot win again. Also getting a CIR through the Republican controlled house, that the Senate also agrees on -- don't think it will happen and well.. Also time now is to plan on re-election strategy for 2012 election for Obama and team.
Only slim chance is before this congress term ends and not sure, if they can get something through. There is a very slim chance it might occur.. but again Media and special interest groups could blow it up too...
Will have to see how it goes.. or if the blame game / finger pointing keeps continuing...
more...
ita
11-06 05:37 PM
You should do following for Advanced Parole related appointment if you are arranging the first appointment.
http://www.infopass.uscis.gov/
Select
- You need Service on a case that has already been filed
On next screen select
-Case Processing Appointment - If you received a notice to go to your local office for further case processing.
I don't have any update on AP .
Should I still select the below mentioned option ?
'Case Processing Appointment - If you received a notice to go to your local office for further case processing' is what I should select for AP inquiry?
I have EAD approval notice but no card yet. SO I need to get another infopass for EAD eslecting'EAD inquiry Appoinmetn' option ?
Thank you.
http://www.infopass.uscis.gov/
Select
- You need Service on a case that has already been filed
On next screen select
-Case Processing Appointment - If you received a notice to go to your local office for further case processing.
I don't have any update on AP .
Should I still select the below mentioned option ?
'Case Processing Appointment - If you received a notice to go to your local office for further case processing' is what I should select for AP inquiry?
I have EAD approval notice but no card yet. SO I need to get another infopass for EAD eslecting'EAD inquiry Appoinmetn' option ?
Thank you.
hair Hulk Wallpaper
vbkris77
11-30 10:42 PM
Following is Ron`s observation
.
There is an error in the initial explanation of the quota. As I read this analysis, they are suggesting that the single state limit is 25,620 - irrespective of whether the visas are issued in family or employment based. This suggests that a country with heavy family based demand, but light employment based demand, could use more than 7% of the EB or FB quota as long as they remained under 25,620 overall. This is wrong. The 7% limit applies independently to FB and EB. A country could have no demand in one area, and enormous demand in the other and the side with the excessive demand would still be limited to 7% of that quota - not 7% of the combined quota.
Also, I think that their estimates for China and India EB2 are too pessimistic.
__________________
USCIS - I-Link Reference (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.f6da51a2342135be7e9d7a10e0dc91a0/?vgnextoid=fa7e539dc4bed010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=fa7e539dc4bed010VgnVCM1000000ecd190a RCRD&CH=act)
(1) Nondiscrimination. -
(A) Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 101(a)(27) , 201(b)(2)(A)(i) , and 203, no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person's race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.
(B) 1/ Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to limit the authority of the Secretary of State to determine the procedures for the processing of immigrant visa applications or the locations where such applications will be processed.
(2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. - Subject to 1a/ 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 7 percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or 2 percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.
This to my understanding gives 7% total immigrant visas. Also the next para doesn't mean anything if this is not different for FB and EB.
(e) Special Rules for Countries at Ceiling. - If it is determined that the total number of immigrant visas made available under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area will exceed the numerical limitation specified in subsection (a)(2) in any fiscal year, in determining the allotment of immigrant visa numbers to natives under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203, visa numbers with respect to natives of that state or area shall be allocated (to the extent practicable and otherwise consistent with this section and section 203) in a manner so that
.
There is an error in the initial explanation of the quota. As I read this analysis, they are suggesting that the single state limit is 25,620 - irrespective of whether the visas are issued in family or employment based. This suggests that a country with heavy family based demand, but light employment based demand, could use more than 7% of the EB or FB quota as long as they remained under 25,620 overall. This is wrong. The 7% limit applies independently to FB and EB. A country could have no demand in one area, and enormous demand in the other and the side with the excessive demand would still be limited to 7% of that quota - not 7% of the combined quota.
Also, I think that their estimates for China and India EB2 are too pessimistic.
__________________
USCIS - I-Link Reference (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.f6da51a2342135be7e9d7a10e0dc91a0/?vgnextoid=fa7e539dc4bed010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=fa7e539dc4bed010VgnVCM1000000ecd190a RCRD&CH=act)
(1) Nondiscrimination. -
(A) Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 101(a)(27) , 201(b)(2)(A)(i) , and 203, no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person's race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.
(B) 1/ Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to limit the authority of the Secretary of State to determine the procedures for the processing of immigrant visa applications or the locations where such applications will be processed.
(2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. - Subject to 1a/ 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 7 percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or 2 percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.
This to my understanding gives 7% total immigrant visas. Also the next para doesn't mean anything if this is not different for FB and EB.
(e) Special Rules for Countries at Ceiling. - If it is determined that the total number of immigrant visas made available under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area will exceed the numerical limitation specified in subsection (a)(2) in any fiscal year, in determining the allotment of immigrant visa numbers to natives under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203, visa numbers with respect to natives of that state or area shall be allocated (to the extent practicable and otherwise consistent with this section and section 203) in a manner so that
more...
belmontboy
05-18 07:08 PM
I ONLY believe in MERITT based system.
I never voted against anything so far!!:D
going by the visa bulletin u will never get a chance to vote in USA :p
on a serious note, its due time that we accept not getting anywhere with one magical EB reform. we should stop waiting for the magic bullet and rather focus on getting our issues resolved in bits and pieces
I never voted against anything so far!!:D
going by the visa bulletin u will never get a chance to vote in USA :p
on a serious note, its due time that we accept not getting anywhere with one magical EB reform. we should stop waiting for the magic bullet and rather focus on getting our issues resolved in bits and pieces
hot Incredible Hulk Wallpapers
GCHPLC
11-29 08:27 PM
Thank you harish. I read it. I hope it will work eventually.
more...
house hulk wallpaper. hulk
longq
12-20 03:41 PM
Hello IV and its core members,
I am one of the members of the forum and suffering due to the severe retrogression of EB visas. I highly appreciate IV�s effort to bring some legislative relief to address the severe backlogs in EB visas. I too participated in all IVs campaign in urging the law makers to bring some relief for this crisis. However, I have some concern here; about the method followed U.S DOS in allocating EB visas particularly in EB2 category for India and China. I am worried whether U.S DOS is violating the INA 202 (a), by suspending AC21 provision that eliminates country quota in EB categories. If they are violating by mistake, it is our responsibility to notify/clarify with them or we need to understand the law clearly. This is very important. Because, even if 110th congress passes SKIL bill, if DOS violates the AC21 law then it will not help applicants from oversubscribed countries (India and China). Here is my analysis based on following facts.
The cutoff date for EB2 India has moved just 7 days since last 9 months. However EB2 �Row has been current. EB2- ROW has never retrogressed before. EB3 ROW has seen considerable movement in last 9 months.
There may be four possible separate or combination of following reasons for the freeze of cutoff dates for India in EB2 at Jan 2003.
1. The backlog elimination effort of DOL pumped massive approved labor certificates from BEC. There may be tons of EB2 applicants from India and China with PD in the year 2001 and 2002 might have applied 485s based on recent approvals from BEC. However I doubt that. Because, in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003, EB3 India and China were �current�. No body cared about filing EB2 labor certification till the later part of 2004. Most lawyers preferred to file EB3 as it was easy, and there were no difference between EB3 and EB2 at that time. First ever indication for EB3 retrogression was issued by DOS only in later part of 2004. I doubt so many people have filed EB2-labor till 2003, keeping in mind that EB3 will retrogress in 2004 or future. Traditionally EB2 has been less demanding compare to EB1 and EB3.
2. Perhaps, there may be a huge demand by ROW (Due to PERM) to consume all the 86% of visa numbers in EB2 category in every month that prompts DOS to allocate only 7% to India and China. I doubt this too, because India and China itself consume about 60% of EB2 visas.
3. There may be lot of EB3 Indians and Chinese with PD 2001 and 2002 porting their PD from EB3 to EB2 by filing new LC and EB2-I-140. This may escalate the demand. However, how many will do this? How many employers will to do this �favor� for their employees? A real US employer/big corporations will not do double time work for an employee. Only consulting/staffing companies will do this. I think this may be a small group (or may not be?).
4. There may be another possible reason. There may be something wrong with U.S.DOS in allocating visa numbers in EB2 category, as per section 202 (a) of current INA. They may be issuing only 2800 (7% of 40,000) visas to India and China in EB2 and redirecting unused EB2 numbers to EB3 category. They may be imposing hard country cap in EB2 (Suspending AC21 law as per their VB Nov 2005). There is a large room for this speculation, due to the pattern of cutoff date movement in EB2 category. This is just a speculation. This argument/speculation is valid if DOS has issued less than 40,000 EB2 visas in FY 2006 as mandated by the law, and issued those numbers (40,000 minus actually issued) to EB3-ROW. In my view, it violates section 203 (b) (2) of the INA. One has to wait till they release statistics for FY 2006, to see how many EB2 visas are issued in that FY.
Here is some detailed analysis that says why it violates the law.
Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 203 a and b of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets numbers for each preference categories with in FB and EB.
Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320. This section also explains how to handle unused numbers with respect to country quota.
Even before AC21 rule enacted in 2000, there was no �hard� country cap as per INA then. Here is the section of INA before year 2000, describes how to allocate unused visas, if overall/total demand for FB an EB visas are less than supply*.
INA 202 (a) (3)
�Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a-Family category) and (b-Employment category) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter�.
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
After 2000 (After AC21) the following law was added to INA in the section 202.
INA 202 (a) (5) (A)
EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
As per my simple interpretation of above AC21 rule, DOS should allocate unused visas by ROW �EB2 (ROW- countries other than India and China in EB2 category) for the first two months of any calendar quarter to over-subscribed countries (India & China) at the third month of that calendar quarter. They should not allocate to lower Preference category (EB3), if demand is more in higher preference category (EB2) to consume all the visa numbers in that preference category. They should allocate visas to all the documentarily qualified applicants in that (EB2) preference category, irrespective of country of birth. If they followed this rule/law, there may be a considerable movement in cut-off dates for India and China in Dec 2005, Mar, June and Sep of 2006 in EB2 (last month of each calendar quarter in a fiscal year). We have not witnessed such movement in last 1.5 years. No one knows how DOS is allocating numbers. They may be allocating only 7% visas to India and China in EB2 category very strictly, every month, and allocating unused numbers to EB3 category, by suspending AC21 law as indicated in their Nov 2005 Visa Bulletin. If they do so, it is against the law, at least in my interpretation of AC21 rule that eliminates country quota in EB categories.
DOS can not interpret above AC21 rule that eliminates per country limit applies �totally� to all EB categories put together, not by individual preference categories. I.e. If they say they will issue more than 2,800 visas to EB2- India per year (more than 7% of 40,000), provided overall demand for EB visas are less than 140,000. If they interpret the law like this, then there is no need for section 202(a) (5) (A) due to AC21 law. The law before AC21 {i.e. section 202 (a) (3)} itself address the elimination of country quota in both FB and EB category*. Then, section 202(a) (5) (A) is a duplicate wording of section 202(a) (3). So, this section of AC21 law becomes a redundant/duplicate law. Then, there is no meaning of employment �preference� category if they interpret �totally or overall worldwide demand�. In other words, a non-Indian/Chinese restaurant cook (EB3) is more preferred than a NIW PhDs (EB2) from India or China. Is it the intend of the congress when enacting AC21 law in removing per country limitation in EB category? Is it the American Competitiveness in 21st century? I highly doubt that.
Now it is the time to ask US DOS, how they are allocating visa number in EB2 category. If DOS interpreting the law differently, then we need to ask the law makers (Congress) what is their original intension behind the section 202(a)(5)(A) when they drafted the AC21 law in 2000 and how it is differ from 202 (a) (3).
Perhaps Core IV team can initiate to discuss/consult this issue with an immigration lawyer and place an enquiry with DOS or Law makers, if needed.
(*Note: DOS do not mix FB and EB categories for visa number allocation/calculation to meet the per country limit. They keep both in separate track to meet separately the 7% limit)
I am one of the members of the forum and suffering due to the severe retrogression of EB visas. I highly appreciate IV�s effort to bring some legislative relief to address the severe backlogs in EB visas. I too participated in all IVs campaign in urging the law makers to bring some relief for this crisis. However, I have some concern here; about the method followed U.S DOS in allocating EB visas particularly in EB2 category for India and China. I am worried whether U.S DOS is violating the INA 202 (a), by suspending AC21 provision that eliminates country quota in EB categories. If they are violating by mistake, it is our responsibility to notify/clarify with them or we need to understand the law clearly. This is very important. Because, even if 110th congress passes SKIL bill, if DOS violates the AC21 law then it will not help applicants from oversubscribed countries (India and China). Here is my analysis based on following facts.
The cutoff date for EB2 India has moved just 7 days since last 9 months. However EB2 �Row has been current. EB2- ROW has never retrogressed before. EB3 ROW has seen considerable movement in last 9 months.
There may be four possible separate or combination of following reasons for the freeze of cutoff dates for India in EB2 at Jan 2003.
1. The backlog elimination effort of DOL pumped massive approved labor certificates from BEC. There may be tons of EB2 applicants from India and China with PD in the year 2001 and 2002 might have applied 485s based on recent approvals from BEC. However I doubt that. Because, in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003, EB3 India and China were �current�. No body cared about filing EB2 labor certification till the later part of 2004. Most lawyers preferred to file EB3 as it was easy, and there were no difference between EB3 and EB2 at that time. First ever indication for EB3 retrogression was issued by DOS only in later part of 2004. I doubt so many people have filed EB2-labor till 2003, keeping in mind that EB3 will retrogress in 2004 or future. Traditionally EB2 has been less demanding compare to EB1 and EB3.
2. Perhaps, there may be a huge demand by ROW (Due to PERM) to consume all the 86% of visa numbers in EB2 category in every month that prompts DOS to allocate only 7% to India and China. I doubt this too, because India and China itself consume about 60% of EB2 visas.
3. There may be lot of EB3 Indians and Chinese with PD 2001 and 2002 porting their PD from EB3 to EB2 by filing new LC and EB2-I-140. This may escalate the demand. However, how many will do this? How many employers will to do this �favor� for their employees? A real US employer/big corporations will not do double time work for an employee. Only consulting/staffing companies will do this. I think this may be a small group (or may not be?).
4. There may be another possible reason. There may be something wrong with U.S.DOS in allocating visa numbers in EB2 category, as per section 202 (a) of current INA. They may be issuing only 2800 (7% of 40,000) visas to India and China in EB2 and redirecting unused EB2 numbers to EB3 category. They may be imposing hard country cap in EB2 (Suspending AC21 law as per their VB Nov 2005). There is a large room for this speculation, due to the pattern of cutoff date movement in EB2 category. This is just a speculation. This argument/speculation is valid if DOS has issued less than 40,000 EB2 visas in FY 2006 as mandated by the law, and issued those numbers (40,000 minus actually issued) to EB3-ROW. In my view, it violates section 203 (b) (2) of the INA. One has to wait till they release statistics for FY 2006, to see how many EB2 visas are issued in that FY.
Here is some detailed analysis that says why it violates the law.
Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 203 a and b of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets numbers for each preference categories with in FB and EB.
Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320. This section also explains how to handle unused numbers with respect to country quota.
Even before AC21 rule enacted in 2000, there was no �hard� country cap as per INA then. Here is the section of INA before year 2000, describes how to allocate unused visas, if overall/total demand for FB an EB visas are less than supply*.
INA 202 (a) (3)
�Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a-Family category) and (b-Employment category) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter�.
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
After 2000 (After AC21) the following law was added to INA in the section 202.
INA 202 (a) (5) (A)
EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
As per my simple interpretation of above AC21 rule, DOS should allocate unused visas by ROW �EB2 (ROW- countries other than India and China in EB2 category) for the first two months of any calendar quarter to over-subscribed countries (India & China) at the third month of that calendar quarter. They should not allocate to lower Preference category (EB3), if demand is more in higher preference category (EB2) to consume all the visa numbers in that preference category. They should allocate visas to all the documentarily qualified applicants in that (EB2) preference category, irrespective of country of birth. If they followed this rule/law, there may be a considerable movement in cut-off dates for India and China in Dec 2005, Mar, June and Sep of 2006 in EB2 (last month of each calendar quarter in a fiscal year). We have not witnessed such movement in last 1.5 years. No one knows how DOS is allocating numbers. They may be allocating only 7% visas to India and China in EB2 category very strictly, every month, and allocating unused numbers to EB3 category, by suspending AC21 law as indicated in their Nov 2005 Visa Bulletin. If they do so, it is against the law, at least in my interpretation of AC21 rule that eliminates country quota in EB categories.
DOS can not interpret above AC21 rule that eliminates per country limit applies �totally� to all EB categories put together, not by individual preference categories. I.e. If they say they will issue more than 2,800 visas to EB2- India per year (more than 7% of 40,000), provided overall demand for EB visas are less than 140,000. If they interpret the law like this, then there is no need for section 202(a) (5) (A) due to AC21 law. The law before AC21 {i.e. section 202 (a) (3)} itself address the elimination of country quota in both FB and EB category*. Then, section 202(a) (5) (A) is a duplicate wording of section 202(a) (3). So, this section of AC21 law becomes a redundant/duplicate law. Then, there is no meaning of employment �preference� category if they interpret �totally or overall worldwide demand�. In other words, a non-Indian/Chinese restaurant cook (EB3) is more preferred than a NIW PhDs (EB2) from India or China. Is it the intend of the congress when enacting AC21 law in removing per country limitation in EB category? Is it the American Competitiveness in 21st century? I highly doubt that.
Now it is the time to ask US DOS, how they are allocating visa number in EB2 category. If DOS interpreting the law differently, then we need to ask the law makers (Congress) what is their original intension behind the section 202(a)(5)(A) when they drafted the AC21 law in 2000 and how it is differ from 202 (a) (3).
Perhaps Core IV team can initiate to discuss/consult this issue with an immigration lawyer and place an enquiry with DOS or Law makers, if needed.
(*Note: DOS do not mix FB and EB categories for visa number allocation/calculation to meet the per country limit. They keep both in separate track to meet separately the 7% limit)
tattoo The Incredible Hulk Wallpaper
Guig0
02-11 11:20 AM
how about that 30 votes rule?
I was just hiring 30 ppl to sign up to kitupa and vote for me... :(
I was just hiring 30 ppl to sign up to kitupa and vote for me... :(
more...
pictures Incredible Hulk Wallpapers
Macaca
09-21 06:37 PM
Don't judge each day by
the harvest you reap, but
by the seeds you plant
Robert Louis Stevenson
Lawmakers decide to bring an issue for consideration and then vote on the bill. Immigration issues usually start in the immigration sub-committee, then go to Judiciary committee and are finally voted by all members. There are 535 lawmakers (100 Senators + 435 House members).
Most lawmaker offices have a staffer to handle immigration issues.
IV set up 150 lawmaker meetings. A staffer was appraised of EB immigration problems, solutions to prblems and requests for solutions. The staffer gave a business card for future contact. You contact staffer to discuss additional issues, request to bring EB issues for consideration, request lawmaker's vote when bill is being voted, ...
Ideally, IV would like to set up at least one meeting with every lawmaker and more meetings with some lawmakers (members of immigration subcommitee, ...). Due to limited participation, IV could set up only ~150 lawmaker meetings.
the harvest you reap, but
by the seeds you plant
Robert Louis Stevenson
Lawmakers decide to bring an issue for consideration and then vote on the bill. Immigration issues usually start in the immigration sub-committee, then go to Judiciary committee and are finally voted by all members. There are 535 lawmakers (100 Senators + 435 House members).
Most lawmaker offices have a staffer to handle immigration issues.
IV set up 150 lawmaker meetings. A staffer was appraised of EB immigration problems, solutions to prblems and requests for solutions. The staffer gave a business card for future contact. You contact staffer to discuss additional issues, request to bring EB issues for consideration, request lawmaker's vote when bill is being voted, ...
Ideally, IV would like to set up at least one meeting with every lawmaker and more meetings with some lawmakers (members of immigration subcommitee, ...). Due to limited participation, IV could set up only ~150 lawmaker meetings.
dresses quot;Hulkquot; desktop wallpaper (800
rahul2699
05-11 06:48 PM
No IV provision is in the bill.
For something to happen, each member needs to do their part by supporting this effort and taking part in action items. With so little support and initiative we cannot expect to match the kind of hard work DREAM act advocates have done.
If we need an amendment, we should be showing up for advocacy day or signing up for monthly contributions, volunteer our time, or doing any state chapter work by meeting local lawmaker offices regularly in groups. Dream Act folks have built a very strong network and advocacy effort that no politician can ignore. Go through the list of things they have been doing over the past few years and you can judge how much percentage we have as a community matched that effort. This is a reality and and ultimately it will be us that are responsible for no bill being passed in the last few years.
The community needs to do more than wasting time on the forums and trackers if they really want any bill to happen.
I agree that a lot needs to be done and our current efforts are definitely not at par with DREAM activists however i believe that some one from the community should take the initiative and i am pretty sure people will follw (atleast members can try to encourage effected people). Lot of folks are expressing interest in volunteer activities etc on the forum and i think we should utilize the enthusiasm..immigration is definitely one of the hot topics now and i think we should use thsi oppertunity to raise our concerns and make sure that some thing gets done for all legal immigrants. I like the idea that we need to have local state chapters/regional chapters to start meeting law makers however we need to make sure that these communities are active. When i joined IV forum, i was looking for an NJ chapter but the communities i saw are inactive for quite some time.
For something to happen, each member needs to do their part by supporting this effort and taking part in action items. With so little support and initiative we cannot expect to match the kind of hard work DREAM act advocates have done.
If we need an amendment, we should be showing up for advocacy day or signing up for monthly contributions, volunteer our time, or doing any state chapter work by meeting local lawmaker offices regularly in groups. Dream Act folks have built a very strong network and advocacy effort that no politician can ignore. Go through the list of things they have been doing over the past few years and you can judge how much percentage we have as a community matched that effort. This is a reality and and ultimately it will be us that are responsible for no bill being passed in the last few years.
The community needs to do more than wasting time on the forums and trackers if they really want any bill to happen.
I agree that a lot needs to be done and our current efforts are definitely not at par with DREAM activists however i believe that some one from the community should take the initiative and i am pretty sure people will follw (atleast members can try to encourage effected people). Lot of folks are expressing interest in volunteer activities etc on the forum and i think we should utilize the enthusiasm..immigration is definitely one of the hot topics now and i think we should use thsi oppertunity to raise our concerns and make sure that some thing gets done for all legal immigrants. I like the idea that we need to have local state chapters/regional chapters to start meeting law makers however we need to make sure that these communities are active. When i joined IV forum, i was looking for an NJ chapter but the communities i saw are inactive for quite some time.
more...
makeup incredible hulk wallpaper. the
arc
10-01 09:02 PM
NSC probably sent applications to CSC for data entry, I am a july 2 filer, my EAD(I131)/AP(I765) and all receipt notices were sent to me by CSC all are WAC### numbers which means its from CSC, then they sent just the AOS (I485) back to NSC saying they do not have Jurisdiction on the AOS application (Logic behind this is - because my I140 was approved by NSC, I have a LIN### on I140 application).
This transfers happens in the 4 centers all the time no need to worry, there is delay associated though... :(
Anywayz all said and done... I have not received my FP notice as yet...My Receipt Notice date : Aug23
This transfers happens in the 4 centers all the time no need to worry, there is delay associated though... :(
Anywayz all said and done... I have not received my FP notice as yet...My Receipt Notice date : Aug23
girlfriend The Incredible Hulk Wallpaper
PG75
09-30 12:43 PM
hi Guys,
Anyone can shed some light on this one ?
Thanks
Hi folks,
Need some help.
During e-filing of AP, certify page has a TITLE field. Any ideas what needs to be filled in it ?
I am filing I-131 for myself and spouse.
Thanks
Anyone can shed some light on this one ?
Thanks
Hi folks,
Need some help.
During e-filing of AP, certify page has a TITLE field. Any ideas what needs to be filled in it ?
I am filing I-131 for myself and spouse.
Thanks
hairstyles Hulk | Desktop Wallpaper
WeShallOvercome
08-22 02:29 PM
Abhidos,
I have a feeling the re-file might not work in this case. Just be prepared for the worst.
BTW, are you EB2 or EB3? and which country?
EB2 might have a good chance of begin current in near future.
I have a feeling the re-file might not work in this case. Just be prepared for the worst.
BTW, are you EB2 or EB3? and which country?
EB2 might have a good chance of begin current in near future.
Libra
01-11 12:40 PM
596 members online, but only 12 votes, guys, we can do better than this, it's take only 5 mins to sign a letter and mail it. please do it asap.
ramus
07-02 04:15 PM
Yes, please dont include money for US CIS fees as you will get that money back.
I spent $500 for medical.
Lawyer fee and other expenses (fedex etc) (around $2000) - paid by my company.
plus $1500 is filing fee (which I guess should be refunded).
I spent $500 for medical.
Lawyer fee and other expenses (fedex etc) (around $2000) - paid by my company.
plus $1500 is filing fee (which I guess should be refunded).
No comments:
Post a Comment