Green4Ev1
05-26 05:05 PM
I wonder what are the required documents for America born citizens if they don't have passports. Just a driver license? or they have to carry birth certificates always?
wallpaper gibson les paul studio
ckichannagari
12-13 08:49 AM
That's a good idea. A good way of generating funds for IV also. This way it would seem less burden for all of the members and they will be willing to come forward.
dealsnet
03-19 08:17 AM
See Ron Gotcher's Immigration news letter.
http://imminfo.com/resources/newsletter/2008-03Newsletter.pdf
http://imminfo.com/resources/newsletter/2008-03Newsletter.pdf
2011 Gibson Les Paul Studio
greyhair
06-10 09:14 PM
There are always two sides of coin and so is the half glass full, a half glass empty.
Bottomline is if such bills turn into bill, its not just immigrant community but the economy as whole gets impacted.
Bhattji
Clearly the guys who proposed this bill do not think that it will have negative impact on the economy. To the contrary, these guys seem to think that it will free up jobs for Americans, currently occupied by the undeserving immigrants.
The intensity of these amendments are increasing. Earlier it was on Tarp companies. Now this amendment is for all companies that have laid off workers. I interpret the language to include "work authorization" which means EAD. Even if it doesn't include EAD, say this amendment will pass, then what is next? In next phase they will come after EAD, won't they?
Bottomline is if such bills turn into bill, its not just immigrant community but the economy as whole gets impacted.
Bhattji
Clearly the guys who proposed this bill do not think that it will have negative impact on the economy. To the contrary, these guys seem to think that it will free up jobs for Americans, currently occupied by the undeserving immigrants.
The intensity of these amendments are increasing. Earlier it was on Tarp companies. Now this amendment is for all companies that have laid off workers. I interpret the language to include "work authorization" which means EAD. Even if it doesn't include EAD, say this amendment will pass, then what is next? In next phase they will come after EAD, won't they?
more...
nrupendra
09-19 06:31 AM
The rally was great, but disappointed on three fronts,
1) Very few turned up from DC,MD,VA.
2) The congress men thinks that we are illegal immigrants, as he is constantly mentioned illegal Irish immigrants.
3) Robert mentioned that as if its an India-China immigration forum, I think thats going to do more bad for us then good. I think everybody agrees that there is lot of bad news about India and China, and Americans loosing jobs due to off shoring. Apart from that we have persons in same boat from other countries too, though I was surprised to see them.
As mentioned by others we need to change the org name to legalimmigrationvoice.org immidiately.
Thanks
Nrupendra
1) Very few turned up from DC,MD,VA.
2) The congress men thinks that we are illegal immigrants, as he is constantly mentioned illegal Irish immigrants.
3) Robert mentioned that as if its an India-China immigration forum, I think thats going to do more bad for us then good. I think everybody agrees that there is lot of bad news about India and China, and Americans loosing jobs due to off shoring. Apart from that we have persons in same boat from other countries too, though I was surprised to see them.
As mentioned by others we need to change the org name to legalimmigrationvoice.org immidiately.
Thanks
Nrupendra
Macaca
09-26 12:19 PM
Please send a thank you email to the reporter....
Eilene Zimmerman
freelance journalist
v and f: 619.582.2192
ezimmerman@sbcglobal.net
This will be a great gesture on IV's part.
Ask her to write separately about us and mention IV! It appears the mistake was not intensional.
Stay in touch with her. We will need her later!
Eilene Zimmerman
freelance journalist
v and f: 619.582.2192
ezimmerman@sbcglobal.net
This will be a great gesture on IV's part.
Ask her to write separately about us and mention IV! It appears the mistake was not intensional.
Stay in touch with her. We will need her later!
more...
am100
07-06 01:23 AM
Did u Used AC21 or changes job after applying I-485 Or is it a stright forward case.
Thanks in advance for the reply.
Sorry for the late response. I was actually out of country when my GC got approved. Just got back today.
I did not use AC 21. I have been with the same employer throughout the process. However, I changed job location after 140 approval. Hence, I had to refile labor (PERM) from new location but ported the older PD. Since, my PD was not current, I did not loose any time even with refiling labor. Hope this helps. Please let me know if if you have any more questions.
Thanks in advance for the reply.
Sorry for the late response. I was actually out of country when my GC got approved. Just got back today.
I did not use AC 21. I have been with the same employer throughout the process. However, I changed job location after 140 approval. Hence, I had to refile labor (PERM) from new location but ported the older PD. Since, my PD was not current, I did not loose any time even with refiling labor. Hope this helps. Please let me know if if you have any more questions.
2010 Gibson Les Paul Deluxe Limited
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.
more...
prioritydate
12-20 08:12 PM
On a second thought, If I interpret it correctly...
the alien, subsequent to such lawful admission has not, for an aggregate period exceeding 180 days�
(A) failed to maintain, continuously, a lawful status;
(B) engaged in unauthorized employment; or
(C) otherwise violated the terms and conditions of the alien�s admission.
I exceeded 180 days and was out of status, but the law says that you shouldn't exceed 180 days :eek:
the alien, subsequent to such lawful admission has not, for an aggregate period exceeding 180 days�
(A) failed to maintain, continuously, a lawful status;
(B) engaged in unauthorized employment; or
(C) otherwise violated the terms and conditions of the alien�s admission.
I exceeded 180 days and was out of status, but the law says that you shouldn't exceed 180 days :eek:
hair gibson. $380.00
kumarc123
02-12 02:43 PM
I am the one who asked him that question. And you can see he doesn't have any proof.
The million dollor question is,
what are we going to do about it?
What is IV going to do?
I am proposing a rally and hiring a lawyer to file a case. We group of people can hire Ron Gotcher or any other good lawyer to file a case. I am ready to give some money. But not to IV, as they have ignored all are comments and not done anything in recent months.
No rally, No public initiative.
The million dollor question is,
what are we going to do about it?
What is IV going to do?
I am proposing a rally and hiring a lawyer to file a case. We group of people can hire Ron Gotcher or any other good lawyer to file a case. I am ready to give some money. But not to IV, as they have ignored all are comments and not done anything in recent months.
No rally, No public initiative.
more...
pappu
01-17 01:43 PM
it is a slow process. This recurring contribution is a good process in long run. We will inspire our members to contribute. This will grow in to thousands eventually. Keep up the good work with our core objectives.
Yes it is upto members if they want this process to be like the greencard process and we can wait for years to get a bill passed. Ultimately the onus of getting sucess is on each and every one of us. We represent a community of highly skilled and get paid above average (than average american) but If we want 20 opinions per month on what IV should focus on, we can get those right away. However $20 per month is difficult.
IV really want to go all out and use all resources to get the bill passed. We cannot do it without the support of all members.Pls. Visit this page http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26&Itemid=25
and start contributing today.
Yes it is upto members if they want this process to be like the greencard process and we can wait for years to get a bill passed. Ultimately the onus of getting sucess is on each and every one of us. We represent a community of highly skilled and get paid above average (than average american) but If we want 20 opinions per month on what IV should focus on, we can get those right away. However $20 per month is difficult.
IV really want to go all out and use all resources to get the bill passed. We cannot do it without the support of all members.Pls. Visit this page http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26&Itemid=25
and start contributing today.
hot Le Paul Guitar Auction: Gibson
va_labor2002
07-24 12:38 PM
Hi rpatel,
I agree with your points.You are totally right. We should atleast try this channel. I think IV should address this issue to USCIS.
I concur with the fact that manner in which the law is written/interpreted currently, its going to be an uphill task to convince the USCIS of letting us file I485 without a visa number available. Did the core group make any effort in this direction or is it their foregone conclusion that its non starter at all?
I believe we should try to make an effort in this direction however small the chance of success may be. My reasons are following:
1. Even if the USCIS director might not have an authority to change the procedure without congressional intervention first, the effort required to convince a congress man/ congressional committe on this issue will be smaller compared to pushing them to take up SKIL immediately.
2. I dont know if Dept of Homeland Security might have any say in this but again we can try getting an audience with Negroponte to appraise him of the situation.
3. Thirdly since CIR/SKIL are currently in dormant stage, coregroup/volunteers might be more open to pursuing low potential/high yield effort like this one is.
I agree with your points.You are totally right. We should atleast try this channel. I think IV should address this issue to USCIS.
I concur with the fact that manner in which the law is written/interpreted currently, its going to be an uphill task to convince the USCIS of letting us file I485 without a visa number available. Did the core group make any effort in this direction or is it their foregone conclusion that its non starter at all?
I believe we should try to make an effort in this direction however small the chance of success may be. My reasons are following:
1. Even if the USCIS director might not have an authority to change the procedure without congressional intervention first, the effort required to convince a congress man/ congressional committe on this issue will be smaller compared to pushing them to take up SKIL immediately.
2. I dont know if Dept of Homeland Security might have any say in this but again we can try getting an audience with Negroponte to appraise him of the situation.
3. Thirdly since CIR/SKIL are currently in dormant stage, coregroup/volunteers might be more open to pursuing low potential/high yield effort like this one is.
more...
house Case: Gibson deluxe gig bag
desi3933
02-09 03:14 PM
And reply you will never get.
141,020 visa numbers used in FY2009
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV.pdf
Look at the last page.
The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is 140,000. So the usage was actually more.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
141,020 visa numbers used in FY2009
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV.pdf
Look at the last page.
The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is 140,000. So the usage was actually more.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
tattoo 2001 Gibson Les Paul Deluxe Vintage Electric Guitar Classified Ad - Los
zuhail
04-11 01:23 AM
A very useful piece of information has been brought to our attention by shiankuraaf.
Thank you very much!
http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/LPR08.shtm
Table 6 Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status by Type and Major Class of Admission: Fiscal Years 1999 to 2008
http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/YrBk04Im.shtm
Table 4 Immigrants admitted by type and selected class of admission: fiscal years 1986-2004
Employment-based preferences (Total Number)
Year QUOTA ISSUED Unused/Excessively used
1986 140000 56617 83383
1987 140000 57519 82481
1988 140000 58727 81273
1989 140000 57741 82259
1990 140000 58192 81808
1991 140000 59525 80475
1992 140000 116198 23802
1993 140000 147012 -7012
1994 140000 123291 16709
1995 140000 85336 54664
1996 140000 117499 22501
1997 140000 90607 49393
1998 140000 77517 62483
1999 140000 56678 83322
2000 140000 106642 33358
2001 140000 178702 -38702
2002 140000 173814 -33814
2003 140000 81727 58273
2004 140000 155330 -15330
2005 140000 246877 -106877
2006 140000 159081 -19081
2007 140000 162176 -22176
2008 140000 166511 -26511
Sum total of the differences from 1986 to 2008: 626,681. Vow!!!
So when looked between the period of 1986 and 2008,
there were a total of 626,681 un-used visa numbers that can be re-captured.
This is based on the BIG assumption that the yearly quota for EB categories is 140,000 from 1986 to 2008.
Does anybody know how to verify this important assumption online --a link to a gov website perhaps?
It would be good to verify when the law specifying 140,000 visa numbers per year was passed and
what were the criteria for visa number usage prior to the existence of the law.
Thank you very much!
http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/LPR08.shtm
Table 6 Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status by Type and Major Class of Admission: Fiscal Years 1999 to 2008
http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/YrBk04Im.shtm
Table 4 Immigrants admitted by type and selected class of admission: fiscal years 1986-2004
Employment-based preferences (Total Number)
Year QUOTA ISSUED Unused/Excessively used
1986 140000 56617 83383
1987 140000 57519 82481
1988 140000 58727 81273
1989 140000 57741 82259
1990 140000 58192 81808
1991 140000 59525 80475
1992 140000 116198 23802
1993 140000 147012 -7012
1994 140000 123291 16709
1995 140000 85336 54664
1996 140000 117499 22501
1997 140000 90607 49393
1998 140000 77517 62483
1999 140000 56678 83322
2000 140000 106642 33358
2001 140000 178702 -38702
2002 140000 173814 -33814
2003 140000 81727 58273
2004 140000 155330 -15330
2005 140000 246877 -106877
2006 140000 159081 -19081
2007 140000 162176 -22176
2008 140000 166511 -26511
Sum total of the differences from 1986 to 2008: 626,681. Vow!!!
So when looked between the period of 1986 and 2008,
there were a total of 626,681 un-used visa numbers that can be re-captured.
This is based on the BIG assumption that the yearly quota for EB categories is 140,000 from 1986 to 2008.
Does anybody know how to verify this important assumption online --a link to a gov website perhaps?
It would be good to verify when the law specifying 140,000 visa numbers per year was passed and
what were the criteria for visa number usage prior to the existence of the law.
more...
pictures 2001 Gibson Les Paul Deluxe Vintage Electric Guitar Classified Ad - Los
newuser
07-16 05:53 PM
My blood pressure is going up after seeing these false propoganda.
We need to do something about these bxxxxrds.
This type of false propoganda makes my blood boil :mad:
We need to do something about these bxxxxrds.
This type of false propoganda makes my blood boil :mad:
dresses Gibson+les+paul+studio+
indyanguy
02-20 06:49 PM
If possible, please change it without any delay? EB3 is only able to cross past May 2001 for 3 times in last 3 years where EB2 are enjoying GC most of time. No point in playing wait game with EB3 India. Otherwise, you will wait for-ever. :)
To interfile, do we need to start the PERM/140 process again for a different EB2 position? Do we port the date from EB3 to EB2 while we apply for EB2 140?
Is this a straight forward process? What happens if interfiling is denied?
To interfile, do we need to start the PERM/140 process again for a different EB2 position? Do we port the date from EB3 to EB2 while we apply for EB2 140?
Is this a straight forward process? What happens if interfiling is denied?
more...
makeup gibson les paul studio
jcgc
02-21 01:48 PM
If it is infact true that Eb2 India can benefit from unused numbers in EB1 (ROW+India+China+Mexico+Phillipines), it will be great news!! I
I had estimated that Eb2India pending applications (with PD earlier than or equal to Dec31, 2003) are probably about 4,900. This is almost 1.75 years worth of EB2India quota. If there is no spillover, then someone with Dec31, 2003 PD would have to wait at least till mid FY10 to get their GC. However, if there is spillover (especially from EB1 ROW considering that EB1India may not have much left). It will all depend on how much of this spillover will go to Eb2China and how much to EB2 India.
Andy_GARCIA posted this in another link
".........
This is the EB1 the usage for the last 14 years
06 = 36,960
05 = 64.731
04 = 31,291
03 = 14,544
02 = 34,452
01 = 41,801
00 = 27,706
99 = 14,898
98 = 21,408
97 = 21,810
96 = 27,501
95 = 17,339
94 = 21,053
93 = 21,114
..."
Seems like the demand for EB1 ROW fluctuates a lot. In Fy05 the consumption was very high and probably there was no spillover to EB2 (could explain the retrogression for Eb2India). But given that EB1ROW has always been current, it leads me to believe that there will be surplus here. It all depends on how much.
I had estimated that Eb2India pending applications (with PD earlier than or equal to Dec31, 2003) are probably about 4,900. This is almost 1.75 years worth of EB2India quota. If there is no spillover, then someone with Dec31, 2003 PD would have to wait at least till mid FY10 to get their GC. However, if there is spillover (especially from EB1 ROW considering that EB1India may not have much left). It will all depend on how much of this spillover will go to Eb2China and how much to EB2 India.
Andy_GARCIA posted this in another link
".........
This is the EB1 the usage for the last 14 years
06 = 36,960
05 = 64.731
04 = 31,291
03 = 14,544
02 = 34,452
01 = 41,801
00 = 27,706
99 = 14,898
98 = 21,408
97 = 21,810
96 = 27,501
95 = 17,339
94 = 21,053
93 = 21,114
..."
Seems like the demand for EB1 ROW fluctuates a lot. In Fy05 the consumption was very high and probably there was no spillover to EB2 (could explain the retrogression for Eb2India). But given that EB1ROW has always been current, it leads me to believe that there will be surplus here. It all depends on how much.
girlfriend Guitar middot; gibson, guitar
andycool
03-16 02:04 PM
141,020 visa numbers used in FY2009
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV.pdf
Look at the last page.
The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is 140,000. So the usage was actually more.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
Hello Desi,
"Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by documentarily qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation, that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may require the establishment of an earlier cut-off date than that which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
Furthermore, Section 202(a)(2) reads, �2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed seven percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or two percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.� The seven percent per-country limit specified in INA 202(a)(2) is considered to be for both Family-sponsored and Employment-based numbers combined.
Allocation of visa numbers under Section 202(e) is accomplished as follows:
1. If based on historical patterns or current demand it appears that during a fiscal year number use by aliens chargeable to a particular country will exceed the per-country numerical limit for both the Family and Employment preferences combined, that country would be considered oversubscribed. Both the Family and Employment preferences would be subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1).
2. Sometimes during a fiscal year it may become apparent that because of a lack of demand in the Family preferences, number use by aliens chargeable to an oversubscribed country will be well within the per-country numerical limit. In such case the excess Family numbers would be made available to the Employment preferences subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1). Each of the first three Employment categories would receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and each of the Fourth and Fifth preference categories 7.1%. (Fall-across would likewise apply if an oversubscribed country lacked sufficient demand in the Employment preferences but had excess demand in the Family preferences.)
If a foreign state other than an oversubscribed country has little Family preference demand but considerable Employment preference demand, the otherwise unused Family numbers fall across to Employment (and vice versa) for purposes of that foreign state�s annual numerical limit. For example, in FY-2009 South Korea used a grand total of 15,899 Family and Employment preference numbers, of which 1,688 were Family numbers and 14,211 were Employment numbers. This grand total was well within the FY-2009 per-country numerical limit of 25,620 Family and Employment numbers combined, so South Korea was not oversubscribed. The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.
This is from April Visa Bulletin , according to this S korea got 14,211 visas from FB ( spill over from FB - EB) then dont you think the total EB visas issued in 2009 should be around 150000 instead of 141000....
I am little confused...
your comment will be greatly appreciated ;)
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV.pdf
Look at the last page.
The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is 140,000. So the usage was actually more.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
Hello Desi,
"Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by documentarily qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation, that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may require the establishment of an earlier cut-off date than that which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
Furthermore, Section 202(a)(2) reads, �2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed seven percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or two percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.� The seven percent per-country limit specified in INA 202(a)(2) is considered to be for both Family-sponsored and Employment-based numbers combined.
Allocation of visa numbers under Section 202(e) is accomplished as follows:
1. If based on historical patterns or current demand it appears that during a fiscal year number use by aliens chargeable to a particular country will exceed the per-country numerical limit for both the Family and Employment preferences combined, that country would be considered oversubscribed. Both the Family and Employment preferences would be subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1).
2. Sometimes during a fiscal year it may become apparent that because of a lack of demand in the Family preferences, number use by aliens chargeable to an oversubscribed country will be well within the per-country numerical limit. In such case the excess Family numbers would be made available to the Employment preferences subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1). Each of the first three Employment categories would receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and each of the Fourth and Fifth preference categories 7.1%. (Fall-across would likewise apply if an oversubscribed country lacked sufficient demand in the Employment preferences but had excess demand in the Family preferences.)
If a foreign state other than an oversubscribed country has little Family preference demand but considerable Employment preference demand, the otherwise unused Family numbers fall across to Employment (and vice versa) for purposes of that foreign state�s annual numerical limit. For example, in FY-2009 South Korea used a grand total of 15,899 Family and Employment preference numbers, of which 1,688 were Family numbers and 14,211 were Employment numbers. This grand total was well within the FY-2009 per-country numerical limit of 25,620 Family and Employment numbers combined, so South Korea was not oversubscribed. The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.
This is from April Visa Bulletin , according to this S korea got 14,211 visas from FB ( spill over from FB - EB) then dont you think the total EB visas issued in 2009 should be around 150000 instead of 141000....
I am little confused...
your comment will be greatly appreciated ;)
hairstyles Epiphone / Gibson Les Paul
reddymjm
09-10 01:38 PM
Here is a brief calculation of EB2 Demand till date (Today's Date)
The total demand till date is ~ 120K which is
Demand up to Aug 2007 = 45K
Sep 2007 to Dec 2008 = 16 * 2.5K Perm Month = 40K
Jan 2009 to Oct 2010 = 22 * 1.5K per month = 33K
New PD porting after Aug 2007 (Current Eb3 Inventory is 60K till Aug 2007) = 10K
Total 45 + 40 + 33 + 10 = 128K. This may be inflated but it is atleast 120K.
By giving these numbers I don�t mean to scare anybody but it�s better to have a tryst with true reality rather than be ignorant. It is better to have an understanding of the backlog rather than feeling bad VB after VB, nothing will change soon because the backlog is so huge.
If you look at the numbers it is very unlikely that EB2 will literally become current any time soon, the end of the pre-adjudicated numbers is just a tipping point and when this happens anything could happen 1) Make dates current (I personally welcome that atleast everybody gets a chance to file for I485) 2) Keep accepting applications in a controlled manner so as to approve in quarter or year. 3) Grant spillover to EB3 ROW (EB3 ROW backlog is so huge like EB2 - I in the same range 100-120K that the spillover will disappear in no time, also note that EB3 ROW incremental demand is much higher than EB2 ROW).
The spillover is a happening of the present time when the economy is bad, the moment this changes everything will disappear and there will be no difference between EB2 and EB3 if you belong to a retrogressed country we will all be at 3K Per annum and EB5 contribution if any will be consumed by PD porting which will increase manifold as EB3-I folks waiting for 10 years is simply unacceptable, currently there a 60K folks here just till 2007. I strongly favor porting waiting for 10 years is unacceptable. Also being without EAD / AP is very hard, great that we have a IV campaign initiated for this the efforts in this direction are laudable. Actually as Pappu, Admin2 and others have been saying EB3-EB2 even though may be relevant now is actually meaningless this is relevant only in this temporary phase of time fighting on these lines will not help to attain any objective rather it will kill chances of EB3 friends with later PD to port. The biggest issue is the per country limits which equate talent pools like India and China and give them the same cap as countries which have 1/1000th population, if they cannot be eliminated atleast should be proportionate to population for larger countries and be at 7% for the smaller ones. PS - I have nothing personal against ROW friends.
If USCIS wants to do another JULY 2007 they never learnt their lession. With the Quarterly/annual quota I dont think USCIS legally can make EB2 current. I hate another JULY 2007 for sure.
The total demand till date is ~ 120K which is
Demand up to Aug 2007 = 45K
Sep 2007 to Dec 2008 = 16 * 2.5K Perm Month = 40K
Jan 2009 to Oct 2010 = 22 * 1.5K per month = 33K
New PD porting after Aug 2007 (Current Eb3 Inventory is 60K till Aug 2007) = 10K
Total 45 + 40 + 33 + 10 = 128K. This may be inflated but it is atleast 120K.
By giving these numbers I don�t mean to scare anybody but it�s better to have a tryst with true reality rather than be ignorant. It is better to have an understanding of the backlog rather than feeling bad VB after VB, nothing will change soon because the backlog is so huge.
If you look at the numbers it is very unlikely that EB2 will literally become current any time soon, the end of the pre-adjudicated numbers is just a tipping point and when this happens anything could happen 1) Make dates current (I personally welcome that atleast everybody gets a chance to file for I485) 2) Keep accepting applications in a controlled manner so as to approve in quarter or year. 3) Grant spillover to EB3 ROW (EB3 ROW backlog is so huge like EB2 - I in the same range 100-120K that the spillover will disappear in no time, also note that EB3 ROW incremental demand is much higher than EB2 ROW).
The spillover is a happening of the present time when the economy is bad, the moment this changes everything will disappear and there will be no difference between EB2 and EB3 if you belong to a retrogressed country we will all be at 3K Per annum and EB5 contribution if any will be consumed by PD porting which will increase manifold as EB3-I folks waiting for 10 years is simply unacceptable, currently there a 60K folks here just till 2007. I strongly favor porting waiting for 10 years is unacceptable. Also being without EAD / AP is very hard, great that we have a IV campaign initiated for this the efforts in this direction are laudable. Actually as Pappu, Admin2 and others have been saying EB3-EB2 even though may be relevant now is actually meaningless this is relevant only in this temporary phase of time fighting on these lines will not help to attain any objective rather it will kill chances of EB3 friends with later PD to port. The biggest issue is the per country limits which equate talent pools like India and China and give them the same cap as countries which have 1/1000th population, if they cannot be eliminated atleast should be proportionate to population for larger countries and be at 7% for the smaller ones. PS - I have nothing personal against ROW friends.
If USCIS wants to do another JULY 2007 they never learnt their lession. With the Quarterly/annual quota I dont think USCIS legally can make EB2 current. I hate another JULY 2007 for sure.
looivy
01-24 03:34 PM
IV members,
We need to come up with some great ideas like "flower campaign". Something that will mobilize IV members.
Let us not be pessimistic. There are thousand of reasons that one can think of why the new administration may not act soon. But that should not stop us from making our cause being heard. The new adminsitration has been taking many decisions that are not economy related. Economy is their #1 priority but it is not their only priority.
The visa recapture issue has been pending for a long time now (atleast 3 years). Either we continue to wait and suffer and remain frustrated or we take some action. Choice is ours.
PS: Let us be civil. I second using non-accusatory language on this forum.
We need to come up with some great ideas like "flower campaign". Something that will mobilize IV members.
Let us not be pessimistic. There are thousand of reasons that one can think of why the new administration may not act soon. But that should not stop us from making our cause being heard. The new adminsitration has been taking many decisions that are not economy related. Economy is their #1 priority but it is not their only priority.
The visa recapture issue has been pending for a long time now (atleast 3 years). Either we continue to wait and suffer and remain frustrated or we take some action. Choice is ours.
PS: Let us be civil. I second using non-accusatory language on this forum.
RNGC
09-19 01:37 PM
I am in a IDEA mood today!
In our website there is space for 5-6 lines where we have the picture of a cloud now...
We should pick top 10 best slogans and display it there.....like each slogan should appear for 10 seconds and change it to next.....
We should put a poll to select the top 10 slogans
I personally like these ones....forgot the exact words..
1."we keep your systems up and running...please help us keep our lives up and running...
2. "we rollover cell phone minutes...why not visa numbers"
3. "waiting for so long my hair is turning grey ....
4. "GC delay....keeps doctors away"
In our website there is space for 5-6 lines where we have the picture of a cloud now...
We should pick top 10 best slogans and display it there.....like each slogan should appear for 10 seconds and change it to next.....
We should put a poll to select the top 10 slogans
I personally like these ones....forgot the exact words..
1."we keep your systems up and running...please help us keep our lives up and running...
2. "we rollover cell phone minutes...why not visa numbers"
3. "waiting for so long my hair is turning grey ....
4. "GC delay....keeps doctors away"
