bobzibub
07-17 10:34 AM
NUMBERS USA TAX SERVICES!!!!!!
On an H1b? THEN PAY NO TAX!!!! WOOHOO!!!!!!!
All their "research" is suspect, this is just the most obvious. I did start building spreadsheets to regress employment/unemployment numbers with each immigration law they cite. There was no significant correlation. I should really do that again and post it somewhere.... Gotta get some better regression software though. Work like this will point out that the king has no clothes.
I'm ashamed to be a member of numbersUSA!!! :D
Cheers,
-b
On an H1b? THEN PAY NO TAX!!!! WOOHOO!!!!!!!
All their "research" is suspect, this is just the most obvious. I did start building spreadsheets to regress employment/unemployment numbers with each immigration law they cite. There was no significant correlation. I should really do that again and post it somewhere.... Gotta get some better regression software though. Work like this will point out that the king has no clothes.
I'm ashamed to be a member of numbersUSA!!! :D
Cheers,
-b
wallpaper Chocolate LOVE HEART
psam
02-03 10:52 AM
While your concern is genuine, our experience says it is not that easy to remove country quota with a 2 line bill. IV will advocate for it, but understand that it will not happen in isolation and it is not feasible in an isolated bill.
In the current economic environment, removing country quota seems like the only argument that can fly, since it does not increase actual visas.
In the current economic environment, removing country quota seems like the only argument that can fly, since it does not increase actual visas.
delhirocks
07-01 10:16 PM
I am amazed to see these new born baby members cropping up these days from nowwhere questioning IV. No wonder we are popular and feared by anti immigrants. If you guys think IV cannot do something, then go have beer and eat chips. If you think IV can do something, then tell your lobbyists to oppose our lobbyists and stop us.
Well...I guess its a good sign if thats what happening...
Well...I guess its a good sign if thats what happening...
2011 February 14, 2010. The dessert
GCAmigo
12-27 06:55 PM
So you were in Amsterdam for 1 day. ;) Did you visit any of the legal hesh bars? (Just kiddin).
all the stranded formed a group & wnet around the city.. so didn't get he chnace to venture out.. we did go thru' the 'main' area though.. & yes that evening Hooland lost their Worldcup soccer game too..
all the stranded formed a group & wnet around the city.. so didn't get he chnace to venture out.. we did go thru' the 'main' area though.. & yes that evening Hooland lost their Worldcup soccer game too..
more...
JazzByTheBay
01-16 10:44 PM
Any budding film-makers in the crowd thinking of a documentary?
Imigrait
07-11 05:28 PM
Can you provide the source of this info? a link or something?
Here's your link
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4252.html
Look at Section E. I have also pasted the text below.
E. EMPLOYMENT SECOND PREFERENCE VISA AVAILABILITY
There have been questions raised regarding the way numbers have been provided to the China and India in the Employment Second preference categories beginning in April. Section 202(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act states that if total demand for visas in an Employment preference category is insufficient to use all available visa numbers in that category in a calendar quarter, then the unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limit. (For example: If the second preference annual limit were 40,000, number use by �All Other Countries� were estimated to be only 25,000, and the China/India combined number use based on their per-country limits were 6,000, then there would be 9,000 numbers unused. Those 9,000 numbers could then be made available to China and India applicants without regard to their per-country limits.)
Based on the informaiton available, it was been determined that the demand from �All Other Countries� for Second preference numbers, plus the amount of numbers available under China and India Second preference per-country limit, would be insufficient to utilize all available numbers under the annual limit for this category. Therefore, pursuant to Section 202(a)(5) of the Act, the unused numbers have been made available to China and India Second preference applicants. Since Section 203(e)(1) of the Act requires that such unused numbers be made available strictly in priority date order, the China and India applicants have been subject to the identical cut-off date. As there are more Employment Second preference applicants from India and the Indian applicants may have earlier priority dates, it is likely that Indian applicants will receive a larger portion of the available numbers than Chinese applicants.
It should be noted that the Employment Second preference category is "Current" for all countries except China and India. If at any point it appears that demand from �All Other Countries� would utilize all available numbers, then an adjustment would be made to the China/India cut-off date. Therefore, providing the unused numbers to China and India in no way disadvantages applicants from any other country, and helps to insure that the worldwide annual limit can be reached.
Here's your link
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4252.html
Look at Section E. I have also pasted the text below.
E. EMPLOYMENT SECOND PREFERENCE VISA AVAILABILITY
There have been questions raised regarding the way numbers have been provided to the China and India in the Employment Second preference categories beginning in April. Section 202(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act states that if total demand for visas in an Employment preference category is insufficient to use all available visa numbers in that category in a calendar quarter, then the unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limit. (For example: If the second preference annual limit were 40,000, number use by �All Other Countries� were estimated to be only 25,000, and the China/India combined number use based on their per-country limits were 6,000, then there would be 9,000 numbers unused. Those 9,000 numbers could then be made available to China and India applicants without regard to their per-country limits.)
Based on the informaiton available, it was been determined that the demand from �All Other Countries� for Second preference numbers, plus the amount of numbers available under China and India Second preference per-country limit, would be insufficient to utilize all available numbers under the annual limit for this category. Therefore, pursuant to Section 202(a)(5) of the Act, the unused numbers have been made available to China and India Second preference applicants. Since Section 203(e)(1) of the Act requires that such unused numbers be made available strictly in priority date order, the China and India applicants have been subject to the identical cut-off date. As there are more Employment Second preference applicants from India and the Indian applicants may have earlier priority dates, it is likely that Indian applicants will receive a larger portion of the available numbers than Chinese applicants.
It should be noted that the Employment Second preference category is "Current" for all countries except China and India. If at any point it appears that demand from �All Other Countries� would utilize all available numbers, then an adjustment would be made to the China/India cut-off date. Therefore, providing the unused numbers to China and India in no way disadvantages applicants from any other country, and helps to insure that the worldwide annual limit can be reached.
more...
logiclife
04-20 07:05 PM
Hi,
Is there something you need to show for entry at the event ?
Sorry if it is a dumb question..:confused: .I just joined today..
- Naresh
No you dont need to show anything. Just be there on time...
Is there something you need to show for entry at the event ?
Sorry if it is a dumb question..:confused: .I just joined today..
- Naresh
No you dont need to show anything. Just be there on time...
2010 Birds on Heart Chocolate
hara_patta_for_rico
07-09 07:05 PM
I came across this law about the departmental control of numerical limitations, and I'd appreciate it if you all could post your interpretations of the same.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
Clause B is not the only thing. In any quarter they are not supposed to issue any more than 27% of 140,000(100%) = 37800. according to Clause A. After June 15th they issued 140,000 - 66000 = 74000. What about the last quarter quota of 37800? Where did it go? It was not supposed to be used before July.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
Clause B is not the only thing. In any quarter they are not supposed to issue any more than 27% of 140,000(100%) = 37800. according to Clause A. After June 15th they issued 140,000 - 66000 = 74000. What about the last quarter quota of 37800? Where did it go? It was not supposed to be used before July.
more...
coolgc
07-12 04:22 PM
Hope, they move further in next month's bulletin.
hair Valentine Heart Rice Crispy
abd
09-23 01:54 PM
Congratulations on your GC approval. Do you know how long it generally takes after responding to a RFE to see change in your status?
The RFE response was received on Monday morning . The status changed as review on Monday night and i got approval email today around 12.00
The RFE response was received on Monday morning . The status changed as review on Monday night and i got approval email today around 12.00
more...
gc_on_demand
11-14 10:52 AM
Totally agree, very nicely put. They will hear - listen if we present ideas that are pertinent to the existing situation. Nothing more pertinent than the housing mess. No one cares about old jaded ideas like "high talent" etc.
Can people in California approach Zoe Lofergens office with the idea?
On my part I will start sending letters and emails to the law makers.
Some one in the core has to take the lead and give some direction to this effort......
Do not regret if six months from now the housing crisis has cooled a little, no one will listen to us then. We would have wasted another chance. Do not take it for granted that now Obama is in office, he will do smoething about our problems.
If you are from california plz make a call. Or if you know some one have him/her call to her office.
We need to keep moving ahead on this one.
Can people in California approach Zoe Lofergens office with the idea?
On my part I will start sending letters and emails to the law makers.
Some one in the core has to take the lead and give some direction to this effort......
Do not regret if six months from now the housing crisis has cooled a little, no one will listen to us then. We would have wasted another chance. Do not take it for granted that now Obama is in office, he will do smoething about our problems.
If you are from california plz make a call. Or if you know some one have him/her call to her office.
We need to keep moving ahead on this one.
hot Beale on facebook may love
hasil
03-19 06:36 PM
Before EB2 moves faster, every EB3 guy will get a new LC and jump in to EB2 line. Then EB3 line will be little lighter and moves a little faster. Then people will start asking like this - "Can we go back to EB3 line ? Can we have 3rd EB3 LC ( like LC sells in walmart) and another 485 ?" . Pretty much everyone wants to have 2 LC , 2 I-140 and 2 I-485 at any time. That way whichever category moves faster they will beat the system.
Then we come to this forum and wonder why there is so much backlog or why USCIS is so slow ( my favorite one).
This madness has to stop !
:)
Then we come to this forum and wonder why there is so much backlog or why USCIS is so slow ( my favorite one).
This madness has to stop !
:)
more...
house Love Large Custom Chocolates
abhijitrajan
11-13 12:41 AM
Does it make sense to file and FOIA request asking how USCIS is implementing quarterly spillover. As I understand it USCIS is not obligated to respond to a letter but they have to respond to FOIA. Any comments from people who know how FOIA works and whether it's applicable?
tattoo Heart Chocolates
[uber]
03-11 10:39 PM
when is the poll gonna be set up?
more...
pictures To purchase any of the quot;Love
espoir
01-18 10:20 PM
OK. What the inital poster stated is true. Per US Law one MUST carry all the immigration documents. My home is literally 4.5 miles away from US-Mexico border crossing and 30 miles west of Harlingen airport. I lived here since 2001 and as per my experience cops usually do not ask for immigration documents when stopped for routine traffic stops. Both the times when I was stopped, I was asked for DL and Insurance as usual per TX law. I normally do not carry my passport and other docs when I go to work (5.5 miles north to where I live), when shopping or when going out within 15 miles (north) of my home. Suresh was asked for PP by a police officer because he was in the airport.
I ALWAYS carry my passport and status verifying docs when I know I'm in the vicinity of exit points such as Greyhound terminal, Airport (even if I'm just dropping/picking up a friend at the Airport) or going out of town. Because I know there are NO excuses whatsoever for not carrying the docs if you are travelling north or south from US-Mexico border town.
But when in town I never had any trouble, and carrying the imigration docs as needed was never a problem for me. Trust me I sat on tables right next to Border Patrol Officers when I go out to lunch many times.
In fact at border towns (especially Mexican border), there is lot of vigilence at exit points whether you are citizen or not, you can be held for questioning. Its logical, since escaping into Mexico is literally matter of minutes for law-breakers.
Also, I do carry a copy of PP in my car, just in case. Nothing wrong in carrying copy of our PP (note: not US docs). Although whether to accept your explanation or not is completely upto the officer.
Few of my friends from north of Texas visited me did forget their immigration docs and passports(inspite of me cautioning them 100 times), they were held at checkpoints (50 miles north of the border) but were eventually let go after couple hours of verification process. Bottom line you may mostly get away for not carrying the documents at all times. But if they want to hold it against you, you have no case in your favor. Always be nice to them and 99% times you are treated respectfully.
I ALWAYS carry my passport and status verifying docs when I know I'm in the vicinity of exit points such as Greyhound terminal, Airport (even if I'm just dropping/picking up a friend at the Airport) or going out of town. Because I know there are NO excuses whatsoever for not carrying the docs if you are travelling north or south from US-Mexico border town.
But when in town I never had any trouble, and carrying the imigration docs as needed was never a problem for me. Trust me I sat on tables right next to Border Patrol Officers when I go out to lunch many times.
In fact at border towns (especially Mexican border), there is lot of vigilence at exit points whether you are citizen or not, you can be held for questioning. Its logical, since escaping into Mexico is literally matter of minutes for law-breakers.
Also, I do carry a copy of PP in my car, just in case. Nothing wrong in carrying copy of our PP (note: not US docs). Although whether to accept your explanation or not is completely upto the officer.
Few of my friends from north of Texas visited me did forget their immigration docs and passports(inspite of me cautioning them 100 times), they were held at checkpoints (50 miles north of the border) but were eventually let go after couple hours of verification process. Bottom line you may mostly get away for not carrying the documents at all times. But if they want to hold it against you, you have no case in your favor. Always be nice to them and 99% times you are treated respectfully.
dresses The Love Scallop Heart
grinch
03-11 10:33 PM
Yes we are soulty!!
Thanks bluesun, I'll try it out
Thanks bluesun, I'll try it out
more...
makeup Valentine#39;s Chocolates: Love
raj2007
12-20 08:33 PM
Thanks for the clarification, Logiclife. I enter U.S in the first week of Feb, 2001. The economy was bad and I didn't manage to get a job. In fact, I didn't managed to get a job for a year. My then employer didn't revoked my H1B and the I-94 was valid until Oct, 2002. I didn't know that I was out of status till now. I don't remember seeing any section in I-485 form, asking for information about out of status. I did attach my previous H1-B approval notice(2000 -2002) while filing I-485. One thing I want to know is, did anyone got a query(RFE), asking to provide all W2 forms since their entry into this country? I am interested to know that.
You are OK.. they problem should have come in 2002 when you changed ur H1B not now and max they will ask for 3 year W2. Don't worry..everything is fine.
You are OK.. they problem should have come in 2002 when you changed ur H1B not now and max they will ask for 3 year W2. Don't worry..everything is fine.
girlfriend 50 Love Heart Chocolates Absolutely Gorgeous
realizeit
10-17 03:25 PM
This is a very important effort, I guess.
I believe, this will help all of us to understand where we all stand. I will try to send this request as soon as possible.
I believe, this will help all of us to understand where we all stand. I will try to send this request as soon as possible.
hairstyles Chocolate LOVE HEART with
.soulty
02-16 07:23 PM
thanks grinch and thirdworldman(shheshh do you have a shorter username? lol)
nice render eilsoe :thumb:
nice render eilsoe :thumb:
fcres
07-23 03:52 PM
This is the press release in April that became effective Jun 18th http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/RFEFactSheet041207.pdf
And this is the inter office memo
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/RFEFinalRule060107.pdf
It does say CIS MAY deny a case if the initial evidences are missing , though adjudicators are urged to use this option judiciously.
Mine was filed without EVL and it has been receipted (in June). My lawyer asked me not to worry about it.
And this is the inter office memo
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/RFEFinalRule060107.pdf
It does say CIS MAY deny a case if the initial evidences are missing , though adjudicators are urged to use this option judiciously.
Mine was filed without EVL and it has been receipted (in June). My lawyer asked me not to worry about it.
vandanaverdia
09-11 12:13 PM
^^^ bump ^^^
