yvjoshi100
07-10 05:28 PM
Hi,
My appeal against EB2 I140 denial on Chartered Accountant degree issue was recently turned down by AAO. Can I any how contest this decision further without getting my employer involved. They are not interested in pursuing this further. Can I file any type of appeal before BAI or any other court on personal basis ?
Thanks.
My appeal against EB2 I140 denial on Chartered Accountant degree issue was recently turned down by AAO. Can I any how contest this decision further without getting my employer involved. They are not interested in pursuing this further. Can I file any type of appeal before BAI or any other court on personal basis ?
Thanks.
wallpaper %IMG_DESC_1%
michellezbb
07-03 06:37 PM
please at least send out to your state's senator.
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Dear Mr. Senator,
My name is xxx, and I’m working as an xx in xx,xx.
I am sending this letter in strong protest of the outrageous bait-and-switch melodrama that the US Department of State and the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) have put on recently. Specifically, on June 13, 2007, the State Department announced that people seeking permanent residence based on employment would be allowed to proceed to file their applications starting on July 2, 2007
As a result, I took immediate action, spending a huge amount of time and effort preparing all the required documents and having them sent out to my attorney ASAP. However, on the very morning of July 2, the US Department of State announced that they just changed their mind and decided to reject all applications. This is such a ridiculous hoax, and it’s particularly shocking when you realize that such nonsensical and willy-nilly decisions came from the US Department of State!
As a hard-working student, I got my graduate education in this great country and was fortunate enough to get a job upon graduation. As a law-abiding individual, I have been waiting patiently in line for years to file my application for permanent residence. Yet what I’ve just seen and experienced is more than disappointing not only to me, but to thousands upon thousands of legal immigrants just like me who have struggled so hard to deal with all kinds of difficulties for years and have been doing it the right way.
I have below questions needed to be clarified:
1. How many applications have USCIS received during the period 6/14/2007 through 6/30/2007? This number is critical because apparently this number has changed the US Department of State’s opinion about the visa availability from available to unavailable in 15 days. And a more interesting question is that is this number predictable? In another word, did the US Department of US take this number in consideration when they determine that the visa will be available to all employment-based immigrants on June 13, 2007?
2. The announcement of the revised July visa availability was made in the earlier morning of July 2, 2007. Apparently, the decision was made before but not in the morning of July 2, 2007. Then, why didn’t the US Department of State release the news as soon as the decision was made in a good faith effort to inform all potential applicants at the first time? It should be anticipated that a lot of applicants would their application at the very beginning of the month. As you can imagine, all those effort are just wasted. And the worst of all is the feeling of being cheated and being fooled around.
3. My application was prepared to send to USCIS on July based on the best information available at that point of time. However, the application will be rejected/returned in accordance with the sudden announcement made in the morning of 7/2/2007. Does the US Department of State have the legal right to revise the cut-off date without going through certain procedures? Can we still trust and rely on the visa bulletin issued by the US Department of State to prepare our change of status application in the future?
Again, this is such a ridiculous hoax and it’s hard to believe the US Department of State just ate its own word like that. That is why I would like to take the liberty of writing to you about my outrage. I sincerely hope that you can take some precious time looking into this, and also at the current immigration system, which I believe is seriously flawed and patently unfair.
Thanks and best regards,
xx
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Dear Mr. Senator,
My name is xxx, and I’m working as an xx in xx,xx.
I am sending this letter in strong protest of the outrageous bait-and-switch melodrama that the US Department of State and the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) have put on recently. Specifically, on June 13, 2007, the State Department announced that people seeking permanent residence based on employment would be allowed to proceed to file their applications starting on July 2, 2007
As a result, I took immediate action, spending a huge amount of time and effort preparing all the required documents and having them sent out to my attorney ASAP. However, on the very morning of July 2, the US Department of State announced that they just changed their mind and decided to reject all applications. This is such a ridiculous hoax, and it’s particularly shocking when you realize that such nonsensical and willy-nilly decisions came from the US Department of State!
As a hard-working student, I got my graduate education in this great country and was fortunate enough to get a job upon graduation. As a law-abiding individual, I have been waiting patiently in line for years to file my application for permanent residence. Yet what I’ve just seen and experienced is more than disappointing not only to me, but to thousands upon thousands of legal immigrants just like me who have struggled so hard to deal with all kinds of difficulties for years and have been doing it the right way.
I have below questions needed to be clarified:
1. How many applications have USCIS received during the period 6/14/2007 through 6/30/2007? This number is critical because apparently this number has changed the US Department of State’s opinion about the visa availability from available to unavailable in 15 days. And a more interesting question is that is this number predictable? In another word, did the US Department of US take this number in consideration when they determine that the visa will be available to all employment-based immigrants on June 13, 2007?
2. The announcement of the revised July visa availability was made in the earlier morning of July 2, 2007. Apparently, the decision was made before but not in the morning of July 2, 2007. Then, why didn’t the US Department of State release the news as soon as the decision was made in a good faith effort to inform all potential applicants at the first time? It should be anticipated that a lot of applicants would their application at the very beginning of the month. As you can imagine, all those effort are just wasted. And the worst of all is the feeling of being cheated and being fooled around.
3. My application was prepared to send to USCIS on July based on the best information available at that point of time. However, the application will be rejected/returned in accordance with the sudden announcement made in the morning of 7/2/2007. Does the US Department of State have the legal right to revise the cut-off date without going through certain procedures? Can we still trust and rely on the visa bulletin issued by the US Department of State to prepare our change of status application in the future?
Again, this is such a ridiculous hoax and it’s hard to believe the US Department of State just ate its own word like that. That is why I would like to take the liberty of writing to you about my outrage. I sincerely hope that you can take some precious time looking into this, and also at the current immigration system, which I believe is seriously flawed and patently unfair.
Thanks and best regards,
xx
kondur_007
07-26 06:04 PM
I dont think the situation is that bleak. What would happen when EB3 ROW is unable to use up all the spillovers from EB2? The excess would go to EB3 I, right?
This is exactly the point which is not clear and therefore, asking for verticle spillover may not benefit EB3 I.
What you are asking for is "verticle spill" till it comes to EB3 ROW and then spill it "horizontally" to EB3 I, then only EB3 I would benefit. (although USCIS did this in the past, there is no logic that can explain it)
If they re-interprete the spill and make it verticle, it will go EB2 ROW -> EB 3 ROW -> EB2 I -> EB3 I (pure verticle spill) ; In this case, EB3 I gets nothing but EB2 I looses with some benefit to EB3 ROW. And remember, verticle spill from ROW will need to go equally to India and China...
At the end of the day, if you look at the big picture, I think horizontal or verticle spills are not likely to make any difference to the backlog of EB3 I. What we need is more visa number. Mechanism (recapture, STEM exemption etc) does not matter. Also we neet to unite and work on getting our agenda in the CIR that is likely to be awakened once elections are over.
This is exactly the point which is not clear and therefore, asking for verticle spillover may not benefit EB3 I.
What you are asking for is "verticle spill" till it comes to EB3 ROW and then spill it "horizontally" to EB3 I, then only EB3 I would benefit. (although USCIS did this in the past, there is no logic that can explain it)
If they re-interprete the spill and make it verticle, it will go EB2 ROW -> EB 3 ROW -> EB2 I -> EB3 I (pure verticle spill) ; In this case, EB3 I gets nothing but EB2 I looses with some benefit to EB3 ROW. And remember, verticle spill from ROW will need to go equally to India and China...
At the end of the day, if you look at the big picture, I think horizontal or verticle spills are not likely to make any difference to the backlog of EB3 I. What we need is more visa number. Mechanism (recapture, STEM exemption etc) does not matter. Also we neet to unite and work on getting our agenda in the CIR that is likely to be awakened once elections are over.
2011 %IMG_DESC_2%
Googler
02-16 02:30 PM
That is one way to look at things. The important thing is, whether the Judge looks at the situation the same way. It will be tough job to convince the Judge. If you seek legal opinion from a lawyer, lawyers mostly tend to say that you have a case expecting that that lawyer will be the one filing the lawsuit (i.e. making the money). So be careful with the idea and advise from a lawyer.
And more importantly, even if 'we have a case', do we have folks who are willing to be plaintiff in this lawsuit. Are you or Googler or chandu (because he replied to my earlier posts suggesting that we will find someone to lead) willing to be the plaintiff, or are you encouraging others (putting the gun on other's shoulder to fire) to be the plaintiff. If you see that there is chance/value in filing lawsuit, why don't you decide to be the plaintiff? Either way, if you are a plaintiff or if you know someone who wants to be one, why don't you take this to IV team.
Say we have a case, then to go to the next step we need -
1.) Someone willing to take the initiative/lead
2.) Plaintiff
3.) Resources
4.) There maybe more that I am not able to think at this time, because I no experience of filing class action lawsuit.
How to find what we need to file lawsuit -
For (1.), I suggest someone willing to give out his/her name as plaintiff should contact IV. I saw that folks are discussing this on too, but that site is not a non-profit. That site is owned by some guy who is earning good money of off the ads on his site. He won't spend resources to file for lawsuit although he has made good money off of the woes of others tracking their green card case status. So the only viable option is to get IV involved.
For (2.), if you want to see this through, then, at least one of around 180 folks who voted for filing lawsuit should be willing to be the plaintiff. If not, then someone needs to make phone calls to find a possible plaintiff.
For (3.), as mentioned above, I don't know of any one organized effort other than IV to lead such an effort of a lawsuit.
Sanju, while I commend the thought you have put into this, note that the thinking on this is at a VERY VERY VERY preliminary stage. In real life class action lawsuits, named plaintiffs are chosen based on how well they fit the argument in the case, not the other way round. As I said upthread, all those who want decisions, deals, money etc RIGHT NOW are being pretty unrealistic -- probably just because of unfamiliarity with the progress of cases like this. I know people want to be reassured that there is NO risk of losing, every decision node is mapped out, responsibility assigned, but if that is what anyone is thinking they have to rejigger their thinking. ;-)
If I fit the argument that is eventually made, I'd be more than happy to be a named plaintiff. I also have no problem ponying up a significant amount of money once I'm convinced about the legal argument and the attorney in question.
And more importantly, even if 'we have a case', do we have folks who are willing to be plaintiff in this lawsuit. Are you or Googler or chandu (because he replied to my earlier posts suggesting that we will find someone to lead) willing to be the plaintiff, or are you encouraging others (putting the gun on other's shoulder to fire) to be the plaintiff. If you see that there is chance/value in filing lawsuit, why don't you decide to be the plaintiff? Either way, if you are a plaintiff or if you know someone who wants to be one, why don't you take this to IV team.
Say we have a case, then to go to the next step we need -
1.) Someone willing to take the initiative/lead
2.) Plaintiff
3.) Resources
4.) There maybe more that I am not able to think at this time, because I no experience of filing class action lawsuit.
How to find what we need to file lawsuit -
For (1.), I suggest someone willing to give out his/her name as plaintiff should contact IV. I saw that folks are discussing this on too, but that site is not a non-profit. That site is owned by some guy who is earning good money of off the ads on his site. He won't spend resources to file for lawsuit although he has made good money off of the woes of others tracking their green card case status. So the only viable option is to get IV involved.
For (2.), if you want to see this through, then, at least one of around 180 folks who voted for filing lawsuit should be willing to be the plaintiff. If not, then someone needs to make phone calls to find a possible plaintiff.
For (3.), as mentioned above, I don't know of any one organized effort other than IV to lead such an effort of a lawsuit.
Sanju, while I commend the thought you have put into this, note that the thinking on this is at a VERY VERY VERY preliminary stage. In real life class action lawsuits, named plaintiffs are chosen based on how well they fit the argument in the case, not the other way round. As I said upthread, all those who want decisions, deals, money etc RIGHT NOW are being pretty unrealistic -- probably just because of unfamiliarity with the progress of cases like this. I know people want to be reassured that there is NO risk of losing, every decision node is mapped out, responsibility assigned, but if that is what anyone is thinking they have to rejigger their thinking. ;-)
If I fit the argument that is eventually made, I'd be more than happy to be a named plaintiff. I also have no problem ponying up a significant amount of money once I'm convinced about the legal argument and the attorney in question.
more...
santa123
07-21 07:43 PM
Best case and worst case
vdlrao,
You have always brought some statistics onto this forum and many of us have felt that your numbers have some logic. I want to know what your confidence level is on those stats, may be you feel on the inside that this is theory and God only knows wht will happen. Since the processes that USCIS & DOL follow is not very clear to anyone, I am curious.
Just as you know:
Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital. ~Aaron Levenstein
vdlrao,
You have always brought some statistics onto this forum and many of us have felt that your numbers have some logic. I want to know what your confidence level is on those stats, may be you feel on the inside that this is theory and God only knows wht will happen. Since the processes that USCIS & DOL follow is not very clear to anyone, I am curious.
Just as you know:
Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital. ~Aaron Levenstein
John333
07-26 05:20 AM
Dear Attorney,
I have an approved H1B petition, but was given 221(g) during consular interview due to lack of license to practice my proffession in US. They instructed me to submit the license within one year to stamp the H1B visa.
Now I am comming to US on a Visitors visa to write the licensing exam and to get licenced.
I am aware of the aware of possibility of changing status from Visitors visa to H1B after getting licence without leaving US, since I already have an approved
H1B.
But I came to know that USCIS will take around 90 days to approve status change from Visitors visa to H1B.
Kindly clarify whether I can start working for my H1B employer immediately after filing status change with USCIS, or do I need to wait till the approval, to start working.
Also do I need to include 221(g) I received after my H1B consulate interveiw for the status change application.
Thank you very much in advance.
I have an approved H1B petition, but was given 221(g) during consular interview due to lack of license to practice my proffession in US. They instructed me to submit the license within one year to stamp the H1B visa.
Now I am comming to US on a Visitors visa to write the licensing exam and to get licenced.
I am aware of the aware of possibility of changing status from Visitors visa to H1B after getting licence without leaving US, since I already have an approved
H1B.
But I came to know that USCIS will take around 90 days to approve status change from Visitors visa to H1B.
Kindly clarify whether I can start working for my H1B employer immediately after filing status change with USCIS, or do I need to wait till the approval, to start working.
Also do I need to include 221(g) I received after my H1B consulate interveiw for the status change application.
Thank you very much in advance.
more...
_TrueFacts
09-03 10:11 PM
breddy2000,
You see YSR is in high point, as for you corruption, blood politics, mafia by him are no big deal and normal. What should I say? You are better fit to immigrate to Somalia, Afghanistan or Colombia.
Every one does that, is that a reason. You claim that you are not a supporter of any one. If that is the case then give due credit where required and criticize and condemn when it’s appropriate.
As posted by abracadabra102 YSR exactly fits for "No better friend, No worse enemy" and in due course he amassed illegal wealth, corruption and killings.
His death is the reason this thread is here, living or dead facts are facts and yes Good Riddance that he is no more.
Yes, will do whatever I can, humbly. In fact it is India’s citizens that are forcing these politicians to implement effective policy not the other way where people are living and enjoying an effective system.
You see YSR is in high point, as for you corruption, blood politics, mafia by him are no big deal and normal. What should I say? You are better fit to immigrate to Somalia, Afghanistan or Colombia.
Every one does that, is that a reason. You claim that you are not a supporter of any one. If that is the case then give due credit where required and criticize and condemn when it’s appropriate.
As posted by abracadabra102 YSR exactly fits for "No better friend, No worse enemy" and in due course he amassed illegal wealth, corruption and killings.
His death is the reason this thread is here, living or dead facts are facts and yes Good Riddance that he is no more.
Yes, will do whatever I can, humbly. In fact it is India’s citizens that are forcing these politicians to implement effective policy not the other way where people are living and enjoying an effective system.
2010 %IMG_DESC_3%
ss1026
03-29 06:45 PM
or is it ignorance? (even if you are responding to someone' post)
Hindus in India have come a long way when it comes to religious tolerance,don't you know that?
Remember we had a Muslim as president(Abdul Kalam) a Sikh for PM(Manmohan Singh) a Italian Roman Catholic as the president of the ruling party(Sonia Gandhi).
If you say so then I think Sonial Gandhi/Rahul Gandhi/(even Priyanka Gandhi would be the front runners in list. Don't forget Sikh riots/Bofors/Oil Scam/the now Missile scam /KGB connection (ref 'State Within State')/ Rahul Gandhi's arrest by FBI and many more...
Here, have fun... enjoy this.( I know if it was written by a Hindu you would come back saying it's biased.But now you can really enjoy it )
To all it's a must read
http://74.125.93.104/search?q=cache:prdjEwwFXSUJ:www.francoisgautier.co m/Written%2520Material/Christian%2520India.doc+ambika+soni+religion&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
On a side note:
Kashmir Hindus were ousted by Muslims. Even during the recent Mumbai attacks perpetrators gave a interview to the news channel saying that it is an attack on the Hindu India.
Still Hindus maintained communal harmony even though Antulay, a muslim ,tried to take advantage of the situation.Still people like you carp about Muslim discrimination.
What is this desperation to keep the almost non-existent (Hindus-hate Muslims, Hindus hate Christians)hatred/discrimination alive even though reality time and again proves the harmony of Hindus.
Even after all this I believe the truth that be it Hindus/Muslims/Christians... we are human beings and equal by the very virtue .
My point is that a person/politician should be judged by the actions/governance and not their lineage. Congress is corrupt like most parties and that discussion is valid (though I would rather see this forum only used for immigration matters...).
I can certainly provide hundreds of links to make this a dividing post but I dont have a propensity for it. My point was to a show a mirror to people who post some ridiculous posts but get away since they seem to be in the majority or atleast seem to be the loudest. Using the measures of US, a lot of what is said in non-immigration matters on this forum would be deemed so racist.
As for Kashmir hindus, I truly wishes Justice is done to them. They are the Children of kashmir. Just like I wish justice is done for every person in India whether the crime be done by extremists or State actors. As for the non-existent discrimination of minorities, I hope you are right but trying to silence people who raise such issues is no way to provide justice. Even to this day, discrimination against blacks is a matter of grave concern in this country. A strength of a society/democracy is the treatment of the weakest/minorities.
Hindus in India have come a long way when it comes to religious tolerance,don't you know that?
Remember we had a Muslim as president(Abdul Kalam) a Sikh for PM(Manmohan Singh) a Italian Roman Catholic as the president of the ruling party(Sonia Gandhi).
If you say so then I think Sonial Gandhi/Rahul Gandhi/(even Priyanka Gandhi would be the front runners in list. Don't forget Sikh riots/Bofors/Oil Scam/the now Missile scam /KGB connection (ref 'State Within State')/ Rahul Gandhi's arrest by FBI and many more...
Here, have fun... enjoy this.( I know if it was written by a Hindu you would come back saying it's biased.But now you can really enjoy it )
To all it's a must read
http://74.125.93.104/search?q=cache:prdjEwwFXSUJ:www.francoisgautier.co m/Written%2520Material/Christian%2520India.doc+ambika+soni+religion&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
On a side note:
Kashmir Hindus were ousted by Muslims. Even during the recent Mumbai attacks perpetrators gave a interview to the news channel saying that it is an attack on the Hindu India.
Still Hindus maintained communal harmony even though Antulay, a muslim ,tried to take advantage of the situation.Still people like you carp about Muslim discrimination.
What is this desperation to keep the almost non-existent (Hindus-hate Muslims, Hindus hate Christians)hatred/discrimination alive even though reality time and again proves the harmony of Hindus.
Even after all this I believe the truth that be it Hindus/Muslims/Christians... we are human beings and equal by the very virtue .
My point is that a person/politician should be judged by the actions/governance and not their lineage. Congress is corrupt like most parties and that discussion is valid (though I would rather see this forum only used for immigration matters...).
I can certainly provide hundreds of links to make this a dividing post but I dont have a propensity for it. My point was to a show a mirror to people who post some ridiculous posts but get away since they seem to be in the majority or atleast seem to be the loudest. Using the measures of US, a lot of what is said in non-immigration matters on this forum would be deemed so racist.
As for Kashmir hindus, I truly wishes Justice is done to them. They are the Children of kashmir. Just like I wish justice is done for every person in India whether the crime be done by extremists or State actors. As for the non-existent discrimination of minorities, I hope you are right but trying to silence people who raise such issues is no way to provide justice. Even to this day, discrimination against blacks is a matter of grave concern in this country. A strength of a society/democracy is the treatment of the weakest/minorities.
more...
tikka
07-04 12:22 AM
lets focus on this one..
http://digg.com/politics/U_S_Withdraws_Offer_of_60_000_Job_Based_Visas_Ange ring_Immigration_Lawyer/who
the faster it gets to 100 DIGS the popular the article will be. Will help give our issue exposure
thank you !!
and counting.....
http://digg.com/politics/U_S_Withdraws_Offer_of_60_000_Job_Based_Visas_Ange ring_Immigration_Lawyer/who
the faster it gets to 100 DIGS the popular the article will be. Will help give our issue exposure
thank you !!
and counting.....
hair %IMG_DESC_4%
lazycis
02-14 12:48 PM
Thanks, chanduv23, I do believe in using all possible means. I sent my letter to Mr. Bush.
On the other note, there is a thread on discussing the lawsuit possibility
http://www..com/discussion-forums/i485-1/67326117/last-page/
On the other note, there is a thread on discussing the lawsuit possibility
http://www..com/discussion-forums/i485-1/67326117/last-page/
more...
kuhelica2000
02-12 05:58 PM
Quota means a guaranteed number of visa for a country. For example if there is a 3% quota for monorities in college admissions, it guarentees 3% will go to minorities. There is no such quota for green card; only maximum limit a country can use. Even with this limit India captures more visas then any of the ROW countries.
Getting rid of quotas will help. We will not be in a situation where
- EB2 is current for ROW and unavailable for India.
- EB3 is in year 2005 for ROW and stuck in 2001 for India
Adding more visas is a legislative process. Applying per country quota is as
per DOL�s discretion.
Getting rid of quotas will help. We will not be in a situation where
- EB2 is current for ROW and unavailable for India.
- EB3 is in year 2005 for ROW and stuck in 2001 for India
Adding more visas is a legislative process. Applying per country quota is as
per DOL�s discretion.
hot %IMG_DESC_5%
lazycis
02-14 03:49 PM
Here is my 2 cents on this
Lets say the interested muster around plaintiffs and sue USCIS. Also, The court agrees that USCIS did not do its duty. Will the court go to the extent of ruling over INA which clearly says that unused visa numbers cannot be recaptured? Will the courts/judicial system set such a precedent where they will go against law just because the agency failed to implement it correctly? I don't think they will set such a precedent by overruling against the law set up by congress and the President who signed it. By long shot, Can the court recommend congress to fix the situation by changing the law and by allowing recapture? Possibly. Does that help and fix our issue?
Can you cite a provision of the INA that unused EB numbers cannot be reused? There is a provision that DV lottery number expire at the end of a fiscal year. The absence of such provision for EB numbers proves that Congress did not want to prevent recapture of EB or famili-based numbers. Moreover, such recapture happened several times in the past. Plus, check Galves v. Howerton ruling a few pages back.
Lets say the interested muster around plaintiffs and sue USCIS. Also, The court agrees that USCIS did not do its duty. Will the court go to the extent of ruling over INA which clearly says that unused visa numbers cannot be recaptured? Will the courts/judicial system set such a precedent where they will go against law just because the agency failed to implement it correctly? I don't think they will set such a precedent by overruling against the law set up by congress and the President who signed it. By long shot, Can the court recommend congress to fix the situation by changing the law and by allowing recapture? Possibly. Does that help and fix our issue?
Can you cite a provision of the INA that unused EB numbers cannot be reused? There is a provision that DV lottery number expire at the end of a fiscal year. The absence of such provision for EB numbers proves that Congress did not want to prevent recapture of EB or famili-based numbers. Moreover, such recapture happened several times in the past. Plus, check Galves v. Howerton ruling a few pages back.
more...
house %IMG_DESC_17%
ajaypr
06-24 01:24 PM
Why should we punish people who play by the rules? Charles Oppenheim, Guru of the Visa Office in the State Department, has confirmed what we warned employment-based (EB) immigrants about in our June 2009 newsletter. Not only are EB-3 numbers unavailable for the rest of the fiscal year and EB-2 numbers for persons born in China and India oversubscribed, but the situation is going to get worse, much worse. Mr. Oppenheim states that the EB-1, EB-4 and EB-5 categories are all experiencing greatly increased demand, so much so that the EB-4 category (religious workers and special immigrants) may retrogress this...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2009/06/grim-outlook-for-eb-visa-numbers.html)
This is what I received from a immigration lawyer ......
LATEST GRIM VISA BULLETIN PROJECTIONS FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED GREEN CARDS ILLUSTRATE NEED FOR COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM
There are few things that clearly demonstrate the overarching need for immigration reform than the most recent information provided by the U.S. Department of State's (DOS) Visa Bulletin. The Visa Bulletin provides information on the availability of immigrant visa numbers, which dictates when foreign nationals may apply for green cards under various preference categories. The July installment of the Visa Bulletin shows complete unavailability for the vast majority of employment-based cases. Moreover, DOS projections show that demand for higher-preference green card categories could reach record levels, which would lead to backlogs in these categories where green card numbers were traditionally available in the past.
The Visa Bulletin establishes "cut-off" dates based on the demand for green cards versus the amount actually available under immigration law to each specific employment-based (and family-based) category per country for each fiscal year. As it assesses green card demand in relation to availability, the DOS may move these cut-off dates forward or back, or not at all. When the DOS believes that all immigrant visa numbers in a particular category will be exhausted (or allocated) by the end of a particular fiscal year (i.e., September 30th), it will indicate an "unavailability" of numbers (marked as "U") in the Visa Bulletin. The law prevents any single country from overuse of immigrant visa numbers during a particular fiscal year. As a result, foreign nationals born in countries from which there is significant immigration to the U.S. will typically have a separate "cut-off" date (and longer waiting times for an available green card number) in the Visa Bulletin.
An individual's priority date or "place in line" for a visa number under the employment-based categories is the date on which his or her employer files a labor certification or immigrant visa petition with the government. Individuals assigned priority dates that are earlier than the relevant preference category cut-off date noted in the Visa Bulletin are eligible to move to the last step in the employment-based green card process - either processing of an adjustment of status application with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), or processing of an immigrant visa at a U.S. consulate abroad. When the category is "unavailable," individuals cannot file for adjustment of status or receive an immigrant visa.
In the most recent Visa Bulletin, immigrant visa numbers continue to be unavailable for all third preference (EB-3) employment-based cases. Third preference cases comprise the majority of pending employment-based green card cases, as they include positions requiring at minimum either a bachelor's degree or two years of work experience.
The July Visa Bulletin indicates that the first, second and fourth and fifth preference employment categories remain current for July. However, since demand in the second. preference category for individuals from China and India exceeds the per-country limitations, these two countries have second-preference cut-off dates of January 2000.
Overall, the July Visa Bulletin continues a substantial decrease in green card availability over the government's 2009 fiscal year. Admittedly, the retrogression, or backward movement of the cut-off dates, has been more common for employment-based green card numbers in recent years. Yet the complete exhaustion of EB-3 numbers and the sharp decline in India and China's EB-2 numbers are staggering reversals given the slow yet steady improvement in these cut-off dates during the present fiscal year.
DOS has projected that, as a result of significant filings in the EB-4 and EB-5 categories, there will be fewer numbers to supplement the EB-1 and EB-2 categories. In previous years, thousands of unused EB-4 and EB-5 numbers "spilled over" into other preference categories. However, greater-than-anticipated EB-4 and EB-5 usage, as well as greater demand in the EB-1 category itself, will create an even greater dearth of available "spill over" immigrant visa numbers in the EB-2 category.
In addition, the DOS has indicated that the EB-1 category for individuals born in India or China may backlog or retrogress later this summer, and may do so again in the coming fiscal year. Predictably, prognostications for the EB-2 category for India and China are also quite grim - in the next month or two, the EB-2 category could become unavailable. In particular, USCIS has indicated that it has about 25,000 EB-2 India cases and "significant numbers" of cases for Chinese nationals that have been reviewed and are simply awaiting visa number availability. This category has a typical fiscal-year limit of 2,800, plus any remaining numbers from the EB-1, EB-4 and EB-5 categories.
With respect to the EB-3 category, the DOS has stated that the worldwide, China and Mexico quotas for the EB-3 category will become available again with the start of the new fiscal year in October 2009, with a projected cut-off date of March 1, 2003 for each. However, the EB-3 India quota may have a November 1, 2001 cut-off date.
The federal quotas limiting employment-based green card numbers have remained unchanged since 1990, nearly two decades ago. Since that time, the United States has undergone unprecedented expansion, technological development, and cultural diversification, in large part through immigration. During this progress, skilled immigrants have continued one of our country's oldest and proudest traditions - the search for better lives for their families, and the desire to contribute to and to participate in our free society. Still, these quotas remain stagnant, potentially stifling the future of our nation's ability in the 21st century to prosper as an economic competitor in our world, to build a broad-based infrastructure in our localities, and to live together as families in our homes.
A quarter-century prior to 1990, major revisions to the immigration quotas sparked a historic influx of individuals to our nation of immigrants. In 1965, this broad-based increase in immigration levels across all preference categories allowed some of the world's most talented individuals to come to our shores and share their knowledge as academics, increase our economic fortunes as innovators and entrepreneurs, build vibrant communities as leaders and organizers, and inspire with their tales of strife and triumph as refugees. For many ethnicities and nationalities, the "post-65" generation was the real beginning of their stories in America.
Faced with a major financial downturn and an increasingly competitive global economy, our country cannot choose the path of closed borders and restricted immigration. At this very moment, historically restrictive nations are expanding their immigration policies and attracting valuable immigrants otherwise bound for our shores.
Absent relief provided by potential legislation, there will be substantial backlogs for nationals of India and China in all categories for many years. Careful and strategic planning for employers and foreign nationals entering into or engaged in the immigrant visa process will be necessary while we continue to advocate zealously for reform to address these antiquated quotas.
These green card backlogs illustrate the need for comprehensive immigration reform. In particular, a long-overdue increase in employment-based green card availability would play a major role in making future generations of individuals feel welcome to come to our nation of immigrants and in spurring sorely needed innovation and prosperity.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2009/06/grim-outlook-for-eb-visa-numbers.html)
This is what I received from a immigration lawyer ......
LATEST GRIM VISA BULLETIN PROJECTIONS FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED GREEN CARDS ILLUSTRATE NEED FOR COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM
There are few things that clearly demonstrate the overarching need for immigration reform than the most recent information provided by the U.S. Department of State's (DOS) Visa Bulletin. The Visa Bulletin provides information on the availability of immigrant visa numbers, which dictates when foreign nationals may apply for green cards under various preference categories. The July installment of the Visa Bulletin shows complete unavailability for the vast majority of employment-based cases. Moreover, DOS projections show that demand for higher-preference green card categories could reach record levels, which would lead to backlogs in these categories where green card numbers were traditionally available in the past.
The Visa Bulletin establishes "cut-off" dates based on the demand for green cards versus the amount actually available under immigration law to each specific employment-based (and family-based) category per country for each fiscal year. As it assesses green card demand in relation to availability, the DOS may move these cut-off dates forward or back, or not at all. When the DOS believes that all immigrant visa numbers in a particular category will be exhausted (or allocated) by the end of a particular fiscal year (i.e., September 30th), it will indicate an "unavailability" of numbers (marked as "U") in the Visa Bulletin. The law prevents any single country from overuse of immigrant visa numbers during a particular fiscal year. As a result, foreign nationals born in countries from which there is significant immigration to the U.S. will typically have a separate "cut-off" date (and longer waiting times for an available green card number) in the Visa Bulletin.
An individual's priority date or "place in line" for a visa number under the employment-based categories is the date on which his or her employer files a labor certification or immigrant visa petition with the government. Individuals assigned priority dates that are earlier than the relevant preference category cut-off date noted in the Visa Bulletin are eligible to move to the last step in the employment-based green card process - either processing of an adjustment of status application with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), or processing of an immigrant visa at a U.S. consulate abroad. When the category is "unavailable," individuals cannot file for adjustment of status or receive an immigrant visa.
In the most recent Visa Bulletin, immigrant visa numbers continue to be unavailable for all third preference (EB-3) employment-based cases. Third preference cases comprise the majority of pending employment-based green card cases, as they include positions requiring at minimum either a bachelor's degree or two years of work experience.
The July Visa Bulletin indicates that the first, second and fourth and fifth preference employment categories remain current for July. However, since demand in the second. preference category for individuals from China and India exceeds the per-country limitations, these two countries have second-preference cut-off dates of January 2000.
Overall, the July Visa Bulletin continues a substantial decrease in green card availability over the government's 2009 fiscal year. Admittedly, the retrogression, or backward movement of the cut-off dates, has been more common for employment-based green card numbers in recent years. Yet the complete exhaustion of EB-3 numbers and the sharp decline in India and China's EB-2 numbers are staggering reversals given the slow yet steady improvement in these cut-off dates during the present fiscal year.
DOS has projected that, as a result of significant filings in the EB-4 and EB-5 categories, there will be fewer numbers to supplement the EB-1 and EB-2 categories. In previous years, thousands of unused EB-4 and EB-5 numbers "spilled over" into other preference categories. However, greater-than-anticipated EB-4 and EB-5 usage, as well as greater demand in the EB-1 category itself, will create an even greater dearth of available "spill over" immigrant visa numbers in the EB-2 category.
In addition, the DOS has indicated that the EB-1 category for individuals born in India or China may backlog or retrogress later this summer, and may do so again in the coming fiscal year. Predictably, prognostications for the EB-2 category for India and China are also quite grim - in the next month or two, the EB-2 category could become unavailable. In particular, USCIS has indicated that it has about 25,000 EB-2 India cases and "significant numbers" of cases for Chinese nationals that have been reviewed and are simply awaiting visa number availability. This category has a typical fiscal-year limit of 2,800, plus any remaining numbers from the EB-1, EB-4 and EB-5 categories.
With respect to the EB-3 category, the DOS has stated that the worldwide, China and Mexico quotas for the EB-3 category will become available again with the start of the new fiscal year in October 2009, with a projected cut-off date of March 1, 2003 for each. However, the EB-3 India quota may have a November 1, 2001 cut-off date.
The federal quotas limiting employment-based green card numbers have remained unchanged since 1990, nearly two decades ago. Since that time, the United States has undergone unprecedented expansion, technological development, and cultural diversification, in large part through immigration. During this progress, skilled immigrants have continued one of our country's oldest and proudest traditions - the search for better lives for their families, and the desire to contribute to and to participate in our free society. Still, these quotas remain stagnant, potentially stifling the future of our nation's ability in the 21st century to prosper as an economic competitor in our world, to build a broad-based infrastructure in our localities, and to live together as families in our homes.
A quarter-century prior to 1990, major revisions to the immigration quotas sparked a historic influx of individuals to our nation of immigrants. In 1965, this broad-based increase in immigration levels across all preference categories allowed some of the world's most talented individuals to come to our shores and share their knowledge as academics, increase our economic fortunes as innovators and entrepreneurs, build vibrant communities as leaders and organizers, and inspire with their tales of strife and triumph as refugees. For many ethnicities and nationalities, the "post-65" generation was the real beginning of their stories in America.
Faced with a major financial downturn and an increasingly competitive global economy, our country cannot choose the path of closed borders and restricted immigration. At this very moment, historically restrictive nations are expanding their immigration policies and attracting valuable immigrants otherwise bound for our shores.
Absent relief provided by potential legislation, there will be substantial backlogs for nationals of India and China in all categories for many years. Careful and strategic planning for employers and foreign nationals entering into or engaged in the immigrant visa process will be necessary while we continue to advocate zealously for reform to address these antiquated quotas.
These green card backlogs illustrate the need for comprehensive immigration reform. In particular, a long-overdue increase in employment-based green card availability would play a major role in making future generations of individuals feel welcome to come to our nation of immigrants and in spurring sorely needed innovation and prosperity.
tattoo %IMG_DESC_6%
samay
07-21 08:23 PM
Hi,
I am on H1B (7th year and got extended for 3 yrs) and applied 485, received EAD from company A (140 approved).
I am asked to join Client by Company A due to some benefits both of us would receive. But Client wont support H1 so I need to use EAD.
Since EB3 is in very bad situation, Can I file new Perm, 140 and port my PD for EB2 using Company C for future position? I have position, salary and exp required for EB2. When should I join Company C if I choose this route?
Thanks in advance!
Whats your EB3 PD. You can join company C anytime assuming that it has been more than six months since you filed your I-485. Company C can start the EB2 process should you choose to. However bear in mind that this process will also take some time.
I am on H1B (7th year and got extended for 3 yrs) and applied 485, received EAD from company A (140 approved).
I am asked to join Client by Company A due to some benefits both of us would receive. But Client wont support H1 so I need to use EAD.
Since EB3 is in very bad situation, Can I file new Perm, 140 and port my PD for EB2 using Company C for future position? I have position, salary and exp required for EB2. When should I join Company C if I choose this route?
Thanks in advance!
Whats your EB3 PD. You can join company C anytime assuming that it has been more than six months since you filed your I-485. Company C can start the EB2 process should you choose to. However bear in mind that this process will also take some time.
more...
pictures %IMG_DESC_7%
saketkapur
07-15 07:42 PM
Hi
I filed my I-485 in July last year. My PD is EB2-Feb 2007. I could not file for my wife since she is pursuing her medical residency on a J1 visa with the 2 year HRR requirement.
My queries are as follows:
1. For the interfiling to happen does she need to be done with her J1 waiver or even when she is pursuing it as that is a H1B visa and I will be the principal applicant?
3. If I get my green card before she is done with her waiver then can I still file for her later or will her case then be treated as a family based petition?
I will really appreciate if you can provide some insight regarding the same.
regards
Saket Kapur
I filed my I-485 in July last year. My PD is EB2-Feb 2007. I could not file for my wife since she is pursuing her medical residency on a J1 visa with the 2 year HRR requirement.
My queries are as follows:
1. For the interfiling to happen does she need to be done with her J1 waiver or even when she is pursuing it as that is a H1B visa and I will be the principal applicant?
3. If I get my green card before she is done with her waiver then can I still file for her later or will her case then be treated as a family based petition?
I will really appreciate if you can provide some insight regarding the same.
regards
Saket Kapur
dresses %IMG_DESC_12%
vroapp
07-10 11:27 AM
:-)
more...
makeup %IMG_DESC_9%
hpandey
05-01 04:38 PM
Its in today TOI that Congress/UPA govt. has raised a concern to their PAK counterparts about safely of some 35 Sikh families living in a small village which falls in Taliban's territory.
Why not a single statement by UPA Govt. / MPS/ any high ranking diplomats for Srinlankan's Tamil ? Are they affraid of Congress leadership or what ?
I don't know for what cause LTTE is fighting for and see them as same other terrorist organization in name of freedom. Its LTTE and their leaders who should be punished and brought to justice for killing of Rajeev Gandhi, not the whole community.
Don't be too confident that you may never be in the situation like them. Who knows tomorrow ? History tells us that you would be never safe on foreign soil ! If its not you, it would be your next generation who might seek support from your home country
My post is to just show double standard played by UPA govt.
The Pak Sikhs are being troubled by the Taliban whom everyone opposes and the Pak govt is doing nothing and hence India should raise a voice.
The Tamils in SriLanka are not being opressed by SriLanka but by LTTE themselves ( using their own people as human shields ) . The Srilankan govt is trying its best to minimise losses while trying to rout the terrorist LTTE. India does not have any sympathy either for the Taliban or for LTTE. Both are enemies of India.
Personally I hate the LTTE and their damn cause. Someone who would kill our PM does not deserve any sympathy.
I cheer the brave SriLankan Army who will finally clear their country of this terrorist manace. I wish India had the same drive to remove terrorists from our country in J&K and elsewhere .
Why not a single statement by UPA Govt. / MPS/ any high ranking diplomats for Srinlankan's Tamil ? Are they affraid of Congress leadership or what ?
I don't know for what cause LTTE is fighting for and see them as same other terrorist organization in name of freedom. Its LTTE and their leaders who should be punished and brought to justice for killing of Rajeev Gandhi, not the whole community.
Don't be too confident that you may never be in the situation like them. Who knows tomorrow ? History tells us that you would be never safe on foreign soil ! If its not you, it would be your next generation who might seek support from your home country
My post is to just show double standard played by UPA govt.
The Pak Sikhs are being troubled by the Taliban whom everyone opposes and the Pak govt is doing nothing and hence India should raise a voice.
The Tamils in SriLanka are not being opressed by SriLanka but by LTTE themselves ( using their own people as human shields ) . The Srilankan govt is trying its best to minimise losses while trying to rout the terrorist LTTE. India does not have any sympathy either for the Taliban or for LTTE. Both are enemies of India.
Personally I hate the LTTE and their damn cause. Someone who would kill our PM does not deserve any sympathy.
I cheer the brave SriLankan Army who will finally clear their country of this terrorist manace. I wish India had the same drive to remove terrorists from our country in J&K and elsewhere .
girlfriend %IMG_DESC_14%
gc28262
01-24 05:16 PM
If you think Memo is illegal why can't you file a lawsuit. That should be right way. But I did not see any suggestion from any lawyer. But when when July 2007 issue cropped most lawyers rushed to file lawsuit. Now no one even suggesting lawsuit except some members in IV. Either most are not interested or they think no legal basis to contest memo
I am filing a lawsuit. Want to join me ? :cool:
Please read this
MurthyDotCom : H1B Memo on Employer-Employee Relationships and 3rd-Party Placements (http://www.murthy.com/news/n_e-erel.html)
Read the conclusion. I am sure that won't make you happy.
I am filing a lawsuit. Want to join me ? :cool:
Please read this
MurthyDotCom : H1B Memo on Employer-Employee Relationships and 3rd-Party Placements (http://www.murthy.com/news/n_e-erel.html)
Read the conclusion. I am sure that won't make you happy.
hairstyles %IMG_DESC_11%
trramesh
06-01 02:09 PM
Guys,
I have been working here for 9 years and next year we plan to return back to India. I spoke to SSN customer service to find out my retirement and survivor benefits. Being an Indian citizen, all these are available only if me, or my dependants, have a valid residing status with the US, at the time of making the application. The contribution at this point is like getting a right to work. This is outrageous.
We all have been legally invited into this country for a work, and that means the US gov should protect our legal and fair interests. It is universally true that everyone works to protect his family. Now here is a case, where I have no right to my retirement money just because I dont have a legal resident status. Whose fault is this. I already made the application 6 years ago. If my home country does not have the comparable SSN structure, then return the money back? We will pay the taxes and take the money back. Our kids need it.
I dont know what is the appropriate channel to get this fixed. This appears more like human rights violation, or abuse. I am sure there are many in this forum who are in the same boat as I am. Can someone team up with me to do more research or share your discoveries.
To the US, this is what I got to say:
=======================
If you want to protect the jobs for your people, please do it. You have every right. But please dont dump the people you officially invited to augument the workforce of your country into the waters. Before you bring in additional workers to support your companies, do necessary corrections in your immigration policies to let them in only with green card. Dont strangulate their careers. Your existing policies have been burning the aspirations and careers of a lot of innocent people from India and China.
To those innocent legal foreign workers that have already gathered 40 points in SS, you owe them. They deserve citizenship, not green card. I know it is jumping across multitude of issues, but is it not fair.
I have been working here for 9 years and next year we plan to return back to India. I spoke to SSN customer service to find out my retirement and survivor benefits. Being an Indian citizen, all these are available only if me, or my dependants, have a valid residing status with the US, at the time of making the application. The contribution at this point is like getting a right to work. This is outrageous.
We all have been legally invited into this country for a work, and that means the US gov should protect our legal and fair interests. It is universally true that everyone works to protect his family. Now here is a case, where I have no right to my retirement money just because I dont have a legal resident status. Whose fault is this. I already made the application 6 years ago. If my home country does not have the comparable SSN structure, then return the money back? We will pay the taxes and take the money back. Our kids need it.
I dont know what is the appropriate channel to get this fixed. This appears more like human rights violation, or abuse. I am sure there are many in this forum who are in the same boat as I am. Can someone team up with me to do more research or share your discoveries.
To the US, this is what I got to say:
=======================
If you want to protect the jobs for your people, please do it. You have every right. But please dont dump the people you officially invited to augument the workforce of your country into the waters. Before you bring in additional workers to support your companies, do necessary corrections in your immigration policies to let them in only with green card. Dont strangulate their careers. Your existing policies have been burning the aspirations and careers of a lot of innocent people from India and China.
To those innocent legal foreign workers that have already gathered 40 points in SS, you owe them. They deserve citizenship, not green card. I know it is jumping across multitude of issues, but is it not fair.
H1BinNY
07-04 09:46 AM
Anybody who got contact at NPR or anybody who want to take a challenge and work on contacting NPR and telling them about our story.
http://www.npr.org/about/pitch/
NPR - this might help
Matt Gallivan
mgallivan@npr.org
http://www.npr.org/about/pitch/
NPR - this might help
Matt Gallivan
mgallivan@npr.org
PlainSpeak
01-14 12:42 PM
Good catch !!!!!!!!!!! HA....HA.......H.....AAAAAAAA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My friend it took it time to get the joke but you got it. I am happy for you
My friend it took it time to get the joke but you got it. I am happy for you
