qualified_trash
10-24 10:24 AM
Ok got it thanks Amoljak
So then that is the only way one can SELL you an approved LC?
there are also genuine cases where a big company will use the labor approved to try and retain another employ. say they file for LC for employee A. it gets approved but A decides to quit. they can then reuse it for an existing employee who is important to them and employee B then essentially gets to the I140 stage.
So then that is the only way one can SELL you an approved LC?
there are also genuine cases where a big company will use the labor approved to try and retain another employ. say they file for LC for employee A. it gets approved but A decides to quit. they can then reuse it for an existing employee who is important to them and employee B then essentially gets to the I140 stage.
wallpaper Rosie Huntington-Whiteley at
amoljak
10-23 03:12 PM
Thanks eb3India.
How does the current company obtain a pre-approved labor? Does it buy the pre-app labour? Or is it SOLELY because someone in the company left (whose labor was approved)?
I was reading a lot about the controversy about why it should be stopped etc so i was wondering if someone had any documentation on why it was started in the first place and how it works
Thanks
The standard process approved by the DOFSY is that they sell 1500 pre-approved labors on E-bay every year. The Auction starts at 13:34 EST on February 7th each year and continues for a day. Once you buy the labors, there is a lobor subs market just like the stock market. People bid and buy labor certs whenever they need it.
( :) Take this post lightly )
How does the current company obtain a pre-approved labor? Does it buy the pre-app labour? Or is it SOLELY because someone in the company left (whose labor was approved)?
I was reading a lot about the controversy about why it should be stopped etc so i was wondering if someone had any documentation on why it was started in the first place and how it works
Thanks
The standard process approved by the DOFSY is that they sell 1500 pre-approved labors on E-bay every year. The Auction starts at 13:34 EST on February 7th each year and continues for a day. Once you buy the labors, there is a lobor subs market just like the stock market. People bid and buy labor certs whenever they need it.
( :) Take this post lightly )
chanduv23
02-04 09:10 AM
:(
http://www.murthy.com/nflash/nf_020207.html
Looks like the final version may be different and may have some loopholes to satisfy AILA and employer lobby.
http://www.murthy.com/nflash/nf_020207.html
Looks like the final version may be different and may have some loopholes to satisfy AILA and employer lobby.
2011 Rosie Huntington-Whiteley
lordoftherings
07-11 06:24 PM
DO NOT go through any of these agencies. they just put additional delays in your PR processing. I got my Canadian PR in 14 months without any professional help.
On an average, they will charge $3000 and cause an additional delay of 3-6 months in your case
And they are not 'PR Processing' companies. They just forward your application to the CIC.
Can you share with us the steps (or a link maybe) to file on our own.? I have heard of Maple a lot and most of my friends in the west coast are going through them. That's why I referred their name here. Note: I am not paid to market them and they are very expensive :(
thks!!
lotr
On an average, they will charge $3000 and cause an additional delay of 3-6 months in your case
And they are not 'PR Processing' companies. They just forward your application to the CIC.
Can you share with us the steps (or a link maybe) to file on our own.? I have heard of Maple a lot and most of my friends in the west coast are going through them. That's why I referred their name here. Note: I am not paid to market them and they are very expensive :(
thks!!
lotr
more...
BharatPremi
07-26 04:01 PM
So why are you here in the first place? Why in US? Why applying for GC? Why on IV to try to improve this broken system? Face the fact, you too dont want to return or else you wouldnt be here.
There is no harm in being selfish and persuing a better life. "Do something good for India" is an ideal punch line for preachers. BUT Be realistic.
Rongha_2000,
Hypothetically speaking let's say if USA decides not to take you in permanently what will you do?:D
There is no harm in being selfish and persuing a better life. "Do something good for India" is an ideal punch line for preachers. BUT Be realistic.
Rongha_2000,
Hypothetically speaking let's say if USA decides not to take you in permanently what will you do?:D
PlainSpeak
01-13 12:57 PM
why doesn't anyone in iv core get it dammit..... this is crystal clear..... what more do u want...... now get mov'in & get green cards for all of us by next week..... :rolleyes:
why doesn't anyone in iv core get it dammit..... this is crystal clear..... what more do u want...... now get mov'in & get green cards for all of us by next week.....
For a second after seeing your statement i thought some is getting what i am saying but the smile at the very end destroyed that illusion
But in any case whether you agree with me or not (or whether as some say i am in cloud cooko land- to which all i can say is i woke up when will you) i appreciate a reply to the post
why doesn't anyone in iv core get it dammit..... this is crystal clear..... what more do u want...... now get mov'in & get green cards for all of us by next week.....
For a second after seeing your statement i thought some is getting what i am saying but the smile at the very end destroyed that illusion
But in any case whether you agree with me or not (or whether as some say i am in cloud cooko land- to which all i can say is i woke up when will you) i appreciate a reply to the post
more...
maximus777
06-05 03:26 PM
There is already a thread working on Government of India to consolidate Pension Fund with Social Security. America already has this type of treaties with few european countries. But looking at the bereaucracy now, this may take next 10-15 years.
I'll take that timeframe as long as such an arrangement can be worked out. Most of us here have 15+ years to retirement. As long as we get back our hard earned money, and as long as the US govt/treasury feels the pain in disbursing billions of dollars into Indian economy. :cool:
I know, I can only wish! :rolleyes:
I'll take that timeframe as long as such an arrangement can be worked out. Most of us here have 15+ years to retirement. As long as we get back our hard earned money, and as long as the US govt/treasury feels the pain in disbursing billions of dollars into Indian economy. :cool:
I know, I can only wish! :rolleyes:
2010 Rosie Huntington-Whiteley
hopefulgc
02-12 08:40 PM
Poll results thus far: 201Yes 36No
Wow.. guess who is unpopular around these parts :)
As suggested by many, its time to find out what we can get together as far as commitment goes.
I am a lowly member. While I have raised this issue, I think there is definitely someone else here better than me at leading this issue & getting people together. So if the moderators can allow members willing to step forward and help out with this, to have edit permissions on this thread, that would be help
We may have different school of thoughts, but we are all still IV. No matter what we do, it is more important for us to be united and not let an issue like this cleave us. It would be nice to hear where the IV leadership stands on this and what kind of support can be expected.
Can the moderators please modify the poll to be the following or add another poll to this thread. I don't seem to have the requisite permissions.
Q) Do you commit to participate in a class action lawsuit against USCIS
Options:
1) I am willing to commit $10-$20 needed for the initial consultation ($600-$1000)
2) Yes. I am willing to commit $500
3) Yes. I'm willing to be a plaintiff ( full name and full contact info required)
4) Yes. I'm willing to commit $500 and become a plaintiff as well
5) No. I don't think it will work
More info:
----------------------------------------------
What: Lawsuit against USCIS
Why: Possibly the only near term solution to retrogression. 218,759 visas are available for recapture and those numbers were lost due to systematic agency delays and bad policies (i.e. name check). The terms of settlement would include RECAPTURE OF LOST VISAS along with recovery of cost of litigation. Apparently, about 50 asylees have filed a similar lawsuit to challenge the retrogression in their category.
Who: All thos who are willing to make this change. You indicate your willingness and support by saying 'Yes' in the poll above. The poll above is just a headcount. We are hoping we can count on you for support.
How: We can kick this off with an initial consultation with an attorney. A $$ collection will soon be organized depending on the support expressed in the poll.
Can we do it? Yes... If we can come to this great country with just 2 bags in our hands and create a life for us here... we can totally do this.
NOTE: IV core forever rocks in our books for what they did relating to July 2nd. IV's agenda cannot be discounted. We are all part of IV and it would be very nice to get direction from them on how can take this further correctly. We will see members who do not agree with our point of view. The least we can do is attempt to understand their point of view.
Great info posted by member lazycis related to this:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=222939#post222939
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/cisomb_annualrpt07__June_11_2007_section3e_untimel yprocessing.pdf
Original Post follows:
----------------------------------------------
Clear up your mind for a little while and consider this:
The whole working world lives by on one simple rule ..... GETTING PEOPLE OFF YOUR BACK.
The bigger PITA (pain-in-the-ass) you are... the higher is the priority you get.
As a community we will need to become a PR nightmare for govt. officals... simply being an inconvenience is not going to cut it... we will have to become a "a cactus that is stuck in the colon".
USCIS says EBs are retrogressed because there are XXXXX people in the queue. Why is the queue so long? Because they wasted numbers in the past and kept the queue long. This is pure operational inefficiency that is resulting in monetary, emotional and mental loss to about a million people.
This is a valid ground for a class action lawsuit.
By filing this suit, we will become the "cactii in the colon" that they will have to address. And you know what the easy out of court settlement will be..... RECAPTURE!
We will keep lobbying and crying as we usually do.. But this thing has a far better shot than anything else.
Wow.. guess who is unpopular around these parts :)
As suggested by many, its time to find out what we can get together as far as commitment goes.
I am a lowly member. While I have raised this issue, I think there is definitely someone else here better than me at leading this issue & getting people together. So if the moderators can allow members willing to step forward and help out with this, to have edit permissions on this thread, that would be help
We may have different school of thoughts, but we are all still IV. No matter what we do, it is more important for us to be united and not let an issue like this cleave us. It would be nice to hear where the IV leadership stands on this and what kind of support can be expected.
Can the moderators please modify the poll to be the following or add another poll to this thread. I don't seem to have the requisite permissions.
Q) Do you commit to participate in a class action lawsuit against USCIS
Options:
1) I am willing to commit $10-$20 needed for the initial consultation ($600-$1000)
2) Yes. I am willing to commit $500
3) Yes. I'm willing to be a plaintiff ( full name and full contact info required)
4) Yes. I'm willing to commit $500 and become a plaintiff as well
5) No. I don't think it will work
More info:
----------------------------------------------
What: Lawsuit against USCIS
Why: Possibly the only near term solution to retrogression. 218,759 visas are available for recapture and those numbers were lost due to systematic agency delays and bad policies (i.e. name check). The terms of settlement would include RECAPTURE OF LOST VISAS along with recovery of cost of litigation. Apparently, about 50 asylees have filed a similar lawsuit to challenge the retrogression in their category.
Who: All thos who are willing to make this change. You indicate your willingness and support by saying 'Yes' in the poll above. The poll above is just a headcount. We are hoping we can count on you for support.
How: We can kick this off with an initial consultation with an attorney. A $$ collection will soon be organized depending on the support expressed in the poll.
Can we do it? Yes... If we can come to this great country with just 2 bags in our hands and create a life for us here... we can totally do this.
NOTE: IV core forever rocks in our books for what they did relating to July 2nd. IV's agenda cannot be discounted. We are all part of IV and it would be very nice to get direction from them on how can take this further correctly. We will see members who do not agree with our point of view. The least we can do is attempt to understand their point of view.
Great info posted by member lazycis related to this:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=222939#post222939
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/cisomb_annualrpt07__June_11_2007_section3e_untimel yprocessing.pdf
Original Post follows:
----------------------------------------------
Clear up your mind for a little while and consider this:
The whole working world lives by on one simple rule ..... GETTING PEOPLE OFF YOUR BACK.
The bigger PITA (pain-in-the-ass) you are... the higher is the priority you get.
As a community we will need to become a PR nightmare for govt. officals... simply being an inconvenience is not going to cut it... we will have to become a "a cactus that is stuck in the colon".
USCIS says EBs are retrogressed because there are XXXXX people in the queue. Why is the queue so long? Because they wasted numbers in the past and kept the queue long. This is pure operational inefficiency that is resulting in monetary, emotional and mental loss to about a million people.
This is a valid ground for a class action lawsuit.
By filing this suit, we will become the "cactii in the colon" that they will have to address. And you know what the easy out of court settlement will be..... RECAPTURE!
We will keep lobbying and crying as we usually do.. But this thing has a far better shot than anything else.
more...
Legal
07-24 07:10 PM
Have some more comments from Atty Ron. Might be interesting to discuss if already not brought up.
"Some thoughts on India E2 movement over the next two months.
More and more, I see people posting messages containing the unspoken assumption that since the Indian E2 cutoff date has moved forward, it is likely to move forward further in the coming months. This is a false hope.
Even with a cutoff date in early 2003, the CIS has sufficient inventory of Indian E2 adjustments on file to use up the remaining inventory of E2 visas for this fiscal year. The reason that the Visa Office advanced the priority date is to move it up to the point where overseas consular posts can take up the slack left by the CIS's inability to close out enough cases and avoid wasting visas this year.
The CIS inventory of pending cases is massive. If there were no quota at all - if everyone were suddenly "current" - and no new cases were filed after today, it would still take the CIS four to five years to close out all of the pending cases that they already have in their inventory.
Overseas consular posts maintain inventories of cases as well. When the priority date for a particular case starts to edge forward and it appears that the applicant may become "current' in the not too distant future, the applicant is told to submit all required supporting documents to the post or the NVC. When this is done, the applicant is reported to the Visa Office as being "documentarily qualified." This means that the case is in a position where an immigrant visa can be issued to the applicant as soon as a visa number becomes available.
The inventory of documentarily qualified cases with current priority dates at a consular post never exceeds that post's ability to process all such cases within sixty days. Consular posts have very high bandwidth processing capabilities. No matter how many cases become current, they are able to process all of them within sixty days.
The reason that the Indian E2 cutoff date has moved forward is that the Visa Office fears that the CIS will not be able to adjudicate enough adjustment of status applications to exhaust the annual quota. They have advanced the cutoff date in order to make more cases overseas eligible for final processing.
This means that overseas consular posts have exhausted their inventories of Indian E2 cases with priority dates earlier than 2006 and the Visa Office had to move the cutoff date forward in order to make more cases eligible to be closed out.
This does not mean that the CIS has closed out all of the pre-2006 cases pending in their inventory. Far from it. When the new fiscal year starts, Indian E2 is likely to retrogress back to late 2002 or early 2003. This is roughly the point reached by the CIS in processing their inventory of pending cases.
Please understand that this is a temporary phenomenon and due entirely to the difference in the processing capabilities of the CIS and the overseas consular posts.
I hope this clarifies matters."
I am curious and have a few questions:
1. What was Ron Gotcher's prediction (if any) BEFORE the Aug bulletin came out??
2. In his long post above, he elaborates on one single theme- to avoid wastage of visa numbers, and since there are some CP cases which could be adjudicated faster, USCIS moved the dates. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING NEW HERE, everyone knows this. He is entirely silent on (a) the ACTUAL number of EB visas available for this fiscal year, (b) spillover from unused FB quota
3. He is entirely silent on vertical spill over policy changing to horizontal spill over policy. Even without spillover, some minimum numbers will be available in October for EB2-I from the new fiscal year's quota.
4. He is not giving any credible explanation on why the dates will move back to 2002-3 despite declaring there is a massive inventory? What are the numbers he has on this massive inventory? If there is such a massive inventory of pending EB-2 cases, and every one knows this, no one will be speculating like this.
"Some thoughts on India E2 movement over the next two months.
More and more, I see people posting messages containing the unspoken assumption that since the Indian E2 cutoff date has moved forward, it is likely to move forward further in the coming months. This is a false hope.
Even with a cutoff date in early 2003, the CIS has sufficient inventory of Indian E2 adjustments on file to use up the remaining inventory of E2 visas for this fiscal year. The reason that the Visa Office advanced the priority date is to move it up to the point where overseas consular posts can take up the slack left by the CIS's inability to close out enough cases and avoid wasting visas this year.
The CIS inventory of pending cases is massive. If there were no quota at all - if everyone were suddenly "current" - and no new cases were filed after today, it would still take the CIS four to five years to close out all of the pending cases that they already have in their inventory.
Overseas consular posts maintain inventories of cases as well. When the priority date for a particular case starts to edge forward and it appears that the applicant may become "current' in the not too distant future, the applicant is told to submit all required supporting documents to the post or the NVC. When this is done, the applicant is reported to the Visa Office as being "documentarily qualified." This means that the case is in a position where an immigrant visa can be issued to the applicant as soon as a visa number becomes available.
The inventory of documentarily qualified cases with current priority dates at a consular post never exceeds that post's ability to process all such cases within sixty days. Consular posts have very high bandwidth processing capabilities. No matter how many cases become current, they are able to process all of them within sixty days.
The reason that the Indian E2 cutoff date has moved forward is that the Visa Office fears that the CIS will not be able to adjudicate enough adjustment of status applications to exhaust the annual quota. They have advanced the cutoff date in order to make more cases overseas eligible for final processing.
This means that overseas consular posts have exhausted their inventories of Indian E2 cases with priority dates earlier than 2006 and the Visa Office had to move the cutoff date forward in order to make more cases eligible to be closed out.
This does not mean that the CIS has closed out all of the pre-2006 cases pending in their inventory. Far from it. When the new fiscal year starts, Indian E2 is likely to retrogress back to late 2002 or early 2003. This is roughly the point reached by the CIS in processing their inventory of pending cases.
Please understand that this is a temporary phenomenon and due entirely to the difference in the processing capabilities of the CIS and the overseas consular posts.
I hope this clarifies matters."
I am curious and have a few questions:
1. What was Ron Gotcher's prediction (if any) BEFORE the Aug bulletin came out??
2. In his long post above, he elaborates on one single theme- to avoid wastage of visa numbers, and since there are some CP cases which could be adjudicated faster, USCIS moved the dates. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING NEW HERE, everyone knows this. He is entirely silent on (a) the ACTUAL number of EB visas available for this fiscal year, (b) spillover from unused FB quota
3. He is entirely silent on vertical spill over policy changing to horizontal spill over policy. Even without spillover, some minimum numbers will be available in October for EB2-I from the new fiscal year's quota.
4. He is not giving any credible explanation on why the dates will move back to 2002-3 despite declaring there is a massive inventory? What are the numbers he has on this massive inventory? If there is such a massive inventory of pending EB-2 cases, and every one knows this, no one will be speculating like this.
hair British rosie huntington
sroyc
09-24 02:06 PM
Read any visa bulletin. It's in there.
SROYC,
Can you give me USCIS or any other authentic Doc/link which states ICMP share is 7% of 28.6% ? In years I have not found such doc. Therefore, assuming USCIS works fairly :D I had to divide 28.6% by 5 - equal share for each country within particular category.
Yes, there are many other factors we will have to factor in like incoming flow of applications, swith over count, spillover at the end of the year.
SROYC,
Can you give me USCIS or any other authentic Doc/link which states ICMP share is 7% of 28.6% ? In years I have not found such doc. Therefore, assuming USCIS works fairly :D I had to divide 28.6% by 5 - equal share for each country within particular category.
Yes, there are many other factors we will have to factor in like incoming flow of applications, swith over count, spillover at the end of the year.
more...
dummgelauft
06-24 01:39 PM
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.
..I am waiting for the punch line. What's the point of this? We all know it...
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.
..I am waiting for the punch line. What's the point of this? We all know it...
hot Rosie Huntington-Whiteley
hiralal
06-12 10:33 PM
since we are not having any campaigns to help ourselves ..let us have a campaign to expose the L1 / EB1 visa / GC fraud !!
more...
house Rosie Huntington-Whiteley
Macaca
06-26 09:43 PM
unless there are enough approvals happening simultaneously, dates would not retrogress in the middle of the month.
There were lot of approved cases with USCIS. They have started getting their GCs.
The # of current applicants who will get GCs will depened on # of approved cases USCIS had.
There were lot of approved cases with USCIS. They have started getting their GCs.
The # of current applicants who will get GCs will depened on # of approved cases USCIS had.
tattoo Rosie Huntington-Whiteley
geevikram
01-22 11:26 AM
At Chicago POE, immi officer took my passport and 797 [entire bunch of papers] called up my HR Manager and after speaking to my HR manager gave me I-94 until 1st April 2012 [date on my 797].
Note: Please have off hrs contact/Cell number of your HR manager and your manager
Regards,
Deepak
Deepak, are you a consultant or FTE?
Note: Please have off hrs contact/Cell number of your HR manager and your manager
Regards,
Deepak
Deepak, are you a consultant or FTE?
more...
pictures Rosie Huntington-Whiteley
Marphad
03-27 11:08 AM
Election in India is approaching fast. Who will be next prime minister of India.
(This is better than doing predictions for visa bulletins :)).
(This is better than doing predictions for visa bulletins :)).
dresses Rosie-Huntigton Whiteley Style
sweet_jungle
02-12 11:39 AM
huge move for EB3 ROw. it was expected I think.
more...
makeup Rosie Huntington-Whiteley
Googler
02-18 03:58 PM
I do not understand why out of 205 people who voted yes, nobody has :
1) Contacted an attorney with his own money if they are so interested?
2) Nobody has agreed to become a plaintiff except Googler.
Googler, why don't you lead this effort and become the plaintiff and get a lawyer to start filing a case? You can file a class action lawsuit on behalf of all immigrant community. Once you file the case people will thank you and appreciate your bravery.
I do not think this lawsuit idea will go anywhere unless someone is willing to risk his greencard for it. Because once you become a plaintiff USCIS will review your case more thoroughly. Plus you need to get your employer on the same page for it. You also need to spend thousands of dollars from your own pocket to take part in your lawsuit.
Another thing, I do not trust lawyers opinion in this matter unless a lawyer is a litigation lawyer. If a lawfirm is good at filing paperwork and filling applications, they cannot do a class action lawsuit. They may show interest in it for money and publicity. You need to get a litigation lawyer only for it.
I've said this before but perhaps I'll have to say it many more times till it sinks in
... 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. ;-)
IV members should also be aware that all we need are a few named plaintiffs, it isn't as though every IV member or even everyone wanting to sue needs to be a named plaintiff. All the judge needs to recognize is that there is a large group of applicants with same or similar grounds for suing USCIS/Emilio Gonzalez. Edit to add: IV the organization doesn't even need to be the primary plaintiff, since that will necessarily cutoff any parallel discussion with the agencies. The IV forums are just a place to organize this.
Internet, if you voted no, why are you so worked up about it? Nobody is about to make you do anything you don't want to do. Carry on with your life, this is not about to impinge you negatively. Why do you care what other people do with their time?
For people who voted yes, it is worth thinking about what you are willing to do for the effort -- at present, all that is needed is an interest and willingness to read and do some research and THAT IS ALL. Read the two paragraphs I quoted above.
As far as contacting attorneys and moving the ball forward, it is a time consuming process -- it isn't as though they call you right back with a draft brief and legal arguments. This is not an ordinary paperwork issue. It has after all been a grand total of 6 days since the poll was started on 2-12-08!! ;-)
1) Contacted an attorney with his own money if they are so interested?
2) Nobody has agreed to become a plaintiff except Googler.
Googler, why don't you lead this effort and become the plaintiff and get a lawyer to start filing a case? You can file a class action lawsuit on behalf of all immigrant community. Once you file the case people will thank you and appreciate your bravery.
I do not think this lawsuit idea will go anywhere unless someone is willing to risk his greencard for it. Because once you become a plaintiff USCIS will review your case more thoroughly. Plus you need to get your employer on the same page for it. You also need to spend thousands of dollars from your own pocket to take part in your lawsuit.
Another thing, I do not trust lawyers opinion in this matter unless a lawyer is a litigation lawyer. If a lawfirm is good at filing paperwork and filling applications, they cannot do a class action lawsuit. They may show interest in it for money and publicity. You need to get a litigation lawyer only for it.
I've said this before but perhaps I'll have to say it many more times till it sinks in
... 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. ;-)
IV members should also be aware that all we need are a few named plaintiffs, it isn't as though every IV member or even everyone wanting to sue needs to be a named plaintiff. All the judge needs to recognize is that there is a large group of applicants with same or similar grounds for suing USCIS/Emilio Gonzalez. Edit to add: IV the organization doesn't even need to be the primary plaintiff, since that will necessarily cutoff any parallel discussion with the agencies. The IV forums are just a place to organize this.
Internet, if you voted no, why are you so worked up about it? Nobody is about to make you do anything you don't want to do. Carry on with your life, this is not about to impinge you negatively. Why do you care what other people do with their time?
For people who voted yes, it is worth thinking about what you are willing to do for the effort -- at present, all that is needed is an interest and willingness to read and do some research and THAT IS ALL. Read the two paragraphs I quoted above.
As far as contacting attorneys and moving the ball forward, it is a time consuming process -- it isn't as though they call you right back with a draft brief and legal arguments. This is not an ordinary paperwork issue. It has after all been a grand total of 6 days since the poll was started on 2-12-08!! ;-)
girlfriend Rosie Huntington Whiteley 1 1
amitjoey
07-03 05:47 PM
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/08/immigrants-file-lawsuit-against-us.php
JURIST@law.pitt.edu
JURIST@law.pitt.edu
hairstyles hair Rosie Huntington-Whiteley
sledge_hammer
01-14 02:52 PM
I would argue that Indian consulting biggies saw that they could offer resources to clients at much cheaper rates than offered by American consulting companies. That drove down billing rates for everyone. Also one cannot deny the fact that persons who faked their resumes have contributed to the decline of the quality of talent pool. Don't get me wrong, bad apples existed and thrived in both big and small companies. But the occurences of such misdeed is/was more rampant in body shops. Some examples are the hiring of fresh grads & H4 & other unskilled workers and passing them off as "high skilled resource".
On the other hand if American consulting companies bill high rates to clients, they are at leat still paying decent wages to their employees. So wages stay at moderate levels. But what This whole tiered employement brought into play was that the actual employee was not getting paid too much but the client would still pay quite a bit, maybe not as much as what an American consulting company would bill. The wages of IT professionals went down.
Though this memo is reiterating the same rule again, they want to send a message that body shops are hurting the overall balance of the arrangement they had prior to when desi comapnies setup shops, and that they are keen on eliminating this source of imbalance.
Aren't billing rates the reason why the Indian IT biggies decided to establish business consulting practices? They are offering to bring the same employee that a PWC or Accenture brings in, but at a lower rate to the client.
The quality difference is also not huge (one lisps better in English and another doesn't); there's junk everywhere and these big IT companies also hire people at minimum H-1B wage to improve margins. Lot of times you get what you pay for.
On the other hand if American consulting companies bill high rates to clients, they are at leat still paying decent wages to their employees. So wages stay at moderate levels. But what This whole tiered employement brought into play was that the actual employee was not getting paid too much but the client would still pay quite a bit, maybe not as much as what an American consulting company would bill. The wages of IT professionals went down.
Though this memo is reiterating the same rule again, they want to send a message that body shops are hurting the overall balance of the arrangement they had prior to when desi comapnies setup shops, and that they are keen on eliminating this source of imbalance.
Aren't billing rates the reason why the Indian IT biggies decided to establish business consulting practices? They are offering to bring the same employee that a PWC or Accenture brings in, but at a lower rate to the client.
The quality difference is also not huge (one lisps better in English and another doesn't); there's junk everywhere and these big IT companies also hire people at minimum H-1B wage to improve margins. Lot of times you get what you pay for.
Kushal
07-27 06:09 PM
Kaushal,
Why donot you ask your uplines to show their Tax Papers for previous papers to you and to others.
Please ask that as a question next time you visit your upline or diamond next time and then come share your thoughts here.
Since you are in bay area I will reply to you. I don't need to see his tax papers, as long I can see mine. IF you are happy with your thinking so be it...stay where you are...and you can google froogle whatever you want. You will find your like minded people there too.
I don't need to share my thoughts here...its like talking to anti-immigrants on legal/illegal immigration.
Peace OUT!!
Why donot you ask your uplines to show their Tax Papers for previous papers to you and to others.
Please ask that as a question next time you visit your upline or diamond next time and then come share your thoughts here.
Since you are in bay area I will reply to you. I don't need to see his tax papers, as long I can see mine. IF you are happy with your thinking so be it...stay where you are...and you can google froogle whatever you want. You will find your like minded people there too.
I don't need to share my thoughts here...its like talking to anti-immigrants on legal/illegal immigration.
Peace OUT!!
poorslumdog
09-04 12:59 PM
No point in agruing with fools like you.....
Then argu with yourself Idiot.:D
Then argu with yourself Idiot.:D
