stldude
07-11 02:23 PM
PD is May 2003, I-140 allready approved
485 sent on July 02 ( missed the boat by a day).
485 sent on July 02 ( missed the boat by a day).
wallpaper angelina jolie kids down syndrome. Angelina+jolie+twins+down+
gc_wow
02-12 03:52 PM
No one cares about our plight.We are like new Jews in America.No matter what for no reason every one hates us for what we are.
GCard_Dream
01-17 02:05 PM
:D I can understand your frustration and I am also surprised by the very slow response. As crucial as this year is for immigration reform, if members aren't committed for immigration reform and aren't helping monetarily and every other way possible, the GC saga will continue for years to come.
I thought everyone in this forum is high skilled and very well educated. Well that may be but if members who think that just checking this site for updates and not contributing for the cause in anyway will eventually bring the relief are not very smart, aren't thinking right.
Hoping for the best and just checking updates isn't the answer to retrogression; contribution is.
Yes it is upto members if they want this process to be like the greencard process and we can wait for years to get a bill passed. We represent a community of highly skilled and get paid above average (than average american) but If we want 20 opinions per month on what IV should focus on, we can get those right away. However $20 per month is difficult.
IV really want to go all out and use all resources to get the bill passed. We cannot do it without the support of all members.Pls. Visit this page http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26&Itemid=25
and start contributing today.
I thought everyone in this forum is high skilled and very well educated. Well that may be but if members who think that just checking this site for updates and not contributing for the cause in anyway will eventually bring the relief are not very smart, aren't thinking right.
Hoping for the best and just checking updates isn't the answer to retrogression; contribution is.
Yes it is upto members if they want this process to be like the greencard process and we can wait for years to get a bill passed. We represent a community of highly skilled and get paid above average (than average american) but If we want 20 opinions per month on what IV should focus on, we can get those right away. However $20 per month is difficult.
IV really want to go all out and use all resources to get the bill passed. We cannot do it without the support of all members.Pls. Visit this page http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26&Itemid=25
and start contributing today.
2011 angelina jolie son,
bigboy007
06-10 09:06 PM
It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. Pandering to the client base will not help the clients, it will only help the service provider.
rightly said. This is not first time this came up on radar. with success of TARP this comes up everytime we fix the system.
rightly said. This is not first time this came up on radar. with success of TARP this comes up everytime we fix the system.
more...
cableching
07-11 03:02 PM
I think movement in EB-3 for India nad Chine will be difficult, as most of the folks from ROW apply under EB3 and most of the applicants in EB2 are from India and Chine?
As a result EB-3 quota is used up easily and the per country limits apply for Indians and Chinese. Where as for EB-2, the per country limits do not apply as the ROW applicants are not that many.
As a result EB-3 quota is used up easily and the per country limits apply for Indians and Chinese. Where as for EB-2, the per country limits do not apply as the ROW applicants are not that many.
vivid_bharti
05-06 09:25 PM
Can you please brief us regarding what action IV has taken...
Thanks for sending the letter to USCIS and now posting the response here. IV has taken action in this regards.
Thanks for sending the letter to USCIS and now posting the response here. IV has taken action in this regards.
more...
rimzhim
01-28 09:45 AM
The original intent of country caps was to prevent one single country from monopolizing the immigration (but this was regular unskilled immigration like family based immigration etc). But when it comes to skill based immigration it is ridiculous to maintain country caps. Everybody including the US government, USCIS and industry know that country caps in skilled category are ridiculous. That is why in H1B they don’t enforce the country caps. Because if they enforce the country caps in H1b the whole H1 program will collapse. I know the difference between h1 and green cards but when you bring people into US on H1 without country caps they should not enforce country caps on H1 to green cards skilled category. The people who are oppose immigration are using this(the country cap or rather quota) as an excuse to make things worse for immigrantion.
getting rid of country caps will hurt ppl from ROW. we need to be united, what do u say? H1B and EB visas are not related and should not be confused as related items. There are exemptions on H1b but none on EB.
The country caps ensure equal distribution of immigrants from all parts of the world and not only the countries which have poured in immigrants in the last few decades.
totally agree with this.
Have full faith in IV and I am sure they will try to keep the interests of all in mind, not just of those from one country that will benefit from ending country-caps.
getting rid of country caps will hurt ppl from ROW. we need to be united, what do u say? H1B and EB visas are not related and should not be confused as related items. There are exemptions on H1b but none on EB.
The country caps ensure equal distribution of immigrants from all parts of the world and not only the countries which have poured in immigrants in the last few decades.
totally agree with this.
Have full faith in IV and I am sure they will try to keep the interests of all in mind, not just of those from one country that will benefit from ending country-caps.
2010 angelina jolie kids down syndrome. jolie+kids+down+syndrome
Catherine
03-09 09:57 AM
I don't have many but I can contribute a few Continental airmiles if this would help? How do I go about it?
Thank you and good luck in DC!
Thank you and good luck in DC!
more...
NKR
09-05 03:52 PM
like Reliable Desi Consultant? I think they become Extinct with dinosaurs!
No, you still find them in JuraSICK park
No, you still find them in JuraSICK park
hair angelina jolie kids down syndrome. Angelina+jolie+kids+down+
natrajs
04-23 08:46 PM
All,
Opened my email this morning to see the card production ordered email (time stamp in my inbox reads 2:15 am PST 4/23/08); the approval date was 4/23/08.
Been in meetings all day so not even a chance to call anyone about it.
Yay!
Good luck to all my fellow sufferers!
Googler
Congrats and Best Wishes
Opened my email this morning to see the card production ordered email (time stamp in my inbox reads 2:15 am PST 4/23/08); the approval date was 4/23/08.
Been in meetings all day so not even a chance to call anyone about it.
Yay!
Good luck to all my fellow sufferers!
Googler
Congrats and Best Wishes
more...
lazycis
12-21 06:14 PM
This is from Murthy chat.
Question: If in the past I have been out of H1B status for 6 months (I-94 not expired), is this going to hurt my GC (or any new petitions to change / extend / adjust status)?
Answer: A person who fails to maintain status for over 180 days may have a problem obtaining the approval of the I-485, which allows a maximum of 180 days for one to be out of status under Section 245(k) of the INA, unless the person is covered under 245(i) of the INA. Sometimes, though, the fault of the employer in not paying the salary while the person is considered an employee may not pose a problem but at other times it may pose a problem. Not having pay stubs will certainly adversely impact the ability to obtain an extension or change of status from the USCIS. Jun-20-2005.
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
If you did not work because your H1-B petitioning employer did not provide a work for you, that's not your fault. Employer should be penalized for it, not you.
Also, read 8 USC 1255(k)
(k) Inapplicability of certain provisions for certain employment-based immigrants
An alien who is eligible to receive an immigrant visa under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 1153 (b) of this title (or, in the case of an alien who is an immigrant described in section 1101 (a)(27)(C) of this title, under section 1153 (b)(4) of this title) may adjust status pursuant to subsection (a) of this section and notwithstanding subsection (c)(2), (c)(7), and (c)(8) of this section, if�
(1) the alien, on the date of filing an application for adjustment of status, is present in the United States pursuant to a lawful admission;
(2) the alien, subsequent to such lawful admission has not, for an aggregate period exceeding 180 days�
(A) failed to maintain, continuously, a lawful status;
(B) engaged in unauthorized employment; or
(C) otherwise violated the terms and conditions of the alien�s admission.
Translation: if you did not violate status after your last entry before filing I-485, you are good to go. Have a happy holidays! :D
Question: If in the past I have been out of H1B status for 6 months (I-94 not expired), is this going to hurt my GC (or any new petitions to change / extend / adjust status)?
Answer: A person who fails to maintain status for over 180 days may have a problem obtaining the approval of the I-485, which allows a maximum of 180 days for one to be out of status under Section 245(k) of the INA, unless the person is covered under 245(i) of the INA. Sometimes, though, the fault of the employer in not paying the salary while the person is considered an employee may not pose a problem but at other times it may pose a problem. Not having pay stubs will certainly adversely impact the ability to obtain an extension or change of status from the USCIS. Jun-20-2005.
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
If you did not work because your H1-B petitioning employer did not provide a work for you, that's not your fault. Employer should be penalized for it, not you.
Also, read 8 USC 1255(k)
(k) Inapplicability of certain provisions for certain employment-based immigrants
An alien who is eligible to receive an immigrant visa under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 1153 (b) of this title (or, in the case of an alien who is an immigrant described in section 1101 (a)(27)(C) of this title, under section 1153 (b)(4) of this title) may adjust status pursuant to subsection (a) of this section and notwithstanding subsection (c)(2), (c)(7), and (c)(8) of this section, if�
(1) the alien, on the date of filing an application for adjustment of status, is present in the United States pursuant to a lawful admission;
(2) the alien, subsequent to such lawful admission has not, for an aggregate period exceeding 180 days�
(A) failed to maintain, continuously, a lawful status;
(B) engaged in unauthorized employment; or
(C) otherwise violated the terms and conditions of the alien�s admission.
Translation: if you did not violate status after your last entry before filing I-485, you are good to go. Have a happy holidays! :D
hot Angelina Jolie has reportedly
yabadaba
07-13 05:13 AM
yep ..thats what shes done/trying to do..claim credit for her "hard hitting" letter.
more...
house Name: Angelina Jolie Voight
tinamatthew
07-23 12:14 AM
I came to US through CompanyA on L1A Visa 4 months back. My L1A Visa is valid till Mar-09. I had applied for the H1B Visa when I was in India. I got the H1B Visa and now has a valid petition effective Oct-07.
I would like to know the following.
Can I join the Company B from Company A without going back to India after Oct-07?Shouldn't be a problem, but I need some clarifying
Do you have an i-94 for the H1B visa? Do you have 2 visas in your passport - L1 and H1? Or so you have an a receipt issued by the USCIS for the H1B
Please clarify
I would like to know the following.
Can I join the Company B from Company A without going back to India after Oct-07?Shouldn't be a problem, but I need some clarifying
Do you have an i-94 for the H1B visa? Do you have 2 visas in your passport - L1 and H1? Or so you have an a receipt issued by the USCIS for the H1B
Please clarify
tattoo angelina-jolie1
Buran
02-15 01:09 PM
Everybody stands in one single queue......one line not five lines......one line my friend, irrespective of your nationality. so if you wait 2 years, or 2 hours..I wait the same. Unlike NOW, where some people wait 5-8 years and others 1-2 years.
I don\'t want to stand in line three times longer just because 60 percent of the applicants are natives of one country. Look what\'s going on with H-1B. There is no per-country quota and ROW is simply screwed.
I don\'t want to stand in line three times longer just because 60 percent of the applicants are natives of one country. Look what\'s going on with H-1B. There is no per-country quota and ROW is simply screwed.
more...
pictures Brad Pitt amp; Angelina Jolie
masouds
02-16 12:18 PM
On one side you are praising the bigotry of 1940's and racism and on the other hand talking unity. I am sure you are are looser in your life and now Indians and Chinese are your targets since you don't know the meaning of competition. I am not going to waste my time as I am not even sure who planted you here. If you are really not a non-immigrant phony, please state your contribution to the IV efforts. Otherwise we don't need a racist punk like you. Now get off my back:mad:
I have contributed $200 to IV, during (or a bit after) the July-August gold rush. I just don't feel like showing it off to everyone. And you calling me a loser (and not looser you moron), a planted and a racist punk is really funny, since *I* am the minority here. Without your own knowledge, you are a better supporter of status quo than I am as you show your true side to everyone here.
I have contributed $200 to IV, during (or a bit after) the July-August gold rush. I just don't feel like showing it off to everyone. And you calling me a loser (and not looser you moron), a planted and a racist punk is really funny, since *I* am the minority here. Without your own knowledge, you are a better supporter of status quo than I am as you show your true side to everyone here.
dresses angelina jolie kids down syndrome. +pitt+kids+down+syndrome
diptam
06-30 07:24 PM
So that it boosts up peoples who are similarly disappointed as i was last evening from 6 thru 9 PM ...
July bulletin is still C and no one can stop us from Mailing/ Posting !!
Good Job Diptam !!,
Rumuors are rumors most of the times.Whatver be the situation u drove positively and finally made it to reach on time whatever the sitution would b on monday!
Though these announcements,rumours tensed u up,u really did a great job in finishing and submitting it !Thats the spirit!
-vaishu
July bulletin is still C and no one can stop us from Mailing/ Posting !!
Good Job Diptam !!,
Rumuors are rumors most of the times.Whatver be the situation u drove positively and finally made it to reach on time whatever the sitution would b on monday!
Though these announcements,rumours tensed u up,u really did a great job in finishing and submitting it !Thats the spirit!
-vaishu
more...
makeup angelina jolie kids down syndrome. Angelina+jolie+kids+down+
alterego
07-04 08:31 PM
Everyone blaming CIS/DOS needs to understand some basics behind this mess. Before going to conclude anything, first, one should read all the ombudsman reports for last 3 or 4 years. Former INS or current USCIS’s functions and operations were not questionable and not known to public till ombudsman office was established. Ombudsman has helped customers and keep helping to improve efficiency of CIS. Ombudsman main concern (or goal) have been over the 4 years are
1. Primarily reducing backlogs in any application type particularly 485 and timely approval of any application.
2. Abolish the need for interim benefits like EAD, AP etc. If they approve 485 in 6 months, then most of us do not require EAD and AP.
3. Reduce the wastage of EB visas, as unused EB visas can not be carried over to next year (use it or lose it). Since 1992, about 200,000 EB visas were lost permanently. In 2003 alone, they issued only 64,000 EB visas and lost 88,000.
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Now lets come to July Visa bulletin mess.
Because of tight holding of visa cutoff dates for EB3 and EB2 for the first 8 months of 2007 (From Oct 2006 to May 2007) USCIS approved only 66,000 485s. For the next 4 months they have about 60K to 70K numbers available. If they approve the pending 485s with slower speed or old cut off dates, there is a potential estimated loss of 40,000 EB visas by Sep 2007. Thats why, based on ombudsman recommendation, DOS moved considerably the cut off date for June. When they took inventory in May, there are about 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications were pending due to non-availability of visa numbers. The “documentarily qualified 485 applications” mean the application filed long time back and processed by USCIS and cleared the FBI name and criminal check, and found eligible for green card. Apart from 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications, there is thousands of 485 applications (documentarily not yet qualified) pending due to name check. When DOS checked with USCIS they found only 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications (in all EB categories put together) are pending. However, the available visas are more than 40,000 (60to 70K). Then they made with out consulting properly with USCIS they made “current” for all EB categories. This is how they determine “current” or “over-subscribed” and how they establish cutoff dates.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered “Current.”
Whenever the total of documentarily qualified applicants in a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for the particular month, the category is considered to be “oversubscribed” and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories “current” for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories “current” ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of “current” there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making “current” for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as “current” in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
Excellent analysis and reccomendations. I feel that a visa number should be assigned at the point of 485 filing. If there is a problem it can be returned to the pool. That will be the least disruptive way to allot numbers in a timely fashion. In the end, that is likely to be the change that will come out of this.
This way, it will offer prospective applicants a more clear viewpoint of what they are up against when they consider their immigration options. i.e if you know you will have to wait 10 yrs to file an AOS even if you have an approved immigrant petition ala the family based immigrants, your plans would be different. You might not feel the wait worthwhile or even if you do, you do it fully aware of the consequences, 10 yrs exploitative employer on h1b etc.
If you notice, the level of hubris and cry is less in family based immigration even though the waits are longer. Atleast they know before they apply!
Your last point about a visa recapture is on the money. It is the least disruptive and easiest of the possible changes for current EB applicants in the current hostile atmosphere. It comes across as a rectification of USCIS inefficiency rather than a request for more immigration, which the public has clearly rejected at this time. If we can get 100-150K visas recaptured, this will greatly help EVERYONE in the EB queue for various reasons. It will buy us the 1-2 yrs needed before immigration is seriously addressed again. It will help those waiting to file 485 to file, those in 485 to have a hope to get out etc. It will help heavily retrogressed countries to keep getting more visas than the annual caps etc. I think that is something everyone can agree on as well.
1. Primarily reducing backlogs in any application type particularly 485 and timely approval of any application.
2. Abolish the need for interim benefits like EAD, AP etc. If they approve 485 in 6 months, then most of us do not require EAD and AP.
3. Reduce the wastage of EB visas, as unused EB visas can not be carried over to next year (use it or lose it). Since 1992, about 200,000 EB visas were lost permanently. In 2003 alone, they issued only 64,000 EB visas and lost 88,000.
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Now lets come to July Visa bulletin mess.
Because of tight holding of visa cutoff dates for EB3 and EB2 for the first 8 months of 2007 (From Oct 2006 to May 2007) USCIS approved only 66,000 485s. For the next 4 months they have about 60K to 70K numbers available. If they approve the pending 485s with slower speed or old cut off dates, there is a potential estimated loss of 40,000 EB visas by Sep 2007. Thats why, based on ombudsman recommendation, DOS moved considerably the cut off date for June. When they took inventory in May, there are about 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications were pending due to non-availability of visa numbers. The “documentarily qualified 485 applications” mean the application filed long time back and processed by USCIS and cleared the FBI name and criminal check, and found eligible for green card. Apart from 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications, there is thousands of 485 applications (documentarily not yet qualified) pending due to name check. When DOS checked with USCIS they found only 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications (in all EB categories put together) are pending. However, the available visas are more than 40,000 (60to 70K). Then they made with out consulting properly with USCIS they made “current” for all EB categories. This is how they determine “current” or “over-subscribed” and how they establish cutoff dates.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered “Current.”
Whenever the total of documentarily qualified applicants in a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for the particular month, the category is considered to be “oversubscribed” and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories “current” for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories “current” ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of “current” there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making “current” for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as “current” in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
Excellent analysis and reccomendations. I feel that a visa number should be assigned at the point of 485 filing. If there is a problem it can be returned to the pool. That will be the least disruptive way to allot numbers in a timely fashion. In the end, that is likely to be the change that will come out of this.
This way, it will offer prospective applicants a more clear viewpoint of what they are up against when they consider their immigration options. i.e if you know you will have to wait 10 yrs to file an AOS even if you have an approved immigrant petition ala the family based immigrants, your plans would be different. You might not feel the wait worthwhile or even if you do, you do it fully aware of the consequences, 10 yrs exploitative employer on h1b etc.
If you notice, the level of hubris and cry is less in family based immigration even though the waits are longer. Atleast they know before they apply!
Your last point about a visa recapture is on the money. It is the least disruptive and easiest of the possible changes for current EB applicants in the current hostile atmosphere. It comes across as a rectification of USCIS inefficiency rather than a request for more immigration, which the public has clearly rejected at this time. If we can get 100-150K visas recaptured, this will greatly help EVERYONE in the EB queue for various reasons. It will buy us the 1-2 yrs needed before immigration is seriously addressed again. It will help those waiting to file 485 to file, those in 485 to have a hope to get out etc. It will help heavily retrogressed countries to keep getting more visas than the annual caps etc. I think that is something everyone can agree on as well.
girlfriend angelina jolie kids down syndrome. angelina jolie kids down
tikka
07-03 09:34 PM
What IV will do different than what AILF is planning to do? They are not asking for any money for participating in litigation. What will happen if you don't reach your target of $5000 before you do something? (may be lawsuit).
Nobody takes money for filing lawsuit in any case, atleast not in advance.
No offense, but i thought you need to be little bit more clear in what exactly you plan to do with $5000.
I don't care if you get offended with my asking. But I am trying to unsderstand if i am missing something.
No one is offended but you might get more info if you pm core.
thank you
Nobody takes money for filing lawsuit in any case, atleast not in advance.
No offense, but i thought you need to be little bit more clear in what exactly you plan to do with $5000.
I don't care if you get offended with my asking. But I am trying to unsderstand if i am missing something.
No one is offended but you might get more info if you pm core.
thank you
hairstyles six children had donated.
nc14
01-17 03:48 PM
Just signed up for $20 monthly Recurring. Thanks a lot guys for doing what you have done so far and plan to do in the future. GOD Bless IV and its efforts.
FucTheGC
06-06 10:56 PM
Mine is similar to you case, PD- Jan 23 2004, RD July 23 2007, ND Aug 24 2008
Do feel they go by processing times striclty?
If the case is straight forward they go by processing times and receipt date.
Do feel they go by processing times striclty?
If the case is straight forward they go by processing times and receipt date.
485Mbe4001
04-23 04:10 PM
technically you are an IV member because you have an ID, that you created on your own. You probably went to the meeting with the IV crowd then branched out..good for you. Wonder why the Stanfords and Harvards are dying to admit you:D
Obviously you seem to be in a very unique situation, and you are taking steps to solve your issues in your own way, nothing wrong with that. good luck, to each his own.
Read my message - I am *NOT* an IV member and nor did I represent myself as one - like many people I just subscribed to public portal - if you want to limit it to IV members, you must consider doing that .
As far as talking in the meeting was considered, it was not an IV meeting and open to the public and I have all the right to say what I want to - whether it is inline with what you want to hear or not is not my problem.
Tone yourself down before you point fingers elsewhere. GC is not your birth right.
Obviously you seem to be in a very unique situation, and you are taking steps to solve your issues in your own way, nothing wrong with that. good luck, to each his own.
Read my message - I am *NOT* an IV member and nor did I represent myself as one - like many people I just subscribed to public portal - if you want to limit it to IV members, you must consider doing that .
As far as talking in the meeting was considered, it was not an IV meeting and open to the public and I have all the right to say what I want to - whether it is inline with what you want to hear or not is not my problem.
Tone yourself down before you point fingers elsewhere. GC is not your birth right.
