Ramba
07-09 07:44 PM
I came across this law about the departmental control of numerical limitations, and I'd appreciate it if you all could post your interpretations of the same.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
I feel that they did not violate any clause. Till June 30 which is end of third quarter, they are authorized to approve (3*27%*140K) 113,400. However they approved only 66,400 till May 31. That yields about 47,000 for June alone(10%+any number not used in previous months). The reamining visas are eligible for Jul 1, which is 13,000. Put together June and July1, it comes 60,000. Therefore they did not violate any law. This makes only 126,000. The remaining number was splitted for Consular processing.
my 2 cents...
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
I feel that they did not violate any clause. Till June 30 which is end of third quarter, they are authorized to approve (3*27%*140K) 113,400. However they approved only 66,400 till May 31. That yields about 47,000 for June alone(10%+any number not used in previous months). The reamining visas are eligible for Jul 1, which is 13,000. Put together June and July1, it comes 60,000. Therefore they did not violate any law. This makes only 126,000. The remaining number was splitted for Consular processing.
my 2 cents...
wallpaper lack hairstyles for medium
hazishak
07-24 10:02 AM
My wife's H4 is pending. I applied AOS for both of US. Her OPT expired on 7/11. How long can she be in status until she gets H4?pls advise me!!!!!!!!!
Macaca
06-11 08:29 AM
Dear Colleague:
With the unemployment rate still unacceptably high and millions of people looking for a job, we have a responsibility to ensure that companies do not use temporary visa programs to replace American workers with cheaper labor from overseas.
Sincerely,
____________________ ____________________
BERNARD SANDERS CHARLES E. GRASSLEY
UNITED STATES SENATOR UNITED STATES SENATOR
************************************************** ***************
Where the Job Openings Are Now (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704575304575296692796660262.html) By JOE LIGHT | Wall Street Journal, Jun 10 2010
The number of job openings grew in April, indicating a continued loosening of the job market after the worst downturn in decades. Employers had a seasonally-adjusted 3.1 million openings on the last business day of April, up about 300,000 from March and about 800,000 from last summer's trough.
Industries seeing the most growth included education and health services, which saw openings rise 7% from last month, and professional and business services, which grew about 24%. Government job openings saw the largest contraction--about 8.5% fewer public sector jobs were available in April than were available in March.
The slowest growing region in April was the South, which saw openings rise by about 6%, while the Northeast, Midwest, and West saw increases of between 12% and 16%.
"We're definitely seeing a brighter outlook, but not near a rubber-band snap back," says Rich Milgram, CEO of Beyond.com, a network of 15,000 niche career websites.
Entry-level jobs posted on Beyond.com's network increased 80% between the first quarter of last year and this year, with engineering, healthcare, and information technology industries faring the best. High-paying, managerial roles saw more tepid increases, indicating that employers are choosing to fill cheap positions first, Mr. Milgram says.
Even though the number of openings has grown, it can take three to four months before increases in openings start to translate to increases in actual hires, Mr. Milgram says.
Soliant Health, a staffing firm for the health care industry, has seen requests from companies for nurse practitioners and physician assistants triple in the last year, says president David Alexander. Retailers, many of which have opened clinics inside their stores, and companies conducting in-home clinical trials have been among employers showing the most demand, while pharmacy technicians and licensed practical nurses, who don't need as much training as registered nurses, have been hard to place.
"We're just starting to see pockets of demand pick up after the layoffs last year, but employers are still having no trouble finding candidates," Mr. Alexander says.
With the unemployment rate still unacceptably high and millions of people looking for a job, we have a responsibility to ensure that companies do not use temporary visa programs to replace American workers with cheaper labor from overseas.
Sincerely,
____________________ ____________________
BERNARD SANDERS CHARLES E. GRASSLEY
UNITED STATES SENATOR UNITED STATES SENATOR
************************************************** ***************
Where the Job Openings Are Now (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704575304575296692796660262.html) By JOE LIGHT | Wall Street Journal, Jun 10 2010
The number of job openings grew in April, indicating a continued loosening of the job market after the worst downturn in decades. Employers had a seasonally-adjusted 3.1 million openings on the last business day of April, up about 300,000 from March and about 800,000 from last summer's trough.
Industries seeing the most growth included education and health services, which saw openings rise 7% from last month, and professional and business services, which grew about 24%. Government job openings saw the largest contraction--about 8.5% fewer public sector jobs were available in April than were available in March.
The slowest growing region in April was the South, which saw openings rise by about 6%, while the Northeast, Midwest, and West saw increases of between 12% and 16%.
"We're definitely seeing a brighter outlook, but not near a rubber-band snap back," says Rich Milgram, CEO of Beyond.com, a network of 15,000 niche career websites.
Entry-level jobs posted on Beyond.com's network increased 80% between the first quarter of last year and this year, with engineering, healthcare, and information technology industries faring the best. High-paying, managerial roles saw more tepid increases, indicating that employers are choosing to fill cheap positions first, Mr. Milgram says.
Even though the number of openings has grown, it can take three to four months before increases in openings start to translate to increases in actual hires, Mr. Milgram says.
Soliant Health, a staffing firm for the health care industry, has seen requests from companies for nurse practitioners and physician assistants triple in the last year, says president David Alexander. Retailers, many of which have opened clinics inside their stores, and companies conducting in-home clinical trials have been among employers showing the most demand, while pharmacy technicians and licensed practical nurses, who don't need as much training as registered nurses, have been hard to place.
"We're just starting to see pockets of demand pick up after the layoffs last year, but employers are still having no trouble finding candidates," Mr. Alexander says.
2011 Popular Medium Length Hair Styles for men/ boys/women/girls Haircut
McGuffin
02-23 02:17 PM
Yeah, I need a set done date, I might not be able to get this one done.
more...
fcres
07-23 04:15 PM
Well according to this FAQ dated 07/23 they will accept application without medical report (Qn# 13) which is also an initial evidence. So i hope EVL is also ok.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/EBFAQ1.pdf
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/EBFAQ1.pdf
nlssubbu
09-24 01:59 PM
Hi,
Appreciate ur quick response.
so i need to get the affidavit from notary signed that it is a true translation from telugu to english so this is a replacement of English DOB Certificate.
It will be much better if this is done in India by your relatives, get it notorized. They can scan it and send it as an attachement through e-mail, which you can print it over here.
This will be much quicker rather than trying to find someone authorized to do this translation over here.
Appreciate ur quick response.
so i need to get the affidavit from notary signed that it is a true translation from telugu to english so this is a replacement of English DOB Certificate.
It will be much better if this is done in India by your relatives, get it notorized. They can scan it and send it as an attachement through e-mail, which you can print it over here.
This will be much quicker rather than trying to find someone authorized to do this translation over here.
more...
Ramu25
04-26 10:52 PM
Can I apply for the adjustment of status by my self without the H1 - employers Notice.From L1 to H1.
2010 Black hair styles haircare
dummgelauft
08-21 11:40 AM
I am NOT here illegally. I was told BY someone at USCIS when I submitted the first application that as long as I was submitting requested applications and the required fees, I was not considered an illegal alien. If that was the case, why has no one at USCIS ever told me that? They know where I live, who I live with and everything else they need to know, I have no secrets from them, but not once have I received a letter, phone call or anything else to request for me to leave. I guess those of you that are professionals or those who already have a green card, are better than people like myself who are considered blue collar. I don't receive a dime for what I do, room and board is it so therefore I am not taking away anything from Americans who were born in this country.
In 2003 when I arrived here, PASSPORTS WERE NOT REQUIRED. I had a birth certificate and valid driver's license, that is all customs asked for at the Toronto airport and that is all I gave them. IF passports were required, I would have gotten one, but since they were not, what was I to do? I am not from an overseas country and I have visited the US most of my life as a child and as an adult without any trouble and was never asked for a passport. All that changed in 2005 - not my fault.
I came here looking for some assistance but seem to have gotten a bunch of sarcastic comments that are really not helpful and weren't necessary.
It's funny how you make assumptions and you all are here for similar reasons and needed help at some point. As for not criticizing USCIS for doing their job right - I doubt you would say the same thing if you were my shoes. I do not appreciate the criticism or sarcasm, I thought this was supposed to be a place to get some help, I guess I was wrong.
I won't be back.
Okay, Let us assume it is not your fault, but answer a few things for me
(1) Did your Fiancee sponsor you for permanent residence in US? (He has to marry you to do so.
(2) Since 2002, there has been a n K1 visa (fiancee visa), did yo enquire about that?
(3) Do you have a Canadian Citizenship card?
(4) If you have a Canadian birth certificate and a License, why the heck can you not cross back in to Canada, via any of the dozens of land border crossings, and go start the whole process, with a passport in hand and a proper sponsorship for your visa.
In you post you have not mentioned ANYWHERE, as to who filed the immigrant petition for you. You can not just file it yourself, you need a sponsor (which in your case, should be your fiancee/husband).
If, by mis-fortune, you are no longer with your fiancee/husband, the best bet is to go back to Canada and get on with your life.
In 2003 when I arrived here, PASSPORTS WERE NOT REQUIRED. I had a birth certificate and valid driver's license, that is all customs asked for at the Toronto airport and that is all I gave them. IF passports were required, I would have gotten one, but since they were not, what was I to do? I am not from an overseas country and I have visited the US most of my life as a child and as an adult without any trouble and was never asked for a passport. All that changed in 2005 - not my fault.
I came here looking for some assistance but seem to have gotten a bunch of sarcastic comments that are really not helpful and weren't necessary.
It's funny how you make assumptions and you all are here for similar reasons and needed help at some point. As for not criticizing USCIS for doing their job right - I doubt you would say the same thing if you were my shoes. I do not appreciate the criticism or sarcasm, I thought this was supposed to be a place to get some help, I guess I was wrong.
I won't be back.
Okay, Let us assume it is not your fault, but answer a few things for me
(1) Did your Fiancee sponsor you for permanent residence in US? (He has to marry you to do so.
(2) Since 2002, there has been a n K1 visa (fiancee visa), did yo enquire about that?
(3) Do you have a Canadian Citizenship card?
(4) If you have a Canadian birth certificate and a License, why the heck can you not cross back in to Canada, via any of the dozens of land border crossings, and go start the whole process, with a passport in hand and a proper sponsorship for your visa.
In you post you have not mentioned ANYWHERE, as to who filed the immigrant petition for you. You can not just file it yourself, you need a sponsor (which in your case, should be your fiancee/husband).
If, by mis-fortune, you are no longer with your fiancee/husband, the best bet is to go back to Canada and get on with your life.
more...
sweet_jungle
02-20 12:59 AM
How come these people do not get caught during H-1 approval process or during visa stamping at consulate or maybe later during GC process?
[QUOTE=chanduv23]Thats a new trend. They go to colleges and meet a group of Indian students who are about to graduate and take them out of drinks and dinner and give a presentation about their company. Then when these students come into OPT status, they are all given food + guest house accomodation. Then they are put under intense training for 2 to 3 months and made to do some mockup projects. Then their resumes are massaged with 4 to 5 years of experience ie experience from date they graduated in the under graduation and their MS education is stripped off on their resumes.
[QUOTE=chanduv23]Thats a new trend. They go to colleges and meet a group of Indian students who are about to graduate and take them out of drinks and dinner and give a presentation about their company. Then when these students come into OPT status, they are all given food + guest house accomodation. Then they are put under intense training for 2 to 3 months and made to do some mockup projects. Then their resumes are massaged with 4 to 5 years of experience ie experience from date they graduated in the under graduation and their MS education is stripped off on their resumes.
hair lack hairstyles for medium
gsc999
04-22 02:56 PM
Decipher and GSC999 have totally contradictory opinions . Not sure whom to believe here .:D . There seems to have been 2 sets of opinons here of the members who attended the rally.
---
I think you mean the conclusions we drew are different. Yes, as Congressman Gutierrez himself said yesterday. Some people, he was referring to Latinos who were opposing STRIVE, see STRIVE as glass half-empty. Others as half-full.
I will want to be in the latter category anyday.
The objective of the meeting was to show support for STRIVE, I think we acheived that. If your expectation was that there will only be IV members in the group and the congressman would focus exclusively on that issue. Sorry for the disappointment, welcome to politics. Lets learn from this.
Also, most members think that only anti-immigrants oppose STRIVE. That is not true. Undocumented immigrants also oppose STRIVE. When someone says ,"oh the whole thing was regarding undocumented," well yes but you have to go deeper. Within that group, there are people who oppose STRIVE.
---
I think you mean the conclusions we drew are different. Yes, as Congressman Gutierrez himself said yesterday. Some people, he was referring to Latinos who were opposing STRIVE, see STRIVE as glass half-empty. Others as half-full.
I will want to be in the latter category anyday.
The objective of the meeting was to show support for STRIVE, I think we acheived that. If your expectation was that there will only be IV members in the group and the congressman would focus exclusively on that issue. Sorry for the disappointment, welcome to politics. Lets learn from this.
Also, most members think that only anti-immigrants oppose STRIVE. That is not true. Undocumented immigrants also oppose STRIVE. When someone says ,"oh the whole thing was regarding undocumented," well yes but you have to go deeper. Within that group, there are people who oppose STRIVE.
more...
seeker999
08-11 03:23 PM
August 15th being Independence day.
In lot of cities we are having India day celebrations. Especially in Major cities. Senators are being invited. We should take this opportunity to explain and leave a flyer or something. One such example is
Welcome to India League of America - Michigan... (http://www.ilamichigan.org/events/index.html)
I will be there and make sure the voice is heard. Do we have any standard document or something.
I personally know that almost all congress men call and ask the presidents of these organizations what is it that your community needs...so this will be right opportunity to push the presidents and the politicians of these organizations...
Just my thoughts...
In lot of cities we are having India day celebrations. Especially in Major cities. Senators are being invited. We should take this opportunity to explain and leave a flyer or something. One such example is
Welcome to India League of America - Michigan... (http://www.ilamichigan.org/events/index.html)
I will be there and make sure the voice is heard. Do we have any standard document or something.
I personally know that almost all congress men call and ask the presidents of these organizations what is it that your community needs...so this will be right opportunity to push the presidents and the politicians of these organizations...
Just my thoughts...
hot for medium length hair,
p_kumar
02-20 03:16 PM
Do you belive this guy?. His name is Ron Gotcher. All he will say is GOTCHA!!!!:D
But seriously, Any chance of Eb3 advancing this year?.
But seriously, Any chance of Eb3 advancing this year?.
more...
house lack curly hairstyles, medium
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.
tattoo hairstyles medium length hair.
pappu
07-26 10:28 AM
are they encouraging prinicipal aliens to "batter" spouses, so that they will be given permission to work:) Isn't spouses not able to work a pain by itself? Geez
btw law states that domestic violence is a deportable offence. it is taken seriously by uscis. even convicted greencard holders are deported.
btw law states that domestic violence is a deportable offence. it is taken seriously by uscis. even convicted greencard holders are deported.
more...
pictures Mid length black curly hair
Pineapple
07-28 12:04 PM
In the media, there is a term called the "silly season", where all kinds of "news" crop up to make up for lack of any really interesting or important news during the summer time.
(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silly_season )
It seems IV has its own silly season, when nothing else is going on - notice the one-a-day threads on "I-got-a-red-dot", "i-am-depressed" etc. This thread is one more on the list.. take it easy.. :)
(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silly_season )
It seems IV has its own silly season, when nothing else is going on - notice the one-a-day threads on "I-got-a-red-dot", "i-am-depressed" etc. This thread is one more on the list.. take it easy.. :)
dresses medium length hair. lack
diptam
07-01 09:38 PM
Who gave that guy the right to ask questions to IV Core rudely ? He is questioning as if he hired IV core for resolving this Crisis and asking for status update.
He/She crossed the line somehow.
Pappu,
You don't need to be so polite with this member.. He/she just joined IV. Haven't done anything for IV.. Don't know what IV is doing any now start talking about IV core doing partying..
He/She crossed the line somehow.
Pappu,
You don't need to be so polite with this member.. He/she just joined IV. Haven't done anything for IV.. Don't know what IV is doing any now start talking about IV core doing partying..
more...
makeup Black Hairstyles For Medium Length Hair Medium Length Bobbed Hairstyles
reddymjm
10-21 08:59 AM
Bump
girlfriend Black Medium Hairstyles, Black
tapukakababa
07-18 12:21 PM
hi tapukakababa, the number is for the national customer service center but you mentioned you called the nebraska service center. so did u ask them to transfer to that service center or ???. i would like to talk to those guys and see what they did wityh my application. i guess we already had a painful ride and if it does not yield the right fruit then it really hurts us bad.
As "inthehole" mentioned, first a lady answered and asked me questions about the reason of calling..
then she asked some questions and asked which service center I applied to.. I said NSC and then she transferred me automatically.. so you can go ahead and call that number..
As "inthehole" mentioned, first a lady answered and asked me questions about the reason of calling..
then she asked some questions and asked which service center I applied to.. I said NSC and then she transferred me automatically.. so you can go ahead and call that number..
hairstyles lack hairstyles 2011 medium
conundrum
11-07 04:46 PM
Bump ^^^^
ns007
12-28 08:36 AM
How do you get time to post all day long on IV.org?
I would love to have your job. Making 140K for browsing and posting on IV.org !!!
Kidding !!!
I am on page with you. I did it 3 weeks back. Now I am starting the whole labor at the new company , making almost 140K (60% more) with a fortune 20 company . Good position and happier......
I did the same and didn't hung up myself on GC .... life is more than GC let us live our life.
I would love to have your job. Making 140K for browsing and posting on IV.org !!!
Kidding !!!
I am on page with you. I did it 3 weeks back. Now I am starting the whole labor at the new company , making almost 140K (60% more) with a fortune 20 company . Good position and happier......
I did the same and didn't hung up myself on GC .... life is more than GC let us live our life.
Aah_GC
04-25 10:51 AM
I used AC21 twice. Both times I informed USCIS, EVL contained exact job description but different title. Did not have any AC21 related RFE and today got 'CP ordered email'. :) good luck to all!
Hope this helps...
Thanks much Dude!
Hope this helps...
Thanks much Dude!
