jcmenon
07-24 02:49 PM
jc menon...have u ever taken a law class? - No
do u have a jd? - No
why are u then so adamant on thinking u "found" the loophole? - I am not saying I found a loophole
we are not stupid morons over here. - You guies are intelligent and more proactive and more intelligent than us, that is why we are trying to find out some solution out here.
Neither is the AILA/millions of lawyers that are associated with immigration law. - Attorneys are here for a purpose, it is their living their bread and butter, they are of no one, If you spend money they can fight loosing battle for ages.
Please for heaven sake dont start now about some conspiracy theory about immigration lawyers having a preference for backlog. - I am not a conspiracy theorist, but you seem to be loosing your cool.
there is no loophole, there is no precedent and by emailing the director with a moronic question will only show that probably that we have morons stuck in retrogression and probably we deserve to be stuck.
No question is moronic, at least we get a reply for a question, if IV do not want to pursue this, that is another story.
do u have a jd? - No
why are u then so adamant on thinking u "found" the loophole? - I am not saying I found a loophole
we are not stupid morons over here. - You guies are intelligent and more proactive and more intelligent than us, that is why we are trying to find out some solution out here.
Neither is the AILA/millions of lawyers that are associated with immigration law. - Attorneys are here for a purpose, it is their living their bread and butter, they are of no one, If you spend money they can fight loosing battle for ages.
Please for heaven sake dont start now about some conspiracy theory about immigration lawyers having a preference for backlog. - I am not a conspiracy theorist, but you seem to be loosing your cool.
there is no loophole, there is no precedent and by emailing the director with a moronic question will only show that probably that we have morons stuck in retrogression and probably we deserve to be stuck.
No question is moronic, at least we get a reply for a question, if IV do not want to pursue this, that is another story.
wallpaper kendall, schmidt, knight,
grinch
02-27 08:59 PM
ahha don't worry about it soulty, i appreciate the effort.
I actually got a bit of help from my dad and some of my edu maya books.
Thanks guys, if i need more help, I'll ask!
I actually got a bit of help from my dad and some of my edu maya books.
Thanks guys, if i need more help, I'll ask!
mihird
07-09 03:58 PM
I dont think legally you can sue someone, because they have worked harder.
I posted this link , so that everybody may know the legal reasons, which we can present in a court of law.
If this lawsuit is accepted by the court , then the USCIS lawyers would tell what exactly happened.
I till now personally believe , that the USCIS/DOS hasnt broken any law.
They may have however changed a pettern,process , but no law has been broken.
It took them 6 months to consume 66K visas and then another 15 days to process another 66K.
It is reasonably safe to assume, either correct procedures were not followed in the past or were not followed in the last 2 weeks. Only a judge can order USCIS to elobarte on what processes were followed in the last 2 weeks (FBI name checks and security clearances skipped...etc. etc.)
They made people expend (or rather waste) millions of dollars in preparing the paperwork...and then changed the process abruptly on July 2nd..with no advance notice...they could have published a guidance in the July bulletin itself of this possibly happening, if not published a guidance sometime later...
There is no doubt, that the entire chain of events were premeditated...and the communication mix-up as claimed by Condoleezza Rice on TV was a deliberate one..
I doubt if this will all fly in court...they certainly owe the millions of wasted dollars and thousands of wasted hours in preparing the paperwork, back to the applicants/attornies...at the least...
Keep in mind, the AILF rarely files a law suit against the government, and most of their law suits have had favorable outcomes..
I posted this link , so that everybody may know the legal reasons, which we can present in a court of law.
If this lawsuit is accepted by the court , then the USCIS lawyers would tell what exactly happened.
I till now personally believe , that the USCIS/DOS hasnt broken any law.
They may have however changed a pettern,process , but no law has been broken.
It took them 6 months to consume 66K visas and then another 15 days to process another 66K.
It is reasonably safe to assume, either correct procedures were not followed in the past or were not followed in the last 2 weeks. Only a judge can order USCIS to elobarte on what processes were followed in the last 2 weeks (FBI name checks and security clearances skipped...etc. etc.)
They made people expend (or rather waste) millions of dollars in preparing the paperwork...and then changed the process abruptly on July 2nd..with no advance notice...they could have published a guidance in the July bulletin itself of this possibly happening, if not published a guidance sometime later...
There is no doubt, that the entire chain of events were premeditated...and the communication mix-up as claimed by Condoleezza Rice on TV was a deliberate one..
I doubt if this will all fly in court...they certainly owe the millions of wasted dollars and thousands of wasted hours in preparing the paperwork, back to the applicants/attornies...at the least...
Keep in mind, the AILF rarely files a law suit against the government, and most of their law suits have had favorable outcomes..
2011 Did Ciara#39;s description of the
smuggymba
09-10 06:06 PM
As of 05/10 's inventory report - there were ~200,000 GC application pending across ALL categories.
I expect they would have reduced this backlog by 40,000 in the last 6 months . Will be verified by the next inventory report due , hopefully next month.
If they reduce the backlog by 40,000 "NET" per year , backlog should be over in next 5 years.
If they open the flood gates and let more applications to come in then this NET reduction is not possible.
more people keep of applying across all categories so the demand is not stagnant, it keeps growing.
I expect they would have reduced this backlog by 40,000 in the last 6 months . Will be verified by the next inventory report due , hopefully next month.
If they reduce the backlog by 40,000 "NET" per year , backlog should be over in next 5 years.
If they open the flood gates and let more applications to come in then this NET reduction is not possible.
more people keep of applying across all categories so the demand is not stagnant, it keeps growing.
more...
pappu
07-23 10:36 PM
May be I asked you same question before.
What is the best way to send to CIS when receipt notice is not received yet.
When you said reject, what do you mean?
Will CIS reject before issuing RN or after issuing RN?
- Which receipt notice? 140?
- I meant denial.
- After issuing RN and later during adjucation process.
What is the best way to send to CIS when receipt notice is not received yet.
When you said reject, what do you mean?
Will CIS reject before issuing RN or after issuing RN?
- Which receipt notice? 140?
- I meant denial.
- After issuing RN and later during adjucation process.
belmontboy
02-19 04:11 AM
1) People who are illegal here for more than 5 years will get green card/path to citizenship but people who are legally here for 4 years and 11 months gets nothing.
How exactly are illegals going to prove that they have been here for more than 5 years?
How exactly are illegals going to prove that they have been here for more than 5 years?
more...
mirage
02-05 03:06 PM
^^Bump^^
2010 +kendall+schmidt+shirtless
chanduv23
09-19 10:52 AM
I was part of the rally... I am proud of IV and everyone who attended it..WHAT tri-state chapter are you talking about ?? How many people are enrolled in it and how many showed up for the rally???
We have a yahoogroups - I am not sure how many attended from that but it has been passive with only few members posting always - I was constantly posting on that urging people to join the rally.
Around 80 people are signed in, you can sign in by visiting http://iv-tristate.blogspot.com/
We have a yahoogroups - I am not sure how many attended from that but it has been passive with only few members posting always - I was constantly posting on that urging people to join the rally.
Around 80 people are signed in, you can sign in by visiting http://iv-tristate.blogspot.com/
more...
rajuram
11-11 09:31 AM
It does not hurt to start planning now and get some bill moving as soon as he gets into office. May be if something can get attached to the 2nd stimulus package.
REMEMBER WE SHOULD MARKET HOW IMMIGRANTS CAN HELP THE HOUSING MESS BY BUYING HOUSES. IT IS ALL ABOUT MARKETING.
I'd like to point out that Obama is the President-elect. He doesn't become the president until Jan 20 when he takes the oath. Right now the situation is exactly like it was before the election.
REMEMBER WE SHOULD MARKET HOW IMMIGRANTS CAN HELP THE HOUSING MESS BY BUYING HOUSES. IT IS ALL ABOUT MARKETING.
I'd like to point out that Obama is the President-elect. He doesn't become the president until Jan 20 when he takes the oath. Right now the situation is exactly like it was before the election.
hair Cute+pictures+of+kendall+
kondur_007
04-10 10:28 AM
Does anyone have numbers for spillover last year category wise? I mean, last year how many EB4, EB5 and EB1 left out visas got spilled over to EB2? Thanks...
Here are the details for last year and years before:
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
Here are the details for last year and years before:
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
more...
user2005
01-16 09:42 AM
signed up for $20/month.
hot Katie Knight - Ciara Bravo
chmur
10-20 12:54 AM
Just like how you blindly think green card is the only thing that matters in this world. McCain lies, runs slimy sleazy adds that tell what kind of person he is. He doesn't have the depth of knowledge that Obama has nor does he have moral values. Time for you to wake up. Go Obama
Our only agenda should be - who is more beneficial to EB community - that is clearly McCain...so Go Mccain. Rest is politics usual and hence frivolus atleast to EB community.
I am even surprised why something else should matter ...atleast for next 4 years.
None of us can vote but can play indirect role in this campaign - i.e $$ and time. Remember who is beneficial to your immediate problems.
Our only agenda should be - who is more beneficial to EB community - that is clearly McCain...so Go Mccain. Rest is politics usual and hence frivolus atleast to EB community.
I am even surprised why something else should matter ...atleast for next 4 years.
None of us can vote but can play indirect role in this campaign - i.e $$ and time. Remember who is beneficial to your immediate problems.
more...
house Ciara+ravo
perm2gc
01-09 08:13 PM
This thread's been silent..whats going on fellas.... Are you guys finding out new forums, new websites to post....... We have to meet our 10K membership......
thanks Bringing up the thread. I will post if i find some new forums.
thanks Bringing up the thread. I will post if i find some new forums.
tattoo Kendall Schmidt - The 3rd
MDix
02-08 03:42 PM
There is always chance of waste of visas, but i guess CIS is doing ok job from last two years.
more...
pictures We do no affiliated with Ciara
rimzhim
04-04 03:46 PM
That is a good question. And here is a reply to that.
Why does IEEE oppose H1? Because its members do not like competition from people whose profile match IV members i.e. people on H1B. If IEEE would be in love with green card and people waiting on green card, they would not support John Miano and his testimony. IEEE-USA's memberships consist of middle aged racist engineers who cannot keep up with the competition from mostly Asian younger workers. In the 80s and 90s, they were talking about globalization and its benefits as they got a jump start to get most of the global work. Now, other people in other nations have caught up and same globalization is causing them to pee in their pants. They understand that globalization is good for the country and the society. But what is good for the nation is not always good for each and every individual. So to save their lazy ass, they now want protection from their government, without realizing that if they get the protection they are seeking, they will not be able to enjoy that protection for very long as the companies will be compelled to look for more efficient and cost effective ways to do work.
Anyways, answer to your question is in your question i.e. How could someone be against H1b and for green card?
are you aware of the fact that IEEE actually lobbied to get a special quota of H1B for US-educated folks? these folks who fill this 20K quota are foreigners and by your logic will definitely be competing against these "racist" ppl. Because of the principled stand IEEE has taken, it continues to have clout.
Why does IEEE oppose H1? Because its members do not like competition from people whose profile match IV members i.e. people on H1B. If IEEE would be in love with green card and people waiting on green card, they would not support John Miano and his testimony. IEEE-USA's memberships consist of middle aged racist engineers who cannot keep up with the competition from mostly Asian younger workers. In the 80s and 90s, they were talking about globalization and its benefits as they got a jump start to get most of the global work. Now, other people in other nations have caught up and same globalization is causing them to pee in their pants. They understand that globalization is good for the country and the society. But what is good for the nation is not always good for each and every individual. So to save their lazy ass, they now want protection from their government, without realizing that if they get the protection they are seeking, they will not be able to enjoy that protection for very long as the companies will be compelled to look for more efficient and cost effective ways to do work.
Anyways, answer to your question is in your question i.e. How could someone be against H1b and for green card?
are you aware of the fact that IEEE actually lobbied to get a special quota of H1B for US-educated folks? these folks who fill this 20K quota are foreigners and by your logic will definitely be competing against these "racist" ppl. Because of the principled stand IEEE has taken, it continues to have clout.
dresses ciara bravo
PD_Dec2002
07-05 04:41 PM
nixstor, for all your efforts (and I admire them) here to promote people to join IV and contribute, check what other senior members are doing...they are driving new members (and potential contributors) away.
See http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6113. So what if the poster is using a substitute LC? Didn't logiclife quote today that unfortunately life is not fair?
Thanks,
Jayant
See http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6113. So what if the poster is using a substitute LC? Didn't logiclife quote today that unfortunately life is not fair?
Thanks,
Jayant
more...
makeup Ciara Bravo
nonimmi
12-20 04:25 PM
Folks, I didn't worked for an year(2001) due to, you know what I am saying....
Now I am afraid that I would get an RFE because of that. Do you think that I need to worry about it? :(
Your PD is Dec, 2004. Why you think you'll get RFE for not working during 2001?
Now I am afraid that I would get an RFE because of that. Do you think that I need to worry about it? :(
Your PD is Dec, 2004. Why you think you'll get RFE for not working during 2001?
girlfriend Ciara Bravo Profile Photo
ashwaghoshk
03-21 12:03 PM
Send me I'm. My prev post was deleted by mod becos they won't allow other websites to be published here
I checked on the site you mentioned. I can see so many approvals for the dates after mar-01. There are approvals on mar-01, mar-07, mar-09, mar-11, mar-12, mar-14, mar-15, mar-16 etc etc for the Atlanta center. I dont know what made you think that the process was slowed sin Mar-01.
I checked on the site you mentioned. I can see so many approvals for the dates after mar-01. There are approvals on mar-01, mar-07, mar-09, mar-11, mar-12, mar-14, mar-15, mar-16 etc etc for the Atlanta center. I dont know what made you think that the process was slowed sin Mar-01.
hairstyles Big Time Rush Band
unseenguy
02-13 08:14 PM
These days I get a weird look on the trains and planes. I am wondering why are we in this shit place which is full of unhappiness. But I guess it will take 3-4 months to find a good job from here in India. So I will be here until I find one :-d
waitnwatch
07-13 11:30 AM
Reading through this thread I find this intense debate about the value and intentions of Murthy's letter.
Let's first deal with the value part: This letter could be from any one of us or anybody else from Timbuktu. Why does this letter have any special significance except that the DHS secretary may read it because Murthy and the secretary are alumni of the same institution (see how carefully this part is added to the letter for our consumption). Now this feeds into the intention part. Even if Murthy wrote a letter to the DHS Secretary why did she have to publicize it on her website (except for the gullible among us to take notice). Generally publicized letters have value if they are from some influential policy maker or lawmaker. In this case Murthy is neither and so her letter does not add or subtract any value to this debate. So we are left with the question of who gains by publicizing this letter. Your guess is as good as mine.
Ultimately I am left wondering why this thread was started in the first place except to garner cheap publicity. Do we really have so much time on our hands?
Let's first deal with the value part: This letter could be from any one of us or anybody else from Timbuktu. Why does this letter have any special significance except that the DHS secretary may read it because Murthy and the secretary are alumni of the same institution (see how carefully this part is added to the letter for our consumption). Now this feeds into the intention part. Even if Murthy wrote a letter to the DHS Secretary why did she have to publicize it on her website (except for the gullible among us to take notice). Generally publicized letters have value if they are from some influential policy maker or lawmaker. In this case Murthy is neither and so her letter does not add or subtract any value to this debate. So we are left with the question of who gains by publicizing this letter. Your guess is as good as mine.
Ultimately I am left wondering why this thread was started in the first place except to garner cheap publicity. Do we really have so much time on our hands?
leoindiano
03-09 01:33 PM
USCIS got amnesia...
So, looking at the bulletin, you will wonder, what USCIS was doin in February and March?
It is the same #@%#@^ng dates,,,,
So, looking at the bulletin, you will wonder, what USCIS was doin in February and March?
It is the same #@%#@^ng dates,,,,
