dvb123
02-19 12:12 AM
This radical idea will end retrogression radically. This concept is little tough for people who have no knowledge of country quota to understand.
1. There is a bill in the house now
HR 264 Introduced to Congress
Section A - It will grant GC to people with > 5 years in US
Section B - For EB skilled immigration for people with <5 years in US, it makes LC process more difficult.
2. We must encourage this bill with some amendments. Section A which automatically gives green card to people > 5 years in US should be ELIMINATED. Section B should remain.
3. This causes a reduction in I-485's and CP's because you need to be resident in United States for a minimum of 5 years to apply for Labor. Then ROW people would be able to apply for I-140 and I-485 automatically.
4. In the last quarter of every year the leftover visas(EB1 and EB2 ROW people will not be able to apply for labor->I-140+I-485 until they stayed in US for 5 years) will be spilled to EB 2 and EB 3 India and China. EB3 ROW, India and China visa retrogression issue will be solved because we will have spillovers for atleast 5 years. This bill is not against ROW people. EB3 ROW people will benefit immensely.
5. The restrictionists will be happy because nobody can start the green card process without staying in US for atleast 5 years (F1 + h1, j1 + h1, f1 only, j1 only, h1 only statuses)
So, we should support HR 264 bill with a few amendments if possible.
1. There is a bill in the house now
HR 264 Introduced to Congress
Section A - It will grant GC to people with > 5 years in US
Section B - For EB skilled immigration for people with <5 years in US, it makes LC process more difficult.
2. We must encourage this bill with some amendments. Section A which automatically gives green card to people > 5 years in US should be ELIMINATED. Section B should remain.
3. This causes a reduction in I-485's and CP's because you need to be resident in United States for a minimum of 5 years to apply for Labor. Then ROW people would be able to apply for I-140 and I-485 automatically.
4. In the last quarter of every year the leftover visas(EB1 and EB2 ROW people will not be able to apply for labor->I-140+I-485 until they stayed in US for 5 years) will be spilled to EB 2 and EB 3 India and China. EB3 ROW, India and China visa retrogression issue will be solved because we will have spillovers for atleast 5 years. This bill is not against ROW people. EB3 ROW people will benefit immensely.
5. The restrictionists will be happy because nobody can start the green card process without staying in US for atleast 5 years (F1 + h1, j1 + h1, f1 only, j1 only, h1 only statuses)
So, we should support HR 264 bill with a few amendments if possible.
wallpaper Sombra del amor sombras-amor
new_gc
12-17 03:25 PM
My labor is filed in EB3 , and i am awaiting Certification.
My PD is Nov 2007.
I dont feel that i am gonna get even EAD in the next 10 years, with the current delays,unless something major changes.
Any hopes??
i myself am new to all this...but when i surveyed vb's from 1997..it was made current every 2.5 years...and i guess if not stuck in namecheck everything will be fine....and with current situation hopefully something good happens.....
My PD is Nov 2007.
I dont feel that i am gonna get even EAD in the next 10 years, with the current delays,unless something major changes.
Any hopes??
i myself am new to all this...but when i surveyed vb's from 1997..it was made current every 2.5 years...and i guess if not stuck in namecheck everything will be fine....and with current situation hopefully something good happens.....
nixstor
07-02 10:56 PM
This is because Rajiv Khanna and Murthy do not like each other and compete with each other. Murthy is on the board of AILA and Rajiv is not. So murthy will promote the lawsuit and rajiv will not.
Competition is a good thing. How ever, your post sounded like they feud with each other no matter how much genuine the issue is. Why would any of them would like to be at the end of losing if they know for sure that the other is winning? Any sane mind will join the bandwagon, esp when their business interests are at stakes.
Keeping it aside, I did not mean to dampen any one's spirits on filing a law suit. I had similar thoughts in my mind and it just happened to be similar to Rajiv Khanna's. I could be wrong in this case. I will be very happy if we come out in flying colors in this law suit. How ever my preference is to get more and more media/blog attention and try to get recapture/ability to file 485 based on the momentum we build because of this screw up by DOS & USCIS.
Competition is a good thing. How ever, your post sounded like they feud with each other no matter how much genuine the issue is. Why would any of them would like to be at the end of losing if they know for sure that the other is winning? Any sane mind will join the bandwagon, esp when their business interests are at stakes.
Keeping it aside, I did not mean to dampen any one's spirits on filing a law suit. I had similar thoughts in my mind and it just happened to be similar to Rajiv Khanna's. I could be wrong in this case. I will be very happy if we come out in flying colors in this law suit. How ever my preference is to get more and more media/blog attention and try to get recapture/ability to file 485 based on the momentum we build because of this screw up by DOS & USCIS.
2011 DE AMOR Y DE SOMBRA: VEN A
belmontboy
02-14 02:49 AM
Donot abuse the word "Ethnic cleansing". Our situation is nowhere close to being called that.
Whatever is happening right now is Darwin's theory at work - "Survival of the fittest".
Boom in financials, jobs that were spawned by housing, all needs to be corrected.
Its going to be one helluva ride, buckle to your seats folks. I hope we emerge strong from all these.
Good luck and may god bless us all.
Whatever is happening right now is Darwin's theory at work - "Survival of the fittest".
Boom in financials, jobs that were spawned by housing, all needs to be corrected.
Its going to be one helluva ride, buckle to your seats folks. I hope we emerge strong from all these.
Good luck and may god bless us all.
more...
varshadas
01-02 10:37 AM
Hi Guys,
I was out last week. I am back now. Last time when we had a conference call, we decided to post flyers about immigration voice in our local communities and also getting in touch with the local newspapers. Since everyone is back from the holidays now, lets have a conference call next Wednesday. Till then, please post as many flyers as possible to increase IV's awareness.
Thanks,
Varsha
I was out last week. I am back now. Last time when we had a conference call, we decided to post flyers about immigration voice in our local communities and also getting in touch with the local newspapers. Since everyone is back from the holidays now, lets have a conference call next Wednesday. Till then, please post as many flyers as possible to increase IV's awareness.
Thanks,
Varsha
akred
06-12 11:52 AM
CIR needs to die for the simple reason that the processing workload for the illegals on the USCIS will add another 3 years of wait for everybody. Simple fact of the matter is that the system has not finished recovering from the last 245(i) amnesty that ended in 2001. That was when the DOL received 6 years of applications in one week and everybody ended up waiting 3 years or more.
more...
immigrant2007
09-10 01:16 PM
If there are no I-485 pending for EB2 I/C then the demand goes to zero (unless DOS/USCIS uses pending I-140s to decide demand). And if demand < supply then the category goes to current (atleast per the explanation in the demand data document).And definitely if EB2 I/C folks post July 2007 are allowed to file I-485 then USCIS will realize demand is not zero but say 50K. Then again next month PD goes back to late 2007.
I think visa numbers are assigned to I-485 before they are processed for demand data purposes, otherwise the demand data prior to CY 2006 for EB2 I will not be zero with some people with 05 PDs still waiting for GCs. But, again this is all speculation and the situation will be clear by Sep 2011 when almost all of EB2I/C pending I-485s will have been cleared.
how many GCS does EB2 India have oer year (quota only)
How much time is DOS taking to approve accept and process 485 (adjudication time for new 485s)?
I think visa numbers are assigned to I-485 before they are processed for demand data purposes, otherwise the demand data prior to CY 2006 for EB2 I will not be zero with some people with 05 PDs still waiting for GCs. But, again this is all speculation and the situation will be clear by Sep 2011 when almost all of EB2I/C pending I-485s will have been cleared.
how many GCS does EB2 India have oer year (quota only)
How much time is DOS taking to approve accept and process 485 (adjudication time for new 485s)?
2010 Fotos de de amor y de sombra
485InDreams
09-26 09:33 AM
I jus send the mail to editor...
I've also send the link to businessweek and Nytimes..where they have written it correctly...
I've also send the link to businessweek and Nytimes..where they have written it correctly...
more...
meridiani.planum
03-07 05:32 PM
Until last year, it was important to announce a job change via AC21 to USCIS. This was because many sponsoring employers would revoke the 140 (even after 180 days) so that they could reuse the Labor for someone else.
When that happened and there was no AC21 letter from the applicant, some IOs would deny the 485 even without a NOID. This would mean MTR and a lot of unnecessary work.
This problem no longer exists as Labot substitution has been removed. The employer has no incentive to revoke the 140 and so the chances of goofup from USCIS has been lowered.
Employer still has two incentives to revoke I-140:
* outstanding I-140s get counted in ability-to-pay issues of future I-140s. Better to clear out older ones.
* leaving an approved but unused I-140 is essentially leaving files open with USCIS as well as at your attorneys office. Expect the attorneys to revoke them (my own attorney of a big company asks the employer to close the files with USCIS by revoking the I-140). In addition to opened files, the attorneys get some fees atleast for doing this, so thats another motivation for them.
When that happened and there was no AC21 letter from the applicant, some IOs would deny the 485 even without a NOID. This would mean MTR and a lot of unnecessary work.
This problem no longer exists as Labot substitution has been removed. The employer has no incentive to revoke the 140 and so the chances of goofup from USCIS has been lowered.
Employer still has two incentives to revoke I-140:
* outstanding I-140s get counted in ability-to-pay issues of future I-140s. Better to clear out older ones.
* leaving an approved but unused I-140 is essentially leaving files open with USCIS as well as at your attorneys office. Expect the attorneys to revoke them (my own attorney of a big company asks the employer to close the files with USCIS by revoking the I-140). In addition to opened files, the attorneys get some fees atleast for doing this, so thats another motivation for them.
hair de amor y de sombra.
roseball
08-11 10:09 AM
2010, all those who filed 485 by 2006 will be cleared up and will be given GC, 2010 end there will be another wave of 485 filers who will continue as cash cows for next 5 years for EAD and AP, 2007 july filers will be cleared up by 2012. Do not ask the source of information it is more of stock market and weather forecast were in stocks falls and gains every 5th year and 6th of June is the first day of monsoon in mumbai....:D
No point in giving stess to your grey cells, all are predictive cycle &, process
EAD and AP renewals are no more cash cows for USCIS. Under the new fee structure, whoever files I-485 is eligible for free EAD and AP renewals.
No point in giving stess to your grey cells, all are predictive cycle &, process
EAD and AP renewals are no more cash cows for USCIS. Under the new fee structure, whoever files I-485 is eligible for free EAD and AP renewals.
more...
dskhabra
03-17 09:46 AM
Guy you are forgetting the 7% per country quota for issuing GC. Applicants from a particular country can only get 7% of the total GC available in a year.
Total employment based quota per year is 140,000 and 7% of it is 9800. So at the most only 9800 Indians can get GC per year. This count also includes the dependents.
So even if your PD is current and you have filed your I-485 but there may be more than 9800 Indians with the same status and hence only the first 9800 will get GC that year.
There are more than 100,000 primary Indian applicants who have filed their I-485 and assuming a average Indian family size of 3, there are 300,000 who are waiting for GC. Only 9800 can get in a year. So if the law does not change this backlog will finish in more than 30 years.
That's true but when unused numbers are used for retrogressed countries then 7% cap is not followed. You can see more than 9800 approvals for India in the last three years. But still it's a looooonnnngggggg wait...........
Total employment based quota per year is 140,000 and 7% of it is 9800. So at the most only 9800 Indians can get GC per year. This count also includes the dependents.
So even if your PD is current and you have filed your I-485 but there may be more than 9800 Indians with the same status and hence only the first 9800 will get GC that year.
There are more than 100,000 primary Indian applicants who have filed their I-485 and assuming a average Indian family size of 3, there are 300,000 who are waiting for GC. Only 9800 can get in a year. So if the law does not change this backlog will finish in more than 30 years.
That's true but when unused numbers are used for retrogressed countries then 7% cap is not followed. You can see more than 9800 approvals for India in the last three years. But still it's a looooonnnngggggg wait...........
hot de amor y de sombra.
amitjoey
07-05 04:35 PM
Same here. Here's my small contribution in your big effort.
Best regards,
Google Order #853854384931851
Thanks a lot.
Best regards,
Google Order #853854384931851
Thanks a lot.
more...
house de amor y de sombra. de amor y de sombra; de amor y de sombra
Ramba
07-04 07:25 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.
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.
tattoo de amor y de sombra. de amor y
thomachan72
07-13 09:20 AM
Do any of you think that the dates will move forward next month? Looking at the backlog numbers published by USCIS, I think they moved as far as they could to make use of all the available visas. I am thinking that the move next month might be only a few days or a month at the max. USCIS mentioned last month that we could expect the dates to be March/April 06 at the end of this fiscal year. Will this mean that EB2I will hold out at March / April 06 for the next fiscal year?
Interesting question. You are probably quite accurate but there still remains some hope of a few months movement:D:D
Interesting question. You are probably quite accurate but there still remains some hope of a few months movement:D:D
more...
pictures DE AMOR Y DE SOMBRA: TE
shyamkishore
02-07 07:05 PM
My Dear IV Members,
I would like to open up my house for IV members during the advocacy days. I live in Herndon, VA about 25 miles from DC. I can accommodate up to 3 or 4 members if they can manage. DC is pretty much commutable from my house using the public transport.
Due to my work situation at present I am not sure if I will be able to participate actively. But I will be trying my best to at least make it for a day.
Regards,
Shyam
I would like to open up my house for IV members during the advocacy days. I live in Herndon, VA about 25 miles from DC. I can accommodate up to 3 or 4 members if they can manage. DC is pretty much commutable from my house using the public transport.
Due to my work situation at present I am not sure if I will be able to participate actively. But I will be trying my best to at least make it for a day.
Regards,
Shyam
dresses de amor y de sombra. de amor y
Dhundhun
03-08 01:00 AM
I have same understanding - from friends, who got greencards.
There is no need to let USCIS know about changing job after 180 days of 485 filing. U should have offer / empl letter from the employer when your priority date becomes current.
Job title can be different but job duties must be similar.
Salary difference is ok but it should not be less than what is mentioned in labor certification.
In addition to this couple of my close friends got GC recently and they never notify USCIs about new job(AC 21).
Cheers!
There is no need to let USCIS know about changing job after 180 days of 485 filing. U should have offer / empl letter from the employer when your priority date becomes current.
Job title can be different but job duties must be similar.
Salary difference is ok but it should not be less than what is mentioned in labor certification.
In addition to this couple of my close friends got GC recently and they never notify USCIs about new job(AC 21).
Cheers!
more...
makeup de amor y de sombra. de amor y
axp817
01-30 01:31 PM
Sorry to hear about your plight, what do you plan to do if the RFE is for employment verification?
Please do keep us updated, it will help other members in similar situations out, and you might find some useful advice as well.
Good luck.
Please do keep us updated, it will help other members in similar situations out, and you might find some useful advice as well.
Good luck.
girlfriend tattoo de amor y de sombra
rock
06-22 10:54 PM
When you get 485 approval you will not need EAD or AP :D
It's OK to file for EAD and AP yourself, I did it 4 times but you need I-485 receipt notice and I-140 receipt and then approval notice to do that. So if you are wiling to wait till your lawyer get notices (it could be months for those who are filing in July) and your employer and lawyer will provide you a copy of all notices - it's fine to file yourself.
Hi voldemar,
I am also in the similar but not exact situation. Recently I changed the employer. My new employer is going to file I-140 and I-485 using the Labor substitution.I also want to file EAD and AP but the company attorney is saying it is safer to file the EAD and AP once the I-140 is approved. Can any one please answer this is true or not? Should I wait for I-140 to be approved or should I try convince the attorney to file EAD and AP also along with I-140 and I-485. I have one more question which is if We do not file the EAD and AP along with the I-485 and once the priority dates are retrogessed. Can we file EAD and AP even though the priority dates are not current and our I-485 is pending?
I would appreciate the answers and any official links if available.
Thanks
It's OK to file for EAD and AP yourself, I did it 4 times but you need I-485 receipt notice and I-140 receipt and then approval notice to do that. So if you are wiling to wait till your lawyer get notices (it could be months for those who are filing in July) and your employer and lawyer will provide you a copy of all notices - it's fine to file yourself.
Hi voldemar,
I am also in the similar but not exact situation. Recently I changed the employer. My new employer is going to file I-140 and I-485 using the Labor substitution.I also want to file EAD and AP but the company attorney is saying it is safer to file the EAD and AP once the I-140 is approved. Can any one please answer this is true or not? Should I wait for I-140 to be approved or should I try convince the attorney to file EAD and AP also along with I-140 and I-485. I have one more question which is if We do not file the EAD and AP along with the I-485 and once the priority dates are retrogessed. Can we file EAD and AP even though the priority dates are not current and our I-485 is pending?
I would appreciate the answers and any official links if available.
Thanks
hairstyles de amor y de sombra.
gc_wow
03-09 12:37 PM
why did row eb3 gone back 2 years?
transpass
04-10 12:07 PM
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.
Thanks Kondur. That was a very good presentation of the numbers. I very much appreciate it.
Now,
1. Why did EB1 last year needed spillover visas, although it was current all the time? If a category is current, isn't that it has less demand than allocated numbers?
2. As per May bulletin, EB4 might need a cut off. So we cannot expect any spillover from EB4. So that is clear. Now the spillover chances are from EB5, EB2 ROW and EB1(?). I am including EB1 because, given the current economy over the past year, should there be a better possibility of more spillover from EB2 ROW and EB1 compared to last year?
3. Also why are the total EB numbers different in different fiscal years (e.g., 141020 in FY2009, 162949 in FY 2008 and 154497 in FY2007)? In FYs 2007 and 2008 did the extra visas come from Family based while it did not for FY 2009? If so, why is it so?
4. Based on Pending 485 data of March 2010, I barely see few hundred EB4s. And hardly considerable number of EB1s. What's going on? If we go by this data, we should be getting good chunk of spillover numbers...
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Green%20Card/Green%20Card%20Through%20a%20Job/Employment%20Based%20I-485%20Pending%20Inventory-Total%203-8-2010.pdf
Thanks,
(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.
Thanks Kondur. That was a very good presentation of the numbers. I very much appreciate it.
Now,
1. Why did EB1 last year needed spillover visas, although it was current all the time? If a category is current, isn't that it has less demand than allocated numbers?
2. As per May bulletin, EB4 might need a cut off. So we cannot expect any spillover from EB4. So that is clear. Now the spillover chances are from EB5, EB2 ROW and EB1(?). I am including EB1 because, given the current economy over the past year, should there be a better possibility of more spillover from EB2 ROW and EB1 compared to last year?
3. Also why are the total EB numbers different in different fiscal years (e.g., 141020 in FY2009, 162949 in FY 2008 and 154497 in FY2007)? In FYs 2007 and 2008 did the extra visas come from Family based while it did not for FY 2009? If so, why is it so?
4. Based on Pending 485 data of March 2010, I barely see few hundred EB4s. And hardly considerable number of EB1s. What's going on? If we go by this data, we should be getting good chunk of spillover numbers...
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Green%20Card/Green%20Card%20Through%20a%20Job/Employment%20Based%20I-485%20Pending%20Inventory-Total%203-8-2010.pdf
Thanks,
dilber
06-06 03:53 PM
We got the "welcome" and "card production ordered" email for my wife and I today too. It was a long frustrating wait at times but I am glad its over for us now. Our best wishes to those that are still waiting.
No RFE at any stage, straight forward case, never called them for status or infopass. Took them about 4.5 years.
Here are our dates for those interested in tracking.
PD: Jan 29, 2004, EB2
Ohio labor approved - Oct 2004
45 day letter - Jan 2005
Labor approved from Dalla BEC - June 2006
I I140 regular, non concurrent approved - Sept 2006
I 485 sent to Nebraska - July 13 2007
EAD approved - Oct 2007
I485 approval email - June,06, 2008
Congratulations Bothi_Tree and good luck... Do visit us some times and help out with calling campaigns etc... Your voice just got way more important to the Law makers then ours
No RFE at any stage, straight forward case, never called them for status or infopass. Took them about 4.5 years.
Here are our dates for those interested in tracking.
PD: Jan 29, 2004, EB2
Ohio labor approved - Oct 2004
45 day letter - Jan 2005
Labor approved from Dalla BEC - June 2006
I I140 regular, non concurrent approved - Sept 2006
I 485 sent to Nebraska - July 13 2007
EAD approved - Oct 2007
I485 approval email - June,06, 2008
Congratulations Bothi_Tree and good luck... Do visit us some times and help out with calling campaigns etc... Your voice just got way more important to the Law makers then ours
