gc_on_demand
05-06 03:30 PM
I got a reply from USCIS saying that they can process the request sorted by priority date and country of birth of the applicant. Processing time will be around 15 months and that they have got their answer on priority date.
what are the next steps?
I dont think we should relay on their 15 months time line. Its too late. I am sure in coming 15 months whole immigration system will be changed. May be we will see point based system or something different. And at that time information will be no use. They are smart that is why they gave us 15 months. They will wait for 12 months to Congress to do something and then if nothing happen they will write SQL query in last 3 months.
what are the next steps?
I dont think we should relay on their 15 months time line. Its too late. I am sure in coming 15 months whole immigration system will be changed. May be we will see point based system or something different. And at that time information will be no use. They are smart that is why they gave us 15 months. They will wait for 12 months to Congress to do something and then if nothing happen they will write SQL query in last 3 months.
wallpaper Happy Birthday
meridiani.planum
08-07 02:38 AM
Hi Sachug22,
Some of the data you specified does not add up well. For example 2006 India, EB-total is 17,358 but 3,156+3,720+3,006 adds upto 9882.
Any idea?
Type 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
EB1-All 41,672 34,168 14,453 31,291 64,731 36,960 26,697
EB2-All 42,550 44,316 15,406 32,534 42,597 21,911 44,162
EB3-All 85,847 88,002 46,415 85,969 129,070 89,922 85,030
EB-All 179,195 174,968 82,137 155,330 246,878 159,081 155,889
EB1-I 3,543 2,820 1,266 2,998 6,336 3,156 2,855
EB2-I 21,355 21,310 8,536 16,262 16,687 3,720 6,203
EB3-I 16,339 17,354 10,647 19,889 23,250 3,006 17,795
EB-I 41,720 41,919 20,818 39,496 47,160 17,358 26,853
Thanks
that difference in numbers between total(EB) and total-india-GC for 2006 is because of a special provision of 50k visas made for schedule-A (nurses). Folks from Philippines and India took a big chunk of those visas. There was a lot of discussion of that on IV, because those 50k were recaptured visa numbers, which instead of being put into the general pool, were all given to schedule-A.
Some of the data you specified does not add up well. For example 2006 India, EB-total is 17,358 but 3,156+3,720+3,006 adds upto 9882.
Any idea?
Type 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
EB1-All 41,672 34,168 14,453 31,291 64,731 36,960 26,697
EB2-All 42,550 44,316 15,406 32,534 42,597 21,911 44,162
EB3-All 85,847 88,002 46,415 85,969 129,070 89,922 85,030
EB-All 179,195 174,968 82,137 155,330 246,878 159,081 155,889
EB1-I 3,543 2,820 1,266 2,998 6,336 3,156 2,855
EB2-I 21,355 21,310 8,536 16,262 16,687 3,720 6,203
EB3-I 16,339 17,354 10,647 19,889 23,250 3,006 17,795
EB-I 41,720 41,919 20,818 39,496 47,160 17,358 26,853
Thanks
that difference in numbers between total(EB) and total-india-GC for 2006 is because of a special provision of 50k visas made for schedule-A (nurses). Folks from Philippines and India took a big chunk of those visas. There was a lot of discussion of that on IV, because those 50k were recaptured visa numbers, which instead of being put into the general pool, were all given to schedule-A.
vivekm1309
06-12 10:04 AM
Here is a link ...that does talk about issues related to legal immigration ...IV is also mentioned in this article
http://www.ibnlive.com/news/world/06_2007/bush-gives-indian-immigrants-hope-42746.html
http://www.ibnlive.com/news/world/06_2007/bush-gives-indian-immigrants-hope-42746.html
2011 HAPPY BIRTHDAY, Poetic Garbage
ashkam
02-12 04:10 PM
Are you people daft? Using terms like ethnic cleansing, lynching or comparing our plight to the holocaust borders on the hysterical. Please do not lose your perspective on life.
more...
eb3_nepa
07-05 01:56 PM
eb3_nepa has a colored , structured presentation layer based on the core ideas that you have... This is probably termed Reusability in IT world :-)
Take it easy - I'm kidding !
I love this idea and hinted about it in a more crude way :) :)
Its not about individualistic ideas, but a collection of all good ideas.
Make ALL advanced features such as PMing, emailing members on the forums, accessible to paid members. We are not asking for much JUST $10. If a guy cant pay $10 and that too to basically ask questions, then maybe we dont WANT them on the site, hogging bandwidth.
Take it easy - I'm kidding !
I love this idea and hinted about it in a more crude way :) :)
Its not about individualistic ideas, but a collection of all good ideas.
Make ALL advanced features such as PMing, emailing members on the forums, accessible to paid members. We are not asking for much JUST $10. If a guy cant pay $10 and that too to basically ask questions, then maybe we dont WANT them on the site, hogging bandwidth.
matreen
05-13 09:26 PM
I have the same question, currently I am on EAD and no H1B visa. Can I elibible for financial aid?
Please advice what options I have to procure loan either that is financial aid or other alternatives.
Thanks,
Matt
Hi
For all those who are doing Online MBA/part time was any one successful in getting a financial aid through FASFA? If not FASFA what are other alternatives? like loans from bank etc?
When I applied for financial aid they told me that since I dont have my greencard Im not eligible
Thnks
Sanjay
Please advice what options I have to procure loan either that is financial aid or other alternatives.
Thanks,
Matt
Hi
For all those who are doing Online MBA/part time was any one successful in getting a financial aid through FASFA? If not FASFA what are other alternatives? like loans from bank etc?
When I applied for financial aid they told me that since I dont have my greencard Im not eligible
Thnks
Sanjay
more...
TeddyKoochu
07-12 05:18 PM
understandably so.. but I am now current after a looooong time. EB3 Dec 2001 PD. I can finally file the AOS for my wife who has been on H4 for the last 2 yrs... excellent!
Congrats Sunny & All the best must be a great feeling for you and your wife. I sincerely hope you are approved next month; you are one of the senior most in the group. All the very best.
Congrats Sunny & All the best must be a great feeling for you and your wife. I sincerely hope you are approved next month; you are one of the senior most in the group. All the very best.
2010 oo cake happy birthdayyy love
shivarajan
08-11 11:16 PM
Doesn't matter if it moves back or not, since the mass fiasco hysteria began at Jul 2007, due to which, I guess uscis may even think of moving dates in hours (if waz possible) if not days after 2005 Jan date now, wherein EB-I apps counts even if dates muved hours will be hundreds (/thousands?) ;-)
We should not forget d fact which came straight from the horse's mouth...
"Wait times will be years/decades for for EB-I". (no more fiasco's again since preadjudications are happening is bad news for folks who missed fiasco and can't get ead for next decade or so)
:p
We should not forget d fact which came straight from the horse's mouth...
"Wait times will be years/decades for for EB-I". (no more fiasco's again since preadjudications are happening is bad news for folks who missed fiasco and can't get ead for next decade or so)
:p
more...
frostrated
06-11 04:02 PM
Why are Harkin and Sanders supporting this bill. They are both children of immigrants. They need to understand the struggle their parents went through.
hair Happy 10th irthday! :)
CSPAvictim
07-09 06:30 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.
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.
more...
indianindian2006
07-14 06:09 PM
This is aboslutly incorrect. Dont spread false information.
Here is the Q&A in USCIS memo abot changing employer before 180 days
Question 10. Should service centers or district offices deny portability cases on the sole basis that the alien has left his or her employment with the I-140 petitioner prior to the I-485 application pending for 180 days?
Answer: No. The basis for adjustment is not actual (current) employment but prospective employment. Since there is no requirement that the alien have ever been employed by the petitioner while the I-140 and/or I-485 was pending, the fact that an alien left the I-140 petitioner before the I-485 has been pending 180 days will not necessarily render the alien ineligible to port. However, in all cases an offer of employment must have been bona fide. This means that, as of the time the I-140 was filed and at the time of filing the I-485 if not filed concurrently, the I-140 petitioner must have had the intent to employ the beneficiary, and the alien must have intended to undertake the employment, upon adjustment. Adjudicators should not presume absence of such intent and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate
You are correct but his case could be that his employer cancelled his 140 which could damage his case more than the use of AC21 to change employers.
Here is the Q&A in USCIS memo abot changing employer before 180 days
Question 10. Should service centers or district offices deny portability cases on the sole basis that the alien has left his or her employment with the I-140 petitioner prior to the I-485 application pending for 180 days?
Answer: No. The basis for adjustment is not actual (current) employment but prospective employment. Since there is no requirement that the alien have ever been employed by the petitioner while the I-140 and/or I-485 was pending, the fact that an alien left the I-140 petitioner before the I-485 has been pending 180 days will not necessarily render the alien ineligible to port. However, in all cases an offer of employment must have been bona fide. This means that, as of the time the I-140 was filed and at the time of filing the I-485 if not filed concurrently, the I-140 petitioner must have had the intent to employ the beneficiary, and the alien must have intended to undertake the employment, upon adjustment. Adjudicators should not presume absence of such intent and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate
You are correct but his case could be that his employer cancelled his 140 which could damage his case more than the use of AC21 to change employers.
hot cake birthday bday. Birthday
SGP
08-12 04:30 PM
I feel frustrated at some peoples' unwillingness to admit that EB3 needs IV's help now more than ever. They are saying that nothing much can be done for EB3, as INS merely corrected its wrong interpretation in visa allocation
But, if we are all willing to put our hearts and minds to it we can surely come up with new ideas that will help our cause. Surely, laws are written so that justice can happen. So if justice is not happening, the law would have some answer, somewhere.
Let me put forward my idea.
The INA language says that until EB2 is not current, there will be no spillover to EB3. Agreed. But I would contend that this statement is on a year to year basis. That is, if in the year 2002 (for example) all EB2 has been satisfied, then the spillovers should go to year 2002 EB3.
Is this something IV can point out and fight for? Can EB3 members put their money and efforts in this direction? Let me know if this sounds worthwhile
I Agree with you. Count me in.
But, if we are all willing to put our hearts and minds to it we can surely come up with new ideas that will help our cause. Surely, laws are written so that justice can happen. So if justice is not happening, the law would have some answer, somewhere.
Let me put forward my idea.
The INA language says that until EB2 is not current, there will be no spillover to EB3. Agreed. But I would contend that this statement is on a year to year basis. That is, if in the year 2002 (for example) all EB2 has been satisfied, then the spillovers should go to year 2002 EB3.
Is this something IV can point out and fight for? Can EB3 members put their money and efforts in this direction? Let me know if this sounds worthwhile
I Agree with you. Count me in.
more...
house rainbow cake crumble, vanilla frosting, sprinkles Not (yet) my irthday,
Refugee_New
07-30 11:19 AM
LOL.
The issue of GOD and religion has been discussed ad nauseum by many great thinkers and philosophers (Spinoza, Voltaire, Hume, Russel etc.). Most of us do not read their opinions and try to broaden our knowledge. We never get beyond what our parents taught us about GOD and religion. What is worse still is that the allegorical descriptions in religious texts are now treated as facts and we often end up arguing over these as well.
Having said that, there is nothing wrong in believing in GOD. There is also nothing wrong if someone is not convinced about the existence of GOD. There are valid philosophical arguments for both cases. Lack of mutual respect and failing to see others point of view is what is causing this rift.
You are true. Every religion preaches their followers to give atmost respect to people of other faith. Being a weak humanbeing we always tend to forget these simple rules.
The issue of GOD and religion has been discussed ad nauseum by many great thinkers and philosophers (Spinoza, Voltaire, Hume, Russel etc.). Most of us do not read their opinions and try to broaden our knowledge. We never get beyond what our parents taught us about GOD and religion. What is worse still is that the allegorical descriptions in religious texts are now treated as facts and we often end up arguing over these as well.
Having said that, there is nothing wrong in believing in GOD. There is also nothing wrong if someone is not convinced about the existence of GOD. There are valid philosophical arguments for both cases. Lack of mutual respect and failing to see others point of view is what is causing this rift.
You are true. Every religion preaches their followers to give atmost respect to people of other faith. Being a weak humanbeing we always tend to forget these simple rules.
tattoo Shiny Things, Anime,
desi3933
01-30 02:54 PM
Ok.......
So if I am understanding this correctly, the time from when I entered US on AP (Dec 08 till today), I am considered out of status?
NO. You are not out of status because of AP entry.
From what I understood it is ok to not be working while on AOS having entered on AP.
Correct. However, USCIS looks for your status history since last entry on non-immigrant visa. 245(k) covers only 180 days for status violation for such period.
Example
Mr Chanakya Pandit (fictitious name) has filed for eb-3 India in July 2007 for I-485. He has PD of Sep 2005 (not current).
Mr Pandit entered last on H1 visa on Jan 21st 2006 and he is working for ABC company. As per H1 LCA, his salary is 65k and he is getting paid 62k.
He entered on USA using AP in Oct 2008. He is using EAD to work.
Since he was getting paid less athn H1 salary, he is out of status since Jan 21st 2006 and he has accumulating out of status days until date of I-485 filing. If this out of status > 180 days, his I-485 can be denied just on this basis alone.
If person is out of status for more than 180 days at thetime of filing for I-485, he can denied entry even on AP. Read your AP document, it mentions warning about of out of status right there.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
So if I am understanding this correctly, the time from when I entered US on AP (Dec 08 till today), I am considered out of status?
NO. You are not out of status because of AP entry.
From what I understood it is ok to not be working while on AOS having entered on AP.
Correct. However, USCIS looks for your status history since last entry on non-immigrant visa. 245(k) covers only 180 days for status violation for such period.
Example
Mr Chanakya Pandit (fictitious name) has filed for eb-3 India in July 2007 for I-485. He has PD of Sep 2005 (not current).
Mr Pandit entered last on H1 visa on Jan 21st 2006 and he is working for ABC company. As per H1 LCA, his salary is 65k and he is getting paid 62k.
He entered on USA using AP in Oct 2008. He is using EAD to work.
Since he was getting paid less athn H1 salary, he is out of status since Jan 21st 2006 and he has accumulating out of status days until date of I-485 filing. If this out of status > 180 days, his I-485 can be denied just on this basis alone.
If person is out of status for more than 180 days at thetime of filing for I-485, he can denied entry even on AP. Read your AP document, it mentions warning about of out of status right there.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
more...
pictures Peanut: Have the best irthday
bayarea07
09-10 02:20 PM
I dont think its the Right Link the link that you sent has lot of action going on but
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/calendar.html
has people moving all over the place and no action
I found another link. Not sure if its the right one ?
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN_wm.aspx
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/calendar.html
has people moving all over the place and no action
I found another link. Not sure if its the right one ?
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN_wm.aspx
dresses Cake
Guest007
07-25 12:54 PM
There is no law which ties AP and EAD to 485. So cant they allow filling of these two independent of 485, may be upon approval of 140?
more...
makeup Birthday Cakes amp; Cupcakes
jonty_11
06-13 01:33 PM
Guys, We understand its frustrating ...and the anxiety is growing day by day...but infighting wont help....ignore irrellevant posts..and kindly concentrate on educating the senators, media people abt our issues...Keep drilling home the point until we hear from IV core....thats the best we can do...
girlfriend happy birthday and cheered
makemygc
07-16 06:07 PM
This is utter nonsense!!!
Core team - > Please work on getting some sort of easy webfax put up so that we may effectively address such utter nonsense!! The link to the fax should be prominently displayed on the main page of IV!!!
Guys,
Lets come up with some suggestions to counter-attack these false propoganda. Few thoughts??
1. Will gandhigiri work with them? Not just sending flowers but using other Gandhi ways as well.
2. Should core post some article on the home page.."Top 10 Myths About Employment Based Immigration" and include tax as one of the myths.
Reason, i'm saying this is that in my company there are several americans who think that way even though they are ok with immigration. They think that we do not pay any tax here.
3. Educate numberusa and other anti-immigration people about. I know we might not be able to educate the core people over their but we might be able to educate other member joining there.
Any other thoughts?..
Core team - > Please work on getting some sort of easy webfax put up so that we may effectively address such utter nonsense!! The link to the fax should be prominently displayed on the main page of IV!!!
Guys,
Lets come up with some suggestions to counter-attack these false propoganda. Few thoughts??
1. Will gandhigiri work with them? Not just sending flowers but using other Gandhi ways as well.
2. Should core post some article on the home page.."Top 10 Myths About Employment Based Immigration" and include tax as one of the myths.
Reason, i'm saying this is that in my company there are several americans who think that way even though they are ok with immigration. They think that we do not pay any tax here.
3. Educate numberusa and other anti-immigration people about. I know we might not be able to educate the core people over their but we might be able to educate other member joining there.
Any other thoughts?..
hairstyles Pink Princess Birthday Cake
thescadaman
06-11 09:44 AM
sent..
optimystic
03-17 07:48 PM
"Eb3 India PD of May 2001"---optimystic
You should have got GC by now right??
Yes, I should have !! Its been a loooong Journey.
I was stuck in backlog till Dec 06.
Got I-140 approved in Jan 07.
Then due to the lazy As*****s at the immigration firm that our company hires, who should have applied my I-485 in June 07 itself when my PD became current, but kept on procrastinating until got hit by July 2 fiasco. They didn't even were prepared to file on July 2nd nor on July 17 (though they had all papers from my end).
Finally they applied I-485 on July 29th. (recpt dt: July 30th 07)
Now my PD is current again in March and April...so finally I am getting somewhere near (hopefully)
So first the backlog screwed me , then the attorneys, then the July 2 fiasco (making everything 'U' and then making everthing 'c' thus causing this whole another backlog again! )
Anyway no hard feelings towards people benifitted by July 2 fiasco and who atleast got EADs. I hope I dont have to wait much longer :)
You should have got GC by now right??
Yes, I should have !! Its been a loooong Journey.
I was stuck in backlog till Dec 06.
Got I-140 approved in Jan 07.
Then due to the lazy As*****s at the immigration firm that our company hires, who should have applied my I-485 in June 07 itself when my PD became current, but kept on procrastinating until got hit by July 2 fiasco. They didn't even were prepared to file on July 2nd nor on July 17 (though they had all papers from my end).
Finally they applied I-485 on July 29th. (recpt dt: July 30th 07)
Now my PD is current again in March and April...so finally I am getting somewhere near (hopefully)
So first the backlog screwed me , then the attorneys, then the July 2 fiasco (making everything 'U' and then making everthing 'c' thus causing this whole another backlog again! )
Anyway no hard feelings towards people benifitted by July 2 fiasco and who atleast got EADs. I hope I dont have to wait much longer :)
bigboy007
07-18 09:26 AM
other than some quoting did you know any of your friends or your attorneys cases getting rejected.
No comments:
Post a Comment