gc_on_demand
02-11 01:15 PM
The visa numbers reported as used for FY 2009 is 141,020 from http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09...ort_TableV.pdf
This was the response i got from Ron Gotcher.
"The employment based category is entitled to use the "unused" family based numbers from the previous year. Last year, the quota for EB was the base of 140,000, plus another 13,000 shifted over from FB. Unfortunately, the CIS failed once again to approve enough cases to use up the entire available quota."
If this is true, we have lost a lot of visas last year.
Now with aprox. 10,000 visas shifted from FB, we should hope they use about 150,000 (140,000 + 10,000) this year.
Is there a way to confirm this? We got to do something to resolve this problem
Those extra 13k visas are very very helpful Vin13. That will reduce backlog for almost 8 months for Eb2 or Eb3 where ever it will go. Nice job in finding it out. We are ready to fight against USCIS / DOS for that waste . Just one small favor .. Can you get some sort of proof from Ron about this 13k ? May be any link on DOS site or any PDF or anything which is credible not just word. Once again thanks a lot for finding this out
This was the response i got from Ron Gotcher.
"The employment based category is entitled to use the "unused" family based numbers from the previous year. Last year, the quota for EB was the base of 140,000, plus another 13,000 shifted over from FB. Unfortunately, the CIS failed once again to approve enough cases to use up the entire available quota."
If this is true, we have lost a lot of visas last year.
Now with aprox. 10,000 visas shifted from FB, we should hope they use about 150,000 (140,000 + 10,000) this year.
Is there a way to confirm this? We got to do something to resolve this problem
Those extra 13k visas are very very helpful Vin13. That will reduce backlog for almost 8 months for Eb2 or Eb3 where ever it will go. Nice job in finding it out. We are ready to fight against USCIS / DOS for that waste . Just one small favor .. Can you get some sort of proof from Ron about this 13k ? May be any link on DOS site or any PDF or anything which is credible not just word. Once again thanks a lot for finding this out
wallpaper vista 3d wallpaper.
chanduv23
09-19 02:46 PM
What if 485 was not filed but have an approved 140? Economy is taking big hits on the all the consulting firms even the big ones.I know this because I work for one and I was told budget spending on IT is going to be really tight moving forward for another couple of years espcially in financial sector.
Its going to be tough for everyone. Service industry is one such industry. try to avoid FT jobs in wall street.
Its going to be tough for everyone. Service industry is one such industry. try to avoid FT jobs in wall street.
greyhair
02-11 04:10 PM
I have asked to Vin13 if he/she can get source of information from Ron. If you have good contact with him can you ask for source of info ? Any link to USED vs waste number. Or even any link that made definition of USED visas and waste visas and their number for last year ? I am serious to get this fix this time , if I get a link to some document that clarify. I think that will help so many. Please get some links to information and we should build a team to fight for this.
I'm sorry to say this but this will probably the last you hear from . I've tried my best to find a credible source but it never goes anywhere. People just want to talk in terms of random numbers without any concrete substance. Please count on me to work on this issue if you are able to find anything. But in the absence of credible information I refuse to fall in the trap of immigration body shops.
I'm sorry to say this but this will probably the last you hear from . I've tried my best to find a credible source but it never goes anywhere. People just want to talk in terms of random numbers without any concrete substance. Please count on me to work on this issue if you are able to find anything. But in the absence of credible information I refuse to fall in the trap of immigration body shops.
2011 3d water wallpaper
javadeveloper
05-15 02:07 AM
Any Idea about the following MBA Distance Leaning Courses from India
1.SCDL-Symbiosis center for distance learning
2.IGNOU - ndira Gandhi National Open University
3.ICFA
4.NMIMS - Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies
Or any other institutes from India with reasonable fee structure.
1.SCDL-Symbiosis center for distance learning
2.IGNOU - ndira Gandhi National Open University
3.ICFA
4.NMIMS - Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies
Or any other institutes from India with reasonable fee structure.
more...
blewstream
06-09 02:35 AM
Any hopes of EB3 seeing 2003 in FY2010??
Its a very painful journey :eek:
Its a very painful journey :eek:
quizzer
08-15 04:02 PM
In fact better than expected for EB2
more...
ghost
08-12 07:30 AM
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
Unsolicited advice - Let's put a small amount as a deposit before we begin these efforts - 6 USD per week for 6 months (signing up for 25 USD per month for 6 months)...I did it and took me 5 minutes, now I am more dedicated to this effort than ever before and am sure that this dedication will have a positive impact on our future efforts...thanks for reading!
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
Unsolicited advice - Let's put a small amount as a deposit before we begin these efforts - 6 USD per week for 6 months (signing up for 25 USD per month for 6 months)...I did it and took me 5 minutes, now I am more dedicated to this effort than ever before and am sure that this dedication will have a positive impact on our future efforts...thanks for reading!
2010 3d wallpaper
sugaur
08-22 09:50 AM
This person is a racist who thinks we are all "Middle Eastern" who want to blow things up here. She prefers we all go back "where we came from". Read her previous post. She feels she is "owed" a green card even though she broke all the rules. Why are you guys trying to help this person? Isnt it a crime to try and help a person evade immigration laws?
more...
funny
09-11 11:38 AM
http://seeker.dice.com/olc/thread.jspa?threadID=9965&start=0&tstart=0
Lot of people are working hard to defeat this bill including Programmers guild. We need to act fast and aggressively. I think this postponment of the bill gave us another chance to lobby it strongly.
Lot of people are working hard to defeat this bill including Programmers guild. We need to act fast and aggressively. I think this postponment of the bill gave us another chance to lobby it strongly.
hair Animated Wallpaper - Watery
nixstor
07-04 08:56 PM
Excellent analysis but it does have flaws
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.
We all understand this and what you are saying, But What is in law is more important than OB's recommendations. First of all the office of OB might not have recommended to pass on any name checks. It might have advised to some how expedite them. More over, I dont think that they take the annual report seriously. We know how many times DOS officials and USCIS officials testify before congress. Why don't they tell congress that in order to clear backlogs
a) They need FBI to expedite name checks (they might have testified about this)
b) They need to recapture visa numbers (AFAIK, they never did this because your case is not pending unless you filed for AOS/485. We are not a part of the back log)
Their biggest problem now is if all of us file for 485, we will continue to be the back log for ever on the back of USCIS for ages to come unless recapture occurs. What ever be the number 200K or 700K, they simply dont want it.
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.
I am sure you might have read this from murthy's website (http://www.murthy.com/news/n_dosebn.html) or not, but DOS/CA/VO officials shared this piece with them. As per the above article, final quarter quota should not open until Jul 2nd. I understand that agencies can implement and interpret certain stuff, but you cannot interpret and implement one thing on Jun 13th and another on Jul 2nd. If its written into law, that the quarterly allocation is a must, USCIS is in violation and DOS/CA/VO as well for not policing them of visa number usage.
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.
Understood, if they can clear 60K cases in 18 days, I doubt they will have any issues clearing them in 90 days. It goes back to the point of us becoming the biggest hump on USCIS
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.
I think we all agree that there was no need to make every category current given that we know how many will become eligible for 485 filing. How ever, The OB's office will be pretty pissed if they use him as the trump card. Also, I got the annual report from OB's office in email on Jun 12th 07. VB came out on 14th? What you are saying is USCIS has worked over night to analyze OB's report or they had access to OB's report 15-20 days ahead. Everything points to me that there was a lack of communication between the two agencies on an issue with huge stakes.
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.
We need to do both as the success is not guaranteed in either situation. I do not know if AILF will win the law suit. On the other side, Senators like Kennedy who control immigration issues will not give a damn in the current situation. If the issue gets to a point where USCIS & DOS officials testify before congress, the root problem will be solved. If we just win the lawsuit and get in, USCIS is only going to sulk us for 10 years in the name of security check.In the end, We should be able to portray the whole situation as if USCIS has been put in a ugly predicament to utilize visa numbers under the arcane laws. Bashing DOS & USCIS left and right now is not of any use in the long run.
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.
We all understand this and what you are saying, But What is in law is more important than OB's recommendations. First of all the office of OB might not have recommended to pass on any name checks. It might have advised to some how expedite them. More over, I dont think that they take the annual report seriously. We know how many times DOS officials and USCIS officials testify before congress. Why don't they tell congress that in order to clear backlogs
a) They need FBI to expedite name checks (they might have testified about this)
b) They need to recapture visa numbers (AFAIK, they never did this because your case is not pending unless you filed for AOS/485. We are not a part of the back log)
Their biggest problem now is if all of us file for 485, we will continue to be the back log for ever on the back of USCIS for ages to come unless recapture occurs. What ever be the number 200K or 700K, they simply dont want it.
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.
I am sure you might have read this from murthy's website (http://www.murthy.com/news/n_dosebn.html) or not, but DOS/CA/VO officials shared this piece with them. As per the above article, final quarter quota should not open until Jul 2nd. I understand that agencies can implement and interpret certain stuff, but you cannot interpret and implement one thing on Jun 13th and another on Jul 2nd. If its written into law, that the quarterly allocation is a must, USCIS is in violation and DOS/CA/VO as well for not policing them of visa number usage.
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.
Understood, if they can clear 60K cases in 18 days, I doubt they will have any issues clearing them in 90 days. It goes back to the point of us becoming the biggest hump on USCIS
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.
I think we all agree that there was no need to make every category current given that we know how many will become eligible for 485 filing. How ever, The OB's office will be pretty pissed if they use him as the trump card. Also, I got the annual report from OB's office in email on Jun 12th 07. VB came out on 14th? What you are saying is USCIS has worked over night to analyze OB's report or they had access to OB's report 15-20 days ahead. Everything points to me that there was a lack of communication between the two agencies on an issue with huge stakes.
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.
We need to do both as the success is not guaranteed in either situation. I do not know if AILF will win the law suit. On the other side, Senators like Kennedy who control immigration issues will not give a damn in the current situation. If the issue gets to a point where USCIS & DOS officials testify before congress, the root problem will be solved. If we just win the lawsuit and get in, USCIS is only going to sulk us for 10 years in the name of security check.In the end, We should be able to portray the whole situation as if USCIS has been put in a ugly predicament to utilize visa numbers under the arcane laws. Bashing DOS & USCIS left and right now is not of any use in the long run.
more...
veerug
07-04 05:49 PM
........
hot 3d Landscape wallpapers
softcrowd
03-19 11:16 AM
85,000 PERM cases certified in 2007. 2007 is a typical heavy filing year still...
One year 140,000 EB based visas available. If some how some of the back logs are eliminated, the future looks good as 140K for a year and less than 100K labor certifications per year. If the USCIS process with maximum visa/year, it is possible.
http://www.usavisanow.com/perm07.pdf
see a chart
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pezNTiCXNupwoSrZGE4kqcg&gid=1
You can not just equate the number of certified labors to the Visa numbers as the former one does not include dependents in it.
One year 140,000 EB based visas available. If some how some of the back logs are eliminated, the future looks good as 140K for a year and less than 100K labor certifications per year. If the USCIS process with maximum visa/year, it is possible.
http://www.usavisanow.com/perm07.pdf
see a chart
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pezNTiCXNupwoSrZGE4kqcg&gid=1
You can not just equate the number of certified labors to the Visa numbers as the former one does not include dependents in it.
more...
house is 3D wallpapers.
sroyc
07-11 04:43 PM
There is a lot of hurtburn among folks here abt a lot of things...Does that mean USCIS is going to cater to every case of heartburn. I dont think so.
What else would explain EB2 China's PD going back to EB2 India's PD (April 2004) when visas from EB2-ROW were made available and then both PD's moving to June 2006 (which was EB2 China's PD before it became unavailable)?
They could have set it to March 2005 and it would have been enough to exhaust the remaining EB2-ROW visas left considering the number of EB2 India applicants in the backlog. The fact is that there are not enough EB2 China applicants left in 2003/2004/2005. The only way they can get a fair share of the EB2-ROW spillover was if PD's for both EB2 India and China were moved to 2006.
What else would explain EB2 China's PD going back to EB2 India's PD (April 2004) when visas from EB2-ROW were made available and then both PD's moving to June 2006 (which was EB2 China's PD before it became unavailable)?
They could have set it to March 2005 and it would have been enough to exhaust the remaining EB2-ROW visas left considering the number of EB2 India applicants in the backlog. The fact is that there are not enough EB2 China applicants left in 2003/2004/2005. The only way they can get a fair share of the EB2-ROW spillover was if PD's for both EB2 India and China were moved to 2006.
tattoo Animated n 3D
svn
03-31 02:19 PM
This is very useful information. Given the data quoted, my question is: Why is the EB3 allocation for EB3 India only 2306? If the per country quota is set at 7% of 140K EB Visas and this is to be divided uniformly across all three employment categories, shouldn't EB3 India approvals have come to 9800/3 i.e roughly 3266? Actually, the same would apply for EB3 China as well!
Is this real discrimination against EB3 India/China...or am I just imagining it?Given my 8 year unending wait, I am sure I could just be hallucinating as well :-)
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV.pdf
Country EB1 EB2 EB3
India 6672 10124 2306
China 4999 3046 1027
S Korea 2311 4991 4001
Philippines 524 1853 5540
Mexico 2010 922 3745
All visa numbers allocated to South Korea are against EB visa numbers.
_________________
Not a legal advice.
Is this real discrimination against EB3 India/China...or am I just imagining it?Given my 8 year unending wait, I am sure I could just be hallucinating as well :-)
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV.pdf
Country EB1 EB2 EB3
India 6672 10124 2306
China 4999 3046 1027
S Korea 2311 4991 4001
Philippines 524 1853 5540
Mexico 2010 922 3745
All visa numbers allocated to South Korea are against EB visa numbers.
_________________
Not a legal advice.
more...
pictures 3d Glass. glass wallpaper
rb_248
02-20 03:08 PM
Thats positive news. Thanks.
dresses Animated 3D Wallpaper 5.07
gsc999
07-13 12:38 PM
Can members posting on this thread please explain to me why this thread is more visible than our San Jose rally thread.
Is this issue so important to you? If you have some spare time, help spread media awareness about this rally.
Other option is to go to this attorney's website and discuss it there.
Is this issue so important to you? If you have some spare time, help spread media awareness about this rally.
Other option is to go to this attorney's website and discuss it there.
more...
makeup 3D Wallpaper, Landscape
jackrabbit
07-17 11:01 AM
(2) H-1B salaries are tax-exempt - no FICA, no federal or state income taxes. They can live at the same level as tax-paying Americans at a lower cost. Therefore, Congress allows foreigners to "low-ball" American workers.
Does anyone know if we can sue them. I am sure that they are a registered organization.
Does anyone know if we can sue them. I am sure that they are a registered organization.
girlfriend 3D Cartoon Bee Wallpaper
GCBy3000
01-17 11:34 AM
it is a slow process. This recurring contribution is a good process in long run. We will inspire our members to contribute. This will grow in to thousands eventually. Keep up the good work with our core objectives.
/\/\/\/
bumping up the thread since this is the most crtical thing for us to achieve at this time so that we can put more resources at work in the coming months. As everyone could see on this thread, only few members have signed up for recurring contributions. We sent emails to all 8000+ members and the emails are still bouncing. Members have put fake email addresses. Despite repeated requests members have not updated their profile. In future when we send out updates by email or phone, such members will not get any updates too.
Since yesterday more than 2000 members have visited IV site and read this thread. We did not even get 1/100th of members signing up for this and contributing as little as $20.
Is this your commitment to the cause?
/\/\/\/
bumping up the thread since this is the most crtical thing for us to achieve at this time so that we can put more resources at work in the coming months. As everyone could see on this thread, only few members have signed up for recurring contributions. We sent emails to all 8000+ members and the emails are still bouncing. Members have put fake email addresses. Despite repeated requests members have not updated their profile. In future when we send out updates by email or phone, such members will not get any updates too.
Since yesterday more than 2000 members have visited IV site and read this thread. We did not even get 1/100th of members signing up for this and contributing as little as $20.
Is this your commitment to the cause?
hairstyles 3d wallpaper
hsm2007
09-23 10:03 AM
Hi All,
Employer A - original sponsoring employer. Got laidoff and joined B (large corporate). Before dates got current got offer from C and C applied for H1 transfer. Now received RFE on I-485 to provide EVL from current employer along with paystubs and W2.
My problem here is that I consulted Murthy and they are saying that I need to make a choice between my current employer B and my potential new employer C whom I have not started working yet but they have filed for H-1 transfer. If I respond to the RFE using my current employer information then it is more straightforward but then I will need to stay with them if I get my GC right away after responding to the RFE. But if I use my new employer's letter then I don't have paystubs to show until I join them which won't be until the H-1 transfer goes through and I go through one payroll cycle. But that will be too late to respond to the RFE.
If I don't join C then I need to pay for the H1 transfer that they filed and attorneys fees. At the same time I am also not happy with my current employers HR and attorney.
Employer A - original sponsoring employer. Got laidoff and joined B (large corporate). Before dates got current got offer from C and C applied for H1 transfer. Now received RFE on I-485 to provide EVL from current employer along with paystubs and W2.
My problem here is that I consulted Murthy and they are saying that I need to make a choice between my current employer B and my potential new employer C whom I have not started working yet but they have filed for H-1 transfer. If I respond to the RFE using my current employer information then it is more straightforward but then I will need to stay with them if I get my GC right away after responding to the RFE. But if I use my new employer's letter then I don't have paystubs to show until I join them which won't be until the H-1 transfer goes through and I go through one payroll cycle. But that will be too late to respond to the RFE.
If I don't join C then I need to pay for the H1 transfer that they filed and attorneys fees. At the same time I am also not happy with my current employers HR and attorney.
admin
02-04 03:45 PM
retrohatao,
We're asking for transparency and increase in efficiency in all of USCIS operations including Name Check.
We're asking for transparency and increase in efficiency in all of USCIS operations including Name Check.
shiankuraaf
04-10 10:07 PM
Employment-based immigrants visa issued in last 10 Years from 1998 to 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1998----1999----2000-----2001------2002-----2003----2004-----2005-----2006-----2007
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quota 140,000-140,000-140,000--140,000--140,000--140,000-140,000--140,000--140,000--140,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issued 77,413--56,678--106,642--178,702--173,814--81,727--155,330--246,877--159,081--162,176
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unused 62,587--83,322---33,358----------------------58,273-------------------------------------------------- 237,540
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excess -------------------------------38,702---33,814------------15,330--106,877---19,,081--22,176 ----- 235,980
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
-------
The number of unused employment visa numbers from the previous fiscal year is computed by
determining the difference between 1) the worldwide level of employment-based visas established
for the previous fiscal year and 2) the number of employment-based visas actually issued during the
previous fiscal year.
Source for the statistics:
http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publicatio...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1998----1999----2000-----2001------2002-----2003----2004-----2005-----2006-----2007
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quota 140,000-140,000-140,000--140,000--140,000--140,000-140,000--140,000--140,000--140,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issued 77,413--56,678--106,642--178,702--173,814--81,727--155,330--246,877--159,081--162,176
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unused 62,587--83,322---33,358----------------------58,273-------------------------------------------------- 237,540
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excess -------------------------------38,702---33,814------------15,330--106,877---19,,081--22,176 ----- 235,980
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
-------
The number of unused employment visa numbers from the previous fiscal year is computed by
determining the difference between 1) the worldwide level of employment-based visas established
for the previous fiscal year and 2) the number of employment-based visas actually issued during the
previous fiscal year.
Source for the statistics:
http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publicatio...
No comments:
Post a Comment