leo2606
12-20 04:30 PM
Did you travel outside of USA after that? I mean after 2001 when ever you got into Job?
Folks, I didn't worked for an year(2001) due to, you know what I am saying....
Now I am afraid that I would get an RFE because of that. Do you think that I need to worry about it? :(
Folks, I didn't worked for an year(2001) due to, you know what I am saying....
Now I am afraid that I would get an RFE because of that. Do you think that I need to worry about it? :(
wallpaper The Dark Knight Rises (2012)
akhilmahajan
09-26 10:45 AM
There is a non-profit organization (like Business & Media Institute (http://www.businessandmedia.org/about/about.aspx)) that reports on wrong media reports. They have lot of reports on Lou Dobbs.
The details were posted in one of the many Lou Dobbs Threads. I can not find it.
If anyone can find it please post details of the organization and send email to this organization also.
Misrepresentation of facts regarding the recent rally in Washington DC. The rally was about increasing the number of Green Cards, and not H1-Bs. This reporter - Eileen Zimmermann has clearly gotten the two distinct issues mixed up.
The intent of the rally was to garner support and highlight the inefficiencies in the immigrant visa(also known as green card) process. This is different from the H-1B issue.. H-1B is a highly-skilled temporary work visa.
I ask that CNN must immediately issue a correction to this article to reflect the correct information.
Please call with any questions,
{Name}
{Phone Number}
The details were posted in one of the many Lou Dobbs Threads. I can not find it.
If anyone can find it please post details of the organization and send email to this organization also.
Misrepresentation of facts regarding the recent rally in Washington DC. The rally was about increasing the number of Green Cards, and not H1-Bs. This reporter - Eileen Zimmermann has clearly gotten the two distinct issues mixed up.
The intent of the rally was to garner support and highlight the inefficiencies in the immigrant visa(also known as green card) process. This is different from the H-1B issue.. H-1B is a highly-skilled temporary work visa.
I ask that CNN must immediately issue a correction to this article to reflect the correct information.
Please call with any questions,
{Name}
{Phone Number}
gcisadawg
02-13 01:49 PM
Ash, I agree with the message but you need to work on the choice of words. This not ethnic cleansing or lynching or systematic targetting. I'd say America is going into a protectionist mode. When you are in that mode, the first step is to keep aliens at a distance.
2011 Dark Knight Rises Cast
EB2IndianGC
09-23 01:57 PM
Thanks Abd. That was really quick. Our mail was received on Tuesday morning, and I have not seen any change as review yet. I will keep my fingers crossed for some quick action.
more...
chanduv23
01-30 01:57 PM
It is just not desi compaanies, but small companies in general want to save every peenny and would like to extract more work and would not mind about ur status or legality but will just get their work done.
When you join desi company you have to deal with crap. Must be very careful while inbetween projects and make sure u don't accrue any bench time.
When you join desi company you have to deal with crap. Must be very careful while inbetween projects and make sure u don't accrue any bench time.
eeezzz
02-15 02:57 PM
Why are you in favour of per country quotas, having been born in an oversubscribed country? Are you a glutton for punishment? Do you enjoy waiting 6 years more than an equally qualified counterpart from another country who moves onto bigger and better jobs while you rot in the same position and pay grade for years?
Per country rationing is discriminatory for EB migration. The best jobs should go to the best people, regardless of national origin, race, or religion - this basic principle is enshrined in employment law, but when it comes to EB migration, it is disregarded! It is not about "giving everyone an equal chance" - this is not a charity, this is a business, and in business, only the best and the brightest get those jobs.
I believe HV000 is either favor of per country quotas, nor is he a glutton for punishment. He sees the concept and current rule of this country, not just himself.
Your the other post said you just want GC in a shorter time. Can I ask you who want GC in a longer time or who doesn't want it in a shorter time?
Who determine the best jobs are? and who determine the best people are?
The "Equal Opportunity" word is really for Americans to read. Until you get your GC, that is not really for you.
Think about this, if the annual limit is 100, the country limit is 7%. Because it has processed 7 people so it closes the door and you think that is not fair. Do you take a look at the others who have to wait in line because 100 limit is hit even thought there's not one single case is approved for his country? USCIS is not processing one for each country at a time. Do you know your line is actually might already taken advanatge on other lines?
State this is not for fight something, but want to remind you the fair you think might not be fair to others. If you want to play the game, you have to follow the rules. If the rules are not clear, we fight for making clear rule. If you fight for rules to benefit you, that is taking advantage on others.
Increase the annual limit and recapture unused Visa from the past years are what we should push right now. But it is just a solution for only resolve problem for people who are currently stuck in I-485. After run out of recaptured Visa, the pipe will get stuck again.
I personally think the country limit will not change and if country limit is the policy, it should start at PERM, not just at I-485.
Per country rationing is discriminatory for EB migration. The best jobs should go to the best people, regardless of national origin, race, or religion - this basic principle is enshrined in employment law, but when it comes to EB migration, it is disregarded! It is not about "giving everyone an equal chance" - this is not a charity, this is a business, and in business, only the best and the brightest get those jobs.
I believe HV000 is either favor of per country quotas, nor is he a glutton for punishment. He sees the concept and current rule of this country, not just himself.
Your the other post said you just want GC in a shorter time. Can I ask you who want GC in a longer time or who doesn't want it in a shorter time?
Who determine the best jobs are? and who determine the best people are?
The "Equal Opportunity" word is really for Americans to read. Until you get your GC, that is not really for you.
Think about this, if the annual limit is 100, the country limit is 7%. Because it has processed 7 people so it closes the door and you think that is not fair. Do you take a look at the others who have to wait in line because 100 limit is hit even thought there's not one single case is approved for his country? USCIS is not processing one for each country at a time. Do you know your line is actually might already taken advanatge on other lines?
State this is not for fight something, but want to remind you the fair you think might not be fair to others. If you want to play the game, you have to follow the rules. If the rules are not clear, we fight for making clear rule. If you fight for rules to benefit you, that is taking advantage on others.
Increase the annual limit and recapture unused Visa from the past years are what we should push right now. But it is just a solution for only resolve problem for people who are currently stuck in I-485. After run out of recaptured Visa, the pipe will get stuck again.
I personally think the country limit will not change and if country limit is the policy, it should start at PERM, not just at I-485.
more...
veerug
07-03 07:55 PM
What IV will do different than what AILF is planning to do? They are not asking for any money for participating in litigation. What will happen if you don't reach your target of $5000 before you do something? (may be lawsuit).
Nobody takes money for filing lawsuit in any case, atleast not in advance.
No offense, but i thought you need to be little bit more clear in what exactly you plan to do with $5000.
I don't care if you get offended with my asking. But I am trying to unsderstand if i am missing something.
Nobody takes money for filing lawsuit in any case, atleast not in advance.
No offense, but i thought you need to be little bit more clear in what exactly you plan to do with $5000.
I don't care if you get offended with my asking. But I am trying to unsderstand if i am missing something.
2010 Batman: The Dark Knight Rises
belmontboy
01-16 03:38 PM
Every profession has its own set of problems, like ours.
In addition to issues at profession, we also carry the GC burden
As buddha said "desire is root of all evil". In pursuit of wealth, fame, good life!, we forget to live our life.
If you are looking for peaceful job in this current economic scenario, i don't think there is any.
I sometimes wish childhood had lasted my entire life.
In addition to issues at profession, we also carry the GC burden
As buddha said "desire is root of all evil". In pursuit of wealth, fame, good life!, we forget to live our life.
If you are looking for peaceful job in this current economic scenario, i don't think there is any.
I sometimes wish childhood had lasted my entire life.
more...
greyhair
06-10 07:30 PM
For whatever reason, rumors are flying all over the Internet that the end of H1B and EAD employment authorization is at hand. This is complete nonsense. The purported basis for these rumors is an amendment offered in the Senate (S. Amdt. 4319) to a tax bill previously passed by the House (HR 4213). As written, this proposal would prohibit companies from filing H1B petitions if the company has laid off any employees in the last year. It would also void all existing H petitions for a company if the company lays off personnel.
Let's put this in context. Microsoft decides to lay off some of its loading dock personnel because they want to outsource that work. Under this proposal, they would then have to terminate all of their H1B engineers. That simply doesn't pass the laugh test.
Like most of Grassley's proposals, this amendment is pure idiocy. I suppose that's what happens when your parents are siblings. This bill has absolutely no chance of ever becoming law. .
It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. Pandering to the client base will not help the clients, it will only help the service provider.
Let's put this in context. Microsoft decides to lay off some of its loading dock personnel because they want to outsource that work. Under this proposal, they would then have to terminate all of their H1B engineers. That simply doesn't pass the laugh test.
Like most of Grassley's proposals, this amendment is pure idiocy. I suppose that's what happens when your parents are siblings. This bill has absolutely no chance of ever becoming law. .
It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. Pandering to the client base will not help the clients, it will only help the service provider.
hair “The Dark Knight Rises”.
aadimanav
09-26 11:57 AM
IV members won.
Wordings changed:
"..The demonstrators were protesting long delays in securing green cards for highly-skilled workers already in the U.S. ....."
Wordings changed:
"..The demonstrators were protesting long delays in securing green cards for highly-skilled workers already in the U.S. ....."
more...
vagish
04-04 03:57 PM
If you want a good discussion on a topic stop generalizing things and do not use rants like racist engineers etc. When you make an assumption please be clear about. You have assumed most people work for consulting companies and most people are frustrated with it. Not so. I don't work for them and I am not frustrated with them. My only concern with them is they are exploiting the system to their advantage and at my cost. This has two fold affect not only the take cut from your salary but also put a bad name to H1B visa program in general. Whoever wrote the bill or whatever are the consequences there is definitely some good things in that bill. Let me list out how some provisions are good:
1. If you are employable in US and you have the skills you will get the job with or without these middlemen. They come into picture only because they can start a corporation and then start the exploitation game. If a bill is taking these guys out what's wrong with it ? This will allow genuine corporations to hire the right candidates.
2. Putting 30 days of ad. to hire US citizens first ? What's wrong with it ? If their skills are really outdated and you are the best and the brightest you will get the job.
If you need more evidence of why H1B program needs reform look no further than H1B cap used up on first day. This has put good undue hard ship for good candidates while Infosys/Wipro etc will once again take the lion's share of H1B numbers. Why do you want them to win at your cost ? Stop calling people affected by this mess as "Racist Engineers". Try to put yourself in their shoes and some of these practices are affecting both the H1B visa holders (with indentured servitude) and citizens with wage depression. No body wins in the end but the people who are exploiting the system.
completely agree.
1. If you are employable in US and you have the skills you will get the job with or without these middlemen. They come into picture only because they can start a corporation and then start the exploitation game. If a bill is taking these guys out what's wrong with it ? This will allow genuine corporations to hire the right candidates.
2. Putting 30 days of ad. to hire US citizens first ? What's wrong with it ? If their skills are really outdated and you are the best and the brightest you will get the job.
If you need more evidence of why H1B program needs reform look no further than H1B cap used up on first day. This has put good undue hard ship for good candidates while Infosys/Wipro etc will once again take the lion's share of H1B numbers. Why do you want them to win at your cost ? Stop calling people affected by this mess as "Racist Engineers". Try to put yourself in their shoes and some of these practices are affecting both the H1B visa holders (with indentured servitude) and citizens with wage depression. No body wins in the end but the people who are exploiting the system.
completely agree.
hot wallpaper the dark knight
Sunx_2004
03-12 10:21 AM
I do not believe that one person (Pappu) should be held responsible for whatever going on You should not blame Pappu alone.
However, I agree that donor forum proved to be disastrous and driving people away from IV. Someone in core team should do analysis on how much it helped the IV cause and whether it should exist going forward. Lack of transparency is clearly hurting IV cause.
IV needs to OPEN ITS BOOKS
And show DONORS where their money is going? Where is the sponsors money going? and what is this ORGANIZATION planning to do. IF not, one these days they will find themselves in a audit and public scrutiny.
Any yes people who says open your eyes? Have you got your GC? EAD is only a means and not the destination
PAPU, you need to explain to all IV members and disclose the books and what you are doing as IV head, and dont give me the bull, of we are working, you want our support, we want clarity and real action.
However, I agree that donor forum proved to be disastrous and driving people away from IV. Someone in core team should do analysis on how much it helped the IV cause and whether it should exist going forward. Lack of transparency is clearly hurting IV cause.
IV needs to OPEN ITS BOOKS
And show DONORS where their money is going? Where is the sponsors money going? and what is this ORGANIZATION planning to do. IF not, one these days they will find themselves in a audit and public scrutiny.
Any yes people who says open your eyes? Have you got your GC? EAD is only a means and not the destination
PAPU, you need to explain to all IV members and disclose the books and what you are doing as IV head, and dont give me the bull, of we are working, you want our support, we want clarity and real action.
more...
house The Dark Knight Rises,
Karthikthiru
06-10 03:55 PM
Done. Just did it
tattoo hair The Dark Knight Rises:
ezee
10-16 04:37 PM
Don't you think we should be more clear in requesting information per specific country instead of lumping China and India together for EB-2 and others for EB-3? Also will it be too much to request pending applications by month/quarter instead of year?
We probably want the report in this format? This is just a suggestion.
|[indent]|EB2 - China |EB-2 India |EB-3 China |EB-3 India |EB-3 Mexico |EB-3 Phillipines |EB-3 Rest|
2001-Q1
2001-Q2
2001-Q3
2001-Q4
2002-Q1
2002-Q2
2002-Q3
2002-Q4
2003-Q1
2003-Q2
2003-Q3
2003-Q4
2004-Q1
2004-Q2
2004-Q3
2004-Q4
2005-Q1
2005-Q2
2005-Q3
2005-Q4
2006-Q1
2006-Q2
2006-Q3
2006-Q4
2007-Q1
2007-Q2
2007-Q3
2007-Q4
2008-Q1
2008-Q2
2008-Q3
2008-Q4
We probably want the report in this format? This is just a suggestion.
|[indent]|EB2 - China |EB-2 India |EB-3 China |EB-3 India |EB-3 Mexico |EB-3 Phillipines |EB-3 Rest|
2001-Q1
2001-Q2
2001-Q3
2001-Q4
2002-Q1
2002-Q2
2002-Q3
2002-Q4
2003-Q1
2003-Q2
2003-Q3
2003-Q4
2004-Q1
2004-Q2
2004-Q3
2004-Q4
2005-Q1
2005-Q2
2005-Q3
2005-Q4
2006-Q1
2006-Q2
2006-Q3
2006-Q4
2007-Q1
2007-Q2
2007-Q3
2007-Q4
2008-Q1
2008-Q2
2008-Q3
2008-Q4
more...
pictures The Dark Knight Rises,
VivekAhuja
07-14 05:57 PM
Consult an attorney because if you applied for I-485 in July 2007 and quit employer in August, you might not be covered under AC21 since 6 months did not pass since adjucation request (I-485) was files with USCIS.
dresses The Dark Knight Rises: azr cv2
h1techSlave
03-17 02:04 PM
Including spillover generally EB3-I clears up around 5000 visas per year on average ( Though theoratically stuck at 3300-3500). 3 visas per applicant is at bit high end. I would not assume everybody is married AND have child.. I would put that around 1.75. But, yes, even if select these new parameters than also it would take years..Theoratically, ofcourse:):)
Based on your assumptions, it would take around 2 years to reach Dec 2003 for EB3-India.
# of visas required = 5000 or 6000 * 1.75 = 8750 or 10, 500
# of visas available = 5000
# years of wait until Dec 2003 = 1.75 to 2.1 years.
Based on your assumptions, it would take around 2 years to reach Dec 2003 for EB3-India.
# of visas required = 5000 or 6000 * 1.75 = 8750 or 10, 500
# of visas available = 5000
# years of wait until Dec 2003 = 1.75 to 2.1 years.
more...
makeup that The Dark Knight Rises
grinch
03-11 03:26 PM
Gah BlueSun, I love your render, especially the lighting...
I CAN'T GET THAT!! AHHH I HATE MAYA
I CAN'T GET THAT!! AHHH I HATE MAYA
girlfriend for The Dark Knight Rises.
guy03062
11-11 07:49 PM
This is great find. I am not sure why IV leadership (as an advocacy group) is not pursuing this to USCIS leadership as they are in touch with them regularly for other issues. Are we missing something here?
Under the regulation No reference to Calendar year. It mentions explicitly calendar quarter.
Immigration and Nationality Act: Section ACT 202 - Numerical Limitation to any single foreign state under Sec. 202. [8 U.S.C. 1152]
(3) Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter.
(5) 2/ RULES FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS
(A) EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
(B) LIMITING FALL ACROSS FOR CERTAIN COUNTRIES SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION (e)- In the case of a foreign state or dependent area to which subsection (e) applies, if the total number of visas issued under section 203(b) exceeds the maximum number of visas that may be made available to immigrants of the state or area under section 203(b)consistent with subsection (e) (determined without regard to this paragraph),in applying subsection (e) all visas shall be deemed to have been required for the classes of aliens specified in section 203(b).
Under the regulation No reference to Calendar year. It mentions explicitly calendar quarter.
Immigration and Nationality Act: Section ACT 202 - Numerical Limitation to any single foreign state under Sec. 202. [8 U.S.C. 1152]
(3) Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter.
(5) 2/ RULES FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS
(A) EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
(B) LIMITING FALL ACROSS FOR CERTAIN COUNTRIES SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION (e)- In the case of a foreign state or dependent area to which subsection (e) applies, if the total number of visas issued under section 203(b) exceeds the maximum number of visas that may be made available to immigrants of the state or area under section 203(b)consistent with subsection (e) (determined without regard to this paragraph),in applying subsection (e) all visas shall be deemed to have been required for the classes of aliens specified in section 203(b).
hairstyles Dark Knight Rises: 1
EdenMN
02-19 05:04 PM
As we know this bill won't surive due to current economic conditions...How about making it attrcative by adding 5k fees if person wants GC staying more than 5years
andycool
03-16 02:04 PM
141,020 visa numbers used in FY2009
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV.pdf
Look at the last page.
The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is 140,000. So the usage was actually more.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
Hello Desi,
"Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by documentarily qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation, that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may require the establishment of an earlier cut-off date than that which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
Furthermore, Section 202(a)(2) reads, �2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed seven percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or two percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.� The seven percent per-country limit specified in INA 202(a)(2) is considered to be for both Family-sponsored and Employment-based numbers combined.
Allocation of visa numbers under Section 202(e) is accomplished as follows:
1. If based on historical patterns or current demand it appears that during a fiscal year number use by aliens chargeable to a particular country will exceed the per-country numerical limit for both the Family and Employment preferences combined, that country would be considered oversubscribed. Both the Family and Employment preferences would be subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1).
2. Sometimes during a fiscal year it may become apparent that because of a lack of demand in the Family preferences, number use by aliens chargeable to an oversubscribed country will be well within the per-country numerical limit. In such case the excess Family numbers would be made available to the Employment preferences subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1). Each of the first three Employment categories would receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and each of the Fourth and Fifth preference categories 7.1%. (Fall-across would likewise apply if an oversubscribed country lacked sufficient demand in the Employment preferences but had excess demand in the Family preferences.)
If a foreign state other than an oversubscribed country has little Family preference demand but considerable Employment preference demand, the otherwise unused Family numbers fall across to Employment (and vice versa) for purposes of that foreign state�s annual numerical limit. For example, in FY-2009 South Korea used a grand total of 15,899 Family and Employment preference numbers, of which 1,688 were Family numbers and 14,211 were Employment numbers. This grand total was well within the FY-2009 per-country numerical limit of 25,620 Family and Employment numbers combined, so South Korea was not oversubscribed. The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.
This is from April Visa Bulletin , according to this S korea got 14,211 visas from FB ( spill over from FB - EB) then dont you think the total EB visas issued in 2009 should be around 150000 instead of 141000....
I am little confused...
your comment will be greatly appreciated ;)
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV.pdf
Look at the last page.
The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is 140,000. So the usage was actually more.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
Hello Desi,
"Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by documentarily qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation, that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may require the establishment of an earlier cut-off date than that which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
Furthermore, Section 202(a)(2) reads, �2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed seven percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or two percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.� The seven percent per-country limit specified in INA 202(a)(2) is considered to be for both Family-sponsored and Employment-based numbers combined.
Allocation of visa numbers under Section 202(e) is accomplished as follows:
1. If based on historical patterns or current demand it appears that during a fiscal year number use by aliens chargeable to a particular country will exceed the per-country numerical limit for both the Family and Employment preferences combined, that country would be considered oversubscribed. Both the Family and Employment preferences would be subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1).
2. Sometimes during a fiscal year it may become apparent that because of a lack of demand in the Family preferences, number use by aliens chargeable to an oversubscribed country will be well within the per-country numerical limit. In such case the excess Family numbers would be made available to the Employment preferences subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1). Each of the first three Employment categories would receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and each of the Fourth and Fifth preference categories 7.1%. (Fall-across would likewise apply if an oversubscribed country lacked sufficient demand in the Employment preferences but had excess demand in the Family preferences.)
If a foreign state other than an oversubscribed country has little Family preference demand but considerable Employment preference demand, the otherwise unused Family numbers fall across to Employment (and vice versa) for purposes of that foreign state�s annual numerical limit. For example, in FY-2009 South Korea used a grand total of 15,899 Family and Employment preference numbers, of which 1,688 were Family numbers and 14,211 were Employment numbers. This grand total was well within the FY-2009 per-country numerical limit of 25,620 Family and Employment numbers combined, so South Korea was not oversubscribed. The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.
This is from April Visa Bulletin , according to this S korea got 14,211 visas from FB ( spill over from FB - EB) then dont you think the total EB visas issued in 2009 should be around 150000 instead of 141000....
I am little confused...
your comment will be greatly appreciated ;)
file485
12-22 08:34 AM
this is our history...
1.was working with employer B in June 07(when PD was current for EB2/Oct 2003-India)...went to attorney to file 485 with approved 140 thru ex employer A. filled in all the paperwork for 485,but the attorney was asking for a current employment letter from B with exact skills mentioned on labor and the employer B was not ready to give such a letter and hence we planned to find a new employer and file for 485 in July.
2. In June end found this new current employer C and planned to file 485 in July and all the fiasco scene happened...anyway...in August we filed the 485 with a current employer letter from C with all the skills matching the labor..till here fine.
NOW...we got a copy of the bunch of 48 documents sent to INS from the atnys office...I had given the latest 325a form
current employer C : July 07 - current
employer B : Jan 2006 - June 2007
employer A : June 2003 - Dec 2005 (who filed for labor/i140)
the shitty paralegal now submitted the 325a from submitted in June 07 where the current employer B was the latest.... + the current employment letter of C + 485 employment offer letter from A
She had whitened out the date on the 325a form signed on June 07 and changed it to Aug 07 to my utter shock....
when I call back..she says we will handle any RFE's...
quite worried as the 325a form already says something like 'all info disclosed is truthful'... etc and the fine print..
pls post your thoughts and comments..
hope I dint confuse
1.was working with employer B in June 07(when PD was current for EB2/Oct 2003-India)...went to attorney to file 485 with approved 140 thru ex employer A. filled in all the paperwork for 485,but the attorney was asking for a current employment letter from B with exact skills mentioned on labor and the employer B was not ready to give such a letter and hence we planned to find a new employer and file for 485 in July.
2. In June end found this new current employer C and planned to file 485 in July and all the fiasco scene happened...anyway...in August we filed the 485 with a current employer letter from C with all the skills matching the labor..till here fine.
NOW...we got a copy of the bunch of 48 documents sent to INS from the atnys office...I had given the latest 325a form
current employer C : July 07 - current
employer B : Jan 2006 - June 2007
employer A : June 2003 - Dec 2005 (who filed for labor/i140)
the shitty paralegal now submitted the 325a from submitted in June 07 where the current employer B was the latest.... + the current employment letter of C + 485 employment offer letter from A
She had whitened out the date on the 325a form signed on June 07 and changed it to Aug 07 to my utter shock....
when I call back..she says we will handle any RFE's...
quite worried as the 325a form already says something like 'all info disclosed is truthful'... etc and the fine print..
pls post your thoughts and comments..
hope I dint confuse
No comments:
Post a Comment