rck4evr
09-10 02:25 PM
They just started talking about immigration. I can read the name clearly but I think its Zoe Lofgren. She is talking about a lady who was deported because of immigration issues.
wallpaper I close my eyes
alex99
10-31 07:46 AM
Bump
decipher
04-21 09:40 PM
The meeting was primarily about undocumented workers and family re-unification. It seemed to be organized by the Latino community and so conducted mainly in Spanish (There was a English translator for others).
There was a decent turnout of IV members but were ultimately overwhelmed by the undocumented crowd.
The congressman talked about immigration as a whole and specifically about the provisions for undocumented workers in his bill. He was asked a couple of questions about legal immigration during Q&A but he did not address them very satisfactorily.
After the meeting, I was concerned that he might not be completely aware of the legal immigration issues. However, I learned that he knows about the issues after talking to IV. Personally, I wish that he had talked a little about legal immigration provisions also in the meeting though.
There was a decent turnout of IV members but were ultimately overwhelmed by the undocumented crowd.
The congressman talked about immigration as a whole and specifically about the provisions for undocumented workers in his bill. He was asked a couple of questions about legal immigration during Q&A but he did not address them very satisfactorily.
After the meeting, I was concerned that he might not be completely aware of the legal immigration issues. However, I learned that he knows about the issues after talking to IV. Personally, I wish that he had talked a little about legal immigration provisions also in the meeting though.
2011 Beautiful Eyes is the second
Dhundhun
06-28 11:55 PM
Thank you Dhundhun.
For some reason I thought the difference between Welcome Email and Card Ordered email is only couple of days.
One of my friend's family got GC (friend's wife and son - approx 3 weeks after mail). But his medical records were lost in USCIS - got RFE to produce medical records. His GC got delayed by 6 months.
So looking at the way things are going on, have patience - now it may take some time, but it will come.
Just you have to see, what that RFE is for.
For some reason I thought the difference between Welcome Email and Card Ordered email is only couple of days.
One of my friend's family got GC (friend's wife and son - approx 3 weeks after mail). But his medical records were lost in USCIS - got RFE to produce medical records. His GC got delayed by 6 months.
So looking at the way things are going on, have patience - now it may take some time, but it will come.
Just you have to see, what that RFE is for.
more...
angelfire76
02-13 05:03 PM
This is a real life example that happened a week ago. I was at the gym talking to a guy and he was asking where I was working. I told him and I got a look that suggested it was a crime for me to have a job.....No words exchanged but just the look of it...I could feel it..
Same sense of entitlement to everything landed the US in the soup they are in right now?
There are some very hard-working and bright people and I'm not generalizing here, but they need to understand the the foreign worker (who's probably being paid less than you to do the same job) is not the enemy. The unsustainable lifestyle is.
Same sense of entitlement to everything landed the US in the soup they are in right now?
There are some very hard-working and bright people and I'm not generalizing here, but they need to understand the the foreign worker (who's probably being paid less than you to do the same job) is not the enemy. The unsustainable lifestyle is.
waitingGC
01-18 11:15 AM
"This account has been permanently locked with a $0.00 USD balance. All information associated with this account has been blocked from the PayPal system and cannot be registered with another account."
When I was trying to make a monthly contribution, the above message was shown to me. I tried several times and got the same result. Can anyone tell me what happened and what I can do to fix it? Thanks.
I wonder if there were any other members who met the same problem. People may give up because of the trouble.
When I was trying to make a monthly contribution, the above message was shown to me. I tried several times and got the same result. Can anyone tell me what happened and what I can do to fix it? Thanks.
I wonder if there were any other members who met the same problem. People may give up because of the trouble.
more...
met3259
08-20 11:35 AM
got my FP notice today..
I485 RD - 7/2/2007
ND - 8/3/2007
FP Date - 9/04/2007 (FP Notice received 8/18/2007)
Service Center - NE
I have a question for gurus...we applied for AOS for my child also who is 6 years old. Is there FP for the children?
My kids are 7 & 9. Our fingerprinting and photo date is this Saturday Aug 25.
I485 RD - 7/2/2007
ND - 8/3/2007
FP Date - 9/04/2007 (FP Notice received 8/18/2007)
Service Center - NE
I have a question for gurus...we applied for AOS for my child also who is 6 years old. Is there FP for the children?
My kids are 7 & 9. Our fingerprinting and photo date is this Saturday Aug 25.
2010 wallpaper taylor swift eyes. Taylor Swift - Beautiful Eyes taylor swift ugly
sukhwinderd
02-21 06:40 AM
people from neighboring area/from places on the way are welcome to join.
more...
go_gc_way
12-28 11:50 PM
Anybody tried timesof India?
I have posted there a classified in timesofindia. How to make it stand out in thousands of classifieds?
FOLKS, PLEASE EACH POST A CLASSIFIED IN A WEB SITE ... AS Pappu has urged every one, this will help 'all of us' have more members and ease our efforts. Today we are crawling to gather the required funds, only if we had many more members , it will solve all problems .. and posting free classifieds is penny less.
perm2gc , that's right, all IV members need send a new year gift to IV core team by posting a classified in a web site that they know regionally or any other web sites that are useful to get more members .. I will change the the name of the thread as such.
Folks please participate more actively OR come up with new ideas that can help 'us'.
I have posted there a classified in timesofindia. How to make it stand out in thousands of classifieds?
FOLKS, PLEASE EACH POST A CLASSIFIED IN A WEB SITE ... AS Pappu has urged every one, this will help 'all of us' have more members and ease our efforts. Today we are crawling to gather the required funds, only if we had many more members , it will solve all problems .. and posting free classifieds is penny less.
perm2gc , that's right, all IV members need send a new year gift to IV core team by posting a classified in a web site that they know regionally or any other web sites that are useful to get more members .. I will change the the name of the thread as such.
Folks please participate more actively OR come up with new ideas that can help 'us'.
hair taylor swift eyes color.
frostrated
09-09 03:09 PM
For those of you thinking that EB3I will move forward once EB2 becomes current in the next year or so, please think again.
There are many EB2 I & C waiting to file their AOS applications. Anyone that missed the 2007 and 2008 windows, are eagerly waiting to file. It is estimated that there are a few thousand primary applicants in EB2 alone, each year from 2007 to 2010.
As a result, it is very unlikely that EB3 I will advance apart from its annual allocation of approximately 2800 visas. At the current rate, it will be three years before EB3 I 2002 is cleared, and many more years for the other years. In the meantime, there will be more applicants in EB2 category, thereby preventing your applications from being approved.
The options that lie before you are the passage of CIR, removal of country limits (which again is invariably tied to CIR), porting to EB2. The only option that is within your control is porting.
I would highly suggest that you use that option rather than rely on a change in law - a law that we have seen being dangled before us like a carrot for the past four years.
If you have been given a promotion or even offered one, take that. Contrary to what someone says about not being able to use experience in your current company, that is wrong to a certain extent. Experience in your current company in your current position cannot be used. But, experience in a different position in the same company can be used as experience to your EB2 status.
Take your promotion, and have the employer file a new labor petition. During the I-140 stage, port your EB3 priority date to your EB2 petition, and pretty much your 485 will be approved along with your 140, if not a few weeks after that (provided your PD is current).
Good luck in your porting. If you decide to wait until EB3I becomes current without porting, you are going to wait for a long time. I would suggest that anyone with a PD of Jan 2003+ to start your porting process. For the others, I'd suggest you wait it out as in the time it takes to do the porting, your 485 in EB3 will be approved.
There are many EB2 I & C waiting to file their AOS applications. Anyone that missed the 2007 and 2008 windows, are eagerly waiting to file. It is estimated that there are a few thousand primary applicants in EB2 alone, each year from 2007 to 2010.
As a result, it is very unlikely that EB3 I will advance apart from its annual allocation of approximately 2800 visas. At the current rate, it will be three years before EB3 I 2002 is cleared, and many more years for the other years. In the meantime, there will be more applicants in EB2 category, thereby preventing your applications from being approved.
The options that lie before you are the passage of CIR, removal of country limits (which again is invariably tied to CIR), porting to EB2. The only option that is within your control is porting.
I would highly suggest that you use that option rather than rely on a change in law - a law that we have seen being dangled before us like a carrot for the past four years.
If you have been given a promotion or even offered one, take that. Contrary to what someone says about not being able to use experience in your current company, that is wrong to a certain extent. Experience in your current company in your current position cannot be used. But, experience in a different position in the same company can be used as experience to your EB2 status.
Take your promotion, and have the employer file a new labor petition. During the I-140 stage, port your EB3 priority date to your EB2 petition, and pretty much your 485 will be approved along with your 140, if not a few weeks after that (provided your PD is current).
Good luck in your porting. If you decide to wait until EB3I becomes current without porting, you are going to wait for a long time. I would suggest that anyone with a PD of Jan 2003+ to start your porting process. For the others, I'd suggest you wait it out as in the time it takes to do the porting, your 485 in EB3 will be approved.
more...
mbawa2574
02-15 04:33 PM
Well, I do have a vested interest in maintaining status quo, at least with regard to the per country caps. :)
But, working in one of the Valley companies, I see a lot of people from India and China who just don't mix with rest of the people, say, from Poland or Germany or France or Iran. US (the whole government, including USCIS) likes the idea of 'Melting pot' when it comes to immigration. When you melt a lot of metals with each other, you don't end up with a fragmented alloy, since you've capped the amount of each metal in your pot. That is how you get 'Little Italy's and 'China Town's and the latest one in San Jose, CA: 'Saigon Business district'
You are blaming Indians and Chinese as a community to be racists. I will rather not mix with people who think like you. It is your perception, not a chinese or Indian problem.
But, working in one of the Valley companies, I see a lot of people from India and China who just don't mix with rest of the people, say, from Poland or Germany or France or Iran. US (the whole government, including USCIS) likes the idea of 'Melting pot' when it comes to immigration. When you melt a lot of metals with each other, you don't end up with a fragmented alloy, since you've capped the amount of each metal in your pot. That is how you get 'Little Italy's and 'China Town's and the latest one in San Jose, CA: 'Saigon Business district'
You are blaming Indians and Chinese as a community to be racists. I will rather not mix with people who think like you. It is your perception, not a chinese or Indian problem.
hot Taylor Swift
Ramba
07-14 06:18 PM
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.
The fundamental rule (for getting GC) is the longterm intent of having permanent employment relationship between employer and employee at the time of filing 140 and 485 (see the Q&A). The intet has to be "at the time of filing" only. The employee has worked 3 years in H1B for thr sponser. It clearly establishes the both party's intent at the time of filing. So, even if the employer revokes his approved 140, he is 100% safe.
The fundamental rule (for getting GC) is the longterm intent of having permanent employment relationship between employer and employee at the time of filing 140 and 485 (see the Q&A). The intet has to be "at the time of filing" only. The employee has worked 3 years in H1B for thr sponser. It clearly establishes the both party's intent at the time of filing. So, even if the employer revokes his approved 140, he is 100% safe.
more...
house Taylor Swift with no makeup:
my2239
06-11 08:38 AM
sent message
Thank you for creating the easy to use interface
Thank you for creating the easy to use interface
tattoo Taylor Pretty Eyes
McLuvin
03-12 01:55 PM
finally the bulletin has been posted in the DOS website...
Visa Bulletin for April 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4747.html)
They have given a brief description about "BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS"
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, a significant amount of demand is received each month for applicants who have priority dates which are significantly earlier than the applicable cut-off dates. In addition, fluctuations in demand can cause cut-off date movement to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7% is a cap which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed. Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled, however.
Applicability of Section 202(a)(5): INA Section 202(a)(5), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, removed the per-country limit on Employment-based immigrants in any calendar quarter in which applicant demand for numbers in one or more Employment-based preferences is less than the total of such numbers available. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5) has allowed countries such as China � mainland born and India to utilize large amounts of Employment First and Second preference numbers which would have otherwise gone unused. Such numbers are provided strictly in priority date order without regard to the foreign state chargeability, and the same cut-off date applies to any country benefiting from this provision.
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:
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).
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.
Visa Bulletin for April 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4747.html)
They have given a brief description about "BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS"
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, a significant amount of demand is received each month for applicants who have priority dates which are significantly earlier than the applicable cut-off dates. In addition, fluctuations in demand can cause cut-off date movement to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7% is a cap which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed. Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled, however.
Applicability of Section 202(a)(5): INA Section 202(a)(5), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, removed the per-country limit on Employment-based immigrants in any calendar quarter in which applicant demand for numbers in one or more Employment-based preferences is less than the total of such numbers available. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5) has allowed countries such as China � mainland born and India to utilize large amounts of Employment First and Second preference numbers which would have otherwise gone unused. Such numbers are provided strictly in priority date order without regard to the foreign state chargeability, and the same cut-off date applies to any country benefiting from this provision.
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:
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).
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.
more...
pictures Swift admits that she has used
maverick_s39
12-10 02:49 PM
With all the porting nonsense going on eb2 will move backward and eb3 will inch forward slowly. We might end up with eb2 and eb3 in 2002. congrats to all the people who ported, the only thing you accomplished is you made sure eb2 does not progress (it does not mean you have have moved forward by porting, it just means that you have made sure you have prevented original eb2 guys from getting green card), the people who ported wont gain any benefit but they will make it worse for everyone, they have to file a second i140 which will take at least another 1 year to clear and after 1 year when the ported 140's clear the eb2 will go back to 2002. You have also accomplished another great feat, DOL is going to make it impossible to file eb2 in IT jobs so even genuine people are screwed. Before people start giving red dots and justifying there porting I have an message for you, your behavior is no different from the people who did labor substitution, the end result was DOL ended labor substitution and the result of all this porting is DOL has made it impossible to get eb2 even for genuine cases. Just because others are doing it does not mean you can do it, obviously it is wrong therefore dol removed labor substitution and now dol is making it impossible to get eb2 for IT jobs even for genuine cases. 90 % of people doing this porting are desi consulting employees, they wine and complain about desi consulting companies as blood suckers (justifiably) but they themselves are bloodsuckers on the EB2 community by doing this eb3 to eb2 porting.
I was not happy with porting and labor substitution myself but if you are playing by rules what's wrong in that? I am assuming you filed your labor under eb2, so tomorrow if there a law that lets you port your case to eb1 (hey, anything can happen) what would you do? Well that's what everyone is doing.
I was not happy with porting and labor substitution myself but if you are playing by rules what's wrong in that? I am assuming you filed your labor under eb2, so tomorrow if there a law that lets you port your case to eb1 (hey, anything can happen) what would you do? Well that's what everyone is doing.
dresses Taylor Swifts clues us in to
kutra
03-05 09:07 PM
Now is *exactly* the right time to buy a house (at least in California). The prices are not spiraling down (they've already hit bottom). The interest rates are low and prices are low.
Best of luck trying to hold on to a falling knife. Here's some CA RE data for you to consider since you have so confidently predicted the bottom...
- http://www.dqnews.com/
- http://www.housingtracker.net/
- http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/26/real_estate/Case_Shiller_year_end/index.htm
(http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/26/real_estate/Case_Shiller_year_end/index.htm)
Anyway, I am not getting into any argument about whether you are correct or wrong. As I said, best of luck buying a house at this *exact* moment. I only hope other CA residents (and everyone across the US) do their own research before buying a house. If this fits in with your risks, rewards, plans, finances, etc. then by all means, go for it.
Best of luck trying to hold on to a falling knife. Here's some CA RE data for you to consider since you have so confidently predicted the bottom...
- http://www.dqnews.com/
- http://www.housingtracker.net/
- http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/26/real_estate/Case_Shiller_year_end/index.htm
(http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/26/real_estate/Case_Shiller_year_end/index.htm)
Anyway, I am not getting into any argument about whether you are correct or wrong. As I said, best of luck buying a house at this *exact* moment. I only hope other CA residents (and everyone across the US) do their own research before buying a house. If this fits in with your risks, rewards, plans, finances, etc. then by all means, go for it.
more...
makeup taylor swift ugly eyes. taylor swift eyes. When I talked to Taylor Swift
Canadian_Dream
11-17 12:44 PM
That's probably the path most people with (EB3 2003 onwards/EB2 2004 onwards) will take from now on. The only hurdle is there is no clarity about the law regarding H1B extensions granted on an approved I-140. Most people have run out of H1B and will have to change jobs on the extensions. I hope USCIS issues a clear guidance on this issue. Also you might not have to let go of the priority date if your company is kind enough.
girlfriend Taylor Swift
perm2gc
01-03 10:40 PM
I was trying to find out chinese portals, but no luck. I dont have any chinese friends who are stuck in this EB mess. Are we trying to get any chinese, philippino members?
yes.We want to increase our memberships from all communities.
yes.We want to increase our memberships from all communities.
hairstyles taylor swift eyes.
jonty_11
07-09 06:36 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.
text in bold has a GREY area....'plus remaining balance from previous months.'
They can always say the additional approvals were left over from previous months...
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.
text in bold has a GREY area....'plus remaining balance from previous months.'
They can always say the additional approvals were left over from previous months...
Administrator2
04-20 05:36 PM
We need at least 6 more volunteers for this task so that the volunteers already making the phone calls are not over-burdened. Please help this very important initiative.
If you would like to volunteer for this effort, please post or send me a private message.
If you would like to volunteer for this effort, please post or send me a private message.
mpelland
03-02 04:00 PM
i am going to have to sadly bow out of this . got a lil done but don't have the time. have fun everyone
No comments:
Post a Comment