glus
09-19 11:02 AM
This must be done. Also, we could include flags of all the member nationalities, to show this website is an international one. So if we have members from 20 different countries, this should be clearly shown. Guys, the problem is not only for indians, it is also for the others like me.
G
G
wallpaper American Idol Cast
vdlrao
07-14 12:45 PM
Please find out the visa numbers allotment for EB1, EB2 and EB3 till now. Till now there is about 100k visa numbers allotment for EB3 every year due to the vertical fallout. From now on there would be around 100K allotment in EB2 due to the change to Horizontal Fall out of visa numbers. Out of these 100k EB2 visa numbers, India will get greatest share of around 50k + visas. Please see the below.
Type and class of admission 1998-- 1999-- 2000-- 2001-- 2002-- 2003-- 2004-- 2005-- 2006-- 2007
Employment-based preferences 77,413-- 56,678-- 106,642--178,702--173,814--81,727--155,330--246,877--159,081--162,176
First: Priority workers 21,375-- 14,844-- 27,566-- 41,672-- 34,168-- 14,453-- 31,291-- 64,731-- 36,960-- 26,697
Second: advanced degrees or exceptional ability 14,362--8,557-- 20,255-- 42,550-- 44,316-- 15,406-- 32,534 --42,597-- 21,911-- 44,162
Third: Skilled workers 34,282 --27,920--49,589--85,847-- 88,002-- 46,415-- 85,969-- 129,070--89,922-- 85,030
Fourth: Special immigrants 6,570-- 5,072-- 9,014-- 8,442-- 7,186-- 5,389-- 5,407-- 10,133-- 9,539-- 5,481
Fifth: (investors) 824-- 285-- 218-- 191-- 142-- 64-- 129-- 346-- 749-- 806
See the link below for reference:
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/s...7/table06d.xls
Type and class of admission 1998-- 1999-- 2000-- 2001-- 2002-- 2003-- 2004-- 2005-- 2006-- 2007
Employment-based preferences 77,413-- 56,678-- 106,642--178,702--173,814--81,727--155,330--246,877--159,081--162,176
First: Priority workers 21,375-- 14,844-- 27,566-- 41,672-- 34,168-- 14,453-- 31,291-- 64,731-- 36,960-- 26,697
Second: advanced degrees or exceptional ability 14,362--8,557-- 20,255-- 42,550-- 44,316-- 15,406-- 32,534 --42,597-- 21,911-- 44,162
Third: Skilled workers 34,282 --27,920--49,589--85,847-- 88,002-- 46,415-- 85,969-- 129,070--89,922-- 85,030
Fourth: Special immigrants 6,570-- 5,072-- 9,014-- 8,442-- 7,186-- 5,389-- 5,407-- 10,133-- 9,539-- 5,481
Fifth: (investors) 824-- 285-- 218-- 191-- 142-- 64-- 129-- 346-- 749-- 806
See the link below for reference:
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/s...7/table06d.xls
kumarc123
03-12 09:10 AM
I completely agree with you.. in the last 3-4 years of forming IV what lobbying efforts did the IV folk do after July 2007 fiasco?? With all the donations and money they are making from advertisements on this website what have they accomplished? they could not even have an established and reliable relationship with DOS or USCIS to get clear information out to its members?? I think it is a BIG F-A-I-L-U-R-E on the part of IV if they cannot even get some valid information let alone bringing some change in the immigration system. And when we are all discussing in anticipation of this much awaited April bulletin, what do the IV admin folk do?? Start another DONOR FORUM thread and talk about what?? B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T!! If starting a new DONOR FORUM thread is all you can do for all the donors? what good is it?? Before we go ahead and bash USCIS, IV folk have a lot of explanation to do -
1. What links do you have with USCIS?
2. What efforts are being made?
3. What is the future POA?
4. If sitting around and waiting for the next visa bulletin is all you IV leadership is doing then stop asking for DONATIONS!!
Peace!
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.
1. What links do you have with USCIS?
2. What efforts are being made?
3. What is the future POA?
4. If sitting around and waiting for the next visa bulletin is all you IV leadership is doing then stop asking for DONATIONS!!
Peace!
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.
2011 American Idol 2011 Top 4
god_bless_you
12-13 07:40 AM
Whats the advice on this from core group?
can we start mass web faxing USCIS for rule change?
can we start mass web faxing USCIS for rule change?
more...
dummgelauft
08-21 08:31 PM
Thank you to those of you who were kind enough to respond with helpful information and some understanding for my situation. I do appreciate that much.
And for those of you who were sarcastic and rude and accusing me of being illegal, if that was the case, then why has USCIS not stated that one time in all the correspondence I have had from them and why are they willing to give me a chance to file the required forms at this time?
They know where I live, who I live with and anything else they need to know. Illegal immigrants don't make themselves known to anybody that could/would report them. If I had something to hide, I would do so, but I have no secrets from them whatsoever. I have done all I have been asked to do and have the paperwork to prove it. I have not gotten a job anywhere outside of the home I live in and they are well aware of what I do here, I have not committed any crimes, my biometrics have come back clear, therefore I have no criminal record in my home country, so therefore I am not a threat whatsoever to anyone in the US.
No one at USCIS has ever stated by phone or mail that I am here illegally and if that was the case, I would think they would have been quick to deport me since they knew everything they needed to know in order to find me and still do. I have nothing to hide.
1) Nobody is accusing of you being illegal. YOU ARE ILLEGAL
2) You have come to a public forum, seeking advice. That is exactly what you are getting. Go hire an attorney, but given your case (considerig that you have one!!) nobody will touch it.
(3) Everybody here has had their bio-metrics cleared, several time over. None of the people on this forum are criminals, but they have paid thousands of dollars in legal fees and still have not got their I-485 approved, so what do expect?
(4) USCIS has massive case backlog, so if you expected them to inform you of everything, at every step of the way, I am sorry, but please come out of your La La land.
(5) USICS knows where you live..hahah..you bet. Just wait for that know on the door. By the way, they WILL handcuff you and put you in the back of a police car.
(6) Bottomline, USICS follows the law (however bad or insane that law may be). According to law, you are here illegally and will be deported, sooner rather than later. If you are up for this, keep dreaming, else, get your stuff together and get your derierre back to Canada.
And for those of you who were sarcastic and rude and accusing me of being illegal, if that was the case, then why has USCIS not stated that one time in all the correspondence I have had from them and why are they willing to give me a chance to file the required forms at this time?
They know where I live, who I live with and anything else they need to know. Illegal immigrants don't make themselves known to anybody that could/would report them. If I had something to hide, I would do so, but I have no secrets from them whatsoever. I have done all I have been asked to do and have the paperwork to prove it. I have not gotten a job anywhere outside of the home I live in and they are well aware of what I do here, I have not committed any crimes, my biometrics have come back clear, therefore I have no criminal record in my home country, so therefore I am not a threat whatsoever to anyone in the US.
No one at USCIS has ever stated by phone or mail that I am here illegally and if that was the case, I would think they would have been quick to deport me since they knew everything they needed to know in order to find me and still do. I have nothing to hide.
1) Nobody is accusing of you being illegal. YOU ARE ILLEGAL
2) You have come to a public forum, seeking advice. That is exactly what you are getting. Go hire an attorney, but given your case (considerig that you have one!!) nobody will touch it.
(3) Everybody here has had their bio-metrics cleared, several time over. None of the people on this forum are criminals, but they have paid thousands of dollars in legal fees and still have not got their I-485 approved, so what do expect?
(4) USCIS has massive case backlog, so if you expected them to inform you of everything, at every step of the way, I am sorry, but please come out of your La La land.
(5) USICS knows where you live..hahah..you bet. Just wait for that know on the door. By the way, they WILL handcuff you and put you in the back of a police car.
(6) Bottomline, USICS follows the law (however bad or insane that law may be). According to law, you are here illegally and will be deported, sooner rather than later. If you are up for this, keep dreaming, else, get your stuff together and get your derierre back to Canada.
hpandey
10-15 02:25 PM
I have a doubt about what can be accomplished by the flower campaign. I am totally for it if it would help but just think - it is not in USCIS hands to assign more visas to EB3 or EB2. The number of visas is limited and the number of people waiting for the visas is huge. That is the whole cause of retrogression . If there were as many visas as the people everything would be current.
This is a simple matter of demand and supply . The thing that can help is visa recapture but that again USCIS can't do and only the Congress . What we need to do is point our efforts in the right direction .
This is a simple matter of demand and supply . The thing that can help is visa recapture but that again USCIS can't do and only the Congress . What we need to do is point our efforts in the right direction .
more...
espoir
09-19 11:20 AM
I was just checking the domain name availability. legalimmigrationvoice.com and .org got taken yesterday. Hopefully its the core or someone supporting member of IV.
2010 Lauren Alania, Scotty McCreery
Jaime
09-10 03:26 PM
Lose A LOT of money if you get laid off and forced to leave the U.S. - If you have a 401 K and the broken immigration system forces you to leave the U.S. in the self-induced U.S. Reverse Brain Drain, you have to leave all your savings behind and use them until you retire in your home country (yet cannot contribute anymore and thus money stops compounding) or take the money to your home country after taking a huge hit from early withdrawal penalties.
more...
prioritydate
12-21 02:15 PM
This is from Murthy chat.
Question: If in the past I have been out of H1B status for 6 months (I-94 not expired), is this going to hurt my GC (or any new petitions to change / extend / adjust status)?
Answer: A person who fails to maintain status for over 180 days may have a problem obtaining the approval of the I-485, which allows a maximum of 180 days for one to be out of status under Section 245(k) of the INA, unless the person is covered under 245(i) of the INA. Sometimes, though, the fault of the employer in not paying the salary while the person is considered an employee may not pose a problem but at other times it may pose a problem. Not having pay stubs will certainly adversely impact the ability to obtain an extension or change of status from the USCIS. Jun-20-2005.
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
Question: If in the past I have been out of H1B status for 6 months (I-94 not expired), is this going to hurt my GC (or any new petitions to change / extend / adjust status)?
Answer: A person who fails to maintain status for over 180 days may have a problem obtaining the approval of the I-485, which allows a maximum of 180 days for one to be out of status under Section 245(k) of the INA, unless the person is covered under 245(i) of the INA. Sometimes, though, the fault of the employer in not paying the salary while the person is considered an employee may not pose a problem but at other times it may pose a problem. Not having pay stubs will certainly adversely impact the ability to obtain an extension or change of status from the USCIS. Jun-20-2005.
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
hair Contestants Scotty McCreery
amslonewolf
11-06 07:28 AM
NRC2008064127
I didn't notarize my letter..
All it takes is a .42 cents to mail the letter and 2 mins of your time.. Please do it..
I didn't notarize my letter..
All it takes is a .42 cents to mail the letter and 2 mins of your time.. Please do it..
more...
a_yaja
07-09 04:47 PM
I hope this lawsuit fails. Looking ahead this lawsuit, if it succeeds might do us more damage than good. Law of unintended consequences states that something can happen we haven't thought of.
Supposing, if lawsuit goes ahead and wins, one outcome might be - USCIS might start adhering to strict interpretation of 7% per country, or curtail spillovers drastically. Then we are in deep shit.
How can USCIS adher to 7% per country quota when AC21 explicitly says that if visas are still available after allotment to ROW, the remaining visas must spill over to the over subscribed countries?
As a result of failure of this lawsuite, if they start adhering to 7% cap, then they are in violation of AC21. That would be another lawsuite for sure.
Supposing, if lawsuit goes ahead and wins, one outcome might be - USCIS might start adhering to strict interpretation of 7% per country, or curtail spillovers drastically. Then we are in deep shit.
How can USCIS adher to 7% per country quota when AC21 explicitly says that if visas are still available after allotment to ROW, the remaining visas must spill over to the over subscribed countries?
As a result of failure of this lawsuite, if they start adhering to 7% cap, then they are in violation of AC21. That would be another lawsuite for sure.
hot American Idol Top 24 red
StarSun
02-17 09:50 AM
IV sent newsletters last year on advocacy efforts to its members. We are doing it this year as well. We are trying to reach out to our members to attend the event.
more...
house American Idol 2011 Top 6
ajthakur
07-14 08:07 PM
Thanks rajuseattle. I am first going to try find out whether my previous employer did revoke the 140. In case he didnt i am safe. In case he did, when he did it is the key.
One more thing AC-21 is not a formal USCIS form which one can fill in and send it over to USCIS, its just a letter wherein you or your legal representative informs USCIS about the change in employment, be it a job promotion with same employer or u switching the Job using the AC-21 provisions.
As explained earlier in this forum, 180 day rule interpretation is solely USCIS's descretion, if USCIS adjudicator who is working on your case accepts your new EVL and approves your case you are good to go, but for some reason the adjudicator keeps sending more RFE then you will need someone who can answer them in a legal language and thats where attorney services comes in handy.
I am hoping for the best for you that once they see your new EVL, they are satisfied and sends you GC.
One more thing AC-21 is not a formal USCIS form which one can fill in and send it over to USCIS, its just a letter wherein you or your legal representative informs USCIS about the change in employment, be it a job promotion with same employer or u switching the Job using the AC-21 provisions.
As explained earlier in this forum, 180 day rule interpretation is solely USCIS's descretion, if USCIS adjudicator who is working on your case accepts your new EVL and approves your case you are good to go, but for some reason the adjudicator keeps sending more RFE then you will need someone who can answer them in a legal language and thats where attorney services comes in handy.
I am hoping for the best for you that once they see your new EVL, they are satisfied and sends you GC.
tattoo American Idol Top 24 red
PD_Dec2002
03-03 04:44 PM
My $0.02:
Add this option to the poll as well to get a realistic picture:
I will not buy a house tomorrow (even if I was promised a GC this evening) because we are in a recession and/or the real estate market is spiralling downwards.The 1 MM people in the line for EB green card (quoted from singhsa3's 02:48 pm post #6 http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=227738&postcount=6) as you say are highly skilled. And even though they have the money are not financially stupid (at least a significant chunk) to buy a house just for the lure of a green card. This "smart" significant chunk will buy a house when among other reasons, they believe market conditions are right and are comfortable with their decision. A house might be your single-most biggest investment/asset/liability that you will ever have and even a "gold" card (forget green card) will not make anyone place such bets.
We bought our house way back in 2002. We still don't have our green cards, but we bought it after evaluating the risks and rewards.
Regards,
Jayant
Add this option to the poll as well to get a realistic picture:
I will not buy a house tomorrow (even if I was promised a GC this evening) because we are in a recession and/or the real estate market is spiralling downwards.The 1 MM people in the line for EB green card (quoted from singhsa3's 02:48 pm post #6 http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=227738&postcount=6) as you say are highly skilled. And even though they have the money are not financially stupid (at least a significant chunk) to buy a house just for the lure of a green card. This "smart" significant chunk will buy a house when among other reasons, they believe market conditions are right and are comfortable with their decision. A house might be your single-most biggest investment/asset/liability that you will ever have and even a "gold" card (forget green card) will not make anyone place such bets.
We bought our house way back in 2002. We still don't have our green cards, but we bought it after evaluating the risks and rewards.
Regards,
Jayant
more...
pictures Top 2 contestants Scotty
senthil1
06-12 02:29 PM
It looks like without H1b restrictions you may not get anything. That is mood in the Senate. If CIR is not coming what is your idea? Skill bill seperately is difficult if not impossible. Last minute they may increase H1b for a few years(But last minute increase of GC is impossible. You might have learned lesson on last lame duck session and February 2007) that will further screw up Gc waiting persons.If CIR comes you can have a chance of some favorable amendment in House if not happens in Senate. Also if you oppose CIR you are joining with your enemy and you have risk of losing crediblity. Compete America does not oppose CIR and they are opposing some portions and trying Amendments and they did not advice to any Senator to oppose the bill
So what is your point, you say only CIR can bring any relief to eb immigrants and no other bill like skil will be considered, but cir will not gives us any relief at all, so you would prefer a cir without any relief for us rather than not having any bill?
all this talk about cantwell amendment, what does cantwell amendment offer us, it offers us nothing that we dont already have. Canwell amendment is the best amednment we have so far, that should give you an idea of the pathetic situation we are in. Please start opposing this bill. If not, can somebody enlighten me what is the "good stuff" i am missing in this bill.
So what is your point, you say only CIR can bring any relief to eb immigrants and no other bill like skil will be considered, but cir will not gives us any relief at all, so you would prefer a cir without any relief for us rather than not having any bill?
all this talk about cantwell amendment, what does cantwell amendment offer us, it offers us nothing that we dont already have. Canwell amendment is the best amednment we have so far, that should give you an idea of the pathetic situation we are in. Please start opposing this bill. If not, can somebody enlighten me what is the "good stuff" i am missing in this bill.
dresses American Idol finalist Scotty
Madhuri
11-10 05:24 PM
I received receipt number from USCIS for my letter.
more...
makeup contestant Scotty McCreery
rustum
08-21 12:03 AM
Hi,
My company filed EAD for me and my wife along with 485 recently. I am on L1 and My wife is on L2. Is is possible to file one more EAD on L2 status. Looks like, we can get EAD on L2 faster than EAD with 485. My company attorney is suggesting me not to file one more EAD because one with 485 is pending with USCIS. Is it ok to file one more with L2? how long it will take to get EAD on 485 and EAD on L2.
My company filed EAD for me and my wife along with 485 recently. I am on L1 and My wife is on L2. Is is possible to file one more EAD on L2 status. Looks like, we can get EAD on L2 faster than EAD with 485. My company attorney is suggesting me not to file one more EAD because one with 485 is pending with USCIS. Is it ok to file one more with L2? how long it will take to get EAD on 485 and EAD on L2.
girlfriend American Idol 2011: Scotty
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.
hairstyles American Idol 2011 Top 13
sat0207
04-27 09:23 AM
Immigration Security Checks
�How and Why the Process Works
Background All applicants for a U.S. immigration benefit are subject to criminal and national security background checks to ensure they are eligible for that benefit. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the Federal agency that oversees immigration benefits, performs checks on every applicant, regardless of ethnicity, national origin or religion. Since 2002, USCIS has increased the number and scope of relevant background checks, processing millions of security checks without incident. However, in some cases, USCIS customers and immigrant advocates have expressed frustration over delays in processing applications, noting that individual customers have waited a year or longer for the completion of their adjudication pending the outcome of security checks. While the percentage of applicants who find their cases delayed by pending background checks is relatively small, USCIS recognizes that for those affected individuals, the additional delay and uncertainty can cause great anxiety. Although USCIS cannot guarantee the prompt resolution of every case, we can assure the public that applicants are not singled out based on race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. USCIS strives to balance the need for timely, fair and accurate service with the need to ensure a high level of integrity in the decision-making process. This fact sheet outlines the framework of the immigration security check process, explaining its necessity, as well as factors contributing to delays in resolving pending cases. Why USCIS Conducts Security Checks USCIS conducts security checks for all cases involving a petition or application for an immigration service or benefit. This is done both to enhance national security and ensure the integrity of the immigration process. USCIS is responsible for ensuring that our immigration system is not used as a vehicle to harm our nation or its citizens by screening out people who seek immigration benefits improperly or fraudulently. These security checks have yielded information about applicants involved in violent crimes, sex crimes, crimes against children, drug trafficking and individuals with known links to terrorism. These investigations require time, resources, and patience and USCIS recognizes that the process is slower for some customers than they would like. Because of that, USCIS is working closely with the FBI and other agencies to speed the background check process. However, USCIS will never grant an immigration service or benefit before the required security checks are completed regardless of how long those checks take.
To ensure that immigration benefits are given only to eligible applicants, USCIS adopted background security check procedures that address a wide range of possible risk factors. Different kinds of applications undergo different levels of scrutiny. USCIS normally uses the following three background check mechanisms but maintains the authority to conduct other background investigations as necessary:
� The Interagency Border Inspection System (IBIS)
Name Check� IBIS is a multiagency effort with a central system that combines information from multiple agencies, databases and system interfaces to compile data relating to national security risks, public safety issues and other law enforcement concerns. USCIS can quickly check information from these multiple government agencies to determine if the information in the system affects the adjudication of the case. Results of an IBIS check are usually available immediately. In some cases, information found during an IBIS check will require further investigation. The IBIS check is not deemed completed until all eligibility issues arising from the initial system response are resolved.
� FBI Fingerprint Check�FBI fingerprint checks are conducted for many applications. The FBI fingerprint check provides information relating to criminal background within the United States. Generally, the FBI forwards responses to USCIS within 24-48 hours. If there is a record match, the FBI forwards an electronic copy of the criminal history (RAP sheet) to USCIS. At that point, a USCIS adjudicator reviews the information to determine what effect it may have on eligibility for the benefit. Although the vast majority of inquiries yield no record or match, about 10 percent do uncover criminal history (including immigration violations). In cases involving arrests or charges without disposition, USCIS requires the applicant to provide court certified evidence of the disposition. Customers with prior arrests should provide complete information and certified disposition records at the time of filing to avoid adjudication delays or denial resulting from misrepresentation about criminal history. Even expunged or vacated convictions must be reported for immigration purposes.
� FBI Name Checks�FBI name checks are also required for many applications. The FBI name check is totally different from the FBI fingerprint check. The records maintained in the FBI name check process consist of administrative, applicant, criminal, personnel and other files compiled by law enforcement. Initial responses to this check generally take about two weeks. In about 80 percent of the cases, no match is found. Of the remaining 20 percent, most are resolved within six months. Less than one percent of cases subject to an FBI name check remain pending longer than six months. Some of these cases involve complex, highly sensitive information and cannot be resolved quickly. Even after FBI has provided an initial response to USCIS concerning a match, the name check is not complete until full information is obtained and eligibility issues arising from it are resolved. For most applicants, the process outlined above allows USCIS to quickly determine if there are criminal or security related issues in the applicant�s background that affect eligibility for immigration benefits. Most cases proceed forward without incident. However, due to both the sheer volume of security checks USCIS conducts, and the need to ensure that each applicant is thoroughly screened, some delays on individual applications are inevitable. Background checks may still be considered pending when either the FBI or relevant agency has not provided the final response to the background check or when the FBI or agency has provided a response, but the response requires further investigation or review by the agency or USCIS. Resolving pending cases is time-consuming and labor-intensive; some cases legitimately take months or evenseveral years to resolve. Every USCIS District Office performs regular reviews of the pending caseload to determine when cases have cleared and are ready to be decided. USCIS does not share information about the records match or the nature or status of any investigation with applicants or their representatives.
�How and Why the Process Works
Background All applicants for a U.S. immigration benefit are subject to criminal and national security background checks to ensure they are eligible for that benefit. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the Federal agency that oversees immigration benefits, performs checks on every applicant, regardless of ethnicity, national origin or religion. Since 2002, USCIS has increased the number and scope of relevant background checks, processing millions of security checks without incident. However, in some cases, USCIS customers and immigrant advocates have expressed frustration over delays in processing applications, noting that individual customers have waited a year or longer for the completion of their adjudication pending the outcome of security checks. While the percentage of applicants who find their cases delayed by pending background checks is relatively small, USCIS recognizes that for those affected individuals, the additional delay and uncertainty can cause great anxiety. Although USCIS cannot guarantee the prompt resolution of every case, we can assure the public that applicants are not singled out based on race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. USCIS strives to balance the need for timely, fair and accurate service with the need to ensure a high level of integrity in the decision-making process. This fact sheet outlines the framework of the immigration security check process, explaining its necessity, as well as factors contributing to delays in resolving pending cases. Why USCIS Conducts Security Checks USCIS conducts security checks for all cases involving a petition or application for an immigration service or benefit. This is done both to enhance national security and ensure the integrity of the immigration process. USCIS is responsible for ensuring that our immigration system is not used as a vehicle to harm our nation or its citizens by screening out people who seek immigration benefits improperly or fraudulently. These security checks have yielded information about applicants involved in violent crimes, sex crimes, crimes against children, drug trafficking and individuals with known links to terrorism. These investigations require time, resources, and patience and USCIS recognizes that the process is slower for some customers than they would like. Because of that, USCIS is working closely with the FBI and other agencies to speed the background check process. However, USCIS will never grant an immigration service or benefit before the required security checks are completed regardless of how long those checks take.
To ensure that immigration benefits are given only to eligible applicants, USCIS adopted background security check procedures that address a wide range of possible risk factors. Different kinds of applications undergo different levels of scrutiny. USCIS normally uses the following three background check mechanisms but maintains the authority to conduct other background investigations as necessary:
� The Interagency Border Inspection System (IBIS)
Name Check� IBIS is a multiagency effort with a central system that combines information from multiple agencies, databases and system interfaces to compile data relating to national security risks, public safety issues and other law enforcement concerns. USCIS can quickly check information from these multiple government agencies to determine if the information in the system affects the adjudication of the case. Results of an IBIS check are usually available immediately. In some cases, information found during an IBIS check will require further investigation. The IBIS check is not deemed completed until all eligibility issues arising from the initial system response are resolved.
� FBI Fingerprint Check�FBI fingerprint checks are conducted for many applications. The FBI fingerprint check provides information relating to criminal background within the United States. Generally, the FBI forwards responses to USCIS within 24-48 hours. If there is a record match, the FBI forwards an electronic copy of the criminal history (RAP sheet) to USCIS. At that point, a USCIS adjudicator reviews the information to determine what effect it may have on eligibility for the benefit. Although the vast majority of inquiries yield no record or match, about 10 percent do uncover criminal history (including immigration violations). In cases involving arrests or charges without disposition, USCIS requires the applicant to provide court certified evidence of the disposition. Customers with prior arrests should provide complete information and certified disposition records at the time of filing to avoid adjudication delays or denial resulting from misrepresentation about criminal history. Even expunged or vacated convictions must be reported for immigration purposes.
� FBI Name Checks�FBI name checks are also required for many applications. The FBI name check is totally different from the FBI fingerprint check. The records maintained in the FBI name check process consist of administrative, applicant, criminal, personnel and other files compiled by law enforcement. Initial responses to this check generally take about two weeks. In about 80 percent of the cases, no match is found. Of the remaining 20 percent, most are resolved within six months. Less than one percent of cases subject to an FBI name check remain pending longer than six months. Some of these cases involve complex, highly sensitive information and cannot be resolved quickly. Even after FBI has provided an initial response to USCIS concerning a match, the name check is not complete until full information is obtained and eligibility issues arising from it are resolved. For most applicants, the process outlined above allows USCIS to quickly determine if there are criminal or security related issues in the applicant�s background that affect eligibility for immigration benefits. Most cases proceed forward without incident. However, due to both the sheer volume of security checks USCIS conducts, and the need to ensure that each applicant is thoroughly screened, some delays on individual applications are inevitable. Background checks may still be considered pending when either the FBI or relevant agency has not provided the final response to the background check or when the FBI or agency has provided a response, but the response requires further investigation or review by the agency or USCIS. Resolving pending cases is time-consuming and labor-intensive; some cases legitimately take months or evenseveral years to resolve. Every USCIS District Office performs regular reviews of the pending caseload to determine when cases have cleared and are ready to be decided. USCIS does not share information about the records match or the nature or status of any investigation with applicants or their representatives.
abhi_022001
08-11 02:19 PM
Count me in too...
stldude
07-24 11:53 AM
I see that USCIS release a press release on 7/20 and it says the time complaince for Nebraska Center is 8/1. Does it mean that July 2nd filers will get receipt by 8/1 ( i know i'm expecting too much from USCIS)... When can we expect the receipt notices.. I guess i'm a bit nervous now..
No comments:
Post a Comment