TeddyKoochu
03-12 08:34 AM
OP thanks for posting the link. I believe for EB2-I in reality we have to wait for the last quarter for anything at all to happen. The next 2 bulletins will also in all probability have no movement. Congrats to all those who became current this month, best wishes and good luck.
wallpaper WALLPAPER bible wallpapers.
willgetgc2005
02-14 05:37 PM
Berkeleybee,
Just so that you know, I am caught in the name check too. This is a bigger blackhole than even labor processing. Becos atleast labor processing your Immigration Attorneys can write to BECs (You may or may not get a reply, that is a different issue, but atleast it is allowed). In case of FBI name check, you just cant do much. It is a much dreaded process in the whole game and needs to get enough focus. Eventually, it is going to be everybodys problem.
Thanks.
Just so that you know, I am caught in the name check too. This is a bigger blackhole than even labor processing. Becos atleast labor processing your Immigration Attorneys can write to BECs (You may or may not get a reply, that is a different issue, but atleast it is allowed). In case of FBI name check, you just cant do much. It is a much dreaded process in the whole game and needs to get enough focus. Eventually, it is going to be everybodys problem.
Thanks.
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.
2011 Christian Wallpaper and Bible
desi3933
02-11 12:30 PM
Looks like Ron is correct. ....
Read this
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY08-AR-TableV.pdf
and tell us, where do you see 13,000 unused numbers?
Read this
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY08-AR-TableV.pdf
and tell us, where do you see 13,000 unused numbers?
more...
ezee
10-16 05:45 PM
I clearly mentioned each of the following country and category. To make sure, I also mentioned that we do not need combined total of pending AOS applications. If the request is ambiguous or means different things to different people,please let us know and we can make needed modifications asap. Are you recommending to hand out a blank tabular format .to USCIS FOIA?
I personally think there is a possible ambiguity in the request (especially since we are dealing with a government agency). So we should probably bullet point the data we need at least and if people don't think there is any harm in putting in a table for the format of data needed that will make things very clear. I agree with you that breakdown of quarter/month is probably not needed and might actually hurt our chances of getting the answer within reasonable amount of time.
I personally think there is a possible ambiguity in the request (especially since we are dealing with a government agency). So we should probably bullet point the data we need at least and if people don't think there is any harm in putting in a table for the format of data needed that will make things very clear. I agree with you that breakdown of quarter/month is probably not needed and might actually hurt our chances of getting the answer within reasonable amount of time.
srkamath
07-13 05:12 PM
They adjudicated lot more 485s than 25 K last year. This massive adjudication was the reason behind threatened withdrawal of July 07 bulletin.
Yes, they can do a lot more than 25 k in 2 months.
EB2 folks, please get prepared for RFEs - a few possibilities.
1. Medicals, outdated physicals, PPD positive etc.
2. Passport expired since applying for I-485 last summer.
3. Father's or Mother's name misspelled.
4. DOB discrepancies.
5. Translations of documents
6. Find those old pay-stubs, bank records, W2s, I-20s
7. Google yourself and your spouse.
Yes, they can do a lot more than 25 k in 2 months.
EB2 folks, please get prepared for RFEs - a few possibilities.
1. Medicals, outdated physicals, PPD positive etc.
2. Passport expired since applying for I-485 last summer.
3. Father's or Mother's name misspelled.
4. DOB discrepancies.
5. Translations of documents
6. Find those old pay-stubs, bank records, W2s, I-20s
7. Google yourself and your spouse.
more...
varshadas
03-07 12:45 PM
Ajay and Shekhar. Did you guys have any luck with the Congressmen?
2010 Christian-wallpaper-Bible-
go_gc_way
01-01 10:44 PM
bump /\/\/\/\/\
more...
chanduv23
07-29 02:03 PM
In that case, employers should mention the following in the offer letter
" In case, in future, if economy goes bad and recession occurs,we cannot sponsor your green card since it is easy to find american citizens who has minimum qualification."
This should be mentioned on the offer letters given by big comapnies.Then it is up to H1B candidate whenter to take the offer(risk) or not.
Can these companies do this????
Let me tell you my story
I worked for a mid sized consulting company (not to be mistaken for desi contracting) and GC was filed in March 2004 (it was EB3 labor). I was in my 6th year of h1b in 2005 when this company got bought over and unfortunately I lost job in the 6th year of h1b with only 11 months of h1b left. At that time I was newly married and with no bank balance. Then I looked for a new job, managed to get a nice long term contract job in a month and got h1 transferred to a decent consulting company who applied for my 6th and 7th year of h1b using the labor already filed in the company I was layed off. When in my 6th year my new PERM got approved with this employer and 140 also approved and based on that I got 8th, 9th, 10th year h1b extensions. I managed to file for 485 in July fiasco and then after an year, I left the employer and started using EAD. That employer revoked my i 140 because I left them and then I had to deal with all the AC21 stuff and my journey still continues. Things were not easy, I had to maintain excellent billing rate, in one ocassion the client filed for chapter 11 and did not make payments to my employer and this strained my employer's finances and I had to make it up with a better billing rate with next client to keep my GC process intact and being consinuously employed on high billing contract jobs is also challenging.
The diference between your situation and mine is - you are left with a choice and a decision to make, whereas me, I felt like was taken to a top of cliff and thrown from there.
" In case, in future, if economy goes bad and recession occurs,we cannot sponsor your green card since it is easy to find american citizens who has minimum qualification."
This should be mentioned on the offer letters given by big comapnies.Then it is up to H1B candidate whenter to take the offer(risk) or not.
Can these companies do this????
Let me tell you my story
I worked for a mid sized consulting company (not to be mistaken for desi contracting) and GC was filed in March 2004 (it was EB3 labor). I was in my 6th year of h1b in 2005 when this company got bought over and unfortunately I lost job in the 6th year of h1b with only 11 months of h1b left. At that time I was newly married and with no bank balance. Then I looked for a new job, managed to get a nice long term contract job in a month and got h1 transferred to a decent consulting company who applied for my 6th and 7th year of h1b using the labor already filed in the company I was layed off. When in my 6th year my new PERM got approved with this employer and 140 also approved and based on that I got 8th, 9th, 10th year h1b extensions. I managed to file for 485 in July fiasco and then after an year, I left the employer and started using EAD. That employer revoked my i 140 because I left them and then I had to deal with all the AC21 stuff and my journey still continues. Things were not easy, I had to maintain excellent billing rate, in one ocassion the client filed for chapter 11 and did not make payments to my employer and this strained my employer's finances and I had to make it up with a better billing rate with next client to keep my GC process intact and being consinuously employed on high billing contract jobs is also challenging.
The diference between your situation and mine is - you are left with a choice and a decision to make, whereas me, I felt like was taken to a top of cliff and thrown from there.
hair wallpaper Holy Bible Verses
engineer
06-12 11:57 AM
CIR needs to die for the simple reason that the processing workload for the illegals on the USCIS will add another 3 years of wait for everybody. Simple fact of the matter is that the system has not finished recovering from the last 245(i) amnesty that ended in 2001. That was when the DOL received 6 years of applications in one week and everybody ended up waiting 3 years or more.
I agree. IV must think of a strategy where they can lobby to get just provisions for legal and highly skilled immigrants approved as seperate bill.
If we couple this with illegals then no body is going to pay attention.
I agree. IV must think of a strategy where they can lobby to get just provisions for legal and highly skilled immigrants approved as seperate bill.
If we couple this with illegals then no body is going to pay attention.
more...
Sandeep
02-08 09:16 AM
Admin,
I beg to differ. As far as USCIS is concerned, it just forwards the security clearance request to FBI/Homeland security. It does not follow up unless you sue USCIS. As far as they are concerned, the "ball is in FBI's court" ( exact words of the representative). So NameCheck need to be a separate issue.
So what you are saying is that since this goes to FBI it is an interagency problem. Or that is what USCIS makes it out to be. So what is it that we are requesting
-FBI speeds up its operation?
-USCIS has some follow up system to check with FBI if the number of days elapsed are more than ____ days?
Since you are more knowledgable on this issue, please post
1. Description of the process and the reasons for the delay
2. Solutions that you think we can propose
Remember that none of us are working on this full time and we depend on such info from you. In the end there is no such thing as a "separate issue" - these are all stepping stones to our objective of getting a GC.
I beg to differ. As far as USCIS is concerned, it just forwards the security clearance request to FBI/Homeland security. It does not follow up unless you sue USCIS. As far as they are concerned, the "ball is in FBI's court" ( exact words of the representative). So NameCheck need to be a separate issue.
So what you are saying is that since this goes to FBI it is an interagency problem. Or that is what USCIS makes it out to be. So what is it that we are requesting
-FBI speeds up its operation?
-USCIS has some follow up system to check with FBI if the number of days elapsed are more than ____ days?
Since you are more knowledgable on this issue, please post
1. Description of the process and the reasons for the delay
2. Solutions that you think we can propose
Remember that none of us are working on this full time and we depend on such info from you. In the end there is no such thing as a "separate issue" - these are all stepping stones to our objective of getting a GC.
hot Bible Study Wallpapers 0712
IfYouSeekAmy
08-21 03:54 PM
I am truly sorry for your situation and applogize for the lousy way people in this forum are treating you. It seems you have done everything honestly and legally. From your story I do not see any wrong intentions or trying to stay here illegally. If that was the case I don't see why you filed the pettion anyway so looks like you have done the right thing. I wish I could help. The only advise I could give you is to see if you can get an extension on the 30 day period. I do not know if that is possible but I sincerely hope that things will work out for you!
I did not marry the man I was engaged to. I came here initially for ONE month and was approved at the airport customs terminal to stay that long. When I got here, it was for a visit with my fiance only. Unfortunately, things did not work out and we broke it off. Thank God! However, I was staying with his uncle and aunt, and they had a disabled man in the house. HE turned out to be my sponsor when they asked me to care for him while they were doing long haul trucking. I agreed to do this and we immediately contacted USCIS to get instructions on what needed to be filed first. With that information in hand, we filed everything they requested. All the stuff on the RFE I received has never been mentioned before now and if it had, it would have been filed along with the rest. There are tons of applications, how is one supposed to know what to file and when if there are no specific instructions? I have gone through all the copies we have of all the required applications and I still do not see anything where all these other forms were to be filed along with the I-485.
Nothing was done illegally. He filed the application on my behalf, signed, sealed and delivered it himself. I did not do this on my own, I just signed whatever I was required to sign, he did the rest.
If all of this was illegal, then why was I not informed of this nearly 6 years ago when we filed the first application? Seems a bit odd that if I was illegal and they know where I am and who I live with that they wouldn't be quick to throw me out, but they have not done so.
My former fiance has nothing to do with this, I never intended to stay here when I first came, it was merely a visit but circumstances were such that I was needed at a moment's notice so we filed the necessary paperwork as quickly as possible and thought we were doing the right thing. No one has ever said otherwise until now and I think that is rather unfair to spring it all on me at this point and expect me to get it all done within 30 days. I know I am not the only applicant out there and I realize there is a huge backlog of other applications, I'm not that stupid to think that they will make me a priority, but one measly letter informing me that I was here illegally sometime over a 6 year period is not asking to much is it? Why would they send me all the other Notices of Action if I was here illegally and they knew it?
Something is terribly screwed up and I guess I have no choice but to find an attorney who can deal with this mess.
I did not marry the man I was engaged to. I came here initially for ONE month and was approved at the airport customs terminal to stay that long. When I got here, it was for a visit with my fiance only. Unfortunately, things did not work out and we broke it off. Thank God! However, I was staying with his uncle and aunt, and they had a disabled man in the house. HE turned out to be my sponsor when they asked me to care for him while they were doing long haul trucking. I agreed to do this and we immediately contacted USCIS to get instructions on what needed to be filed first. With that information in hand, we filed everything they requested. All the stuff on the RFE I received has never been mentioned before now and if it had, it would have been filed along with the rest. There are tons of applications, how is one supposed to know what to file and when if there are no specific instructions? I have gone through all the copies we have of all the required applications and I still do not see anything where all these other forms were to be filed along with the I-485.
Nothing was done illegally. He filed the application on my behalf, signed, sealed and delivered it himself. I did not do this on my own, I just signed whatever I was required to sign, he did the rest.
If all of this was illegal, then why was I not informed of this nearly 6 years ago when we filed the first application? Seems a bit odd that if I was illegal and they know where I am and who I live with that they wouldn't be quick to throw me out, but they have not done so.
My former fiance has nothing to do with this, I never intended to stay here when I first came, it was merely a visit but circumstances were such that I was needed at a moment's notice so we filed the necessary paperwork as quickly as possible and thought we were doing the right thing. No one has ever said otherwise until now and I think that is rather unfair to spring it all on me at this point and expect me to get it all done within 30 days. I know I am not the only applicant out there and I realize there is a huge backlog of other applications, I'm not that stupid to think that they will make me a priority, but one measly letter informing me that I was here illegally sometime over a 6 year period is not asking to much is it? Why would they send me all the other Notices of Action if I was here illegally and they knew it?
Something is terribly screwed up and I guess I have no choice but to find an attorney who can deal with this mess.
more...
house Tags: holy ible wallpaper,
guy03062
07-13 02:26 PM
I agree with you 100% for her delayed letter when everything falls in right place and may want to claim credit later on. But on other side, it is still good that she wrote a letter to add pressure on DHS. My 2 cents.
This is just a stunt. WHy did she wait allthese days to write this letter. Now when everything falls in place by others efforts, she wants people to think it is because her effort all these things are happening. I hate murthy or your murfhy.
This is just a stunt. WHy did she wait allthese days to write this letter. Now when everything falls in place by others efforts, she wants people to think it is because her effort all these things are happening. I hate murthy or your murfhy.
tattoo flame ible Wallpaper,
meridiani.planum
03-03 01:36 PM
I just sent a request to CNN to take a look at this thread. A formal letter may be sent soon. So please continue to vote and participate.
whats the point? 33 out of 23000 members have voted. Any result here is well beyond all statistical margins of error. Unless atleast 5000 people vote, this poll has no point. The mathematicians among us can derive the exact number, but participation has to be much greater than 33 if this has to be representative of the IV membership.
whats the point? 33 out of 23000 members have voted. Any result here is well beyond all statistical margins of error. Unless atleast 5000 people vote, this poll has no point. The mathematicians among us can derive the exact number, but participation has to be much greater than 33 if this has to be representative of the IV membership.
more...
pictures wallpapers with Bible
v7461558
07-16 10:37 PM
Here's another potential way to go. Don't know if anyone has the balls to pursue it, but it may be quite effective.
IRS states "The IRS continues to investigate promoters of frivolous arguments and to refer cases to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution." http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=155289,00.html
Someone (preferably a lawyer) can write a letter to NumbersUSA stating that their widely disseminated template message, item (2), suggests that tax avoidance among H1B's is legal, and in this manner promotes tax avoidance. We can ask them to remove the message, or else we refer them to IRS Compliance and Enforcement.
This is not so far-fetched---note their wording: "Congress allows foreigners..."
IRS states "The IRS continues to investigate promoters of frivolous arguments and to refer cases to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution." http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=155289,00.html
Someone (preferably a lawyer) can write a letter to NumbersUSA stating that their widely disseminated template message, item (2), suggests that tax avoidance among H1B's is legal, and in this manner promotes tax avoidance. We can ask them to remove the message, or else we refer them to IRS Compliance and Enforcement.
This is not so far-fetched---note their wording: "Congress allows foreigners..."
dresses Web SiteBible Wallpapers
chanduv23
09-11 04:28 PM
Yes - lot of people are making last minute plans - GO IV GO
more...
makeup Holy Bible Verses Wallpapers
Jimi_Hendrix
12-13 11:38 AM
We should be able to submit this question to the lawyer's conference call organized by IV and see what's their take is on this. I wonder what the procedure is to submit the question. I have never done that before.
Great idea. Validation from the lawyers would give us validation to go after this idea.
Great idea. Validation from the lawyers would give us validation to go after this idea.
girlfriend ible wallpaper
logiclife
12-20 07:55 PM
<If anything like out of status or unauthorized employed happened before your last legal entry into USA (whether is more than 180 days or less than 180 days) IT DOES NOT MATTER and you can adjust status. You are fine. What's important is that "out of status" and "unauthorized stay" periods must not happen after you last entered USA and after you filed your 485 - and if it does happen, then it should be less than 180 days.>
So, logiclife, going with your above statement, I don't have any problem with my adustment of status? My last legal entry to the U.S was Mar, 2006. I applied for AOS in July, 2007. Can you point to any USCIS memo/documents stating the above facts? I was out of status in the year 2001 (more than 180 days).
This is not based on any memo. Its in the immigration and nationality act. That is even better because it wont change without an act of congress. Its rock solid. Memos and field manual can be changed by USCIS and they dont need change in laws. To change or edit 245(k), you need change in laws, which needs an act of congress. So the whole thing is on rock solid grounds.
The section is 8 USC � 1255 (k). Also known as 245(k).
Here is how to find the text of 245(k) on USCIS website:
1. Go to USCIS.gov
2. Go to "Laws and Regulations" menu item on top menu.
3. Click on "Immigration and Nationality Act" on the left menu.
4. Click on the link that says "Immigration and Nationality Act" below the 2 paragraph lecture.
5. Scroll down to Chapter 5 and go to "Act 245". DONT GO to "Act 245A".
6. Under Act 245, go to section (k), the lowercase k.
You will read this :
(k) 7/ An alien who is eligible to receive an immigrant visa under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 203(b) (or, in the case of an alien who is an immigrant described in section 101(a)(27)(C) , under section 203(b)(4) ) may adjust status pursuant to subsection (a) and notwithstanding subsection (c)(2), (c)(7), and (c)(8), if--
(1) the alien, on the date of filing an application for adjustment of status, is present in the United States pursuant to a lawful admission;
(2) the alien, subsequent to such lawful admission has not, for an aggregate period exceeding 180 days--
(A) failed to maintain, continuously, a lawful status;
(B) engaged in unauthorized employment; or
(C) otherwise violated the terms and conditions of the alien's admission.
Another link is here http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001255----000-.html
Go to (k) -lowercase k.
So, logiclife, going with your above statement, I don't have any problem with my adustment of status? My last legal entry to the U.S was Mar, 2006. I applied for AOS in July, 2007. Can you point to any USCIS memo/documents stating the above facts? I was out of status in the year 2001 (more than 180 days).
This is not based on any memo. Its in the immigration and nationality act. That is even better because it wont change without an act of congress. Its rock solid. Memos and field manual can be changed by USCIS and they dont need change in laws. To change or edit 245(k), you need change in laws, which needs an act of congress. So the whole thing is on rock solid grounds.
The section is 8 USC � 1255 (k). Also known as 245(k).
Here is how to find the text of 245(k) on USCIS website:
1. Go to USCIS.gov
2. Go to "Laws and Regulations" menu item on top menu.
3. Click on "Immigration and Nationality Act" on the left menu.
4. Click on the link that says "Immigration and Nationality Act" below the 2 paragraph lecture.
5. Scroll down to Chapter 5 and go to "Act 245". DONT GO to "Act 245A".
6. Under Act 245, go to section (k), the lowercase k.
You will read this :
(k) 7/ An alien who is eligible to receive an immigrant visa under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 203(b) (or, in the case of an alien who is an immigrant described in section 101(a)(27)(C) , under section 203(b)(4) ) may adjust status pursuant to subsection (a) and notwithstanding subsection (c)(2), (c)(7), and (c)(8), if--
(1) the alien, on the date of filing an application for adjustment of status, is present in the United States pursuant to a lawful admission;
(2) the alien, subsequent to such lawful admission has not, for an aggregate period exceeding 180 days--
(A) failed to maintain, continuously, a lawful status;
(B) engaged in unauthorized employment; or
(C) otherwise violated the terms and conditions of the alien's admission.
Another link is here http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001255----000-.html
Go to (k) -lowercase k.
hairstyles Christian-wallpapers-Bible-
imneedy
10-15 07:53 PM
printed mine .. will post tomorrow!
10/16 - Posted
10/16 - Posted
pkak
07-13 11:45 AM
They have no reason to pull the dates back. Most 2004, 2005, part 2006 people got to apply during the july07 fiasco. In the past, they have pulled the dates back if new applications flooded in when they pushed the dates up.
USCIS will process in the following order now
1. Pull out cases based on PD, review then approve/deny/RFE
2. While waiting for RFE, process the next based on PD
3. IF the RFE response window is outside of this fiscal, they will re-allocate the visa number to another approvable case.
They will manage to process about 20k cases approving as many as possible by Sep30th2008.
Therefore, only those with pending RFEs will be delayed into next year.
USCIS is not all that inefficient or incompetent, not sure about DOS (to be fair, the Visa Office seems to have got its act together in the recent months)
Where the visa numbers in Oct'08 will be will depend on how proactive IV is.
Here is my take on the situation.
DOS said that they used up 80% of EB numbers in first 3 quarters of Fiscal year '08, that leaves 28K (20% of 140K) visas available for last quarter of Fiscal year '08.
Since higher priority categories are already current, this means that most of these visas have to be used by EB2 India/China.
Hence DOS made it an option for USCIS to issue another 25K visas to EB2 India/China.
See my analysis:
I agree
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by justAnotherFile
i believe the argument that this sudden jump was made to help eb2 china is pure hogwash.
Scanning the FLC database, 5978 Indian Labor applicants with Level III/IV wage rates benefit with this jump, vs 761 Labor applicants from China.
Assuming one labor approval generates 2.5 AOS applications, and dividing the total AOS applications by 2 (attrition, I-140 denials, EB3 cases etc), approx 15K Indians benefit, vs <2K people from China.
Add to this 04/01/2004-03/27/2005 Indian applicants whose labor cases were adjudicated by Backlog Centers (approx 6000 Level III/IV applications , assuming same ball-park as 5853 similar India applicants certified in Fiscal year 2006), approx 7.5K more Indian�s will benefit.)
If USCIS uses these 25K visas, then in Oct'08, they get the first quarter allocation for Fiscal year '09, and my calculation shows that EB2 India/China will move to atleast Jul 1, 06 (based on 627 India/China Level III/IV labor approvals forthat period).
If USCIS lets the 25K visas to go waste, then in Oct'08, PDs will move back to mid 04.
USCIS will process in the following order now
1. Pull out cases based on PD, review then approve/deny/RFE
2. While waiting for RFE, process the next based on PD
3. IF the RFE response window is outside of this fiscal, they will re-allocate the visa number to another approvable case.
They will manage to process about 20k cases approving as many as possible by Sep30th2008.
Therefore, only those with pending RFEs will be delayed into next year.
USCIS is not all that inefficient or incompetent, not sure about DOS (to be fair, the Visa Office seems to have got its act together in the recent months)
Where the visa numbers in Oct'08 will be will depend on how proactive IV is.
Here is my take on the situation.
DOS said that they used up 80% of EB numbers in first 3 quarters of Fiscal year '08, that leaves 28K (20% of 140K) visas available for last quarter of Fiscal year '08.
Since higher priority categories are already current, this means that most of these visas have to be used by EB2 India/China.
Hence DOS made it an option for USCIS to issue another 25K visas to EB2 India/China.
See my analysis:
I agree
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by justAnotherFile
i believe the argument that this sudden jump was made to help eb2 china is pure hogwash.
Scanning the FLC database, 5978 Indian Labor applicants with Level III/IV wage rates benefit with this jump, vs 761 Labor applicants from China.
Assuming one labor approval generates 2.5 AOS applications, and dividing the total AOS applications by 2 (attrition, I-140 denials, EB3 cases etc), approx 15K Indians benefit, vs <2K people from China.
Add to this 04/01/2004-03/27/2005 Indian applicants whose labor cases were adjudicated by Backlog Centers (approx 6000 Level III/IV applications , assuming same ball-park as 5853 similar India applicants certified in Fiscal year 2006), approx 7.5K more Indian�s will benefit.)
If USCIS uses these 25K visas, then in Oct'08, they get the first quarter allocation for Fiscal year '09, and my calculation shows that EB2 India/China will move to atleast Jul 1, 06 (based on 627 India/China Level III/IV labor approvals forthat period).
If USCIS lets the 25K visas to go waste, then in Oct'08, PDs will move back to mid 04.
whiteStallion
09-10 04:27 PM
i guess they were very happy that they discussed the horse issue and they decided to take a well deserved break...as for 5882 who cares, as one poster mentioned, the horses are US citizens and they support the economy by eating grass. Republicans are happy because legal horses will be eating legal grass as opposed to illegals cutting and shipping grass to the horses. Democrats will be happy because the horses are well looked after.
Nice humour!
Nice humour!
No comments:
Post a Comment