pani_6
08-21 08:47 PM
current Visa bullettin does not give any info about next months...its talks about other workers..can you point to the sentence where it says it going to be april01-nov 01??..
Besides..you have been waiting very long from 01..just like me..incruiating..wait..
The current visa bulletin says EB3 PDs may go back to the level that was in June 08 visa bulletin or worser. So it is very likely that EB3 will be anywhere between Apr 2001 to Nov 2001. Personally I would be happy if it remained at least beyond May 2001.
I dont see EB3 moving to 2002 unless USCIS wants to agressively move it forward, so that they can continue their unfair trend of procesing some out of order low hanging fruit cases in EB3 category, just because they are sitting on the top of their applications pile, even if they had much later PDs. Just like they are doing with EB2
What will unite people is to fight against the common pain point... *Unfair advantage given to out of order applicants* , whether it be EB2 or EB3, who are much later in the queue, but some how are on the top of application piles, and easily accessible to IOs- who are making DOS move the PDs, just so that they can clear of their tables by approving these cases, rather than trying to access applications in FIFO and follow a fair process.
The whole EB2-EB3 divide arose out of this unfair practice of USCIS. Which just on their whim move PDs forward , be it EB3 or EB2. It just happened, that EB2 date has been moved more aggressively, probably because there is less backlog there. But looking at all the EB2 people still waiting with 2003, 2004 PDs while 2006 are getting approvals, indicates that the real problem is USCIS not doing due diligence to identify the right cases to be processed next and get the exact count of such cases.
Just asking them to recapture visa numbers or cyring foul against wasted numbers etc will still not solve the problem unless we also FORCE them to follow FIFO and process cases FAIRLY. And do their due diligence to spend some time and put their application piles in proper order. Otherwise USCIS will continue to use these recaptured visas and use them to approve FU***&G Out of Order cases and manipulate & play the system to achieve that by jumping around the PD up/down/'U' and what not, just so because it is *convenient* for them to do so.
Besides..you have been waiting very long from 01..just like me..incruiating..wait..
The current visa bulletin says EB3 PDs may go back to the level that was in June 08 visa bulletin or worser. So it is very likely that EB3 will be anywhere between Apr 2001 to Nov 2001. Personally I would be happy if it remained at least beyond May 2001.
I dont see EB3 moving to 2002 unless USCIS wants to agressively move it forward, so that they can continue their unfair trend of procesing some out of order low hanging fruit cases in EB3 category, just because they are sitting on the top of their applications pile, even if they had much later PDs. Just like they are doing with EB2
What will unite people is to fight against the common pain point... *Unfair advantage given to out of order applicants* , whether it be EB2 or EB3, who are much later in the queue, but some how are on the top of application piles, and easily accessible to IOs- who are making DOS move the PDs, just so that they can clear of their tables by approving these cases, rather than trying to access applications in FIFO and follow a fair process.
The whole EB2-EB3 divide arose out of this unfair practice of USCIS. Which just on their whim move PDs forward , be it EB3 or EB2. It just happened, that EB2 date has been moved more aggressively, probably because there is less backlog there. But looking at all the EB2 people still waiting with 2003, 2004 PDs while 2006 are getting approvals, indicates that the real problem is USCIS not doing due diligence to identify the right cases to be processed next and get the exact count of such cases.
Just asking them to recapture visa numbers or cyring foul against wasted numbers etc will still not solve the problem unless we also FORCE them to follow FIFO and process cases FAIRLY. And do their due diligence to spend some time and put their application piles in proper order. Otherwise USCIS will continue to use these recaptured visas and use them to approve FU***&G Out of Order cases and manipulate & play the system to achieve that by jumping around the PD up/down/'U' and what not, just so because it is *convenient* for them to do so.
wallpaper talent search #39;The Voice#39;.
addsf345
11-25 01:12 PM
^^BUMPER^^
Guys, we need more letters...forwarded to my 4 other friends, they promised to send letters by tomorrow before thanksgivings break.
Guys, we need more letters...forwarded to my 4 other friends, they promised to send letters by tomorrow before thanksgivings break.
diyashil
07-10 10:39 AM
Smita,
There is no harm in fighting for your rights.
we all are law abiding individuals who pay taxes like any other citizens.
We are only trying to highlight our plight as they say
"Only a squeaky wheel gets a grease."
No can deport or arrest you by taking out a rally.
Wake up guys. Lets get together and be unified as only then can we be heard.
We all are well educated peaople and we don't need to be treated like slaves.
There is no harm in fighting for your rights.
we all are law abiding individuals who pay taxes like any other citizens.
We are only trying to highlight our plight as they say
"Only a squeaky wheel gets a grease."
No can deport or arrest you by taking out a rally.
Wake up guys. Lets get together and be unified as only then can we be heard.
We all are well educated peaople and we don't need to be treated like slaves.
2011 report-on-the-voice-over-
chanduv23
08-05 11:34 PM
Why has AILA not yet filed a class action lawsuit? Why have no lawyers filed a lawsuit on behalf of the entire community?
Let us ask thiis question to all our lawyers and ask them to communicate to AILA? Speeding up namechecks will truly help immigrants and will annony employers who want to keep us waiting as long as possible.
This is an open question to all lawyers reading this post. If you can file such a lawsuit, it will be a big help to this community and you will prove to us that you truely care for our cause.
U kidding??? Very few lawyers go out of the way to do something to further our cause.
Let us ask thiis question to all our lawyers and ask them to communicate to AILA? Speeding up namechecks will truly help immigrants and will annony employers who want to keep us waiting as long as possible.
This is an open question to all lawyers reading this post. If you can file such a lawsuit, it will be a big help to this community and you will prove to us that you truely care for our cause.
U kidding??? Very few lawyers go out of the way to do something to further our cause.
more...
nsabavala
01-04 04:18 AM
:confused::mad:
I read on the murthy.com website that the UCSIS needs to go through the Kentucky Consular Center to obtain the PIMS verification. The number for the KCC is 606-526-7500. I am going to try and call them to see if they can give me any information on timelines.
For those people that have not left the US yet, it might be worth it to talk to your lawyers and see if there is any way you can have your names added to this database before you travel - that should eliminate any hassles once you leave the country. Much easier to try and do it from there rather than from here.
There is no number to call here to check on status - I have been sending emails to mumbaiNIV@state.gov but have not received any response from them yet. Not really a surprise. If anyone tries the number above and gets some response please let the rest of us know.
I read on the murthy.com website that the UCSIS needs to go through the Kentucky Consular Center to obtain the PIMS verification. The number for the KCC is 606-526-7500. I am going to try and call them to see if they can give me any information on timelines.
For those people that have not left the US yet, it might be worth it to talk to your lawyers and see if there is any way you can have your names added to this database before you travel - that should eliminate any hassles once you leave the country. Much easier to try and do it from there rather than from here.
There is no number to call here to check on status - I have been sending emails to mumbaiNIV@state.gov but have not received any response from them yet. Not really a surprise. If anyone tries the number above and gets some response please let the rest of us know.
desi3933
08-21 10:33 AM
We should write a letter to USCIS director & DOS(Oppenheim) copying Rep Lofgren etc. basically the content should say that any unused visa should be given to the oldest PD irrespective of Country/Category...
>> any unused visa should be given to the oldest PD irrespective of Country/Category...
What is the legal basis to back this claim? Probably this should be included in the letter as well.
_____________________________________________
Proud to be an Indian-American and Legal Immigrant
>> any unused visa should be given to the oldest PD irrespective of Country/Category...
What is the legal basis to back this claim? Probably this should be included in the letter as well.
_____________________________________________
Proud to be an Indian-American and Legal Immigrant
more...
nc14
09-09 03:53 PM
Took 45 minutes to cover all of them but time well spent. GO IV GO...
_______________
House Judiciary Committee Members
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) 202- 225-2906 - took the message
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) 202-225-4695 - took the message
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861 - took the message
Chris Cannon (R-Utah)202- 225-7751 - took the message
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) 202-225-2216 - My congressman, wanted me to leave a VM but I will try again. Called again and it went great.
Howard Coble (R-N.C.) 202-225-3065 - took the message but said we cannot give a response as I am not from his constituency.
Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)202- 225-3265 - left a VM
John Conyers (D-Mich.), Chairman 202-225-5126 - called and spoke to a lady, she took the message but still tranferred to judiciary committe number, which no one picked.
Artur Davis (D-Ala.) 202-225-2665 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
William D. Delahunt (D-Mass.)202- 225-3111 - left a VM
Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) 202-225-4755 - took the message
Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) 202-225-2706 - took the message
J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)202- 225-6365 - took the message
Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)202- 225-4576 - took the message
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)202- 225-5811 - VM
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) 202-225-3035 - took the message with the zipcode
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)202- 225-5431 - took the message
Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)202- 225-8203 - took the message
Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)202- 225-3906 - took the message
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas)202- 225-3816 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) 202-225-1605 - VM
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) 202-225-2676 - Took the address and details.
Ric Keller (R-Fla.)202- 225-2176 - took the message (said the bill is under judiciary and under review)
Steve King (R-Iowa)202- 225-4426 - DIDNT CALL HIM
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)202- 225-3072 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Dan Lungren (R-Calif.)202- 225-5716 - took the message
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) 202-225-5635 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Mike Pence (R-Ind.) 202-225-3021 - took the message
Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) 202-225-6676 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.)202- 225-4176 - VM
Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) (202) 225-8351 - took the message
Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) 202-225-5101 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) 202-225-5911 - took the message
Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), Ranking Member 202- 225-4236 - took the message
Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) 202-225-3401 - took the message (didnt ask for anyting although I am from her state)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) 202-225-7931 - took the message with address
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) 202-225-2201 - took the message, very nice lady asked about the bill in detail.
Melvin L. Watt (D-N.C.)202- 225-1510 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Anthony D. Weiner (D-N.Y.) 202-225-6616 - took the message, very nice guy asked in detail what the bill is about.
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) 202-225-3001 - took the message, asked about the bill in detail.
WOOOHOO, my first time making all the calls. My confidence was sky high after the first 5 calls. Very much worth it.
..................................................
$470 till date
_______________
House Judiciary Committee Members
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) 202- 225-2906 - took the message
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) 202-225-4695 - took the message
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861 - took the message
Chris Cannon (R-Utah)202- 225-7751 - took the message
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) 202-225-2216 - My congressman, wanted me to leave a VM but I will try again. Called again and it went great.
Howard Coble (R-N.C.) 202-225-3065 - took the message but said we cannot give a response as I am not from his constituency.
Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)202- 225-3265 - left a VM
John Conyers (D-Mich.), Chairman 202-225-5126 - called and spoke to a lady, she took the message but still tranferred to judiciary committe number, which no one picked.
Artur Davis (D-Ala.) 202-225-2665 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
William D. Delahunt (D-Mass.)202- 225-3111 - left a VM
Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) 202-225-4755 - took the message
Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) 202-225-2706 - took the message
J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)202- 225-6365 - took the message
Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)202- 225-4576 - took the message
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)202- 225-5811 - VM
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) 202-225-3035 - took the message with the zipcode
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)202- 225-5431 - took the message
Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)202- 225-8203 - took the message
Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)202- 225-3906 - took the message
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas)202- 225-3816 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) 202-225-1605 - VM
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) 202-225-2676 - Took the address and details.
Ric Keller (R-Fla.)202- 225-2176 - took the message (said the bill is under judiciary and under review)
Steve King (R-Iowa)202- 225-4426 - DIDNT CALL HIM
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)202- 225-3072 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Dan Lungren (R-Calif.)202- 225-5716 - took the message
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) 202-225-5635 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Mike Pence (R-Ind.) 202-225-3021 - took the message
Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) 202-225-6676 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.)202- 225-4176 - VM
Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) (202) 225-8351 - took the message
Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) 202-225-5101 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) 202-225-5911 - took the message
Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), Ranking Member 202- 225-4236 - took the message
Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) 202-225-3401 - took the message (didnt ask for anyting although I am from her state)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) 202-225-7931 - took the message with address
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) 202-225-2201 - took the message, very nice lady asked about the bill in detail.
Melvin L. Watt (D-N.C.)202- 225-1510 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Anthony D. Weiner (D-N.Y.) 202-225-6616 - took the message, very nice guy asked in detail what the bill is about.
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) 202-225-3001 - took the message, asked about the bill in detail.
WOOOHOO, my first time making all the calls. My confidence was sky high after the first 5 calls. Very much worth it.
..................................................
$470 till date
2010 The Voice kicked off the second week of live performance rounds on Tuesday.
h1bmajdoor
01-10 08:12 PM
That is naive... AC21 is not an administrative decision of USCIS... It is a law... AC21 = American Competitiveness in the 21st Century act!! It was passed by congress and the only body that can revoke it is congress.
USCIS cannot revoke AC21.. only congress can. Please dont be paranoid. The most USCIS can do is refuse to change their current stance on same/similar job.
Gurus, correct me if I am wrong.
i am not a guru... but CIS can easily make things more difficult for you than congress intended.
namechecks are not authorized by congress (for GC anyway), by CIS uses them to screw people anyway.
"same or similar" in AC21 is a good enough clause. Do not needle them to come up with a rigid rule, because whatever they come up with will be worse than what you have now.
At least now they have some leeway to help you, and you have _some_ chance to move in career.
jeez...
USCIS cannot revoke AC21.. only congress can. Please dont be paranoid. The most USCIS can do is refuse to change their current stance on same/similar job.
Gurus, correct me if I am wrong.
i am not a guru... but CIS can easily make things more difficult for you than congress intended.
namechecks are not authorized by congress (for GC anyway), by CIS uses them to screw people anyway.
"same or similar" in AC21 is a good enough clause. Do not needle them to come up with a rigid rule, because whatever they come up with will be worse than what you have now.
At least now they have some leeway to help you, and you have _some_ chance to move in career.
jeez...
more...
sc3
08-20 10:39 PM
One question to all the smart people on this forum:
In the old system, if EB1, Eb2 and EB3 ROW are current then "all" unused visa from all the EB category be given to which category first:
a) EB1 Non Row
b) Eb2 Non Row
c) Eb3 Non Row
d) None of the above
Now second part of the question is :
If that category already has enough people in line, will the spillover to the next category will take place:
a) Yes
b) No
Not saying I am smart, far from it (otherwise, I probably would have been eligible for citizenship by now) but USCIS seemed to have given it to the oldest in the line regardless of the category.
In the old system, if EB1, Eb2 and EB3 ROW are current then "all" unused visa from all the EB category be given to which category first:
a) EB1 Non Row
b) Eb2 Non Row
c) Eb3 Non Row
d) None of the above
Now second part of the question is :
If that category already has enough people in line, will the spillover to the next category will take place:
a) Yes
b) No
Not saying I am smart, far from it (otherwise, I probably would have been eligible for citizenship by now) but USCIS seemed to have given it to the oldest in the line regardless of the category.
hair #39;The Voice#39; Central
chanduv23
03-24 02:04 PM
Its been over 3 hours now that I informed CapitalOne that the discrimination is illegal. And as expected, no reply received yet.
You scared the HR. He/she would have never thought you will get back to them with this info :D
I was talking to a reqruiter the toher day and he told me of a case where he placed a candidate with EAD and within weeks the EAD expired and the renewal did not come in time, though they managed to clear out the issue, the company seems to be uncomfortable dealing with the EAD shit, thats what he told me.
You scared the HR. He/she would have never thought you will get back to them with this info :D
I was talking to a reqruiter the toher day and he told me of a case where he placed a candidate with EAD and within weeks the EAD expired and the renewal did not come in time, though they managed to clear out the issue, the company seems to be uncomfortable dealing with the EAD shit, thats what he told me.
more...
vinabath
07-10 12:51 PM
Well, Me being a devils advocate I will agree with you. Because I recently saw Gandhi movie. Gandhi took 50+ years being the citizen of the country. Some people think that is very slow. Some think thats the most effective strategy. So from your perspective its waste of money and time as there are no quick returns.
Vinabath i do NOT expect the nation to put Legal Immigration before the IRAQ WAR. Ofcourse I do not expect that. What I am trying to point out is that this is going to be a LONG LONG ongoing issue and if not the war, there will be OTHER issues like the presedential elections etc.
On another note, the US is a capitalistic economy. If you are not selfish, ur a nice guy and nice guys finish LAST.
Vinabath i do NOT expect the nation to put Legal Immigration before the IRAQ WAR. Ofcourse I do not expect that. What I am trying to point out is that this is going to be a LONG LONG ongoing issue and if not the war, there will be OTHER issues like the presedential elections etc.
On another note, the US is a capitalistic economy. If you are not selfish, ur a nice guy and nice guys finish LAST.
hot The voice changer or voice
dionysus
06-27 10:34 PM
I am in the same situation, and I plan to include photocopy of my courtesy copy of my I-140 with other docs, as I am filing AOS by myself. If anyone else had the same issue, please share your exp.
Sorry to disappoint you guys, but courtesy copy is not sufficient to file I-485. Read your courtesy copy clearly. It categorically states that
"This courtesy copy may not be used in lieu of official notification to demonstrate the filing or processing action taken on this case."
I think it is crystal clear what INS means.
The big question is, what happens if you do file with the courtesy copy of your I-140 instead of the original one. My guess is, if you are lucky, INS may accept your 485 petition initially, and after a few months then may simply send you a RFE asking for the original copy of I-140. And, by that time you may be able to convince your company or company-lawyer to release to you the original copy. And if you are unluncky and the clerk at INS is sharp eyed, he/she may take this as a case of missing initial evidence and blow up your entire 485 application at the on set.
You can take your chances.
Sorry to disappoint you guys, but courtesy copy is not sufficient to file I-485. Read your courtesy copy clearly. It categorically states that
"This courtesy copy may not be used in lieu of official notification to demonstrate the filing or processing action taken on this case."
I think it is crystal clear what INS means.
The big question is, what happens if you do file with the courtesy copy of your I-140 instead of the original one. My guess is, if you are lucky, INS may accept your 485 petition initially, and after a few months then may simply send you a RFE asking for the original copy of I-140. And, by that time you may be able to convince your company or company-lawyer to release to you the original copy. And if you are unluncky and the clerk at INS is sharp eyed, he/she may take this as a case of missing initial evidence and blow up your entire 485 application at the on set.
You can take your chances.
more...
house What a show on The Voice this
gimme_GC2006
08-19 10:50 AM
To xyz2009:
Congratulations on getting approved. My wife traveleved to India in a similar situation. She left 2 days after the GC approval email. She returned yesterday on her H1B. I think the systems at the POE take time to reflect the new status. She was planning to inform the IO in case he/she asks about the GC approval - but they did not ask anything. Before she left, she spoke to a second level IO who said it was OK to travel and just to explain to the IO at POE in case it comes up. D-155 stamp is not done at POE.
Your wife can either use AP or H4.
to be precise, since your wife used H1B, officer may have just verified H1B(same with H4 ).
But if you use AP, they will send you to a different room, where they seem to be able access much more information. There they will see your entire information (like when 485 applied etc)..so at that point, officer will give you a welcome message and stamp the passport most likely.
Congratulations on getting approved. My wife traveleved to India in a similar situation. She left 2 days after the GC approval email. She returned yesterday on her H1B. I think the systems at the POE take time to reflect the new status. She was planning to inform the IO in case he/she asks about the GC approval - but they did not ask anything. Before she left, she spoke to a second level IO who said it was OK to travel and just to explain to the IO at POE in case it comes up. D-155 stamp is not done at POE.
Your wife can either use AP or H4.
to be precise, since your wife used H1B, officer may have just verified H1B(same with H4 ).
But if you use AP, they will send you to a different room, where they seem to be able access much more information. There they will see your entire information (like when 485 applied etc)..so at that point, officer will give you a welcome message and stamp the passport most likely.
tattoo of “You#39;re The Voice,” an
thakurrajiv
09-25 08:52 AM
I concluded the same ( Though never posted that analysis :)) But It looks like we are missing a very critical point - we are assuming that " these pending numbers are the total 485 workload USCIS has" but I referred a different chart on USCIS board and it looks like there is a separte hoard of "preadjudicated" applications already sitting in a queue apart from these numbers. Please check on following link.
USCIS: National Processing Volumes and Trends (http://dashboard.uscis.gov/index.cfm?formtype=9&office=4&charttype=1)
I saw this link Murthy's email too. The total pre-adjudicated cases in the chart is matching with the total in the document. Well now there are more un-answered questions:
1. Does all other pending 485 include employment based ? If yes what % are employment based ? Obviously we do not have any country specific data on these.
2. Is there any way to know whether individual case is pre-adjudicated or not ?
USCIS has fooled us again. No good statistical analysis can be done on incomplete/inaccurate data. I am going from hopeful to hopeless again. I am EB2-I Feb 2006.
Thanks a lot for staying on top of this and posting your analysis.
USCIS: National Processing Volumes and Trends (http://dashboard.uscis.gov/index.cfm?formtype=9&office=4&charttype=1)
I saw this link Murthy's email too. The total pre-adjudicated cases in the chart is matching with the total in the document. Well now there are more un-answered questions:
1. Does all other pending 485 include employment based ? If yes what % are employment based ? Obviously we do not have any country specific data on these.
2. Is there any way to know whether individual case is pre-adjudicated or not ?
USCIS has fooled us again. No good statistical analysis can be done on incomplete/inaccurate data. I am going from hopeful to hopeless again. I am EB2-I Feb 2006.
Thanks a lot for staying on top of this and posting your analysis.
more...
pictures The Voice Within - Songs of
snathan
03-29 12:33 PM
ImmInfo Newsletter: India EB2 cutoff dates to advance in May (http://www.imminfo.com/News/Newsletter/2011-3-31/India-eb2-to-advance-in-may.html)
Based on just released information, it appears that India EB2 cutoff dates will advance, perhaps substantially, in May. China EB2 cutoff dates will also advance. The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) reports that they were told the following by Charlie Oppenheim, Chief, Immigrant Visa Control and Reporting Division, U.S. Department of State:
“[US]CIS says they have seen a decline in filings, and does not expect a change in the number use pattern. Therefore, this decline in EB-1 number use will allow me to begin having those ‘otherwise unused’ numbers drop down and be available for use in the EB-2 category. Based on current indications, that would mean that at least 12,000 additional numbers will be available to the EB-2 category. This situation will allow me to advance the India EB-2 cut-off date for May. The reason being that all ‘otherwise unused’ numbers are provided strictly in priority date order, and the India demand has the largest concentration of early dates.”
There have been two reasons for China and India EB2 cutoff dates not moving forward as rapidly as had been the case in the past. The first is the unusually high demand for EB1 numbers and the second has been the increased demand for EB2 numbers represented by EB3 to EB2 upgrades.
The significance of this announcement is that it appears that the recent surge in demand for EB1 visa numbers has abated. The CIS reports that this demand slowed down in October, 2010 and has not resumed. Presumably, this means that substantially most the EB2 applicants who felt that they could upgrade to EB1 have now filed the petitions and had them adjudicated. If this is the case, then the number of unused EB1 numbers will increase back to previous levels and become available for use by EB2 applicants.
================================================== ==================
P.S : the EB1 filing reduced may be because the Indian IT companies stopped filing EB1C ? Its just my thought
Based on just released information, it appears that India EB2 cutoff dates will advance, perhaps substantially, in May. China EB2 cutoff dates will also advance. The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) reports that they were told the following by Charlie Oppenheim, Chief, Immigrant Visa Control and Reporting Division, U.S. Department of State:
“[US]CIS says they have seen a decline in filings, and does not expect a change in the number use pattern. Therefore, this decline in EB-1 number use will allow me to begin having those ‘otherwise unused’ numbers drop down and be available for use in the EB-2 category. Based on current indications, that would mean that at least 12,000 additional numbers will be available to the EB-2 category. This situation will allow me to advance the India EB-2 cut-off date for May. The reason being that all ‘otherwise unused’ numbers are provided strictly in priority date order, and the India demand has the largest concentration of early dates.”
There have been two reasons for China and India EB2 cutoff dates not moving forward as rapidly as had been the case in the past. The first is the unusually high demand for EB1 numbers and the second has been the increased demand for EB2 numbers represented by EB3 to EB2 upgrades.
The significance of this announcement is that it appears that the recent surge in demand for EB1 visa numbers has abated. The CIS reports that this demand slowed down in October, 2010 and has not resumed. Presumably, this means that substantially most the EB2 applicants who felt that they could upgrade to EB1 have now filed the petitions and had them adjudicated. If this is the case, then the number of unused EB1 numbers will increase back to previous levels and become available for use by EB2 applicants.
================================================== ==================
P.S : the EB1 filing reduced may be because the Indian IT companies stopped filing EB1C ? Its just my thought
dresses Crazy The Voice
punjabi77
11-19 11:57 PM
I had bought a house 2 years back thinking that i will sell it after couple of years and make money. I know many people might have done that. I didnt knwo that having a house will become a burden for me wrt moving to a different place in search of a job. I do see jobs in cities outside my state and was thinking of applying for those jobs. My problem is that if i sell my house, i will have to pay from my own pocket.
Having a house in this market has become a pain as it has made me immobile with respect to good job offers.
I was thinking that incase i find a job in a different state and cannot travel back home frequently and also renting is not a good option then should i leave the house to the bank for foreclosure?
Will this affect my GC process. I have no plans of buying a house in coming years.
What might be an outcome of foreclosure, keeping in mind that i am wiating for my GC process.
If anyone had an experiecne like this or may know someone, please share ur thought..
Having a house in this market has become a pain as it has made me immobile with respect to good job offers.
I was thinking that incase i find a job in a different state and cannot travel back home frequently and also renting is not a good option then should i leave the house to the bank for foreclosure?
Will this affect my GC process. I have no plans of buying a house in coming years.
What might be an outcome of foreclosure, keeping in mind that i am wiating for my GC process.
If anyone had an experiecne like this or may know someone, please share ur thought..
more...
makeup The Voice
darslee
07-11 12:21 AM
Phew! Even I hate for you to be nitpicking :eek:
I agree......:D
I agree......:D
girlfriend The Voice
trueguy
08-21 10:05 AM
we should do something ASAP before they decide upon Oct'2008 VB. Before FY2009 starts, we should make sure they are aware of EB3 problems so they can come up with new rules for new year.
hairstyles voice: Easy-on-the-ear.
logiclife
12-31 04:01 PM
Ok,
I was looking at the bill by Arlen Specter.
Title III Section 312 on page 7 and Title 5 Section 501 on page 8 are definately something to keep an eye out for and channel our efforts in every which way to make sure that stay in the bill and are not thrown out by any committee, subcommitee etc. in House or Senate.
Any thoughts anyone?
I was looking at the bill by Arlen Specter.
Title III Section 312 on page 7 and Title 5 Section 501 on page 8 are definately something to keep an eye out for and channel our efforts in every which way to make sure that stay in the bill and are not thrown out by any committee, subcommitee etc. in House or Senate.
Any thoughts anyone?
CADude
09-20 11:52 PM
if you can't do anything then please wait and keep the faith.. or write to congressman/senators and other to raise awareness and demand answers.. :)
I recieved nothing. I cant check whether my check is cashed or not as my lawyer asked for draft and not personal check. Dont know whats going on...cant talk to the lawyer as the company doesn't allow....Man this is too frustrating...
I recieved nothing. I cant check whether my check is cashed or not as my lawyer asked for draft and not personal check. Dont know whats going on...cant talk to the lawyer as the company doesn't allow....Man this is too frustrating...
kumarm
08-13 05:28 PM
Finally Got Email with GOLDEN WORDS.CARD is Under PRODUCTION.
GOddluck For all of You!
GOddluck For all of You!
