StarSun
02-03 09:22 AM
To get a head start on the advocacy effort, we need members to register, contribute, plan the travel, and spread the word as soon as possible.
wallpaper meat dress • mtv vma 2010
perm2gc
01-03 10:40 PM
I was trying to find out chinese portals, but no luck. I dont have any chinese friends who are stuck in this EB mess. Are we trying to get any chinese, philippino members?
yes.We want to increase our memberships from all communities.
yes.We want to increase our memberships from all communities.
.soulty
03-19 11:02 PM
moved it, status closed now.. ;)
2011 Deal: Gaga#39;s Meat Dress
Ramba
07-09 07:44 PM
I came across this law about the departmental control of numerical limitations, and I'd appreciate it if you all could post your interpretations of the same.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
I feel that they did not violate any clause. Till June 30 which is end of third quarter, they are authorized to approve (3*27%*140K) 113,400. However they approved only 66,400 till May 31. That yields about 47,000 for June alone(10%+any number not used in previous months). The reamining visas are eligible for Jul 1, which is 13,000. Put together June and July1, it comes 60,000. Therefore they did not violate any law. This makes only 126,000. The remaining number was splitted for Consular processing.
my 2 cents...
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
I feel that they did not violate any clause. Till June 30 which is end of third quarter, they are authorized to approve (3*27%*140K) 113,400. However they approved only 66,400 till May 31. That yields about 47,000 for June alone(10%+any number not used in previous months). The reamining visas are eligible for Jul 1, which is 13,000. Put together June and July1, it comes 60,000. Therefore they did not violate any law. This makes only 126,000. The remaining number was splitted for Consular processing.
my 2 cents...
more...
imh1b
03-12 11:47 AM
Dude,
Don't embarrass yourself with your IQ, you have only 25 some of posts, I have been here long enough and understand IV more than you. Please keep your smartness to yourself.
point at consistency, ? If you don't have one then shuv it up. I have been urging IV for a long time to do something big, anyone who has that question can go in history Forums, and read.
Thank you,
Why don't you do something yourself and show everyone how bright you are? I am guilty of not donating. But at least I do not criticize as at least IV is there for us.
Don't embarrass yourself with your IQ, you have only 25 some of posts, I have been here long enough and understand IV more than you. Please keep your smartness to yourself.
point at consistency, ? If you don't have one then shuv it up. I have been urging IV for a long time to do something big, anyone who has that question can go in history Forums, and read.
Thank you,
Why don't you do something yourself and show everyone how bright you are? I am guilty of not donating. But at least I do not criticize as at least IV is there for us.
GCcomesoon
03-06 11:33 AM
Hi
So what do we have coming in April bulletin ? I'm not discussing any predictions here but based on some information found on the web & in different forums , it looks like Eb2 might move ? Does anyone agree to the logic for this movement ? Is there any movement expected for EB3 - India , because with the Name check gone & some old cases getting approved , shouldn't the EB3 dates move forward ?
Thanks
GCcomesoon
So what do we have coming in April bulletin ? I'm not discussing any predictions here but based on some information found on the web & in different forums , it looks like Eb2 might move ? Does anyone agree to the logic for this movement ? Is there any movement expected for EB3 - India , because with the Name check gone & some old cases getting approved , shouldn't the EB3 dates move forward ?
Thanks
GCcomesoon
more...
tonyHK12
02-17 09:57 AM
Newsletters - will help reach out to wider public. The desi groceries, movie distributors, restaurants send emails and coupons, toysrus, best buy , etc... send emails, coupons, so many organizations do it and I think IV must do it to.
This is a nice idea, maybe bi-weekly or monthly. No one has an advocacy oriented one and we can take the lead in this. As usual I agree to volunteer for this one. We can get inputs from core/Senior members and the ones meeting law makers.
This is a nice idea, maybe bi-weekly or monthly. No one has an advocacy oriented one and we can take the lead in this. As usual I agree to volunteer for this one. We can get inputs from core/Senior members and the ones meeting law makers.
2010 Eminem was joined by Rihanna
sunnymit
07-12 04:22 PM
understandably so.. but I am now current after a looooong time. EB3 Dec 2001 PD. I can finally file the AOS for my wife who has been on H4 for the last 2 yrs... excellent!
more...
xbohdpukc
12-11 03:44 PM
USCIS cannot do anything on the matter. INA is clear on the AOS conditions, one of which is "An immigrant visa is IMMEDIATELY available at time of filing for adjustment of status" (INA 245, 8 USC 1225)
INA should be changed which should be done through a legislative process, not through any rule making.
INA should be changed which should be done through a legislative process, not through any rule making.
hair vmastylewinners.jpg. Rihanna-
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..."
more...
sodh
07-23 03:27 PM
Employment letter is a MUST. Without this letter, your application can be denied without even an RFE. Read the latest USCIS memo. Please tell your lawyer and HR.
Pappu is right your Lawyer is fooling you.
Pappu is right your Lawyer is fooling you.
hot Rihanna is smiling because she
gimme_GC2006
03-09 03:54 PM
If your kids were born in the US then maybe they will be able to file for you by then and that will be definitely faster than EB-3. :D
looks like that is Plan B :D:D
looks like that is Plan B :D:D
more...
house rihanna vma says:
hopefullegalimmigrant
06-12 06:04 PM
Sent
tattoo Lady Gaga#39;s meat dress at the
Hermione
09-26 09:32 AM
It is not about politics, it is about ignorance of the people (including reporters). It is explainable, though - what do you know about... I don't know, laws around transporting hazardous materials, something you have never been exposed or subject to? Next to nothing. That's what an average American knows about immigration - their closest brush with that law was when their co-worker adopted a child from abroad. Of course, they do not know the difference between worker visas, and employment based immigrant visas (don't they even sound alike?).
more...
pictures ofdetails Kesha+vma+dress
Jaime
09-10 09:55 PM
Microsoft using cricket to try to stop Reverse Brain Drain!!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070910/...oft_cricket_dc
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070910/...oft_cricket_dc
dresses gaga Lady+gaga+vma+outfit
pmb76
07-16 09:15 PM
Someone mentioned that IV has the same web fax facility. Can someone tell us how to use this facility. I registered with the numbersusa site and used their own fax to send out our message. I used the first name, last name and address form fields to put in our message like, "Bunch of Lies", "H1 pay all taxes", Numbersusa is spreading false information". Lets beat them at their own game by sending faxes ourselves and also using their fax service to spread our message. If its a good idea, please register on their site and send out faxes with our message.
Well said. I totally agree with you. Admin please bump up this thread so we may correct the facts on behalf of numbersusa :D
Well said. I totally agree with you. Admin please bump up this thread so we may correct the facts on behalf of numbersusa :D
more...
makeup video-eminem-rihanna-vma
dehradoon
08-16 05:49 PM
That is because the quota system does not apply as well in the 4th quarter of each year. Thats the explanation previously given. EB India has to hope for the end of each fiscal year for some magic to happen.
EB ROW, please be patient it will be all yours after Oct. 2007 for the next 9 months.:)
Those EB India stuck in 485.................it is either now or next year summer. If you don't see yours by Sep't, unless you have a PD pre go into hibernation and wake up in June or July 2008, you might find better luck at that time.
Hi,
What makes you decide on the pre-2003 PD. why should they be out of hibernation yet. As fas as I have seen May EB3 india was May 2001, we all know what happened since then. There are still a lot of cases in labor backlog with pre-2002 cases that have not yet been cleared, june/july there were thousands of cases approved for people uptil 2005. so what will happen, will in october the dates go to - "say 01AUG03", is this what you are expecting ....
I am totally mystified by your pre2003 assumption and would love to get some more info on how that date was derived.
EB ROW, please be patient it will be all yours after Oct. 2007 for the next 9 months.:)
Those EB India stuck in 485.................it is either now or next year summer. If you don't see yours by Sep't, unless you have a PD pre go into hibernation and wake up in June or July 2008, you might find better luck at that time.
Hi,
What makes you decide on the pre-2003 PD. why should they be out of hibernation yet. As fas as I have seen May EB3 india was May 2001, we all know what happened since then. There are still a lot of cases in labor backlog with pre-2002 cases that have not yet been cleared, june/july there were thousands of cases approved for people uptil 2005. so what will happen, will in october the dates go to - "say 01AUG03", is this what you are expecting ....
I am totally mystified by your pre2003 assumption and would love to get some more info on how that date was derived.
girlfriend This outfit at white dress
pappu
02-03 10:52 PM
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=23488
This is our immediate need. Could you pls help.
This is our immediate need. Could you pls help.
hairstyles rihanna hair, rihanna vma
ksairi
08-15 04:32 PM
D. EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCE VISA AVAILABILITY FOR SEPTEMBER
Due to the return of unused July numbers by consular posts abroad, and the limited amount of pending demand eligible for final processing at consular posts, it has been possible to reestablish cut-off dates in many of the Employment preference categories.
Please link it.
Due to the return of unused July numbers by consular posts abroad, and the limited amount of pending demand eligible for final processing at consular posts, it has been possible to reestablish cut-off dates in many of the Employment preference categories.
Please link it.
GCard_Dream
12-13 01:18 PM
I am sure this topic will come up again and again when new members join. We recently had quite a few (over a thousand) new members join IV and as the word gets around, there will be even more interest in IV and new members/non-members will visit the site and ask questions. I don't think we should expect everyone (new or old members) to know everything that was discussed in this forum from day one. That's not practical.
Every few days I see a new thread that is asking for information on how to change from EB3 to EB2. There are literally hundred or so threads that talks about this issue yet still new threads pop up regularly asking the same info. This is bound to happen and can't be stopped.
If you know that a topic has been covered somewhere, making a link available would be very helpful. If you think that a certain topic is brought up on a regular basis, may be we should make that thread sticky or have that information on homepage or somewhere where it's easily accessible.
We can always argue that members can do their own search on the forum. While that's true, if we know the answer and can quickly make that available to members, I think we'll be doing a service to our members. Just a thought.
All , this subject has been raised very often and every time new members join in they start a thread and start questioning it.
- IV has indepth explored and studied this option and have found that this change is not possible administratively.
- we have not just met a lawyer. we have met few lawyers. we also have communicated with USCIS in the past.
- In the past some administrative changes have been done by USCIS, but this change cannot be done by them. All, we already had this idea long long ago and we also thought that why dont we do it if it so simple and then we dont have to go through all the legislative hurdles. But NO it cannot be done by USCIS.
- Faxing USCIS will not work. USCIS does not take policy decisions. We need to approach policy makers to get it done and that is what we are doing. By coming up with ideas, endlessly discussing despite explaination by IV and not working with IV action items we will all go in divergent directions and lose focus on the main action items we want each every member should focus. If you really feel for some idea and want to help, instead of asking IV to give explanation to every question on the forum, contact any of the active IV core members on the forum and bounce ideas. We need people with ideas and also same people willing to work on them too.
- If it was possible to get it done administratively, then in the current Skil bill push we would have/ and lawmakers would also have just asked USCIS to implement it.
Hope this explains this topic. Thanks
Every few days I see a new thread that is asking for information on how to change from EB3 to EB2. There are literally hundred or so threads that talks about this issue yet still new threads pop up regularly asking the same info. This is bound to happen and can't be stopped.
If you know that a topic has been covered somewhere, making a link available would be very helpful. If you think that a certain topic is brought up on a regular basis, may be we should make that thread sticky or have that information on homepage or somewhere where it's easily accessible.
We can always argue that members can do their own search on the forum. While that's true, if we know the answer and can quickly make that available to members, I think we'll be doing a service to our members. Just a thought.
All , this subject has been raised very often and every time new members join in they start a thread and start questioning it.
- IV has indepth explored and studied this option and have found that this change is not possible administratively.
- we have not just met a lawyer. we have met few lawyers. we also have communicated with USCIS in the past.
- In the past some administrative changes have been done by USCIS, but this change cannot be done by them. All, we already had this idea long long ago and we also thought that why dont we do it if it so simple and then we dont have to go through all the legislative hurdles. But NO it cannot be done by USCIS.
- Faxing USCIS will not work. USCIS does not take policy decisions. We need to approach policy makers to get it done and that is what we are doing. By coming up with ideas, endlessly discussing despite explaination by IV and not working with IV action items we will all go in divergent directions and lose focus on the main action items we want each every member should focus. If you really feel for some idea and want to help, instead of asking IV to give explanation to every question on the forum, contact any of the active IV core members on the forum and bounce ideas. We need people with ideas and also same people willing to work on them too.
- If it was possible to get it done administratively, then in the current Skil bill push we would have/ and lawmakers would also have just asked USCIS to implement it.
Hope this explains this topic. Thanks
gc28262
04-08 10:29 AM
Pending clearance on rumors, if POE called employer, it is likely that employer(s) may answer about US Citzen hiring to yes, but it is very "generic". The "generic" information my be mis using by POE either intentional or unintentional . It is better off giving heads up to company HR department about these enquiries (if they are not rumors) and brainstrom them about procedure and time lines to hire US citizen and impact on business if non immigration is not available immediately. Otherwise, employer may say yes to hire US citizen "in general".
If HR says YES to IO's question, HR would be contradicting himself.
Irrespective of whether these are rumors, H1B traveler should always make a note of IO' identification. It is better to ask IO for his identity once he gets into "job protection" mode. Later on candidate can lodge a complaint against IO if needed.
Protecting US job is none of IO's business.
If HR says YES to IO's question, HR would be contradicting himself.
Irrespective of whether these are rumors, H1B traveler should always make a note of IO' identification. It is better to ask IO for his identity once he gets into "job protection" mode. Later on candidate can lodge a complaint against IO if needed.
Protecting US job is none of IO's business.
No comments:
Post a Comment