ravise
12-10 04:30 PM
till now we have not seen such detailed explanation in visa bulliten. Some thing to be feel good about.
Regarding EB2 spillover; i think their main problem with quarterly spillover is to move both EB2I and EB2C to the same priority date. If the spillover quantity is so less.
From one of the privious pdf from USCS number of EB2I applicants between between 22JAN05 and 01MAY05 were nearly 4K. I don't think there can ever be 4000 splillovers to EB2 in a single quarter. Remember spillover from EB1 to EB2 can only happen during the year end and quarterly spillover only includes intra catogiry.
all personal analysis/openion.
Regarding EB2 spillover; i think their main problem with quarterly spillover is to move both EB2I and EB2C to the same priority date. If the spillover quantity is so less.
From one of the privious pdf from USCS number of EB2I applicants between between 22JAN05 and 01MAY05 were nearly 4K. I don't think there can ever be 4000 splillovers to EB2 in a single quarter. Remember spillover from EB1 to EB2 can only happen during the year end and quarterly spillover only includes intra catogiry.
all personal analysis/openion.
sanjay
06-11 10:13 PM
hara aam jaada khaoge to gas ho jayega. waise hi bahut gas hai paadu sucksena ko.
I don't know if the words used above were intentional or some one being sarcastic but club first three words and you get a complete different meaning in Hindi.
Guys, a request though, don't use foul words in public forum.
I don't know if the words used above were intentional or some one being sarcastic but club first three words and you get a complete different meaning in Hindi.
Guys, a request though, don't use foul words in public forum.
vikki76
07-06 01:54 AM
Thanks!. There were some skeptics on IV Forums who didn't believe that USCIS worked over weekend to approve 25,000 visas. :mad: Some people genuinely believed that USCIS made a clerical error in calculating visa number or some other nonsense excuse. Those who don't believe that this indeed is a scandal,should read Logiclife's excellent analysis on June 29th where he explains -how retrogression is NOT possible.
When we believe how it was not possible, and suddenly it did happen-of course things get clear.
When we believe how it was not possible, and suddenly it did happen-of course things get clear.
nogc12
07-19 12:42 AM
Signed up mothly contribution from july.
Atleast with the current visa bullettin change has eased the worry of a lot of people if not all. Also get the satisfaction that we are doing something to improve our situation.
Atleast with the current visa bullettin change has eased the worry of a lot of people if not all. Also get the satisfaction that we are doing something to improve our situation.
more...
CADude
10-27 01:20 PM
I sent the email to ombudsman. Thanks for PM.
sreenivas11
08-02 03:43 PM
I have talked to a representative and he very patiently explained me about the mess.
He clearly and very clearly told me that they have a deadline to send all receipts for June end and July 2nd filers by friday (tomorrow) or worst case monday.
He mentioned that they are working hard to meet this deadline.
Hope this clears the anxiety.
Good NEWS
He clearly and very clearly told me that they have a deadline to send all receipts for June end and July 2nd filers by friday (tomorrow) or worst case monday.
He mentioned that they are working hard to meet this deadline.
Hope this clears the anxiety.
Good NEWS
more...
chanduv23
06-13 12:36 PM
Come on folks - your contributions are highly appreciated
Macaca
09-12 04:04 PM
Michael Abramowitz: abramowitz@washpost.com *
Joel Achenbach: achenbachj@washpost.com *
N.C. Aizenman (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/n.c.+aizenman/): Aizenmann@washpost.com *
Lori Aratani (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/lori+aratani/)
Peter Baker: bakerp@washpost.com *
Daniel J. Balz: balzd@washpost.com *
Stephen Barr
Jeff Birnbaum (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/jeffrey+h.+birnbaum/)
William Branigin
David S. Broder: davidbroder@washpost.com *
Karin Brulliard: Brulliardk@washpost.com *
Ruben Castaneda
Chris Cillizza (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/chris+cillizza)
Andrew Cockburn
Donald B. Cofman
Pamela Constable: Constablep@washpost.com *
Tim Craig: Craigt@washpost.com *
Jessica Dawson
Daniela Deane
Virgil Dickson
E. J. Dionne Jr.: postchat@aol.com (doesn't work)
Anthony Faiola: 104704.3367@compuserve.com, faiolaa@washpost.com *
Rachel Dry
Darryl Fears: fearsd@washpost.com *
Marc Fisher: marcfisher@washpost.com *
Michael A. Fletcher (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/michael+a.+fletcher/)
Manuel Roig-Franzia
Dan Froomkin (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/dan+froomkin/)
Sonya Geis
Christy Goodman: goodmanc@washpost.com *
Annie Gowen
George W. Grayson
Hamil R. Harris: harrish@washpost.com *
Jim Hoagland jimhoagland@washpost.com *
Deborah Howell: atombudsman@washpost.com 202-334-7582 (doesn't work)
Spencer Hsu: hsus@washpost.com *
David Ignatius: davidignatius@washpost.com *
S Mitra Kalita: kalitam@washpost.com *
Paul Kane
Cecilia Kang
Charles Krauthammer: letters@charleskrauthammer.com *
Howard Kurtz: kurtzh@washpost.com *
Ernesto Londo�o
Sebastian Mallaby: smallaby@cfr.org *
Tammi Marcoullier
Raymond McCaffrey
Dana Milbank: milbankd@washpost.com *
Mariana Minaya
Nick Miroff: Miroffn@washpost.com *
David Montgomery: montgomery@washpost.com *
Lisa de Moraes
Sylvia Moreno: morenos@washpost.com *
Dan Morse
Jonathan Mummolo
Robert D. Novak (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/robert+d.+novak/)
Amy Orndorff
Eugene Robinson eugenerobinson@washpost.com *
Manuel Roig-Franzia
Candace Rondeaux
Robert J. Samuelson: writersgrp@washpost.com *
Marcela Sanchez: desdewash@washpost.com *
Brigid Schulte: schulteb@washpost.com *
Delphine Schrank
Ian Shapira
Michael D. Shear shearm@washpost.com *
Robin Shulman: shulmanr@washpost.com *
Sandhya Somashekhar: Somashekhars@washpost.com *
Miranda S. Spivack
Bill Turque: turqueb@washpost.com *
Jose Antonio Vargas
Theresa Vargas: vargast@waspost.com *
Daniel de Vise
William Wan
Jonathan Weisman: Weismanj@washpost.com *
Eric Weiss (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/eric+m.+weiss/)
Ovetta Wiggins (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/ovetta+wiggins/)
George F. Will georgewill@washpost.com *
Krissah Williams: williamsk@washpost.com *
Elizabeth Williamson (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/elizabeth+williamson/)
Robin Wright: wrightr@washpost.com *
Xiyun Yang: yangx@washpost.com * (doesn't work)
Joel Achenbach: achenbachj@washpost.com *
N.C. Aizenman (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/n.c.+aizenman/): Aizenmann@washpost.com *
Lori Aratani (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/lori+aratani/)
Peter Baker: bakerp@washpost.com *
Daniel J. Balz: balzd@washpost.com *
Stephen Barr
Jeff Birnbaum (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/jeffrey+h.+birnbaum/)
William Branigin
David S. Broder: davidbroder@washpost.com *
Karin Brulliard: Brulliardk@washpost.com *
Ruben Castaneda
Chris Cillizza (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/chris+cillizza)
Andrew Cockburn
Donald B. Cofman
Pamela Constable: Constablep@washpost.com *
Tim Craig: Craigt@washpost.com *
Jessica Dawson
Daniela Deane
Virgil Dickson
E. J. Dionne Jr.: postchat@aol.com (doesn't work)
Anthony Faiola: 104704.3367@compuserve.com, faiolaa@washpost.com *
Rachel Dry
Darryl Fears: fearsd@washpost.com *
Marc Fisher: marcfisher@washpost.com *
Michael A. Fletcher (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/michael+a.+fletcher/)
Manuel Roig-Franzia
Dan Froomkin (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/dan+froomkin/)
Sonya Geis
Christy Goodman: goodmanc@washpost.com *
Annie Gowen
George W. Grayson
Hamil R. Harris: harrish@washpost.com *
Jim Hoagland jimhoagland@washpost.com *
Deborah Howell: atombudsman@washpost.com 202-334-7582 (doesn't work)
Spencer Hsu: hsus@washpost.com *
David Ignatius: davidignatius@washpost.com *
S Mitra Kalita: kalitam@washpost.com *
Paul Kane
Cecilia Kang
Charles Krauthammer: letters@charleskrauthammer.com *
Howard Kurtz: kurtzh@washpost.com *
Ernesto Londo�o
Sebastian Mallaby: smallaby@cfr.org *
Tammi Marcoullier
Raymond McCaffrey
Dana Milbank: milbankd@washpost.com *
Mariana Minaya
Nick Miroff: Miroffn@washpost.com *
David Montgomery: montgomery@washpost.com *
Lisa de Moraes
Sylvia Moreno: morenos@washpost.com *
Dan Morse
Jonathan Mummolo
Robert D. Novak (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/robert+d.+novak/)
Amy Orndorff
Eugene Robinson eugenerobinson@washpost.com *
Manuel Roig-Franzia
Candace Rondeaux
Robert J. Samuelson: writersgrp@washpost.com *
Marcela Sanchez: desdewash@washpost.com *
Brigid Schulte: schulteb@washpost.com *
Delphine Schrank
Ian Shapira
Michael D. Shear shearm@washpost.com *
Robin Shulman: shulmanr@washpost.com *
Sandhya Somashekhar: Somashekhars@washpost.com *
Miranda S. Spivack
Bill Turque: turqueb@washpost.com *
Jose Antonio Vargas
Theresa Vargas: vargast@waspost.com *
Daniel de Vise
William Wan
Jonathan Weisman: Weismanj@washpost.com *
Eric Weiss (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/eric+m.+weiss/)
Ovetta Wiggins (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/ovetta+wiggins/)
George F. Will georgewill@washpost.com *
Krissah Williams: williamsk@washpost.com *
Elizabeth Williamson (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/elizabeth+williamson/)
Robin Wright: wrightr@washpost.com *
Xiyun Yang: yangx@washpost.com * (doesn't work)
more...
diptam
09-01 03:02 PM
1. Yes yes yes
2. Yes
3. No
All Desi employers?
2. Yes
3. No
All Desi employers?
Ravneetsingh
10-01 12:59 PM
Pls excse my noob-ness, i have read all the pages of this thread but cudnt find a precise answer.
I am in the Rn program, and wud be graduating in may08, hopefylly pass nclex and start OPT by june08. i can then start with my visa screen, and I140 as these are not retrogressed, but if retrogression continues and i am not able to file I485, do i still get an EAD. my guess is 'not' but just trying to confirm as i wud have to plan to continue with studies after 1 yr of OPT.
and btw thanks for tons of usefull info!
I am in the Rn program, and wud be graduating in may08, hopefylly pass nclex and start OPT by june08. i can then start with my visa screen, and I140 as these are not retrogressed, but if retrogression continues and i am not able to file I485, do i still get an EAD. my guess is 'not' but just trying to confirm as i wud have to plan to continue with studies after 1 yr of OPT.
and btw thanks for tons of usefull info!
more...
twinbrothers
07-09 06:42 PM
I live in Pasadena, CA. Email me at twinbrothers@gmail.com
reddymjm
03-09 01:32 PM
Can anyone explain the whats the FOIA fund drive? Or provide a link. Thanks.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=324652
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=24159&highlight=FOIA
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=324652
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=24159&highlight=FOIA
more...
satyasaich
07-15 01:10 PM
Here is my pledge.
If $2000 is reached today, i will send another $50 today.
(Fyi, i've already sent$50 yesterday)
Satya
Thanks SkilledWorker4GC !
Any one else would like to pledge just 5 $ when we reach 2000 $
Bestofall
PD March 2005 India
485 Applied Jul2 2007
If $2000 is reached today, i will send another $50 today.
(Fyi, i've already sent$50 yesterday)
Satya
Thanks SkilledWorker4GC !
Any one else would like to pledge just 5 $ when we reach 2000 $
Bestofall
PD March 2005 India
485 Applied Jul2 2007
missourian
06-02 07:37 PM
Guys I am a new member of IV , joined two weeks back, just made a one time contribution, Please follow the fund drive thread and contribute and ask new members to join IV.
more...
go_guy123
02-24 10:03 AM
Immigrating legally to the U.S seemed like a gold opportunity when I was offered to work here six years ago with an H1B visa. As a matter of fact, all my friends and family considered that it would have been crazy not to take advantage of the "opportunity" to live and work in the most developed country on Earth.
It's been six long years of challenges and learning experiences, but mostly it's been six years of financial distress, anxiety, paralysis and uncertainty.
We applied for PR four years ago, but in the process my wife and I have eaten all our saving in lawyer fees - and at this point we're just one more number in the long list of EB3 applicants who don't have the remotest idea of when visa numbers will become available so we can have a normal life. I don't even consider traveling to my country cause I don't have the money to pay for APs for me and my wife. My career has been also frozen since I cant take promotions to higher positions that will fall off the job description stated in my PERM.
If I had known about this ordeal, I would have never come to the US. I would have looked for other options, in countries that have a more sincere and generous immigration policies instead. If the US is not interested in allowing people to legally immigrate through visas based on employment, they simply should eliminate these visas and make clear that they don't want us to stay. Wouldn't that be easy for everyone?
I would return to my country if we didn't have a nasty political turmoil and the social decay that comes with it. Yet, I feel that the days go by and our lives are entangled in this absurd situation.
Your PD was in 2006. The GC problems had started surfacing and it was clear without a relief it would only get worse. If you have EAD you are better off otherwise no point in waiting at all.
The question is about having good understanding the US politics and that will give you an idea of how realistic are the chances of EB relief in future.
I feel eventually it will be fixed. But not before it is completely broken and companies really take a hard look at it and seriously lobby for a reform and a workable solution.
The H1B is now broken but perhaps not broken enough...so there will be couple of months/years of more misery.
It's been six long years of challenges and learning experiences, but mostly it's been six years of financial distress, anxiety, paralysis and uncertainty.
We applied for PR four years ago, but in the process my wife and I have eaten all our saving in lawyer fees - and at this point we're just one more number in the long list of EB3 applicants who don't have the remotest idea of when visa numbers will become available so we can have a normal life. I don't even consider traveling to my country cause I don't have the money to pay for APs for me and my wife. My career has been also frozen since I cant take promotions to higher positions that will fall off the job description stated in my PERM.
If I had known about this ordeal, I would have never come to the US. I would have looked for other options, in countries that have a more sincere and generous immigration policies instead. If the US is not interested in allowing people to legally immigrate through visas based on employment, they simply should eliminate these visas and make clear that they don't want us to stay. Wouldn't that be easy for everyone?
I would return to my country if we didn't have a nasty political turmoil and the social decay that comes with it. Yet, I feel that the days go by and our lives are entangled in this absurd situation.
Your PD was in 2006. The GC problems had started surfacing and it was clear without a relief it would only get worse. If you have EAD you are better off otherwise no point in waiting at all.
The question is about having good understanding the US politics and that will give you an idea of how realistic are the chances of EB relief in future.
I feel eventually it will be fixed. But not before it is completely broken and companies really take a hard look at it and seriously lobby for a reform and a workable solution.
The H1B is now broken but perhaps not broken enough...so there will be couple of months/years of more misery.
walking_dude
07-06 12:54 AM
IV will become ready for elections when we have real candidates with real faces. I request all real candidates to publish their photos and accomplishments, their ideas for the organization; so that we can choose the best person for the job.
Any volunteers? Why don't I see a single volunteer! Seriously, can we have an election without candidates?!
I feel that initiator of this thread is not trying a coup d'�tat. He is merely pointing to the fact that every organization runs by elected officials. Having a life term president and core group is only heard in autocratic systems but not in a democratic one. What are we as an organization?
Why are we afraid of discussing new ideas? Why shouldn't we open up IV organization for elections? There is nothing wrong in declaring the rules and then playing by those rules.
So I completely support the guy who came up with this suggestion.
Any volunteers? Why don't I see a single volunteer! Seriously, can we have an election without candidates?!
I feel that initiator of this thread is not trying a coup d'�tat. He is merely pointing to the fact that every organization runs by elected officials. Having a life term president and core group is only heard in autocratic systems but not in a democratic one. What are we as an organization?
Why are we afraid of discussing new ideas? Why shouldn't we open up IV organization for elections? There is nothing wrong in declaring the rules and then playing by those rules.
So I completely support the guy who came up with this suggestion.
more...
kkcal2002
07-18 12:04 AM
Live in Sanbernardino County but work in LA County(Pasadena). count me IN.
chanduv23
05-18 04:33 PM
Hi Chanduv23,
Thanks for the reply.
Can you let all of us know the follwoing:
1. What are the steps involved in to do everything right?
2. Is one of the step "ex employer informing USCIS about the job change has gone through this"?
3. If not then what are the disadvantages or if can't trust employer ?
Please let us know about all the steps involved to switch employer by invoking AC-21?
regards,
waitingmygc
Ok, basic steps
(1) Make sure you have your petitions in the online portfolio.
(2) Make sure you report address changes promptly and they have latest address on file
(3) Try to get a copy of labor or atleast know what skills have been mentioned - remember it has to be similar and does not exactly be the same
(4) Make sure, you work for atleast 180 days with your sponsering employer after filing 485
(5) It is always good to get a 140 approved before you move. Pending 140s though allowed in AC21, maybe kinda risky because if your sponsering employer is having ability to pay issues, or your current employment is not paying proper salary - then you may be subject to ability to pay issues and 140 may never get approved
(6) Always good to inform USCIS of job change via AC21 letter - you must keep a copy and also track fedex and keep proof of delivery
(7) Keep a copy of 140 approval - though it may not be required, but good to keep.
(8) Always expect that your ex employer may revoke your 140 any time - USCIS is now conducting audits and employers may want to kee their records clean, so expect the 140 revoke anytime.
(9) If 485 gets denied, file for a Motion to reopen and immediately open a case problem with Ombudsman's office and keep the motion to reopen receipts
(10) If MTR is getting elayed, contact senators or congressman's office and do a congressional enquiry. Their liason will be more helpful.
(11) Customer service or infopass may never help unless it is address change or fingerprint or name check issues.
Thanks for the reply.
Can you let all of us know the follwoing:
1. What are the steps involved in to do everything right?
2. Is one of the step "ex employer informing USCIS about the job change has gone through this"?
3. If not then what are the disadvantages or if can't trust employer ?
Please let us know about all the steps involved to switch employer by invoking AC-21?
regards,
waitingmygc
Ok, basic steps
(1) Make sure you have your petitions in the online portfolio.
(2) Make sure you report address changes promptly and they have latest address on file
(3) Try to get a copy of labor or atleast know what skills have been mentioned - remember it has to be similar and does not exactly be the same
(4) Make sure, you work for atleast 180 days with your sponsering employer after filing 485
(5) It is always good to get a 140 approved before you move. Pending 140s though allowed in AC21, maybe kinda risky because if your sponsering employer is having ability to pay issues, or your current employment is not paying proper salary - then you may be subject to ability to pay issues and 140 may never get approved
(6) Always good to inform USCIS of job change via AC21 letter - you must keep a copy and also track fedex and keep proof of delivery
(7) Keep a copy of 140 approval - though it may not be required, but good to keep.
(8) Always expect that your ex employer may revoke your 140 any time - USCIS is now conducting audits and employers may want to kee their records clean, so expect the 140 revoke anytime.
(9) If 485 gets denied, file for a Motion to reopen and immediately open a case problem with Ombudsman's office and keep the motion to reopen receipts
(10) If MTR is getting elayed, contact senators or congressman's office and do a congressional enquiry. Their liason will be more helpful.
(11) Customer service or infopass may never help unless it is address change or fingerprint or name check issues.
dipmay2002
09-07 01:37 PM
Today I completed 10 years in USA and still waiting for GC, PD Dec. 2004 EB3...:confused:
bluekayal
08-23 04:54 PM
Rest easy folks:
Mayorkas said he was determined to “get it right and get it fast.” “The community deserves consistency,” he said. “These are our customers, and we are committed to improving customer service.”
The latest example of the changes wrought by Director Mayorkas is an opportunity to allow the public to comment on interim guidance memorandums before they becomes effective in final form. This type of pre-effective-date chance to comment never happened before with the old INS or the pre-Mayorkas USCIS. The early-peek opportunity for comment allows the agency to withdraw with dignity intact from a position that stakeholders may show is contrary to law or legitimate business practices. For example, USCIS is now accepting comments on a guidance memo with a dry title but a topic of great significance to many prospective green-card applicants with high levels of accomplishment: “Evaluation of Evidentiary Criteria in Certain Form I-140 Petitions.”
This particular guidance memo arises from a debunking the agency received from the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals in Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115, C.A.9 (Cal.), March 04, 2010 (NO. 07-56774). The Court in Kazarian held that USCIS (in this case the Administrative Appeals Office) may not “unilaterally impose novel substantive or evidentiary requirements” without support in the Immigration and Nationality Act or agency regulations.
While Kazarian dealt with EB-1 (extraordinary ability or achievement) green-card eligibility criteria, the interim agency guidance cited extends this also to the EB-2 immigrant visa category for exceptional ability aliens. In my view, USCIS should have issued a guidance memorandum more broadly. Stakeholder feedback should have been issued on a guidance memorandum (which I’d be happy to craft upon request) entitled “Illegality of Unilaterally Imposing Novel Substantive or Evidentiary Requirements.”
Nation of immigrators - A public policy blog on our dysfunctional immigration system � The Dark Sides of Immigration Fame and Anonymity (http://www.nationofimmigrators.com/?p=349)
Mayorkas said he was determined to “get it right and get it fast.” “The community deserves consistency,” he said. “These are our customers, and we are committed to improving customer service.”
The latest example of the changes wrought by Director Mayorkas is an opportunity to allow the public to comment on interim guidance memorandums before they becomes effective in final form. This type of pre-effective-date chance to comment never happened before with the old INS or the pre-Mayorkas USCIS. The early-peek opportunity for comment allows the agency to withdraw with dignity intact from a position that stakeholders may show is contrary to law or legitimate business practices. For example, USCIS is now accepting comments on a guidance memo with a dry title but a topic of great significance to many prospective green-card applicants with high levels of accomplishment: “Evaluation of Evidentiary Criteria in Certain Form I-140 Petitions.”
This particular guidance memo arises from a debunking the agency received from the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals in Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115, C.A.9 (Cal.), March 04, 2010 (NO. 07-56774). The Court in Kazarian held that USCIS (in this case the Administrative Appeals Office) may not “unilaterally impose novel substantive or evidentiary requirements” without support in the Immigration and Nationality Act or agency regulations.
While Kazarian dealt with EB-1 (extraordinary ability or achievement) green-card eligibility criteria, the interim agency guidance cited extends this also to the EB-2 immigrant visa category for exceptional ability aliens. In my view, USCIS should have issued a guidance memorandum more broadly. Stakeholder feedback should have been issued on a guidance memorandum (which I’d be happy to craft upon request) entitled “Illegality of Unilaterally Imposing Novel Substantive or Evidentiary Requirements.”
Nation of immigrators - A public policy blog on our dysfunctional immigration system � The Dark Sides of Immigration Fame and Anonymity (http://www.nationofimmigrators.com/?p=349)
m306m
05-27 08:28 AM
^ to the top ^
No comments:
Post a Comment