eb_retrogession
01-05 02:46 PM
All,
Its good to see some of the Very active members of s-1932 again in this site.
This site looks very good, I followed the S1932 thread in immigration.com very closely, but was disappointed after its defeat inspite all the guys aggressive enthu and hardwork. As most people i too feel that we failed because of lack of Lobbying. If everyone can contribute for noble cause that will be great. I have a small suggestion I am not sure whether it sounds right to everyone or not, but in order to start collecting the funds i would suggest that Moderator open a new thread/link about the contributions so that members who are joining eveyday in this forum will get the momentum to contribute. It would be good if it has name(Registered name), amount and date and the sum collected so far. This is just my suggestion if it sounds illogic please disregard.
Thanks
gc_maine,
Your suggestions are welcome. We have also received requests wherein people don't want their contributions disclosed. Anyway since this is a voluntary donation, we will post some kind of overall numbers in terms of collections versus target which should help.
Hope that helps the premise of your suggestion
Its good to see some of the Very active members of s-1932 again in this site.
This site looks very good, I followed the S1932 thread in immigration.com very closely, but was disappointed after its defeat inspite all the guys aggressive enthu and hardwork. As most people i too feel that we failed because of lack of Lobbying. If everyone can contribute for noble cause that will be great. I have a small suggestion I am not sure whether it sounds right to everyone or not, but in order to start collecting the funds i would suggest that Moderator open a new thread/link about the contributions so that members who are joining eveyday in this forum will get the momentum to contribute. It would be good if it has name(Registered name), amount and date and the sum collected so far. This is just my suggestion if it sounds illogic please disregard.
Thanks
gc_maine,
Your suggestions are welcome. We have also received requests wherein people don't want their contributions disclosed. Anyway since this is a voluntary donation, we will post some kind of overall numbers in terms of collections versus target which should help.
Hope that helps the premise of your suggestion
wallpaper GOLD COAST
anilsal
01-26 12:24 AM
http://www.britainusa.com/visas/articles_show_nt1.asp?i=65025&L1=41000&a=41448
mallu
01-24 11:58 AM
Fly from SFO --> HongKong --> Singapore --> India . No transit visa needed anywhere. Inflight desi food available. Ticket is pricey.
2011 Gold Coast,. Queensland
fatjoe
10-05 01:58 PM
Some of us with 2004 are still waiting.
Hi vikki76, bpositive, dipika, caliguy, leoindiano:
If I am correct, your PDs are current, right? Do you guys know if your case was pre-adjudicated and/or assigned to an IO? I keep reading from the forums that some apps with PDs as late as Dec 2004 and a couple of Jan 2005 got approved. Wondering why the earlier (eg. mine is July 04) not approved yet. Could we all join togther and write a letter to Napolitino(Thanks to SoP for the idea) and ask her to take some action on our cases?
Hi vikki76, bpositive, dipika, caliguy, leoindiano:
If I am correct, your PDs are current, right? Do you guys know if your case was pre-adjudicated and/or assigned to an IO? I keep reading from the forums that some apps with PDs as late as Dec 2004 and a couple of Jan 2005 got approved. Wondering why the earlier (eg. mine is July 04) not approved yet. Could we all join togther and write a letter to Napolitino(Thanks to SoP for the idea) and ask her to take some action on our cases?
more...
ab_tak_chappan
08-20 11:58 PM
Guys why dont you get it??? :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
EB1 is the most imp for US, followed by EB2, followed by EB3?
Why should USCIS follow the approach of oldest priority first? without any regards to the EB categories?
EB categories were created for a reason, doesn't matter how smart you are. If you are in lower skill category your wait is bound to be more. I don't see anything wrong in that.
If EB1 is current and EB2 takes 4-5 years you can't just start crying. Similarly if EB2 takes 2 years and Eb3 takes 7-8 years you can't panic. Stop being a cry baby and start respecting the inter EB level priority.
EB1 is the most imp for US, followed by EB2, followed by EB3?
Why should USCIS follow the approach of oldest priority first? without any regards to the EB categories?
EB categories were created for a reason, doesn't matter how smart you are. If you are in lower skill category your wait is bound to be more. I don't see anything wrong in that.
If EB1 is current and EB2 takes 4-5 years you can't just start crying. Similarly if EB2 takes 2 years and Eb3 takes 7-8 years you can't panic. Stop being a cry baby and start respecting the inter EB level priority.
ilikekilo
07-31 07:43 PM
thanks for putting this up...
more...
girijas
09-09 12:58 PM
There have been threads and posts about IOs indicating that everyone will become current. The fact of the matter is - there is no substance/proof/backing - even from the lawyers regarding the validity of those statements. For all you know, this might have been started by groups/people who want us to become complacent.
So DO call.............else the bills stand a good chance of losing out.
And even assuming the rumors are true with a 0.00001% probability.........you don't really lose anything much by calling. But if you don't call, we still stand a chance (with 99.9999% probability) of losing out.
Honestly; this might be our last chance. If the next president is a Democrat, it is quite possible that illegals might get amnesty in huge numbers. Companies hiring H1s might get taxed at a higher rate. Irrespective of who comes to power, the next president could clamp down on legal immigration in the name of Change. Remember, the illegals (their legal relations) form a larger vote bank. Nothing else matters as far as politicians are concerned.
So DO call.............else the bills stand a good chance of losing out.
And even assuming the rumors are true with a 0.00001% probability.........you don't really lose anything much by calling. But if you don't call, we still stand a chance (with 99.9999% probability) of losing out.
Honestly; this might be our last chance. If the next president is a Democrat, it is quite possible that illegals might get amnesty in huge numbers. Companies hiring H1s might get taxed at a higher rate. Irrespective of who comes to power, the next president could clamp down on legal immigration in the name of Change. Remember, the illegals (their legal relations) form a larger vote bank. Nothing else matters as far as politicians are concerned.
2010 gold coast queensland
sc3
08-21 01:13 AM
Hi guys,
Sorry, I bit the bait and got off track. Let us focus on the issue again. Let us agree on a time line and act accordingly.
I would say, this week we work on drafting the letter (I took a shot at it, available @ page 2). Having 2 or 3 differently worded letter would probably be nice, but not necessarily.
Next week we start mailing the letters. We have about 500 responses in the poll for EB3, so if we can get most of them to send the mail (email/fax whatever), it should be a start.
We probably should start drafting a mail for our representatives/senators too, so that they too can follow up with USCIS.
We will face a lot of opposition, ridicule and nasty posts, but we should persevere if we want to get our GCs any time soon.
Sorry, I bit the bait and got off track. Let us focus on the issue again. Let us agree on a time line and act accordingly.
I would say, this week we work on drafting the letter (I took a shot at it, available @ page 2). Having 2 or 3 differently worded letter would probably be nice, but not necessarily.
Next week we start mailing the letters. We have about 500 responses in the poll for EB3, so if we can get most of them to send the mail (email/fax whatever), it should be a start.
We probably should start drafting a mail for our representatives/senators too, so that they too can follow up with USCIS.
We will face a lot of opposition, ridicule and nasty posts, but we should persevere if we want to get our GCs any time soon.
more...
spdy_mn
06-29 06:19 PM
Man this is Federal government dude and more over part of DHS. This is not a privately owned corrupted company where they can dick around with people.
Govt agencies are more susceptible to bungling things than private companies. I can quote numerous examples but that will take the discussion away from the core subject.
Govt agencies are more susceptible to bungling things than private companies. I can quote numerous examples but that will take the discussion away from the core subject.
hair pictures gold coast queensland
lazycis
10-16 08:55 PM
One idea is to give GC to AOS applicants regardless of namecheck result, if all
other security checks are OK and let the namecheck run in background . If the namecheck turns out critical , cancel the GC & deport the applicant.
But USCIS and lawyers will loose big time , because of reduced demand for APs,EADs etc.
This is exactly as Congress intended it to be. There is no mandatory requirement to complete NC before GC can be issued in the INA. There is a provision to cancel GC in the INA.
other security checks are OK and let the namecheck run in background . If the namecheck turns out critical , cancel the GC & deport the applicant.
But USCIS and lawyers will loose big time , because of reduced demand for APs,EADs etc.
This is exactly as Congress intended it to be. There is no mandatory requirement to complete NC before GC can be issued in the INA. There is a provision to cancel GC in the INA.
more...
test101
10-05 02:22 PM
Hi
I just spoke to a very nice IO. I asked about my name check , she said that it's pendig and FBI name check is 9 months behind the scheduale. That all the information she gave me.
does everybody go through FBI check name or only a percentage?
I just spoke to a very nice IO. I asked about my name check , she said that it's pendig and FBI name check is 9 months behind the scheduale. That all the information she gave me.
does everybody go through FBI check name or only a percentage?
hot gold coast queensland
ras
01-11 09:24 PM
IV has provided a template for the members to get a print out sign it and send it to IV address so as to be forwarded to the President
Many people have been responding to this and is a good sign. However there are few more lazy folks who doesn't have patience to download, take print out and send it to IV. For these guys, how about creating an online form with the same template and an ability to modify the template as well plus the provision to provide the Name and address and such details that make the letter personal. Once this form is filled and take a print out, put it an envelope and send it to the President. This is some thing similer to online petition except that it is customized to provide the personal details. This is jus to motivate even those lazy guys!!!!
Does this sound any good???
Many people have been responding to this and is a good sign. However there are few more lazy folks who doesn't have patience to download, take print out and send it to IV. For these guys, how about creating an online form with the same template and an ability to modify the template as well plus the provision to provide the Name and address and such details that make the letter personal. Once this form is filled and take a print out, put it an envelope and send it to the President. This is some thing similer to online petition except that it is customized to provide the personal details. This is jus to motivate even those lazy guys!!!!
Does this sound any good???
more...
house gold coast queensland
mk26
03-31 08:44 AM
Looks like this year USCIS understood they need some money and accept some extra applications, which may be the same file I485 when PD is not current. and date might go to end of 2007.
Just a thought
Just a thought
tattoo Old Caves Winery
whitecollarslave
01-14 06:18 PM
Do you belong to a state chapter?. If you have not joined a state chapter yet please let us know your residing state and we will direct you to the appropriate state chapter. State Chapter's can provide information related to all EB issues we are working on. Thanks
Thanks! I am in Virginia.
Thanks to needhelp for the reference.
Is it advisable to include a reference to the Ombudsman report in the letter to the President? I am talking about the earlier mentioned reference on page 33 stating that "since 1994 there have been over 218,000 un-recaptured employment-based visas lost due to underutilization of the employment-based visas."
Thanks! I am in Virginia.
Thanks to needhelp for the reference.
Is it advisable to include a reference to the Ombudsman report in the letter to the President? I am talking about the earlier mentioned reference on page 33 stating that "since 1994 there have been over 218,000 un-recaptured employment-based visas lost due to underutilization of the employment-based visas."
more...
pictures Queensland
nrk
08-16 12:23 PM
approvals slowed down or what??.
i don't see one today.
i don't see one today.
dresses GOLD COAST
BharatPremi
09-24 04:39 PM
I don't get how you are getting the 8008 figure. Based on the 9%, you are right about the cap for any country being 12,600 for all EB categories combined.
Pre-adjudication has nothing to do with country quota. And 'assigning a number' is still based on country quota. With all the pre-adjudication, it is likely that 'assigned numbers' = GC approvals. The 'assigned numbers' concept was a lot more relevant till last year, when they had numbers, but still had to 'process' the applications. Now most applications seem to have been 'pre-processed'(pre-adjudicated)
I do appreciate your work. Just trying to help achieve a more accurate figure.
1) Each (EB1/2/3) - 28.6% WW quota = 40040
2) 5 subscription cataegories under each EB category: I,P,C,M,ROW
3) Assumption - USCIS distributes equal share among these 5 different subscription categories = 40040/5 =8008 in each EB category for a particular subscription category.
Example:
EB3 All = 40040 ( 0.286 x 140000)
EB3 ALL = EB3 I + EB3 C + EB3 M + EB3 P + EB3 ROW
Assuming equal share of all of these 5 subscription categories - 40040/5 = 8008 applications to be worked for "Assigning the visa number" not " for granting the visa (IN other words physical greencard order)"
7% + 2% = 9% country specific limit is meant for "Granting the visa - Ordering Physical Green card" out of "Applications which have been assigned a visa number" NOT FOR "Assigning the visa number"
Pre-adjudication has nothing to do with country quota. And 'assigning a number' is still based on country quota. With all the pre-adjudication, it is likely that 'assigned numbers' = GC approvals. The 'assigned numbers' concept was a lot more relevant till last year, when they had numbers, but still had to 'process' the applications. Now most applications seem to have been 'pre-processed'(pre-adjudicated)
I do appreciate your work. Just trying to help achieve a more accurate figure.
1) Each (EB1/2/3) - 28.6% WW quota = 40040
2) 5 subscription cataegories under each EB category: I,P,C,M,ROW
3) Assumption - USCIS distributes equal share among these 5 different subscription categories = 40040/5 =8008 in each EB category for a particular subscription category.
Example:
EB3 All = 40040 ( 0.286 x 140000)
EB3 ALL = EB3 I + EB3 C + EB3 M + EB3 P + EB3 ROW
Assuming equal share of all of these 5 subscription categories - 40040/5 = 8008 applications to be worked for "Assigning the visa number" not " for granting the visa (IN other words physical greencard order)"
7% + 2% = 9% country specific limit is meant for "Granting the visa - Ordering Physical Green card" out of "Applications which have been assigned a visa number" NOT FOR "Assigning the visa number"
more...
makeup makeup on Beach, Gold Coast, gold coast queensland australia caves. an
kvrr
08-17 09:09 AM
All,
Received CPO mail today for self, wife and son.
EB2 - India PD Oct 24 2005. NSC
I-485 receipt date: Sept 14 2007.
Opened SR on 08/09/2010
Received CPO mail today for self, wife and son.
EB2 - India PD Oct 24 2005. NSC
I-485 receipt date: Sept 14 2007.
Opened SR on 08/09/2010
girlfriend gold coast queensland australia caves. Quik Pro Gold Coast 2011 - Day
needhelp!
09-09 05:55 PM
List has been updated with IV members' feedback.
Lets continue calling.
Lets continue calling.
hairstyles 2010 gold coast queensland
goel_ar
04-06 06:16 PM
This needs to be advertised on the forums here or on the home page. Most people don't know what IV's expenses are.
A generic breakdown of costs, without going into specifics, would help members understand the expenses and provide some transparency.
It may even motivate new members to contribute more :)
I completely agree !!!
A generic breakdown of costs, without going into specifics, would help members understand the expenses and provide some transparency.
It may even motivate new members to contribute more :)
I completely agree !!!
ab_tak_chappan
08-21 12:04 AM
You sure are one of those cry babies :D:D
Good luck buddy with your endeavors!
Well sir, let me disabuse you of that notion. Eb3-other workers is ahead of EB3, and that in itself flies in the face of your assertions.
Why should USCIS approach oldest priority first? Well because that is how the law is. The law only affords you the initial set of numbers all the spill-over numbers from another category is supposed to be used in a FIFO manner.
You have made other comments about being cry-babies etc, I could respond to that in more than kind, but I will not, because I refuse to get distracted beyond sane arguments. And BTW: respect, not unlike trust, is to be gained, not asked to be followed.
Good luck buddy with your endeavors!
Well sir, let me disabuse you of that notion. Eb3-other workers is ahead of EB3, and that in itself flies in the face of your assertions.
Why should USCIS approach oldest priority first? Well because that is how the law is. The law only affords you the initial set of numbers all the spill-over numbers from another category is supposed to be used in a FIFO manner.
You have made other comments about being cry-babies etc, I could respond to that in more than kind, but I will not, because I refuse to get distracted beyond sane arguments. And BTW: respect, not unlike trust, is to be gained, not asked to be followed.
BharatPremi
09-24 05:17 PM
Number 2) and hence number 3) are definitely wrong.
As I mentioned in my other post, the categorisation for I,P,C,M and ROW is based on the fact that I,P,C,M are the only countries with demand exceeding the annual limit.
ROW = All countries not hitting the 7%(or 9%) country limit. That doesn't mean they are capped at X/5. What would be the basis of that cap.
Assuming USCIS acts like it is supposed to, follows all rules etc........They start using new numbers on Oct1st of the new FY with a fresh slate of 140k available.
Now by law, they will first divide the cap into the 5 EB categories -EB1, EB2, EB3, EB4 and EB5. Now once they reach the 7%(or 9) cap in any of the categories, they will have to stop assigning numbers for that country. So for EB3, once they reach the 7 or 9% quota for I,C,M,P - they will need to stop. The rest of the countries(ROW) will get the 100 - (7 x 4) = 72% of the quota. This could be divied up between UK, France, Pak, Germany etc etc. As none of them are going over the 7%, the country cap doesn't affect them. But Since there are a lot of apps under EB3-ROW, there's never any number to spill over to the capped countries.
In case of EB2, only 2 countries hit the cap - India and China. In this case even P and M are part of ROW. But since the apps from ROW is less than the remaining quota of (100 - 7 x 2)% of the EB2 quota, the remaining will be spilled over. The spillover rules will determine who these go to.
The way the current spillover rules stand, your final calculations will still hold true for EB2 due to the spillover ultimately remaining the same to EB2. But not for EB3.
This is not the correct understanding. I know this myth is propogated millions of times in millions of board and so now this myth has become "truth" for millions. But that is not the correct way USCIS does things.
Country specific limit - 9% does NOT have any realtion to "assigning numbers". it is just meant to "approve 485 - mail you a real physical green card".
In ROW cataegory other countries are also bound with this 9 (7 + 2) % limit for Visa granting. For an example - For Pakistan USCIS will never grant more than 9% visa per year no matter how many applications from Pakistan have been assigned a valid visa number. Same will go true for Britain or any "other" country.
In reality How USCIS divide 28.6% among countires - That is unknown mystery and nobody surely know that. And that is why I had to assume "equal shares - 5 part" in my analysis assuming USCIS works fairly but we all know that is a bullshit too :)
As I mentioned in my other post, the categorisation for I,P,C,M and ROW is based on the fact that I,P,C,M are the only countries with demand exceeding the annual limit.
ROW = All countries not hitting the 7%(or 9%) country limit. That doesn't mean they are capped at X/5. What would be the basis of that cap.
Assuming USCIS acts like it is supposed to, follows all rules etc........They start using new numbers on Oct1st of the new FY with a fresh slate of 140k available.
Now by law, they will first divide the cap into the 5 EB categories -EB1, EB2, EB3, EB4 and EB5. Now once they reach the 7%(or 9) cap in any of the categories, they will have to stop assigning numbers for that country. So for EB3, once they reach the 7 or 9% quota for I,C,M,P - they will need to stop. The rest of the countries(ROW) will get the 100 - (7 x 4) = 72% of the quota. This could be divied up between UK, France, Pak, Germany etc etc. As none of them are going over the 7%, the country cap doesn't affect them. But Since there are a lot of apps under EB3-ROW, there's never any number to spill over to the capped countries.
In case of EB2, only 2 countries hit the cap - India and China. In this case even P and M are part of ROW. But since the apps from ROW is less than the remaining quota of (100 - 7 x 2)% of the EB2 quota, the remaining will be spilled over. The spillover rules will determine who these go to.
The way the current spillover rules stand, your final calculations will still hold true for EB2 due to the spillover ultimately remaining the same to EB2. But not for EB3.
This is not the correct understanding. I know this myth is propogated millions of times in millions of board and so now this myth has become "truth" for millions. But that is not the correct way USCIS does things.
Country specific limit - 9% does NOT have any realtion to "assigning numbers". it is just meant to "approve 485 - mail you a real physical green card".
In ROW cataegory other countries are also bound with this 9 (7 + 2) % limit for Visa granting. For an example - For Pakistan USCIS will never grant more than 9% visa per year no matter how many applications from Pakistan have been assigned a valid visa number. Same will go true for Britain or any "other" country.
In reality How USCIS divide 28.6% among countires - That is unknown mystery and nobody surely know that. And that is why I had to assume "equal shares - 5 part" in my analysis assuming USCIS works fairly but we all know that is a bullshit too :)
No comments:
Post a Comment