sganny
04-08 01:00 AM
no no. This is very true. This happened to my friend's friend.
My friend's friend was visiting my friend and was traveling with his dog. The vo asked my friend's friend what his plan was with the dog. My friend's friend said he was just planning to stay with my friend and take the dog to walk in nearby park where he can poop in the grass and pee on a tire. The vo immediately called my friend and asked if he can take a us dog and have it poop in the park and pee on tire. My friend said yes! And the vo immediately deported my friend's friend along with dog!! :eek: My friend's friend very upset, not in shape to talk about it for 3 months.
Iv should do something about this before too late! ;)
roflmao!!!!
My friend's friend was visiting my friend and was traveling with his dog. The vo asked my friend's friend what his plan was with the dog. My friend's friend said he was just planning to stay with my friend and take the dog to walk in nearby park where he can poop in the grass and pee on a tire. The vo immediately called my friend and asked if he can take a us dog and have it poop in the park and pee on tire. My friend said yes! And the vo immediately deported my friend's friend along with dog!! :eek: My friend's friend very upset, not in shape to talk about it for 3 months.
Iv should do something about this before too late! ;)
roflmao!!!!
wallpaper Completion Date: 1970 (Tower
gc28262
04-10 11:14 AM
Time and again I am telling. EB 3 problem is due to 245(i) cases. Once 245(i) primaries are over, their dependent will come into the picture, who are waiting back home. All 245(i) cases have PD before April 2001. For time being, EB3 I or Mexico move beyond April 01 but again retrogress back to the April 01 when cases are accumulate at CP. This is the reason why EB3 I and Mexico is not moving since last many years.
If some one is not convince with me, request under FOIA
1. How many cases filed under 245(i) in India, Mexico, and ROW
2. How many cases filed under I 824 Follow to Join since 2007?
I agree with your observations except the point that it will retrogress again to 2001.
As dates have moved beyond April 2001, I don't believe there will be any more 245(i) s coming into the queue. Dependents of 245(i) applicants would have a PD of Apr 2001 or before. They already got their GCs by now. 245(i) applicants would have filed for their dependents already. If these 245(i) applicants file for relatives, they WON'T have 2001 PD.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
If some one is not convince with me, request under FOIA
1. How many cases filed under 245(i) in India, Mexico, and ROW
2. How many cases filed under I 824 Follow to Join since 2007?
I agree with your observations except the point that it will retrogress again to 2001.
As dates have moved beyond April 2001, I don't believe there will be any more 245(i) s coming into the queue. Dependents of 245(i) applicants would have a PD of Apr 2001 or before. They already got their GCs by now. 245(i) applicants would have filed for their dependents already. If these 245(i) applicants file for relatives, they WON'T have 2001 PD.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
mbawa2574
02-17 08:51 AM
don't worry my friend.. it's not u.. that dummy has been using this fascist style of discussion on all threads
just ignore him.. it infuriates him like hell.. u'll be amused with his later responses :)
Supporting racism and calling me dummy. you planted b* Go and take a$$ out of here , you don't belong here. You have come out of a gutter to this country and gutter is the only place you deserve.
just ignore him.. it infuriates him like hell.. u'll be amused with his later responses :)
Supporting racism and calling me dummy. you planted b* Go and take a$$ out of here , you don't belong here. You have come out of a gutter to this country and gutter is the only place you deserve.
2011 attack on the Twin Towers
rockstart
08-10 03:43 PM
10th is almost over and I thought we had this trend that when USCIS wants to maintain status quo they publish bulletin early in the month and if the bulletin is delayed there is strong probablity that there will be some positive movement
more...
atleasth1b
08-22 05:13 PM
I am in a very Bad situation it seems, please help.
I am working in US on L1B visa and Wife on L2. then Wife got a Job and her employer filled her 485.
In the mean time I applied for H1 (through a consultant, to get out of the L1B company). Looks like the H1 Got Approved. Now, I think the problem is, If I switch to H1, then she will loose her job and our chance of Getting EAD will go.
I do NOT want to go for H1, but EAD Is important to me. Is there a Way I can keep my L1? (so that my wife can keep her job)
Please help
I am working in US on L1B visa and Wife on L2. then Wife got a Job and her employer filled her 485.
In the mean time I applied for H1 (through a consultant, to get out of the L1B company). Looks like the H1 Got Approved. Now, I think the problem is, If I switch to H1, then she will loose her job and our chance of Getting EAD will go.
I do NOT want to go for H1, but EAD Is important to me. Is there a Way I can keep my L1? (so that my wife can keep her job)
Please help
alex99
10-27 03:10 PM
Please participate in this poll.
more...
feedfront
10-05 03:07 PM
My attorney will be sending it today via USPS overnight mail.
2010 9/11 Attacks Anniversary
pappu
07-24 10:56 AM
I will try to dig out the actual memo. But this is from the oh law firm page:
---
06/17/2007: Flexible RFE/NOID Response Time Rule and Advisory for July EB-485 Filing
* As we advised earlier, the USCIS published a new rule that allows the USCIS to have more discredtion and control over the two issues: One is shortening of the timeframe for responses to RFE from previous 12 weeks to any period of time which they see fit. The second rule is their authority to either reject or deny petitions or applications without issuing RFE where "initial evidence" is missing in the filing. Previously, the so-called Yates memo indirectly required the agency to avoid rejection and denial with a recommend to issue RFEs as much as possible. This part of the Yates memo is overridden by the new rule who took effect yesterday, June 16, 2007. It is thus likely that the Service Centers will more aggressively reject or deny the I-485 applications where the "initial evidence" are missing in the filing packet. It is thus very important that people understand the definition of "initial evidence." The initial evidence varies between the nonimmigrant and immigrant proceedings and for that matter, each type of proceedings. The immigration regulation lists in details the initial evidence. However, the instructions sheets to each petition or application lists the initial evidence that are required for filing. Accordingly, beginning from today, people may want to read the instruction sheet for I-485 form carefully to learn the list of initial evidence and not to miss omitting these evidence in filing I-485 applications.
* One of the initial evidence which is listed is the sealed I-693, the Medical Examination results completed and sealed by the USCIS designated civil surgeons who examined the applicants per the immigration rules. As we reported yesterday, attorneys asked the USCIS authorities to accept I-485 applications without the medical result, but their answer was that they were taking it under advicement but as it stands now, the sealed medical report would be required as initial evidence, accoring to the USCIS authorities who were present at the AILA Annual Conference in Orlando. We understand that in some areas, there are a huge backlog in the physician's clinics for such medical examination. However, people can shop around the authorized physicians in much broader areas. For instance, people usually were asked to schedule such medical examination in the local "district" office where the applicants resided. The definition of "district office" has been broaden lately. Former district offices have been turned into field offices of a district office. Accordingly, people can schedule the medical examination through a physician located outside of their residence if the area falls under the jurisdiction of "district" even if it is outside the jurisdiction of "field office."
---
---
06/17/2007: Flexible RFE/NOID Response Time Rule and Advisory for July EB-485 Filing
* As we advised earlier, the USCIS published a new rule that allows the USCIS to have more discredtion and control over the two issues: One is shortening of the timeframe for responses to RFE from previous 12 weeks to any period of time which they see fit. The second rule is their authority to either reject or deny petitions or applications without issuing RFE where "initial evidence" is missing in the filing. Previously, the so-called Yates memo indirectly required the agency to avoid rejection and denial with a recommend to issue RFEs as much as possible. This part of the Yates memo is overridden by the new rule who took effect yesterday, June 16, 2007. It is thus likely that the Service Centers will more aggressively reject or deny the I-485 applications where the "initial evidence" are missing in the filing packet. It is thus very important that people understand the definition of "initial evidence." The initial evidence varies between the nonimmigrant and immigrant proceedings and for that matter, each type of proceedings. The immigration regulation lists in details the initial evidence. However, the instructions sheets to each petition or application lists the initial evidence that are required for filing. Accordingly, beginning from today, people may want to read the instruction sheet for I-485 form carefully to learn the list of initial evidence and not to miss omitting these evidence in filing I-485 applications.
* One of the initial evidence which is listed is the sealed I-693, the Medical Examination results completed and sealed by the USCIS designated civil surgeons who examined the applicants per the immigration rules. As we reported yesterday, attorneys asked the USCIS authorities to accept I-485 applications without the medical result, but their answer was that they were taking it under advicement but as it stands now, the sealed medical report would be required as initial evidence, accoring to the USCIS authorities who were present at the AILA Annual Conference in Orlando. We understand that in some areas, there are a huge backlog in the physician's clinics for such medical examination. However, people can shop around the authorized physicians in much broader areas. For instance, people usually were asked to schedule such medical examination in the local "district" office where the applicants resided. The definition of "district office" has been broaden lately. Former district offices have been turned into field offices of a district office. Accordingly, people can schedule the medical examination through a physician located outside of their residence if the area falls under the jurisdiction of "district" even if it is outside the jurisdiction of "field office."
---
more...
amar123
07-03 10:27 PM
No one is offended but you might get more info if you pm core.
thank you
That is a valid concern veerug brought up and it would be great if the IV core team can list how IV will complement AILF during this lawsuit.
I understand that it may not be the right time since even now AILF is in the process of identifying a strategy and IV team may not have had time to detail this yet. But, it would help if there is a sticky with this info,probably in the same sticky that pappu posted, URGENT IV Message: Lawsuit and other update, so everyone can understand the motivation and the action items for this.
Regarding the media drive,I believe that we have a better chance of getting more attention if we can get information on the scandal info that USCIS might have gone the extra mile to revoke July bulletin availability dates.
Thanks for this portal for everyone to get organized on immigration issues.
Amar
thank you
That is a valid concern veerug brought up and it would be great if the IV core team can list how IV will complement AILF during this lawsuit.
I understand that it may not be the right time since even now AILF is in the process of identifying a strategy and IV team may not have had time to detail this yet. But, it would help if there is a sticky with this info,probably in the same sticky that pappu posted, URGENT IV Message: Lawsuit and other update, so everyone can understand the motivation and the action items for this.
Regarding the media drive,I believe that we have a better chance of getting more attention if we can get information on the scandal info that USCIS might have gone the extra mile to revoke July bulletin availability dates.
Thanks for this portal for everyone to get organized on immigration issues.
Amar
hair of the Twin Towers: 9
nitinboston
04-09 03:38 PM
same story every month, KLPD
more...
dontcareanymore
08-10 03:04 PM
That means EB2 India/China will see drastic movement this year....may be to end or 2007 or 2008?
Wishful thinking ?:)
Wishful thinking ?:)
hot twin towers
a_yaja
07-09 04:47 PM
I hope this lawsuit fails. Looking ahead this lawsuit, if it succeeds might do us more damage than good. Law of unintended consequences states that something can happen we haven't thought of.
Supposing, if lawsuit goes ahead and wins, one outcome might be - USCIS might start adhering to strict interpretation of 7% per country, or curtail spillovers drastically. Then we are in deep shit.
How can USCIS adher to 7% per country quota when AC21 explicitly says that if visas are still available after allotment to ROW, the remaining visas must spill over to the over subscribed countries?
As a result of failure of this lawsuite, if they start adhering to 7% cap, then they are in violation of AC21. That would be another lawsuite for sure.
Supposing, if lawsuit goes ahead and wins, one outcome might be - USCIS might start adhering to strict interpretation of 7% per country, or curtail spillovers drastically. Then we are in deep shit.
How can USCIS adher to 7% per country quota when AC21 explicitly says that if visas are still available after allotment to ROW, the remaining visas must spill over to the over subscribed countries?
As a result of failure of this lawsuite, if they start adhering to 7% cap, then they are in violation of AC21. That would be another lawsuite for sure.
more...
house Germany. These two girls
optimystic
03-22 09:51 PM
Optimystic!
Did you see any LUDs on your 485 over the past few months?
Thanks,
The latest LUDS on our 485s were around Dec 17 2007. That was around the time we got our AP. No other updates after that.
Did you see any LUDs on your 485 over the past few months?
Thanks,
The latest LUDS on our 485s were around Dec 17 2007. That was around the time we got our AP. No other updates after that.
tattoo makeup pictures Twin Towers
sirinme
11-04 11:37 AM
Nrc2008063524
more...
pictures Twin Towers 9/11 attack
felix31
03-19 11:02 PM
At least you have the option of having consulting comp file your first H1.
There are tons of folks in other non-IT industries that struggle to get an offer 10 months in advance... and get a place in the queue.
the way its set now, only IT people benefit ..
My friend got a teaching position and early contract, but when it came to the h1 visa, school county withdrew the offer. And this was for a shortage occupation too. They would rather go understaffed than file H1. And they did not find anyone else to fil the position.
Nowadays, getting a job and H1 has nothing to do with skills, experience, education etc. It's pure luck of being at the right place in the right time.
I am on H4 for the past 2years and this year I am trying to move to H1. The problem here is no big company responds to my resume.(Mine is not a cooked up resume. I have 6 years of experience and a lot of certifications). The only calls I get is from desi consulting firms. No US staffing firm nor BIG US firm sponsors H1s for first timers like me in US as we don't have US experience. They get their jobs done through consultants on Corp-Corp basis. Sometimes I am getting depressed seeing all this. May be I think I am forced now to go to a consulting firm to get my H1b because they are the only people who sponsor H1s in April to work in October which is 8 months from now. The system has to be revamped otherwise this system is going to exploit a lot of people like me. I cannot wait till we get a green card or work permit because it looks like it is a million years away from now. One thing I understood is that H4 dependents have no rights in this country and they talk about human rights violations elsewhere.
There are tons of folks in other non-IT industries that struggle to get an offer 10 months in advance... and get a place in the queue.
the way its set now, only IT people benefit ..
My friend got a teaching position and early contract, but when it came to the h1 visa, school county withdrew the offer. And this was for a shortage occupation too. They would rather go understaffed than file H1. And they did not find anyone else to fil the position.
Nowadays, getting a job and H1 has nothing to do with skills, experience, education etc. It's pure luck of being at the right place in the right time.
I am on H4 for the past 2years and this year I am trying to move to H1. The problem here is no big company responds to my resume.(Mine is not a cooked up resume. I have 6 years of experience and a lot of certifications). The only calls I get is from desi consulting firms. No US staffing firm nor BIG US firm sponsors H1s for first timers like me in US as we don't have US experience. They get their jobs done through consultants on Corp-Corp basis. Sometimes I am getting depressed seeing all this. May be I think I am forced now to go to a consulting firm to get my H1b because they are the only people who sponsor H1s in April to work in October which is 8 months from now. The system has to be revamped otherwise this system is going to exploit a lot of people like me. I cannot wait till we get a green card or work permit because it looks like it is a million years away from now. One thing I understood is that H4 dependents have no rights in this country and they talk about human rights violations elsewhere.
dresses 9/11: Science and Conspiracy
ek_bechara
04-07 01:49 PM
Can the admins set up a sticky thread for rumors that CANNOT be edited by anybody but the admins themselves. Some people on this forum have way too much time on their hands with the friends friend nonsense. I'm unsure what kick people get out of coming up with putrid talk.
BTW, spreading rumors and creating public fear is a federal offense. Before you post your friends friend story, you might want to think this thing through. Based on your rumor if somebody goes through physical or mental harm, the source of information WILL be traced back to you. At that time your ass is somebody's property will NOT sound like a rumor. Get back to work and do something productive.
If there is any truth to this story then you will see something on murthy.com or other AUTHENTIC immigration portals. If and when that happens, which I highly suspect, we as a community can get together and work through IV and other avenues to address the issue.
Over and out
BTW, spreading rumors and creating public fear is a federal offense. Before you post your friends friend story, you might want to think this thing through. Based on your rumor if somebody goes through physical or mental harm, the source of information WILL be traced back to you. At that time your ass is somebody's property will NOT sound like a rumor. Get back to work and do something productive.
If there is any truth to this story then you will see something on murthy.com or other AUTHENTIC immigration portals. If and when that happens, which I highly suspect, we as a community can get together and work through IV and other avenues to address the issue.
Over and out
more...
makeup twin towers 9 11 attack.
northstar
04-09 05:10 PM
there we go again..... becoz visa bulletin dates did no move.... all of a sudden it means uscis/dos is not doing their job?..... get a grip of u'r self.....
my date if 7th feb-05 & its just days away for over an year.... but i know that blaming uscis/dos won't do a shit for anyone..... becoz that's not where the problem is..... now don't throw bullshit at me.... saying uscis is not efficient blah blah blah..... if uscis is allocating 140K gc per year, that's good enough...... becoz its a wrong goal to setup 100% efficiency with uscis..... we all don't work with our employer 100% becoz we spend time scanning the web..... y do we expect uscis to work 100%....... for me uscis is doing their job if they allocate 140k gc per year...... period..... now stop this non-sense of blaming uscis/dos becoz that sets a wrong target..... the blame/fault for vb and backlog lies with the congress..... the least we can do is identify the source of the problem...... we do people here keep beating down on uscis & dos...... y r we do dumb.....
and all these questions is totally a waste of time...... in the end lets say u get 100% efficiency, what will it get u..... 7 more green cards for a backlog of 1 million..... how stupid is it to get totally blinded by this misguided meaningless talk for 7 visas for a million headless chickens.....
lets continue talking about uscis/dos..... who is next...:mad:
You don't like members blaming CIS, could have said in one line
my date if 7th feb-05 & its just days away for over an year.... but i know that blaming uscis/dos won't do a shit for anyone..... becoz that's not where the problem is..... now don't throw bullshit at me.... saying uscis is not efficient blah blah blah..... if uscis is allocating 140K gc per year, that's good enough...... becoz its a wrong goal to setup 100% efficiency with uscis..... we all don't work with our employer 100% becoz we spend time scanning the web..... y do we expect uscis to work 100%....... for me uscis is doing their job if they allocate 140k gc per year...... period..... now stop this non-sense of blaming uscis/dos becoz that sets a wrong target..... the blame/fault for vb and backlog lies with the congress..... the least we can do is identify the source of the problem...... we do people here keep beating down on uscis & dos...... y r we do dumb.....
and all these questions is totally a waste of time...... in the end lets say u get 100% efficiency, what will it get u..... 7 more green cards for a backlog of 1 million..... how stupid is it to get totally blinded by this misguided meaningless talk for 7 visas for a million headless chickens.....
lets continue talking about uscis/dos..... who is next...:mad:
You don't like members blaming CIS, could have said in one line
girlfriend after the 9/11 attacks.
pappu
07-01 09:32 PM
At this time, IV is analyzing the impact of the speculation around the July visa bulletin closure, and is reaching out to attorneys, including AILA and planning next steps. tomorrow being a working day will also help us get more information and opportunity to reach appropriate levels of government . We will share more information with you as soon as there are developments. In the meanwhile, you should go about business as usual, and file your 485/140 applications as planned.
IMPORTANT: At this time, you are encouraged to update your user profiles on IV with the most current information and the best way to reach you. If we have an urgent action item, we may also send newsletters to all members.
IMPORTANT: At this time, you are encouraged to update your user profiles on IV with the most current information and the best way to reach you. If we have an urgent action item, we may also send newsletters to all members.
hairstyles Random 9/11 Image
andycool
03-16 02:04 PM
141,020 visa numbers used in FY2009
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV.pdf
Look at the last page.
The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is 140,000. So the usage was actually more.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
Hello Desi,
"Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by documentarily qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation, that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may require the establishment of an earlier cut-off date than that which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
Furthermore, Section 202(a)(2) reads, �2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed seven percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or two percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.� The seven percent per-country limit specified in INA 202(a)(2) is considered to be for both Family-sponsored and Employment-based numbers combined.
Allocation of visa numbers under Section 202(e) is accomplished as follows:
1. If based on historical patterns or current demand it appears that during a fiscal year number use by aliens chargeable to a particular country will exceed the per-country numerical limit for both the Family and Employment preferences combined, that country would be considered oversubscribed. Both the Family and Employment preferences would be subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1).
2. Sometimes during a fiscal year it may become apparent that because of a lack of demand in the Family preferences, number use by aliens chargeable to an oversubscribed country will be well within the per-country numerical limit. In such case the excess Family numbers would be made available to the Employment preferences subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1). Each of the first three Employment categories would receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and each of the Fourth and Fifth preference categories 7.1%. (Fall-across would likewise apply if an oversubscribed country lacked sufficient demand in the Employment preferences but had excess demand in the Family preferences.)
If a foreign state other than an oversubscribed country has little Family preference demand but considerable Employment preference demand, the otherwise unused Family numbers fall across to Employment (and vice versa) for purposes of that foreign state�s annual numerical limit. For example, in FY-2009 South Korea used a grand total of 15,899 Family and Employment preference numbers, of which 1,688 were Family numbers and 14,211 were Employment numbers. This grand total was well within the FY-2009 per-country numerical limit of 25,620 Family and Employment numbers combined, so South Korea was not oversubscribed. The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.
This is from April Visa Bulletin , according to this S korea got 14,211 visas from FB ( spill over from FB - EB) then dont you think the total EB visas issued in 2009 should be around 150000 instead of 141000....
I am little confused...
your comment will be greatly appreciated ;)
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV.pdf
Look at the last page.
The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is 140,000. So the usage was actually more.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
Hello Desi,
"Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by documentarily qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation, that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may require the establishment of an earlier cut-off date than that which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
Furthermore, Section 202(a)(2) reads, �2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed seven percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or two percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.� The seven percent per-country limit specified in INA 202(a)(2) is considered to be for both Family-sponsored and Employment-based numbers combined.
Allocation of visa numbers under Section 202(e) is accomplished as follows:
1. If based on historical patterns or current demand it appears that during a fiscal year number use by aliens chargeable to a particular country will exceed the per-country numerical limit for both the Family and Employment preferences combined, that country would be considered oversubscribed. Both the Family and Employment preferences would be subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1).
2. Sometimes during a fiscal year it may become apparent that because of a lack of demand in the Family preferences, number use by aliens chargeable to an oversubscribed country will be well within the per-country numerical limit. In such case the excess Family numbers would be made available to the Employment preferences subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1). Each of the first three Employment categories would receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and each of the Fourth and Fifth preference categories 7.1%. (Fall-across would likewise apply if an oversubscribed country lacked sufficient demand in the Employment preferences but had excess demand in the Family preferences.)
If a foreign state other than an oversubscribed country has little Family preference demand but considerable Employment preference demand, the otherwise unused Family numbers fall across to Employment (and vice versa) for purposes of that foreign state�s annual numerical limit. For example, in FY-2009 South Korea used a grand total of 15,899 Family and Employment preference numbers, of which 1,688 were Family numbers and 14,211 were Employment numbers. This grand total was well within the FY-2009 per-country numerical limit of 25,620 Family and Employment numbers combined, so South Korea was not oversubscribed. The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.
This is from April Visa Bulletin , according to this S korea got 14,211 visas from FB ( spill over from FB - EB) then dont you think the total EB visas issued in 2009 should be around 150000 instead of 141000....
I am little confused...
your comment will be greatly appreciated ;)
StarSun
03-03 11:05 AM
/\/\/\/\
retrohatao
02-14 10:23 AM
eb3_nepa,
FBI/Name check clearance is not a sub-issue. I have posted the link where you find tons of people waiting to get 485 cleared. See the linkif you need to understand the issue
http://immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=174845
It is not a sub issue and it is part of the green card process. I lament ( for lack of an apt word) your compariosn of name check to spouses not able to work.
You will realize how big a problem when you reach there.
Logiclife,
This forum has started recently and did not address "name check" as an issue. Its one of the burning issues for many of us ( most likely will impact all those who just want to clear the hurdle of labour clearnace). Believe, I was stuck in labor for 2 years ( due to Bush adminstration's decision to leagalize illegals) and I really thought that labor was the only hurdle. Atleast you could contact USCIS to track your progress. Now I am stuck in security clearance AKA name check. Now I am in totallly in darkness and nowhere to check what is happenning. FBI used to repond to e-mails( 6 months wait period)/phone messages two years ago.Now they have totally stopped it.
There are many like me and it is not just individual cases. Even at the bottom of my heart I feel those who are in labor stage whom you are representing should not have to face it. But the be realistic and I would see 80% of those in current labor would get stuck at this name check process unless some measure are taken by us.
Good luck if you guys think it is a "sub issue"
FBI/Name check clearance is not a sub-issue. I have posted the link where you find tons of people waiting to get 485 cleared. See the linkif you need to understand the issue
http://immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=174845
It is not a sub issue and it is part of the green card process. I lament ( for lack of an apt word) your compariosn of name check to spouses not able to work.
You will realize how big a problem when you reach there.
Logiclife,
This forum has started recently and did not address "name check" as an issue. Its one of the burning issues for many of us ( most likely will impact all those who just want to clear the hurdle of labour clearnace). Believe, I was stuck in labor for 2 years ( due to Bush adminstration's decision to leagalize illegals) and I really thought that labor was the only hurdle. Atleast you could contact USCIS to track your progress. Now I am stuck in security clearance AKA name check. Now I am in totallly in darkness and nowhere to check what is happenning. FBI used to repond to e-mails( 6 months wait period)/phone messages two years ago.Now they have totally stopped it.
There are many like me and it is not just individual cases. Even at the bottom of my heart I feel those who are in labor stage whom you are representing should not have to face it. But the be realistic and I would see 80% of those in current labor would get stuck at this name check process unless some measure are taken by us.
Good luck if you guys think it is a "sub issue"