whattodo21
01-04 09:14 AM
Got approval and card on time! Collectively everything worked out. Got EAD for 2 years.
There was talk about combining EAD and AP - did it happen and how does one file for it?
There was talk about combining EAD and AP - did it happen and how does one file for it?
wallpaper Also calledmy friend poems
ryan
06-10 12:43 PM
You can make whatever you like of the current situtation, but let me tell you something.
There is a HUGE difference between being TOLERATED and BEING LIKED.
I am sure you have the intelligence to see the difference.
You can "tolerate" someone you don't like, but you can not "welcome" someone whom you don't like. I for one, donlt want to be in the "tolerated" category.
And may I ask, what exactly is your definition of hostility? Being chased down the street by a bunch of thugs, who think you should be in their country, or the kind of passive hostility being practised as of now?
Quite honestly, if that is how you feel - perhaps you'd need to reconsider relocating to your home nation. I'm Indian, who grew up in the Middle East. I've lived in the United States for 6 years. I've always felt quite welcome and accepted in every way possible. I believe I've been treated fairly and have had the opportunity to live with Americans and contribute in positive ways. I continue to live here, primarily based on these sentiments. I'd never live here if I felt the way you do now.
There is a HUGE difference between being TOLERATED and BEING LIKED.
I am sure you have the intelligence to see the difference.
You can "tolerate" someone you don't like, but you can not "welcome" someone whom you don't like. I for one, donlt want to be in the "tolerated" category.
And may I ask, what exactly is your definition of hostility? Being chased down the street by a bunch of thugs, who think you should be in their country, or the kind of passive hostility being practised as of now?
Quite honestly, if that is how you feel - perhaps you'd need to reconsider relocating to your home nation. I'm Indian, who grew up in the Middle East. I've lived in the United States for 6 years. I've always felt quite welcome and accepted in every way possible. I believe I've been treated fairly and have had the opportunity to live with Americans and contribute in positive ways. I continue to live here, primarily based on these sentiments. I'd never live here if I felt the way you do now.
Dipika
01-12 02:29 PM
If preganent before starting insurance, then you won't get covered by most insurance comapny.
In this case Hospital charge very high for delivery.
But certain hospital provides package, like $3500 for Noraml Delivery and 2 days stay with including every month visiting doctor for checkup. if C-section then pay $1000 more to pay etc. I had pass throgh this for my first kid, but i'm living in NJ.
If Insurance is started b4 preganency then it will get covered.
In this case Hospital charge very high for delivery.
But certain hospital provides package, like $3500 for Noraml Delivery and 2 days stay with including every month visiting doctor for checkup. if C-section then pay $1000 more to pay etc. I had pass throgh this for my first kid, but i'm living in NJ.
If Insurance is started b4 preganency then it will get covered.
2011 certain poems like friends
glus
06-20 07:24 AM
in short ,,they stop processing ur case once ur date rerogresses....!!!
Hi,
With all the respect this is not true; at least not all the time. As far as I know, and according to my observations, I485s are being pre-adjucated even if their priority dates are not current. They seem to work on such I 485s as far as they can, and once their priority dates become current, the USCIS information system flags them so that they can be adjucated. Sometimes, however, it takes a few months since USCIS has a backlog of I485s and some of the things like FPs must be done again. I have at least 2 friends who got approval a month after their PDs became current. In fact, on of them got a 3FP notice right after his PD became current, and 2 weeks later received the approval.
I think it all depends on many factors, but I would not agree with your statement that USCIS stops 485 processing once the PD retrogresses.
Regards,
Hi,
With all the respect this is not true; at least not all the time. As far as I know, and according to my observations, I485s are being pre-adjucated even if their priority dates are not current. They seem to work on such I 485s as far as they can, and once their priority dates become current, the USCIS information system flags them so that they can be adjucated. Sometimes, however, it takes a few months since USCIS has a backlog of I485s and some of the things like FPs must be done again. I have at least 2 friends who got approval a month after their PDs became current. In fact, on of them got a 3FP notice right after his PD became current, and 2 weeks later received the approval.
I think it all depends on many factors, but I would not agree with your statement that USCIS stops 485 processing once the PD retrogresses.
Regards,
more...
singhsa3
02-12 12:11 PM
Unfortunately, this will require change in Law and is not an Admin Fix
I request everybody to add one line in the letter for Consular processing filers as they should be allowed to get AC21 and EAD facilities now. This law came earlier only for 485 filers because CP process was fast but now due to retrogession all CP filers are waiting for Years and in the worst sitauation as 485 filers are enjoying their freedom with AC21 and EAD
Immmigration Voice I'll appreciate if you could add this agenda in you campaign letter.
Thanks
I request everybody to add one line in the letter for Consular processing filers as they should be allowed to get AC21 and EAD facilities now. This law came earlier only for 485 filers because CP process was fast but now due to retrogession all CP filers are waiting for Years and in the worst sitauation as 485 filers are enjoying their freedom with AC21 and EAD
Immmigration Voice I'll appreciate if you could add this agenda in you campaign letter.
Thanks
Pineapple
05-10 09:26 PM
There is something seriously wrong here.....one gets red dots for even simply truthfully recording answers to some questions asked by administrator......or are the red dots simply to protest/ express displeasure with the fact that my GC process was not as difficult as some other people.......its like "misery likes company" - i am miserable bcos i dont have a GC and hence am pissed off at this guy who despite not being crazy about GC got his in 7 months.........so i will give him red dots..............
Guys - get over it.........look at the general tone of posts from all on this particular thread - GC did not make any "big" change to most folks.......
For the more rational beings - i genuinely hope that you get your gcs within reasonable wait times and the waiting time does not take away from the personal and professional successes you deserve!
I gave you a green, if that helps.. perhaps someone did not notice the EB category in your signature. In any case, I agree it was unfair.
I hope you will stay engaged with the IV community, and help the rest of us in achieving our goals. We need everyone, not just those waiting for a GC, in this effort.
Guys - get over it.........look at the general tone of posts from all on this particular thread - GC did not make any "big" change to most folks.......
For the more rational beings - i genuinely hope that you get your gcs within reasonable wait times and the waiting time does not take away from the personal and professional successes you deserve!
I gave you a green, if that helps.. perhaps someone did not notice the EB category in your signature. In any case, I agree it was unfair.
I hope you will stay engaged with the IV community, and help the rest of us in achieving our goals. We need everyone, not just those waiting for a GC, in this effort.
more...
GCKarma
07-04 09:28 PM
4000$ :mad:
2010 funny best friend poems. funny
eb3_nepa
06-05 11:44 AM
Even as it stands RIGHT NOW without the "New AC21 Rules", you cannot use AC21 unless your I-140 is approved. The basic principle of AC21 is "If your I-140 is APPROVED AND your I-485 application has been pending for more than 180 days" you can switch jobs and not lose anything.
more...
anda007
07-07 02:23 AM
Nothing against IV. I really think, that they are doin a great job
But why do u have to care about whether IV endorses this or not. If you think this is a great idea, go ahead and send the flowers urself.
I know alot of my friends, who do not care or know about IV, but have got the email chain and sent flowers on their own
So Don't make excuses. Send it on you own
It'll be nice if the core endorsed it. We members do contribute and participate in all campaigns when core asks. It'll be great if the core lets the ideas bubble up from members too! That'll make it a two way street.
But why do u have to care about whether IV endorses this or not. If you think this is a great idea, go ahead and send the flowers urself.
I know alot of my friends, who do not care or know about IV, but have got the email chain and sent flowers on their own
So Don't make excuses. Send it on you own
It'll be nice if the core endorsed it. We members do contribute and participate in all campaigns when core asks. It'll be great if the core lets the ideas bubble up from members too! That'll make it a two way street.
hair wallpaper sorry poems for mums. sorry poems for mums. dresses free for mom
jonty_11
06-04 06:25 PM
only reason USCIS can afford to do it is becoz they are not accountable (As we are not a vote bank)...
But with IV on our side, we can make them streamline their procedures and work efficiently - whcih has never been a priority.
But with IV on our side, we can make them streamline their procedures and work efficiently - whcih has never been a priority.
more...
satish_hello
12-07 10:19 AM
I am still waiting for FP, i created SR, hey told i have to wait for 4-6 weeks, which is already over.
I took infopass, my name check is clear, No info abt the FP Notice.
Any one in same situation transfered cases from NSC-->CSC-->NSC not yet received FP yet.
satish
----------------------------------------------
EB2/PD-Sept'2004/I-140 Approved.
I-485 - Sent July5th. - Transferred ---> WAC ---> back to NSC
EAD- Card Received
AP - Approved.
NC- Cleared
FP-?
AD -?
---------------------------------
I took infopass, my name check is clear, No info abt the FP Notice.
Any one in same situation transfered cases from NSC-->CSC-->NSC not yet received FP yet.
satish
----------------------------------------------
EB2/PD-Sept'2004/I-140 Approved.
I-485 - Sent July5th. - Transferred ---> WAC ---> back to NSC
EAD- Card Received
AP - Approved.
NC- Cleared
FP-?
AD -?
---------------------------------
hot house sorry poems for mums; sorry poems for mums. nice poems for mums. sorry
ramaonline
11-29 06:43 PM
From ILW:
FBI name check delays that have stalled benefit applications may soon be a thing of the past. We understand that the Executive branch will soon provide name check clearances within a prescribed amount of time. If the clearance is not completed within the designated timeframe, the benefit will be approved by USCIS while the FBI continues to work on the security process in parallel. The rationale to move tothis new process is not just better customer service for benefits applicants but also because it will enhance national security(our security demands that the bad guys be apprehended, not merely be denied immigration benefits). The background for this change of heart by the Executive branch is the fact that many federal courts have been coming down hard on excessive name checkdelays by the FBI. In fact, not only have some courts ordered expedited name check completions but in some cases courts have suggested that the courts have and would use their authority to adjudicate petitions if the Executive branch could not get itsact together. The attorneys and litigants who have sought federal court relief over these last several years deserve credit forforcing the Executive branch to adopt a more effective policy in this area (when it does happen, hopefully very soon).
=======================
Note: These details may be true. Last month we had heard such information but not in detail and thus had not posted it. We were hoping to get this news within 6-8 weeks (As per oour note on http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=14749). There are efforts to make name checks current and that is good news for everyone waiting for several years in the namecheck blackhole. It will also help recent applicants who might be getting into this problem.
IV wants to thank all its members who took up this issue with their lawmakers and also contacted Ombudsman's office to solve this issue.
- IV Team
FBI name check delays that have stalled benefit applications may soon be a thing of the past. We understand that the Executive branch will soon provide name check clearances within a prescribed amount of time. If the clearance is not completed within the designated timeframe, the benefit will be approved by USCIS while the FBI continues to work on the security process in parallel. The rationale to move tothis new process is not just better customer service for benefits applicants but also because it will enhance national security(our security demands that the bad guys be apprehended, not merely be denied immigration benefits). The background for this change of heart by the Executive branch is the fact that many federal courts have been coming down hard on excessive name checkdelays by the FBI. In fact, not only have some courts ordered expedited name check completions but in some cases courts have suggested that the courts have and would use their authority to adjudicate petitions if the Executive branch could not get itsact together. The attorneys and litigants who have sought federal court relief over these last several years deserve credit forforcing the Executive branch to adopt a more effective policy in this area (when it does happen, hopefully very soon).
=======================
Note: These details may be true. Last month we had heard such information but not in detail and thus had not posted it. We were hoping to get this news within 6-8 weeks (As per oour note on http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=14749). There are efforts to make name checks current and that is good news for everyone waiting for several years in the namecheck blackhole. It will also help recent applicants who might be getting into this problem.
IV wants to thank all its members who took up this issue with their lawmakers and also contacted Ombudsman's office to solve this issue.
- IV Team
more...
house sorry poems for mums. dresses sorry poems for mums.
jitnair
08-05 09:50 PM
But consider this: I just posted this in the approval thread:
Looking at the overall approval trend in IV, , Murthy forum etc it is clear to me that FIFO is out of the door and in most likelihood low hanging fruit is being plucked from the tree. At the next Ombudsman call I am going to raise the issue of USCIS's declared commitment to FIFO but actions that seem completely contrary to it.
Obviously anonymous postings in open forums cannot be presented as evidence but one can certainly request the Ombudsman's office to ask for monthly 485 approval statistics and the cat will be out of the bag. By the time the wheels of Goverment bureaucracy move it might be a month or two before this data is made available to the Ombudsman's Office; forget the applicants - that will be like asking for the moon.
Regardless of whether I get approved or not in the next month or two; from a process perspective a monthly approval report going from the USCIS to the Ombudsman's Office each month should hopefully force them to stop this stonewalling and walk the talk.
This will not only help EB2s down the line but spare a thought for next year when EB2 is current, EB3 has a cut off of June 1, 2006 and we start seeing May 2006 EB3 approvals when 2001/02 EB3s are still pending. Again I welcome suggestions but the focus of my effort is going to be the approval process rather than a personal case or two.
Agree - Only solution is to process by PD, rather than anyother dates - Also the PD porting mechanism needs some review. Once the position in line is set it should be set for ever - It is simply unfair for deserving folks waiting in line from 01 (if they are truly 'waiting' that is) if an 04 guy gets approved just becoz. he got his app at NSC/TSC's door a few days earlier. I dont think anyone will complain with that kind of a rule - other than may be USCIS as their processing statistics/metrics may become complicated.
May be writing to Ombudsman will help in this regard.
Looking at the overall approval trend in IV, , Murthy forum etc it is clear to me that FIFO is out of the door and in most likelihood low hanging fruit is being plucked from the tree. At the next Ombudsman call I am going to raise the issue of USCIS's declared commitment to FIFO but actions that seem completely contrary to it.
Obviously anonymous postings in open forums cannot be presented as evidence but one can certainly request the Ombudsman's office to ask for monthly 485 approval statistics and the cat will be out of the bag. By the time the wheels of Goverment bureaucracy move it might be a month or two before this data is made available to the Ombudsman's Office; forget the applicants - that will be like asking for the moon.
Regardless of whether I get approved or not in the next month or two; from a process perspective a monthly approval report going from the USCIS to the Ombudsman's Office each month should hopefully force them to stop this stonewalling and walk the talk.
This will not only help EB2s down the line but spare a thought for next year when EB2 is current, EB3 has a cut off of June 1, 2006 and we start seeing May 2006 EB3 approvals when 2001/02 EB3s are still pending. Again I welcome suggestions but the focus of my effort is going to be the approval process rather than a personal case or two.
Agree - Only solution is to process by PD, rather than anyother dates - Also the PD porting mechanism needs some review. Once the position in line is set it should be set for ever - It is simply unfair for deserving folks waiting in line from 01 (if they are truly 'waiting' that is) if an 04 guy gets approved just becoz. he got his app at NSC/TSC's door a few days earlier. I dont think anyone will complain with that kind of a rule - other than may be USCIS as their processing statistics/metrics may become complicated.
May be writing to Ombudsman will help in this regard.
tattoo makeup sorry poems for mums sorry poems for mums. sorry poems for mums;
longq
12-20 03:41 PM
Hello IV and its core members,
I am one of the members of the forum and suffering due to the severe retrogression of EB visas. I highly appreciate IV�s effort to bring some legislative relief to address the severe backlogs in EB visas. I too participated in all IVs campaign in urging the law makers to bring some relief for this crisis. However, I have some concern here; about the method followed U.S DOS in allocating EB visas particularly in EB2 category for India and China. I am worried whether U.S DOS is violating the INA 202 (a), by suspending AC21 provision that eliminates country quota in EB categories. If they are violating by mistake, it is our responsibility to notify/clarify with them or we need to understand the law clearly. This is very important. Because, even if 110th congress passes SKIL bill, if DOS violates the AC21 law then it will not help applicants from oversubscribed countries (India and China). Here is my analysis based on following facts.
The cutoff date for EB2 India has moved just 7 days since last 9 months. However EB2 �Row has been current. EB2- ROW has never retrogressed before. EB3 ROW has seen considerable movement in last 9 months.
There may be four possible separate or combination of following reasons for the freeze of cutoff dates for India in EB2 at Jan 2003.
1. The backlog elimination effort of DOL pumped massive approved labor certificates from BEC. There may be tons of EB2 applicants from India and China with PD in the year 2001 and 2002 might have applied 485s based on recent approvals from BEC. However I doubt that. Because, in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003, EB3 India and China were �current�. No body cared about filing EB2 labor certification till the later part of 2004. Most lawyers preferred to file EB3 as it was easy, and there were no difference between EB3 and EB2 at that time. First ever indication for EB3 retrogression was issued by DOS only in later part of 2004. I doubt so many people have filed EB2-labor till 2003, keeping in mind that EB3 will retrogress in 2004 or future. Traditionally EB2 has been less demanding compare to EB1 and EB3.
2. Perhaps, there may be a huge demand by ROW (Due to PERM) to consume all the 86% of visa numbers in EB2 category in every month that prompts DOS to allocate only 7% to India and China. I doubt this too, because India and China itself consume about 60% of EB2 visas.
3. There may be lot of EB3 Indians and Chinese with PD 2001 and 2002 porting their PD from EB3 to EB2 by filing new LC and EB2-I-140. This may escalate the demand. However, how many will do this? How many employers will to do this �favor� for their employees? A real US employer/big corporations will not do double time work for an employee. Only consulting/staffing companies will do this. I think this may be a small group (or may not be?).
4. There may be another possible reason. There may be something wrong with U.S.DOS in allocating visa numbers in EB2 category, as per section 202 (a) of current INA. They may be issuing only 2800 (7% of 40,000) visas to India and China in EB2 and redirecting unused EB2 numbers to EB3 category. They may be imposing hard country cap in EB2 (Suspending AC21 law as per their VB Nov 2005). There is a large room for this speculation, due to the pattern of cutoff date movement in EB2 category. This is just a speculation. This argument/speculation is valid if DOS has issued less than 40,000 EB2 visas in FY 2006 as mandated by the law, and issued those numbers (40,000 minus actually issued) to EB3-ROW. In my view, it violates section 203 (b) (2) of the INA. One has to wait till they release statistics for FY 2006, to see how many EB2 visas are issued in that FY.
Here is some detailed analysis that says why it violates the law.
Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 203 a and b of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets numbers for each preference categories with in FB and EB.
Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320. This section also explains how to handle unused numbers with respect to country quota.
Even before AC21 rule enacted in 2000, there was no �hard� country cap as per INA then. Here is the section of INA before year 2000, describes how to allocate unused visas, if overall/total demand for FB an EB visas are less than supply*.
INA 202 (a) (3)
�Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a-Family category) and (b-Employment category) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter�.
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
After 2000 (After AC21) the following law was added to INA in the section 202.
INA 202 (a) (5) (A)
EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
As per my simple interpretation of above AC21 rule, DOS should allocate unused visas by ROW �EB2 (ROW- countries other than India and China in EB2 category) for the first two months of any calendar quarter to over-subscribed countries (India & China) at the third month of that calendar quarter. They should not allocate to lower Preference category (EB3), if demand is more in higher preference category (EB2) to consume all the visa numbers in that preference category. They should allocate visas to all the documentarily qualified applicants in that (EB2) preference category, irrespective of country of birth. If they followed this rule/law, there may be a considerable movement in cut-off dates for India and China in Dec 2005, Mar, June and Sep of 2006 in EB2 (last month of each calendar quarter in a fiscal year). We have not witnessed such movement in last 1.5 years. No one knows how DOS is allocating numbers. They may be allocating only 7% visas to India and China in EB2 category very strictly, every month, and allocating unused numbers to EB3 category, by suspending AC21 law as indicated in their Nov 2005 Visa Bulletin. If they do so, it is against the law, at least in my interpretation of AC21 rule that eliminates country quota in EB categories.
DOS can not interpret above AC21 rule that eliminates per country limit applies �totally� to all EB categories put together, not by individual preference categories. I.e. If they say they will issue more than 2,800 visas to EB2- India per year (more than 7% of 40,000), provided overall demand for EB visas are less than 140,000. If they interpret the law like this, then there is no need for section 202(a) (5) (A) due to AC21 law. The law before AC21 {i.e. section 202 (a) (3)} itself address the elimination of country quota in both FB and EB category*. Then, section 202(a) (5) (A) is a duplicate wording of section 202(a) (3). So, this section of AC21 law becomes a redundant/duplicate law. Then, there is no meaning of employment �preference� category if they interpret �totally or overall worldwide demand�. In other words, a non-Indian/Chinese restaurant cook (EB3) is more preferred than a NIW PhDs (EB2) from India or China. Is it the intend of the congress when enacting AC21 law in removing per country limitation in EB category? Is it the American Competitiveness in 21st century? I highly doubt that.
Now it is the time to ask US DOS, how they are allocating visa number in EB2 category. If DOS interpreting the law differently, then we need to ask the law makers (Congress) what is their original intension behind the section 202(a)(5)(A) when they drafted the AC21 law in 2000 and how it is differ from 202 (a) (3).
Perhaps Core IV team can initiate to discuss/consult this issue with an immigration lawyer and place an enquiry with DOS or Law makers, if needed.
(*Note: DOS do not mix FB and EB categories for visa number allocation/calculation to meet the per country limit. They keep both in separate track to meet separately the 7% limit)
I am one of the members of the forum and suffering due to the severe retrogression of EB visas. I highly appreciate IV�s effort to bring some legislative relief to address the severe backlogs in EB visas. I too participated in all IVs campaign in urging the law makers to bring some relief for this crisis. However, I have some concern here; about the method followed U.S DOS in allocating EB visas particularly in EB2 category for India and China. I am worried whether U.S DOS is violating the INA 202 (a), by suspending AC21 provision that eliminates country quota in EB categories. If they are violating by mistake, it is our responsibility to notify/clarify with them or we need to understand the law clearly. This is very important. Because, even if 110th congress passes SKIL bill, if DOS violates the AC21 law then it will not help applicants from oversubscribed countries (India and China). Here is my analysis based on following facts.
The cutoff date for EB2 India has moved just 7 days since last 9 months. However EB2 �Row has been current. EB2- ROW has never retrogressed before. EB3 ROW has seen considerable movement in last 9 months.
There may be four possible separate or combination of following reasons for the freeze of cutoff dates for India in EB2 at Jan 2003.
1. The backlog elimination effort of DOL pumped massive approved labor certificates from BEC. There may be tons of EB2 applicants from India and China with PD in the year 2001 and 2002 might have applied 485s based on recent approvals from BEC. However I doubt that. Because, in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003, EB3 India and China were �current�. No body cared about filing EB2 labor certification till the later part of 2004. Most lawyers preferred to file EB3 as it was easy, and there were no difference between EB3 and EB2 at that time. First ever indication for EB3 retrogression was issued by DOS only in later part of 2004. I doubt so many people have filed EB2-labor till 2003, keeping in mind that EB3 will retrogress in 2004 or future. Traditionally EB2 has been less demanding compare to EB1 and EB3.
2. Perhaps, there may be a huge demand by ROW (Due to PERM) to consume all the 86% of visa numbers in EB2 category in every month that prompts DOS to allocate only 7% to India and China. I doubt this too, because India and China itself consume about 60% of EB2 visas.
3. There may be lot of EB3 Indians and Chinese with PD 2001 and 2002 porting their PD from EB3 to EB2 by filing new LC and EB2-I-140. This may escalate the demand. However, how many will do this? How many employers will to do this �favor� for their employees? A real US employer/big corporations will not do double time work for an employee. Only consulting/staffing companies will do this. I think this may be a small group (or may not be?).
4. There may be another possible reason. There may be something wrong with U.S.DOS in allocating visa numbers in EB2 category, as per section 202 (a) of current INA. They may be issuing only 2800 (7% of 40,000) visas to India and China in EB2 and redirecting unused EB2 numbers to EB3 category. They may be imposing hard country cap in EB2 (Suspending AC21 law as per their VB Nov 2005). There is a large room for this speculation, due to the pattern of cutoff date movement in EB2 category. This is just a speculation. This argument/speculation is valid if DOS has issued less than 40,000 EB2 visas in FY 2006 as mandated by the law, and issued those numbers (40,000 minus actually issued) to EB3-ROW. In my view, it violates section 203 (b) (2) of the INA. One has to wait till they release statistics for FY 2006, to see how many EB2 visas are issued in that FY.
Here is some detailed analysis that says why it violates the law.
Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 203 a and b of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets numbers for each preference categories with in FB and EB.
Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320. This section also explains how to handle unused numbers with respect to country quota.
Even before AC21 rule enacted in 2000, there was no �hard� country cap as per INA then. Here is the section of INA before year 2000, describes how to allocate unused visas, if overall/total demand for FB an EB visas are less than supply*.
INA 202 (a) (3)
�Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a-Family category) and (b-Employment category) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter�.
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
After 2000 (After AC21) the following law was added to INA in the section 202.
INA 202 (a) (5) (A)
EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
As per my simple interpretation of above AC21 rule, DOS should allocate unused visas by ROW �EB2 (ROW- countries other than India and China in EB2 category) for the first two months of any calendar quarter to over-subscribed countries (India & China) at the third month of that calendar quarter. They should not allocate to lower Preference category (EB3), if demand is more in higher preference category (EB2) to consume all the visa numbers in that preference category. They should allocate visas to all the documentarily qualified applicants in that (EB2) preference category, irrespective of country of birth. If they followed this rule/law, there may be a considerable movement in cut-off dates for India and China in Dec 2005, Mar, June and Sep of 2006 in EB2 (last month of each calendar quarter in a fiscal year). We have not witnessed such movement in last 1.5 years. No one knows how DOS is allocating numbers. They may be allocating only 7% visas to India and China in EB2 category very strictly, every month, and allocating unused numbers to EB3 category, by suspending AC21 law as indicated in their Nov 2005 Visa Bulletin. If they do so, it is against the law, at least in my interpretation of AC21 rule that eliminates country quota in EB categories.
DOS can not interpret above AC21 rule that eliminates per country limit applies �totally� to all EB categories put together, not by individual preference categories. I.e. If they say they will issue more than 2,800 visas to EB2- India per year (more than 7% of 40,000), provided overall demand for EB visas are less than 140,000. If they interpret the law like this, then there is no need for section 202(a) (5) (A) due to AC21 law. The law before AC21 {i.e. section 202 (a) (3)} itself address the elimination of country quota in both FB and EB category*. Then, section 202(a) (5) (A) is a duplicate wording of section 202(a) (3). So, this section of AC21 law becomes a redundant/duplicate law. Then, there is no meaning of employment �preference� category if they interpret �totally or overall worldwide demand�. In other words, a non-Indian/Chinese restaurant cook (EB3) is more preferred than a NIW PhDs (EB2) from India or China. Is it the intend of the congress when enacting AC21 law in removing per country limitation in EB category? Is it the American Competitiveness in 21st century? I highly doubt that.
Now it is the time to ask US DOS, how they are allocating visa number in EB2 category. If DOS interpreting the law differently, then we need to ask the law makers (Congress) what is their original intension behind the section 202(a)(5)(A) when they drafted the AC21 law in 2000 and how it is differ from 202 (a) (3).
Perhaps Core IV team can initiate to discuss/consult this issue with an immigration lawyer and place an enquiry with DOS or Law makers, if needed.
(*Note: DOS do not mix FB and EB categories for visa number allocation/calculation to meet the per country limit. They keep both in separate track to meet separately the 7% limit)
more...
pictures Power you would write im sorry, some find Heart then you r poems in general
snallini
04-02 08:53 AM
sent both faxes.
Jc-Gc
Jc-Gc
dresses hot sorry poems for mums. poems sorry poems for mums. hot sorry poems for
johnamit
07-17 09:37 AM
A fix without AC-21 does not bring lot of relief for us, I hope they receive I-485 and allow us to use AC-21.
more...
makeup Carolyn didnt have much hurt Able toboyfriend poems, it easier to hurt the
suresh.emails
08-07 05:38 PM
Hi All
I just saw the USCIS GC approval email notice - EB2-I - Dec 20'th 2005 Priority Date
I have same issue as few others have. I'm not married yet. I have applied for GC and luckily the GC has been approved (when I really don't want it to be approved). ... Trust me I was praying god all the time.
My priority date is EB2-I Dec 20'th 2005 and god knows how they approved it much before every one else. When all others really want their GC's.
There are lots people who are in queue with Jan 2004 and later priority dates and whose cases are still pending... How could they approve my case so soon...
I have scheduled for a travel to India on August 15'th 2008 to get married. I wanted to marry and get my wife to USA. I 'm engaged with girl at India and all set for marriage this month (August 2008).
I believe my H1-B has been automatically canceled on immediate approval of GC.
How do I get my future wife to USA?. What are the options left out to me now?.
Please excuse me if this is a duplicate thread. I'm really in hurry and could not check all threads properly.
--Suresh
I just saw the USCIS GC approval email notice - EB2-I - Dec 20'th 2005 Priority Date
I have same issue as few others have. I'm not married yet. I have applied for GC and luckily the GC has been approved (when I really don't want it to be approved). ... Trust me I was praying god all the time.
My priority date is EB2-I Dec 20'th 2005 and god knows how they approved it much before every one else. When all others really want their GC's.
There are lots people who are in queue with Jan 2004 and later priority dates and whose cases are still pending... How could they approve my case so soon...
I have scheduled for a travel to India on August 15'th 2008 to get married. I wanted to marry and get my wife to USA. I 'm engaged with girl at India and all set for marriage this month (August 2008).
I believe my H1-B has been automatically canceled on immediate approval of GC.
How do I get my future wife to USA?. What are the options left out to me now?.
Please excuse me if this is a duplicate thread. I'm really in hurry and could not check all threads properly.
--Suresh
girlfriend BEST FRIENDS POEMS
champu
03-12 12:10 AM
What you are saying I understand. And many american/GC holders work as independent contractors on 1099. But H1B is never designed for independent contractor (1099). H1B is designed as W2. By using percentage basis H1B consultants are trying to work like independent contractor on 1099. USCIS is trying to crack down on that.
No H1B works on 1099.
Also how uscis can crack down on %age system.
No H1B works on 1099.
Also how uscis can crack down on %age system.
hairstyles tattoo sorry poems for mums. im sorry sorry poems for mums. sorry poems for
CADude
07-17 12:24 PM
You has incorrect infomation. Your Receive Date is a factor but PD is also a big factor, if limited number available.
If two person has submitted their application. One has PD 2001 and RD June 10 2007 and other had PD Jan 2006 with RD May 1 2006.
USCIS 485 Processing Date: June 15th 2007 and Visa Bullitin has "C"
Still PD with 2001 will get the the number first before PD 2006 case.
So
485 RD < USCIS 485 Processing date and PD < Visa Bulletin date
Order by PD desc
hope this help
I am not sure of this but from studying data, I get the impression that the GC are given out on a FIFO system based on when USCIS receives your I-485 (assuming it clears NC) and NOT PD date
jasquil
If two person has submitted their application. One has PD 2001 and RD June 10 2007 and other had PD Jan 2006 with RD May 1 2006.
USCIS 485 Processing Date: June 15th 2007 and Visa Bullitin has "C"
Still PD with 2001 will get the the number first before PD 2006 case.
So
485 RD < USCIS 485 Processing date and PD < Visa Bulletin date
Order by PD desc
hope this help
I am not sure of this but from studying data, I get the impression that the GC are given out on a FIFO system based on when USCIS receives your I-485 (assuming it clears NC) and NOT PD date
jasquil
Chiwere
06-12 03:25 PM
Interesting reading. Wonder what is it about eugenics that still appeal to some people: Just get some geniuses and they will build heaven as opposed to people who are actually providing vital service to the community. I guess I should get my IQ results translated to English first.
Testimony from anti immigrants like Krikorian just highlights their own low IQ, one of the touchstones he proposes to identify the "Einsteins". He said bringing workers from outside decouples industry from US education system, but supports allowing foreign trained(with BS/BTech or higher) geniuses in.
Perhaps there should be separate EB category for anti-immigrant immigrants. At least we will have smarter bigots to contend with. :D
Testimony from anti immigrants like Krikorian just highlights their own low IQ, one of the touchstones he proposes to identify the "Einsteins". He said bringing workers from outside decouples industry from US education system, but supports allowing foreign trained(with BS/BTech or higher) geniuses in.
Perhaps there should be separate EB category for anti-immigrant immigrants. At least we will have smarter bigots to contend with. :D
shana04
02-12 03:39 PM
I had the same soft LUD on all my cases after AC21 letter was filed. No FP yet.
Good to hear atleast some one is onthe same boat
Good to hear atleast some one is onthe same boat