logiclife
02-27 11:51 AM
This decision is too important for you, it seems, and I would consult a lawyer for best course of action because the users on forums are not lawyers and they can give you options, but it may not be the best option.
Since you are planning next 2-3 years of your life, you should seek paid consultation from a good lawyer.
Since you are planning next 2-3 years of your life, you should seek paid consultation from a good lawyer.
wallpaper love poems and pictures.
.jpg "dark love poems for him. love")
dsohere
01-23 08:55 PM
Hi,
Have you been fully admitted to the new school? If so, the DSO at that school should contact the SEVIS Helpdesk for instruction on getting your SEVIS record transferred. And as long as that is in the works, you're fine. You should be able to go to the new school no matter what the status of of your SEVIS record. If you have been admitted to another school and requested to transfer, then you have done everything correctly. It will likely take them some time to deal with all the SEVIS records of all the student, but this issue was beyond your control, and in my experience students are not penalized for these type of situations.
This must be quite a stressful situation for all TriValley students. I wish that SEVP would contact all the students or post some message making clear to all students about exactly what they should do, especially if they are currently working, and to other schools about how they should handle the transfers.
Please post again about how it all works out and I wish you the best in getting settled into a new school.
all the best,
LK
"Now I am worried because until they release our sevis, the admissions in other colleges will meet deadline and what happens if they no more take admissions. Do you have any idea how long can it take for them to release our sevis ? Will it be safe for students like me hereafter to work fulltime on CPT ?
Thank you
Chaitanya[/QUOTE]
Have you been fully admitted to the new school? If so, the DSO at that school should contact the SEVIS Helpdesk for instruction on getting your SEVIS record transferred. And as long as that is in the works, you're fine. You should be able to go to the new school no matter what the status of of your SEVIS record. If you have been admitted to another school and requested to transfer, then you have done everything correctly. It will likely take them some time to deal with all the SEVIS records of all the student, but this issue was beyond your control, and in my experience students are not penalized for these type of situations.
This must be quite a stressful situation for all TriValley students. I wish that SEVP would contact all the students or post some message making clear to all students about exactly what they should do, especially if they are currently working, and to other schools about how they should handle the transfers.
Please post again about how it all works out and I wish you the best in getting settled into a new school.
all the best,
LK
"Now I am worried because until they release our sevis, the admissions in other colleges will meet deadline and what happens if they no more take admissions. Do you have any idea how long can it take for them to release our sevis ? Will it be safe for students like me hereafter to work fulltime on CPT ?
Thank you
Chaitanya[/QUOTE]
mjdup
02-12 12:42 PM
This is a start and a good one....:) Bravo for being honest and stepping in..
2011 dark love poems for him. love
wandmaker
06-19 07:08 AM
Folks,
I am due for an EAD renewal. However, my I-485 Receipt Notice got lost in mail. :(
Can I still e-file. A lot of you said, we have to send a copy of the receipt notice as a supporting document. Can I do without it.
Any pointers would be really appreciated.
Thank You
-Bipin
Copy of your biometrics notice is enough in case of missing 485 receipt notices. And USCIS should be able to verify pending 485 with the A#.
I am due for an EAD renewal. However, my I-485 Receipt Notice got lost in mail. :(
Can I still e-file. A lot of you said, we have to send a copy of the receipt notice as a supporting document. Can I do without it.
Any pointers would be really appreciated.
Thank You
-Bipin
Copy of your biometrics notice is enough in case of missing 485 receipt notices. And USCIS should be able to verify pending 485 with the A#.
more...
sriramkalyan
06-23 02:56 PM
May be it is positive for skilled legal immigration. Since CIR is not coming anytime soon, congress can look at improving exiting legal immigration and Administrative changes can happen!!
JK747
07-16 09:25 AM
That does not make sense! Peaople on H4 are not allowed to work, period! Thats how the Visa category is defined. Now, how will one on H4 to work? Enter EAD! So, while EAD allows him/her to work, it changes the Visa status (be it H1 or H4) to AOS. It does not matter if you travel outside or not.
I do not know how you extended your spouse's H4 with the help of the attorney. It is an error on USCIS part, may be because you (or your spouse's employer) have not notified the USCIS about your spouse using the EAD for employment.
Micofrost is CORRECT. My wife is on H4 and working on EAD currently. My lawyer had also confirmed that working on EAD does not affect H4 status.
I do not know how you extended your spouse's H4 with the help of the attorney. It is an error on USCIS part, may be because you (or your spouse's employer) have not notified the USCIS about your spouse using the EAD for employment.
Micofrost is CORRECT. My wife is on H4 and working on EAD currently. My lawyer had also confirmed that working on EAD does not affect H4 status.
more...
LOL123
02-14 08:55 AM
Thank You All for the suggestions.
2010 Were in love poems how muchapr
cagedcactus
05-03 06:59 PM
"senator_levin@levin.senate.gov" to me
show details Apr 30 (3 days ago)
Dear Mr. Amin:
Thank you for contacting me regarding immigration and border security. I appreciate receiving your views on these important issues.
Our immigration system is broken and needs reform. I believe an effective immigration policy must include comprehensive border security and comprehensive immigration reform. We must secure our borders against real threats from terrorism and protect U.S. workers, while preserving the freedoms and principles on which our nation was founded. We must address reforms realistically, stem the tide of illegal immigrants entering the country and be fair to those who are here legally.
I support comprehensive border security reform. I voted in favor of an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2007 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L.109-289) that appropriated $1.83 billion to construct 370 miles of triple-layered fencing and 461 miles of vehicle barriers along the southwest border of our country. I also supported an amendment to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief (P.L.109-13) that provided $390 million to hire an additional 650 border patrol agents, 250 immigration investigators, and 168 immigration enforcement agents and deportation officers, as well as to fund an additional 2,000 detention beds for immigration enforcement purposes.
I believe any reform must protect U.S. workers. For this reason, I voted in favor of an amendment to the Fair Minimum Wage Act (H.R.2) that would bar employers who violate immigration laws by hiring undocumented workers from receiving federal government contracts for up to 10 years. The Fair Minimum Wage Act passed the Senate on February 1, 2007, and must now be considered by a House-Senate conference committee to reconcile the differences between the Senate and House versions of the bill. I believe it is important to ensure that employers hire only those legally eligible to work and that employees are treated fairly. I support a broad-based Electronic Employment Verification (EEV) system, which builds upon the existing voluntary pilot program, to increase the reliability of employment authorization checks. In the 109th Congress, I supported a number of worker protection amendments to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (S.2611). I voted in favor of an amendment that would have established a true prevailing wage for all occupations to ensure that U.S. workers� wages are not lowered as a result of the guest worker program, and I supported an amendment that would have required employers to make good faith efforts to recruit U.S. workers first. S.2611 passed the Senate by a bipartisan vote of 62-36. Unfortunately, S.2611 was blocked by the House because of opposition to the immigration provisions in the Senate bill. The bill was not passed before the end of the 109th Congress.
Comprehensive immigration reform must remove the �magnet� that has attracted millions of people to cross the border illegally. We should not provide amnesty, but instead permit currently undocumented workers to earn the right to obtain legal status over a long period of time, under restrictive conditions, including being required to pay fees and back taxes. These individuals would be required to apply through the same immigration process as everyone else and take their place in line behind all those whose applications are pending. I will continue to work with my colleagues in the Senate toward effective solutions that address our nation�s real immigration problems. Without a comprehensive approach to immigration reform, our current problems with illegal immigration will likely continue.
Thank you again for contacting me.
Sincerely,
Carl Levin
CC to senator_levin
show details 7:36 pm (1 minute ago)
Respected Sir,
I wanted to bring to your attention the woes of immigrants who are legally here in U.S. Specifically, the high-skilled workers who are experiencing decade-long waits to get Green Cards (the employment based Green Cards). There are approximately half a million such people in U.S. today whose lives are in limbo as they wait to get their Green Cards. I encourage you to visit http://immigrationvoice.org, an organization comprising of such people who are lobbying the Congress to help get some relief urgently.
The focus of immigration reform has solely been on illegal immigration. What is not so well understood is that the fate of legal immigrants has been tied with that of the illegal immigrants (because there is just one bill that the Congress will debate - CIR/STRIVE). It is ironic that if this bill does not pass, legal immigrants would be left hanging in the dark again, even when there is bi-partisan support for their cause!
The waiting times for getting an employment-based (EB) Green Card (GC) are increasing each day for nationals of all countries. But especially hard-hit are people from India and China, whose waiting times are expected to increase to 10-15 years, if the current trend continues. The demand for EB-GC keeps increasing because over the last decade an average of about 100,000 skilled workers have joined the U.S. work-force each year (using H-1B visa, and graduating foreign students), but only 50,000 new employment-based Green Cards are issued. U.S. issues 140,000 EB GC but even family members are counted-off from this quota, which thus effectively reduces to about one-third. Therefore, each year about 50,000 skilled workers join the queue for a Green Card.
Once the wait for a Green Card starts, all major life-decisions are influenced by the Green Card application process. Decisions about traveling abroad, marrying, investing, kids' education, and changing cities are then based on the stage in which one's GC application is. The biggest impact of the wait is on the person's professional career. Once the process starts, changing jobs usually means re-filing for a GC, implying that the person starts from the end of the line again. Even promotions within the same company are not without risks, as any change in job descriptions necessitates refilling the application. So a person waiting for a GC is expected to remain in the same job with the same company and without any substantial increase (or decrease) in pay! The skilled worker therefore lives life in constant limbo.
The psychological impact of being stuck and being treated as less than equal, even while paying all taxes (including SS and Medicare, to which they are not even entitled to without becoming permanent residents) is immense.
Your help is very much needed to eliminate this unfair backlog and reform the system, so that no innocent and law abiding person should suffer anymore. Your kind reply is very valuable to me.
I appreciate your time and help.
Regards,
CC
Above is the email conversation beween me and Senetor Levine. He seems to be in support for Legal immigration, but is against Amnesty.
My reply here is basically a nice written post by a fellow member here (Eternal_hope).
So credit for writing goes to him.
A similar reply was sent to senetor Debbie Stabenow (Michigan too)
Please comment......
show details Apr 30 (3 days ago)
Dear Mr. Amin:
Thank you for contacting me regarding immigration and border security. I appreciate receiving your views on these important issues.
Our immigration system is broken and needs reform. I believe an effective immigration policy must include comprehensive border security and comprehensive immigration reform. We must secure our borders against real threats from terrorism and protect U.S. workers, while preserving the freedoms and principles on which our nation was founded. We must address reforms realistically, stem the tide of illegal immigrants entering the country and be fair to those who are here legally.
I support comprehensive border security reform. I voted in favor of an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2007 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L.109-289) that appropriated $1.83 billion to construct 370 miles of triple-layered fencing and 461 miles of vehicle barriers along the southwest border of our country. I also supported an amendment to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief (P.L.109-13) that provided $390 million to hire an additional 650 border patrol agents, 250 immigration investigators, and 168 immigration enforcement agents and deportation officers, as well as to fund an additional 2,000 detention beds for immigration enforcement purposes.
I believe any reform must protect U.S. workers. For this reason, I voted in favor of an amendment to the Fair Minimum Wage Act (H.R.2) that would bar employers who violate immigration laws by hiring undocumented workers from receiving federal government contracts for up to 10 years. The Fair Minimum Wage Act passed the Senate on February 1, 2007, and must now be considered by a House-Senate conference committee to reconcile the differences between the Senate and House versions of the bill. I believe it is important to ensure that employers hire only those legally eligible to work and that employees are treated fairly. I support a broad-based Electronic Employment Verification (EEV) system, which builds upon the existing voluntary pilot program, to increase the reliability of employment authorization checks. In the 109th Congress, I supported a number of worker protection amendments to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (S.2611). I voted in favor of an amendment that would have established a true prevailing wage for all occupations to ensure that U.S. workers� wages are not lowered as a result of the guest worker program, and I supported an amendment that would have required employers to make good faith efforts to recruit U.S. workers first. S.2611 passed the Senate by a bipartisan vote of 62-36. Unfortunately, S.2611 was blocked by the House because of opposition to the immigration provisions in the Senate bill. The bill was not passed before the end of the 109th Congress.
Comprehensive immigration reform must remove the �magnet� that has attracted millions of people to cross the border illegally. We should not provide amnesty, but instead permit currently undocumented workers to earn the right to obtain legal status over a long period of time, under restrictive conditions, including being required to pay fees and back taxes. These individuals would be required to apply through the same immigration process as everyone else and take their place in line behind all those whose applications are pending. I will continue to work with my colleagues in the Senate toward effective solutions that address our nation�s real immigration problems. Without a comprehensive approach to immigration reform, our current problems with illegal immigration will likely continue.
Thank you again for contacting me.
Sincerely,
Carl Levin
CC to senator_levin
show details 7:36 pm (1 minute ago)
Respected Sir,
I wanted to bring to your attention the woes of immigrants who are legally here in U.S. Specifically, the high-skilled workers who are experiencing decade-long waits to get Green Cards (the employment based Green Cards). There are approximately half a million such people in U.S. today whose lives are in limbo as they wait to get their Green Cards. I encourage you to visit http://immigrationvoice.org, an organization comprising of such people who are lobbying the Congress to help get some relief urgently.
The focus of immigration reform has solely been on illegal immigration. What is not so well understood is that the fate of legal immigrants has been tied with that of the illegal immigrants (because there is just one bill that the Congress will debate - CIR/STRIVE). It is ironic that if this bill does not pass, legal immigrants would be left hanging in the dark again, even when there is bi-partisan support for their cause!
The waiting times for getting an employment-based (EB) Green Card (GC) are increasing each day for nationals of all countries. But especially hard-hit are people from India and China, whose waiting times are expected to increase to 10-15 years, if the current trend continues. The demand for EB-GC keeps increasing because over the last decade an average of about 100,000 skilled workers have joined the U.S. work-force each year (using H-1B visa, and graduating foreign students), but only 50,000 new employment-based Green Cards are issued. U.S. issues 140,000 EB GC but even family members are counted-off from this quota, which thus effectively reduces to about one-third. Therefore, each year about 50,000 skilled workers join the queue for a Green Card.
Once the wait for a Green Card starts, all major life-decisions are influenced by the Green Card application process. Decisions about traveling abroad, marrying, investing, kids' education, and changing cities are then based on the stage in which one's GC application is. The biggest impact of the wait is on the person's professional career. Once the process starts, changing jobs usually means re-filing for a GC, implying that the person starts from the end of the line again. Even promotions within the same company are not without risks, as any change in job descriptions necessitates refilling the application. So a person waiting for a GC is expected to remain in the same job with the same company and without any substantial increase (or decrease) in pay! The skilled worker therefore lives life in constant limbo.
The psychological impact of being stuck and being treated as less than equal, even while paying all taxes (including SS and Medicare, to which they are not even entitled to without becoming permanent residents) is immense.
Your help is very much needed to eliminate this unfair backlog and reform the system, so that no innocent and law abiding person should suffer anymore. Your kind reply is very valuable to me.
I appreciate your time and help.
Regards,
CC
Above is the email conversation beween me and Senetor Levine. He seems to be in support for Legal immigration, but is against Amnesty.
My reply here is basically a nice written post by a fellow member here (Eternal_hope).
So credit for writing goes to him.
A similar reply was sent to senetor Debbie Stabenow (Michigan too)
Please comment......
more...
michael_trs
05-14 10:55 PM
roseball,
Ok...ok...I am working as an attorney partime... for myself...kidding.
joydiptac,
"may not make the cut easily" - what do you mean?
Ok...ok...I am working as an attorney partime... for myself...kidding.
joydiptac,
"may not make the cut easily" - what do you mean?
hair long love poems for your
hydubadi
02-03 12:32 PM
^^^^Bump^^^
more...
iqube00
04-24 01:48 PM
my EAD is about to expire on may 6th. I applied for EAD renewal in january , i had around 90 days. My application package along with the cheque came back to me after 1month because I forgot to sign the application form.. Dumb right....
Then i signed my form and send it back to TSC . So i was in a bad situation becuase my employer said if i do not get my EAD card before it expires, they will have to lay me off. So here is what i did , i contacted my local Congressman's office through their website and raised a request to expedite my case and stated if i do not get my EAD i will loose my job.
Surprisingly i got a mail from the congressman office that they are looking into my case and they will take it forward... and after a week i got a mail from USCIS saying my case is approved . So if someone is in my kind of situation its better to go through congressman or senator rather than info pass all that route.. Politics and politicians speak in a different language and so it always wins!!!
You are lucky. My EAD has expired and I sent an expedite request through my local congressman. They denied my request saying that they will not expedite because the 90 day window was not up yet.
Then i signed my form and send it back to TSC . So i was in a bad situation becuase my employer said if i do not get my EAD card before it expires, they will have to lay me off. So here is what i did , i contacted my local Congressman's office through their website and raised a request to expedite my case and stated if i do not get my EAD i will loose my job.
Surprisingly i got a mail from the congressman office that they are looking into my case and they will take it forward... and after a week i got a mail from USCIS saying my case is approved . So if someone is in my kind of situation its better to go through congressman or senator rather than info pass all that route.. Politics and politicians speak in a different language and so it always wins!!!
You are lucky. My EAD has expired and I sent an expedite request through my local congressman. They denied my request saying that they will not expedite because the 90 day window was not up yet.
hot love poems for her.
anishNewbie
09-10 02:54 PM
hello every1,
I was wondering how many of you are here who had applied their labor with MS + 0 years of experience for EB2 category..
Could you please shed some light on your profile and current standing in GC process ??
Thank youu....
I was wondering how many of you are here who had applied their labor with MS + 0 years of experience for EB2 category..
Could you please shed some light on your profile and current standing in GC process ??
Thank youu....
more...
house love poems for. sweet love
gc_kaavaali
05-21 05:20 PM
thank you for giving me confidence...did u do e-file?
I have applied EAD/AP renewals last April 22nd and got the receipts in 2weeks and today got CRIS email "Card Production Ordered" from TSC..so may be in 30days it should be on hand...Our's also expires in August...
It sounds like they are processing fast..dont panic keep hope!! Give it some time..
------------------------
EAD/AP renewal--TSC
I have applied EAD/AP renewals last April 22nd and got the receipts in 2weeks and today got CRIS email "Card Production Ordered" from TSC..so may be in 30days it should be on hand...Our's also expires in August...
It sounds like they are processing fast..dont panic keep hope!! Give it some time..
------------------------
EAD/AP renewal--TSC
tattoo cute love poems for your
gcloner
03-28 02:46 AM
hey! why it is like that?? last month, feb 15 08, the processing date was July 31, 2007 and how come now updated mar. 15 and the processing date became june 08, 2007??? WHY?? my friend got her gc already, hers date was july 19...she got her gc!!so wats up with that!!Do you think they will send mine (july 22)?im so upset!pls reply soon!
pd's
January 15, 2008: from April 07.. it became July 19
February 15, 2008: from July 19... it became July 30
March 15, 2008: from July 30... it became JUNE 08, 2007???????????
Do you think it was just a typographical error that it must be August 08, 2007 instead of June???
this is the link to nebraska service center
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
I NEED YOUR COMMENT REPLIES.
pd's
January 15, 2008: from April 07.. it became July 19
February 15, 2008: from July 19... it became July 30
March 15, 2008: from July 30... it became JUNE 08, 2007???????????
Do you think it was just a typographical error that it must be August 08, 2007 instead of June???
this is the link to nebraska service center
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
I NEED YOUR COMMENT REPLIES.
more...
pictures poems for love.
Blog Feeds
12-18 09:50 AM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
Last month I blogged about my convoluted math--trying to figure out the wait times for various countries, in various categories for Employment Based visas. The January Visa Bulletin was (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4597.html) just issued, with this explanation:
D. EXPLANATION OF THE NUMERICAL CONTROL SYSTEM AND CUT-DATE PROJECTIONS WHAT CAUSES THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CUT-OFF DATES?
The Visa Office (VO)subdivides the annual preference and foreign state limitations specified in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) into twelve monthly allotments. The totals of documentarily qualified applicants that have been reported to VO are compared each month with the numbers available for the next regular allotment and numbers are allocated to reported applicants in order of their priority dates, the oldest dates first.
- If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered "Current." For example, if the Employment Third preference monthly target is 3,000 and there are only 1,000 applicants, the category is considered "Current."
- Whenever the total of documentarily qualified applicants in a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for the particular month, the category is considered to be "oversubscribed" and a visa availability cut-off date is established. The cut-off date is the priority date of the first documentarily qualified applicant who could not be accommodated for a visa number. For example, if the Employment Third preference monthly target is 3,000 and there are 8,000 applicants, a cut-off date would be established so that only 3,000 numbers would be used, and the cut-off date would be the priority date of the 3,001st applicant.
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become qualified at their own initiative and convenience and upon the completion of various processing requirements. Therefore, it is extremely important to remember that by no means has every applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, visa allotments are made only on the basis of the total applicants reported qualified each month, and consideration of other variables. Demand for visa numbers can fluctuate from one month to another, with an inevitable impact on cut-off dates.
HOW IS THE PER-COUNTRY LIMIT CALCULATED?
Section 201 of the INA sets an annual minimum Family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000, while the worldwide annual level for Employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 202 sets the per-country limit for preference immigrants at 7% of the total annual Family-sponsored and Employment-based preference limits, i.e. a minimum of 25,620.
- The annual per-country limitation of 7% is a cap, meaning visa issuances to any single country may not exceed this figure. This limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled, however. The per-country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the visa numbers by applicants from only a few countries.
- INA Section 202(a)(5), added by the American Competitiveness Act in the 21st Century (AC21), removed the per-country limit in any calendar quarter in which overall applicant demand for Employment-based visa numbers is less than the total of such numbers available. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5)has occasionally allowed countries such as China-mainland born and India to utilize large amounts of Employment First and Second preference numbers which would have otherwise gone unused.
WHAT ARE THE PROJECTIONS FOR CUT-OFF DATE MOVEMENT IN THE FAMILY PREFERENCES?
Cut-off date movement in most categories continues to be greater than might ordinarily be expected, and this is anticipated to continue for at least the next few months. This is because fewer applicants are proceeding with final action on their cases at consular posts abroad, and the volume of CIS adjustment cases remains low. Once large numbers of applicants begin to have their cases brought to final action, cut-off date movements will necessarily slow or stop.
Moreover, in some categories cut-off date retrogression is a possibility. Therefore, readers should be aware that the recent rate of cut-off date advances will not continue indefinitely, but it is not possible to say at present how soon they will end.
WHY DID MOST EMPLOYMENT CUT-OFFS REMAIN UNCHANGED IN RECENT MONTHS?
Many of the categories were "unavailable" at the end of FY which resulted in excessive demand being received during October and November. Coupled with the fact that CIS Offices have been doing an excellent job of processing cases, this has had an impact on cut-off date movements. Some forward movement has begun for January as we enter the second quarter of the fiscal year.
WILL THERE BE ANY ADDITIONAL CUT-OFF DATES FOR FOREIGN STATES IN THE EMPLOYMENT FIRST OR SECOND PREFERENCE CATEGORIES?
At this time it is unlikely that there will be any cut-off dates in the Employment First preferences. It also appears unlikely that it will be necessary to establish a cut-off date other than those already in effect for the Second preference category. Cut-off dates apply to the China and India Second preference categories due to heavy demand, and each has the potential to become "unavailable" should demand cause the annual limit for that category to be reached.
INA Section 202(a)(5) provides that if total demand will be insufficient to use all available numbers in a particular employment preference category in a calendar quarter, then the unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limits. For example, if it is determined that based on the level of demand being received at that time there would be otherwise unused numbers in the Employment Second preference category, then numbers could be provided to oversubscribed countries without regard to per-country limitations. Should that occur, the same cut-off date would be applied to each country, since numbers must be provided strictly in priority date order regardless of chargeability. In this instance, greater number use by one country would indicate a higher rate of demand by applicants from that country with earlier priority dates.
Should Section 202(a)(5) be applied, the rate of number use in the Employment preference category would continue to be monitored to determine whether subsequent adjustments are needed in visa availability for oversubscribed countries. This action provides the best possible assurance that all available Employment preference numbers will be used, while still ensuring that numbers remain available for applicants from all other countries that have not yet reached their per-country limit.
WHAT ARE THE PROJECTIONS FOR CUT-OFF DATE MOVEMENT IN THE EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCES FOR THE REMAINDER OF FY-2010?
Based on current indications of demand, the best case scenarios for cut-off dates which will be reached by the end of FY-2010 are as follows:
Employment Second:
China: July through October 2005
India: February through early March 2005
If Section 202(a)(5)were to
apply: China and India: October through December 2005
Employment Third:
Worldwide: April through August 2005
China: June through September 2003
India: January through February 2002
Mexico: January through June 2004
Philippines: April through August 2005
Please be advised that the above date ranges are only estimates which
are subject to fluctuations in demand during the coming months. The actual
future cut-off dates cannot be guaranteed, and it is possible that some annual
limits could be reached prior to the end of the fiscal year.
So, there you have it. The "official" guesses for FY 2010! It would be terrific, however, if the Visa Bulletin would tell us, based upon its knowledge of pending cases, and estimates on time, how long a case would take in the given categories, if started today. When the Department of State releases THAT information, then perhaps Congress will sit up and take notice that we are facing a literal crisis in our employment based immigration program, and hurting ourselves as a result.https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-2329407886555470879?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/12/from-department-of-state-with-love-visa.html)
Last month I blogged about my convoluted math--trying to figure out the wait times for various countries, in various categories for Employment Based visas. The January Visa Bulletin was (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4597.html) just issued, with this explanation:
D. EXPLANATION OF THE NUMERICAL CONTROL SYSTEM AND CUT-DATE PROJECTIONS WHAT CAUSES THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CUT-OFF DATES?
The Visa Office (VO)subdivides the annual preference and foreign state limitations specified in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) into twelve monthly allotments. The totals of documentarily qualified applicants that have been reported to VO are compared each month with the numbers available for the next regular allotment and numbers are allocated to reported applicants in order of their priority dates, the oldest dates first.
- If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered "Current." For example, if the Employment Third preference monthly target is 3,000 and there are only 1,000 applicants, the category is considered "Current."
- Whenever the total of documentarily qualified applicants in a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for the particular month, the category is considered to be "oversubscribed" and a visa availability cut-off date is established. The cut-off date is the priority date of the first documentarily qualified applicant who could not be accommodated for a visa number. For example, if the Employment Third preference monthly target is 3,000 and there are 8,000 applicants, a cut-off date would be established so that only 3,000 numbers would be used, and the cut-off date would be the priority date of the 3,001st applicant.
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become qualified at their own initiative and convenience and upon the completion of various processing requirements. Therefore, it is extremely important to remember that by no means has every applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, visa allotments are made only on the basis of the total applicants reported qualified each month, and consideration of other variables. Demand for visa numbers can fluctuate from one month to another, with an inevitable impact on cut-off dates.
HOW IS THE PER-COUNTRY LIMIT CALCULATED?
Section 201 of the INA sets an annual minimum Family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000, while the worldwide annual level for Employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 202 sets the per-country limit for preference immigrants at 7% of the total annual Family-sponsored and Employment-based preference limits, i.e. a minimum of 25,620.
- The annual per-country limitation of 7% is a cap, meaning visa issuances to any single country may not exceed this figure. This limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled, however. The per-country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the visa numbers by applicants from only a few countries.
- INA Section 202(a)(5), added by the American Competitiveness Act in the 21st Century (AC21), removed the per-country limit in any calendar quarter in which overall applicant demand for Employment-based visa numbers is less than the total of such numbers available. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5)has occasionally allowed countries such as China-mainland born and India to utilize large amounts of Employment First and Second preference numbers which would have otherwise gone unused.
WHAT ARE THE PROJECTIONS FOR CUT-OFF DATE MOVEMENT IN THE FAMILY PREFERENCES?
Cut-off date movement in most categories continues to be greater than might ordinarily be expected, and this is anticipated to continue for at least the next few months. This is because fewer applicants are proceeding with final action on their cases at consular posts abroad, and the volume of CIS adjustment cases remains low. Once large numbers of applicants begin to have their cases brought to final action, cut-off date movements will necessarily slow or stop.
Moreover, in some categories cut-off date retrogression is a possibility. Therefore, readers should be aware that the recent rate of cut-off date advances will not continue indefinitely, but it is not possible to say at present how soon they will end.
WHY DID MOST EMPLOYMENT CUT-OFFS REMAIN UNCHANGED IN RECENT MONTHS?
Many of the categories were "unavailable" at the end of FY which resulted in excessive demand being received during October and November. Coupled with the fact that CIS Offices have been doing an excellent job of processing cases, this has had an impact on cut-off date movements. Some forward movement has begun for January as we enter the second quarter of the fiscal year.
WILL THERE BE ANY ADDITIONAL CUT-OFF DATES FOR FOREIGN STATES IN THE EMPLOYMENT FIRST OR SECOND PREFERENCE CATEGORIES?
At this time it is unlikely that there will be any cut-off dates in the Employment First preferences. It also appears unlikely that it will be necessary to establish a cut-off date other than those already in effect for the Second preference category. Cut-off dates apply to the China and India Second preference categories due to heavy demand, and each has the potential to become "unavailable" should demand cause the annual limit for that category to be reached.
INA Section 202(a)(5) provides that if total demand will be insufficient to use all available numbers in a particular employment preference category in a calendar quarter, then the unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limits. For example, if it is determined that based on the level of demand being received at that time there would be otherwise unused numbers in the Employment Second preference category, then numbers could be provided to oversubscribed countries without regard to per-country limitations. Should that occur, the same cut-off date would be applied to each country, since numbers must be provided strictly in priority date order regardless of chargeability. In this instance, greater number use by one country would indicate a higher rate of demand by applicants from that country with earlier priority dates.
Should Section 202(a)(5) be applied, the rate of number use in the Employment preference category would continue to be monitored to determine whether subsequent adjustments are needed in visa availability for oversubscribed countries. This action provides the best possible assurance that all available Employment preference numbers will be used, while still ensuring that numbers remain available for applicants from all other countries that have not yet reached their per-country limit.
WHAT ARE THE PROJECTIONS FOR CUT-OFF DATE MOVEMENT IN THE EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCES FOR THE REMAINDER OF FY-2010?
Based on current indications of demand, the best case scenarios for cut-off dates which will be reached by the end of FY-2010 are as follows:
Employment Second:
China: July through October 2005
India: February through early March 2005
If Section 202(a)(5)were to
apply: China and India: October through December 2005
Employment Third:
Worldwide: April through August 2005
China: June through September 2003
India: January through February 2002
Mexico: January through June 2004
Philippines: April through August 2005
Please be advised that the above date ranges are only estimates which
are subject to fluctuations in demand during the coming months. The actual
future cut-off dates cannot be guaranteed, and it is possible that some annual
limits could be reached prior to the end of the fiscal year.
So, there you have it. The "official" guesses for FY 2010! It would be terrific, however, if the Visa Bulletin would tell us, based upon its knowledge of pending cases, and estimates on time, how long a case would take in the given categories, if started today. When the Department of State releases THAT information, then perhaps Congress will sit up and take notice that we are facing a literal crisis in our employment based immigration program, and hurting ourselves as a result.https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-2329407886555470879?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/12/from-department-of-state-with-love-visa.html)
dresses Short Love Poems For The One
amitjoey
07-05 12:54 PM
Fellow IV fighters, members. I know, it seems like there is always a target for funds and we dont achieve it. Well! that is not true, we set a new target when the first one is achieved.
Funds, There are more ideas than funds. For every new campaign, plan, we need funds. So it is an ever needed commodity. The reason so many of us are so very aggresive is that we just need more funds, plain and simple.
Inspite of several hundreds contributing, it is not enough. But we will soon reach a day when we would be okay, (given a lot of us/you, sign up for a recurring contribution).
Trusting IV with funds is a major stumbling block, but remember IV is a non-profit, so every "naya-paisa" (penny) is accounted for.
People handling money (core IV) are sincere, honest hardworking people on work-visas, they have much to lose from not being accountable.
And the most important thing is, please take a look at these hard-working IV CORE PEOPLE, please. Some of them have put thousands of dollars (I mean 5 and ten thousand) into this effort. I am not counting personal expenses, travelling to DC, lost work hours etc.
So your $100 at the bowling arena wont get you much farther, but contribute it to IV to get your way ahead paved and bull-dozed over.
Funds, There are more ideas than funds. For every new campaign, plan, we need funds. So it is an ever needed commodity. The reason so many of us are so very aggresive is that we just need more funds, plain and simple.
Inspite of several hundreds contributing, it is not enough. But we will soon reach a day when we would be okay, (given a lot of us/you, sign up for a recurring contribution).
Trusting IV with funds is a major stumbling block, but remember IV is a non-profit, so every "naya-paisa" (penny) is accounted for.
People handling money (core IV) are sincere, honest hardworking people on work-visas, they have much to lose from not being accountable.
And the most important thing is, please take a look at these hard-working IV CORE PEOPLE, please. Some of them have put thousands of dollars (I mean 5 and ten thousand) into this effort. I am not counting personal expenses, travelling to DC, lost work hours etc.
So your $100 at the bowling arena wont get you much farther, but contribute it to IV to get your way ahead paved and bull-dozed over.
more...
makeup nice love poems for your
greenlight
02-18 03:24 PM
You guys deserve it after waiting for so long. The only way to check if the case has been adjudicated or not is to keep checking the LUDS, if it changes see what the status says. After being patient for so many years, if you are feeling a little impatient now call USCIS and check the status.
I am fairly new to this community and not familiar with acronyms.
Can someone kindly explain what LUD is ?
My PD is now current as well and want to find out how to track my case.
Thanks for everyone's collective support. :D
I am fairly new to this community and not familiar with acronyms.
Can someone kindly explain what LUD is ?
My PD is now current as well and want to find out how to track my case.
Thanks for everyone's collective support. :D
girlfriend Love Poems For
digitalrain
06-24 08:13 PM
Hi, I'm in a desperate situation.I am an asylee and have filed for my LPR.My asylee relative petition has been approved for my wife.
My problem is: a have a newborn baby who resides with my wife outside US and the US Embassy did not issue him any kind of visa,since my wife went for the interview after the petition was approved.She is all set and done,but my baby got born after I've been granted asylum and couldn't file the asylee relative petition for him.The law says that babies born after the asylum decision are not eligible for derivative asylum.I read that Humanitarian Parole would be a solution for these cases,but the officer at the embassy claimed that I should file a relative petition for him ,or file for humanitarian parole here in the US.
My question is can my wife file for Humanitarian Parole at the US embassy,or is there any other way
I read that US Embassies abroad are authorized to issue humanitarian paroles.I think this is the mos inhuman decision I ever heard of and it's about my baby.
I would really appreciate any help
(This is what I found on the internet)
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR NSC CONFERENCE CALL
REFUGEE/ASYLEE ISSUES
FEB. 28 2008
5) I-730 CASE or HUMANITARIAN PAROLE? What can be done for the
beneficiary spouse of an I-730 Asylee Relative petition if she gets
pregnant and has a child (from the petitioner, of course) after the
petitioner was granted asylum �therefore this new child is not considered
a derivative- but before she completes the Visa 92 process at the US
Embassy. Does the US Embassy have the authority to parole the
newborn child for him to join the rest of the family in the US?
Answer: If the child was in utero at the time of the asylum grant the
regulations provide benefit to that child as a derivative under 208.21(b). If
the child was not in utero and the relationship with the child was after the
asylum grant, then a I-730 petition can not be filed on behalf of this child.
The U.S. Embassy does have the authority to grant a humanitarian parole
and that would need to be addressed with the U.S. Embassy.
My problem is: a have a newborn baby who resides with my wife outside US and the US Embassy did not issue him any kind of visa,since my wife went for the interview after the petition was approved.She is all set and done,but my baby got born after I've been granted asylum and couldn't file the asylee relative petition for him.The law says that babies born after the asylum decision are not eligible for derivative asylum.I read that Humanitarian Parole would be a solution for these cases,but the officer at the embassy claimed that I should file a relative petition for him ,or file for humanitarian parole here in the US.
My question is can my wife file for Humanitarian Parole at the US embassy,or is there any other way
I read that US Embassies abroad are authorized to issue humanitarian paroles.I think this is the mos inhuman decision I ever heard of and it's about my baby.
I would really appreciate any help
(This is what I found on the internet)
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR NSC CONFERENCE CALL
REFUGEE/ASYLEE ISSUES
FEB. 28 2008
5) I-730 CASE or HUMANITARIAN PAROLE? What can be done for the
beneficiary spouse of an I-730 Asylee Relative petition if she gets
pregnant and has a child (from the petitioner, of course) after the
petitioner was granted asylum �therefore this new child is not considered
a derivative- but before she completes the Visa 92 process at the US
Embassy. Does the US Embassy have the authority to parole the
newborn child for him to join the rest of the family in the US?
Answer: If the child was in utero at the time of the asylum grant the
regulations provide benefit to that child as a derivative under 208.21(b). If
the child was not in utero and the relationship with the child was after the
asylum grant, then a I-730 petition can not be filed on behalf of this child.
The U.S. Embassy does have the authority to grant a humanitarian parole
and that would need to be addressed with the U.S. Embassy.
hairstyles dark love poems for him. love
vedicman
10-21 09:56 AM
Hey bhagwan, is budde ko dharthi se tu utha le..
(Oh almighty, summon this old man away from us)
Two choices God:
1. Amen
2. Give him some sense :)
(Oh almighty, summon this old man away from us)
Two choices God:
1. Amen
2. Give him some sense :)
gcphul
01-10 03:56 PM
munabhai
i filed my I-140 in may 07 and got RFE in NOV-07 and replied in dec07.
i filed my I-140 in may 07 and got RFE in NOV-07 and replied in dec07.
bipin
03-18 02:45 AM
I worked with a desi consulting company Since Aug 2006. I moved to that company with my current project with the promise of faster GC process. My PERM was approved in Nov 2007, so missed July 2007 filing. I had to leave for India for few months due to an urgent personal issue and came back in April 2008. So I didn't work for 5 months (Nov 2007 - Apr 2008). When I came back he couldn't find any project for me and I realized he was a small company (The company was in NJ and I'm in CA). I found a job on my own in May 2008 and since I realized I'll be in trouble with him again I moved to another consulting company. Since he didn't pay me for 5 months and to prevent me from complaining against him, he said he'll take care of I-140. He said there was an RFE in Mar 2008 and he responded back. He told me it was on my W2 and I asked attorney and he also confirmed it. I didn’t get a copy of I-140 receipt, but I got the receipt number when it was applied.
And he cancelled my H1 in Aug 2008, though it was valid until Sep 2008. I asked him about this and he said, it's Ok now since I transferred the H1 and he'll not withdraw the I-140. Since I could successfully transfer my H1 w/o paychecks, I decided to leave those behind and move on with my life.
I applied my PERM with this new company in May 2009 and it's not yet approved. In Sep 2009 I saw my I-140 was approved with my previous employer and I called him and he never responded back. Then I saw his website also went away. Looks like he closed the shop.
Now in Feb 2010 I saw my I-140 status as withdrawn. This is the worst thing he could do and I'm mad! This is my 8th year in US and I used my I-140 number to extend the H1 and now it's due in Apr 2010 and I don't have a valid I-140 number (my PERM was applied with the new company in May 2009) and it's short of 20 days for 365 days past, I'm in BIG trouble!
I was taking care of all immigration expenses (H1 Fee, H1 & I-140 Attorney Fee). He made free $$$ from me for 15 months. But he was smart enough not to leave any proof that I paid for these expenses!
So I've two issues now to take care of.
- To extend my Visa
- And to sue my ex-employer for screwing my life. Since It's one year past since my H1 validity with him (H1 was valid until Aug 2008) Can I complain against him to get those 5 months bench salary or the statutory limit is over?
PLEASE HELP.
The timeline for you to help me.
On Bench with ex-employer Nov 2007 - April 2008 (5 months)
H1 transferred to new company in May 2008
H1 was valid until Sep 2008 with ex-employer, cancelled it in Aug 2008
And he cancelled my H1 in Aug 2008, though it was valid until Sep 2008. I asked him about this and he said, it's Ok now since I transferred the H1 and he'll not withdraw the I-140. Since I could successfully transfer my H1 w/o paychecks, I decided to leave those behind and move on with my life.
I applied my PERM with this new company in May 2009 and it's not yet approved. In Sep 2009 I saw my I-140 was approved with my previous employer and I called him and he never responded back. Then I saw his website also went away. Looks like he closed the shop.
Now in Feb 2010 I saw my I-140 status as withdrawn. This is the worst thing he could do and I'm mad! This is my 8th year in US and I used my I-140 number to extend the H1 and now it's due in Apr 2010 and I don't have a valid I-140 number (my PERM was applied with the new company in May 2009) and it's short of 20 days for 365 days past, I'm in BIG trouble!
I was taking care of all immigration expenses (H1 Fee, H1 & I-140 Attorney Fee). He made free $$$ from me for 15 months. But he was smart enough not to leave any proof that I paid for these expenses!
So I've two issues now to take care of.
- To extend my Visa
- And to sue my ex-employer for screwing my life. Since It's one year past since my H1 validity with him (H1 was valid until Aug 2008) Can I complain against him to get those 5 months bench salary or the statutory limit is over?
PLEASE HELP.
The timeline for you to help me.
On Bench with ex-employer Nov 2007 - April 2008 (5 months)
H1 transferred to new company in May 2008
H1 was valid until Sep 2008 with ex-employer, cancelled it in Aug 2008