gc_on_demand
11-12 03:24 PM
Under the regulation No reference to Calendar year. It mentions explicitly calendar quarter.
Immigration and Nationality Act: Section ACT 202 - Numerical Limitation to any single foreign state under Sec. 202. [8 U.S.C. 1152]
(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) and (b) 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.
(5) 2/ RULES FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS
(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.
(B) LIMITING FALL ACROSS FOR CERTAIN COUNTRIES SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION (e)- In the case of a foreign state or dependent area to which subsection (e) applies, if the total number of visas issued under section 203(b) exceeds the maximum number of visas that may be made available to immigrants of the state or area under section 203(b)consistent with subsection (e) (determined without regard to this paragraph),in applying subsection (e) all visas shall be deemed to have been required for the classes of aliens specified in section 203(b).
Isn't there a limit of 27% of visas per quarter per country per calendar year ? If that limit is there then who will take precedence ? Quarterly Spill over or that limit ?
To me I think DOS is doing 27% quota limit for first 3 quarters then they are doing spill over so there is no quarterly spill. What if they will show us that there is a limit per quarter in law and they have to follow it. Is it something like deadlock. that trying to follow one law breaks another one.
What if we end up getting response that there is some action needed from Lawmakers to correct law..
just random thoughts.
Immigration and Nationality Act: Section ACT 202 - Numerical Limitation to any single foreign state under Sec. 202. [8 U.S.C. 1152]
(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) and (b) 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.
(5) 2/ RULES FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS
(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.
(B) LIMITING FALL ACROSS FOR CERTAIN COUNTRIES SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION (e)- In the case of a foreign state or dependent area to which subsection (e) applies, if the total number of visas issued under section 203(b) exceeds the maximum number of visas that may be made available to immigrants of the state or area under section 203(b)consistent with subsection (e) (determined without regard to this paragraph),in applying subsection (e) all visas shall be deemed to have been required for the classes of aliens specified in section 203(b).
Isn't there a limit of 27% of visas per quarter per country per calendar year ? If that limit is there then who will take precedence ? Quarterly Spill over or that limit ?
To me I think DOS is doing 27% quota limit for first 3 quarters then they are doing spill over so there is no quarterly spill. What if they will show us that there is a limit per quarter in law and they have to follow it. Is it something like deadlock. that trying to follow one law breaks another one.
What if we end up getting response that there is some action needed from Lawmakers to correct law..
just random thoughts.
wallpaper 1969 FORD MUSTANG 428 CJ quot;Rquot;
singhsa3
03-04 11:21 AM
I am expectin WSJ to pay a visit. So I changed the first message.
conundrum
11-06 11:54 AM
Hi,
Can somebody paste the sample letter that needed to be sent because I cant open in office.
Thanks,
brawn.
FOIA Request for number of pending Employment based AOS/I-485 Applications
John Doe,
200 Main Street,
Chicago,IL,60001
National Records Center, FOIA/PA Office
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
P. O. Box 648010
Lee�s Summit, MO 64064-8010
Dear FOIA officer,
Several Employment based categories have been retrogressed for 4 years now and the exact number of pending AOS applications sorted by priority dates in the employment-based category is unknown. Department of state has been establishing the cut off in priority dates based on educated guesses and approximations. DOS and none of the Employment based applicants know the number of applications pending per category, per country sorted by priority dates. DOS visa office expressed same concern in Oct 08 bulletin.
�Little if any forward movement of the cut-off dates in most Employment categories is likely until the extent of the CIS backlog of old priority dates can be determined.�
This information would be helpful in determining the priority dates accurately and in determining when a visa number will be available for a given priority date in a certain category. I request you to provide me with the number of pending employment based AOS applications, (excluding approved/denied) sorted by priority date from 2001 on a yearly basis broken down for each of the following country and category. (Not the combined total of pending EB AOS applications altogether)
EB-2 China : Number of employment based AOS applications pending with USCIS sorted by priority date on a yearly basis from year 2001 till now
EB-2 India: Number of employment based AOS applications pending with USCIS sorted by priority date on a yearly basis from year 2001 till now.
EB-3 China: Number of employment based AOS applications pending with USCIS sorted by priority date on a yearly basis from year 2001 till now.
EB-3 India: Number of employment based AOS applications pending with USCIS sorted by priority date on a yearly basis from year 2001 till now.
EB-3 Mexico: Number of employment based AOS applications pending with USCIS sorted by priority date on a yearly basis from year 2001 till now.
EB-3 Phillippines: Number of employment based AOS applications pending with USCIS sorted by priority date on a yearly basis from year 2001 till now.
EB-3 Rest of the world : Number of employment based AOS applications pending with USCIS sorted by priority date on a yearly basis from year 2001 till now
Thanks,
John Doe.
Can somebody paste the sample letter that needed to be sent because I cant open in office.
Thanks,
brawn.
FOIA Request for number of pending Employment based AOS/I-485 Applications
John Doe,
200 Main Street,
Chicago,IL,60001
National Records Center, FOIA/PA Office
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
P. O. Box 648010
Lee�s Summit, MO 64064-8010
Dear FOIA officer,
Several Employment based categories have been retrogressed for 4 years now and the exact number of pending AOS applications sorted by priority dates in the employment-based category is unknown. Department of state has been establishing the cut off in priority dates based on educated guesses and approximations. DOS and none of the Employment based applicants know the number of applications pending per category, per country sorted by priority dates. DOS visa office expressed same concern in Oct 08 bulletin.
�Little if any forward movement of the cut-off dates in most Employment categories is likely until the extent of the CIS backlog of old priority dates can be determined.�
This information would be helpful in determining the priority dates accurately and in determining when a visa number will be available for a given priority date in a certain category. I request you to provide me with the number of pending employment based AOS applications, (excluding approved/denied) sorted by priority date from 2001 on a yearly basis broken down for each of the following country and category. (Not the combined total of pending EB AOS applications altogether)
EB-2 China : Number of employment based AOS applications pending with USCIS sorted by priority date on a yearly basis from year 2001 till now
EB-2 India: Number of employment based AOS applications pending with USCIS sorted by priority date on a yearly basis from year 2001 till now.
EB-3 China: Number of employment based AOS applications pending with USCIS sorted by priority date on a yearly basis from year 2001 till now.
EB-3 India: Number of employment based AOS applications pending with USCIS sorted by priority date on a yearly basis from year 2001 till now.
EB-3 Mexico: Number of employment based AOS applications pending with USCIS sorted by priority date on a yearly basis from year 2001 till now.
EB-3 Phillippines: Number of employment based AOS applications pending with USCIS sorted by priority date on a yearly basis from year 2001 till now.
EB-3 Rest of the world : Number of employment based AOS applications pending with USCIS sorted by priority date on a yearly basis from year 2001 till now
Thanks,
John Doe.
2011 2011 Ford Mustang GT 1969
yabadaba
08-15 04:14 PM
i am squishing up a baby bumble bee ..wont my mommy be so proud of me...i m squishing up a baby bumble bee...ewww its yucky
more...
bigboy007
06-30 05:57 AM
Sorry didnt follow up this thread , i dont know why USCIS is asking for colored copies , Passport i dont know but i have seen in clearly through state of ILLINOIS website some where about ITS ILLEGAL TO TAKE ID COLOR COPIES i noticed this when i am taking photo copy color and fedex kinko's person and tore away the color copy and said we both will be at risk as its strictly illegal. I dont know about other states and hence said so , let the RFE come i will then send it for DL; i am sending the one for passport in color though. i enquired with my lawyer he said thats fine just to update you .They might be asking it for clarity in picture i achieved the same using color copier but B/W with light tone effect. It came really good. I hope that useful.
ss777
05-15 02:27 PM
I totally agree with first para..but your client CIO getting promotion out of a Phoenix university degree surprises me..many people discouraged me from going there as they dont require GMAT to start with.
That surprised me also. He may be an exception but the fact that he was tapped for a management post that needs a management degree makes it imperative that his MBA played a good role. I am not saying Pheonix MBA is great. My point is Online MBA is valued in the industry.
That surprised me also. He may be an exception but the fact that he was tapped for a management post that needs a management degree makes it imperative that his MBA played a good role. I am not saying Pheonix MBA is great. My point is Online MBA is valued in the industry.
more...
Desertfox
12-10 07:01 PM
I am on L1 & my I-94 is expiring in a month from now on 11 Dec 2007 . I have applied for my L-Extenstion and is pending for approval.
Given this case - can my wife apply for a EAD with the current L1 approved document (expiring on 11 Dec 2007( and add my L-Extension approval papers later on?
There seems to be a three month delay in getting the EAD - hence wanted to initiate the process earlier and not till my L-Extension papers come-in
Please help me ASAP.
Sriram
My spouse got EAD from similar situation. Your wife should file I-765 for L-2 based EAD along with the receipt notice (I-797) of your I-129 (L-1 extension application). She should mail a I-765 hardcopy application to USCIS. USCIS will get back to you with RFE after 45-60 days for your I-129 approval notice (i.e. principal applicant's L-1 extension approval). BTW... hasn't she already filed for I-539 this way?
Given this case - can my wife apply for a EAD with the current L1 approved document (expiring on 11 Dec 2007( and add my L-Extension approval papers later on?
There seems to be a three month delay in getting the EAD - hence wanted to initiate the process earlier and not till my L-Extension papers come-in
Please help me ASAP.
Sriram
My spouse got EAD from similar situation. Your wife should file I-765 for L-2 based EAD along with the receipt notice (I-797) of your I-129 (L-1 extension application). She should mail a I-765 hardcopy application to USCIS. USCIS will get back to you with RFE after 45-60 days for your I-129 approval notice (i.e. principal applicant's L-1 extension approval). BTW... hasn't she already filed for I-539 this way?
2010 2011 Ford Mustang GT 1969
clockwork
08-07 12:06 AM
Type 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
EB1-All 41,672 34,168 14,453 31,291 64,731 36,960 26,697
EB2-All 42,550 44,316 15,406 32,534 42,597 21,911 44,162
EB3-All 85,847 88,002 46,415 85,969 129,070 89,922 85,030
EB-All 179,195 174,968 82,137 155,330 246,878 159,081 155,889
EB1-I 3,543 2,820 1,266 2,998 6,336 3,156 2,855
EB2-I 21,355 21,310 8,536 16,262 16,687 3,720 6,203
EB3-I 16,339 17,354 10,647 19,889 23,250 3,006 17,795
EB-I 41,720 41,919 20,818 39,496 47,160 17,358 26,853
Overall EB3 has got more numbers than EB2 in last 7 years for all and india specific grouping.
Hi Sachug22,
Some of the data you specified does not add up well. For example 2006 India, EB-total is 17,358 but 3,156+3,720+3,006 adds upto 9882.
Any idea?
Type 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
EB1-All 41,672 34,168 14,453 31,291 64,731 36,960 26,697
EB2-All 42,550 44,316 15,406 32,534 42,597 21,911 44,162
EB3-All 85,847 88,002 46,415 85,969 129,070 89,922 85,030
EB-All 179,195 174,968 82,137 155,330 246,878 159,081 155,889
EB1-I 3,543 2,820 1,266 2,998 6,336 3,156 2,855
EB2-I 21,355 21,310 8,536 16,262 16,687 3,720 6,203
EB3-I 16,339 17,354 10,647 19,889 23,250 3,006 17,795
EB-I 41,720 41,919 20,818 39,496 47,160 17,358 26,853
Thanks
EB1-All 41,672 34,168 14,453 31,291 64,731 36,960 26,697
EB2-All 42,550 44,316 15,406 32,534 42,597 21,911 44,162
EB3-All 85,847 88,002 46,415 85,969 129,070 89,922 85,030
EB-All 179,195 174,968 82,137 155,330 246,878 159,081 155,889
EB1-I 3,543 2,820 1,266 2,998 6,336 3,156 2,855
EB2-I 21,355 21,310 8,536 16,262 16,687 3,720 6,203
EB3-I 16,339 17,354 10,647 19,889 23,250 3,006 17,795
EB-I 41,720 41,919 20,818 39,496 47,160 17,358 26,853
Overall EB3 has got more numbers than EB2 in last 7 years for all and india specific grouping.
Hi Sachug22,
Some of the data you specified does not add up well. For example 2006 India, EB-total is 17,358 but 3,156+3,720+3,006 adds upto 9882.
Any idea?
Type 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
EB1-All 41,672 34,168 14,453 31,291 64,731 36,960 26,697
EB2-All 42,550 44,316 15,406 32,534 42,597 21,911 44,162
EB3-All 85,847 88,002 46,415 85,969 129,070 89,922 85,030
EB-All 179,195 174,968 82,137 155,330 246,878 159,081 155,889
EB1-I 3,543 2,820 1,266 2,998 6,336 3,156 2,855
EB2-I 21,355 21,310 8,536 16,262 16,687 3,720 6,203
EB3-I 16,339 17,354 10,647 19,889 23,250 3,006 17,795
EB-I 41,720 41,919 20,818 39,496 47,160 17,358 26,853
Thanks
more...
qesehmk
02-12 01:28 PM
pbuckeye, , You are still more concerned about what immigration body shop has to say than the facts and numbers on the ground. I am confused :confused:
This whole thread is about what Ron Gotcher published. I didn't start this thread. I am only contributing my view that based on available information some things make sense and some dont. The things that do make some sense is wastage of visa numbers in 2010. We have some facts to support the "theory" but not enough.
What doesn't make sense is Ron's assertion that USCIS wasted 13K EB visas in 2009. Facts simply don't support that.
Does this help? (Again this is my view... don't want to push it onto others)
This whole thread is about what Ron Gotcher published. I didn't start this thread. I am only contributing my view that based on available information some things make sense and some dont. The things that do make some sense is wastage of visa numbers in 2010. We have some facts to support the "theory" but not enough.
What doesn't make sense is Ron's assertion that USCIS wasted 13K EB visas in 2009. Facts simply don't support that.
Does this help? (Again this is my view... don't want to push it onto others)
hair 1969
ezee
10-16 04:37 PM
Don't you think we should be more clear in requesting information per specific country instead of lumping China and India together for EB-2 and others for EB-3? Also will it be too much to request pending applications by month/quarter instead of year?
We probably want the report in this format? This is just a suggestion.
|[indent]|EB2 - China |EB-2 India |EB-3 China |EB-3 India |EB-3 Mexico |EB-3 Phillipines |EB-3 Rest|
2001-Q1
2001-Q2
2001-Q3
2001-Q4
2002-Q1
2002-Q2
2002-Q3
2002-Q4
2003-Q1
2003-Q2
2003-Q3
2003-Q4
2004-Q1
2004-Q2
2004-Q3
2004-Q4
2005-Q1
2005-Q2
2005-Q3
2005-Q4
2006-Q1
2006-Q2
2006-Q3
2006-Q4
2007-Q1
2007-Q2
2007-Q3
2007-Q4
2008-Q1
2008-Q2
2008-Q3
2008-Q4
We probably want the report in this format? This is just a suggestion.
|[indent]|EB2 - China |EB-2 India |EB-3 China |EB-3 India |EB-3 Mexico |EB-3 Phillipines |EB-3 Rest|
2001-Q1
2001-Q2
2001-Q3
2001-Q4
2002-Q1
2002-Q2
2002-Q3
2002-Q4
2003-Q1
2003-Q2
2003-Q3
2003-Q4
2004-Q1
2004-Q2
2004-Q3
2004-Q4
2005-Q1
2005-Q2
2005-Q3
2005-Q4
2006-Q1
2006-Q2
2006-Q3
2006-Q4
2007-Q1
2007-Q2
2007-Q3
2007-Q4
2008-Q1
2008-Q2
2008-Q3
2008-Q4
more...
sc09876
07-29 01:46 PM
@uma001
I understand your situation because you had posted elsewhere on exactly what happened to you.
Premise of the Green Card (and H1-B for that matter) is that an American citizen or a Permanent resident was not available with required skill sets for the work to be done.
Scrutiny at H1-B was traditionally a lot relaxed because it is temporary in nature by definition. A lot us seem to assume that Green Card is a natural progression from H1-B. In Employment Based GC, burden of proof lies with the organizations. I have worked with small and big organizations, and I am yet to come across an organization that will go out of the way or makes exceptions to an employee at the risk of its reputation or facing legal hassles.
When I had a choice to make may be 5 years back, a friend of mine advised me. If you have GC, big corporations can employ you easily, but if the big corporations employ you, it is not easy to get GC. (particularly because the HR would not be so easily accessible, but "control" is what he was alluding to.)
I took his advise, and landed a "desi" company, which was not so "desi" in its thought process and treatment though. They were flexible, at the same time, great to work with, paid very well and took care of expenses at actuals. I was lucky enough to have landed where I had.
One has to know very well, what one wants to do and where one one wants to head. If the over-riding factor is a GC application, find out where you get the flexibility. On the other hand, if an over riding factor is a satisfaction to work with big name companies, then you know how it works. No point blaming companies.
I understand your situation because you had posted elsewhere on exactly what happened to you.
Premise of the Green Card (and H1-B for that matter) is that an American citizen or a Permanent resident was not available with required skill sets for the work to be done.
Scrutiny at H1-B was traditionally a lot relaxed because it is temporary in nature by definition. A lot us seem to assume that Green Card is a natural progression from H1-B. In Employment Based GC, burden of proof lies with the organizations. I have worked with small and big organizations, and I am yet to come across an organization that will go out of the way or makes exceptions to an employee at the risk of its reputation or facing legal hassles.
When I had a choice to make may be 5 years back, a friend of mine advised me. If you have GC, big corporations can employ you easily, but if the big corporations employ you, it is not easy to get GC. (particularly because the HR would not be so easily accessible, but "control" is what he was alluding to.)
I took his advise, and landed a "desi" company, which was not so "desi" in its thought process and treatment though. They were flexible, at the same time, great to work with, paid very well and took care of expenses at actuals. I was lucky enough to have landed where I had.
One has to know very well, what one wants to do and where one one wants to head. If the over-riding factor is a GC application, find out where you get the flexibility. On the other hand, if an over riding factor is a satisfaction to work with big name companies, then you know how it works. No point blaming companies.
hot 2008 SEMA Show Ford Mustangs
delax
07-22 05:15 PM
I485 Receipt I485 Pending I485-processed FB I-485 EB I-485
Oct-07 237915 842231 50548 42500 8048
Nov-07 51773 845691 48313 42500 5813
Dec-07 35020 833141 47570 42500 5070
Jan-08 35771 813238 55674 42500 13174
Feb-08 38210 787516 63932 42500 21432
Mar-08 43548 762938 68126 42500 25626
Apr-08 50951 742597 71292 42500 28792
May-08 45357 739934 48020 42500 5520
* Data from USCIS months processing report
** Oct 07 Receipt number changed from 137915 to 237915 (just looked incorrect)
** FB is flat (730k-220k CP / 12 months)
We have 113475 EB I-485 processed until May 08 (in 8 months), if we take 80% acceptance rate the number of visa used will be 90780 and if we use 90% acceptance rate USCIS may have used 102127 visas.
Wow! Great Job. I guess I can call you vdlrao2. That means there are around 40k visas available and most should go to EB2-I.......
Oct-07 237915 842231 50548 42500 8048
Nov-07 51773 845691 48313 42500 5813
Dec-07 35020 833141 47570 42500 5070
Jan-08 35771 813238 55674 42500 13174
Feb-08 38210 787516 63932 42500 21432
Mar-08 43548 762938 68126 42500 25626
Apr-08 50951 742597 71292 42500 28792
May-08 45357 739934 48020 42500 5520
* Data from USCIS months processing report
** Oct 07 Receipt number changed from 137915 to 237915 (just looked incorrect)
** FB is flat (730k-220k CP / 12 months)
We have 113475 EB I-485 processed until May 08 (in 8 months), if we take 80% acceptance rate the number of visa used will be 90780 and if we use 90% acceptance rate USCIS may have used 102127 visas.
Wow! Great Job. I guess I can call you vdlrao2. That means there are around 40k visas available and most should go to EB2-I.......
more...
house beleive 1969+mustang+pics
vagish
07-16 06:16 PM
Following up on the NYTimes article about the NumbersUSA group, I visited their website and saw that they have a free FAX program where they can easily send faxes to their senators.
One of their fax letters is below, which is a complete mis-representation of truth - look at point #2.
================================
Dear [This fax will go to Your U.S. Senators and U.S. Representative ]
I oppose any increase in the annual H-1B visa cap, including those in the SKIL Act. I am counting on you to oppose it.
Here are just a few reasons why I hope you will oppose the SKIL Act:
(1) The six-year visas allow foreign workers to bring in their families, and guarantee thousands of anchor babies.
(2) H-1B salaries are tax-exempt - no FICA, no federal or state income taxes. They can live at the same level as tax-paying Americans at a lower cost. Therefore, Congress allows foreigners to "low-ball" American workers.
(3) H-1Bs can leave the job they came to fill and seek other jobs, not necessarily in the "hard to fill" category.
(4) Most H-1Bs are of a "protected" ethnic group, so H-1Bs have an affirmative action preference when competing with Americans for the same jobs.
The result of the SKIL Act would be to further depress the wages of Americans working in high-tech and scientific fields and to cause additional job displacement for those workers.
Sincerely, [Your Name Will Appear Here]
==============================================
Is there any way we could let the senators know that this is complete lie, misinformation and mis-representation of facts?. We should also let the senators know that the credibility of these organizations are questionable and following the news/faxes from these organizations would in turn put the credibility of these senators at a BIG RISK. We also should let the senators know that these groups are artificially "hiking" up the count by sending in duplicate faxes.
Also, I recommend creating a similar page in IV website, where we can have an automated 1-2-3 STEP fax facility where we can automatically fax a letter to senators. It should be as simple as selecting the state and pressing the Send Fax button. Please let me know if you need any programming help from me.
Thanks,
Sanjay.
IT IS A SCREWED UP ORGANIZATION !!!!!!!!!
One of their fax letters is below, which is a complete mis-representation of truth - look at point #2.
================================
Dear [This fax will go to Your U.S. Senators and U.S. Representative ]
I oppose any increase in the annual H-1B visa cap, including those in the SKIL Act. I am counting on you to oppose it.
Here are just a few reasons why I hope you will oppose the SKIL Act:
(1) The six-year visas allow foreign workers to bring in their families, and guarantee thousands of anchor babies.
(2) H-1B salaries are tax-exempt - no FICA, no federal or state income taxes. They can live at the same level as tax-paying Americans at a lower cost. Therefore, Congress allows foreigners to "low-ball" American workers.
(3) H-1Bs can leave the job they came to fill and seek other jobs, not necessarily in the "hard to fill" category.
(4) Most H-1Bs are of a "protected" ethnic group, so H-1Bs have an affirmative action preference when competing with Americans for the same jobs.
The result of the SKIL Act would be to further depress the wages of Americans working in high-tech and scientific fields and to cause additional job displacement for those workers.
Sincerely, [Your Name Will Appear Here]
==============================================
Is there any way we could let the senators know that this is complete lie, misinformation and mis-representation of facts?. We should also let the senators know that the credibility of these organizations are questionable and following the news/faxes from these organizations would in turn put the credibility of these senators at a BIG RISK. We also should let the senators know that these groups are artificially "hiking" up the count by sending in duplicate faxes.
Also, I recommend creating a similar page in IV website, where we can have an automated 1-2-3 STEP fax facility where we can automatically fax a letter to senators. It should be as simple as selecting the state and pressing the Send Fax button. Please let me know if you need any programming help from me.
Thanks,
Sanjay.
IT IS A SCREWED UP ORGANIZATION !!!!!!!!!
tattoo Starring: 1969 Ford Mustang
nonimmi
03-14 05:42 PM
We sent a letter to USCIS to revoke the existing G-28.
We just sent a letter and 485 receipt for me and my husband.
Just wanted to let u know.
Thanks for sharing the info. Did you get any new attorney?
We just sent a letter and 485 receipt for me and my husband.
Just wanted to let u know.
Thanks for sharing the info. Did you get any new attorney?
more...
pictures 1969 Ford Mustang #39;The Real
superdude
09-18 11:04 PM
I totaly agree with you
dresses Best Auto Reviews - 1980 Ford
ItIsNotFunny
03-10 04:04 PM
We keep doing feasibility discussions within the team and with our advisors before launching a campaign. We did work on some in your list above + more last year and got a couple of successes in return. Admin fix for 2 year EAD, visa recapture bill introduction are some.
I feel some admin fixes can be possible at this time and some advocacy effort with USCIS can help us get more efficient service. FOIA campaign is a step in that direction. Please support it to make it successful so that we have resources and participation to move forward.
I think we should take visa re-capture as high priority once we clear FOIA issue. Whats your opinion?
I feel some admin fixes can be possible at this time and some advocacy effort with USCIS can help us get more efficient service. FOIA campaign is a step in that direction. Please support it to make it successful so that we have resources and participation to move forward.
I think we should take visa re-capture as high priority once we clear FOIA issue. Whats your opinion?
more...
makeup 1969 Ford Mustang Mach 1
Winner
06-11 08:02 AM
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE SEND THE MESSAGE. WE WILL ALSO START WITH THE PHONE CAMPAIGN IN THE MORNING.
Reason being, the other side is writing letters to other Senators to seek their support. They want to see this amendment pass. Here is the letter.
************************************************** ***************
COMPANIES LAYING-OFF THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN WORKERS DON�T NEED GUEST WORKERS
Please Support the Sanders-Grassley Employ America Amendment to the Tax Extenders bill
Dear Colleague:
Since the recession started in December of 2007, nearly 8 million Americans have lost their jobs and the unemployment rate has nearly doubled. In total, 15 million Americans are officially unemployed, another 8.8 million Americans are working part-time only because they cannot find a full-time job, and more than one million workers have given up looking for work altogether.
With the unemployment rate still unacceptably high and millions of people looking for a job, we have a responsibility to ensure that companies do not use temporary visa programs to replace American workers with cheaper labor from overseas.
Therefore, during the consideration of the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act, we will be offering an amendment that would prohibit companies which have announced mass lay-offs over the past year from hiring guest workers, unless they can prove that their overall employment will not be reduced as a result of these lay-offs.
At a time when millions of Americans are out of work, the notion that we need to import labor from abroad because there are not enough qualified, willing or able American workers in this country rings hollow.
Recently, some of the very companies that have hired tens of thousands of guest-workers from overseas have announced large scale lay-offs of American workers. The high-tech industry, a major employer of H-1B guest workers, has announced over 330,000 job cuts since 2008. The construction industry, a major employer of H-2B guest-workers, has laid-off 1.9 million workers since December of 2007.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, signed into law last February, included a provision to prevent companies receiving assistance through the Troubled Asset Relief Program from replacing laid-off American workers with guest-workers from overseas.
The Employ America Act expands upon this provision to prevent any company engaged in a mass lay-off of American workers from importing cheaper labor from abroad through temporary guest-worker programs. Those companies that are truly facing labor shortages would not be impacted by this legislation and could continue to obtain employer-sponsored visas. Only companies that are laying-off a large number of Americans would be barred from importing foreign workers through guest worker programs.
If you would like to co-sponsor this amendment, please have your staff contact Warren Gunnels in Sen. Sanders� office at 8-6358 or Kathy Nuebel Kovarik in Sen. Grassley's office at 4-3744.
Sincerely,
____________________ ____________________
BERNARD SANDERS CHARLES E. GRASSLEY
UNITED STATES SENATOR UNITED STATES SENATOR
************************************************** ***************
This underscores the urgency. Please act on the action item NOW.
Reason being, the other side is writing letters to other Senators to seek their support. They want to see this amendment pass. Here is the letter.
************************************************** ***************
COMPANIES LAYING-OFF THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN WORKERS DON�T NEED GUEST WORKERS
Please Support the Sanders-Grassley Employ America Amendment to the Tax Extenders bill
Dear Colleague:
Since the recession started in December of 2007, nearly 8 million Americans have lost their jobs and the unemployment rate has nearly doubled. In total, 15 million Americans are officially unemployed, another 8.8 million Americans are working part-time only because they cannot find a full-time job, and more than one million workers have given up looking for work altogether.
With the unemployment rate still unacceptably high and millions of people looking for a job, we have a responsibility to ensure that companies do not use temporary visa programs to replace American workers with cheaper labor from overseas.
Therefore, during the consideration of the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act, we will be offering an amendment that would prohibit companies which have announced mass lay-offs over the past year from hiring guest workers, unless they can prove that their overall employment will not be reduced as a result of these lay-offs.
At a time when millions of Americans are out of work, the notion that we need to import labor from abroad because there are not enough qualified, willing or able American workers in this country rings hollow.
Recently, some of the very companies that have hired tens of thousands of guest-workers from overseas have announced large scale lay-offs of American workers. The high-tech industry, a major employer of H-1B guest workers, has announced over 330,000 job cuts since 2008. The construction industry, a major employer of H-2B guest-workers, has laid-off 1.9 million workers since December of 2007.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, signed into law last February, included a provision to prevent companies receiving assistance through the Troubled Asset Relief Program from replacing laid-off American workers with guest-workers from overseas.
The Employ America Act expands upon this provision to prevent any company engaged in a mass lay-off of American workers from importing cheaper labor from abroad through temporary guest-worker programs. Those companies that are truly facing labor shortages would not be impacted by this legislation and could continue to obtain employer-sponsored visas. Only companies that are laying-off a large number of Americans would be barred from importing foreign workers through guest worker programs.
If you would like to co-sponsor this amendment, please have your staff contact Warren Gunnels in Sen. Sanders� office at 8-6358 or Kathy Nuebel Kovarik in Sen. Grassley's office at 4-3744.
Sincerely,
____________________ ____________________
BERNARD SANDERS CHARLES E. GRASSLEY
UNITED STATES SENATOR UNITED STATES SENATOR
************************************************** ***************
This underscores the urgency. Please act on the action item NOW.
girlfriend FD1304SA-Ford Collection-1969
indio0617
11-22 10:40 AM
Ok. Here is a question I have.
I know one can get 3 years extensions once 140 is approved even with previous employer. The question is -
Assume EB2 140 is approved for previous employer has PD June 2004, and then one changes the job. By the time his 6 years of H1B gets over, June 2004 becomes current. Now the person cannot file 485 since 140 was approved for old employe whom he has left an year back. Will the person still get 3 years of extension on H1B?
I was thinking, u get 3 years extension due to retrogession.. so with the fact that PD is current, how will you still get 3 years of extension?
Thanks.
Yes. You are correct. 3 year extension after I-140 approvals can be granted only if you are unable to file for I-485. Things will be complicated in the scenario you outlined which would require some prior planning.
It is all a big mess, forcing us to stay in this perpetually uncertain state, putting our lives on hold. Of course we all have a choice : factor out the GC from our career / life equation and move on without all the complexities. I guess we will see more and more people taking that route now given the gloomy scene on retrogession.
I know one can get 3 years extensions once 140 is approved even with previous employer. The question is -
Assume EB2 140 is approved for previous employer has PD June 2004, and then one changes the job. By the time his 6 years of H1B gets over, June 2004 becomes current. Now the person cannot file 485 since 140 was approved for old employe whom he has left an year back. Will the person still get 3 years of extension on H1B?
I was thinking, u get 3 years extension due to retrogession.. so with the fact that PD is current, how will you still get 3 years of extension?
Thanks.
Yes. You are correct. 3 year extension after I-140 approvals can be granted only if you are unable to file for I-485. Things will be complicated in the scenario you outlined which would require some prior planning.
It is all a big mess, forcing us to stay in this perpetually uncertain state, putting our lives on hold. Of course we all have a choice : factor out the GC from our career / life equation and move on without all the complexities. I guess we will see more and more people taking that route now given the gloomy scene on retrogession.
hairstyles 1969 Mach 1 Mustang Makeover
eilsoe
02-23 02:19 PM
well, people seems to have forgotten about this battle...
suriajay12
03-30 07:47 AM
very good point and I agree 100 percent ..sad part is that such a good post gets buried under 20 posts which ask for more donations.
as far as I know FOIA campaign was for 5000 dollars ..then it was increased to 10,000. will it increase again ?
Do we do any more than just agreeing with others or disagreeing.. Sorry.. but we must not let down our efforts. I wrote to Zoe Lofgren and change.gov this weekend. What did you do for your problems?
as far as I know FOIA campaign was for 5000 dollars ..then it was increased to 10,000. will it increase again ?
Do we do any more than just agreeing with others or disagreeing.. Sorry.. but we must not let down our efforts. I wrote to Zoe Lofgren and change.gov this weekend. What did you do for your problems?
kaisersose
03-07 04:16 PM
Until last year, it was important to announce a job change via AC21 to USCIS. This was because many sponsoring employers would revoke the 140 (even after 180 days) so that they could reuse the Labor for someone else.
When that happened and there was no AC21 letter from the applicant, some IOs would deny the 485 even without a NOID. This would mean MTR and a lot of unnecessary work.
This problem no longer exists as Labot substitution has been removed. The employer has no incentive to revoke the 140 and so the chances of goofup from USCIS has been lowered.
When that happened and there was no AC21 letter from the applicant, some IOs would deny the 485 even without a NOID. This would mean MTR and a lot of unnecessary work.
This problem no longer exists as Labot substitution has been removed. The employer has no incentive to revoke the 140 and so the chances of goofup from USCIS has been lowered.
No comments:
Post a Comment