zuhail
04-11 01:23 AM
A very useful piece of information has been brought to our attention by shiankuraaf.
Thank you very much!
http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/LPR08.shtm
Table 6 Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status by Type and Major Class of Admission: Fiscal Years 1999 to 2008
http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/YrBk04Im.shtm
Table 4 Immigrants admitted by type and selected class of admission: fiscal years 1986-2004
Employment-based preferences (Total Number)
Year QUOTA ISSUED Unused/Excessively used
1986 140000 56617 83383
1987 140000 57519 82481
1988 140000 58727 81273
1989 140000 57741 82259
1990 140000 58192 81808
1991 140000 59525 80475
1992 140000 116198 23802
1993 140000 147012 -7012
1994 140000 123291 16709
1995 140000 85336 54664
1996 140000 117499 22501
1997 140000 90607 49393
1998 140000 77517 62483
1999 140000 56678 83322
2000 140000 106642 33358
2001 140000 178702 -38702
2002 140000 173814 -33814
2003 140000 81727 58273
2004 140000 155330 -15330
2005 140000 246877 -106877
2006 140000 159081 -19081
2007 140000 162176 -22176
2008 140000 166511 -26511
Sum total of the differences from 1986 to 2008: 626,681. Vow!!!
So when looked between the period of 1986 and 2008,
there were a total of 626,681 un-used visa numbers that can be re-captured.
This is based on the BIG assumption that the yearly quota for EB categories is 140,000 from 1986 to 2008.
Does anybody know how to verify this important assumption online --a link to a gov website perhaps?
It would be good to verify when the law specifying 140,000 visa numbers per year was passed and
what were the criteria for visa number usage prior to the existence of the law.
Thank you very much!
http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/LPR08.shtm
Table 6 Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status by Type and Major Class of Admission: Fiscal Years 1999 to 2008
http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/YrBk04Im.shtm
Table 4 Immigrants admitted by type and selected class of admission: fiscal years 1986-2004
Employment-based preferences (Total Number)
Year QUOTA ISSUED Unused/Excessively used
1986 140000 56617 83383
1987 140000 57519 82481
1988 140000 58727 81273
1989 140000 57741 82259
1990 140000 58192 81808
1991 140000 59525 80475
1992 140000 116198 23802
1993 140000 147012 -7012
1994 140000 123291 16709
1995 140000 85336 54664
1996 140000 117499 22501
1997 140000 90607 49393
1998 140000 77517 62483
1999 140000 56678 83322
2000 140000 106642 33358
2001 140000 178702 -38702
2002 140000 173814 -33814
2003 140000 81727 58273
2004 140000 155330 -15330
2005 140000 246877 -106877
2006 140000 159081 -19081
2007 140000 162176 -22176
2008 140000 166511 -26511
Sum total of the differences from 1986 to 2008: 626,681. Vow!!!
So when looked between the period of 1986 and 2008,
there were a total of 626,681 un-used visa numbers that can be re-captured.
This is based on the BIG assumption that the yearly quota for EB categories is 140,000 from 1986 to 2008.
Does anybody know how to verify this important assumption online --a link to a gov website perhaps?
It would be good to verify when the law specifying 140,000 visa numbers per year was passed and
what were the criteria for visa number usage prior to the existence of the law.
wallpaper Eyeshadow for lue eyes yellow
BumbleBee
08-15 04:11 PM
Shocking !!!! :eek:
Not really, Everyone is numb after July Visa Bulletin fiasco. Sep bulletin is better than expected, better than August atleast ( there are some dates in each cell, instead of 'U' all over the map ).
Lets hope for Oct bulletin to bring a little bit of smile :rolleyes:
Beeeee
Not really, Everyone is numb after July Visa Bulletin fiasco. Sep bulletin is better than expected, better than August atleast ( there are some dates in each cell, instead of 'U' all over the map ).
Lets hope for Oct bulletin to bring a little bit of smile :rolleyes:
Beeeee
Hermione
09-26 09:32 AM
It is not about politics, it is about ignorance of the people (including reporters). It is explainable, though - what do you know about... I don't know, laws around transporting hazardous materials, something you have never been exposed or subject to? Next to nothing. That's what an average American knows about immigration - their closest brush with that law was when their co-worker adopted a child from abroad. Of course, they do not know the difference between worker visas, and employment based immigrant visas (don't they even sound alike?).
2011 smoky eyeshadow for lue eyes. green and lue eyeshadows
sathyaraj
03-12 06:20 PM
Hi BharatPremi:
Thank you so much for your reply. I do not have any speeding tickets also. I have clean history so far. I am hoping that this will be cleared by this week so that I can join them by 03/24
Regards
SathyaRaj
I am assuming here that you referred Background Check done by future employer as a part of employment offer before granting you the final offer. In that case mostly your employer might have contracted that to third party. And if that would have been the case then it solely depends upon where you resides now and how many states you have moved so far from the date of first entry in uSA and what kind of new implementation all those states may have. Some states even gives "Red Flag" for traffic violation such as speeding. What happens is that, that third party would see only "red flag" and would not come to know about underlying cause of the "red flag". So as a process that third party first come to your future employer notifying about this " red flag". Then your employer decides to query that further having signature from you and would notify third party to dig further and then third party will go to state police to know the underlying cause and state police will work on that by taking fee and and some point of time it will say " hey he had traffic violation". So it may eat up 3 to 4 months to finish the whole cycle and ball is in your employer's court whether to hire you or wait to hire till then. Most companies hire without wasting time and afterwards if something really serious feedback comes in will boot you otherwise you will be fine.
Thank you so much for your reply. I do not have any speeding tickets also. I have clean history so far. I am hoping that this will be cleared by this week so that I can join them by 03/24
Regards
SathyaRaj
I am assuming here that you referred Background Check done by future employer as a part of employment offer before granting you the final offer. In that case mostly your employer might have contracted that to third party. And if that would have been the case then it solely depends upon where you resides now and how many states you have moved so far from the date of first entry in uSA and what kind of new implementation all those states may have. Some states even gives "Red Flag" for traffic violation such as speeding. What happens is that, that third party would see only "red flag" and would not come to know about underlying cause of the "red flag". So as a process that third party first come to your future employer notifying about this " red flag". Then your employer decides to query that further having signature from you and would notify third party to dig further and then third party will go to state police to know the underlying cause and state police will work on that by taking fee and and some point of time it will say " hey he had traffic violation". So it may eat up 3 to 4 months to finish the whole cycle and ball is in your employer's court whether to hire you or wait to hire till then. Most companies hire without wasting time and afterwards if something really serious feedback comes in will boot you otherwise you will be fine.
more...
dhesha
03-18 02:26 PM
Any idea how far will it move? Will it come to Dec 2005 ;)
greyhair
02-12 01:06 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:
more...
greyhair
06-10 12:56 PM
May be we should do some thing dramatic. Like sending letter to Canadian Government, here we are 1000 skilled people with extensive experience and International degrees. Collectively we going to bring in $1 million or more. Can you expedite our Permanent residency!!
All US senators know that EB immigrants are going through Hell hole of USCIS. They are unable to do anything about it.
Although USCIS does not report to Congress, USCIS merely implement the laws created by 100 Senators and 435 House members. Our anger towards USCIS is mis-directed. The anger and focus should be on the Congress to pass the laws that will fix green card wait time.
All Senators are actors. They pretend that they know our problems but they actually do not do anything to fix our issues. Otherwise, why would this amendment have 70 votes as pappu said in his post.
All US senators know that EB immigrants are going through Hell hole of USCIS. They are unable to do anything about it.
Although USCIS does not report to Congress, USCIS merely implement the laws created by 100 Senators and 435 House members. Our anger towards USCIS is mis-directed. The anger and focus should be on the Congress to pass the laws that will fix green card wait time.
All Senators are actors. They pretend that they know our problems but they actually do not do anything to fix our issues. Otherwise, why would this amendment have 70 votes as pappu said in his post.
2010 smoky eyeshadow for lue eyes. yet Smokey Baby Blue Eyes
sc3
10-16 01:49 PM
yesterday some one left a red saying "go and sleep in your bedroom or something like that" :D,
(which I find hilarious..because I don't exactly sleep on my couch :D:D)
then some left a green saying "nullifying red".
folks, I didn't leave a red for anyone (who cares abt them anyways)...don't assume immediately that I reacted.
giving either reds or greens will not impact anyone's gc process..or change their PDs!
Like itsnotfunny says, if you agree/disagree say it so. gave itsnotfunny a green to nullify the red.
let me reiterate though, that I am completely opposed to flower campaign because once bitten, twice shy.
USCIS has lot of autonomy and there is every likely of a repeat i.e july 07 part 2 as a reaction to gandhigiri part 2
instead focus on other avenues, there is an excellent thread on FOIA in addition to the other avenues
First: Disabuse yourself of the notion that Gandhigiri had anything to do with the backtrack of the July 07 fiasco. There were other more pressing (and effective) organizations that helped reverse the situation.
Second: What happened (the flood of applications) were definitely caused by an ill thought Visa bulletin, but USCIS had no control over the massive amount of applications that they had to deal with. Even commercial operations (amazon etc) break down when overloaded. So to put extensive blame on USCIS for the "reaction" (I assume you are talking about the backlogs) is not right.
(which I find hilarious..because I don't exactly sleep on my couch :D:D)
then some left a green saying "nullifying red".
folks, I didn't leave a red for anyone (who cares abt them anyways)...don't assume immediately that I reacted.
giving either reds or greens will not impact anyone's gc process..or change their PDs!
Like itsnotfunny says, if you agree/disagree say it so. gave itsnotfunny a green to nullify the red.
let me reiterate though, that I am completely opposed to flower campaign because once bitten, twice shy.
USCIS has lot of autonomy and there is every likely of a repeat i.e july 07 part 2 as a reaction to gandhigiri part 2
instead focus on other avenues, there is an excellent thread on FOIA in addition to the other avenues
First: Disabuse yourself of the notion that Gandhigiri had anything to do with the backtrack of the July 07 fiasco. There were other more pressing (and effective) organizations that helped reverse the situation.
Second: What happened (the flood of applications) were definitely caused by an ill thought Visa bulletin, but USCIS had no control over the massive amount of applications that they had to deal with. Even commercial operations (amazon etc) break down when overloaded. So to put extensive blame on USCIS for the "reaction" (I assume you are talking about the backlogs) is not right.
more...
pappu
03-10 03:55 PM
I challenge visitors in this forum to make atleast one fix, any small fix by sticking to the point and not beating around the bush and not getting into the shoes of others to paint the whole world problems in this.
Just stick to one point agenda and deliver it fully..
1. Recapture Immigrant Visas - to me too big to bite but it is the best
2. Admin fix to file I485 when date is not current - Helps lot of people who missed July 07 fiasco for various reasons..
3. Admin fix to revalidate H1B in USA - Stops all the BS about IO at POE killed someone etc..
4. Accountability of CIS - Make sure they process in FIFO by PD (Damn it, we need to define PD for them :-) )
Just stick with one damn topic and deliver it. This will help IV get the required attention.
Need an example, look at FOIA thread, In four days we had people pledging almost 8K.
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.
Just stick to one point agenda and deliver it fully..
1. Recapture Immigrant Visas - to me too big to bite but it is the best
2. Admin fix to file I485 when date is not current - Helps lot of people who missed July 07 fiasco for various reasons..
3. Admin fix to revalidate H1B in USA - Stops all the BS about IO at POE killed someone etc..
4. Accountability of CIS - Make sure they process in FIFO by PD (Damn it, we need to define PD for them :-) )
Just stick with one damn topic and deliver it. This will help IV get the required attention.
Need an example, look at FOIA thread, In four days we had people pledging almost 8K.
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.
hair For lue eyes and blonde hair
feedfront
09-23 12:14 PM
Hi All,
Employer A - original sponsoring employer. Got laidoff and joined B (large corporate). Before dates got current got offer from C and C applied for H1 transfer. Now received RFE on I-485 to provide EVL from current employer along with paystubs and W2.
My problem here is that I consulted Murthy and they are saying that I need to make a choice between my current employer B and my potential new employer C whom I have not started working yet but they have filed for H-1 transfer. If I respond to the RFE using my current employer information then it is more straightforward but then I will need to stay with them if I get my GC right away after responding to the RFE. But if I use my new employer's letter then I don't have paystubs to show until I join them which won't be until the H-1 transfer goes through and I go through one payroll cycle. But that will be too late to respond to the RFE.
If I don't join C then I need to pay for the H1 transfer that they filed and attorneys fees. At the same time I am also not happy with my current employers HR and attorney.
I would go for employer B, as my misery would be short. You are current and it's just few weeks (unless something goes wrong) + 6 months of misery working with current employer (max 9 months :cool: ) . You can work part time with C to cover up your H1B fees.
Employer A - original sponsoring employer. Got laidoff and joined B (large corporate). Before dates got current got offer from C and C applied for H1 transfer. Now received RFE on I-485 to provide EVL from current employer along with paystubs and W2.
My problem here is that I consulted Murthy and they are saying that I need to make a choice between my current employer B and my potential new employer C whom I have not started working yet but they have filed for H-1 transfer. If I respond to the RFE using my current employer information then it is more straightforward but then I will need to stay with them if I get my GC right away after responding to the RFE. But if I use my new employer's letter then I don't have paystubs to show until I join them which won't be until the H-1 transfer goes through and I go through one payroll cycle. But that will be too late to respond to the RFE.
If I don't join C then I need to pay for the H1 transfer that they filed and attorneys fees. At the same time I am also not happy with my current employers HR and attorney.
I would go for employer B, as my misery would be short. You are current and it's just few weeks (unless something goes wrong) + 6 months of misery working with current employer (max 9 months :cool: ) . You can work part time with C to cover up your H1B fees.
more...
WillIBLucky
11-22 01:23 PM
I dont think that is correct - as per my lawyer this is what she says -
In order to move to a new employer and still continue with the same gc applications, you must meet all of the following conditions under AC21:
1. Your I-140 must be approved
2. Your I-485 must be filed and pending for at least 180 days
3. Your new job classification must be the same as in the old job
If you are missing any of the 3 conditions at the time you move to an employer, you will lose your gc application and you will need to start a new one.
So guys please make sure you give correct information. Also, I would suggest people who are asking various questions over here in IV should also talk to their own lawyers and take a decision. Please do not take decision based on comments given over here. So "LOOK BEFORE YOU LEAP".
In order to move to a new employer and still continue with the same gc applications, you must meet all of the following conditions under AC21:
1. Your I-140 must be approved
2. Your I-485 must be filed and pending for at least 180 days
3. Your new job classification must be the same as in the old job
If you are missing any of the 3 conditions at the time you move to an employer, you will lose your gc application and you will need to start a new one.
So guys please make sure you give correct information. Also, I would suggest people who are asking various questions over here in IV should also talk to their own lawyers and take a decision. Please do not take decision based on comments given over here. So "LOOK BEFORE YOU LEAP".
hot smoky eyeshadow for lue eyes. Brown Smokey Eyes; Brown Smokey Eyes
paskal
07-03 01:54 PM
the discussion on such heated topics can still be in civil tones.
frankly personal attacks and strong language are not going to get anyone's point across any better. try keeping a cool approach and write well reasoned thoughtful posts. also don't forget, in everything, there is ususally something to the other point of view- however much we disagree on something. lets try this refreshing new approach...maybe we will find there is actually common ground...;)
frankly personal attacks and strong language are not going to get anyone's point across any better. try keeping a cool approach and write well reasoned thoughtful posts. also don't forget, in everything, there is ususally something to the other point of view- however much we disagree on something. lets try this refreshing new approach...maybe we will find there is actually common ground...;)
more...
house smoky eyeshadow for lue eyes. model with smoky denim eyes
abcdefgh
01-17 08:17 AM
Pappu:
Can we post link to this thread some where on every page so that who ever visits IV sees this thread right away? May be in different color or in some way so that it stands out. It looks like this thread is lost among all other threads.
Can we post link to this thread some where on every page so that who ever visits IV sees this thread right away? May be in different color or in some way so that it stands out. It looks like this thread is lost among all other threads.
tattoo +eyeshadow+for+lue+eyes
Madhuri
10-22 12:05 PM
Mailed mine today.
more...
pictures green eyes pop taupe or a lue eyes save Smokey+eyeshadow+for+lue+eyes
boreal
12-28 02:36 PM
Yes this is correct. If you have an approved I-140 and your I-485 is pending for 180 days, the employer cannot revoke your I-140 unless there is fraud in getting the I-140. If you have done joint filing of the two, if you get your I-140 within 6 months of the joint filing, you can change employers immediately after that. Of course, you can't just go to any employer; it has a to be a similar job.
welcome back qplearn :-)
welcome back qplearn :-)
dresses EYESHADOW FOR BLUE EYES - Page
GeetaRam
07-29 12:53 PM
Add CareFirst - Blue Cross Blue Shield
Legg Meson
All these companies take people on H1 and after an year of year an half they say they have changed policy and they can't file H1. They have big lawyers like M**** and R**** and those lawyers tell employers even if your employee is on 5th year and if you don't file GC (PERM) b4 365 days its alright.... we can send them out and re catpture time and all BS and ultimately employees suffer.... as they r in their 5th or some are in 6th year and are completely screwed up.
We should think of taking some legal actions...
Legg Meson
All these companies take people on H1 and after an year of year an half they say they have changed policy and they can't file H1. They have big lawyers like M**** and R**** and those lawyers tell employers even if your employee is on 5th year and if you don't file GC (PERM) b4 365 days its alright.... we can send them out and re catpture time and all BS and ultimately employees suffer.... as they r in their 5th or some are in 6th year and are completely screwed up.
We should think of taking some legal actions...
more...
makeup Eyeshadow For Blue Eyes
sam_hoosier
01-18 11:09 AM
Signed up for $20/month.
girlfriend lue eyeshadow The strong,
indianindian2006
07-14 06:29 PM
The fundamental rule (for getting GC) is the longterm intent of having permanent employment relationship between employer and employee at the time of filing 140 and 485 (see the Q&A). The intet has to be "at the time of filing" only. The employee has worked 3 years in H1B for thr sponser. It clearly establishes the both party's intent at the time of filing. So, even if the employer revokes his approved 140, he is 100% safe.
What I have read is that it is critical that his 140 remain valid upto 180 days after filing 485 or the 485 is dead.Correct me if I am wrong.
What I have read is that it is critical that his 140 remain valid upto 180 days after filing 485 or the 485 is dead.Correct me if I am wrong.
hairstyles Siri Blue Eyes
EB3_SEP04
05-26 05:11 PM
I wonder what are the required documents for America born citizens if they don't have passports. Just a driver license? or they have to carry birth certificates always?
US citizens are not required to prove that they are citizens, only the non-citizens are required to prove their status, and that's what angers me. If you answer the question as "Citizen" no further question is asked, and that is the RULE. Hence illegal people are trained to say the word "citizen" no matter what question they are asked. But as law abiding people most legal immigrants/non-immigrants won't lie just for the sake of avoiding the hassel of showing papers.
US citizens are not required to prove that they are citizens, only the non-citizens are required to prove their status, and that's what angers me. If you answer the question as "Citizen" no further question is asked, and that is the RULE. Hence illegal people are trained to say the word "citizen" no matter what question they are asked. But as law abiding people most legal immigrants/non-immigrants won't lie just for the sake of avoiding the hassel of showing papers.
anukcs
09-26 09:53 AM
I sent a message
singhsa3
03-10 03:14 PM
Folks,
I am trying to set up an interview with Mercury News , San Jose, CA. I think , he will be mainly focussing on the reason why we are not planning to buy house. One reason of course is market condition but the primary reason is the uncetainity of the green card process. Personally, I avoid making any big investments, including new car, vacations etc because of my uncertain future here in the USA.
Those who want to be part of the interview, please let me know. We can talk before the interview as to the points we can make.
I am trying to set up an interview with Mercury News , San Jose, CA. I think , he will be mainly focussing on the reason why we are not planning to buy house. One reason of course is market condition but the primary reason is the uncetainity of the green card process. Personally, I avoid making any big investments, including new car, vacations etc because of my uncertain future here in the USA.
Those who want to be part of the interview, please let me know. We can talk before the interview as to the points we can make.
No comments:
Post a Comment