sc09876
08-10 02:42 PM
The INA language says that until EB2 is not current, there will be no spillover to EB3. Agreed. But I would contend that this statement is on a year to year basis. That is, if in the year 2002 (for example) all EB2 has been satisfied, then the spillovers should go to year 2002 EB3.
Is this something IV can point out and fight for? Can EB3 members put their money and efforts in this direction? Let me know if this sounds worthwhile
Let me just say I am not here to start a EB2 vs EB3 fight. I think the beef is that EB3 is still in 2002 while EB2 is now peeking into 2007.
However, IMHO, if you extend that logic, since EB3 has much more filings than EB2, EB2 wait time would be unrealistically high. Just my opinion that it defeats the purpose of classification, since in the end, it will be PD based and not classification based.
Instead the focus should be in "automatic" progression to higher classification if the PD has certain # of years. For example: If the job requirement had 3 years at the time of labor and 3 more years have passes since, 140 should automatically be allowed to re-classify to EB2 (filed or yet to file)
This way, working for the same employer and adding experience will be an advantage and would not need to change jobs just to re-classify or port.
Is this something IV can point out and fight for? Can EB3 members put their money and efforts in this direction? Let me know if this sounds worthwhile
Let me just say I am not here to start a EB2 vs EB3 fight. I think the beef is that EB3 is still in 2002 while EB2 is now peeking into 2007.
However, IMHO, if you extend that logic, since EB3 has much more filings than EB2, EB2 wait time would be unrealistically high. Just my opinion that it defeats the purpose of classification, since in the end, it will be PD based and not classification based.
Instead the focus should be in "automatic" progression to higher classification if the PD has certain # of years. For example: If the job requirement had 3 years at the time of labor and 3 more years have passes since, 140 should automatically be allowed to re-classify to EB2 (filed or yet to file)
This way, working for the same employer and adding experience will be an advantage and would not need to change jobs just to re-classify or port.
wallpaper Keyshia Cole Proves Here Love
BharatPremi
03-17 02:19 PM
Based on your assumptions, it would take around 2 years to reach Dec 2003 for EB3-India.
# of visas required = 5000 or 6000 * 1.75 = 8750 or 10, 500
# of visas available = 5000
# years of wait until Dec 2003 = 1.75 to 2.1 years.
Right. But here USCIS plays its villain role. What happens is USCIS moves clock ahead depending upon last month's "demand." We always think stramline logic.. USCIS does not work that way. It will kick PD to x date for an example Dec 2002. Now at the same time it will keep RD at say for example july 2001..Now it will keep some files eating dust in Name check so end effect is "Some" will get their gC. So next month, seeing this "demand" USCIS will kick PD further.. same game.. I believe at some level it decides seeing it reaching to "3500" limit put a break. So in reality what happen is even though USCIS kicks PD ahead not "all applicants with valid PD" get their GC. If they are unlucky enough to stuck in name check or RD is not being current, they will again wait for years for next kicking cycle start from April 2001.
# of visas required = 5000 or 6000 * 1.75 = 8750 or 10, 500
# of visas available = 5000
# years of wait until Dec 2003 = 1.75 to 2.1 years.
Right. But here USCIS plays its villain role. What happens is USCIS moves clock ahead depending upon last month's "demand." We always think stramline logic.. USCIS does not work that way. It will kick PD to x date for an example Dec 2002. Now at the same time it will keep RD at say for example july 2001..Now it will keep some files eating dust in Name check so end effect is "Some" will get their gC. So next month, seeing this "demand" USCIS will kick PD further.. same game.. I believe at some level it decides seeing it reaching to "3500" limit put a break. So in reality what happen is even though USCIS kicks PD ahead not "all applicants with valid PD" get their GC. If they are unlucky enough to stuck in name check or RD is not being current, they will again wait for years for next kicking cycle start from April 2001.
baleraosreedhar
09-10 03:14 PM
For the past 2 months there has been many quarrels between EB2 and EB3.EB2 folks were really happy as the dates were current and suddenly they saw the Oct visa news from m umbai consulate and see so many posts regarding the apathy of USICS.
My dear friends USCIS was like that only since ages and because of it Labour Backlogs were created
To resolve these issues they started BP Centers
Then again came New labour system-- but still old habits die hard and see what happened to the new labour system
now DOL is playing with us with their new cutoff dates.
So Please forget about EB2 and EB3 lets all unite and fight for final push for EB reforms to get GC.
My dear friends USCIS was like that only since ages and because of it Labour Backlogs were created
To resolve these issues they started BP Centers
Then again came New labour system-- but still old habits die hard and see what happened to the new labour system
now DOL is playing with us with their new cutoff dates.
So Please forget about EB2 and EB3 lets all unite and fight for final push for EB reforms to get GC.
2011 Keyshia Cole gives an update
nixstor
07-04 08:56 PM
Excellent analysis but it does have flaws
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
We all understand this and what you are saying, But What is in law is more important than OB's recommendations. First of all the office of OB might not have recommended to pass on any name checks. It might have advised to some how expedite them. More over, I dont think that they take the annual report seriously. We know how many times DOS officials and USCIS officials testify before congress. Why don't they tell congress that in order to clear backlogs
a) They need FBI to expedite name checks (they might have testified about this)
b) They need to recapture visa numbers (AFAIK, they never did this because your case is not pending unless you filed for AOS/485. We are not a part of the back log)
Their biggest problem now is if all of us file for 485, we will continue to be the back log for ever on the back of USCIS for ages to come unless recapture occurs. What ever be the number 200K or 700K, they simply dont want it.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
I am sure you might have read this from murthy's website (http://www.murthy.com/news/n_dosebn.html) or not, but DOS/CA/VO officials shared this piece with them. As per the above article, final quarter quota should not open until Jul 2nd. I understand that agencies can implement and interpret certain stuff, but you cannot interpret and implement one thing on Jun 13th and another on Jul 2nd. If its written into law, that the quarterly allocation is a must, USCIS is in violation and DOS/CA/VO as well for not policing them of visa number usage.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Understood, if they can clear 60K cases in 18 days, I doubt they will have any issues clearing them in 90 days. It goes back to the point of us becoming the biggest hump on USCIS
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories “current” for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories “current” ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of “current” there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making “current” for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as “current” in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
I think we all agree that there was no need to make every category current given that we know how many will become eligible for 485 filing. How ever, The OB's office will be pretty pissed if they use him as the trump card. Also, I got the annual report from OB's office in email on Jun 12th 07. VB came out on 14th? What you are saying is USCIS has worked over night to analyze OB's report or they had access to OB's report 15-20 days ahead. Everything points to me that there was a lack of communication between the two agencies on an issue with huge stakes.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
We need to do both as the success is not guaranteed in either situation. I do not know if AILF will win the law suit. On the other side, Senators like Kennedy who control immigration issues will not give a damn in the current situation. If the issue gets to a point where USCIS & DOS officials testify before congress, the root problem will be solved. If we just win the lawsuit and get in, USCIS is only going to sulk us for 10 years in the name of security check.In the end, We should be able to portray the whole situation as if USCIS has been put in a ugly predicament to utilize visa numbers under the arcane laws. Bashing DOS & USCIS left and right now is not of any use in the long run.
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
We all understand this and what you are saying, But What is in law is more important than OB's recommendations. First of all the office of OB might not have recommended to pass on any name checks. It might have advised to some how expedite them. More over, I dont think that they take the annual report seriously. We know how many times DOS officials and USCIS officials testify before congress. Why don't they tell congress that in order to clear backlogs
a) They need FBI to expedite name checks (they might have testified about this)
b) They need to recapture visa numbers (AFAIK, they never did this because your case is not pending unless you filed for AOS/485. We are not a part of the back log)
Their biggest problem now is if all of us file for 485, we will continue to be the back log for ever on the back of USCIS for ages to come unless recapture occurs. What ever be the number 200K or 700K, they simply dont want it.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
I am sure you might have read this from murthy's website (http://www.murthy.com/news/n_dosebn.html) or not, but DOS/CA/VO officials shared this piece with them. As per the above article, final quarter quota should not open until Jul 2nd. I understand that agencies can implement and interpret certain stuff, but you cannot interpret and implement one thing on Jun 13th and another on Jul 2nd. If its written into law, that the quarterly allocation is a must, USCIS is in violation and DOS/CA/VO as well for not policing them of visa number usage.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Understood, if they can clear 60K cases in 18 days, I doubt they will have any issues clearing them in 90 days. It goes back to the point of us becoming the biggest hump on USCIS
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories “current” for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories “current” ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of “current” there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making “current” for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as “current” in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
I think we all agree that there was no need to make every category current given that we know how many will become eligible for 485 filing. How ever, The OB's office will be pretty pissed if they use him as the trump card. Also, I got the annual report from OB's office in email on Jun 12th 07. VB came out on 14th? What you are saying is USCIS has worked over night to analyze OB's report or they had access to OB's report 15-20 days ahead. Everything points to me that there was a lack of communication between the two agencies on an issue with huge stakes.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
We need to do both as the success is not guaranteed in either situation. I do not know if AILF will win the law suit. On the other side, Senators like Kennedy who control immigration issues will not give a damn in the current situation. If the issue gets to a point where USCIS & DOS officials testify before congress, the root problem will be solved. If we just win the lawsuit and get in, USCIS is only going to sulk us for 10 years in the name of security check.In the end, We should be able to portray the whole situation as if USCIS has been put in a ugly predicament to utilize visa numbers under the arcane laws. Bashing DOS & USCIS left and right now is not of any use in the long run.
more...
Novice
07-15 12:31 PM
I have an AP and my Priority date is current. What will happend to my AP when my 485 is approved and I am out of country?
venky08
12-20 05:58 PM
.
more...
ajay
03-23 10:58 PM
Labor Filed Sept 2004
Labor Got Dec 2005
I140 Premium Processing Feb 2006
I485 Aug 17 2007
Eid Filed Dec 2007 and Got it in Feb 2008
Labor Got Dec 2005
I140 Premium Processing Feb 2006
I485 Aug 17 2007
Eid Filed Dec 2007 and Got it in Feb 2008
2010 Keyshia Cole became a new
senthil1
02-04 12:58 PM
Most of your points are ok. But someone has to arrive with a calculation that how much improvement will EB3 get. If it is atleast 2 years then the time and money spent may be Ok. I am sure EB2 will get a very big benefit and I doubt EB3 will get much benefit. My assumption may be wrong. If it is ok even for small benefit we can go ahead with this campaign as the main aim is to remove unfairness in law.
I have to say that I am a bit ticked off by your ignorance. Did not expect this from someone who has been a long time member. You should have thought it through. See my response below.
I have to say that I am a bit ticked off by your ignorance. Did not expect this from someone who has been a long time member. You should have thought it through. See my response below.
more...
jungalee43
01-22 11:53 AM
Army honors its fallen heroes post-thumously.
Without IV; many of us will get GCs post-thumously and thank god they have made address change on line now. We have a tool now to convey them addresses of graves!!!!
:D :D :D
Without IV; many of us will get GCs post-thumously and thank god they have made address change on line now. We have a tool now to convey them addresses of graves!!!!
:D :D :D
hair Is Keyshia Cole Pregnant Again
shreekhand
07-09 06:47 PM
Remember this is internal DoS regulation and not a US Code or Law. They can change at any time and way they want to.
The whole law-suit is essentially about hardship caused to applicants in multiple dimensions with a sprinkling of violation of law (info on which is still quiet hazy )to give some back-bone to the argument in the law-suit!
The whole law-suit is essentially about hardship caused to applicants in multiple dimensions with a sprinkling of violation of law (info on which is still quiet hazy )to give some back-bone to the argument in the law-suit!
more...
andymajumder
11-10 09:11 PM
I am with you and willng to contribute, but unless we are united and willing to take some action here, there's no hope. Even people who get approved now, never come back to contibute a penny - there has to be some provision of visa recapture.
hot Keyshia Cole, Leona Lewis.
srkamath
07-12 08:26 PM
This part is self-explanatory. It seems that USCIS made a list of all the applicants to Jul 08, 2007 by setting PD to Jun 01, 2006.
Documentarily Qualified might possibly imply:
.. Medically OK
.. FP and Name Check OK
.. Everything in application is consistent (e.g. DOB, Name, Kids, Spouse)
.. Requires No RFE
.. Requires no interview
.. Just requires GC (Visa) Number
My 2 cents input
Thanks for your response,
I did some more searching on the DQ issue... it seems like it is a term applicable only to consular processing. When a visa applicant has responded to something like an RFE by sending a form DS2001 AND has cleared all background checks - he/she is called "DQ".
The equivalent for AOS cases may therefore be
- Completed and signed I-485 + Fees
- All initial evidence sent such as medical etc.
- Background checks cleared (or 180 days have passed)
My guess is DQ does not mean pre-adjudicated (I hope so...)
Documentarily Qualified might possibly imply:
.. Medically OK
.. FP and Name Check OK
.. Everything in application is consistent (e.g. DOB, Name, Kids, Spouse)
.. Requires No RFE
.. Requires no interview
.. Just requires GC (Visa) Number
My 2 cents input
Thanks for your response,
I did some more searching on the DQ issue... it seems like it is a term applicable only to consular processing. When a visa applicant has responded to something like an RFE by sending a form DS2001 AND has cleared all background checks - he/she is called "DQ".
The equivalent for AOS cases may therefore be
- Completed and signed I-485 + Fees
- All initial evidence sent such as medical etc.
- Background checks cleared (or 180 days have passed)
My guess is DQ does not mean pre-adjudicated (I hope so...)
more...
house keyshia-cole-31
immigration07
08-15 08:20 PM
Sept Bulletin out - http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3761.html
I'm unable to understand well why EB3 is "U". :mad:
Friends, please share your thoughts. Let us discuss.........
use yur brain...else let it go.........................
I'm unable to understand well why EB3 is "U". :mad:
Friends, please share your thoughts. Let us discuss.........
use yur brain...else let it go.........................
tattoo Keyshia Cole
rimagupta
07-05 03:26 AM
Not sure if our assumption of "only 100k already applied" is correct. In 2005, there were approximately 250,000 EB green cards granted - the numbers are close to 147,000 for both 2006 and 2007. I'm not exactly sure, but there were at least 200,000 more EB approvals from 2002-2004.
There were 200,000 EB1 cases approximately from 2001-7 (In 2005, EB1 approvals were close to 40k out of a total of 250k GCs). If only 100k LCs/PERMs from 2001-7 were able to apply for 485 then it means 400k (250+147+147+200 - 200-150) applications that were adjudicated from 2002-2007 were from 2000 or prior to 2000 cases. Could this be true?
In addition, many 2001+applications are still stuck at namecheck.
Besides, all EB2 ROW cases filed under PERM were able to file for 485. These alone may contribute to at least 70k PERMS.
Source:
http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/editorial_0482.shtm
others: various law firm sites, including
www.ilw.com
http://pubweb.fdbl.com/news1.nsf/9abe5d703b986cff86256e310080943a/41399c23bb40f2ff8525730c007f830a?OpenDocument
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated new 485 filings. : 700K is conservative. May be wrong too.
LC s certified from BEC: about 200K (from 2001 to 2005 filings)
PERM Certifed labor: About 200K (from Mar 2005 to June 2007)
Total LC: 400K. Let us assume 100K already appliled. Lets say 300K is affected by retrogression.
The dependents for 300k will be 450K (1.5 times primary)
So total AOS applicants will be 750K just based on LC. Excluding EB1.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
There were 200,000 EB1 cases approximately from 2001-7 (In 2005, EB1 approvals were close to 40k out of a total of 250k GCs). If only 100k LCs/PERMs from 2001-7 were able to apply for 485 then it means 400k (250+147+147+200 - 200-150) applications that were adjudicated from 2002-2007 were from 2000 or prior to 2000 cases. Could this be true?
In addition, many 2001+applications are still stuck at namecheck.
Besides, all EB2 ROW cases filed under PERM were able to file for 485. These alone may contribute to at least 70k PERMS.
Source:
http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/editorial_0482.shtm
others: various law firm sites, including
www.ilw.com
http://pubweb.fdbl.com/news1.nsf/9abe5d703b986cff86256e310080943a/41399c23bb40f2ff8525730c007f830a?OpenDocument
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated new 485 filings. : 700K is conservative. May be wrong too.
LC s certified from BEC: about 200K (from 2001 to 2005 filings)
PERM Certifed labor: About 200K (from Mar 2005 to June 2007)
Total LC: 400K. Let us assume 100K already appliled. Lets say 300K is affected by retrogression.
The dependents for 300k will be 450K (1.5 times primary)
So total AOS applicants will be 750K just based on LC. Excluding EB1.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
more...
pictures Keyshia Cole delivers
roseball
07-09 03:35 PM
I was surprised to see that nowhere it was mentioned that USCIS processed 25k petitions over the weekend (or nearly 60k in 2 weeks) as reported by some USCIS officials last week and in many cases broke their own regulations by approving several cases with pending background/name checks. That definitely sounds to me like a conspiracy against July filers....In my view, that should have been one of the strongest points we can use against USCIS. I dont think we have a case against DOS as they had to revise the bulletin as USCIS requested more than available Visa numbers and exhausted the quota.....Even Dr. Rice made it clear in her NBC interview from the DOS perspective that revision of visa bulletin caused an "inconvenience" to the petitioners....
dresses CONFIRMED: Keyshia Cole Baby
perm2gc
12-28 05:35 PM
Guys. Let all of us give a new year gift to our core team by posting about IV in all the forums which we have access.It won't cost you a penny but a 15 minutes of your time.I know everyone are busy but 15 minutes is not too much to spend for guys who are working hard for our cause.I know many people are silently browsing the thread than the people who are posting .Guys don't be behind the doors all the times.You have to come out sometimes and this is the time for you to show little respect to the core team.
more...
makeup Ramp;B songstress Keyshia Cole is
Almond
07-05 02:25 PM
What difference does the membership of people make if they do not understand the agenda/motive of the organization? May be you are being mean in not understanding the agenda and needs of your favorite organization.
I found the forum by chance and didn't realize there was more to this website until a while after I signed up. On second thought look at my sign up date, I think I'll just let you old timers battle this one out.
I found the forum by chance and didn't realize there was more to this website until a while after I signed up. On second thought look at my sign up date, I think I'll just let you old timers battle this one out.
girlfriend Not only will Keyshia Cole
ckichannagari
12-13 08:49 AM
That's a good idea. A good way of generating funds for IV also. This way it would seem less burden for all of the members and they will be willing to come forward.
hairstyles Keyshia Cole pregnant, again?
SunnySurya
07-28 12:21 PM
No, you won't be banned from IV. You just will be banned from this country.
And by the way, the thing you were trying to do is not protected by "the first amendment"
So I cannot even speak on IV and even little I defended my religion, I will be banned from IV? Freedom Of Speech
And by the way, the thing you were trying to do is not protected by "the first amendment"
So I cannot even speak on IV and even little I defended my religion, I will be banned from IV? Freedom Of Speech
chintu25
09-10 11:01 AM
Recess till 1 . 00
pd052009
03-21 11:24 AM
^^^^
Excellent post. Thanks for sharing. free videos
ReplyDelete