Macaca
06-28 09:28 AM
My take on this is that if 40,000 visa numbers remain for July, August and September, then USCIS by itself cannot use 40,000 visa numbers in one month alone (i.e. in july), because the DOS just supplies them monthly quotas. So, if you take approx.
18,000 per month, you are looking at 18,000 for July and 18,000 for August. Then, USCIS have to use them. Which means USCIS has to approve 18,000 petitions in July.
As, I have heard that USCIS just started out sending finger print notices this month, because Priority Dates moved a lot in June 2007. Now, the fingerprints, will come in and forwarded to FBI for security clearance. That will take atleast a month. And, all petitions activated for clearance in June 2007 won't get adjudicated till August 31, 2007, because it takes atleast three months, for a case to approve and the visa number to be used. (Remember Visa numbers are allocated on visas used and not how amny people applied). Please share your thoughts. Thats my 2 pennies.
Ombudsman report mentioned that 40K GCs would be wasted at the end 2007. This means that there should be more then 40K GCs at the beggining of June.
The applications submitted starting this month will take some time (whatever that is) for processing. GC # is assigned after 485 processing is complete.
USCIS had approved 485s before June. They have started getting GCs and are decrementing the 40K+ count. That is, applications being submitted now are not decrementing the 40K+ count.
I don't think there is a monthly GC quota.
18,000 per month, you are looking at 18,000 for July and 18,000 for August. Then, USCIS have to use them. Which means USCIS has to approve 18,000 petitions in July.
As, I have heard that USCIS just started out sending finger print notices this month, because Priority Dates moved a lot in June 2007. Now, the fingerprints, will come in and forwarded to FBI for security clearance. That will take atleast a month. And, all petitions activated for clearance in June 2007 won't get adjudicated till August 31, 2007, because it takes atleast three months, for a case to approve and the visa number to be used. (Remember Visa numbers are allocated on visas used and not how amny people applied). Please share your thoughts. Thats my 2 pennies.
Ombudsman report mentioned that 40K GCs would be wasted at the end 2007. This means that there should be more then 40K GCs at the beggining of June.
The applications submitted starting this month will take some time (whatever that is) for processing. GC # is assigned after 485 processing is complete.
USCIS had approved 485s before June. They have started getting GCs and are decrementing the 40K+ count. That is, applications being submitted now are not decrementing the 40K+ count.
I don't think there is a monthly GC quota.
wallpaper %IMG_DESC_1%
justAnotherFile
06-27 10:15 PM
My 2 cents.
USCIS does not control the PD dates, State dept does. The state dept will change the PD's to when it runs out of visas to provide USCIS.
Case 1: Assume USCIS and State dept are in close touch over the currently approvable I-485s which can consume visas starting July 1
If USCIS has 40K such approvable apps, then the State Dept (being in close coordination with USCIS abt numbers) would have just moved the dates to Nov 2005 for EB-2 India the date when it retrogressed and similarly to the date when EB-3 retrogression first happened for India.
The fact that they did not do this means they do not have the sufficient numbers of approvable ones. Now the new ones filed in June or July will not become approvable until at least 90 days. So if they are hoping that some of the "new" 485 petitions filed in June/July will be straightforward enuf to approve in 4 months, they have to keep dates at current at least until July end.
Case 2: USCIS and State dept are not coordinating "closely" over the approvable numbers
This means the State dept arbitrarily changed the dates to Current instead of consulting with USCIS that they have 40K approvable petitions. And why woudl they in that case make the numbers unavailable in mid-july in that case?
Lastly even if the numbers can become Unavailable it has to be announced by State Dept. So worst case scenario it can become "U" in July 11-15, which makes the claim by Matthew-OH that it can become unavailable in July first week itself ridiculous.
USCIS does not control the PD dates, State dept does. The state dept will change the PD's to when it runs out of visas to provide USCIS.
Case 1: Assume USCIS and State dept are in close touch over the currently approvable I-485s which can consume visas starting July 1
If USCIS has 40K such approvable apps, then the State Dept (being in close coordination with USCIS abt numbers) would have just moved the dates to Nov 2005 for EB-2 India the date when it retrogressed and similarly to the date when EB-3 retrogression first happened for India.
The fact that they did not do this means they do not have the sufficient numbers of approvable ones. Now the new ones filed in June or July will not become approvable until at least 90 days. So if they are hoping that some of the "new" 485 petitions filed in June/July will be straightforward enuf to approve in 4 months, they have to keep dates at current at least until July end.
Case 2: USCIS and State dept are not coordinating "closely" over the approvable numbers
This means the State dept arbitrarily changed the dates to Current instead of consulting with USCIS that they have 40K approvable petitions. And why woudl they in that case make the numbers unavailable in mid-july in that case?
Lastly even if the numbers can become Unavailable it has to be announced by State Dept. So worst case scenario it can become "U" in July 11-15, which makes the claim by Matthew-OH that it can become unavailable in July first week itself ridiculous.
Lasantha
02-15 01:35 PM
Hey Bestia,
Any wild guesses how far the dates could move for April (if at all)? I have March 05 and pretty excited.
Dyana, I thought you are the primary applicant. In your case - yeah, you are free to use EAD once you get it. It's your husband who should be maintaining 180 days, "same or similar", etc. I got my EAD on 11th week (I am primary applicant). Some people get earlier, some later.
You have good chance of approval, because we are current and I suspect we will be current several months from now. I-485 approval is like a lottery. It can be approved in 1 month or your application can rot for years. Lottery :)
Any wild guesses how far the dates could move for April (if at all)? I have March 05 and pretty excited.
Dyana, I thought you are the primary applicant. In your case - yeah, you are free to use EAD once you get it. It's your husband who should be maintaining 180 days, "same or similar", etc. I got my EAD on 11th week (I am primary applicant). Some people get earlier, some later.
You have good chance of approval, because we are current and I suspect we will be current several months from now. I-485 approval is like a lottery. It can be approved in 1 month or your application can rot for years. Lottery :)
2011 %IMG_DESC_2%
GCA
10-29 01:03 PM
Giving GC's for buying home seems toomuch biased and benefits only a subset of EB, and totally shifts the basis of the EB category.
On the other hand, if their visas can be exempted from the visa numbers(annual quota), but still tied to the visa dates being current for their priority dates, this will benefit the entire community and law makers can justify the approach without stiff oppositions, if any. To me this feels lot more reasonable and everyone(EB applicants) will evenly benefit from this.
Almost 20-30% of the Eb appl. from 2001-2005 should be already in a position to buy or bought a home. That should help dates move faster for older dates.
Just a thought. But this alone will NOT resolve all our issues and backlogs. Just speedsup the date movement in a steadily manner.
On the other hand, if their visas can be exempted from the visa numbers(annual quota), but still tied to the visa dates being current for their priority dates, this will benefit the entire community and law makers can justify the approach without stiff oppositions, if any. To me this feels lot more reasonable and everyone(EB applicants) will evenly benefit from this.
Almost 20-30% of the Eb appl. from 2001-2005 should be already in a position to buy or bought a home. That should help dates move faster for older dates.
Just a thought. But this alone will NOT resolve all our issues and backlogs. Just speedsup the date movement in a steadily manner.
more...
lazycis
02-14 09:19 AM
There are 71 people who have voted for a class action lawsuit.
Has anyone of them contacted Rajiv Khnanna and spent their own $600 and got an anwer? NO.
This is because nobody is serious about this. Everyone wants the other person to spend their money and time. They will only spend their time in writing posts.
I oppose this idea for number of reasons. Firstly people will not become plantiffs. They are scared. USCIS will scruitanize their applications more than anyone. Secondly people will not donate money in thousands of dollars each for it. Unless you can get hundred thousand dollars and above, you cannot go into a class action lawsuit. Thirdly nobody will go and travel on their own money and testify. Forthly, nobody will spend time helping lawyers prepare cases and research. Forthly, class action lawsuits take time and people will disappear after a while. Fifthly nobody will be willing to lead this effort. They will just dump it on IV to lead it and have core spend their time and money into it for them. Sixthly if this fail, they will blame IV for wasting the money and failing in the effort. Seventhly we do not want greencards that bad. If we wanted greencards that bad we all would have written more than 20 thousand letters till now. We should only try to bite as much as we can chew. This is just an overambitious plan and looks good in a post.
Thus I oppose this idea.
internet,
You cannot speak on behalf of other persons. Speak for yourself. Even though I have a GC, I am willing to contribute (monetary, reviewing lawyers briefs, doing legal research). I will not be able to participate as plaintiff as I have a GC.
Has anyone of them contacted Rajiv Khnanna and spent their own $600 and got an anwer? NO.
This is because nobody is serious about this. Everyone wants the other person to spend their money and time. They will only spend their time in writing posts.
I oppose this idea for number of reasons. Firstly people will not become plantiffs. They are scared. USCIS will scruitanize their applications more than anyone. Secondly people will not donate money in thousands of dollars each for it. Unless you can get hundred thousand dollars and above, you cannot go into a class action lawsuit. Thirdly nobody will go and travel on their own money and testify. Forthly, nobody will spend time helping lawyers prepare cases and research. Forthly, class action lawsuits take time and people will disappear after a while. Fifthly nobody will be willing to lead this effort. They will just dump it on IV to lead it and have core spend their time and money into it for them. Sixthly if this fail, they will blame IV for wasting the money and failing in the effort. Seventhly we do not want greencards that bad. If we wanted greencards that bad we all would have written more than 20 thousand letters till now. We should only try to bite as much as we can chew. This is just an overambitious plan and looks good in a post.
Thus I oppose this idea.
internet,
You cannot speak on behalf of other persons. Speak for yourself. Even though I have a GC, I am willing to contribute (monetary, reviewing lawyers briefs, doing legal research). I will not be able to participate as plaintiff as I have a GC.
samay
07-14 07:05 AM
My question: I came to us on F1 Visa. I do not have my last name in my passport. Yes it is true ..stupid passport department missed it as they write names with hand ... passport was made when I was in high school�9th grade to be precise. I never got it corrected and came to us �visa was issued to me using FNU firstname format. When I applied for I-20 SSN, and everything in US after that I added my last name (my actual family name which got missed in passport) as us system does not allow blank last name. Note that my passport last page correctly shows my fathers and mothers last name which I have added on all my us documents like SSN, DL, � now I have been in us from past 5 years with all ( and I actually mean all) my us docs like H1, SSN, I-20, License, 495 application etc in firstname lastname format. �.. the only 2 things which are not in my first name last name format is
1) visa which is FNU Firstname ( FNU = First name used)
2) My passport which has just my first name and no last name
one of my good friend got a 485 query as his first, middle and last name are mixed up with respect to his passport and 485 application. Which I feel is a much simpler case as compared to mine.
Now my question is should I go ahead and change my name in my passport which is nothing but add my last name and get a new passport preemptively�or I should wait for USCIS decision .. Usually RFE is given 30 � 40 days to reply and I don�t think I will have time to get my passport fixed if and when RFE comes on my 485 .. the only issue I have with preemptive fixing name is sometime it is just better not to add complication to a case when it comes to USCIS �. A lawyer�s opinion is much needed and appreciated.
Thanks for your help
-M
PS: my priority is Feb 2007 EB3
Please do get your passport in order. You should have got it done a long time back. I think it is fairly straightforward procedure. You can make an appointment with the Indian Consulate and take it from there.
Please do not wait for a RFE to do that.
1) visa which is FNU Firstname ( FNU = First name used)
2) My passport which has just my first name and no last name
one of my good friend got a 485 query as his first, middle and last name are mixed up with respect to his passport and 485 application. Which I feel is a much simpler case as compared to mine.
Now my question is should I go ahead and change my name in my passport which is nothing but add my last name and get a new passport preemptively�or I should wait for USCIS decision .. Usually RFE is given 30 � 40 days to reply and I don�t think I will have time to get my passport fixed if and when RFE comes on my 485 .. the only issue I have with preemptive fixing name is sometime it is just better not to add complication to a case when it comes to USCIS �. A lawyer�s opinion is much needed and appreciated.
Thanks for your help
-M
PS: my priority is Feb 2007 EB3
Please do get your passport in order. You should have got it done a long time back. I think it is fairly straightforward procedure. You can make an appointment with the Indian Consulate and take it from there.
Please do not wait for a RFE to do that.
more...
mbartosik
12-13 11:48 PM
Mark,
what say you?
In some states the courts are "Courts of equity and law" or is it "Courts of law and equity", in other words the court has a mandate to enforce fairness within the bounds of the law (NY State is one such state). This derives from English law. However, I do not believe that is the case for federal court.
If the courts were courts only of fairness, equity, what's right, etc., yes, indeed then I think that we would win. But the courts are courts of law. In our case the federal courts are courts of federal law. Congress writes those laws, and the courts are free to interpret those law but not change them. The courts can also throw out a law (this is often appealed to Supreme court). The Supreme court's job is to interpret the constitution, and to define how the lower courts must interpret the law, or to throw back the law to Congress.
We have next to no chance in lower courts.
Even if we appealed through courts up to Supreme court, and win we would loss because Congress would still be free to change the law to restrict in other ways, possibly with the same effect. In the mean time we would alienate those law makers on our side. Also USCIS would be free to stop ALL EB immigration, while the Congress decided how to rewrite the law.
In our case there is no interpretation other than the mess that we are in is the law. So the Supreme court would have to find that the law was against the constitution, which I highly doubt that it is.
Even if the supreme court found that the law was against the constitution, Congress could enact another similar law (akin to minimum sentence), that merely fitted within the framework of the constitution but achieved the same end result. A recent example of this was when the Supreme court found that Gitmo detainees must be given a right to review of their detention. The detainees were not immediately released because they were detained without review and against the constitution, no, Congress simply passed a law allowing review by military tribunal, that complied with the Constitution, and the detainees remained detained, with a totally meaningless review (not allowed to see evidence against them etc.).
Thus the branch of government that we need to convince is Congress (which by the way I think the Constitution or an amendment gives the right to government immigration).
I'm not saying do not fight, just fight smart.
To me fighting smart means going to the law makers, politely, and persuasively. It is not aggressive, it is not radical, but it is fighting wisely. So I don't think that we are backing down in the face of things that are wrong, I think that we are standing up, but intelligently, and fighting where we can win.
It is Congress that ultimately decides, the Supreme court can only say to them, "sorry, not in compliance, try again".
what say you?
In some states the courts are "Courts of equity and law" or is it "Courts of law and equity", in other words the court has a mandate to enforce fairness within the bounds of the law (NY State is one such state). This derives from English law. However, I do not believe that is the case for federal court.
If the courts were courts only of fairness, equity, what's right, etc., yes, indeed then I think that we would win. But the courts are courts of law. In our case the federal courts are courts of federal law. Congress writes those laws, and the courts are free to interpret those law but not change them. The courts can also throw out a law (this is often appealed to Supreme court). The Supreme court's job is to interpret the constitution, and to define how the lower courts must interpret the law, or to throw back the law to Congress.
We have next to no chance in lower courts.
Even if we appealed through courts up to Supreme court, and win we would loss because Congress would still be free to change the law to restrict in other ways, possibly with the same effect. In the mean time we would alienate those law makers on our side. Also USCIS would be free to stop ALL EB immigration, while the Congress decided how to rewrite the law.
In our case there is no interpretation other than the mess that we are in is the law. So the Supreme court would have to find that the law was against the constitution, which I highly doubt that it is.
Even if the supreme court found that the law was against the constitution, Congress could enact another similar law (akin to minimum sentence), that merely fitted within the framework of the constitution but achieved the same end result. A recent example of this was when the Supreme court found that Gitmo detainees must be given a right to review of their detention. The detainees were not immediately released because they were detained without review and against the constitution, no, Congress simply passed a law allowing review by military tribunal, that complied with the Constitution, and the detainees remained detained, with a totally meaningless review (not allowed to see evidence against them etc.).
Thus the branch of government that we need to convince is Congress (which by the way I think the Constitution or an amendment gives the right to government immigration).
I'm not saying do not fight, just fight smart.
To me fighting smart means going to the law makers, politely, and persuasively. It is not aggressive, it is not radical, but it is fighting wisely. So I don't think that we are backing down in the face of things that are wrong, I think that we are standing up, but intelligently, and fighting where we can win.
It is Congress that ultimately decides, the Supreme court can only say to them, "sorry, not in compliance, try again".
2010 %IMG_DESC_3%
lazycis
02-12 10:33 PM
Educate yourself, check these out:
http://www.ailf.org/lac/asylee_adjustment.asp
http://www.uscis.gov/vgn-ext-templating/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=1dc6aca797e63110VgnVCM10000047 18190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=1dc6aca797e63110VgnVCM1000004718190a RCRD
http://www.ailf.org/lac/asylee_adjustment.asp
http://www.uscis.gov/vgn-ext-templating/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=1dc6aca797e63110VgnVCM10000047 18190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=1dc6aca797e63110VgnVCM1000004718190a RCRD
more...
JA1HIND
02-12 01:38 PM
Does it mean that till Oct 08 bulletin there is no point to expect anything for India EB2?
I suspect VB in Oct08 might be good for EB2...if you look at the below copied "Archived Visa Bulletin" URL and I see month of October is always been a fruitful month for EB2 (Employment Based) and I am thinking this year Oct 08 will also show us some good updates...
Check this URL:
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_1360.html
October 2007: EB2 - 01APR04
October 2006: EB2 - 15JUN02
October 2005: EB2 - 01NOV99
October 2004: EB2 - C (Current)
I suspect VB in Oct08 might be good for EB2...if you look at the below copied "Archived Visa Bulletin" URL and I see month of October is always been a fruitful month for EB2 (Employment Based) and I am thinking this year Oct 08 will also show us some good updates...
Check this URL:
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_1360.html
October 2007: EB2 - 01APR04
October 2006: EB2 - 15JUN02
October 2005: EB2 - 01NOV99
October 2004: EB2 - C (Current)
hair %IMG_DESC_4%
logiclife
05-10 05:04 PM
I am talking from a broad perspective, not IV's goals.
IV never had a goal of asking for a points-based canadian model of EB immigration or asking for self-petition system where EB applicants apply for greencards independent of employer. Even if we want and ask for it, it would never happen - for the very reasons I mentioned above. Firstly it would oversupply the workforce with people who may or may not fill jobs and secondly the protection of native-born cannot be achieved without employer-petition that involved labor cert.
So politically, its almost impossible to get rid of employer-petition for all EB applicants. Maybe STEM/PH.D etc candidates will get a shot at such a provision in near future, but not everyone.
And like I said, the current system has its problems but point-based self petition is not the answer. And we are not singing a new tune. We are working hard beyond our capacities to get the same amendments introduced again that were introduced on April 7th by Senators Brownback, Alexander and Bingaman.
IV never had a goal of asking for a points-based canadian model of EB immigration or asking for self-petition system where EB applicants apply for greencards independent of employer. Even if we want and ask for it, it would never happen - for the very reasons I mentioned above. Firstly it would oversupply the workforce with people who may or may not fill jobs and secondly the protection of native-born cannot be achieved without employer-petition that involved labor cert.
So politically, its almost impossible to get rid of employer-petition for all EB applicants. Maybe STEM/PH.D etc candidates will get a shot at such a provision in near future, but not everyone.
And like I said, the current system has its problems but point-based self petition is not the answer. And we are not singing a new tune. We are working hard beyond our capacities to get the same amendments introduced again that were introduced on April 7th by Senators Brownback, Alexander and Bingaman.
more...
bestofall
07-14 09:46 AM
Hi Attorney ,
Thanks for your service.
Iam July 2 2007 485 Filer ( EB2 - March 2005 India).
I have received EAD & AP . Even we renewed our EAD and received Approval.
but My wife & my self have not received BioMetric Appointment for 485 or EAD.
As per August 2008 bullietin , Our PD will be current ...
what will be the impact on 485 Approval , of not having BioMetric Appointment scheduled , even after 1 year of 485 filiing..
Thanks again
Bestofall ..
Thanks for your service.
Iam July 2 2007 485 Filer ( EB2 - March 2005 India).
I have received EAD & AP . Even we renewed our EAD and received Approval.
but My wife & my self have not received BioMetric Appointment for 485 or EAD.
As per August 2008 bullietin , Our PD will be current ...
what will be the impact on 485 Approval , of not having BioMetric Appointment scheduled , even after 1 year of 485 filiing..
Thanks again
Bestofall ..
hot %IMG_DESC_5%
willigetgc?
01-14 11:55 AM
You do not even want to meet any lawmaker. No i donot want to meet any law maker especially representing IV because i do not beleive what IV proposes (and which i have to rep[eate to teh law maker) is doing is going to do good to my personal case of GC (and yes if you want to call me selfish go ahead but remember eveyrone here is becasue they want to do something about thier personal GC case so everyone is selfish)
You believe in watching CSpan and lawyers lobby for you. Go and contact CSpan and lawyers to help you. Yes i believe in watching CSpan and lawyers lobby becasue that gives me an understanding as to what direction a bill is taking or for that matter what is the hope iof a immigration provision in a specific bill. Of course i do not come into teh forum and start a thread and give a minute bny minute uopdate of cspan like some memebers do.
Why are you here? I am here because any thing which impacts my GC case impacts me and i am here to ensure that
PlainSpeak,
I say this in the nicest way possible.
1. Instead of wasting time by answering here on the post, do something constructive for your own gc (whatever that may be).
2. If you do not believe in IV and what it does, you are truly wasting your time. Second, which IV provision do you not believe in - visa recapture? excluding dependents from being counted? removal of country caps? which one of these hurts your prospects of getting the gc?
3. Watching cspan definitely gives a person a better understanding of what is happening. No questions about it. But it is a passive exercise, as there is nothing you have done or can do or will do to change the outcome of what is happening.
4. Let us hope that this DV bill goes somewhere - what kind of activities do you suggest we should do to prepare for it? With specific details, you may be able to persuade people.
You believe in watching CSpan and lawyers lobby for you. Go and contact CSpan and lawyers to help you. Yes i believe in watching CSpan and lawyers lobby becasue that gives me an understanding as to what direction a bill is taking or for that matter what is the hope iof a immigration provision in a specific bill. Of course i do not come into teh forum and start a thread and give a minute bny minute uopdate of cspan like some memebers do.
Why are you here? I am here because any thing which impacts my GC case impacts me and i am here to ensure that
PlainSpeak,
I say this in the nicest way possible.
1. Instead of wasting time by answering here on the post, do something constructive for your own gc (whatever that may be).
2. If you do not believe in IV and what it does, you are truly wasting your time. Second, which IV provision do you not believe in - visa recapture? excluding dependents from being counted? removal of country caps? which one of these hurts your prospects of getting the gc?
3. Watching cspan definitely gives a person a better understanding of what is happening. No questions about it. But it is a passive exercise, as there is nothing you have done or can do or will do to change the outcome of what is happening.
4. Let us hope that this DV bill goes somewhere - what kind of activities do you suggest we should do to prepare for it? With specific details, you may be able to persuade people.
more...
house %IMG_DESC_17%
ronhira
01-13 12:15 PM
why doesn't anyone in iv core get it dammit..... this is crystal clear..... what more do u want...... now get mov'in & get green cards for all of us by next week..... :rolleyes:
Good Things about IV
1. IV Core does not conduct its business in the forum. They learnt this lesson a long time ago.
2. All their work is done in the donor forum and behind the scenes by volunteers
3. If they feel that any idea is worth pursuing they invite that person (with the idea) behind the scenes and pursue that idea
4. All the work is done by IV members themselves because they are helping themselves
5. IV members are investing time and money to do work which impacts a large number of immigrants
6. That is a professional way to do stuff and i admire the way work is done at IV
Concerns of IV
1. IV always states about the lack of will of people to do something for themselves
2. IV always states that people just comment on forum but do not step forward to do stuff
3. IV always says that people do not donate enough and without donation a grassroot organization will not survive
What IV is doing wrong
1. IV talks about a holistic approach whereby the benefit to EB community will trickle down and once EB2 will become current EB3 will get benefit of spillover
2. IV is assuming EB2 will become current but with the number of indians coming to USA and number of indian students who will graduate from MS courses in USA over the next 5 years EB2I will always be backlogged
3. Plus we are not even talking about EB2 ROW and EB3ROW demand which could go up
4. Supporting the DV 55k bill to US educated GC applicants on the whole looks like a great plan. Sure here are 55k and here are about 150 k GC applicants. 150 - 50 IS 100 K. So if the bill passes we reduce the backlog by 50 k. Now i will am one of the person who will be getting a GC because i am US educated but my opposition to this bill is on principle
5. What IV has to realise is that it is not only IV members specifically but it is a whole lot of non IV members who are EB3 who have been a bigger person in this whole immigration retorgression advocacy scheme of things till now.
How let me explain. We have seen EB3 persons from 2002 who are still waiting for GC and who are not getting spill over visas because EB2 is using up all the spill over visas. So do you see any EB3 now complaining about the rule change supported by IV and made by USCIS whereby EB2 gets spill over visas. NO we do not see any EB3 complaining. That is because EB3 as a whole understands that that rule in the past being interpeted in a wrong way and the current way is the correct interpetation. Sure the old method gave EB3 some extra spill over visa benefit but the new interpetation caused EB3 to dry up compleletly. Now that in itself is against the very nature of self preservation by definition, But EB3 went along for the greater good
What IV can do right
1. Now we have this 55K DV Bill. This is something different from the spillover (which is law and cannot be changed). This is one time oppurtunity to alieviate the sufferings of EB group as a whole. So can IV which is supposed to be talking for the whole EB community do the right thing here and ensure (with advocacy they are so good at) that IV's stand is that 55K visa are given to all GC applicant from retrogressed countries based on oldest priority date first irrespective of EB2 and EB3.
2. The concequence of such a move is that long retrogressed EB applicants will get relief (Which is one of the point IV talks about in their charter)
3. Sure Many US educated applicants from EB2 and EB3 will oppose this move because lets face it, this move impacts their getting GC sooner. And if they behave like that they are in the same category as EB2 guys on this forum who do not entertain any idea which will impact their getting GC soon.
What wil happen if IV does the above
1. The DV 55K bill will NEVER pass in congress. This along with the other bills we have seen will bite the dust because no one in the current economic scenario would like to see more immigrants (US educated or not)
2. The DV 55K bill will fail but IV would have achieved what it has failed to do till now. Get the support of EB3 community which they claim to represent.
Synopsis
How how does this work. This is a suggestion for discussion NOT a diktat to IV core to implement. If IV core does not allow discussion on this (and moderate this because frankly some of your existing advocacy group members and volunteers do not know what a discussion is and come out both fists swinging) then that is IV core perogative. they have that right since this is their system and they worked hard for it, and they believe what they say is right.
One question i do have for all the members who have argued with me here. Have you seen all the discussion i have participated under and my other posts. Please do that before yelling that i was a member since 2006 and freeloader and all that. You need to do this because if i am you enemy (Scounderal, Liad weed, Anti Immgrant, Future USA etc) then don't you think to know your enemy is better.
On a funny flip side ...............................
How will this be treated by the current members
Ohh He is a liar, cheat, sounderrl, absurer, voilent person, free loader, smooch, weed, Anti Immgrant, future USA and other unspeakable things
By the way guys i am a She not a He
Adieu/Ciao
Good Things about IV
1. IV Core does not conduct its business in the forum. They learnt this lesson a long time ago.
2. All their work is done in the donor forum and behind the scenes by volunteers
3. If they feel that any idea is worth pursuing they invite that person (with the idea) behind the scenes and pursue that idea
4. All the work is done by IV members themselves because they are helping themselves
5. IV members are investing time and money to do work which impacts a large number of immigrants
6. That is a professional way to do stuff and i admire the way work is done at IV
Concerns of IV
1. IV always states about the lack of will of people to do something for themselves
2. IV always states that people just comment on forum but do not step forward to do stuff
3. IV always says that people do not donate enough and without donation a grassroot organization will not survive
What IV is doing wrong
1. IV talks about a holistic approach whereby the benefit to EB community will trickle down and once EB2 will become current EB3 will get benefit of spillover
2. IV is assuming EB2 will become current but with the number of indians coming to USA and number of indian students who will graduate from MS courses in USA over the next 5 years EB2I will always be backlogged
3. Plus we are not even talking about EB2 ROW and EB3ROW demand which could go up
4. Supporting the DV 55k bill to US educated GC applicants on the whole looks like a great plan. Sure here are 55k and here are about 150 k GC applicants. 150 - 50 IS 100 K. So if the bill passes we reduce the backlog by 50 k. Now i will am one of the person who will be getting a GC because i am US educated but my opposition to this bill is on principle
5. What IV has to realise is that it is not only IV members specifically but it is a whole lot of non IV members who are EB3 who have been a bigger person in this whole immigration retorgression advocacy scheme of things till now.
How let me explain. We have seen EB3 persons from 2002 who are still waiting for GC and who are not getting spill over visas because EB2 is using up all the spill over visas. So do you see any EB3 now complaining about the rule change supported by IV and made by USCIS whereby EB2 gets spill over visas. NO we do not see any EB3 complaining. That is because EB3 as a whole understands that that rule in the past being interpeted in a wrong way and the current way is the correct interpetation. Sure the old method gave EB3 some extra spill over visa benefit but the new interpetation caused EB3 to dry up compleletly. Now that in itself is against the very nature of self preservation by definition, But EB3 went along for the greater good
What IV can do right
1. Now we have this 55K DV Bill. This is something different from the spillover (which is law and cannot be changed). This is one time oppurtunity to alieviate the sufferings of EB group as a whole. So can IV which is supposed to be talking for the whole EB community do the right thing here and ensure (with advocacy they are so good at) that IV's stand is that 55K visa are given to all GC applicant from retrogressed countries based on oldest priority date first irrespective of EB2 and EB3.
2. The concequence of such a move is that long retrogressed EB applicants will get relief (Which is one of the point IV talks about in their charter)
3. Sure Many US educated applicants from EB2 and EB3 will oppose this move because lets face it, this move impacts their getting GC sooner. And if they behave like that they are in the same category as EB2 guys on this forum who do not entertain any idea which will impact their getting GC soon.
What wil happen if IV does the above
1. The DV 55K bill will NEVER pass in congress. This along with the other bills we have seen will bite the dust because no one in the current economic scenario would like to see more immigrants (US educated or not)
2. The DV 55K bill will fail but IV would have achieved what it has failed to do till now. Get the support of EB3 community which they claim to represent.
Synopsis
How how does this work. This is a suggestion for discussion NOT a diktat to IV core to implement. If IV core does not allow discussion on this (and moderate this because frankly some of your existing advocacy group members and volunteers do not know what a discussion is and come out both fists swinging) then that is IV core perogative. they have that right since this is their system and they worked hard for it, and they believe what they say is right.
One question i do have for all the members who have argued with me here. Have you seen all the discussion i have participated under and my other posts. Please do that before yelling that i was a member since 2006 and freeloader and all that. You need to do this because if i am you enemy (Scounderal, Liad weed, Anti Immgrant, Future USA etc) then don't you think to know your enemy is better.
On a funny flip side ...............................
How will this be treated by the current members
Ohh He is a liar, cheat, sounderrl, absurer, voilent person, free loader, smooch, weed, Anti Immgrant, future USA and other unspeakable things
By the way guys i am a She not a He
Adieu/Ciao
tattoo %IMG_DESC_6%
gcvision2010
09-03 10:57 AM
May his soul rest in Peace!
more...
pictures %IMG_DESC_7%
addsf345
05-29 05:21 PM
We need to fix the problem of too few visa numbers available to I/C. If the waits in EB2/3 are not long, there is no reason there will be any significant abuse of EB1 visas. You are targetting the a mosquito and ignoring the elephant in the room.
Gaurav, you are right on the it. I am not saying ignore or accept, but spend your efforts there where you can get maximum return.
like creating new quota for PHD/Masters, Visa Recapture, removing country limit from skilled EB immigration and NOT counting family members/dependents in yearly limit. If we can get even one of above done, it would give the best mileage as compared to go all after EB-1 abuse. You surely can write to CIS/Ombudsman/whoever but support IV for above efforts.
Gaurav, you are right on the it. I am not saying ignore or accept, but spend your efforts there where you can get maximum return.
like creating new quota for PHD/Masters, Visa Recapture, removing country limit from skilled EB immigration and NOT counting family members/dependents in yearly limit. If we can get even one of above done, it would give the best mileage as compared to go all after EB-1 abuse. You surely can write to CIS/Ombudsman/whoever but support IV for above efforts.
dresses %IMG_DESC_12%
it is ok
09-23 12:19 PM
Kudos to person who started this thread. A Brilliant Idea..Minimally, even if it helps few hundred people in couple of years, this is more than worth. I will send mails. Thanks for your untiring efforts in the face of adversity..
more...
makeup %IMG_DESC_9%
qplearn
10-04 10:37 AM
Desi companies are to blame but not always.
This is a common practice in big companies. Guess which companies have got the most number of LC's to substitute. It is some of the big software and consulting firms. Myself being a part of one such company have seen a lot of my co-workers use it to get their GC. I will admit though that in big companies it is used after one of the following has happened:
1> You have been stuck in LC stage for a long time.
2> The initial original LC got messed up due to lawyer or company negligence.
3> The I-140 stage got messed up due to lawyer or company negligence.
4> You are an old employee but did not somehow start your GC process till you only had a year or less remaining on your H-1.
Unfortunately for me, none of the above has happened so the company will not use LC substitution for me. But it is a common practice.
Many big companies (I am not referring to desi companies here) use it when they fire a guy for whom they have an approved labor cert. This is the commonest scenario. Until sub labor is banned, and there is no certainty that it will be, we will have to live with this menace.
A person I know was so delighted when his colleague was fired because he got to use his LC; they were doing a very similar job. I am talking about a very large firm in Dallas.
This is a common practice in big companies. Guess which companies have got the most number of LC's to substitute. It is some of the big software and consulting firms. Myself being a part of one such company have seen a lot of my co-workers use it to get their GC. I will admit though that in big companies it is used after one of the following has happened:
1> You have been stuck in LC stage for a long time.
2> The initial original LC got messed up due to lawyer or company negligence.
3> The I-140 stage got messed up due to lawyer or company negligence.
4> You are an old employee but did not somehow start your GC process till you only had a year or less remaining on your H-1.
Unfortunately for me, none of the above has happened so the company will not use LC substitution for me. But it is a common practice.
Many big companies (I am not referring to desi companies here) use it when they fire a guy for whom they have an approved labor cert. This is the commonest scenario. Until sub labor is banned, and there is no certainty that it will be, we will have to live with this menace.
A person I know was so delighted when his colleague was fired because he got to use his LC; they were doing a very similar job. I am talking about a very large firm in Dallas.
girlfriend %IMG_DESC_14%
Googler
02-18 03:17 PM
Neither of us are lawyers and I wouldn't even bother reading what you wrote. All I can say is, why don't you ask your immigration lawyer about this Class Action. Let's see what he says.
This is great -- you won't consider facts and evidence, including the fact that judges themselves are recommending class action in similar cases! Forget about considering, you won't even read a post with a different pov... (makes me wonder why you bother with the forum if even reading a post is too much work.)
My own attorney, as a matter of fact, thinks that a class action makes sense in this instance.
As lazycis points out, his attorney didn't want him to even file an individual WOM, and it turned out his attorney was absolutely wrong. The mass of evidence in WOM cases and the current Mocanu decision shows that lazycis's attorney (and other let us not disturb/question the status quo attorneys) were wrong. I should remind people again that most of our attorneys are not litigators, they are paper filers -- this dichotomy is true in most other practice areas of the law (eg: antitrust) as well.
The reason I care about this is -- if people/attorneys make up their minds without considering the facts/legal precedents, then they will not spot and/or work to figure out the legal arguments that will win the day -- the legal arguments eventually used in the WOM cases did not sprout out on day one, it was an iterative process.
This is great -- you won't consider facts and evidence, including the fact that judges themselves are recommending class action in similar cases! Forget about considering, you won't even read a post with a different pov... (makes me wonder why you bother with the forum if even reading a post is too much work.)
My own attorney, as a matter of fact, thinks that a class action makes sense in this instance.
As lazycis points out, his attorney didn't want him to even file an individual WOM, and it turned out his attorney was absolutely wrong. The mass of evidence in WOM cases and the current Mocanu decision shows that lazycis's attorney (and other let us not disturb/question the status quo attorneys) were wrong. I should remind people again that most of our attorneys are not litigators, they are paper filers -- this dichotomy is true in most other practice areas of the law (eg: antitrust) as well.
The reason I care about this is -- if people/attorneys make up their minds without considering the facts/legal precedents, then they will not spot and/or work to figure out the legal arguments that will win the day -- the legal arguments eventually used in the WOM cases did not sprout out on day one, it was an iterative process.
hairstyles %IMG_DESC_11%
_TrueFacts
09-04 01:39 PM
You dont even talk about my village even in your dreams.. Our village is much happier than before 5 years.. Its all becuase of YSR did for our village.
What did he do?
What did he do?
Rb_newsletter
09-14 07:26 PM
What are the hopes for individuals who missed Jul 07. In my case my labor got approved in Oct 07 and we are still waiting for the date to be current to be able to file for EAD / AP.
My dear friend, always you have to be hopeful, and cheerful.
If you want to build your hope look at people who are waiting with PDs in 2009.
This is a great thread. I don't know how real are the predictions, but this thread gives a great energy. lots of thanks to OP.
My dear friend, always you have to be hopeful, and cheerful.
If you want to build your hope look at people who are waiting with PDs in 2009.
This is a great thread. I don't know how real are the predictions, but this thread gives a great energy. lots of thanks to OP.
mchundi
02-19 04:49 PM
What you are talking here is the Eb1-EA category.. and not the general EB1 category..
The EB1 Category is primarily meant for inter company transfers. Most of the people who qualify to get GC under this category come to US through the inter company transfer route and are primarily on L1-A work visa. Folks under L1-A do not require a labor certification and directly file I-140 /485 unlike people who come on L1-b visa which is also inter company transfer and requires a person to file a labor certification in US and then file GC under Eb2 or Eb3 as the case may be.
It�s surprising that Eb1 is current for India. Going by the facts.. the top 3 IT companies had shipped most of their project folks infact every other person to US under L1-A in the last few years when H1-b was under scrutiny for these companies. Most of these people who came under L1-A should have applied for GC under Eb1 which should have retrogressed the dates for EB1 also. The only logical reason for this that these companies are being very selective in doing GC now unlike in the past when a lot of people had got GC under this category.. and the date for EB1 for India had retrogressed in beginning of 2006..
That apart the other reason why this category is current is that most of the staffing companies aka.. body shoppers cannot use this route to get people to US.. because they need to have full-fledged profitable operations overseas�. and the person being sponsored should have atleast worked for 365 days outside US for the company. The consulates do a complete check before giving an authorization under L1-A or L1-B category..
How many of the top indian IT companies file GC's for their employees?:rolleyes:
The EB1 Category is primarily meant for inter company transfers. Most of the people who qualify to get GC under this category come to US through the inter company transfer route and are primarily on L1-A work visa. Folks under L1-A do not require a labor certification and directly file I-140 /485 unlike people who come on L1-b visa which is also inter company transfer and requires a person to file a labor certification in US and then file GC under Eb2 or Eb3 as the case may be.
It�s surprising that Eb1 is current for India. Going by the facts.. the top 3 IT companies had shipped most of their project folks infact every other person to US under L1-A in the last few years when H1-b was under scrutiny for these companies. Most of these people who came under L1-A should have applied for GC under Eb1 which should have retrogressed the dates for EB1 also. The only logical reason for this that these companies are being very selective in doing GC now unlike in the past when a lot of people had got GC under this category.. and the date for EB1 for India had retrogressed in beginning of 2006..
That apart the other reason why this category is current is that most of the staffing companies aka.. body shoppers cannot use this route to get people to US.. because they need to have full-fledged profitable operations overseas�. and the person being sponsored should have atleast worked for 365 days outside US for the company. The consulates do a complete check before giving an authorization under L1-A or L1-B category..
How many of the top indian IT companies file GC's for their employees?:rolleyes:
