sapota
08-15 05:39 PM
Surprised by visa bulletin mentioning cutoff dates for EB1, EB2 & EB3 ROW & philipines instead of U.
Does this mean EB1, EB2 & EB3 ROW cases are not backlogged ? (i.e USCIS approved all it could on July1st 2007 but still visa numbers left?)
Or were these cases waiting for FBI check so could not use up visa numbers??
Either way, in a month or so (after all July VB cases are entered into database, USCIS would know its true backlog). Wish it would announce such a backlog number and make realistic predictions for when cases will be approved.
Given the recent announcement from whitehouse regarding expedited FBI checks, maybe there is some light at the end of the tunnel.
But hey, lets keep pushing, we dont want hope to be a mirage do we.
Edit/Delete Message
Does this mean EB1, EB2 & EB3 ROW cases are not backlogged ? (i.e USCIS approved all it could on July1st 2007 but still visa numbers left?)
Or were these cases waiting for FBI check so could not use up visa numbers??
Either way, in a month or so (after all July VB cases are entered into database, USCIS would know its true backlog). Wish it would announce such a backlog number and make realistic predictions for when cases will be approved.
Given the recent announcement from whitehouse regarding expedited FBI checks, maybe there is some light at the end of the tunnel.
But hey, lets keep pushing, we dont want hope to be a mirage do we.
Edit/Delete Message
wallpaper smiley face clip art with
satishku_2000
08-15 04:30 PM
What do EB cutoff dates in Sept VB mean? All eligible for filing AOS did in July/Aug. Does it mean that USCIS will be giving visa (approving GC) to those within the new cutoff dates?
Some people from BEC are still waiting for their labor approvals , Some of those people should be able to file for 140/485 if their PDs fall in the cut off dates . Hope USCIS will exhaust the numbers in this year by approving 485s for eligible people .
Some people from BEC are still waiting for their labor approvals , Some of those people should be able to file for 140/485 if their PDs fall in the cut off dates . Hope USCIS will exhaust the numbers in this year by approving 485s for eligible people .
boreal
07-13 01:56 PM
I'm sure most cases have recd at least a computerized review by now, many of the LUDs are for fingerprinting, name checks, change of processing centers etc. Yes there is definitely activity.
However, it does not mean that all pre Jun06 cut-off cases have been pre-adjudicated.
I agree. Infact my application hasnt even been touched once (July 2, RD), no soft LUD either, even after FP .. makes me believe that there might be other applications out there too that have never been touched so far..so we cant assume that all the cases prior to July 2007 have already been pre-adjudicated, just because the processing-dates at NSC say July 2007. I think the processing dates reflect only those cases whose PD was current when the processing-dates timeframe came out. We will know more accurately when the processing-dates are updated next month. If the processing-dates, even after next month's update remain at July, 2007, then we can probably assume that our cases have already been pre-adjudicated. (still makes me wonder how that can happen without any soft LUDs at all, but anything is possible). I will keep my fingers crossed and hope for the best.
However, it does not mean that all pre Jun06 cut-off cases have been pre-adjudicated.
I agree. Infact my application hasnt even been touched once (July 2, RD), no soft LUD either, even after FP .. makes me believe that there might be other applications out there too that have never been touched so far..so we cant assume that all the cases prior to July 2007 have already been pre-adjudicated, just because the processing-dates at NSC say July 2007. I think the processing dates reflect only those cases whose PD was current when the processing-dates timeframe came out. We will know more accurately when the processing-dates are updated next month. If the processing-dates, even after next month's update remain at July, 2007, then we can probably assume that our cases have already been pre-adjudicated. (still makes me wonder how that can happen without any soft LUDs at all, but anything is possible). I will keep my fingers crossed and hope for the best.
2011 thank you animation clip art. thank you animation clip art.
apb
07-19 08:03 PM
USCIS also checks whether you have been paying taxes. W2 alone does not help.
I meant paying = filing taxes
I meant paying = filing taxes
more...
makemygc
07-05 10:02 AM
Strange to find that any thread which asks for contribution is pushed down the toilet within seconds whereas people are just too fond of discussing all idiotic things like..July 2 filers, July 3 filers, Will USCIS return our appllications, so on and so forth.
ArunAntonio
11-21 08:36 PM
- Is it possible to change your employer and port your PD after the I140 is
approved?
- I know that the Complete process of labour ect.. needs to be restarted but
what if the previous I140/labour is revoked by the previous employer (Can
the previous employer do that ?)
- Can the above be done when the person is on their 8th year H1 extenstion?
approved?
- I know that the Complete process of labour ect.. needs to be restarted but
what if the previous I140/labour is revoked by the previous employer (Can
the previous employer do that ?)
- Can the above be done when the person is on their 8th year H1 extenstion?
more...
DDD
03-11 12:04 AM
pretty cool grinch....gotta work on your lighting a bit...:beam:.
2010 thank you clip art. free thank
Buran
02-15 01:33 PM
http://www.workpermit.com/news/2007-05-16/us/h-1b-visa-outsourcing-abuse-investigation.htm
After the stunning demand for the H-1B visa this year, people began to investigate the problem. Congress and the White House are trying to craft major immigration reform this year, and an understanding of the situation is critical.
What has been noticed is that between 70% and 80% of the H-1B visas granted in 2006 went to India-based outsourcing firms. Employees of these firms were not being hired to work for U.S. businesses but, rather, to effectively study how U.S. businesses operate and to determine their needs and methods.
After the stunning demand for the H-1B visa this year, people began to investigate the problem. Congress and the White House are trying to craft major immigration reform this year, and an understanding of the situation is critical.
What has been noticed is that between 70% and 80% of the H-1B visas granted in 2006 went to India-based outsourcing firms. Employees of these firms were not being hired to work for U.S. businesses but, rather, to effectively study how U.S. businesses operate and to determine their needs and methods.
more...
vamsi_poondla
09-26 09:45 AM
If all of us do it, they will probably add an errata
hair thank you animation clip
amitjoey
07-05 12:50 PM
Fellow IV fighters, members. I know, it seems like there is always a target for funds and we dont achieve it. Well! that is not true, we set a new target when the first one is achieved.
Funds, There are more ideas than funds. For every new campaign, plan, we need funds. So it is an ever needed commodity. The reason so many of us are so very aggresive is that we just need more funds, plain and simple.
Inspite of several hundreds contributing, it is not enough. But we will soon reach a day when we would be okay, (given a lot of us/you, sign up for a recurring contribution).
Trusting IV with funds is a major stumbling block, but remember IV is a non-profit, so every "naya-paisa" (penny) is accounted for.
People handling money (core IV) are sincere, honest hardworking people on work-visas, they have much to lose from not being accountable.
And the most important thing is, please take a look at these hard-working IV CORE PEOPLE, please. Some of them have put thousands of dollars (I mean 5 and ten thousand) into this effort. I am not counting personal expenses, travelling to DC, lost work hours etc.
So your $100 at the bowling arena wont get you much farther, but contribute it to IV to get your way ahead paved and bull-dozed over.
Funds, There are more ideas than funds. For every new campaign, plan, we need funds. So it is an ever needed commodity. The reason so many of us are so very aggresive is that we just need more funds, plain and simple.
Inspite of several hundreds contributing, it is not enough. But we will soon reach a day when we would be okay, (given a lot of us/you, sign up for a recurring contribution).
Trusting IV with funds is a major stumbling block, but remember IV is a non-profit, so every "naya-paisa" (penny) is accounted for.
People handling money (core IV) are sincere, honest hardworking people on work-visas, they have much to lose from not being accountable.
And the most important thing is, please take a look at these hard-working IV CORE PEOPLE, please. Some of them have put thousands of dollars (I mean 5 and ten thousand) into this effort. I am not counting personal expenses, travelling to DC, lost work hours etc.
So your $100 at the bowling arena wont get you much farther, but contribute it to IV to get your way ahead paved and bull-dozed over.
more...
zuhail
03-11 08:58 PM
By the way there is a thread where it is mentioned that the spill over to EB2 and EB3 still works the same.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=325657
This would mean that there would be no significant movement in EB2 and EB3 India numbers.
Time is RIGHT NOW to introduce a bill for recapturing Visa Numbers.
Thanks de2002 for The NyTimes Editorial. ( I only wish this had also come from WSJ).
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/opinion/03fri2.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=legal%20immigration&st=cse
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=325657
This would mean that there would be no significant movement in EB2 and EB3 India numbers.
Time is RIGHT NOW to introduce a bill for recapturing Visa Numbers.
Thanks de2002 for The NyTimes Editorial. ( I only wish this had also come from WSJ).
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/opinion/03fri2.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=legal%20immigration&st=cse
hot thank you clip art animated.
gc_rip
09-10 12:01 PM
Hi IV team, and all,
Can we come up with certain organized campaign, just like the flower campaign back in Aug 07? I am sure if we have such campaign, the participation would definitely be more.
Ofcourse we need to choose a right time and right message to put through.
Please share your ideas.
Thanks!
Can we come up with certain organized campaign, just like the flower campaign back in Aug 07? I am sure if we have such campaign, the participation would definitely be more.
Ofcourse we need to choose a right time and right message to put through.
Please share your ideas.
Thanks!
more...
house thank you clip art animated.
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.
tattoo thank you animation clip art.
abhathakur
03-08 11:30 PM
The last time I managed to ping an admin assistant level person at the Records and Information Dissemination Section at FBI that is responsible for NNCP, she said the analysts were looking at the 2002/2003 files and this was when I called in November 2005 (No amount of cajoling or pleading or trickery would make her say a word beyond that, very intimidating the female!!!). I am not sure if the 2002/2003 was a reference to the receipt date or the priority date, my guess is it must have been the receipt date of the I-485 application.
Considering the receipt date of my application is in Nov., 2004...it is going to be a wait and the India EB-2 Visa availability in the interim for my PD can pretty much oscillate from being available to not and back and I'll still be waiting!!!
Anyway, it was good to know through a privacy act request to the FOIA division of the FBI that the index check in their central name check database produced no hits for me.....now if their NNCP bretheren would come to the same conclusion SOON, that would be something!!! By the way, I spoke with the FOIA liasion at the FBI and he did say that the NNCP department was in the process of making status inquiry possible again...dunno how long thats gonna take though!
On a different note, have made my second contribution to IV and have inspired an impacted friend to do the same and have exhorted others to make a contribution as well....my reason for aligning with IV, I like to fight the right fight not just because it is my fight right now.
Considering the receipt date of my application is in Nov., 2004...it is going to be a wait and the India EB-2 Visa availability in the interim for my PD can pretty much oscillate from being available to not and back and I'll still be waiting!!!
Anyway, it was good to know through a privacy act request to the FOIA division of the FBI that the index check in their central name check database produced no hits for me.....now if their NNCP bretheren would come to the same conclusion SOON, that would be something!!! By the way, I spoke with the FOIA liasion at the FBI and he did say that the NNCP department was in the process of making status inquiry possible again...dunno how long thats gonna take though!
On a different note, have made my second contribution to IV and have inspired an impacted friend to do the same and have exhorted others to make a contribution as well....my reason for aligning with IV, I like to fight the right fight not just because it is my fight right now.
more...
pictures Forget low budget clip art,
jsb
08-20 10:05 AM
To understand the Visa bulletin, one must first understand that it is not the USCIS that computes or post VB, it is the DOS. DOS also considers those undergoing consular processing. In this case, the dates are in favor of those doing CP as we all know that most of those who are qualified to apply for AOS have already applied.
Retrogression is a CP-friendly event.
Can one initiate CP if so chosen in I-140, but already applied for AOS?
Retrogression is a CP-friendly event.
Can one initiate CP if so chosen in I-140, but already applied for AOS?
dresses You Animation Clipart
EB2_Jun03_dude
02-22 11:15 AM
I guess this dude(Greg) does not know @ EB2 India went 'U' even after pushing back Jan 2000.
I asked Greg Siskind about this. Heres his response:
"I did get this news about the meeting, but did not post on it as it sounded like it was not going to affect that many people. I would doubt that there are a lot of Indian EB-2s left with 2003 priority dates, but I could be wrong."
I asked Greg Siskind about this. Heres his response:
"I did get this news about the meeting, but did not post on it as it sounded like it was not going to affect that many people. I would doubt that there are a lot of Indian EB-2s left with 2003 priority dates, but I could be wrong."
more...
makeup thank you clip art animated.
sodh
07-23 04:32 PM
Thanks much for your time! We already applied without it.
Lets see... I don;t have much in my hands other than waiting....
Wish you Good Luck.
Lets see... I don;t have much in my hands other than waiting....
Wish you Good Luck.
girlfriend images thank you clip art
new2gc
03-10 11:40 PM
You and I understand that we are already employed. Please check the Number USA site and tell me what common american people thinks about this.
yes, on CNN, Anericanworkforce.org are showing ad saying every year US govt is importing 1.5Million foreign workers.... I wonder where did they got that number.:confused:
yes, on CNN, Anericanworkforce.org are showing ad saying every year US govt is importing 1.5Million foreign workers.... I wonder where did they got that number.:confused:
hairstyles thank you clip art animated.
sanjaymm
10-29 01:43 PM
I have mailed a notorized letter. I have also forwarded the link to other friends who may have missed this action item.
Sanjay
Sanjay
gclabor07
10-19 09:31 PM
Folks,
I was just looking at the Obama and McCain websites just to see how they look from design standpoint (I'm a UI designer by profession). I happened to read their views on Immigration. I was surprised to see that Obama's views were extremely vague and offered no solutions to retain or encourage highly skilled immigrant workers. McCain on the other hand has section on highly skilled immigrant workers and talks about retaining them after US education, H1B cap reform, greencard increase to reflect demand etc.
If you are curious, see for yourself.
Obama on Immigration:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/immigration/
McCain on Immigration:
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/68db8157-d301-4e22-baf7-a70dd8416efa.htm
Not that any of us are allowed to vote or our opinions matter to these politicians, I thought this presents an interesting comparison.
Thx.
I was just looking at the Obama and McCain websites just to see how they look from design standpoint (I'm a UI designer by profession). I happened to read their views on Immigration. I was surprised to see that Obama's views were extremely vague and offered no solutions to retain or encourage highly skilled immigrant workers. McCain on the other hand has section on highly skilled immigrant workers and talks about retaining them after US education, H1B cap reform, greencard increase to reflect demand etc.
If you are curious, see for yourself.
Obama on Immigration:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/immigration/
McCain on Immigration:
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/68db8157-d301-4e22-baf7-a70dd8416efa.htm
Not that any of us are allowed to vote or our opinions matter to these politicians, I thought this presents an interesting comparison.
Thx.
jay75
08-15 08:10 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.........
I'm unable to understand well why EB3 is "U". :mad:
Friends, please share your thoughts. Let us discuss.........