shreekhand
07-04 10:28 PM
A nicely presented opinion by Ramba, but there are obvious flaws in the anaylsis. Here are my observations
1.) The contention that they followed the recommendations of the Omb report and went back to pre-1982 method cannot be true. They cannot follow that without violating 8 USC Section 1255 (b) which clearly states that a visa number is reduced AFTER the approval of the I-485.
2.)There were 40K visas remaining at the time of the Jun 13 bulletin according to AILA. The 60K number as per DoS might have been from end of May. We most note the fact from the CIS I-485 Standard Operating Procedure that when a petition is "documentarily qualified and approvable" a request is made for a visa number, if such number is not available that petition is put into a approved pending availability of visa number list. This makes it amply clear that the CIS knew the exact number of approvable petitions.(might be ~40-60K) The DoS might also have known that.
3.) So what happened ? Looks like the DoS did not expect the CIS to get those petitions quickly from storage, assign a visa number, stamp and sign petitions with the speed that CIS did it with. As a matter of fact, we can clearly deduce from inquiries made my petitioners in the month of May that soon after the June bulletin was released in May, the petitioners were informed by IO's that their files are now been retrieved and have been assigned to officers for approval in June !
4.) This shows that the CIS swift approval (i.e retrieval, assigning visa #, stamp, signature) activity especially the retrieval part did not start on June 1, or June 13 but well before in mid May if not earlier.
5.) Now maybe they assigned the visa #'s to the approvable petitions (in line with the law) already but they are still going on with the stamp, signature part (as evidenced by people receiving approvals e-mails even on July 2nd and 3rd.. and other forums)
6.) Suspension of PPS at NSC and TSC -- Now why should that happen ?
If they have already used up the EB quota one would ask that much amount of man hours are now free isn't it !!?
But the above points might show us that they might need it to simply finish off the paperwork of the approvable petitions in the month of July. Remember signing off on 40K+ petitions is not a 1 month job, but just assigning visa numbers might be. It is very certain to me that we will see approvals well within July!
Loose ends:
1.) What baffles though is the allocation of all visa numbers before the last quarter of FY 07 ! Maybe there is loophole there that allowed them to do so.
2.) How did visa number for EB1 for a top scientist from say an undersubscribed country such as Ukraine also get used up ??!
1.) The contention that they followed the recommendations of the Omb report and went back to pre-1982 method cannot be true. They cannot follow that without violating 8 USC Section 1255 (b) which clearly states that a visa number is reduced AFTER the approval of the I-485.
2.)There were 40K visas remaining at the time of the Jun 13 bulletin according to AILA. The 60K number as per DoS might have been from end of May. We most note the fact from the CIS I-485 Standard Operating Procedure that when a petition is "documentarily qualified and approvable" a request is made for a visa number, if such number is not available that petition is put into a approved pending availability of visa number list. This makes it amply clear that the CIS knew the exact number of approvable petitions.(might be ~40-60K) The DoS might also have known that.
3.) So what happened ? Looks like the DoS did not expect the CIS to get those petitions quickly from storage, assign a visa number, stamp and sign petitions with the speed that CIS did it with. As a matter of fact, we can clearly deduce from inquiries made my petitioners in the month of May that soon after the June bulletin was released in May, the petitioners were informed by IO's that their files are now been retrieved and have been assigned to officers for approval in June !
4.) This shows that the CIS swift approval (i.e retrieval, assigning visa #, stamp, signature) activity especially the retrieval part did not start on June 1, or June 13 but well before in mid May if not earlier.
5.) Now maybe they assigned the visa #'s to the approvable petitions (in line with the law) already but they are still going on with the stamp, signature part (as evidenced by people receiving approvals e-mails even on July 2nd and 3rd.. and other forums)
6.) Suspension of PPS at NSC and TSC -- Now why should that happen ?
If they have already used up the EB quota one would ask that much amount of man hours are now free isn't it !!?
But the above points might show us that they might need it to simply finish off the paperwork of the approvable petitions in the month of July. Remember signing off on 40K+ petitions is not a 1 month job, but just assigning visa numbers might be. It is very certain to me that we will see approvals well within July!
Loose ends:
1.) What baffles though is the allocation of all visa numbers before the last quarter of FY 07 ! Maybe there is loophole there that allowed them to do so.
2.) How did visa number for EB1 for a top scientist from say an undersubscribed country such as Ukraine also get used up ??!
wallpaper E glass still consists for
caydee
04-23 12:55 PM
Great to hear that the event was a success. I was one of the volunteers who had the oppurtunity to call CA members and I just have one suggestion. Please update your profiles with your latest email and phone numbers. Of the 25 people I called, atleast 5 or 6 had incorrect phone numbers. One even went to a fax number. The intent for IV is to reach you quickly in such case but looks like the intent for such members is 'do-not-disturb'.
I had the same problem with phone numbers. About 8 numbers turned out to be incorrect. Update your profile, please. And if you do not want to be contacted by phone, please leave the phone # box in the profile blank.
I had the same problem with phone numbers. About 8 numbers turned out to be incorrect. Update your profile, please. And if you do not want to be contacted by phone, please leave the phone # box in the profile blank.
rockstart
03-10 11:07 AM
Guru's
I have a small doubt on AC -21 especially the same / similar interpretation. in Perm Application there are two places where there is job description. One is Section H field 11 ( Job Opportunity/ job duties) and other one is Section F field 2 ( Prevailing Wage/ SOC code) now both define what the job is the Section H is company specific and Section F is list of USCIS codes under which this particular job falls as subset.
The question is will USCIS judge using section F or Section H for same/ similar interpretation because Section F is pretty Generic and as long as you are in same field it works example in IT if you were say DBA and now data modeler or Systems Analyst or coder they are pretty much same. Here is an example of one such code
15-1051 Computer Systems Analysts
Analyze science, engineering, business, and all other data processing problems for application to electronic data processing systems. Analyze user requirements, procedures, and problems to automate or improve existing systems and review computer system capabilities, workflow, and scheduling limitations. May analyze or recommend commercially available software. Exclude persons working primarily as "Engineers" (17-2011 through 17-2199), "Mathematicians" (15-2021), or "Scientists" (19-1011 through 19-3099). May supervise computer programmers.
But in case they try to interpret Section H is it very complex and has specific tools that can get outdated or obselete with time. So it will be difficult to do an Ac -21 with that Example if they mention SQL Server or Ab-Initio in section H and now you take a full time in company using Oracle or Informatica will that cause an issue?
I have a small doubt on AC -21 especially the same / similar interpretation. in Perm Application there are two places where there is job description. One is Section H field 11 ( Job Opportunity/ job duties) and other one is Section F field 2 ( Prevailing Wage/ SOC code) now both define what the job is the Section H is company specific and Section F is list of USCIS codes under which this particular job falls as subset.
The question is will USCIS judge using section F or Section H for same/ similar interpretation because Section F is pretty Generic and as long as you are in same field it works example in IT if you were say DBA and now data modeler or Systems Analyst or coder they are pretty much same. Here is an example of one such code
15-1051 Computer Systems Analysts
Analyze science, engineering, business, and all other data processing problems for application to electronic data processing systems. Analyze user requirements, procedures, and problems to automate or improve existing systems and review computer system capabilities, workflow, and scheduling limitations. May analyze or recommend commercially available software. Exclude persons working primarily as "Engineers" (17-2011 through 17-2199), "Mathematicians" (15-2021), or "Scientists" (19-1011 through 19-3099). May supervise computer programmers.
But in case they try to interpret Section H is it very complex and has specific tools that can get outdated or obselete with time. So it will be difficult to do an Ac -21 with that Example if they mention SQL Server or Ab-Initio in section H and now you take a full time in company using Oracle or Informatica will that cause an issue?
2011 Amorphous Glass Structure.
reddysn
06-10 09:52 PM
as far as I know what you have mentioned here is correct
As far as I know L1 has no affect on the H1 filing. She can come US on L1 and if her H1 gets approved, she can continue to work on L1 with company A. To tranfer to H1, she has to go out of US and then re-enter after getting H1 visa stamped. This is based on my understanding and few of my friends who have done that. They were in US on L1 but filed their H1 through another company.
As far as I know L1 has no affect on the H1 filing. She can come US on L1 and if her H1 gets approved, she can continue to work on L1 with company A. To tranfer to H1, she has to go out of US and then re-enter after getting H1 visa stamped. This is based on my understanding and few of my friends who have done that. They were in US on L1 but filed their H1 through another company.
more...
pappu
06-14 08:50 AM
/\/\/\
file485
07-28 09:48 AM
that is the catchy situation...I think this employment letter from the GC sponsored employer is required until we get the GC into our hands..so the sooner we get out of this cycle the better..or else we can be asked for a fresh employment letter in an RFE which is a sticky situation for many employers/employees
more...
gsc999
04-23 01:32 PM
I had the same problem with phone numbers. About 8 numbers turned out to be incorrect. Update your profile, please. And if you do not want to be contacted by phone, please leave the phone # box in the profile blank.
---
Ditto, Please update your phone numbers.
Thanks in advance
---
Ditto, Please update your phone numbers.
Thanks in advance
2010 All-glass Evacuated Collector
srkamath
07-20 01:26 PM
Here you go - conversion should not impact this as the number of LC approvals remains the same:
Here are all the LC approvals for India in the last seven years.
Year, Total LC Approved, Total India
2007 85112 24573
2006 79782 22298
2005 6133 1350
2004 43582 No Info
2003 62912 No Info
2002 79784 No Info
2001 77921 No Info
2000 70204 No Info
Lets assume about 25% of pre-PERM LCs are India based on post-PERM data. Thus for fiscal 2004 (Oct 2003 thru Sep 2004) the total LC number is 43,852. Assume 25% of that to be India based on PERM data. That gives about 11,000 India LCs in 2004 alone (All EB categories combined). If you assume an average of 2.5 dependents then the number of visas required for all India EB categories for 2004 is 27,500 (11,000*2.5). The regular quota for EB2 and EB3 combined is only about 9,800. That means 17,700 visas have to come from somewhere. I dont think those many visas are remaining for this year. Be prepared to see FIFO thrown under the bus and approvals with PDs that are all over the place. Please critique this analysis without piling on. Thoughts?
delax,
There is a mistake in your numbers, thousands of cases applied for in 2005 were approved in 2006.
If you look at the 2006 PERM Data Sheet, there are 7290 Approved, India cases with receipt dates in the year 2005.
I'm assuming PD = PERM Receipt Date (correct me if i'm wrong)
Similarly for 2006 in the 2007 tables.
Therefore there are ~ 8700 - EB1, EB2, EB3 cases in 2005 and not 1350.
Here are all the LC approvals for India in the last seven years.
Year, Total LC Approved, Total India
2007 85112 24573
2006 79782 22298
2005 6133 1350
2004 43582 No Info
2003 62912 No Info
2002 79784 No Info
2001 77921 No Info
2000 70204 No Info
Lets assume about 25% of pre-PERM LCs are India based on post-PERM data. Thus for fiscal 2004 (Oct 2003 thru Sep 2004) the total LC number is 43,852. Assume 25% of that to be India based on PERM data. That gives about 11,000 India LCs in 2004 alone (All EB categories combined). If you assume an average of 2.5 dependents then the number of visas required for all India EB categories for 2004 is 27,500 (11,000*2.5). The regular quota for EB2 and EB3 combined is only about 9,800. That means 17,700 visas have to come from somewhere. I dont think those many visas are remaining for this year. Be prepared to see FIFO thrown under the bus and approvals with PDs that are all over the place. Please critique this analysis without piling on. Thoughts?
delax,
There is a mistake in your numbers, thousands of cases applied for in 2005 were approved in 2006.
If you look at the 2006 PERM Data Sheet, there are 7290 Approved, India cases with receipt dates in the year 2005.
I'm assuming PD = PERM Receipt Date (correct me if i'm wrong)
Similarly for 2006 in the 2007 tables.
Therefore there are ~ 8700 - EB1, EB2, EB3 cases in 2005 and not 1350.
more...
sbabunle
01-28 12:43 AM
Rajuram
You got couple of things wrong here. Passing a legislation is not a piece
of cake. It would take sometimes years persistent effort. Contributing
a few hundred or even a thousand dollars and expecting everything to be
changed would be too ridiculous. Several tech lobbies are also lobbying
hard for similar things. And they spend money in millions. Any man with commonsense could understand how difficult things if those powerful business could not take care this.
Now u may ask, if these tech lobbies cannot take care of it how could a small group like us do it? Last year when CIR was passed in the senate, there was a catch int. It would have imposed hard country quota. With IVs work we were able to remove that hard cap clause from the bill. The bottom line is that we may not be able to pass a huge bill, but we could get sevearl smaller bills in peacemeals that would help our cause.
If we keep on working on it, eventually some doors will open for us. But nobody is not sure when thats going to happen. So here is my take on this whole drama. I'll support IV for next 3 years. And if nothing happens I'll pack my bags. :D :D :D
Now good luck on your GC
I (and may be lot of others like me) want to care about IV & want to contribute to IV. But there has not even a single thread of good news for last several months. This is very demotivating. I have contributed only once. Every time I visit this site, I feel guilty of taking a free ride. But at the same time I find it hard to make any contributions with nothing happening on the horizon. Currently it looks like what ever is happening or going to happen with CIR etc is just moving at its own pace. If we can not expedite it, then what is the use? in any case congress will pass some relief for skilled workers when CIR comes up.
You got couple of things wrong here. Passing a legislation is not a piece
of cake. It would take sometimes years persistent effort. Contributing
a few hundred or even a thousand dollars and expecting everything to be
changed would be too ridiculous. Several tech lobbies are also lobbying
hard for similar things. And they spend money in millions. Any man with commonsense could understand how difficult things if those powerful business could not take care this.
Now u may ask, if these tech lobbies cannot take care of it how could a small group like us do it? Last year when CIR was passed in the senate, there was a catch int. It would have imposed hard country quota. With IVs work we were able to remove that hard cap clause from the bill. The bottom line is that we may not be able to pass a huge bill, but we could get sevearl smaller bills in peacemeals that would help our cause.
If we keep on working on it, eventually some doors will open for us. But nobody is not sure when thats going to happen. So here is my take on this whole drama. I'll support IV for next 3 years. And if nothing happens I'll pack my bags. :D :D :D
Now good luck on your GC
I (and may be lot of others like me) want to care about IV & want to contribute to IV. But there has not even a single thread of good news for last several months. This is very demotivating. I have contributed only once. Every time I visit this site, I feel guilty of taking a free ride. But at the same time I find it hard to make any contributions with nothing happening on the horizon. Currently it looks like what ever is happening or going to happen with CIR etc is just moving at its own pace. If we can not expedite it, then what is the use? in any case congress will pass some relief for skilled workers when CIR comes up.
hair In Glass-covered Amorphous
gcisadawg
02-13 01:49 PM
Ash, I agree with the message but you need to work on the choice of words. This not ethnic cleansing or lynching or systematic targetting. I'd say America is going into a protectionist mode. When you are in that mode, the first step is to keep aliens at a distance.
more...
sunty
11-10 11:27 PM
vin13,
I was not aware of any conference call being organized by IV, otherwise I would have certainly been there, for I really believe quarterly spillover can ease a lot of our pain and can be a good starting point to re-galvanize the community.
I think IV leadership should show the way here so that there is a chance we might see quarterly spillover in the January Bulletin. First it was the USCIS and now its the DOS that we need to wake from its slumber.
I was not aware of any conference call being organized by IV, otherwise I would have certainly been there, for I really believe quarterly spillover can ease a lot of our pain and can be a good starting point to re-galvanize the community.
I think IV leadership should show the way here so that there is a chance we might see quarterly spillover in the January Bulletin. First it was the USCIS and now its the DOS that we need to wake from its slumber.
hot amorphous structure of glass.
singhsa3
02-21 01:59 PM
EB1 quota 40K a year..
more...
house glass amorphous solid.
SunnySurya
07-28 11:30 AM
Sure, I will be. But the question is whether the object is for the human consumption or not . If it is then why not.. Yes, it hurts sentiments but a line has to be drawn between sentiment and rationality.
Would you be offended if your picture is put on toilet seat??
Would you be offended if your picture is put on toilet seat??
tattoo glass amorphous structure.
hsm2007
09-20 07:37 PM
Hi Guys,
I am in tough spot. I was laid off from my GC sponsoring employer (A) in 2008 and joined another employer B . I did not do a AC21 notification. My dates are current and now I received an RFE to provide employment letter from current employer. The exact words of RFE are as follows:
"Submit a letter of employment attesting to applicant's current employment. This letter should be written on the company's official letterhead, citing the date the applicant began working, if a permanent full time position, the position offered, the position the applicant is currently working and the salary offered. Include corroborating evidence such as recent pay stubs, income tax returns, with all W2s or other evidence as appropriate. "
Now I am not working for original GC employer. I don't have a problem providing above from my current employer B. But whether the EVL should also mention that I am not working for GC sponsoring employer and that my current employers job profile is in same classification as previous based on AC21. Do I mention about the AC21 also in the letter? My current employer's attorneys are not that great but my current employer only wants me to use their own attorney.
Now here is the situation:
I have a job offer from another employer (Employer C) and they are in the middle of doing a H-1 transfer. In fact by tomorrow they will file the H1 paperwork. Now I don't know whether I should provide the letter from my potential new employer C . In that case, I won't be able to provide W2 or pay stubs until I join them. I have an opportunity to use my own attorney here (like murthy, Ron Gothcer..)
OR
should I provide a letter from my current employer using their attorneys and whether or not I should mention about AC21 in the employment letter.
Also they sent the RFE to my previous employer's attorney even though my current employer's attorney had sent the new G-28 forms. Can my current attorney respond to the RFE or will the response get rejected because USCIS still has old attorney on file.
Thanks.
I am in tough spot. I was laid off from my GC sponsoring employer (A) in 2008 and joined another employer B . I did not do a AC21 notification. My dates are current and now I received an RFE to provide employment letter from current employer. The exact words of RFE are as follows:
"Submit a letter of employment attesting to applicant's current employment. This letter should be written on the company's official letterhead, citing the date the applicant began working, if a permanent full time position, the position offered, the position the applicant is currently working and the salary offered. Include corroborating evidence such as recent pay stubs, income tax returns, with all W2s or other evidence as appropriate. "
Now I am not working for original GC employer. I don't have a problem providing above from my current employer B. But whether the EVL should also mention that I am not working for GC sponsoring employer and that my current employers job profile is in same classification as previous based on AC21. Do I mention about the AC21 also in the letter? My current employer's attorneys are not that great but my current employer only wants me to use their own attorney.
Now here is the situation:
I have a job offer from another employer (Employer C) and they are in the middle of doing a H-1 transfer. In fact by tomorrow they will file the H1 paperwork. Now I don't know whether I should provide the letter from my potential new employer C . In that case, I won't be able to provide W2 or pay stubs until I join them. I have an opportunity to use my own attorney here (like murthy, Ron Gothcer..)
OR
should I provide a letter from my current employer using their attorneys and whether or not I should mention about AC21 in the employment letter.
Also they sent the RFE to my previous employer's attorney even though my current employer's attorney had sent the new G-28 forms. Can my current attorney respond to the RFE or will the response get rejected because USCIS still has old attorney on file.
Thanks.
more...
pictures structure of amorphous
abstractvision
03-19 11:31 AM
I called USCIS this morning and the lady took 3 mnute to explain me why the delay was happening. She mentioned that they will conduct a sweep on Fri Apr 4th to determine the I-485 cases in light of new visa bulletin and that cases will be assigned to IOs by Mon Apr 14th.
Not that I believe on help desk type of info with their primary job is get the caller off the phone but I have to admit that she was polite.
I will call again on Apr 4th and keep the forum updated.
Not that I believe on help desk type of info with their primary job is get the caller off the phone but I have to admit that she was polite.
I will call again on Apr 4th and keep the forum updated.
dresses Amorphous Structure Of Glass.
peer123
07-13 09:20 AM
Agree, she is just trying to cash on the momentum and probalby later claim credit if favorable changes are made. But , it should not bother us as it only going to help us and not hurt us.
I agree with you,... Lets accept it. Nothing is FREE in this world...
There is something called corporate alignment in every aspect of the business. She doing it - if it helps her as well as us. So be it.
we should be able to combine all forces and go at it....
I agree with you,... Lets accept it. Nothing is FREE in this world...
There is something called corporate alignment in every aspect of the business. She doing it - if it helps her as well as us. So be it.
we should be able to combine all forces and go at it....
more...
makeup Amorphous Structure Of Glass.
srkamath
07-13 02:30 PM
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.
We should compare the processing date at NSC / TSC with the erroneous receipt date they show in the online case status. Their computer systems are more likely to have recorded that date than the presumably hand-typed receipt date on our I-485 receipt notices......
My actual receipt date is July 2nd, but the online case status shows Aug23 rd, i'm not expecting anything to happen until TSC proc. date gets past Aug 23rd.
We should compare the processing date at NSC / TSC with the erroneous receipt date they show in the online case status. Their computer systems are more likely to have recorded that date than the presumably hand-typed receipt date on our I-485 receipt notices......
My actual receipt date is July 2nd, but the online case status shows Aug23 rd, i'm not expecting anything to happen until TSC proc. date gets past Aug 23rd.
girlfriend glass amorphous structure. amorphous structure of glass.
mariner5555
03-06 06:54 AM
That is true. But I would rather bicker/argue among ourselves in our closed community and not in front of the public. I withdrew my post because singhsa3 is inviting media and other outlets to view this poll. I see no good coming out of washing our dirty linen in public.
I am neither convinced by singhsa3's arguments and nor do I buy into the whole "potential-to-buy-houses" angle (and I got red-dotted for all my previous posts, but I don't care), but if he's willing to take the efforts because he believes in what he's doing, then I don't have to be the all-freedom-of-speech guy.
So long as singhsa3's not pledging that I and my wife will buy our house #2 and house #3 only because USCIS gives us green cards, I am fine with continuing with my life and work. :)
why are you so scared :-D ..what happens if media watches the poll and how is this dirty linen ...it is a valid point ..and the main point is legal people have to wait for years and years to get the stupid card (and in the meanwhile keep on paying the lawyers fees) ..this is not dirty linen ...if you are not convinced then stay out of the way.
really I dont see any other options after the letter campaign ...unless some one else has a better idea !!
btw you are paranoid ..how can someone else do this for you ??
>So long as singhsa3's not pledging that I and my wife will buy our house #2 and house #3 only because USCIS gives us green cards
I am neither convinced by singhsa3's arguments and nor do I buy into the whole "potential-to-buy-houses" angle (and I got red-dotted for all my previous posts, but I don't care), but if he's willing to take the efforts because he believes in what he's doing, then I don't have to be the all-freedom-of-speech guy.
So long as singhsa3's not pledging that I and my wife will buy our house #2 and house #3 only because USCIS gives us green cards, I am fine with continuing with my life and work. :)
why are you so scared :-D ..what happens if media watches the poll and how is this dirty linen ...it is a valid point ..and the main point is legal people have to wait for years and years to get the stupid card (and in the meanwhile keep on paying the lawyers fees) ..this is not dirty linen ...if you are not convinced then stay out of the way.
really I dont see any other options after the letter campaign ...unless some one else has a better idea !!
btw you are paranoid ..how can someone else do this for you ??
>So long as singhsa3's not pledging that I and my wife will buy our house #2 and house #3 only because USCIS gives us green cards
hairstyles Amorphous structure of PET as
checklaw
07-02 07:56 PM
Contributed $100 in the evening
jonty_11
06-30 11:47 PM
Thx IV for workingon yet another pressing issue..
Continue the good work! v r with u!!
Continue the good work! v r with u!!
ivuser
01-30 02:25 PM
Hi,
I know a good desi firm. The firm takes just $2/hr for the operational expense. If you need more info please send a private message.
Thanks
I know a good desi firm. The firm takes just $2/hr for the operational expense. If you need more info please send a private message.
Thanks
No comments:
Post a Comment