uma001
03-09 10:36 PM
:) You will have to fight the Reliance Freshs and subhikshas etc as competitors on that grocery store.
I told you I do business for no profict no loss ....and i run my store in outskirts/remote places
I told you I do business for no profict no loss ....and i run my store in outskirts/remote places
wallpaper The islamic art photoshop
svn
03-31 02:19 PM
This is very useful information. Given the data quoted, my question is: Why is the EB3 allocation for EB3 India only 2306? If the per country quota is set at 7% of 140K EB Visas and this is to be divided uniformly across all three employment categories, shouldn't EB3 India approvals have come to 9800/3 i.e roughly 3266? Actually, the same would apply for EB3 China as well!
Is this real discrimination against EB3 India/China...or am I just imagining it?Given my 8 year unending wait, I am sure I could just be hallucinating as well :-)
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV.pdf
Country EB1 EB2 EB3
India 6672 10124 2306
China 4999 3046 1027
S Korea 2311 4991 4001
Philippines 524 1853 5540
Mexico 2010 922 3745
All visa numbers allocated to South Korea are against EB visa numbers.
_________________
Not a legal advice.
Is this real discrimination against EB3 India/China...or am I just imagining it?Given my 8 year unending wait, I am sure I could just be hallucinating as well :-)
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV.pdf
Country EB1 EB2 EB3
India 6672 10124 2306
China 4999 3046 1027
S Korea 2311 4991 4001
Philippines 524 1853 5540
Mexico 2010 922 3745
All visa numbers allocated to South Korea are against EB visa numbers.
_________________
Not a legal advice.
delhiguy
07-09 03:43 PM
I was surprised to see that nowhere it was mentioned that USCIS processed 25k petitions over the weekend (or nearly 60k in 2 weeks) as reported by some USCIS officials last week and in many cases broke their own regulations by approving several cases with pending background/name checks. That definitely sounds to me like a conspiracy against July filers....In my view, that should have been one of the strongest points we can use against USCIS. I dont think we have a case against DOS as they had to revise the bulletin as USCIS requested more than available Visa numbers and exhausted the quota.....Even Dr. Rice made it clear in her NBC interview from the DOS perspective that revision of visa bulletin caused an "inconvenience" to the petitioners....
I dont think legally you can sue someone, because they have worked harder.
I posted this link , so that everybody may know the legal reasons, which we can be presented in a court of law.
If this lawsuit is accepted by the court , then the USCIS lawyers would tell what exactly happened.
I till now personally believe , that the USCIS/DOS hasnt broken any law.
They may have however changed a pettern,process , but no law has been broken.
I dont think legally you can sue someone, because they have worked harder.
I posted this link , so that everybody may know the legal reasons, which we can be presented in a court of law.
If this lawsuit is accepted by the court , then the USCIS lawyers would tell what exactly happened.
I till now personally believe , that the USCIS/DOS hasnt broken any law.
They may have however changed a pettern,process , but no law has been broken.
2011 Tags: art photoshop wallpapers
rk78
06-11 05:23 PM
sent e-mail to AZ senators
more...
sanju_dba
08-10 02:45 PM
Count me in!
diptam
06-30 06:57 PM
Sounds like a plan - let us know what's the next step.
I got little demoralized last evening but then worked from 11 thru 3 AM to double check everything and i mailed today by USPS Express Mail ( it should reach July 2nd )
Thanks again for your leadership.
Diptam
I got little demoralized last evening but then worked from 11 thru 3 AM to double check everything and i mailed today by USPS Express Mail ( it should reach July 2nd )
Thanks again for your leadership.
Diptam
more...
ramaonline
04-23 02:19 AM
according to a recent news item, the house speaker needs the support of at least 70 republicans to even consider a vote:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has told the White House she could not pass a bill with Democratic votes alone, nor would she seek to enforce party discipline on the issue.
Bush would have to produce at least 70 Republican votes before she would consider a vote on comprehensive immigration legislation. Garnering such support might be very difficult for a president saddled with low approval ratings.
Democratic conservatives, particularly freshmen who seized their seats from Republicans, had to weather a barrage of attacks on the issue before their victories in November and are not eager to relive the experience, party aides and lawmakers say.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has told the White House she could not pass a bill with Democratic votes alone, nor would she seek to enforce party discipline on the issue.
Bush would have to produce at least 70 Republican votes before she would consider a vote on comprehensive immigration legislation. Garnering such support might be very difficult for a president saddled with low approval ratings.
Democratic conservatives, particularly freshmen who seized their seats from Republicans, had to weather a barrage of attacks on the issue before their victories in November and are not eager to relive the experience, party aides and lawmakers say.
2010 forartistic background,
another one
07-16 05:29 PM
their Vancouver center to achievements of NumbersUSA and Lou Dobbs. We really need to let the world know that programmers guild, NuumbersUSA and Lou Dobbs has declared a war against middle class, and it will now lead to an impact on Seattle's economy. Heard that some people would be selling houses or drinking less coffee.
more...
sanju
11-11 05:37 PM
I am not sure what lobbying efforts would do for us, haven't worked so far...
You have been waiting for your GC approval. Have you gotten it yet? No. Everything you have done hasn't worked. Then why continue to wait for the GC? Lets leave.
You see what I am saying. I am merely using your argument to highlight the ignorance embedded in your post.
I leave it up to IV core to followup on these ideas. I repeat, as I have done so many times, it is all about marketing + media presence. We won the July 2007 visa bulletin battle because of adverse media reaction to the state department. Grass roots stuff is all good, but no one will ever notice it.
I repeat, as I have done so many times, asking others to work on your ideas (which you seem to think are original and your own) is common wisdom on these forums. Next time, try to come up with something original.
.
You have been waiting for your GC approval. Have you gotten it yet? No. Everything you have done hasn't worked. Then why continue to wait for the GC? Lets leave.
You see what I am saying. I am merely using your argument to highlight the ignorance embedded in your post.
I leave it up to IV core to followup on these ideas. I repeat, as I have done so many times, it is all about marketing + media presence. We won the July 2007 visa bulletin battle because of adverse media reaction to the state department. Grass roots stuff is all good, but no one will ever notice it.
I repeat, as I have done so many times, asking others to work on your ideas (which you seem to think are original and your own) is common wisdom on these forums. Next time, try to come up with something original.
.
hair powerful Photoshop method,
Roger Binny
10-10 01:35 PM
Just to avoid all this , You can say I'm a US citizen and move on. They cannot ask for any verification can they?
That is the riskiest and BS advice one can give on forums, specially in these.
Yes,exactly same including me my friends were asked for passport, we didn't know that we need to carry each one faced around 20-30 mins of interview.
That is the riskiest and BS advice one can give on forums, specially in these.
Yes,exactly same including me my friends were asked for passport, we didn't know that we need to carry each one faced around 20-30 mins of interview.
more...
vdlrao
07-18 11:35 PM
vdlrao,
I disagree with you. Per my calculation USCIS should have at-least 158k application with PD 2002 and 2003 (all chargeability, all cat). And yes I have arrived at this number after deducting already approved EB2 and EB3 numbers.
If you do INDIA:CHINA:MEXICO :: 40:30:30 ratio.
The break up of outstanding I485 looks like this
India :- 64k
China :- 47K
Mexico:- 47K
As per my calculation Eb3 India do not have good outlook.
you are right if theres no immigration reform in the next two years. But i strongly presume there would be immigration reform in the next two years.
I disagree with you. Per my calculation USCIS should have at-least 158k application with PD 2002 and 2003 (all chargeability, all cat). And yes I have arrived at this number after deducting already approved EB2 and EB3 numbers.
If you do INDIA:CHINA:MEXICO :: 40:30:30 ratio.
The break up of outstanding I485 looks like this
India :- 64k
China :- 47K
Mexico:- 47K
As per my calculation Eb3 India do not have good outlook.
you are right if theres no immigration reform in the next two years. But i strongly presume there would be immigration reform in the next two years.
hot Cute+artistic+ackgrounds
go_gc_way
12-29 11:32 AM
Whatever you guys are doing ... its working.
We are seeing higher than usual new registrations on this website in the past week.
Thank you all for posting about Immigration Voice everywhere else.
Thanks logiclife.
I AM SURE , ALL MEMBERS REALIZE THEY HAVE A REASON TO VISIT IMMIGRATIONVOICE.COM AND KNOW EVERY ONE'S CONTRIBUTION IS NEEDED FOR US TO MOVE ALONG , AND WE NEED IT SOON.
ALL TOGETHER CAN WORK MAGICS.
We are seeing higher than usual new registrations on this website in the past week.
Thank you all for posting about Immigration Voice everywhere else.
Thanks logiclife.
I AM SURE , ALL MEMBERS REALIZE THEY HAVE A REASON TO VISIT IMMIGRATIONVOICE.COM AND KNOW EVERY ONE'S CONTRIBUTION IS NEEDED FOR US TO MOVE ALONG , AND WE NEED IT SOON.
ALL TOGETHER CAN WORK MAGICS.
more...
house Pop how toadobe photoshop
alterego
07-04 08:31 PM
Everyone blaming CIS/DOS needs to understand some basics behind this mess. Before going to conclude anything, first, one should read all the ombudsman reports for last 3 or 4 years. Former INS or current USCIS’s functions and operations were not questionable and not known to public till ombudsman office was established. Ombudsman has helped customers and keep helping to improve efficiency of CIS. Ombudsman main concern (or goal) have been over the 4 years are
1. Primarily reducing backlogs in any application type particularly 485 and timely approval of any application.
2. Abolish the need for interim benefits like EAD, AP etc. If they approve 485 in 6 months, then most of us do not require EAD and AP.
3. Reduce the wastage of EB visas, as unused EB visas can not be carried over to next year (use it or lose it). Since 1992, about 200,000 EB visas were lost permanently. In 2003 alone, they issued only 64,000 EB visas and lost 88,000.
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.
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.
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.
Now lets come to July Visa bulletin mess.
Because of tight holding of visa cutoff dates for EB3 and EB2 for the first 8 months of 2007 (From Oct 2006 to May 2007) USCIS approved only 66,000 485s. For the next 4 months they have about 60K to 70K numbers available. If they approve the pending 485s with slower speed or old cut off dates, there is a potential estimated loss of 40,000 EB visas by Sep 2007. Thats why, based on ombudsman recommendation, DOS moved considerably the cut off date for June. When they took inventory in May, there are about 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications were pending due to non-availability of visa numbers. The “documentarily qualified 485 applications” mean the application filed long time back and processed by USCIS and cleared the FBI name and criminal check, and found eligible for green card. Apart from 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications, there is thousands of 485 applications (documentarily not yet qualified) pending due to name check. When DOS checked with USCIS they found only 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications (in all EB categories put together) are pending. However, the available visas are more than 40,000 (60to 70K). Then they made with out consulting properly with USCIS they made “current” for all EB categories. This is how they determine “current” or “over-subscribed” and how they establish cutoff dates.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered “Current.”
Whenever the total of documentarily qualified applicants in a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for the particular month, the category is considered to be “oversubscribed” and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
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.
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.
Excellent analysis and reccomendations. I feel that a visa number should be assigned at the point of 485 filing. If there is a problem it can be returned to the pool. That will be the least disruptive way to allot numbers in a timely fashion. In the end, that is likely to be the change that will come out of this.
This way, it will offer prospective applicants a more clear viewpoint of what they are up against when they consider their immigration options. i.e if you know you will have to wait 10 yrs to file an AOS even if you have an approved immigrant petition ala the family based immigrants, your plans would be different. You might not feel the wait worthwhile or even if you do, you do it fully aware of the consequences, 10 yrs exploitative employer on h1b etc.
If you notice, the level of hubris and cry is less in family based immigration even though the waits are longer. Atleast they know before they apply!
Your last point about a visa recapture is on the money. It is the least disruptive and easiest of the possible changes for current EB applicants in the current hostile atmosphere. It comes across as a rectification of USCIS inefficiency rather than a request for more immigration, which the public has clearly rejected at this time. If we can get 100-150K visas recaptured, this will greatly help EVERYONE in the EB queue for various reasons. It will buy us the 1-2 yrs needed before immigration is seriously addressed again. It will help those waiting to file 485 to file, those in 485 to have a hope to get out etc. It will help heavily retrogressed countries to keep getting more visas than the annual caps etc. I think that is something everyone can agree on as well.
1. Primarily reducing backlogs in any application type particularly 485 and timely approval of any application.
2. Abolish the need for interim benefits like EAD, AP etc. If they approve 485 in 6 months, then most of us do not require EAD and AP.
3. Reduce the wastage of EB visas, as unused EB visas can not be carried over to next year (use it or lose it). Since 1992, about 200,000 EB visas were lost permanently. In 2003 alone, they issued only 64,000 EB visas and lost 88,000.
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.
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.
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.
Now lets come to July Visa bulletin mess.
Because of tight holding of visa cutoff dates for EB3 and EB2 for the first 8 months of 2007 (From Oct 2006 to May 2007) USCIS approved only 66,000 485s. For the next 4 months they have about 60K to 70K numbers available. If they approve the pending 485s with slower speed or old cut off dates, there is a potential estimated loss of 40,000 EB visas by Sep 2007. Thats why, based on ombudsman recommendation, DOS moved considerably the cut off date for June. When they took inventory in May, there are about 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications were pending due to non-availability of visa numbers. The “documentarily qualified 485 applications” mean the application filed long time back and processed by USCIS and cleared the FBI name and criminal check, and found eligible for green card. Apart from 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications, there is thousands of 485 applications (documentarily not yet qualified) pending due to name check. When DOS checked with USCIS they found only 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications (in all EB categories put together) are pending. However, the available visas are more than 40,000 (60to 70K). Then they made with out consulting properly with USCIS they made “current” for all EB categories. This is how they determine “current” or “over-subscribed” and how they establish cutoff dates.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered “Current.”
Whenever the total of documentarily qualified applicants in a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for the particular month, the category is considered to be “oversubscribed” and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
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.
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.
Excellent analysis and reccomendations. I feel that a visa number should be assigned at the point of 485 filing. If there is a problem it can be returned to the pool. That will be the least disruptive way to allot numbers in a timely fashion. In the end, that is likely to be the change that will come out of this.
This way, it will offer prospective applicants a more clear viewpoint of what they are up against when they consider their immigration options. i.e if you know you will have to wait 10 yrs to file an AOS even if you have an approved immigrant petition ala the family based immigrants, your plans would be different. You might not feel the wait worthwhile or even if you do, you do it fully aware of the consequences, 10 yrs exploitative employer on h1b etc.
If you notice, the level of hubris and cry is less in family based immigration even though the waits are longer. Atleast they know before they apply!
Your last point about a visa recapture is on the money. It is the least disruptive and easiest of the possible changes for current EB applicants in the current hostile atmosphere. It comes across as a rectification of USCIS inefficiency rather than a request for more immigration, which the public has clearly rejected at this time. If we can get 100-150K visas recaptured, this will greatly help EVERYONE in the EB queue for various reasons. It will buy us the 1-2 yrs needed before immigration is seriously addressed again. It will help those waiting to file 485 to file, those in 485 to have a hope to get out etc. It will help heavily retrogressed countries to keep getting more visas than the annual caps etc. I think that is something everyone can agree on as well.
tattoo Wallpaper using photoshop
amitjoey
02-15 02:22 PM
Well said. Now if one starts to take the true diversity into account, how many chinese and indians as percentage of current US population ? ANd how many from some prominent countries of Europe ? Just curious.
Exactly, And how many from South America? 30% of the population is going to be hispanic by 2050.
Exactly, And how many from South America? 30% of the population is going to be hispanic by 2050.
more...
pictures Clipart - Musical and artistic
nomi
12-12 04:31 PM
Yes, we do listen - Fixes based on your comments
While we will not respond individually to your e-mails to us, we do read - and act - on them. This page will show some of the issues you have raised and solutions that we have instituted in response.
November 15, 2006
Administrative Appeals Decisions
These decisions are currently unavailable on the USCIS web portal. We expect to have them re-published by November 30.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 8, 2006
I-LINK Materials/INA/8 CFR/etc.
While these legal materials are available (including the redacted Adjudicator's Field Manual). They may experience intermittent problems. If you try to access this material and see a blank page, refresh your browser. The page should appear. Please note: the redacted Adjudicator's Field Manual is a very large document, and may load more slowly than other legal materials.
Policy and Procedural Memoranda
These are being republished now, and should be complete no later than November 9.
Broken Forms
We are receiving a number of comments from you that a particular form is corrupt or somehow not working. If this happens to you, please let us know the following details:
The form you are attempting to download
What version of Adobe Reader or Acrobat you are using
What browser and operating system you are using (e.g., Firefox 1.x and Windows XP)
This will hopefully help us nail down the problem. Thank you
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 7, 2006
Missing I-600A Form
Replaced the form Nov. 6
Immigration Statistics
If you are looking for the immigration statistical reports we published on USCIS.gov, they can now be found at www.dhs.gov/immigrationstatistics. Or click the related link "Immigration Statistics" on this page.
Case Processing Times
If you are looking for the listing of processing times for particular application or petition types at our regional and district offices, you may find it at the related link "Case Processing Times" on this page.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=f55cc2e9bb6be010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=7220c9ee2f82b010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
While we will not respond individually to your e-mails to us, we do read - and act - on them. This page will show some of the issues you have raised and solutions that we have instituted in response.
November 15, 2006
Administrative Appeals Decisions
These decisions are currently unavailable on the USCIS web portal. We expect to have them re-published by November 30.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 8, 2006
I-LINK Materials/INA/8 CFR/etc.
While these legal materials are available (including the redacted Adjudicator's Field Manual). They may experience intermittent problems. If you try to access this material and see a blank page, refresh your browser. The page should appear. Please note: the redacted Adjudicator's Field Manual is a very large document, and may load more slowly than other legal materials.
Policy and Procedural Memoranda
These are being republished now, and should be complete no later than November 9.
Broken Forms
We are receiving a number of comments from you that a particular form is corrupt or somehow not working. If this happens to you, please let us know the following details:
The form you are attempting to download
What version of Adobe Reader or Acrobat you are using
What browser and operating system you are using (e.g., Firefox 1.x and Windows XP)
This will hopefully help us nail down the problem. Thank you
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 7, 2006
Missing I-600A Form
Replaced the form Nov. 6
Immigration Statistics
If you are looking for the immigration statistical reports we published on USCIS.gov, they can now be found at www.dhs.gov/immigrationstatistics. Or click the related link "Immigration Statistics" on this page.
Case Processing Times
If you are looking for the listing of processing times for particular application or petition types at our regional and district offices, you may find it at the related link "Case Processing Times" on this page.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=f55cc2e9bb6be010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=7220c9ee2f82b010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
dresses Retro Wallpaper Photoshop
mbartosik
11-27 07:50 PM
Nrc2008065862
more...
makeup Artistic watercolor photoshop
solaris27
07-27 07:48 AM
Never join SRG America (Bartronics America)
girlfriend Crazy+artistic+ackgrounds
EB2_Jun03_dude
04-25 10:49 AM
Am just curious to know how many of you (approved ones) used AC21 portability and if there were any ramifications. Would be great to know what the experience was and can help the rest of us.
I used AC21 twice. Both times I informed USCIS, EVL contained exact job description but different title. Did not have any AC21 related RFE and today got 'CP ordered email'. :) good luck to all!
Hope this helps...
I used AC21 twice. Both times I informed USCIS, EVL contained exact job description but different title. Did not have any AC21 related RFE and today got 'CP ordered email'. :) good luck to all!
Hope this helps...
hairstyles Free Photoshop Tutorials
gc_maine2
07-13 09:37 AM
JbpVisa,
Can you please take a moment to change the SPELLING to 'MURTHY", Please its misleading to members, and thanks for posting the information.
Can you please take a moment to change the SPELLING to 'MURTHY", Please its misleading to members, and thanks for posting the information.
uma001
10-01 09:58 AM
I work at one of these companies & they applied for my GC.
1. This company only applies only after you get certain level of ranking in your year-end appraisal - disclosed during hiring process
2. You must complete x years of service.
3. Right now, economy is down & they won't apply if they feel that Labor application is going to get rejected; as it hurts their reputation & process.
I know one person in my company - whom company denied GC 'cos of Labor market but now they are starting the process of the person..(once law firm gave the green light)
So just saying - these companies don't apply - is not right.
Also, once everything is ok - you need to realize that sponsoring GC is approved by your manager as all the associated costs are allocated to his/her cost center; so company as such doesn't have issue with the cost.
Dont trust these kind of companies. if you don't get good rating in appraisal , you will be laid off .
1. This company only applies only after you get certain level of ranking in your year-end appraisal - disclosed during hiring process
2. You must complete x years of service.
3. Right now, economy is down & they won't apply if they feel that Labor application is going to get rejected; as it hurts their reputation & process.
I know one person in my company - whom company denied GC 'cos of Labor market but now they are starting the process of the person..(once law firm gave the green light)
So just saying - these companies don't apply - is not right.
Also, once everything is ok - you need to realize that sponsoring GC is approved by your manager as all the associated costs are allocated to his/her cost center; so company as such doesn't have issue with the cost.
Dont trust these kind of companies. if you don't get good rating in appraisal , you will be laid off .
javadeveloper
12-12 03:56 PM
No one has answered my question yet - If we are so "highly skilled", why no one is listening to us in this country.
They'll definitely listen , but It takes some time , may be 5,6 years
They'll listen to you in 1 year if you have "extraordinary ability(EB1)"
They'll definitely listen , but It takes some time , may be 5,6 years
They'll listen to you in 1 year if you have "extraordinary ability(EB1)"
No comments:
Post a Comment