lost
02-15 09:24 AM
Anybody from KY attending the event?
wallpaper eye makeup
h1techSlave
02-04 09:07 PM
We need to prepare a nice letter and a set of points for discussion with law makers.
We can send the letter to all law makers a week before our visit. During the visit we can talk about some specific points, which we need to prepare in advance.
We can send the letter to all law makers a week before our visit. During the visit we can talk about some specific points, which we need to prepare in advance.
greyhair
02-12 01:56 PM
This whole thread is about what Ron Gotcher published. I didn't start this thread. I am only contributing my view that based on available information some things make sense and some dont. The things that do make some sense is wastage of visa numbers in 2010. We have some facts to support the "theory" but not enough.
What doesn't make sense is Ron's assertion that USCIS wasted 13K EB visas in 2009. Facts simply don't support that.
Does this help? (Again this is my view... don't want to push it onto others)
I disagree. This thread is not about some immigration lawyer. This thread is about visa numbers wasted due to USCIS inefficiency. That's what the title of the thread says. Why do I or anybody else care about some immigration lawyer? Why is he/she relevant if its specifically proven with facts that there is no wastage of visa number. You continue to advertise the name of the immigration lawyer. The reason I say this is because in my experience immigration lawyers comment on these issues as if they have direct access to USCIS Director or god. Even after disproving the visa wastage theory with facts you still continue to over analyze immigration body shop instead of discussing the issue. I am just wondering, why would you that? Are you that immigration lawyer or employee of his law firm? Just curious.
What doesn't make sense is Ron's assertion that USCIS wasted 13K EB visas in 2009. Facts simply don't support that.
Does this help? (Again this is my view... don't want to push it onto others)
I disagree. This thread is not about some immigration lawyer. This thread is about visa numbers wasted due to USCIS inefficiency. That's what the title of the thread says. Why do I or anybody else care about some immigration lawyer? Why is he/she relevant if its specifically proven with facts that there is no wastage of visa number. You continue to advertise the name of the immigration lawyer. The reason I say this is because in my experience immigration lawyers comment on these issues as if they have direct access to USCIS Director or god. Even after disproving the visa wastage theory with facts you still continue to over analyze immigration body shop instead of discussing the issue. I am just wondering, why would you that? Are you that immigration lawyer or employee of his law firm? Just curious.
2011 For basic smoky eye makeup,
sam2006
04-05 12:03 PM
I have done it also
response were good from the staff members
5$ per person who calls and posts his message here
i know all the consultants and IT are busy
please do it for a greater purpose in life
5$ per person from today-2morrow
response were good from the staff members
5$ per person who calls and posts his message here
i know all the consultants and IT are busy
please do it for a greater purpose in life
5$ per person from today-2morrow
more...
Legal_In_A_Limbo
03-10 09:11 AM
Hi, Did you send the AC21 letter yourself? Can you please let us know the format of the letter and supporting documents you sent? Also, please share the format of G-28 explanation. How was your experience so far? Did you receive any confirmation back from USCIS? Thanks.
meimmi, we are still working on it.
might end up hiring a lawyer only for filling AC-21. I know its not a big deal, but still trying to be on the cautious side.
We also had the same questions as u had and were not able to find anything.
If you find anything please share it with us also. We are going to file this week for sure.
meimmi, we are still working on it.
might end up hiring a lawyer only for filling AC-21. I know its not a big deal, but still trying to be on the cautious side.
We also had the same questions as u had and were not able to find anything.
If you find anything please share it with us also. We are going to file this week for sure.
GooblyWoobly
01-16 06:09 PM
See buddy, there are some people who will cry whatever scenario they are in, and some people who will laugh and be happy in whatever scenario they are in. The key to optimism and happy life is to find someone who has it worse, and realize how fortunate you are. At least you are not having to live in the slums of India. At least you are not having your daughter breathe the polluted air of an Indian metro. At least you have a healthy family and no medical emergencies to worry about. Enjoy what you have got, not crib about what you've got.
more...
Jaime
09-12 05:06 PM
We Are All Going To Washington! Make Sure You Join Us! Together We Will Achieve Our Hard-earned Freedom!!!!
2010 Smoky Eye Makeup, Smoky Eye
chmur
02-21 10:18 PM
I'd posted elsewhere about my Feb 13, 2008 conversation with the DOS official who sets cutoff dates:
But his statement at the AILA meeting has been bothering me so I talked to him again today. Here is what he said -- that he is considering not only the EB-1 India excess, but the entire EB-1 worldwide excess being given to oversubscribed EB-2! I asked him about his earlier statement and he said that he had had a chance to look at the numbers and determine that unlike recent years EB-1 worldwide is not using numbers up at a rate that would max out EB-1 usage. BUT. He is waiting for USCIS to give him an estimate of the number of EB-2 India applications that would become eligible if he moves the cutoff dates up to 12/1/03, he will set the date ONLY after he gets that data and determines that there won't be too many within that cutoff date.
I also asked him to confirm that he was relying on his interpretation of Section 202(a)(5) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558 dbe) of the INA in order to proceed with this spillover. This is his current interpretation of that section -- spillover from EB-1 to EB-2 IF there appears to be a worldwide excess in EB-1, when there is no worldwide excess in EB-1 then country specific spillover for example, from EB-1 India to EB-2 India only etc. In past years like FY06, EB-1 ROW was looking maxed out, so barely any spillover from EB-1 to oversubscribed EB-2.
is there not a better nuance way to divulge the details without revealing the source.
What if someone at DOS creates problem for this gentlemen for discussing the PD's with you ahead .
Please exercise caution
But his statement at the AILA meeting has been bothering me so I talked to him again today. Here is what he said -- that he is considering not only the EB-1 India excess, but the entire EB-1 worldwide excess being given to oversubscribed EB-2! I asked him about his earlier statement and he said that he had had a chance to look at the numbers and determine that unlike recent years EB-1 worldwide is not using numbers up at a rate that would max out EB-1 usage. BUT. He is waiting for USCIS to give him an estimate of the number of EB-2 India applications that would become eligible if he moves the cutoff dates up to 12/1/03, he will set the date ONLY after he gets that data and determines that there won't be too many within that cutoff date.
I also asked him to confirm that he was relying on his interpretation of Section 202(a)(5) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558 dbe) of the INA in order to proceed with this spillover. This is his current interpretation of that section -- spillover from EB-1 to EB-2 IF there appears to be a worldwide excess in EB-1, when there is no worldwide excess in EB-1 then country specific spillover for example, from EB-1 India to EB-2 India only etc. In past years like FY06, EB-1 ROW was looking maxed out, so barely any spillover from EB-1 to oversubscribed EB-2.
is there not a better nuance way to divulge the details without revealing the source.
What if someone at DOS creates problem for this gentlemen for discussing the PD's with you ahead .
Please exercise caution
more...
gcnotfiledyet
02-28 02:33 PM
What a lovely change. Every time Obama and his press Secy opens their mouth, markets dive into red. In this country Main Street and Wall Street are in bed with each other :-)
Obama with his sense-less economic policies, trying to separate Main Street from Wall street. Government needs to seriously lure the investors to the market , cut capital gains and taxes, take off protectionist hats and recover the economy. Then Obama can go with his socialist/populist agenda but certainly this is not the right time.:D
Expect huge government control pretty much over everything from now on. Times of big government are back. Government (read leftist like Obama) has seen the result of private investors. Healthcare is a mess, education is below par, social security/medicare is on brink, rich getting richer, poor getting worse etc.
Obama has totally different philosophy than republicans. Bill clinton said era of big govt were over. But that is about to change. In insurance / pharma sectors govt will wipe off these scumbags. Insurance companies are nothing but taking away profits for no help. There is no reason for them to exist. If you think about insurance general americans are paying 11k for family on average income of 48k. That is tax of 20%. Also add profit taking by insurance companies to increase costs, preventive care totally denied, admins taking decision instead of doctors etc. I would rather pay 10% more taxes to govt than to insurance companies.
Govt is all ready to wipe off sallie mae. There is no reason for private investors need to provide loans for students. Government should be able to make federal loans and help students. Private investors made loans to students to fund their luxuries during colleges. These essential services critical for a nation should not be used to make profit. Or else it results in what we are seeing today.
Either way there is no debate that Obama will bring more government in every sector. This will discourage investors to put their money into it. It will also mean higher taxes for average public to use these services. It can mean that country will move in direction of services provided to average Joe rather than corporations making profits. As for investors they can forget to make blind profits from wall street. They will have to fund innovation rather than profit making by abusing law (read housing crisis).
Obama with his sense-less economic policies, trying to separate Main Street from Wall street. Government needs to seriously lure the investors to the market , cut capital gains and taxes, take off protectionist hats and recover the economy. Then Obama can go with his socialist/populist agenda but certainly this is not the right time.:D
Expect huge government control pretty much over everything from now on. Times of big government are back. Government (read leftist like Obama) has seen the result of private investors. Healthcare is a mess, education is below par, social security/medicare is on brink, rich getting richer, poor getting worse etc.
Obama has totally different philosophy than republicans. Bill clinton said era of big govt were over. But that is about to change. In insurance / pharma sectors govt will wipe off these scumbags. Insurance companies are nothing but taking away profits for no help. There is no reason for them to exist. If you think about insurance general americans are paying 11k for family on average income of 48k. That is tax of 20%. Also add profit taking by insurance companies to increase costs, preventive care totally denied, admins taking decision instead of doctors etc. I would rather pay 10% more taxes to govt than to insurance companies.
Govt is all ready to wipe off sallie mae. There is no reason for private investors need to provide loans for students. Government should be able to make federal loans and help students. Private investors made loans to students to fund their luxuries during colleges. These essential services critical for a nation should not be used to make profit. Or else it results in what we are seeing today.
Either way there is no debate that Obama will bring more government in every sector. This will discourage investors to put their money into it. It will also mean higher taxes for average public to use these services. It can mean that country will move in direction of services provided to average Joe rather than corporations making profits. As for investors they can forget to make blind profits from wall street. They will have to fund innovation rather than profit making by abusing law (read housing crisis).
hair pretty eye makeup ideas. cute
yabadaba
09-26 10:53 AM
my email:
Sir/ Ma'am,
Is this article a systematic effort on the part of CNN to propagandize the Dobbs doctrine of immigrant bashing?
We rallied and marched for relief from the permanent residency process (green cards as you call them) and not for an increase in H1B.
Shame on you for these blatant lies and misinformation campaign that seems to be part of your agenda.
Thanks
Sir/ Ma'am,
Is this article a systematic effort on the part of CNN to propagandize the Dobbs doctrine of immigrant bashing?
We rallied and marched for relief from the permanent residency process (green cards as you call them) and not for an increase in H1B.
Shame on you for these blatant lies and misinformation campaign that seems to be part of your agenda.
Thanks
more...
snathan
08-21 01:50 PM
I did not marry the man I was engaged to. I came here initially for ONE month and was approved at the airport customs terminal to stay that long. When I got here, it was for a visit with my fiance only. Unfortunately, things did not work out and we broke it off. Thank God! However, I was staying with his uncle and aunt, and they had a disabled man in the house. HE turned out to be my sponsor when they asked me to care for him while they were doing long haul trucking. I agreed to do this and we immediately contacted USCIS to get instructions on what needed to be filed first. With that information in hand, we filed everything they requested. All the stuff on the RFE I received has never been mentioned before now and if it had, it would have been filed along with the rest. There are tons of applications, how is one supposed to know what to file and when if there are no specific instructions? I have gone through all the copies we have of all the required applications and I still do not see anything where all these other forms were to be filed along with the I-485.
Nothing was done illegally. He filed the application on my behalf, signed, sealed and delivered it himself. I did not do this on my own, I just signed whatever I was required to sign, he did the rest.
If all of this was illegal, then why was I not informed of this nearly 6 years ago when we filed the first application? Seems a bit odd that if I was illegal and they know where I am and who I live with that they wouldn't be quick to throw me out, but they have not done so.
My former fiance has nothing to do with this, I never intended to stay here when I first came, it was merely a visit but circumstances were such that I was needed at a moment's notice so we filed the necessary paperwork as quickly as possible and thought we were doing the right thing. No one has ever said otherwise until now and I think that is rather unfair to spring it all on me at this point and expect me to get it all done within 30 days. I know I am not the only applicant out there and I realize there is a huge backlog of other applications, I'm not that stupid to think that they will make me a priority, but one measly letter informing me that I was here illegally sometime over a 6 year period is not asking to much is it? Why would they send me all the other Notices of Action if I was here illegally and they knew it?
Something is terribly screwed up and I guess I have no choice but to find an attorney who can deal with this mess.
I dont think your issuse can be fixed even by attorney. You are not coming under any category to file Green Card. So prepare for yourself to go back and build your life back in canada.
Nothing was done illegally. He filed the application on my behalf, signed, sealed and delivered it himself. I did not do this on my own, I just signed whatever I was required to sign, he did the rest.
If all of this was illegal, then why was I not informed of this nearly 6 years ago when we filed the first application? Seems a bit odd that if I was illegal and they know where I am and who I live with that they wouldn't be quick to throw me out, but they have not done so.
My former fiance has nothing to do with this, I never intended to stay here when I first came, it was merely a visit but circumstances were such that I was needed at a moment's notice so we filed the necessary paperwork as quickly as possible and thought we were doing the right thing. No one has ever said otherwise until now and I think that is rather unfair to spring it all on me at this point and expect me to get it all done within 30 days. I know I am not the only applicant out there and I realize there is a huge backlog of other applications, I'm not that stupid to think that they will make me a priority, but one measly letter informing me that I was here illegally sometime over a 6 year period is not asking to much is it? Why would they send me all the other Notices of Action if I was here illegally and they knew it?
Something is terribly screwed up and I guess I have no choice but to find an attorney who can deal with this mess.
I dont think your issuse can be fixed even by attorney. You are not coming under any category to file Green Card. So prepare for yourself to go back and build your life back in canada.
hot Aptly placed eye liner and
Michael chertoff
03-19 12:55 PM
Question on AOS processing based on PD/RD - Currently, EB2 INDIA is Dec 03. Assuming May 08 VB goes to Jan 03 (EB2 INDIA) , will the EB2 INDIA AOS applications with Feb - Dec 03 PDs still get processed??
Any chance of EB2 India moving forward to April 05 by October 2008??
Why not july 2006??
Any chance of EB2 India moving forward to April 05 by October 2008??
Why not july 2006??
more...
house Sexy eye makeup is perfect for
tapukakababa
07-18 10:03 AM
Contributions so far
$100 + $100
$100 + $100
tattoo How to Apply Dark Eye Makeup
sbabunle
12-26 07:48 PM
Munna Bhai
I talked to Atty Murthy's office about the same issue. They said that
they had couple of experience where I140 revoked. But USCIS honored
the original PD. But atty says that its kinda grey area. They could insist
that if I140 is revoked, new PD could be your change of employement date.
It depends on the officer . Some of them could honor PD. Some of them insist to the newer PD. Or some other officer may flip a coin and chose one. It will all depend on your luck.
good luck
babu
I talked to Atty Murthy's office about the same issue. They said that
they had couple of experience where I140 revoked. But USCIS honored
the original PD. But atty says that its kinda grey area. They could insist
that if I140 is revoked, new PD could be your change of employement date.
It depends on the officer . Some of them could honor PD. Some of them insist to the newer PD. Or some other officer may flip a coin and chose one. It will all depend on your luck.
good luck
babu
more...
pictures Edgy Eye Makeup Ideas 1. smoky
Libra
07-05 11:26 AM
What i really wonder is you joined on 2nd of july and questioning IV core efforts....if you really have guts why dont you post with your original login id. and can you please tell me how much you contributed so far for this cause before demanding anything
I ask the doctor to treat me first but also make sure that my brother gets treatment too.It's just that for the past 15 days not one post reg people stuck in BEC's and one guy who started the thread of unfairness got bashed.Even then no announcement nothing from the core team.That's what bugs me.
I'm not trying to create a division.In fact I sympathise with everybody effected by VB ,all the money,effort,time that you have put in.I know I'll be next in line waiting to get in the roller coaster.I also know that core team is not answerable to anybody.
Peace..
I ask the doctor to treat me first but also make sure that my brother gets treatment too.It's just that for the past 15 days not one post reg people stuck in BEC's and one guy who started the thread of unfairness got bashed.Even then no announcement nothing from the core team.That's what bugs me.
I'm not trying to create a division.In fact I sympathise with everybody effected by VB ,all the money,effort,time that you have put in.I know I'll be next in line waiting to get in the roller coaster.I also know that core team is not answerable to anybody.
Peace..
dresses eyes. eye makeup ideas for
chintu25
09-10 11:01 AM
Recess till 1 . 00
more...
makeup Applying Eye Makeup Tips3
akilhere
10-21 02:43 PM
I replied to my RFE last Friday and the status changed to Reponse Review. I got a soft LUD yesterday. Nothing after that!
girlfriend eye makeup tips with pictures.
ps57002
09-19 10:01 PM
I didn't mean it in a "against illegal immgration" way. That's the downside of trying to communicate using words online, you can't tell the what other person is really saying at times. What I want (using other slogans if necessary) is to educate people that there is a difference in immigration. As soon as people hear the word immigration, to them it means "illegal" and there has to be some way (using appropriate slogans) to communicate that....that's all :)
hairstyles Eye Makeup Application Tips.
guy03062
12-12 04:18 PM
I read news on oh law firm few days back that USCIS is planning to abandon concurrent filing (I140 + I-485). So when USCIS has power to disallow that, then they may have power to allow file I-485 when visa not available. This is just my thought. Anyway it does not hurt to find it out from USCIS officials, rather than asking some lawyer or interpret our own.
Also when we ask lawyer about this, we may not get positive response as they may fear of loosing fees of countless H1B visa transfers.
Also when we ask lawyer about this, we may not get positive response as they may fear of loosing fees of countless H1B visa transfers.
gc28262
06-11 08:49 AM
I know at least one person ( US citizen) who decided to be on unemployment benefits rather than working even though he can find at least 2 jobs. He says it is better to be on unemployment benefit rather than working for the same amount of money.
kondur_007
04-10 10:28 AM
Does anyone have numbers for spillover last year category wise? I mean, last year how many EB4, EB5 and EB1 left out visas got spilled over to EB2? Thanks...
Here are the details for last year and years before:
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
Here are the details for last year and years before:
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
