logiclife
12-26 03:46 PM
I see an increasing incidence of activities/offers/utilities with restrictions, citizen/green card status only, here are some examples, perhaps others can share experiences too:
1. I tried to travel to Mexico. if you do not have a GC, here is what you have to do (for many not all nationals, India is on the list):
appear in a consulate (350 miles for me) personally, with all family members present, the consulate will send a request for permission to proccess to Mexico City. then cool your heels at least 6 weeks. Once permission is obtained the entire family reappers in person to apply for the visa.
I chose not to travel.
2. Amex is advertising a glopal trip protection insurance, with the caveat that you may only apply if citizen or GC.
3. I've been a Citibank customer for a decade, and have considerable funds with them, one click of a button opens me a new e-account- except that the fine print says you have to be Citizen/GC to do it.
4. A travel package to Europe offers an incentive- 1 euro for 1 dollar at the hotel....you guessed it! only citizens and GC....
5. i heard someone complain about Discover earlier....they send preapproved offers then reject you if you tell them you are not Citizen/GC. I've had one for years, they happened to send me an approved offer without the question....the whole thing is tragicomic :-)
6. If your visa is expired as mine is (btw a feb date has never opened up anywhere in India to date...i'm sick and tired and frustrated....getting an appt is a major hassle) the you better choose your airline carefully, the French embassy demands personal appearance (350 miles) for the 10 min it takes to issue a visa- which then lets me walk from one gate to another at De Gaulle....
I'm not dying to be a permanent resident. I don't consider it my right. I have not taken anyone's job...I was recruited after a long search failed. Since I have joined our practice has grown many fold, my revenue itself has doubled and we have recruited more providers - Americans, incidentally.
But i would love to have a green card as long as i'm here, life would just be easier...
I dont think you need a transit visa for Charles De Gaulle airport anymore. They used to have that if you dont have a valid visa you were going to use for return trip. I think that's gone. It caused Air France to lose a lot of business and they probably got that removed by French Govt.
About AMEX, Discover, Citi issues, I guess the business is theirs to lose. There will always be competition to pick up that demand. If they are going to be picky, they are going to lose a half a million potential customers to someone else. They are not the only ones in creditcard, banking business.
1. I tried to travel to Mexico. if you do not have a GC, here is what you have to do (for many not all nationals, India is on the list):
appear in a consulate (350 miles for me) personally, with all family members present, the consulate will send a request for permission to proccess to Mexico City. then cool your heels at least 6 weeks. Once permission is obtained the entire family reappers in person to apply for the visa.
I chose not to travel.
2. Amex is advertising a glopal trip protection insurance, with the caveat that you may only apply if citizen or GC.
3. I've been a Citibank customer for a decade, and have considerable funds with them, one click of a button opens me a new e-account- except that the fine print says you have to be Citizen/GC to do it.
4. A travel package to Europe offers an incentive- 1 euro for 1 dollar at the hotel....you guessed it! only citizens and GC....
5. i heard someone complain about Discover earlier....they send preapproved offers then reject you if you tell them you are not Citizen/GC. I've had one for years, they happened to send me an approved offer without the question....the whole thing is tragicomic :-)
6. If your visa is expired as mine is (btw a feb date has never opened up anywhere in India to date...i'm sick and tired and frustrated....getting an appt is a major hassle) the you better choose your airline carefully, the French embassy demands personal appearance (350 miles) for the 10 min it takes to issue a visa- which then lets me walk from one gate to another at De Gaulle....
I'm not dying to be a permanent resident. I don't consider it my right. I have not taken anyone's job...I was recruited after a long search failed. Since I have joined our practice has grown many fold, my revenue itself has doubled and we have recruited more providers - Americans, incidentally.
But i would love to have a green card as long as i'm here, life would just be easier...
I dont think you need a transit visa for Charles De Gaulle airport anymore. They used to have that if you dont have a valid visa you were going to use for return trip. I think that's gone. It caused Air France to lose a lot of business and they probably got that removed by French Govt.
About AMEX, Discover, Citi issues, I guess the business is theirs to lose. There will always be competition to pick up that demand. If they are going to be picky, they are going to lose a half a million potential customers to someone else. They are not the only ones in creditcard, banking business.
wallpaper The Winklevoss co-founded
hemal555
01-23 11:43 AM
Hi Varsha,
Is there any schedule for the ongoing conf call?
Also, please let me know if there are any guidelines about what we need to talk when calling senators.
Thanks,
Hemal
Is there any schedule for the ongoing conf call?
Also, please let me know if there are any guidelines about what we need to talk when calling senators.
Thanks,
Hemal
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.
2011 The Winklevoss borthers
McGuffin
03-06 04:25 PM
I don't think I'll be able to make this one, I'll give it a shot though.
more...
lvinaykumar
05-21 10:15 AM
Congrats, Please keep supporting IV
thepaew
05-26 04:51 PM
We were traveling the Montr�al on Friday and saw this too. The Border Patrol had set up a roadblock on I-93 S and were stopping everyone.
While on the way back from White Mountains in NH, our car was stopped on I-93 south by the US border patrol. They were stopping every single vehicle to question. They had over a dozen Govt vehicles with 40-50 people in uniform. My buddy was driving.
Officer : Sir what is your status in the US ?
Buddy: I am on L1 visa
I: H1B
buddy's wife: L2
my wife: H4
officer: is anyone US citizen ?
I: my son is (he was sitting in the car seat)
Officer: (to my buddy) Is your visa still valid ?
Buddy: yes
officer: do you have documents to prove your status?
buddy: i have some papers in my bag which in the the trunk
officer: can you show me?
(buddy got out showed him tax papers and answered some questions)
officer: did they not tell you you are supposed to carry your papers while travelling?
buddy: I came over a year ago so i don't remember
officer: I am letting you go, but i could have fined you $2000; $500 for each pasenger with no papers.
I was so pissed off by this experience, clearly they are doing this to harrase immigrants. theoratically even if I am going for a walk i am supposed to carry immigration papers because a border patrol officer, in theory, could asks me for my papers ?
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/immigration_Border_flyer.pdf
I have decided that if anyone ask me such a stupid question again inside the US and i am just going to remain silent even if that means they detain me for some time.
While on the way back from White Mountains in NH, our car was stopped on I-93 south by the US border patrol. They were stopping every single vehicle to question. They had over a dozen Govt vehicles with 40-50 people in uniform. My buddy was driving.
Officer : Sir what is your status in the US ?
Buddy: I am on L1 visa
I: H1B
buddy's wife: L2
my wife: H4
officer: is anyone US citizen ?
I: my son is (he was sitting in the car seat)
Officer: (to my buddy) Is your visa still valid ?
Buddy: yes
officer: do you have documents to prove your status?
buddy: i have some papers in my bag which in the the trunk
officer: can you show me?
(buddy got out showed him tax papers and answered some questions)
officer: did they not tell you you are supposed to carry your papers while travelling?
buddy: I came over a year ago so i don't remember
officer: I am letting you go, but i could have fined you $2000; $500 for each pasenger with no papers.
I was so pissed off by this experience, clearly they are doing this to harrase immigrants. theoratically even if I am going for a walk i am supposed to carry immigration papers because a border patrol officer, in theory, could asks me for my papers ?
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/immigration_Border_flyer.pdf
I have decided that if anyone ask me such a stupid question again inside the US and i am just going to remain silent even if that means they detain me for some time.
more...
nixstor
10-16 05:59 PM
I personally think there is a possible ambiguity in the request (especially since we are dealing with a government agency). So we should probably bullet point the data we need at least and if people don't think there is any harm in putting in a table for the format of data needed that will make things very clear. I agree with you that breakdown of quarter/month is probably not needed and might actually hurt our chances of getting the answer within reasonable amount of time.
Hear ya. Even though its repetitive,for the sake of clarity and to avoid ambiguity/frivolous answer, I have updated the document in google docs and the attachment by one of our other member prabhu.
Thanks for your feedback.
Hear ya. Even though its repetitive,for the sake of clarity and to avoid ambiguity/frivolous answer, I have updated the document in google docs and the attachment by one of our other member prabhu.
Thanks for your feedback.
2010 Tyler Winklevoss leaves the
immig4me
02-11 08:57 AM
/\/\/\/\/\/\
more...
gimme_GC2006
03-09 03:54 PM
If your kids were born in the US then maybe they will be able to file for you by then and that will be definitely faster than EB-3. :D
looks like that is Plan B :D:D
looks like that is Plan B :D:D
hair Facebook founder and CEO Mark
seahawks
01-28 11:36 AM
In the new year, I have not seen any posts expalining how IV is "working" on resolving our issues. All that is posted now is requests for money. I know more money is needed and would be glad to contribute, if only the senior members show that some serious efforts are being made in the background. Yes IV did do very good work last year, but that is history now; but what work is going on now, nobody knows. Don't need details, but even broad details will help. Is something being done for appropriation bills, no one knows or tells.
For example, after the elections no attempts virtually no attempts have been done to do webfax campaign tragetted towards pro-immigration inclined politicians. No lists have been made of such politicians. Just by waking up few days before the bills are discussed is not going to help.
Persistence, patience, hard work, financial support, timing and combined efforts with one voice representing us will pay off! Lets all do our part. I feel I don't have skills to be in the front, taking initiatives, talking to people, volunteering my time. We must salute all that IV is doing, whatever little we can, we should support to make those efforts multiple folds. If we don't believe in the cause or the people, we fail. If you read a few threads closely you will find out, IV cannot publicly post all the efforts or progress being made, you cannot publish a game plan that everyone can read and groups working against IV can muscle in their amendments. I totally understand doubts when the going gets tough, but hangin there and all of us do our part, not just the money alone! IF you have the skills to volunteer and organize things, contact the core group too, everything they can get is valuable.
For example, after the elections no attempts virtually no attempts have been done to do webfax campaign tragetted towards pro-immigration inclined politicians. No lists have been made of such politicians. Just by waking up few days before the bills are discussed is not going to help.
Persistence, patience, hard work, financial support, timing and combined efforts with one voice representing us will pay off! Lets all do our part. I feel I don't have skills to be in the front, taking initiatives, talking to people, volunteering my time. We must salute all that IV is doing, whatever little we can, we should support to make those efforts multiple folds. If we don't believe in the cause or the people, we fail. If you read a few threads closely you will find out, IV cannot publicly post all the efforts or progress being made, you cannot publish a game plan that everyone can read and groups working against IV can muscle in their amendments. I totally understand doubts when the going gets tough, but hangin there and all of us do our part, not just the money alone! IF you have the skills to volunteer and organize things, contact the core group too, everything they can get is valuable.
more...
msgrewal81
02-19 12:18 AM
There is a big Hispanic lobby to represent illegals in Congress. Who is there to represent us and put our amendments - NOBODY. So, best is to either oppose it or die.
hot Facebook founder and CEO Mark
Jerrome
07-12 05:28 PM
I feel this move is to benefit EB-2 China, Since the EB1 and EB2 overflow are evenly distributed across china and india, keeping PD with 2004 would be a loss for china and gain for India. So by keeping 2006 June, USCIS will have enough visa numbers for China . India's share will be consumed by 2004 and 2005 applicants.
Even if India's PD is going to be in 2006 mid, this would result some adhoc or lucky one in 2006 getting GC than a majority of applicants. PD for india would move back to 2004 or 2005 by october 08.
If USCIS follows the same rule again then by next year end the PD for India will move.
This is my guess.
Even if India's PD is going to be in 2006 mid, this would result some adhoc or lucky one in 2006 getting GC than a majority of applicants. PD for india would move back to 2004 or 2005 by october 08.
If USCIS follows the same rule again then by next year end the PD for India will move.
This is my guess.
more...
house Winklevoss Twins
h1techSlave
03-17 02:04 PM
Including spillover generally EB3-I clears up around 5000 visas per year on average ( Though theoratically stuck at 3300-3500). 3 visas per applicant is at bit high end. I would not assume everybody is married AND have child.. I would put that around 1.75. But, yes, even if select these new parameters than also it would take years..Theoratically, ofcourse:):)
Based on your assumptions, it would take around 2 years to reach Dec 2003 for EB3-India.
# of visas required = 5000 or 6000 * 1.75 = 8750 or 10, 500
# of visas available = 5000
# years of wait until Dec 2003 = 1.75 to 2.1 years.
Based on your assumptions, it would take around 2 years to reach Dec 2003 for EB3-India.
# of visas required = 5000 or 6000 * 1.75 = 8750 or 10, 500
# of visas available = 5000
# years of wait until Dec 2003 = 1.75 to 2.1 years.
tattoo wallpaper mark zuckerberg vs
virald
07-18 09:49 AM
What is meant by "Rejected" here?
-FedEx not accepted on July 2nd
-They took the packet and in 2-3 days they opened it and returned back some after inputting in their database
-Packet is still with them but they generated a rejection notice that was sent to lawyer/candidate
-Rejection email was sent to lawyer/candidate
OR
-USCIS's July 2nd bulletin just said all applications received would be returned/rejected and Greg's thought is that the whole pile must be kept somewhere with the action planned "to be rejected" and nobody is taking action on it and USCIS has to be made aware about that or in their yesterday's UPDATE they forgot to touch about this. ( To me this is internal processing matter of USCIS)
Well to be honest with you, I was 1 million % convinced that we all should be OK because yesterday's press release very clearly mentions " All properly filed cases would be accepted" until I stumbled on Greg's blog. Now I am confused as well.
I contacted my attorney but so far no reply. Will update all of you.
I don't think so that we have to refile as it does not make sense. Plus even those who are rejected would have proof of filing )FedEx and rejection notice and through Motion to reopen case can be resurrected. Pls keep everybody updated as and when your attorney advises you.
Thanks
Rejection means -- packets opened, and, returned as reject because dates not current.
I am also convinced that, if one has not gotten the package back, the person should be okay. But, just want to get the confirmation that we will be okay proactively rather than waiting.
I'll post as soon as I find out from my lawyer.
-FedEx not accepted on July 2nd
-They took the packet and in 2-3 days they opened it and returned back some after inputting in their database
-Packet is still with them but they generated a rejection notice that was sent to lawyer/candidate
-Rejection email was sent to lawyer/candidate
OR
-USCIS's July 2nd bulletin just said all applications received would be returned/rejected and Greg's thought is that the whole pile must be kept somewhere with the action planned "to be rejected" and nobody is taking action on it and USCIS has to be made aware about that or in their yesterday's UPDATE they forgot to touch about this. ( To me this is internal processing matter of USCIS)
Well to be honest with you, I was 1 million % convinced that we all should be OK because yesterday's press release very clearly mentions " All properly filed cases would be accepted" until I stumbled on Greg's blog. Now I am confused as well.
I contacted my attorney but so far no reply. Will update all of you.
I don't think so that we have to refile as it does not make sense. Plus even those who are rejected would have proof of filing )FedEx and rejection notice and through Motion to reopen case can be resurrected. Pls keep everybody updated as and when your attorney advises you.
Thanks
Rejection means -- packets opened, and, returned as reject because dates not current.
I am also convinced that, if one has not gotten the package back, the person should be okay. But, just want to get the confirmation that we will be okay proactively rather than waiting.
I'll post as soon as I find out from my lawyer.
more...
pictures Winklevoss twins vs Facebook:
alex99
10-25 11:19 AM
Please participate in EB3 Poll
dresses Cameron Winklevoss (L) and
chanduv23
09-19 02:19 PM
Do you guys think this is good time to stop consulting and joining a full time job(even though it pays less), if we can find one.
If your 485 has been filed and it is past 180 days - then fulltime job in wall street is safe otherwise you are better of with your consulting company
If your 485 has been filed and it is past 180 days - then fulltime job in wall street is safe otherwise you are better of with your consulting company
more...
makeup Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss v
vin13
11-12 03:26 PM
Guys
So are we having a conference call or have we decided that we should individually write letter that has already been drafted.
Contact your congressman and use the draft to help get clarrification/resolution. If they cannot help resolve, but can get an appointment with a higher official then one of us can go meet them. Some of us are willing to fly/drive.. at our own expense to meet the official.
I know atleast 3 members including me who would be meeting lawmakers of our respective constituencies. When we meet the lawmakers we plan to discuss about our provisions in the CIR(Recapture, country cap,...) and then in the interim we would request them to help us resolve the quarterly spillover.
So are we having a conference call or have we decided that we should individually write letter that has already been drafted.
Contact your congressman and use the draft to help get clarrification/resolution. If they cannot help resolve, but can get an appointment with a higher official then one of us can go meet them. Some of us are willing to fly/drive.. at our own expense to meet the official.
I know atleast 3 members including me who would be meeting lawmakers of our respective constituencies. When we meet the lawmakers we plan to discuss about our provisions in the CIR(Recapture, country cap,...) and then in the interim we would request them to help us resolve the quarterly spillover.
girlfriend The Winklevoss twins lost
zuhail
05-08 07:07 PM
Friends,
Time is right now to recapture the visa numbers.
"No army can stop an idea whose time has come." --Victor Hugo.
We need to raise funds for the sole purpose of passing the EB Visa Re-Capture Bill!
Time is right now to recapture the visa numbers.
"No army can stop an idea whose time has come." --Victor Hugo.
We need to raise funds for the sole purpose of passing the EB Visa Re-Capture Bill!
hairstyles Or, rather, that Mark
sirinme
10-21 02:45 PM
I just sent mine.
- sirinme
- sirinme
delax
07-13 09:49 AM
go figure..u jacko.. this forum is not give publicty to lawyers.
pls close this thread
Appreciate your comment - :) A healthy debate is beyond your reach and the ability to appreciate another view point seems to be completely missing. The last time I checked a forum is precisely for that - I am not defending or promoting anybody - Please - lets stick to Gandhian principles when we deal with each other not just with USCIS :)
pls close this thread
Appreciate your comment - :) A healthy debate is beyond your reach and the ability to appreciate another view point seems to be completely missing. The last time I checked a forum is precisely for that - I am not defending or promoting anybody - Please - lets stick to Gandhian principles when we deal with each other not just with USCIS :)
alex99
10-31 07:46 AM
Bump
No comments:
Post a Comment