greencardvow
07-31 07:10 PM
I doubt that. Medical was relaxed since it can take time for people to get the medicals done. Also immigration doctors were all busy at this time. So it is possible that people arent able to get the meds done by the Aug 17 deadline. The other documents like EVL shouldnt take this long. If the employer is willing to provide future employment to someone then it should be sent along with the application. Whether USCIS will relax for lack of Initial Evidence other than Medical is hard to say. It is always better to be safe than sorry.
But I agree, these two things are different. Only medicals have been relaxed by USCIS via its press release. Since a lot of the lawyers have sent without some initial evidence, AILA should use its proven;-) negotiation skills to get USCIS to issue a new press release which ascertains that only singatures and filing fees are required at this time.
But I agree, these two things are different. Only medicals have been relaxed by USCIS via its press release. Since a lot of the lawyers have sent without some initial evidence, AILA should use its proven;-) negotiation skills to get USCIS to issue a new press release which ascertains that only singatures and filing fees are required at this time.
wallpaper #39;WAR OF THE WORLDS#39; FILM
Macaca
12-05 04:15 PM
AMY GOODMAN: In the beginning of the broadcast, we played a clip�
LOU DOBBS: Sure.
AMY GOODMAN: �of you talking about various concerns that you have around immigrants.
LOU DOBBS: Sure.
AMY GOODMAN: The last part of that clip�and maybe we can play it again�
LOU DOBBS: Illegal immigrants, if I may, Amy.
AMY GOODMAN: Illegal immigrants.
LOU DOBBS: Only illegal immigrants.
AMY GOODMAN: Maybe we can play a last part of this clip that we played, just to go through it again. We�ll see if our folks have that clip ready. And this is the clip that we played in the billboard. It�s�
LOU DOBBS: Well, I can recall what was said if it�s at all helpful. I said that according to a study�I didn�t use the attribution, but according to a study that Jorge Borjas at Harvard University had completed, that the cost of excess immigration into this country amounts to $200 billion a year in wages, that the cost of incarceration, medical care, social services approximates $50 billion in this country per year. And the reality is that about a third of the crimes that are of those in state prisons�federal prisons, excuse me, federal prisons, are�I�m sorry.
AMY GOODMAN: Are�?
LOU DOBBS: Are those who are in this country illegally.
AMY GOODMAN: Let�s play it.
LOU DOBBS: Sure.
AMY GOODMAN: And then let�s talk about it.
Let�s say the number is eleven million, although some studies put the number as high as twenty million illegal aliens in this country. That not only amounts to a shift of six to ten congressional seats among the states based on the population of illegal immigration. The fact is, those illegal aliens are costing our economy $200 billion in depressed wages for working Americans. It is costing $50 billion a year in social and medical costs. And it�s costing us, no one knows precisely how much, to incarcerate what is about a third of our prison population who are illegal aliens.
AMY GOODMAN: So, Lou, you said a third of the prison population are illegal aliens.
LOU DOBBS: Right.
AMY GOODMAN: The fact is, it�s something like 6% of prisoners in this country are non-citizens, not even illegal, just non-citizens.
LOU DOBBS: Right.
AMY GOODMAN: And then a percentage of that would not be documented.
LOU DOBBS: Well, it�s actually�I think it�s 26% in federal prison.
AMY GOODMAN: But you said of all prisoners.
LOU DOBBS: I said about�yes, but I�and I misspoke, without question. I was referring to federal prisoners.
AMY GOODMAN: But you didn�t say that, and so it leaves people with the impression�
LOU DOBBS: Well, I didn�t, but then I just explained it to you.
AMY GOODMAN: But you have a very large audience on CNN.
LOU DOBBS: I have a very large audience and a very bright audience.
AMY GOODMAN: And you told them that a third of the population of this country are illegal immigrants. 6% , which is under the population of immigrants�
LOU DOBBS: 6% , right.
AMY GOODMAN: �in this country, of prisoners�
LOU DOBBS: In state prisons.
AMY GOODMAN: �are immigrants.
LOU DOBBS: In state prisons. In state prisons.
AMY GOODMAN: No, 6% overall are immigrants. You said 30% are illegal.
LOU DOBBS: Well, I think we�ve established�we could sit here and say this all day, Amy. The fact is, the number is 26% in federal prisons. That�s what I was referring to. I did not�I misspoke when I said �prisons.� I was referring to the federal prisons, because that�s the federal crime: immigration. And that�
AMY GOODMAN: Have you made a correction on your show to say that 30% of�?
LOU DOBBS: I�m sure we have. We�ve reported�absolutely.
AMY GOODMAN: We didn�t see it.
LOU DOBBS: Do you know how many reports we�ve done on illegal immigration in this country?
AMY GOODMAN: Yes, many.
LOU DOBBS: I mean, my god.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Yeah, but I�d like to get into this issue�I mean, aside from the fact that the GAO report�
LOU DOBBS: Excuse me, just one second.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Sure.
LOU DOBBS: I mean, what if I were to sit here and just hound you because you said I was anti-immigrant, when I am, point of fact, I�m anti-illegal immigrant, and it�s absolutely a matter of fact. We could quarrel over the terminology, if you want. But why should people of good faith and intelligence sit there and be so absurd about it?
JUAN GONZALEZ: No, we agree on that. But this is precisely the lumping of illegal or undocumented immigrants and legal immigrants in one category that�s a problem�
LOU DOBBS: Right.
JUAN GONZALEZ: �because, for instance�
LOU DOBBS: Right, I agree with you.
JUAN GONZALEZ: �the total percentage of the non-citizen population of the United States right now is about thirty-five million, 12% of the population.
LOU DOBBS: Do you know this?
JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, this is Census Bureau�
LOU DOBBS: I was just�I was just�
JUAN GONZALEZ: Wait, wait, Lou. Let me finish. Let me finish, Lou.
LOU DOBBS: I have to say, I was laughing about the NIE, because, as you heard Steve Hadley talk about�
JUAN GONZALEZ: Lou, let me finish.
LOU DOBBS: �high confidence levels in those estimates,�
JUAN GONZALEZ: Right, but let me�
LOU DOBBS: What do you suppose the confidence level is of the United States government in the number of people in this country illegally, the number of people�
JUAN GONZALEZ: We�re assuming now�the legal population is pretty well documented, right? But the�
LOU DOBBS: Documented, undocumented.
JUAN GONZALEZ: The legal immigrant population is pretty well documented. It�s about twenty-three million. And then you add maybe another eleven to twelve million of the undocumented population, and you get thirty-five million. The point is�my point is this: if 12% of the non-citizen population of the United States�non-citizens comprise 12% of the population. They comprise 6% of the prison population. That suggests to me that crime rates are far lower among non-citizen immigrants�legal and illegal�than they are among the general population of the United States.
LOU DOBBS: Can I ask you a question?
JUAN GONZALEZ: You have raised the issue of crime�you�ve raised the issue of crime in relationship to immigrants.
LOU DOBBS: Well, silly me, silly me. MS-13, all sorts of gangs. You know, the fact that Mexico is the largest source of methamphetamines, heroin, cocaine, marijuana entering the United States. Silly me for bringing up crack.
AMY GOODMAN: But, Lou�
LOU DOBBS: But may I ask you a question?
AMY GOODMAN: I think you agree�
LOU DOBBS: May I ask this question�
AMY GOODMAN: I think you would agree�
LOU DOBBS: May I ask this question�
AMY GOODMAN: �that facts matter.
LOU DOBBS: Of course, they do. Absolutely.
AMY GOODMAN: And so�
LOU DOBBS: I am an empericist to the bone.
AMY GOODMAN: And so, if 6% of prisoners are immigrants�documented and undocumented�and you said 30% of prisoners, a third of the population of prisons in this country, are prisoners, it conveys a very different sense.
LOU DOBBS: Different meaning.
AMY GOODMAN: And as you�ve pointed out�
LOU DOBBS: I agree.
AMY GOODMAN: �you�ve done hundreds of shows on these issues.
LOU DOBBS: More than that. More like thousands.
AMY GOODMAN: And that reinforces the feeling that people have, who watch the show�
LOU DOBBS: So, your point is?
AMY GOODMAN: �either they believe you or�either they don�t believe you, or they believe you and are being fed wrong information.
LOU DOBBS: Well, I don�t�you know, I think it�s important for all of us, because, as you say, I�m�we�re all interested in the facts. So let me ask both of you, please, a question that seeks a fact: Does the United States government and do state governments inquire of their prisoners as to whether they are legal or illegal, and can they under the law? Or are these estimates that we�re talking about?
AMY GOODMAN: Well, if the government doesn�t know, how do you know?
LOU DOBBS: No, that�s as straightforward question.
AMY GOODMAN: How do you know?
LOU DOBBS: Well, because in the federal prisons, they are permitted to make a decision as to whether or not they can ask if they�re citizens or non-citizens, but cannot ask if they�re legal or illegal. So it is, at best, a projection. When Juan says eleven million to twelve million illegal aliens, you and I both know that the Bear Stearns study suggests twenty million people. There is no one in this country today�that�s why I referred to the National Intelligence�
AMY GOODMAN: And the Bear Stearns study has been critiqued over and over again�
LOU DOBBS: By whom?
AMY GOODMAN: �by the top economists.
LOU DOBBS: Oh, come on!
AMY GOODMAN: Bear Stearns study, saying it is wildly exaggerated, that their�
LOU DOBBS: The National Intelligence Estimate is closer probably on Iran today than it is on the makeup of the US population today. I mean, if you want to talk about this nonsense, I mean, that�s what it is.
AMY GOODMAN: Let�s go to break, and we�ll come back.
LOU DOBBS: Sure.
AMY GOODMAN: Our guest is Lou Dobbs. He is the well-known anchor of CNN Lou Dobbs Tonight and has written a new book called Independents Day. We�ll be back with him in a minute.
[break]
LOU DOBBS: Sure.
AMY GOODMAN: �of you talking about various concerns that you have around immigrants.
LOU DOBBS: Sure.
AMY GOODMAN: The last part of that clip�and maybe we can play it again�
LOU DOBBS: Illegal immigrants, if I may, Amy.
AMY GOODMAN: Illegal immigrants.
LOU DOBBS: Only illegal immigrants.
AMY GOODMAN: Maybe we can play a last part of this clip that we played, just to go through it again. We�ll see if our folks have that clip ready. And this is the clip that we played in the billboard. It�s�
LOU DOBBS: Well, I can recall what was said if it�s at all helpful. I said that according to a study�I didn�t use the attribution, but according to a study that Jorge Borjas at Harvard University had completed, that the cost of excess immigration into this country amounts to $200 billion a year in wages, that the cost of incarceration, medical care, social services approximates $50 billion in this country per year. And the reality is that about a third of the crimes that are of those in state prisons�federal prisons, excuse me, federal prisons, are�I�m sorry.
AMY GOODMAN: Are�?
LOU DOBBS: Are those who are in this country illegally.
AMY GOODMAN: Let�s play it.
LOU DOBBS: Sure.
AMY GOODMAN: And then let�s talk about it.
Let�s say the number is eleven million, although some studies put the number as high as twenty million illegal aliens in this country. That not only amounts to a shift of six to ten congressional seats among the states based on the population of illegal immigration. The fact is, those illegal aliens are costing our economy $200 billion in depressed wages for working Americans. It is costing $50 billion a year in social and medical costs. And it�s costing us, no one knows precisely how much, to incarcerate what is about a third of our prison population who are illegal aliens.
AMY GOODMAN: So, Lou, you said a third of the prison population are illegal aliens.
LOU DOBBS: Right.
AMY GOODMAN: The fact is, it�s something like 6% of prisoners in this country are non-citizens, not even illegal, just non-citizens.
LOU DOBBS: Right.
AMY GOODMAN: And then a percentage of that would not be documented.
LOU DOBBS: Well, it�s actually�I think it�s 26% in federal prison.
AMY GOODMAN: But you said of all prisoners.
LOU DOBBS: I said about�yes, but I�and I misspoke, without question. I was referring to federal prisoners.
AMY GOODMAN: But you didn�t say that, and so it leaves people with the impression�
LOU DOBBS: Well, I didn�t, but then I just explained it to you.
AMY GOODMAN: But you have a very large audience on CNN.
LOU DOBBS: I have a very large audience and a very bright audience.
AMY GOODMAN: And you told them that a third of the population of this country are illegal immigrants. 6% , which is under the population of immigrants�
LOU DOBBS: 6% , right.
AMY GOODMAN: �in this country, of prisoners�
LOU DOBBS: In state prisons.
AMY GOODMAN: �are immigrants.
LOU DOBBS: In state prisons. In state prisons.
AMY GOODMAN: No, 6% overall are immigrants. You said 30% are illegal.
LOU DOBBS: Well, I think we�ve established�we could sit here and say this all day, Amy. The fact is, the number is 26% in federal prisons. That�s what I was referring to. I did not�I misspoke when I said �prisons.� I was referring to the federal prisons, because that�s the federal crime: immigration. And that�
AMY GOODMAN: Have you made a correction on your show to say that 30% of�?
LOU DOBBS: I�m sure we have. We�ve reported�absolutely.
AMY GOODMAN: We didn�t see it.
LOU DOBBS: Do you know how many reports we�ve done on illegal immigration in this country?
AMY GOODMAN: Yes, many.
LOU DOBBS: I mean, my god.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Yeah, but I�d like to get into this issue�I mean, aside from the fact that the GAO report�
LOU DOBBS: Excuse me, just one second.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Sure.
LOU DOBBS: I mean, what if I were to sit here and just hound you because you said I was anti-immigrant, when I am, point of fact, I�m anti-illegal immigrant, and it�s absolutely a matter of fact. We could quarrel over the terminology, if you want. But why should people of good faith and intelligence sit there and be so absurd about it?
JUAN GONZALEZ: No, we agree on that. But this is precisely the lumping of illegal or undocumented immigrants and legal immigrants in one category that�s a problem�
LOU DOBBS: Right.
JUAN GONZALEZ: �because, for instance�
LOU DOBBS: Right, I agree with you.
JUAN GONZALEZ: �the total percentage of the non-citizen population of the United States right now is about thirty-five million, 12% of the population.
LOU DOBBS: Do you know this?
JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, this is Census Bureau�
LOU DOBBS: I was just�I was just�
JUAN GONZALEZ: Wait, wait, Lou. Let me finish. Let me finish, Lou.
LOU DOBBS: I have to say, I was laughing about the NIE, because, as you heard Steve Hadley talk about�
JUAN GONZALEZ: Lou, let me finish.
LOU DOBBS: �high confidence levels in those estimates,�
JUAN GONZALEZ: Right, but let me�
LOU DOBBS: What do you suppose the confidence level is of the United States government in the number of people in this country illegally, the number of people�
JUAN GONZALEZ: We�re assuming now�the legal population is pretty well documented, right? But the�
LOU DOBBS: Documented, undocumented.
JUAN GONZALEZ: The legal immigrant population is pretty well documented. It�s about twenty-three million. And then you add maybe another eleven to twelve million of the undocumented population, and you get thirty-five million. The point is�my point is this: if 12% of the non-citizen population of the United States�non-citizens comprise 12% of the population. They comprise 6% of the prison population. That suggests to me that crime rates are far lower among non-citizen immigrants�legal and illegal�than they are among the general population of the United States.
LOU DOBBS: Can I ask you a question?
JUAN GONZALEZ: You have raised the issue of crime�you�ve raised the issue of crime in relationship to immigrants.
LOU DOBBS: Well, silly me, silly me. MS-13, all sorts of gangs. You know, the fact that Mexico is the largest source of methamphetamines, heroin, cocaine, marijuana entering the United States. Silly me for bringing up crack.
AMY GOODMAN: But, Lou�
LOU DOBBS: But may I ask you a question?
AMY GOODMAN: I think you agree�
LOU DOBBS: May I ask this question�
AMY GOODMAN: I think you would agree�
LOU DOBBS: May I ask this question�
AMY GOODMAN: �that facts matter.
LOU DOBBS: Of course, they do. Absolutely.
AMY GOODMAN: And so�
LOU DOBBS: I am an empericist to the bone.
AMY GOODMAN: And so, if 6% of prisoners are immigrants�documented and undocumented�and you said 30% of prisoners, a third of the population of prisons in this country, are prisoners, it conveys a very different sense.
LOU DOBBS: Different meaning.
AMY GOODMAN: And as you�ve pointed out�
LOU DOBBS: I agree.
AMY GOODMAN: �you�ve done hundreds of shows on these issues.
LOU DOBBS: More than that. More like thousands.
AMY GOODMAN: And that reinforces the feeling that people have, who watch the show�
LOU DOBBS: So, your point is?
AMY GOODMAN: �either they believe you or�either they don�t believe you, or they believe you and are being fed wrong information.
LOU DOBBS: Well, I don�t�you know, I think it�s important for all of us, because, as you say, I�m�we�re all interested in the facts. So let me ask both of you, please, a question that seeks a fact: Does the United States government and do state governments inquire of their prisoners as to whether they are legal or illegal, and can they under the law? Or are these estimates that we�re talking about?
AMY GOODMAN: Well, if the government doesn�t know, how do you know?
LOU DOBBS: No, that�s as straightforward question.
AMY GOODMAN: How do you know?
LOU DOBBS: Well, because in the federal prisons, they are permitted to make a decision as to whether or not they can ask if they�re citizens or non-citizens, but cannot ask if they�re legal or illegal. So it is, at best, a projection. When Juan says eleven million to twelve million illegal aliens, you and I both know that the Bear Stearns study suggests twenty million people. There is no one in this country today�that�s why I referred to the National Intelligence�
AMY GOODMAN: And the Bear Stearns study has been critiqued over and over again�
LOU DOBBS: By whom?
AMY GOODMAN: �by the top economists.
LOU DOBBS: Oh, come on!
AMY GOODMAN: Bear Stearns study, saying it is wildly exaggerated, that their�
LOU DOBBS: The National Intelligence Estimate is closer probably on Iran today than it is on the makeup of the US population today. I mean, if you want to talk about this nonsense, I mean, that�s what it is.
AMY GOODMAN: Let�s go to break, and we�ll come back.
LOU DOBBS: Sure.
AMY GOODMAN: Our guest is Lou Dobbs. He is the well-known anchor of CNN Lou Dobbs Tonight and has written a new book called Independents Day. We�ll be back with him in a minute.
[break]
SunJoshi
12-31 01:25 PM
We are in need of some volunteers/members in the Boston Area to work with some of our PR leads.
Please come forward to help out.
Please come forward to help out.
2011 H. G. Wells#39; The War of the Worlds (2005 film) | Ask.com Encyclopedia
k_usa
06-26 08:18 AM
Where do we need to send the 485 application ?
My 140 is approved from TSC. Do i need to send my application to TSC again?
My 140 is approved from TSC. Do i need to send my application to TSC again?
more...
DallasBlue
07-11 01:49 PM
Lets focus on US media. I have sent emails to ABC, CNN , DallasNews so far none of them covered :-(
vkrishn
08-17 12:19 AM
Hi All,
I got the I-485 approval/welcome notice from USCIS for myself and my spouse today. But the wierd thing is that my NSC online status still shows RFE response received and case pending (from 2008)...the welcome notice says I should expect to receive the card in 3 weeks...guess I am greened.
Anyone else face a similar situation?
Thanks.
PD: Feb 16th, 2006
EB2-India
NSC
Except for the Priority date (Feb 16th 2006) everything else is different. I got a response to my Status Request by snail mail today that my case is pending adjudication by an officer and please call us back if you don;t hear from us in 6 months!
Congrats to you anyway! Hope there is light at the end of the tunnel for me. :)
I got the I-485 approval/welcome notice from USCIS for myself and my spouse today. But the wierd thing is that my NSC online status still shows RFE response received and case pending (from 2008)...the welcome notice says I should expect to receive the card in 3 weeks...guess I am greened.
Anyone else face a similar situation?
Thanks.
PD: Feb 16th, 2006
EB2-India
NSC
Except for the Priority date (Feb 16th 2006) everything else is different. I got a response to my Status Request by snail mail today that my case is pending adjudication by an officer and please call us back if you don;t hear from us in 6 months!
Congrats to you anyway! Hope there is light at the end of the tunnel for me. :)
more...
mchundi
01-02 07:28 PM
Hello mchundi, Would you like to participate in the joint effort to talk to lawmakers on both sides so that more democrats would vote in favor of the bill.
WaldenPond,
I send u a PM.
--MC
WaldenPond,
I send u a PM.
--MC
2010 tattoo for the 2005 movie
nrk
08-17 09:34 AM
Congrats.
All,
Received CPO mail today for self, wife and son.
EB2 - India PD Oct 24 2005. NSC
I-485 receipt date: Sept 14 2007.
Opened SR on 08/09/2010
All,
Received CPO mail today for self, wife and son.
EB2 - India PD Oct 24 2005. NSC
I-485 receipt date: Sept 14 2007.
Opened SR on 08/09/2010
more...
AreWeThereYet
09-09 08:17 AM
That is not an RFE. It's a welcome notice, which is expected.
Today I got one more email (See below) and my status changed from CPO to Decision. What does that mean? Did they send an RFE?
Application Type: I485 , APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
Your Case Status: Decision
On September 8, 2010, we mailed you a notice that we had registered this customer's new permanent resident status. Please follow any instructions on the notice. Your new permanent resident card should be mailed within 60 days following this registration or after you complete any ADIT processing referred to in the welcome notice, whichever is later. If you move before receiving your card, please call our customer service center at 1-800-375-5283.
Today I got one more email (See below) and my status changed from CPO to Decision. What does that mean? Did they send an RFE?
Application Type: I485 , APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
Your Case Status: Decision
On September 8, 2010, we mailed you a notice that we had registered this customer's new permanent resident status. Please follow any instructions on the notice. Your new permanent resident card should be mailed within 60 days following this registration or after you complete any ADIT processing referred to in the welcome notice, whichever is later. If you move before receiving your card, please call our customer service center at 1-800-375-5283.
hair War of the Worlds Movie Still
nkavjs
11-09 02:13 PM
On the Receipt notice. it says application received on 4 August. Processed on Oct 1, 2007.
more...
aau
08-07 04:11 PM
I have the same question as I think, it is not possible. How can you re-apply for the same job you are in currently, in EB2?
Yes you can -when you were eligible for the EB2 filing at the time of filing for EB3!
Why would someone do that u ask? Please call my employer and ask him this question. The answer is - so that you are stuck with him for few more years.
Yes you can -when you were eligible for the EB2 filing at the time of filing for EB3!
Why would someone do that u ask? Please call my employer and ask him this question. The answer is - so that you are stuck with him for few more years.
hot Worlds Movie Trailer
MeraNaamJoker
08-16 10:04 AM
I Have opened an SR on Aug 6th and then sent an email to TSC followup . I got a response from them on friday " We are currently researching this situation and will contact you with an update." HAs anybody this kind of response?
Thank you
I had created two different SRs, one for myself and kids and one for my wife. The SR which I created for my wife got a response with Card Production Ordered and for the SR I created for myself, the status in the response was "currently under the review". The date was one day before my CPO mail date.
I guess you have nothing to worry. This seems to me as a standard response.
Thank you
I had created two different SRs, one for myself and kids and one for my wife. The SR which I created for my wife got a response with Card Production Ordered and for the SR I created for myself, the status in the response was "currently under the review". The date was one day before my CPO mail date.
I guess you have nothing to worry. This seems to me as a standard response.
more...
house tattoo WAR OF THE WORLDS
adusumilli
09-24 11:48 AM
28.6%/5 = 5.72% for EB3-India + Spillover from EB2 and EB1, not more than 10,000 of which to "Other Workers".
28.6%/5 = 5.72% for EB2-India + spillover from EB1
28.6%/5 = 5.72% for EB1-India + spillover from EB4 and EB5
Each category is 28.6% WW Quota.
WW Quota consists of 5 country specific sub-quotas 1)India 2)China 3) Mexico 4) Philipines 5)ROW.
Based on page 1, I do math as under for Philippines categories.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota for EB4 -->7% x 140000/5=1960, Pending: 70 Quota to be spilled over to EB1= 1890
2) Quota for EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 0 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1960
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 1890 + EB5 spillover 1960 = 11858 - pending 74 = Total
11784 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 11784 =19792, Pending: 510, So total 19282 VISA numbers will be spilled
over to EB3.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 19282 spill over =27290 - 11563 Pending = 15727 VISA extra.
6) �Other Workers� � Pending: 264 TOTAL UNUSED VISAS = 15727-264 = 15463 UNUSED VISAS will go to the quota
of other countries.
Based on page 3, I do math as under for ROW categories.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota for EB4 -->7% x 140000/5=1960, Pending: 1378 Quota to be spilled over to EB1= 582
2) Quota for EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 40 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1920
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 582 + EB5 spillover 1920 = 10510 - pending 2477 = Total
8033 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 8033 =16031, Pending: 7150, So total 8881 VISA numbers will be spilled
over to EB3.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 8881 spill over =16889. Pending: 62840 -16889 = 45951 applications will
still be pending and pushed to year 2011.
Based on page 4, I do math as under for China categories.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota For EB4 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 384 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1576
2) Quota For EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 13 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1947
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 1576 + EB5 spillover 1947 = 11531 - pending 607 =
Total 10924 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 10924 =18932, Pending: 19333, So total 401 applications will be pushed to
year 2011 with pending approval.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + no spillover = 8008 � 6343 Pending = 1665 visas Extra.
6) �Other Workers� � Pending: 30 TOTAL UNUSED VISAS = 1665-30 = 1635 UNUSED VISAS will go to the quota
of other countries.
Based on page 5, I do math as under for India categories.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota for EB4 -->7% x 140000/5=1960, Pending: 123 Quota to be spilled over to EB1= 1960-123 = 1837
2) Quota for EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 13 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1960-13 = 1947
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 1837 + EB5 spillover 1947 = 11792 - pending 418 = Total
11374 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 11374 =19382, Pending: 47728, So total 28346 applications will still be
pending for year 2011.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008, no spill over. Pending: 62607 -8008 = 54599 applications will still be pending
and pushed to year 2011.
Based on page 6, I do math as under for Mexico categories.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota For EB4 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 62 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1960-62=1898
2) Quota For EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 0 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1960
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 1898 + EB5 spillover 1960 = 11866 - pending 174 =
Total 11692 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 11692 =19700, Pending: 211, So total 19489 applications will spill over to
EB3 category.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 19489 spillover = 27497 � 7878 Pending = 19619 visas Extra.
6) �Other Workers� � Pending: 8415 TOTAL UNUSED VISAS = 19619-8415 = 11204 UNUSED VISAS will go to the quota
of other countries.
TOTAL UNUSED VISAS = 15463 + 1635 + 11204 = 28302.
Assuming these unused visas from Philippines, China and Mexico will be used for India, ROW equally India will benefit additional 14151 VISAS this year. Assuming all of these go to EB2 India Pushed down figure for EB2-India for the year 2011 will be 28346 � 14151 = 14195 pending EB2-I applications ready to go to year 2011.
How did you come up with dividing by 5 that is like 20% per country. isn't the cap 7% per country?
28.6%/5 = 5.72% for EB2-India + spillover from EB1
28.6%/5 = 5.72% for EB1-India + spillover from EB4 and EB5
Each category is 28.6% WW Quota.
WW Quota consists of 5 country specific sub-quotas 1)India 2)China 3) Mexico 4) Philipines 5)ROW.
Based on page 1, I do math as under for Philippines categories.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota for EB4 -->7% x 140000/5=1960, Pending: 70 Quota to be spilled over to EB1= 1890
2) Quota for EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 0 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1960
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 1890 + EB5 spillover 1960 = 11858 - pending 74 = Total
11784 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 11784 =19792, Pending: 510, So total 19282 VISA numbers will be spilled
over to EB3.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 19282 spill over =27290 - 11563 Pending = 15727 VISA extra.
6) �Other Workers� � Pending: 264 TOTAL UNUSED VISAS = 15727-264 = 15463 UNUSED VISAS will go to the quota
of other countries.
Based on page 3, I do math as under for ROW categories.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota for EB4 -->7% x 140000/5=1960, Pending: 1378 Quota to be spilled over to EB1= 582
2) Quota for EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 40 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1920
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 582 + EB5 spillover 1920 = 10510 - pending 2477 = Total
8033 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 8033 =16031, Pending: 7150, So total 8881 VISA numbers will be spilled
over to EB3.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 8881 spill over =16889. Pending: 62840 -16889 = 45951 applications will
still be pending and pushed to year 2011.
Based on page 4, I do math as under for China categories.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota For EB4 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 384 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1576
2) Quota For EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 13 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1947
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 1576 + EB5 spillover 1947 = 11531 - pending 607 =
Total 10924 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 10924 =18932, Pending: 19333, So total 401 applications will be pushed to
year 2011 with pending approval.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + no spillover = 8008 � 6343 Pending = 1665 visas Extra.
6) �Other Workers� � Pending: 30 TOTAL UNUSED VISAS = 1665-30 = 1635 UNUSED VISAS will go to the quota
of other countries.
Based on page 5, I do math as under for India categories.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota for EB4 -->7% x 140000/5=1960, Pending: 123 Quota to be spilled over to EB1= 1960-123 = 1837
2) Quota for EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 13 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1960-13 = 1947
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 1837 + EB5 spillover 1947 = 11792 - pending 418 = Total
11374 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 11374 =19382, Pending: 47728, So total 28346 applications will still be
pending for year 2011.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008, no spill over. Pending: 62607 -8008 = 54599 applications will still be pending
and pushed to year 2011.
Based on page 6, I do math as under for Mexico categories.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota For EB4 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 62 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1960-62=1898
2) Quota For EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 0 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1960
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 1898 + EB5 spillover 1960 = 11866 - pending 174 =
Total 11692 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 11692 =19700, Pending: 211, So total 19489 applications will spill over to
EB3 category.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 19489 spillover = 27497 � 7878 Pending = 19619 visas Extra.
6) �Other Workers� � Pending: 8415 TOTAL UNUSED VISAS = 19619-8415 = 11204 UNUSED VISAS will go to the quota
of other countries.
TOTAL UNUSED VISAS = 15463 + 1635 + 11204 = 28302.
Assuming these unused visas from Philippines, China and Mexico will be used for India, ROW equally India will benefit additional 14151 VISAS this year. Assuming all of these go to EB2 India Pushed down figure for EB2-India for the year 2011 will be 28346 � 14151 = 14195 pending EB2-I applications ready to go to year 2011.
How did you come up with dividing by 5 that is like 20% per country. isn't the cap 7% per country?
tattoo WAR OF THE WORLDS (2005) Movie
Saralayar
01-15 01:06 PM
Search for Citizenship also. It is posted in the Homeland Security and Foriegn Policy.
IV members, Please go to chnage.gov and vote for my idea. No one has gone and voted up for this yet. Wakeup please. Go and vote for a good cause.
IV members, Please go to chnage.gov and vote for my idea. No one has gone and voted up for this yet. Wakeup please. Go and vote for a good cause.
more...
pictures infos + WAR OF THE WORLDS
gc_hopful
05-25 09:22 PM
GCWaiter03 - Thanks for very much.
Can she go back immediately after filing I-485 to come back in August.
gc_hopful
Can she go back immediately after filing I-485 to come back in August.
gc_hopful
dresses war of the worlds movie 2005.
jamesbond007
11-04 10:14 AM
Admin: If you like you may please close this thread.
Final update on this issue.
Here is what I have been told. Please feel free to check with AILA or your lawyer. They may have more info.
In general, if an employer applies for a permanent labor certification for an individual with the Department of Labor (DOL), while DOL has already certified one or more positions with same or different employer for the same individual , it will be subjected to more scrutiny to prevent any fraud.
Thank You and Good Bye!
Happy Porting !
I think multiple labors has multiple faces:
1. Good talent is sought after. So if one is really good, multiple companies would want to get them to work for them. That would result in multiple labor petitions.
2. Individuals who are scared (company not reputed; they had issues in the past; or any other reason) tend to approach multiple companies and have them file a labor for them as a "backup".
3. Someone gets laid off from their initial sponsoring company finds another sponsor and files a subsequent labor.
If DOL scrutinizes such petitioners more than others, then its good. That will weed out pretenders; but also on the other hand, that will put genuine candidates petiotions into a pre-adjudicated state.
But I do not think a government agency can risk getting caught doing that. Their motive has to be to build standards that can be applied equally to all applicants across the board. They should be able to catch issues with any application, not just of those who are doing multiple LCAs.
Final update on this issue.
Here is what I have been told. Please feel free to check with AILA or your lawyer. They may have more info.
In general, if an employer applies for a permanent labor certification for an individual with the Department of Labor (DOL), while DOL has already certified one or more positions with same or different employer for the same individual , it will be subjected to more scrutiny to prevent any fraud.
Thank You and Good Bye!
Happy Porting !
I think multiple labors has multiple faces:
1. Good talent is sought after. So if one is really good, multiple companies would want to get them to work for them. That would result in multiple labor petitions.
2. Individuals who are scared (company not reputed; they had issues in the past; or any other reason) tend to approach multiple companies and have them file a labor for them as a "backup".
3. Someone gets laid off from their initial sponsoring company finds another sponsor and files a subsequent labor.
If DOL scrutinizes such petitioners more than others, then its good. That will weed out pretenders; but also on the other hand, that will put genuine candidates petiotions into a pre-adjudicated state.
But I do not think a government agency can risk getting caught doing that. Their motive has to be to build standards that can be applied equally to all applicants across the board. They should be able to catch issues with any application, not just of those who are doing multiple LCAs.
more...
makeup War of the Worlds (2005)
Macaca
12-05 03:59 PM
JUAN GONZALEZ: Now, Lou, you�ve been well known for years now, especially dealing with the issue of American corporations exporting jobs and criticizing that whole process of exporting American jobs overseas.
LOU DOBBS: Sure.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And your�but also the criticism of it, that as I�ve seen it as, oftentimes does not deal with the impact so much of what this globalization on those countries themselves. In other words, you criticize NAFTA for sending so many jobs overseas, but not with the impact so much that it�s having on Mexico and on these other countries that are the other end of this free trade.
LOU DOBBS: Juan, that may be because I�m a television journalist, limited in my intellect, as well as my time.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, on this show, we don�t have commercials, so we have a lot of time to get into the issues.
LOU DOBBS: The reality is that, of course, NAFTA is, in my judgment, at least deleterious to the interests of the Mexican people and to the state of Mexico. One only has to look at the empty villages in particularly southern Mexico to examine the impact of the agricultural policies within NAFTA. One only has to look at the maquiladoras across northern Mexico to see the impact on a society that is already 50% impoverished, education levels still where they were thirty years ago in Mexico.
But my perspective is an American one. And I won�t presume to speak for Mexico, as Felipe Calderon does presume to speak to the United States for Americans on American policy. The reality is that NAFTA doesn�t work for this country. It doesn�t work for Mexico.
But I am not one of those people�as Amy was talking about, my detractors. The suggestion I�m anti-immigrant, for example, is absurd. I would support an increase in lawful immigration and have said so repeatedly and have no problem whatsoever with current levels of immigration, which, by the way, are the highest levels of immigration in the world�in fact, more than the rest of the world combined. We bring in more than two million people. But the issue is one that the United States does not have a foreign policy toward Mexico. We�re paternalistic and condescending toward Mexico in our dealings with Mexico, both corporately and politically. And it�s time for that to change.
LOU DOBBS: Sure.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And your�but also the criticism of it, that as I�ve seen it as, oftentimes does not deal with the impact so much of what this globalization on those countries themselves. In other words, you criticize NAFTA for sending so many jobs overseas, but not with the impact so much that it�s having on Mexico and on these other countries that are the other end of this free trade.
LOU DOBBS: Juan, that may be because I�m a television journalist, limited in my intellect, as well as my time.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, on this show, we don�t have commercials, so we have a lot of time to get into the issues.
LOU DOBBS: The reality is that, of course, NAFTA is, in my judgment, at least deleterious to the interests of the Mexican people and to the state of Mexico. One only has to look at the empty villages in particularly southern Mexico to examine the impact of the agricultural policies within NAFTA. One only has to look at the maquiladoras across northern Mexico to see the impact on a society that is already 50% impoverished, education levels still where they were thirty years ago in Mexico.
But my perspective is an American one. And I won�t presume to speak for Mexico, as Felipe Calderon does presume to speak to the United States for Americans on American policy. The reality is that NAFTA doesn�t work for this country. It doesn�t work for Mexico.
But I am not one of those people�as Amy was talking about, my detractors. The suggestion I�m anti-immigrant, for example, is absurd. I would support an increase in lawful immigration and have said so repeatedly and have no problem whatsoever with current levels of immigration, which, by the way, are the highest levels of immigration in the world�in fact, more than the rest of the world combined. We bring in more than two million people. But the issue is one that the United States does not have a foreign policy toward Mexico. We�re paternalistic and condescending toward Mexico in our dealings with Mexico, both corporately and politically. And it�s time for that to change.
girlfriend War of the Worlds Photo Dakota
AreWeThereYet
09-10 09:49 AM
still waiting
Your date is current next month too. I am sure you will hear the good news soon.
Your date is current next month too. I am sure you will hear the good news soon.
hairstyles War of the Worlds: Special
akela_topchi
08-07 01:10 PM
To add a few more conditions to the aforesaid situation...
This is 2008.. Both JE and MBA are thinking that they will get their GC in 2009...
Meanwhile they start arguing.. and many like them join their verbal-struggle..
Because of this, IV community is divided.. Earlier only 200 people used to respond to action items .. now because of the rift only 100 do... this weakens the momentum that the campaign had..
Meanwhile, NumbersUSA et all increased their efforts..
Anti-immigration forces are united and under their pressure all the EB relief bills fail...
Election is close USCIS shifts the focus to FB visas..
EB backlog, retrogression goes up..
JE and MBA still fighting their verbal fight... in same line.. still fighting with words... with few more years added to their wait-time.
Ok, i will try to make it as simple as possible:
......
......
P.S. - I do not support this lawsuit.
This is 2008.. Both JE and MBA are thinking that they will get their GC in 2009...
Meanwhile they start arguing.. and many like them join their verbal-struggle..
Because of this, IV community is divided.. Earlier only 200 people used to respond to action items .. now because of the rift only 100 do... this weakens the momentum that the campaign had..
Meanwhile, NumbersUSA et all increased their efforts..
Anti-immigration forces are united and under their pressure all the EB relief bills fail...
Election is close USCIS shifts the focus to FB visas..
EB backlog, retrogression goes up..
JE and MBA still fighting their verbal fight... in same line.. still fighting with words... with few more years added to their wait-time.
Ok, i will try to make it as simple as possible:
......
......
P.S. - I do not support this lawsuit.
like_watching_paint_dry
06-18 09:23 AM
Agreed on your point. But there are other discriminations at workplace such as , age, race, sex and sexual harrassment. Those who complain about it effectively terminate their careers. If you want to go , complain against this L1 misuse fine, but you are not going to get mileage, maybe some bad breath and bad publicity and eventual loss of reference & job. If your company / client has decided they do not want to persist with you, there are 101 ways they can get rid of you, legal or illegal, my suggestion is, if you were exposed,
can L1fraud hold his head high in front of his client and still ask for reference with no sense of guilt in future? If not, he has lost half the game but now wants to lose the other half in a self destructive manner.
I cannot believe you are saying this. Are you actually saying that you will let stuff like this happen just because you think your company might get rid of you if you complain? If your wife or daughter has a boss who is flashing her everyday, will you actually tell your wife or daughter to 'suck it up' and put up with it just because you fear she may not get a reference??
Laws are designed to prevent this exact kind of thing. I personally would, to quote a Hindi movie dialog, take a sledge-hammer and change the geography of the abuser's face. On a more practical note, I would lawyer up, collect evidence, spin up a multi-million dollar lawsuit, and use settlement money to sip MaiTai on some beach in Lanai, while the harasser gets to suck on cock-meat sandwiches in the nearest penitentiary.
Sense of guilt... the guy who is breaking the law should have that. Not the victim who wants a reference. C'mon grow a penis!
can L1fraud hold his head high in front of his client and still ask for reference with no sense of guilt in future? If not, he has lost half the game but now wants to lose the other half in a self destructive manner.
I cannot believe you are saying this. Are you actually saying that you will let stuff like this happen just because you think your company might get rid of you if you complain? If your wife or daughter has a boss who is flashing her everyday, will you actually tell your wife or daughter to 'suck it up' and put up with it just because you fear she may not get a reference??
Laws are designed to prevent this exact kind of thing. I personally would, to quote a Hindi movie dialog, take a sledge-hammer and change the geography of the abuser's face. On a more practical note, I would lawyer up, collect evidence, spin up a multi-million dollar lawsuit, and use settlement money to sip MaiTai on some beach in Lanai, while the harasser gets to suck on cock-meat sandwiches in the nearest penitentiary.
Sense of guilt... the guy who is breaking the law should have that. Not the victim who wants a reference. C'mon grow a penis!
waitnwatch
08-21 05:40 PM
In my opinion it is very naive to think that USCIS/DOL just realized that they had 'misinterpreted' the law. ..... The ambiguity of the law for the preference of vertical vs. horizontal spill-over allowed them to do that.
In a couple of my previous posts I copied the relevant Sections (Sec. 202 and 203) of the INA which specifically states that distribution should be preferentially horizontal. Both Sections should be read together.
Please note that there is no ambiguity in the law and DOS may just have taken too long to change the US Code or other relevant section of their rules.
I will definitely be willing to change my interpretation if you can show where the ambiguity in the law lies. I'm definitely not a lawyer so it's quite possible that I'm missing some clause in the law.
In a couple of my previous posts I copied the relevant Sections (Sec. 202 and 203) of the INA which specifically states that distribution should be preferentially horizontal. Both Sections should be read together.
Please note that there is no ambiguity in the law and DOS may just have taken too long to change the US Code or other relevant section of their rules.
I will definitely be willing to change my interpretation if you can show where the ambiguity in the law lies. I'm definitely not a lawyer so it's quite possible that I'm missing some clause in the law.
No comments:
Post a Comment