Openarms
11-06 10:49 AM
This is the only thread and issue that helps a lot of people in the process. If USCIS send the numbers correctly then we better of assuming when is our GC turn is. We will know the real picture and it will definitely open lot of peoples eyes to act in the future... So "Immigrants" please send the letters.
wallpaper Marie Claire photo shoot
rghangrekar
02-20 04:05 PM
Congrats to Eb2 dudes.....hopefully EB3 will not fall very behind. I am hoping Eb3 keeps moving and gathers pace...
vandanaverdia
09-11 12:13 PM
^^^ bump ^^^
2011 Marie Claire US December 2010
GCOP
10-15 03:25 PM
We are trying to achieve our objective for our Freedom by Getting Greencards. Many of us experience that, we are not totally free to change the job evenif there is AC21 provision. We also do not have same privileges as US Permanent Resident. Ask the people, many of them have been turned down the Loans. Quoting my own example, my son is not eligible for College Federal Education Grants (FAFSA and PELL Grant) eventhough we have been paying all the taxes since 8 years. Even I cannot get a Private Loan for him, as we do not have Greencards. So by all means, we are feeling helplessness , because of not having Greencard. I support the idea of ItIsNotFunny. He should not be criticized for taking initiative or just for suggesting. We cannot succeed in getting any Legislation passed, is a different issue But We should always try. Who knows, we may find ourselves successful in one of our attempts.
more...
wellwishergc
07-13 10:54 AM
Right on! You are absolutely right! It just needs people to amplify their vision. Even if there is a hidden agenda for somebody else, why shouldn't you be happy if it benefits both you and the other person?
As anyone in this forums know about this "may-a-times-told" joke about a bunch of people in an airplane that have to make some hard decision on dropping out some of thier own to save the flying aircraft. As one by one jumps out of the aircraft for a noble cause of saving the other person - our own Desi pushed the next one crying " Gandhiji ki Jai" - saving himself instead of others.
The moral of the story (which people never really bothered to infer) was that our Desi folks are trigger ready to pull someone down when it comes to me versus them. I hate to stereotype people - based on some unfounded and preconceived notions , but the more and more postings I see like this, it just reinforces my beliefs that we are still gullible enough to be divided no matter what the past had taught us.
I enjoy visiting IV forums - because of all the Indian based forums - this was one place where people came together rallied for a cause - something that I could not find in any other place. Now I am seeing some folks postings that spites and pits one against another - without understanding the real issue.
What or why does it matter if Murthy sending a letter to DHS or its Director is all about getting credit for her? Why do we have to think that its "us versus them" within our group - when we are all fighting for one single cause?
Need some civility here - Please!
As anyone in this forums know about this "may-a-times-told" joke about a bunch of people in an airplane that have to make some hard decision on dropping out some of thier own to save the flying aircraft. As one by one jumps out of the aircraft for a noble cause of saving the other person - our own Desi pushed the next one crying " Gandhiji ki Jai" - saving himself instead of others.
The moral of the story (which people never really bothered to infer) was that our Desi folks are trigger ready to pull someone down when it comes to me versus them. I hate to stereotype people - based on some unfounded and preconceived notions , but the more and more postings I see like this, it just reinforces my beliefs that we are still gullible enough to be divided no matter what the past had taught us.
I enjoy visiting IV forums - because of all the Indian based forums - this was one place where people came together rallied for a cause - something that I could not find in any other place. Now I am seeing some folks postings that spites and pits one against another - without understanding the real issue.
What or why does it matter if Murthy sending a letter to DHS or its Director is all about getting credit for her? Why do we have to think that its "us versus them" within our group - when we are all fighting for one single cause?
Need some civility here - Please!
abhijitp
03-03 06:48 PM
Instead of criticizing the idea, please submit your votes!
Only 300 odd people sent flowers to the USCIS and we know it worked. This site has a lot of one time visitors so don't expect 25000 votes, but it does not mean this idea is crappy. Heck, I want to buy a house myself, but I cannot even think about borrowing 300k+ when I may be asked to leave the country on a day's notice (remember no time between jobs when you are on H1B).
Only 300 odd people sent flowers to the USCIS and we know it worked. This site has a lot of one time visitors so don't expect 25000 votes, but it does not mean this idea is crappy. Heck, I want to buy a house myself, but I cannot even think about borrowing 300k+ when I may be asked to leave the country on a day's notice (remember no time between jobs when you are on H1B).
more...
andy garcia
09-10 01:58 PM
This holds true for even your spouse not being eligible for in-state tuition. WHY???? Because you are a legal dependent(spouse/children) immigrant?
But the children/spouses of the illegal aliens are eligible for the same!!!!!
Guys, you have to move to Florida. When my wife and son were on H4 they were paying in-state tuition.
this is copied from the catalog of the school:
The following categories will be considered as Florida residents for tuition purposes:
Active duty members of the armed forces stationed in Florida, or whose home of record is in Florida, and their dependents.
Full-time instructional and administrative personnel employed by a public educational institution and their dependents
Qualified beneficiaries under the Florida Pre-Paid Postsecondary Expense Program.
In addition the following nonimmigrant categories are eligible to establish Florida residency: A, E, G, H-1, H-4, I, K, L, N, 0-1, O-3, R, and NATO I-7.
Others as permitted by state statute or rule
But the children/spouses of the illegal aliens are eligible for the same!!!!!
Guys, you have to move to Florida. When my wife and son were on H4 they were paying in-state tuition.
this is copied from the catalog of the school:
The following categories will be considered as Florida residents for tuition purposes:
Active duty members of the armed forces stationed in Florida, or whose home of record is in Florida, and their dependents.
Full-time instructional and administrative personnel employed by a public educational institution and their dependents
Qualified beneficiaries under the Florida Pre-Paid Postsecondary Expense Program.
In addition the following nonimmigrant categories are eligible to establish Florida residency: A, E, G, H-1, H-4, I, K, L, N, 0-1, O-3, R, and NATO I-7.
Others as permitted by state statute or rule
2010 TAG emma watson
alex99
10-25 11:19 AM
Please participate in EB3 Poll
more...
rockstart
03-12 11:56 AM
How do you guys find out what job code your H1B/labor was filed under?
My H1b saus 030, but I think the job is a 6 digit number.
Where can I locate that?
Thanks
Check your Perm Labor Section F column 2
My H1b saus 030, but I think the job is a 6 digit number.
Where can I locate that?
Thanks
Check your Perm Labor Section F column 2
hair Emma Watson x Marie Claire
snathan
02-12 02:21 PM
hold on guys!!! i was the one who started this thread because i was not sure if ron was right or not but i guess seeing desi3933 comments that he is right and ron may not have the proof to justify this time.
it is good if we can get some proof of uscis wasting/not using visa but untill then please dont blame each other..
I feel the arguments desi3933 is giving.... makes most of the sense as compared to the last reply by ron which was like a general response instead of showing root cause of 13k visa lost.
peace V
Most of the time, Ron never gives any proof for his statements. Its only a fantasy or fiction.
it is good if we can get some proof of uscis wasting/not using visa but untill then please dont blame each other..
I feel the arguments desi3933 is giving.... makes most of the sense as compared to the last reply by ron which was like a general response instead of showing root cause of 13k visa lost.
peace V
Most of the time, Ron never gives any proof for his statements. Its only a fantasy or fiction.
more...
snathan
03-10 01:13 PM
Yes...we need to get the unused visa numbers. But this is not the right time for that. Because of the economy there will be huge outcry and we should avoid the negative publicity.
In this situation if things are not going bad for us, we should be happy. At least for status quo rather than losing what we have.
In this situation if things are not going bad for us, we should be happy. At least for status quo rather than losing what we have.
hot Emma Watson - Marie Claire
vbkris77
04-10 12:28 PM
What you said is absolutely true. EB1 Last year and the year before saw lot more approvals than usual. My reasoning is that even though EB1 was current for all along, they never really approved I140s to give them GC. So In the overall clearing of I140s, CIS cleared lot more EB1 cases and became approved during last 2 years. If you look at the I140 completion in the dash board, it will be very much clear that the completions came down to 4 digits for each month from 5 digits. Receipts continued to be less than 5K per month.
This year, we may see a big dip in EB1 cases and larger EB2 spillover. EB4 spillover is ruled out after this bulletin.
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.
This year, we may see a big dip in EB1 cases and larger EB2 spillover. EB4 spillover is ruled out after this bulletin.
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.
more...
house the tourist dvd cover art.
noendinsight
10-26 10:24 AM
Eb3 India
PD- Jan 2004
PD- Jan 2004
tattoo Tags : emma watson, marie
sledge_hammer
06-19 04:59 PM
Do we use form G-325 or G-325A?
more...
pictures Cintia Dicker Topless in Marie
yabadaba
07-28 09:03 AM
Would you be offended if the image of Ganesh is used on a sack of rice or sugar or a bottle of cooking oil? If not, then what's the problem in using it on an alcoholic beverage bottle?
its amrit..drink of the gods...so its befitting.
its amrit..drink of the gods...so its befitting.
dresses Emma Watson
meg_z
06-22 03:52 PM
USCIS filing fee - $180.00 check payable to 'United States Citizenship and Immigration Service' OR 'USCIS' with your SSN# and I-765 mentioned in the comments section of the check
Thanks.
Thanks.
more...
makeup harry potter star emma watson
logiclife
12-20 04:54 PM
Please lookup 245(k).
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001255----000-.html
(k) Inapplicability of certain provisions for certain employment-based immigrants
An alien who is eligible to receive an immigrant visa under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 1153 (b) of this title (or, in the case of an alien who is an immigrant described in section 1101 (a)(27)(C) of this title, under section 1153 (b)(4) of this title) may adjust status pursuant to subsection (a) of this section and notwithstanding subsection (c)(2), (c)(7), and (c)(8) of this section, if—
(1) the alien, on the date of filing an application for adjustment of status, is present in the United States pursuant to a lawful admission;
(2) the alien, subsequent to such lawful admission has not, for an aggregate period exceeding 180 days—
(A) failed to maintain, continuously, a lawful status;
(B) engaged in unauthorized employment; or
(C) otherwise violated the terms and conditions of the alien’s admission.
So basically if you are applying for employment based immigration adjustment of status(meaning I-485) under EB1 EB2 or EB3, (that's what they mean by paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 1153 (b) in the above text), and if you have not voilated status for over 180 days after your last legal entry into USA, and if you were in legal status at the time of applying for 485, then you may adjust status.
Now, a really good idea would be that you disclose this whole thing at the time of filing 485 and also claim the benefit under section 245(k). Since its apparent that you have not done it, I would advise to leave it alone and dont dig up old graves.
Consult an attorney for further advise, but dont go overboard in being Raja Harishchandra (the chronic truth teller) because frankly USCIS may not care about this and you can always claim the benefit under section 245(k).
However, if USCIS finds out about this (which is very very unlikely) and if the officer is a very strict person, then they may create a case of wilful misrepresentation. That's because on form I-485, it says that "have you ever been out of status or illegal and if so, provide details". In that question, if you didnt disclose your past history of being out of status ( I am assuming you were out of status and not illegal) then basically, in theory, they can say that you wilfully misrepresented (basically lied to them) by hiding this.
One option is to file an amendment to your I-485 and disclose this fact. That way, atleast they cannot make a case of wilfull misrepresentation. Nonetheless, remember, for them to find this out (about you not working and sitting at home) is difficult. Unless they somehow ask for your W-2 and paystubs for past 6-7 years and in that case it will be very easy for them to see that you were not working for 1 year.
Consult an attorney and tell the attorney all the details. I am not a lawyer and you should always ask a lawyer for legal advise.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001255----000-.html
(k) Inapplicability of certain provisions for certain employment-based immigrants
An alien who is eligible to receive an immigrant visa under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 1153 (b) of this title (or, in the case of an alien who is an immigrant described in section 1101 (a)(27)(C) of this title, under section 1153 (b)(4) of this title) may adjust status pursuant to subsection (a) of this section and notwithstanding subsection (c)(2), (c)(7), and (c)(8) of this section, if—
(1) the alien, on the date of filing an application for adjustment of status, is present in the United States pursuant to a lawful admission;
(2) the alien, subsequent to such lawful admission has not, for an aggregate period exceeding 180 days—
(A) failed to maintain, continuously, a lawful status;
(B) engaged in unauthorized employment; or
(C) otherwise violated the terms and conditions of the alien’s admission.
So basically if you are applying for employment based immigration adjustment of status(meaning I-485) under EB1 EB2 or EB3, (that's what they mean by paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 1153 (b) in the above text), and if you have not voilated status for over 180 days after your last legal entry into USA, and if you were in legal status at the time of applying for 485, then you may adjust status.
Now, a really good idea would be that you disclose this whole thing at the time of filing 485 and also claim the benefit under section 245(k). Since its apparent that you have not done it, I would advise to leave it alone and dont dig up old graves.
Consult an attorney for further advise, but dont go overboard in being Raja Harishchandra (the chronic truth teller) because frankly USCIS may not care about this and you can always claim the benefit under section 245(k).
However, if USCIS finds out about this (which is very very unlikely) and if the officer is a very strict person, then they may create a case of wilful misrepresentation. That's because on form I-485, it says that "have you ever been out of status or illegal and if so, provide details". In that question, if you didnt disclose your past history of being out of status ( I am assuming you were out of status and not illegal) then basically, in theory, they can say that you wilfully misrepresented (basically lied to them) by hiding this.
One option is to file an amendment to your I-485 and disclose this fact. That way, atleast they cannot make a case of wilfull misrepresentation. Nonetheless, remember, for them to find this out (about you not working and sitting at home) is difficult. Unless they somehow ask for your W-2 and paystubs for past 6-7 years and in that case it will be very easy for them to see that you were not working for 1 year.
Consult an attorney and tell the attorney all the details. I am not a lawyer and you should always ask a lawyer for legal advise.
girlfriend Emma Watson On Marie Claire
grinch
03-06 11:28 PM
Here's a WIP of my almost completed entry :
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v403/grinchvader/f1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v403/grinchvader/f3.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v403/grinchvader/f2.jpg
*gonna post in drawing and design
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v403/grinchvader/f1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v403/grinchvader/f3.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v403/grinchvader/f2.jpg
*gonna post in drawing and design
hairstyles Emma Watson for US Vogue,
natrajs
07-06 05:33 PM
Got approval emails yesterday.
PD Feb 2004
EB2 India
LC Approved 8/10/06
140 Approved 2/12/07
485 Filed on 6/27/07 NSC
Congrats and Best Wishes
PD Feb 2004
EB2 India
LC Approved 8/10/06
140 Approved 2/12/07
485 Filed on 6/27/07 NSC
Congrats and Best Wishes
reddymjm
08-16 06:57 PM
Hi Guys,
I got an LUD on 8/14 on mine and my wifes I485s and also on the first EADs filed along with the 485. Anything cooking? I did change my employer in Feb 2010 and yet to file AC21. If any one had similar LUDs please post.
Thanks
I got an LUD on 8/14 on mine and my wifes I485s and also on the first EADs filed along with the 485. Anything cooking? I did change my employer in Feb 2010 and yet to file AC21. If any one had similar LUDs please post.
Thanks
vaishalikumar
08-16 02:17 PM
IT IS TOO BAD FOR EB 3 , WHY THIS INJUSTICE WITH EB 3 ?
everyone was expecting them to go U
EB1 has cutoff?? for the first time in recent memory?
everyone was expecting them to go U
EB1 has cutoff?? for the first time in recent memory?
No comments:
Post a Comment