GCStatus
09-16 08:20 PM
Is this a coincidence? Exactly after a month, I had my Green Card in hand. :D
Its called as Maya, In Vedas they say you chant what you want 24/7, you will get it coz your mind and subconscious mind is occupied in it.
Sages chant the Supreme, you chanted Green Card ;-)
Its called as Maya, In Vedas they say you chant what you want 24/7, you will get it coz your mind and subconscious mind is occupied in it.
Sages chant the Supreme, you chanted Green Card ;-)
wallpaper trade mission to Sao Paulo
Berkeleybee
02-26 09:52 PM
Sure, why not.
Can you have one of your students come up with some Chinese text for us? An 8x11 poster's worth? We can place that pdf in our resources section.
Here in the East Bay, the Pacific East Mall (incl Ranch 99) would be a great place for this.
Can you have one of your students come up with some Chinese text for us? An 8x11 poster's worth? We can place that pdf in our resources section.
Here in the East Bay, the Pacific East Mall (incl Ranch 99) would be a great place for this.
santb1975
01-23 12:16 AM
we have over 25000 members and it has been 2 weeks but we are still waiting to reach 300 :-(
I don't get it!!
~300 people came forward to raise $30000 in one week.
Not even 100 people voted that they have sent their letters? Something's not right.
I don't get it!!
~300 people came forward to raise $30000 in one week.
Not even 100 people voted that they have sent their letters? Something's not right.
2011 São Paulo Brazil
jthomas
05-31 01:46 AM
...
more...
clove
07-04 04:20 PM
wasted on medical exam : 760$;
wasted on mental tension and frustration : priceless
wasted on mental tension and frustration : priceless
chanduv23
01-03 09:37 PM
A freind of mine came across a gentleman, who is here on work visa and he is facing a unique problem. He is married to two persons and wants to bring his whole family here in the USA. He was looking for answer if he can get both his spouses and kids here on H4 visas. Currently both of them and his kids are in India. Interesting hmmm :D
Your friend == singhsa3 ??? - Just kidding
Your friend == singhsa3 ??? - Just kidding
more...
saimrathi
07-06 03:10 PM
Please close this thread.. Info has been posted elsewhere already
2010 Bonete Beach - Sao Paulo -
Berkeleybee
03-10 12:41 PM
Sbdol,
Our goal from these meetings is simple: to get the issue on the radar.
Remember usually when lawmakers/lawmaker district office staff hear "immigration" they think "illegal immigration." Our presentation is usually the beginning of their education -- we have no expectation that they have "deep" or any knowledge of the nitty gritty.
All we want is that they send our material to their Immigration aide in DC, and recognize that there is an issue out there.
BTW, sbdol what volunteer team are you on?
best,
Berkeleybee
Our goal from these meetings is simple: to get the issue on the radar.
Remember usually when lawmakers/lawmaker district office staff hear "immigration" they think "illegal immigration." Our presentation is usually the beginning of their education -- we have no expectation that they have "deep" or any knowledge of the nitty gritty.
All we want is that they send our material to their Immigration aide in DC, and recognize that there is an issue out there.
BTW, sbdol what volunteer team are you on?
best,
Berkeleybee
more...
Tito_ortiz
12-04 04:46 PM
Bring it on !! Hurray !!
This appeared in todays Business Standard Newspaper in India. Atleast, the issue came up for discussion.
Here it is.
--------
The United States today indicated that it was willing to consider setting up of a joint technical working group to address the issues coming in the way of finalising a totalisation agreement with India.
New Delhi, on its part, has made it clear that it is not agreeable to the US stance of linking the requirement for a social security net as a precursor to finalising the agreement. India also made clear that it was adopting a calibrated approach to further opening up of the retail and financial services sector.
Indians working in the US have to mandatorily contribute to social security benefits but are unable to repatriate the same when they leave the US, in the absence of a totalisation agreement between the two countries.
The issue was discussed at a meeting of US Under Secretary for International Trade Franklin Lavin and Commerce Secretary G K Pillai in the capital. Commerce ministry officials said the Indian side pointed out that New Delhi had signed totalisation agreements with countries like Belgium and France, which had not set any pre-conditions.
�It was pointed out that India, which is a developing country, effectively gives a grant of $500 million to the US in the absence of a totalisation agreement. The US has indicated that it will soon have a video conferencing on the matter with senior Indian officials,� an official said.
In response to the US demand for further opening up of the financial services sector, the commerce ministry pointed out that India was adopting a calibrated approach on the matter.
�It was pointed out that the Reserve Bank of India has finalised a road map for the gradual opening up of the sector by 2008,� an official said, adding that New Delhi raised the issue of absence of a level-playing field for financial institutions in the US.
�A foreign bank wanting to open more branches in India only needs to obtain the permission of the Reserve bank of India. However, an Indian bank wanting to open up branches in the US has to go through the American federal system and then a state regulatory system,� an official said.
Banks like State Bank of India and ICICI have long pending applications for opening more branches in the US.
India also raised the issue of extending protection to its traditional knowledge under the patent regime in the US.
This appeared in todays Business Standard Newspaper in India. Atleast, the issue came up for discussion.
Here it is.
--------
The United States today indicated that it was willing to consider setting up of a joint technical working group to address the issues coming in the way of finalising a totalisation agreement with India.
New Delhi, on its part, has made it clear that it is not agreeable to the US stance of linking the requirement for a social security net as a precursor to finalising the agreement. India also made clear that it was adopting a calibrated approach to further opening up of the retail and financial services sector.
Indians working in the US have to mandatorily contribute to social security benefits but are unable to repatriate the same when they leave the US, in the absence of a totalisation agreement between the two countries.
The issue was discussed at a meeting of US Under Secretary for International Trade Franklin Lavin and Commerce Secretary G K Pillai in the capital. Commerce ministry officials said the Indian side pointed out that New Delhi had signed totalisation agreements with countries like Belgium and France, which had not set any pre-conditions.
�It was pointed out that India, which is a developing country, effectively gives a grant of $500 million to the US in the absence of a totalisation agreement. The US has indicated that it will soon have a video conferencing on the matter with senior Indian officials,� an official said.
In response to the US demand for further opening up of the financial services sector, the commerce ministry pointed out that India was adopting a calibrated approach on the matter.
�It was pointed out that the Reserve Bank of India has finalised a road map for the gradual opening up of the sector by 2008,� an official said, adding that New Delhi raised the issue of absence of a level-playing field for financial institutions in the US.
�A foreign bank wanting to open more branches in India only needs to obtain the permission of the Reserve bank of India. However, an Indian bank wanting to open up branches in the US has to go through the American federal system and then a state regulatory system,� an official said.
Banks like State Bank of India and ICICI have long pending applications for opening more branches in the US.
India also raised the issue of extending protection to its traditional knowledge under the patent regime in the US.
hair Sao Paulo, in photographic
itsmedude
02-12 05:56 PM
You are not responsible for his losses unless your job duties were to collect payments from the vendor.
Did you not give him any notice at all? When did he find out that you were no longer working for him?
No I did not, I put H1B transfer and joined new company later he found out and i told him over phone i joined another company but my H1B with his company is still active.
do you thing this would be a problem?
There is no such agreement with him that i will have to give 15 day notice like that.
Did you not give him any notice at all? When did he find out that you were no longer working for him?
No I did not, I put H1B transfer and joined new company later he found out and i told him over phone i joined another company but my H1B with his company is still active.
do you thing this would be a problem?
There is no such agreement with him that i will have to give 15 day notice like that.
more...
gcformeornot
08-22 11:12 AM
08/22/2007: October 2007 EB Visa Bulletin Prediction of AILA
* Based on the discussion with Charlie Oppenheim, Chief of Immigrant Visa Control and Reporting, DOS, the AILA has just released the following predictions:
o EB-1 (All Countries): Closely match to September 2007 VB
o EB-2 (All Countries): Closely match to September 2007 VB
o EB-3 (All Countries): Similar to January 2007 VB
o EB-3EW (All Countries): 10/01/2001
o EB-4: N/A
o EB-5: C
http://www.immigration-law.com/Canada.html
* Based on the discussion with Charlie Oppenheim, Chief of Immigrant Visa Control and Reporting, DOS, the AILA has just released the following predictions:
o EB-1 (All Countries): Closely match to September 2007 VB
o EB-2 (All Countries): Closely match to September 2007 VB
o EB-3 (All Countries): Similar to January 2007 VB
o EB-3EW (All Countries): 10/01/2001
o EB-4: N/A
o EB-5: C
http://www.immigration-law.com/Canada.html
hot Sao Paulo, Brazil
software7
05-12 08:43 PM
If case is denied due to USCIS error, MTR can be filed with out fee. when filing MTR it should clearly mention that " Service request for MTR" which implies that denails s due to erroneous decison. (Attorney filed this MTR with Subj: Service request for MTR, enclosed all documents which supports that decision is taken by error and to reconsider).
more...
house Avenue, Sao Paulo, Brazil
maine_gc
08-22 02:04 PM
Unless there is a change in immigration laws it will be very true that you cannot apply for 485 in the next 5 years. To make something happen it is very important to attend DC Rally.
So folks who are reading this, notice the importance of the Rally and your presence at the rally.
I am really surprised. Why would it EB3 go back to 2001.
I have just applied for my labour. So I can apply for 485 only after 5/6 years?:mad:
So folks who are reading this, notice the importance of the Rally and your presence at the rally.
I am really surprised. Why would it EB3 go back to 2001.
I have just applied for my labour. So I can apply for 485 only after 5/6 years?:mad:
tattoo São Paulo, Brazil, fared best.
smuggymba
04-22 07:50 PM
what are the "legal types" of clothes ;)
macy's, dillards etc..non-walmart, non dollar store clothes...haha, kidding man.
macy's, dillards etc..non-walmart, non dollar store clothes...haha, kidding man.
more...
pictures razil SAO-Paulo3412
diptam
07-02 04:02 PM
Medical - $350
0.5 day off for Medical + 0.5 Follow up Medical - $400
Photo - $10
USPS Express Mailing - $20
Birth Cert from NY Consulate - $20
Visit to NY Consulate from Boston - $110
1 day off for Birth Certificate - $400
Origina Birth Cert Affidavit (From India) - $10
Misc - $80
------------
$1400
Plus the emotional distress and Pain i'm bearing continuously....
0.5 day off for Medical + 0.5 Follow up Medical - $400
Photo - $10
USPS Express Mailing - $20
Birth Cert from NY Consulate - $20
Visit to NY Consulate from Boston - $110
1 day off for Birth Certificate - $400
Origina Birth Cert Affidavit (From India) - $10
Misc - $80
------------
$1400
Plus the emotional distress and Pain i'm bearing continuously....
dresses sao-paulo-razil.jpg
dummgelauft
01-25 11:37 AM
Great news. What will be greater is that not only these "students", but the people who employ them, the people who run the "university", the ones who gave accreditation to this "university" should be all loaded in a ship and dropped-off on a hitherto uninhabited island in the south pacific, with a live stream of their life made available post drop-off.
They can all happily screw each other on the island.
BTW, let one of the right wing radio shows get a hold of this news, we will not hear the end of this. The next logical step will be Steve King professing an end to F1 visas.
** Just saw that TVU is a "faith based" (a certain faith) university, no suprise that right wing talk show jac@$$e$ have not latched on to this.
They can all happily screw each other on the island.
BTW, let one of the right wing radio shows get a hold of this news, we will not hear the end of this. The next logical step will be Steve King professing an end to F1 visas.
** Just saw that TVU is a "faith based" (a certain faith) university, no suprise that right wing talk show jac@$$e$ have not latched on to this.
more...
makeup São Paulo, Brasil
maximus777
07-13 02:04 PM
Thanks for sharing your story. It was indeed one heck of a journey. One question though - in retrospect taking into account the pluses and minuses, do you think it was worth it?
girlfriend in São Paulo, Brazil.
qtoask
07-06 03:43 PM
Members: can you request IV to endorse this ... more than 100 people are waiting to get hear 'YES' from core...
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6025
thank you
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6025
thank you
hairstyles McDonald#39;s even in Sao Paulo,
FinalGC
01-05 12:07 PM
Hi FinalGC,
What is your defintion of a large project ? How much budget/people/schedule etc should we use for that definition.
I would say it depends from organization to organization. The way I have seen operating in the industry, one could consider a project large if it has a $1 million budget or more. However, organizations could also consider a program with mutiple small projects with a total budget value greater than $1 million as a large project, where the PM may handle mutiple small projects which will cumulatively have a budget greater than $1mill.
This is also one way to justify the need of a PM.
What is the budget of the project is one of the questions that a PM should ask during an interview, so that he/she will know the stability of the project and its longevity.
Hope that helps.
What is your defintion of a large project ? How much budget/people/schedule etc should we use for that definition.
I would say it depends from organization to organization. The way I have seen operating in the industry, one could consider a project large if it has a $1 million budget or more. However, organizations could also consider a program with mutiple small projects with a total budget value greater than $1 million as a large project, where the PM may handle mutiple small projects which will cumulatively have a budget greater than $1mill.
This is also one way to justify the need of a PM.
What is the budget of the project is one of the questions that a PM should ask during an interview, so that he/she will know the stability of the project and its longevity.
Hope that helps.
longq
12-20 03:41 PM
Hello IV and its core members,
I am one of the members of the forum and suffering due to the severe retrogression of EB visas. I highly appreciate IV�s effort to bring some legislative relief to address the severe backlogs in EB visas. I too participated in all IVs campaign in urging the law makers to bring some relief for this crisis. However, I have some concern here; about the method followed U.S DOS in allocating EB visas particularly in EB2 category for India and China. I am worried whether U.S DOS is violating the INA 202 (a), by suspending AC21 provision that eliminates country quota in EB categories. If they are violating by mistake, it is our responsibility to notify/clarify with them or we need to understand the law clearly. This is very important. Because, even if 110th congress passes SKIL bill, if DOS violates the AC21 law then it will not help applicants from oversubscribed countries (India and China). Here is my analysis based on following facts.
The cutoff date for EB2 India has moved just 7 days since last 9 months. However EB2 �Row has been current. EB2- ROW has never retrogressed before. EB3 ROW has seen considerable movement in last 9 months.
There may be four possible separate or combination of following reasons for the freeze of cutoff dates for India in EB2 at Jan 2003.
1. The backlog elimination effort of DOL pumped massive approved labor certificates from BEC. There may be tons of EB2 applicants from India and China with PD in the year 2001 and 2002 might have applied 485s based on recent approvals from BEC. However I doubt that. Because, in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003, EB3 India and China were �current�. No body cared about filing EB2 labor certification till the later part of 2004. Most lawyers preferred to file EB3 as it was easy, and there were no difference between EB3 and EB2 at that time. First ever indication for EB3 retrogression was issued by DOS only in later part of 2004. I doubt so many people have filed EB2-labor till 2003, keeping in mind that EB3 will retrogress in 2004 or future. Traditionally EB2 has been less demanding compare to EB1 and EB3.
2. Perhaps, there may be a huge demand by ROW (Due to PERM) to consume all the 86% of visa numbers in EB2 category in every month that prompts DOS to allocate only 7% to India and China. I doubt this too, because India and China itself consume about 60% of EB2 visas.
3. There may be lot of EB3 Indians and Chinese with PD 2001 and 2002 porting their PD from EB3 to EB2 by filing new LC and EB2-I-140. This may escalate the demand. However, how many will do this? How many employers will to do this �favor� for their employees? A real US employer/big corporations will not do double time work for an employee. Only consulting/staffing companies will do this. I think this may be a small group (or may not be?).
4. There may be another possible reason. There may be something wrong with U.S.DOS in allocating visa numbers in EB2 category, as per section 202 (a) of current INA. They may be issuing only 2800 (7% of 40,000) visas to India and China in EB2 and redirecting unused EB2 numbers to EB3 category. They may be imposing hard country cap in EB2 (Suspending AC21 law as per their VB Nov 2005). There is a large room for this speculation, due to the pattern of cutoff date movement in EB2 category. This is just a speculation. This argument/speculation is valid if DOS has issued less than 40,000 EB2 visas in FY 2006 as mandated by the law, and issued those numbers (40,000 minus actually issued) to EB3-ROW. In my view, it violates section 203 (b) (2) of the INA. One has to wait till they release statistics for FY 2006, to see how many EB2 visas are issued in that FY.
Here is some detailed analysis that says why it violates the law.
Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 203 a and b of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets numbers for each preference categories with in FB and EB.
Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320. This section also explains how to handle unused numbers with respect to country quota.
Even before AC21 rule enacted in 2000, there was no �hard� country cap as per INA then. Here is the section of INA before year 2000, describes how to allocate unused visas, if overall/total demand for FB an EB visas are less than supply*.
INA 202 (a) (3)
�Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a-Family category) and (b-Employment category) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter�.
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
After 2000 (After AC21) the following law was added to INA in the section 202.
INA 202 (a) (5) (A)
EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
As per my simple interpretation of above AC21 rule, DOS should allocate unused visas by ROW �EB2 (ROW- countries other than India and China in EB2 category) for the first two months of any calendar quarter to over-subscribed countries (India & China) at the third month of that calendar quarter. They should not allocate to lower Preference category (EB3), if demand is more in higher preference category (EB2) to consume all the visa numbers in that preference category. They should allocate visas to all the documentarily qualified applicants in that (EB2) preference category, irrespective of country of birth. If they followed this rule/law, there may be a considerable movement in cut-off dates for India and China in Dec 2005, Mar, June and Sep of 2006 in EB2 (last month of each calendar quarter in a fiscal year). We have not witnessed such movement in last 1.5 years. No one knows how DOS is allocating numbers. They may be allocating only 7% visas to India and China in EB2 category very strictly, every month, and allocating unused numbers to EB3 category, by suspending AC21 law as indicated in their Nov 2005 Visa Bulletin. If they do so, it is against the law, at least in my interpretation of AC21 rule that eliminates country quota in EB categories.
DOS can not interpret above AC21 rule that eliminates per country limit applies �totally� to all EB categories put together, not by individual preference categories. I.e. If they say they will issue more than 2,800 visas to EB2- India per year (more than 7% of 40,000), provided overall demand for EB visas are less than 140,000. If they interpret the law like this, then there is no need for section 202(a) (5) (A) due to AC21 law. The law before AC21 {i.e. section 202 (a) (3)} itself address the elimination of country quota in both FB and EB category*. Then, section 202(a) (5) (A) is a duplicate wording of section 202(a) (3). So, this section of AC21 law becomes a redundant/duplicate law. Then, there is no meaning of employment �preference� category if they interpret �totally or overall worldwide demand�. In other words, a non-Indian/Chinese restaurant cook (EB3) is more preferred than a NIW PhDs (EB2) from India or China. Is it the intend of the congress when enacting AC21 law in removing per country limitation in EB category? Is it the American Competitiveness in 21st century? I highly doubt that.
Now it is the time to ask US DOS, how they are allocating visa number in EB2 category. If DOS interpreting the law differently, then we need to ask the law makers (Congress) what is their original intension behind the section 202(a)(5)(A) when they drafted the AC21 law in 2000 and how it is differ from 202 (a) (3).
Perhaps Core IV team can initiate to discuss/consult this issue with an immigration lawyer and place an enquiry with DOS or Law makers, if needed.
(*Note: DOS do not mix FB and EB categories for visa number allocation/calculation to meet the per country limit. They keep both in separate track to meet separately the 7% limit)
I am one of the members of the forum and suffering due to the severe retrogression of EB visas. I highly appreciate IV�s effort to bring some legislative relief to address the severe backlogs in EB visas. I too participated in all IVs campaign in urging the law makers to bring some relief for this crisis. However, I have some concern here; about the method followed U.S DOS in allocating EB visas particularly in EB2 category for India and China. I am worried whether U.S DOS is violating the INA 202 (a), by suspending AC21 provision that eliminates country quota in EB categories. If they are violating by mistake, it is our responsibility to notify/clarify with them or we need to understand the law clearly. This is very important. Because, even if 110th congress passes SKIL bill, if DOS violates the AC21 law then it will not help applicants from oversubscribed countries (India and China). Here is my analysis based on following facts.
The cutoff date for EB2 India has moved just 7 days since last 9 months. However EB2 �Row has been current. EB2- ROW has never retrogressed before. EB3 ROW has seen considerable movement in last 9 months.
There may be four possible separate or combination of following reasons for the freeze of cutoff dates for India in EB2 at Jan 2003.
1. The backlog elimination effort of DOL pumped massive approved labor certificates from BEC. There may be tons of EB2 applicants from India and China with PD in the year 2001 and 2002 might have applied 485s based on recent approvals from BEC. However I doubt that. Because, in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003, EB3 India and China were �current�. No body cared about filing EB2 labor certification till the later part of 2004. Most lawyers preferred to file EB3 as it was easy, and there were no difference between EB3 and EB2 at that time. First ever indication for EB3 retrogression was issued by DOS only in later part of 2004. I doubt so many people have filed EB2-labor till 2003, keeping in mind that EB3 will retrogress in 2004 or future. Traditionally EB2 has been less demanding compare to EB1 and EB3.
2. Perhaps, there may be a huge demand by ROW (Due to PERM) to consume all the 86% of visa numbers in EB2 category in every month that prompts DOS to allocate only 7% to India and China. I doubt this too, because India and China itself consume about 60% of EB2 visas.
3. There may be lot of EB3 Indians and Chinese with PD 2001 and 2002 porting their PD from EB3 to EB2 by filing new LC and EB2-I-140. This may escalate the demand. However, how many will do this? How many employers will to do this �favor� for their employees? A real US employer/big corporations will not do double time work for an employee. Only consulting/staffing companies will do this. I think this may be a small group (or may not be?).
4. There may be another possible reason. There may be something wrong with U.S.DOS in allocating visa numbers in EB2 category, as per section 202 (a) of current INA. They may be issuing only 2800 (7% of 40,000) visas to India and China in EB2 and redirecting unused EB2 numbers to EB3 category. They may be imposing hard country cap in EB2 (Suspending AC21 law as per their VB Nov 2005). There is a large room for this speculation, due to the pattern of cutoff date movement in EB2 category. This is just a speculation. This argument/speculation is valid if DOS has issued less than 40,000 EB2 visas in FY 2006 as mandated by the law, and issued those numbers (40,000 minus actually issued) to EB3-ROW. In my view, it violates section 203 (b) (2) of the INA. One has to wait till they release statistics for FY 2006, to see how many EB2 visas are issued in that FY.
Here is some detailed analysis that says why it violates the law.
Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 203 a and b of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets numbers for each preference categories with in FB and EB.
Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320. This section also explains how to handle unused numbers with respect to country quota.
Even before AC21 rule enacted in 2000, there was no �hard� country cap as per INA then. Here is the section of INA before year 2000, describes how to allocate unused visas, if overall/total demand for FB an EB visas are less than supply*.
INA 202 (a) (3)
�Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a-Family category) and (b-Employment category) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter�.
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
After 2000 (After AC21) the following law was added to INA in the section 202.
INA 202 (a) (5) (A)
EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
As per my simple interpretation of above AC21 rule, DOS should allocate unused visas by ROW �EB2 (ROW- countries other than India and China in EB2 category) for the first two months of any calendar quarter to over-subscribed countries (India & China) at the third month of that calendar quarter. They should not allocate to lower Preference category (EB3), if demand is more in higher preference category (EB2) to consume all the visa numbers in that preference category. They should allocate visas to all the documentarily qualified applicants in that (EB2) preference category, irrespective of country of birth. If they followed this rule/law, there may be a considerable movement in cut-off dates for India and China in Dec 2005, Mar, June and Sep of 2006 in EB2 (last month of each calendar quarter in a fiscal year). We have not witnessed such movement in last 1.5 years. No one knows how DOS is allocating numbers. They may be allocating only 7% visas to India and China in EB2 category very strictly, every month, and allocating unused numbers to EB3 category, by suspending AC21 law as indicated in their Nov 2005 Visa Bulletin. If they do so, it is against the law, at least in my interpretation of AC21 rule that eliminates country quota in EB categories.
DOS can not interpret above AC21 rule that eliminates per country limit applies �totally� to all EB categories put together, not by individual preference categories. I.e. If they say they will issue more than 2,800 visas to EB2- India per year (more than 7% of 40,000), provided overall demand for EB visas are less than 140,000. If they interpret the law like this, then there is no need for section 202(a) (5) (A) due to AC21 law. The law before AC21 {i.e. section 202 (a) (3)} itself address the elimination of country quota in both FB and EB category*. Then, section 202(a) (5) (A) is a duplicate wording of section 202(a) (3). So, this section of AC21 law becomes a redundant/duplicate law. Then, there is no meaning of employment �preference� category if they interpret �totally or overall worldwide demand�. In other words, a non-Indian/Chinese restaurant cook (EB3) is more preferred than a NIW PhDs (EB2) from India or China. Is it the intend of the congress when enacting AC21 law in removing per country limitation in EB category? Is it the American Competitiveness in 21st century? I highly doubt that.
Now it is the time to ask US DOS, how they are allocating visa number in EB2 category. If DOS interpreting the law differently, then we need to ask the law makers (Congress) what is their original intension behind the section 202(a)(5)(A) when they drafted the AC21 law in 2000 and how it is differ from 202 (a) (3).
Perhaps Core IV team can initiate to discuss/consult this issue with an immigration lawyer and place an enquiry with DOS or Law makers, if needed.
(*Note: DOS do not mix FB and EB categories for visa number allocation/calculation to meet the per country limit. They keep both in separate track to meet separately the 7% limit)
nrk
11-11 02:14 PM
Congrats,
The first part is cleared out for you.
I don't have enough experience to comment on the other issue.
All the best
Hi folks,
We had the appt wt infopass the other day.I guess it was just like others,some kinda error and that happened opening the SR wt TSC.They said our case is preadjudicated.and said we may want to check on the case by making an appt wt the center but maybe NOT calling and opening a service request.What a waste of time n energy, all the agony we had to go through!!
NOW guys i have some other issue/question to ask u all.
After the EAD is approved do u necessarily have to be working for the same employer who sponsored for you? Ours is like future appointment.The USCIS wanted some docs from us this June re the appontment/work related.And yesterday when we asked that officer she said our case is preadjuticated as of Oct 2009.So far we have taken couple of paychecks frm the sponsoring company.But then we have our own small business also that has kept us going.And we were thinking of taking more paychecks after the GC is approved.Does that make sense to you guys? or are we at fault?
PLS Suggest??
The first part is cleared out for you.
I don't have enough experience to comment on the other issue.
All the best
Hi folks,
We had the appt wt infopass the other day.I guess it was just like others,some kinda error and that happened opening the SR wt TSC.They said our case is preadjudicated.and said we may want to check on the case by making an appt wt the center but maybe NOT calling and opening a service request.What a waste of time n energy, all the agony we had to go through!!
NOW guys i have some other issue/question to ask u all.
After the EAD is approved do u necessarily have to be working for the same employer who sponsored for you? Ours is like future appointment.The USCIS wanted some docs from us this June re the appontment/work related.And yesterday when we asked that officer she said our case is preadjuticated as of Oct 2009.So far we have taken couple of paychecks frm the sponsoring company.But then we have our own small business also that has kept us going.And we were thinking of taking more paychecks after the GC is approved.Does that make sense to you guys? or are we at fault?
PLS Suggest??
No comments:
Post a Comment