thomachan72
06-03 09:07 AM
The whole thing is very confusing sir. Just like the bible, for which different groups come up with different interpretations, we are being confronted with many intrepretations for this bill. Lets look at what the IV has to provide in the bill summary they have posted. Most probably that is a version prepared by the "patton-boggs" law firm.
wallpaper fondos de amor y amistad. fondos de amor y amistad.
krupa
12-12 08:57 PM
Everywhere they mention spillover...they say quarterly. But they don't really enforce it. :mad:
At least , they improved the bulletin by adding more detailed information as well as an explanation about how it works.
USCIS issue GC not more than 9% of quota for eligible quota by each country during each first three quarters. Spill over happens only in last quarter of a fiscal year.
At least , they improved the bulletin by adding more detailed information as well as an explanation about how it works.
USCIS issue GC not more than 9% of quota for eligible quota by each country during each first three quarters. Spill over happens only in last quarter of a fiscal year.
indio0617
03-09 12:28 PM
Guys a little confused.
How does removing the cap from Schedule A, benefit the rest of us?
Nurses from India, Phi also eat up EB3 numbers beyond their alloted .... My understanding is that they will not compete for any eB3 numbers after this...
How does removing the cap from Schedule A, benefit the rest of us?
Nurses from India, Phi also eat up EB3 numbers beyond their alloted .... My understanding is that they will not compete for any eB3 numbers after this...
2011 fondos de amor y amistad.
priti8888
06-24 04:13 PM
Think about this
Only EB India /China /mexico/Philipines(ICMP) suffers the most for their GC's
EB ROW do not worry about GC process as much as ICMP. Their wait is not more then 2-3 years.
Its wrong to generalize that since ICMP's suffer , all other EB's suffer.
Its totally baseless to generalize that since ICMP's dont invest , go back to home countries due to GC , everybody does.
US does not gain from intelligent Indians only. There are PhD's and smart ppl from other countries as well.
Only EB India /China /mexico/Philipines(ICMP) suffers the most for their GC's
EB ROW do not worry about GC process as much as ICMP. Their wait is not more then 2-3 years.
Its wrong to generalize that since ICMP's suffer , all other EB's suffer.
Its totally baseless to generalize that since ICMP's dont invest , go back to home countries due to GC , everybody does.
US does not gain from intelligent Indians only. There are PhD's and smart ppl from other countries as well.
more...
conundrum
04-30 11:06 AM
does the new 180 days rule apply to these numbers if they are not counting the ones stuck in name check?
willwin
06-11 11:49 AM
anyone wants to guess as to when EB3(I) will reach 2003 Dec. I know it is long long time away but it has to reach that date some time in the future.
Going by what has happened this year, assuming no legislation relief in the near future, dates are NOT going to move forward for EB3 for a very long time. The movement would be slow for EB2 I as well.
Reason, USCIS would have more resources (available) starting next FY and also if they were able to use up all VISA numbers in a FY when they had to handle several hundred thousands of EAD/AP besides naturalization cases, starting next year it is going to be an easy bet for them. So, the dates would move forward very slowly (with all the new I140 approvals coming in).
However, if there was any legislation relief, then it would be a different ball game altogether. May be we will see a repeat of 2002-2004 when all categories were current.
Going by what has happened this year, assuming no legislation relief in the near future, dates are NOT going to move forward for EB3 for a very long time. The movement would be slow for EB2 I as well.
Reason, USCIS would have more resources (available) starting next FY and also if they were able to use up all VISA numbers in a FY when they had to handle several hundred thousands of EAD/AP besides naturalization cases, starting next year it is going to be an easy bet for them. So, the dates would move forward very slowly (with all the new I140 approvals coming in).
However, if there was any legislation relief, then it would be a different ball game altogether. May be we will see a repeat of 2002-2004 when all categories were current.
more...
SDdesi
07-13 03:23 PM
In San Diego
2010 house Fondo Amor bajo la Luna
nlssubbu
07-24 06:42 PM
If they are such smart to calculate numbers like you said, which is theoritically possible, they would not be creating mess like this for years.
Yes, it is easy for them to know how many applications are filed and from which country and how many are in which category etc etc. Based on visa numbers availability, they could very well process the applications are request the visa numbers from DHS. When USCIS handles all the 485 processing, then how come DHS is responsible for moving the dates in VB. It is insane and ridiculous for DHS to have this functionality when they do not have any idea on 485 apps with USCIS. They are scewing up immigrants deliberately without transparency between them.
As I already stated, it is proven beyond the point that DOL and USCIS has only the ability to count the numbers. They do not even know exactly how much labor is pending by country. The same is true for I140 as well.
There is confusion even about how the count works. When your name is struck at FBI name check, it is not counted as backlog itself by USCIS anymore :( [I vaguely remember someone posting this quoting some reference from USCIS memo regarding reduction of processing times].
This is why in many cases you see the sudden forward movement in PD followed by heavy retrogression. Historically those who got approved when the PD is moved forward are always lucky.
Thanks
Yes, it is easy for them to know how many applications are filed and from which country and how many are in which category etc etc. Based on visa numbers availability, they could very well process the applications are request the visa numbers from DHS. When USCIS handles all the 485 processing, then how come DHS is responsible for moving the dates in VB. It is insane and ridiculous for DHS to have this functionality when they do not have any idea on 485 apps with USCIS. They are scewing up immigrants deliberately without transparency between them.
As I already stated, it is proven beyond the point that DOL and USCIS has only the ability to count the numbers. They do not even know exactly how much labor is pending by country. The same is true for I140 as well.
There is confusion even about how the count works. When your name is struck at FBI name check, it is not counted as backlog itself by USCIS anymore :( [I vaguely remember someone posting this quoting some reference from USCIS memo regarding reduction of processing times].
This is why in many cases you see the sudden forward movement in PD followed by heavy retrogression. Historically those who got approved when the PD is moved forward are always lucky.
Thanks
more...
sc3
09-14 11:08 AM
This is really sad. I dont expect Eb2s to understand EB3's plight, but to blame the EB2 backlogs on EB3, and the false accusation that we are getting EADs out of turn -- that is simply disgusting. While you are at it, why dont you blame EB3s for all the ills in the world, say the war in Iraq, Darfur issue, the gas prices, terrorism, the housing collapse in USA, Nazi genocide. Please feel free to explode the list at your will. You are obviously more wizened than EB3s, so we might be doing things without our knowledge.
I hope there is more and more EB3 interfiling, so that these "holier-than-thou" EB2s get their misplaced sense of superiority smashed to smithereens, and get to know the pain of waiting for long periods of time.
Most EB2 justify the need for getting their GCs sooner is because they have been here longer (throwing out numbers like 1995, and such). They dont even realize that the actual "wait counter" starts after filing for GC. If you could not hold on to a job or joined a job that did not sponsor your GC earlier. that is your fault. Not USCIS' not EB3s' yours. Get it. YOURS!.
If you are so special take some time to read the law. Labour substitution was not defined in the laws, which is why it got explicitly junked. PD porting is part of the law.
If you want to work on an action item work on 5882.
I hope there is more and more EB3 interfiling, so that these "holier-than-thou" EB2s get their misplaced sense of superiority smashed to smithereens, and get to know the pain of waiting for long periods of time.
Most EB2 justify the need for getting their GCs sooner is because they have been here longer (throwing out numbers like 1995, and such). They dont even realize that the actual "wait counter" starts after filing for GC. If you could not hold on to a job or joined a job that did not sponsor your GC earlier. that is your fault. Not USCIS' not EB3s' yours. Get it. YOURS!.
If you are so special take some time to read the law. Labour substitution was not defined in the laws, which is why it got explicitly junked. PD porting is part of the law.
If you want to work on an action item work on 5882.
hair de amistad y amor. imagenes de
indio0617
03-16 10:13 AM
Got through this time. Same answer... that they will resolve it soon.
more...
desperatedesi
09-10 02:04 PM
Hello,
I would have loved to be there in DC but here is my small contribution of $100
Google Order #211034816607767
Thanks
DD
I would have loved to be there in DC but here is my small contribution of $100
Google Order #211034816607767
Thanks
DD
hot imagenes de amistad y amor.
saileshdude
07-11 11:51 AM
I am not sure if I should be happy or sad with this news. I was laidoff recently and had applied for I-485 on July 17,2007 i.e. current processing date for TSC. Also with this bulletin I will be current (EB2 2006). I have not found a new job yet and my company has told me that they will be revoking my I-140 after 30 days. My company lawyers are not advising me much citing conflict of interest.
What options do I have? Will sending a new G-28 form at this time raise any issues that I do not have job with original employer as my PD is current and it is quite possible that my case maybe adjudicated. In the meantime if I do not sent new G-28 form I am not sure how much my company attorney will co-operate
What options do I have? Will sending a new G-28 form at this time raise any issues that I do not have job with original employer as my PD is current and it is quite possible that my case maybe adjudicated. In the meantime if I do not sent new G-28 form I am not sure how much my company attorney will co-operate
more...
house pictures de amor y amistad.
chanduy9
07-06 12:31 PM
Thank god(USICS)... they haven't changed the visa bulletin..by making every thing "U":D
Send flowers on JULY 10TH.
Thanks,
Chandra.
Send flowers on JULY 10TH.
Thanks,
Chandra.
tattoo Mensajes De Amistad Y Amor.
centaur
07-20 05:42 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, ---but I thought that "This Ammendment" was attached to a defence bill. I dont think that it was the ammendment that was shot down, but the whole defence bill.
more...
pictures fondos de amor y amistad.
9years
10-29 11:13 AM
NO LUD on I-485 yet.
Thanks.
Thanks.
dresses wallpaper amor y amistad imagenes fondos de amor y amistad.
pcs
07-05 10:45 AM
Why Dont You Do It ??????????
more...
makeup mensajes de amor y amistad. de
singhsa3
04-30 04:33 PM
Apume, I have send u a private messgae
Do I have legal broadcasting rights of uploading this for public viewing?
Rather, is it legal to do this?
if not i can send it to your gmail...
Do I have legal broadcasting rights of uploading this for public viewing?
Rather, is it legal to do this?
if not i can send it to your gmail...
girlfriend fondos de amor y amistad.
santb1975
07-14 08:43 PM
GSC999 is back..Yay
Running total so far $608
Good work. Let keep rolling.
Running total so far $608
Good work. Let keep rolling.
hairstyles fondos de amor y amistad.
chisinau
07-27 03:44 AM
There is an unconfirmed information from www.ucexchange.com about:
S.AMDT.2448 Amends: H.R.2638 , S.AMDT.2383 Sponsor: Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] (submitted 7/25/2007) (proposed 7/25/2007)
U.S. Senate Passes Bill that Might Provide "Recapture" of EB-3 Immigrant Visa Numbers that Went Unus
By unanimous consent, the U.S. Senate passed a bill sponsored by Senators Schumer (D-NY), Hutchison (R-TX), and Kennedy (D-MA) that would "recapture" employment-based, third preference (EB-3) immigrant visa numbers that went unused because of processing delays during Fiscal Years 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004. If this bill ultimately passes through Congress and becomes law as currently written, 50% of these "recaptured" numbers would be allocated to "Schedule A" occupations. Currently, the measure has passed through only the Senate. To become law, the bill would still have to pass through the House and be signed by President Bush.
Does any one know wheather this is true???:confused: :confused:
The official information is vice versa:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SP02448:
7/26/2007:
Proposed amendment SA 2448 withdrawn in Senate.
Another BIG DISSAPOINTMENT!!!!!!! :::((((((((
S.AMDT.2448 Amends: H.R.2638 , S.AMDT.2383 Sponsor: Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] (submitted 7/25/2007) (proposed 7/25/2007)
U.S. Senate Passes Bill that Might Provide "Recapture" of EB-3 Immigrant Visa Numbers that Went Unus
By unanimous consent, the U.S. Senate passed a bill sponsored by Senators Schumer (D-NY), Hutchison (R-TX), and Kennedy (D-MA) that would "recapture" employment-based, third preference (EB-3) immigrant visa numbers that went unused because of processing delays during Fiscal Years 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004. If this bill ultimately passes through Congress and becomes law as currently written, 50% of these "recaptured" numbers would be allocated to "Schedule A" occupations. Currently, the measure has passed through only the Senate. To become law, the bill would still have to pass through the House and be signed by President Bush.
Does any one know wheather this is true???:confused: :confused:
The official information is vice versa:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SP02448:
7/26/2007:
Proposed amendment SA 2448 withdrawn in Senate.
Another BIG DISSAPOINTMENT!!!!!!! :::((((((((
bsbawa10
09-11 08:48 PM
Dear Freinds,
USCIS has proven again that they cannot calculate or count. Don't you think they should be presented with this calculator to help them calculate.
http://www.amazon.com/REALLY-CALCULATOR-AUTO-OFF-RUBBER-KEYPAD/dp/B000QOJYWA/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=office-products&qid=1221162014&sr=8-1
Also DOS has a knack for turning back the clock, don't you think they are in need of this clock.
http://www.amazon.com/American-Science-Surplus-BACKWARDS-RUNNING/dp/B000KDYQFM
What is your opinion?
My opinion is that USCIS does not deserve flowers or calculators. I am in a big favour of sending letters to them and to congress men with some information about what USCIS has been doing. I am also in favour of sending some pamphlets. I have already prepared some. Please see.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=288175&postcount=33
USCIS has proven again that they cannot calculate or count. Don't you think they should be presented with this calculator to help them calculate.
http://www.amazon.com/REALLY-CALCULATOR-AUTO-OFF-RUBBER-KEYPAD/dp/B000QOJYWA/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=office-products&qid=1221162014&sr=8-1
Also DOS has a knack for turning back the clock, don't you think they are in need of this clock.
http://www.amazon.com/American-Science-Surplus-BACKWARDS-RUNNING/dp/B000KDYQFM
What is your opinion?
My opinion is that USCIS does not deserve flowers or calculators. I am in a big favour of sending letters to them and to congress men with some information about what USCIS has been doing. I am also in favour of sending some pamphlets. I have already prepared some. Please see.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=288175&postcount=33
needhelp!
09-11 12:57 PM
1, mamthavijai, theMan, lccleared, GC2015
No comments:
Post a Comment