kumar4875
03-15 08:40 AM
Hi ,
I am looking for carpool who is driving from Baltimore area.
I live on 18 exit on 83 north.
will be driving via 83 south/695/95south/
any one in this route please email me.
I am looking for carpool who is driving from Baltimore area.
I live on 18 exit on 83 north.
will be driving via 83 south/695/95south/
any one in this route please email me.
wallpaper Asin Wallpaper
Jaime
09-10 03:49 PM
"We don't sponsor" - The favorite new phrase of most companies' HR department employees. Most of the times they don't even know what that means, but the H1-B visa has gotten such a bad rap for being so cumbersome, unjust, cruel, expensive and difficult that companies just don't want to deal with it anymore. Ask any current international student how many times this unfairness has driven them to tears. That's why they are going back home to compete against the U.S.!!!
mmrao2007
07-14 05:15 PM
May be you can submit AC 21 now. Just a wild guess
2011 Asin Hot Wallpaper in Saree
ganguteli
01-25 01:02 PM
Another good idea is to post about action items on sites like Trackiz. I did a search and did not find any posting of IV on that site in last 6 months. So either nobody posted or postings are deleted. We need to keep posting on all such sites because not everyone visits IV.
We neeed to spread the word.
We neeed to spread the word.
more...
alterego
07-12 07:34 PM
I posted this in another thread.
There could be two reasons for this huge forward movement for EB2.
1) They want to minimize wastage by making more visas available for CP.
2) There was some heartburn among EB2 China applicants when their PD was set to April 2004. Since there are a lot more EB2 India applicants with PD's earlier than that, they felt that most of the EB2-ROW spillover would go to India. Moving the dates forward to 2006 would ensure that EB2 China gets a decent share of the spillover.
Point taken, However when EB2 India is moved to June 1 2006, there will be even more EB2 India with PD earlier than it was previously. So whichever date you set as the cut off, EB2 India will have more people with PDs earlier than that. So I guess I am not understanding how that helps Chinese applicants. Unless the USCIS decides which of the petitions they will process with current priority dates and gives preference to Chinese cases. Per my understanding, they are supposed to use RD in such a situation. However who knows what they will do.
There could be two reasons for this huge forward movement for EB2.
1) They want to minimize wastage by making more visas available for CP.
2) There was some heartburn among EB2 China applicants when their PD was set to April 2004. Since there are a lot more EB2 India applicants with PD's earlier than that, they felt that most of the EB2-ROW spillover would go to India. Moving the dates forward to 2006 would ensure that EB2 China gets a decent share of the spillover.
Point taken, However when EB2 India is moved to June 1 2006, there will be even more EB2 India with PD earlier than it was previously. So whichever date you set as the cut off, EB2 India will have more people with PDs earlier than that. So I guess I am not understanding how that helps Chinese applicants. Unless the USCIS decides which of the petitions they will process with current priority dates and gives preference to Chinese cases. Per my understanding, they are supposed to use RD in such a situation. However who knows what they will do.
carbon
07-24 12:39 PM
If USCIS could interpret the law to their advantage we can use our resources
to fight their interpretation and force them to change their policy.
I also think we can even file a law suite in relation to "incorrect" interpretation
by USCIS.
to fight their interpretation and force them to change their policy.
I also think we can even file a law suite in relation to "incorrect" interpretation
by USCIS.
more...
ArkBird
12-15 06:01 PM
I may be little out of touch but I don't understand why DOL won't give EB2 classification to IT Positions?
With all the porting nonsense going on eb2 will move backward and eb3 will inch forward slowly. We might end up with eb2 and eb3 in 2002. congrats to all the people who ported, the only thing you accomplished is you made sure eb2 does not progress (it does not mean you have have moved forward by porting, it just means that you have made sure you have prevented original eb2 guys from getting green card), the people who ported wont gain any benefit but they will make it worse for everyone, they have to file a second i140 which will take at least another 1 year to clear and after 1 year when the ported 140's clear the eb2 will go back to 2002. You have also accomplished another great feat, DOL is going to make it impossible to file eb2 in IT jobs so even genuine people are screwed. Before people start giving red dots and justifying there porting I have an message for you, your behavior is no different from the people who did labor substitution, the end result was DOL ended labor substitution and the result of all this porting is DOL has made it impossible to get eb2 even for genuine cases. Just because others are doing it does not mean you can do it, obviously it is wrong therefore dol removed labor substitution and now dol is making it impossible to get eb2 for IT jobs even for genuine cases. 90 % of people doing this porting are desi consulting employees, they wine and complain about desi consulting companies as blood suckers (justifiably) but they themselves are bloodsuckers on the EB2 community by doing this eb3 to eb2 porting.
With all the porting nonsense going on eb2 will move backward and eb3 will inch forward slowly. We might end up with eb2 and eb3 in 2002. congrats to all the people who ported, the only thing you accomplished is you made sure eb2 does not progress (it does not mean you have have moved forward by porting, it just means that you have made sure you have prevented original eb2 guys from getting green card), the people who ported wont gain any benefit but they will make it worse for everyone, they have to file a second i140 which will take at least another 1 year to clear and after 1 year when the ported 140's clear the eb2 will go back to 2002. You have also accomplished another great feat, DOL is going to make it impossible to file eb2 in IT jobs so even genuine people are screwed. Before people start giving red dots and justifying there porting I have an message for you, your behavior is no different from the people who did labor substitution, the end result was DOL ended labor substitution and the result of all this porting is DOL has made it impossible to get eb2 even for genuine cases. Just because others are doing it does not mean you can do it, obviously it is wrong therefore dol removed labor substitution and now dol is making it impossible to get eb2 for IT jobs even for genuine cases. 90 % of people doing this porting are desi consulting employees, they wine and complain about desi consulting companies as blood suckers (justifiably) but they themselves are bloodsuckers on the EB2 community by doing this eb3 to eb2 porting.
2010 Asin Thottumkal Wallpapers
.jpg "Actress Asin#39;s Wallpapers")
LONGGCQUE
06-10 03:59 PM
Just sent it Nebraska Senators
more...
gccube
04-08 02:27 PM
Finally just received THAT email. "Current Status: Card production ordered"
PD Sep 2001
EB3 India.
Which service center processed your case? What is your receipt date?
PD Sep 2001
EB3 India.
Which service center processed your case? What is your receipt date?
hair asin in pink at fairever new
.jpg "Asin Wallpapers - Asin")
sc3
10-16 06:05 PM
What happened to your sense of judgment, whoever said that USCIS is doing it maliciously? They reacted for sure but within legal boundaries. I do not understand why you keep twisted people’s answers.
I havent twisted anyone's answers. When you (and others) say "reacted" you mean that they are intentionally shafting you in some way. Do you dispute that? Why is the very first response to this idea something to the tune of "..and see the cutoff go back to ice ages". It clearly shows that people are saying USCIS will "revolt" against you (not necessarily in as many words).
That is exactly I am saying, I am asking why should it be this way, this is totally wrong. They should go by PD. Even if my application was not moved to another centre mine still would not have gotten approved because I applied in Aug and not July. I mentioned that to tell you that I have to wait even more now.
Now if you ask me why I applied in Aug and not in Jul, it is because my family was not in US at that time. If you had told me beforehand about the impending fiasco I wouldn’t have sent them in the first place. I had to call them back and cancel my trip spending hundreds of $s.
Why is it not sustainable, now you are defending something that is wrong, why should I have to wait though my GC was started ages before?
Let's see here; I don't need to know why you did not apply earlier, that is your personal matter. But answer me this.
I have a PD of late 2002 (EB3), and haven't been able to apply due to personal reasons. Now when the PD becomes current. I apply and the following bulletin further advances the PD. Do you think that I should be given preference over someone who had no personal obligations and applied in 2007, that is to say, should the entire system be ground to a halt because I am a late filer?
Now put yourself in the earlier RD's applicant? What will be your answer? Do you think someone who delays for personal reason be given a free pass just because he has an earlier PD??
I know you dont want to hear it, but the current system of RD based processing is a good system. Your grouse probably is that they advanced the PDs so much further when there was enough demand from earlier PDs. If you argue on that premise, I will be very supportive. But I am insensitive to "I have an earlier PD, so I should get my GC first".
PD has its place in the system, however it does not play a role in processing order.
Just because I said USCIS is doing something wrong (not following processing order..) doesn’t mean I said that DOS did something right.. you keep assuming things..
You were blaming USCIS for the Perm/BEC debacle, I did not assume anything you haven't already said.
Again you are running your imagination wild, who blamed all the other things on USCIS?..
I guess your computer has a bug, it is not showing the winkies and the smiles properly. Get a technician to look at it.
Dude, show me one post of mine which said anything against the idea. I even gave a green for what he is trying to do, at least he is doing something while the rest of us are watching….
I was responding to "bec", and you ended up debating the issue by supporting the idea that USCIS retaliated because of the July 07. I guess that makes it fair play for people to assume that you are against the original idea. I you consider it to be overreaching to make such connection, I apologize for that.
I havent twisted anyone's answers. When you (and others) say "reacted" you mean that they are intentionally shafting you in some way. Do you dispute that? Why is the very first response to this idea something to the tune of "..and see the cutoff go back to ice ages". It clearly shows that people are saying USCIS will "revolt" against you (not necessarily in as many words).
That is exactly I am saying, I am asking why should it be this way, this is totally wrong. They should go by PD. Even if my application was not moved to another centre mine still would not have gotten approved because I applied in Aug and not July. I mentioned that to tell you that I have to wait even more now.
Now if you ask me why I applied in Aug and not in Jul, it is because my family was not in US at that time. If you had told me beforehand about the impending fiasco I wouldn’t have sent them in the first place. I had to call them back and cancel my trip spending hundreds of $s.
Why is it not sustainable, now you are defending something that is wrong, why should I have to wait though my GC was started ages before?
Let's see here; I don't need to know why you did not apply earlier, that is your personal matter. But answer me this.
I have a PD of late 2002 (EB3), and haven't been able to apply due to personal reasons. Now when the PD becomes current. I apply and the following bulletin further advances the PD. Do you think that I should be given preference over someone who had no personal obligations and applied in 2007, that is to say, should the entire system be ground to a halt because I am a late filer?
Now put yourself in the earlier RD's applicant? What will be your answer? Do you think someone who delays for personal reason be given a free pass just because he has an earlier PD??
I know you dont want to hear it, but the current system of RD based processing is a good system. Your grouse probably is that they advanced the PDs so much further when there was enough demand from earlier PDs. If you argue on that premise, I will be very supportive. But I am insensitive to "I have an earlier PD, so I should get my GC first".
PD has its place in the system, however it does not play a role in processing order.
Just because I said USCIS is doing something wrong (not following processing order..) doesn’t mean I said that DOS did something right.. you keep assuming things..
You were blaming USCIS for the Perm/BEC debacle, I did not assume anything you haven't already said.
Again you are running your imagination wild, who blamed all the other things on USCIS?..
I guess your computer has a bug, it is not showing the winkies and the smiles properly. Get a technician to look at it.
Dude, show me one post of mine which said anything against the idea. I even gave a green for what he is trying to do, at least he is doing something while the rest of us are watching….
I was responding to "bec", and you ended up debating the issue by supporting the idea that USCIS retaliated because of the July 07. I guess that makes it fair play for people to assume that you are against the original idea. I you consider it to be overreaching to make such connection, I apologize for that.
more...
dressking
09-28 05:13 PM
What irked me is the attitude that they will take your money gladly but don't want you there.
I have met a British guy here in New York who was like that. He loved the money, and always smiled to me for the money. But he never even want to lift a finger for the money he has been paid to do. And he despised me and was ashamed of having to talk to me because he was surrounded by some Southerners who were equally racist.
In fact, he even scammed me for money. And he was a businessman and now a CEO of a corporation.
I have met a British guy here in New York who was like that. He loved the money, and always smiled to me for the money. But he never even want to lift a finger for the money he has been paid to do. And he despised me and was ashamed of having to talk to me because he was surrounded by some Southerners who were equally racist.
In fact, he even scammed me for money. And he was a businessman and now a CEO of a corporation.
hot Asin-Thottumkal-Wallpaper-013.
unitednations
12-22 02:34 PM
this is our history...
1.was working with employer B in June 07(when PD was current for EB2/Oct 2003-India)...went to attorney to file 485 with approved 140 thru ex employer A. filled in all the paperwork for 485,but the attorney was asking for a current employment letter from B with exact skills mentioned on labor and the employer B was not ready to give such a letter and hence we planned to find a new employer and file for 485 in July.
2. In June end found this new current employer C and planned to file 485 in July and all the fiasco scene happened...anyway...in August we filed the 485 with a current employer letter from C with all the skills matching the labor..till here fine.
NOW...we got a copy of the bunch of 48 documents sent to INS from the atnys office...I had given the latest 325a form
current employer C : July 07 - current
employer B : Jan 2006 - June 2007
employer A : June 2003 - Dec 2005 (who filed for labor/i140)
the shitty paralegal now submitted the 325a from submitted in June 07 where the current employer B was the latest.... + the current employment letter of C + 485 employment offer letter from A
She had whitened out the date on the 325a form signed on June 07 and changed it to Aug 07 to my utter shock....
when I call back..she says we will handle any RFE's...
quite worried as the 325a form already says something like 'all info disclosed is truthful'... etc and the fine print..
pls post your thoughts and comments..
hope I dint confuse
Pretty confusing situation. Don't know why you even put in an experience letter from a company which doesn't have anything to do with the petition.
I am aware of a couple of cases where uscis did deny on such issues (g-325a not matching up with h-1b approvals, etc.). However, affidavits and such to say it was an honest mistake took care of the issue.
You might be able to appreciate this story:
I worked on an ability to pay case for a company in ohio. Person got approved and was then waiting for 485 approval.
He contacts me many months later and tells me that he got this rfe. The jest of the rfe was:
You claim to have never filed a 485 adjustment of status application. However; our search of records show that you filed a 485 on xxx date in xx office as a marriage base applicant. It appears that you are not eligible for a waiver of the interview requirement for adjustment of status.
Now; i truly believe that his current wife (from india) never knew about this marriage (his family and friends didn't know either). he tried to blame it on his lawyer that they never asked him and they just defaulted that he never filed for a 485. Pretty weak excuse. However; they responded to the 485 that everything was in such a rush to file the 485 that he didn't have a chance to look it all over and it was an honest mistake. He didn't get called for an interview and they approved his case.
Now; if the record of his marriage base application had shown that he was caught in fraudulent marriage; he never got divorced and re-married or there was something that went wrong with his earlier case then it may have been a different story. However; since nothing was wrong with that application; the officer let him off the hook because it was an honest mistake.
1.was working with employer B in June 07(when PD was current for EB2/Oct 2003-India)...went to attorney to file 485 with approved 140 thru ex employer A. filled in all the paperwork for 485,but the attorney was asking for a current employment letter from B with exact skills mentioned on labor and the employer B was not ready to give such a letter and hence we planned to find a new employer and file for 485 in July.
2. In June end found this new current employer C and planned to file 485 in July and all the fiasco scene happened...anyway...in August we filed the 485 with a current employer letter from C with all the skills matching the labor..till here fine.
NOW...we got a copy of the bunch of 48 documents sent to INS from the atnys office...I had given the latest 325a form
current employer C : July 07 - current
employer B : Jan 2006 - June 2007
employer A : June 2003 - Dec 2005 (who filed for labor/i140)
the shitty paralegal now submitted the 325a from submitted in June 07 where the current employer B was the latest.... + the current employment letter of C + 485 employment offer letter from A
She had whitened out the date on the 325a form signed on June 07 and changed it to Aug 07 to my utter shock....
when I call back..she says we will handle any RFE's...
quite worried as the 325a form already says something like 'all info disclosed is truthful'... etc and the fine print..
pls post your thoughts and comments..
hope I dint confuse
Pretty confusing situation. Don't know why you even put in an experience letter from a company which doesn't have anything to do with the petition.
I am aware of a couple of cases where uscis did deny on such issues (g-325a not matching up with h-1b approvals, etc.). However, affidavits and such to say it was an honest mistake took care of the issue.
You might be able to appreciate this story:
I worked on an ability to pay case for a company in ohio. Person got approved and was then waiting for 485 approval.
He contacts me many months later and tells me that he got this rfe. The jest of the rfe was:
You claim to have never filed a 485 adjustment of status application. However; our search of records show that you filed a 485 on xxx date in xx office as a marriage base applicant. It appears that you are not eligible for a waiver of the interview requirement for adjustment of status.
Now; i truly believe that his current wife (from india) never knew about this marriage (his family and friends didn't know either). he tried to blame it on his lawyer that they never asked him and they just defaulted that he never filed for a 485. Pretty weak excuse. However; they responded to the 485 that everything was in such a rush to file the 485 that he didn't have a chance to look it all over and it was an honest mistake. He didn't get called for an interview and they approved his case.
Now; if the record of his marriage base application had shown that he was caught in fraudulent marriage; he never got divorced and re-married or there was something that went wrong with his earlier case then it may have been a different story. However; since nothing was wrong with that application; the officer let him off the hook because it was an honest mistake.
more...
house hot photos,wallpapers/Asin
bank_king2003
04-09 05:08 PM
there we go again..... becoz visa bulletin dates did no move.... all of a sudden it means uscis/dos is not doing their job?..... get a grip of u'r self.....
my date if 7th feb-05 & its just days away for over an year.... but i know that blaming uscis/dos won't do a shit for anyone..... becoz that's not where the problem is..... now don't throw bullshit at me.... saying uscis is not efficient blah blah blah..... if uscis is allocating 140K gc per year, that's good enough...... becoz its a wrong goal to setup 100% efficiency with uscis..... we all don't work with our employer 100% becoz we spend time scanning the web..... y do we expect uscis to work 100%....... for me uscis is doing their job if they allocate 140k gc per year...... period..... now stop this non-sense of blaming uscis/dos becoz that sets a wrong target..... the blame/fault for vb and backlog lies with the congress..... the least we can do is identify the source of the problem...... we do people here keep beating down on uscis & dos...... y r we do dumb.....
and all these questions is totally a waste of time...... in the end lets say u get 100% efficiency, what will it get u..... 7 more green cards for a backlog of 1 million..... how stupid is it to get totally blinded by this misguided meaningless talk for 7 visas for a million headless chickens.....
lets continue talking about uscis/dos..... who is next...:mad:
Gud u let out ur frustration. U r gud for that only as i see u comparing our effeciency with USCIS. i know ur gray matter now !!!
my date if 7th feb-05 & its just days away for over an year.... but i know that blaming uscis/dos won't do a shit for anyone..... becoz that's not where the problem is..... now don't throw bullshit at me.... saying uscis is not efficient blah blah blah..... if uscis is allocating 140K gc per year, that's good enough...... becoz its a wrong goal to setup 100% efficiency with uscis..... we all don't work with our employer 100% becoz we spend time scanning the web..... y do we expect uscis to work 100%....... for me uscis is doing their job if they allocate 140k gc per year...... period..... now stop this non-sense of blaming uscis/dos becoz that sets a wrong target..... the blame/fault for vb and backlog lies with the congress..... the least we can do is identify the source of the problem...... we do people here keep beating down on uscis & dos...... y r we do dumb.....
and all these questions is totally a waste of time...... in the end lets say u get 100% efficiency, what will it get u..... 7 more green cards for a backlog of 1 million..... how stupid is it to get totally blinded by this misguided meaningless talk for 7 visas for a million headless chickens.....
lets continue talking about uscis/dos..... who is next...:mad:
Gud u let out ur frustration. U r gud for that only as i see u comparing our effeciency with USCIS. i know ur gray matter now !!!
tattoo Actress Asin Wallpapers
singhsa3
02-21 02:41 PM
Assuming you are right then,
average visa issued for EB1 ROW+Non ROW over the last 5 years have been 26K,
Now assuming this year the demand would be close to average then. It leaves 14K for EB2
Implying 12/2003 dates movement is very likely as 14k>5k (your number)
I can share some estimates for EB2 India through Dec03. I wish had the cases as a database, Then we could query for all dates.
Column 1: PD
Column 2: Nbr. Of EB2 India pending from
Column 3: Estimated Universe of EB2 India Pending ( to Universe ratio of 6.75%)
Column 4: Cumulative EB2 India pending
2000-01 0 - -
2000-03 0 - -
2000-04 1 15 15
2000-06 1 15 30
2000-08 0 - 30
2000-11 1 15 44
2000-12 0 - 44
2001-01 0 - 44
2001-03 1 15 59
2001-04 3 44 104
2001-05 2 30 133
2001-06 6 89 222
2001-07 3 44 267
2001-08 1 15 281
2001-09 1 15 296
2001-10 6 89 385
2001-11 2 30 415
2001-12 2 30 444
2002-01 5 74 519
2002-02 4 59 578
2002-03 1 15 593
2002-04 3 44 637
2002-05 11 163 800
2002-06 7 104 904
2002-07 5 74 978
2002-08 5 74 1,052
2002-09 5 74 1,126
2002-10 14 207 1,333
2002-11 16 237 1,570
2002-12 11 163 1,733
2003-01 13 193 1,926
2003-02 12 178 2,104
2003-03 20 296 2,400
2003-04 13 193 2,593
2003-05 16 237 2,830
2003-06 17 252 3,081
2003-07 22 326 3,407
2003-08 18 267 3,674
2003-09 18 267 3,941
2003-10 29 430 4,370
2003-11 17 252 4,622
2003-12 18 267 4,889
Total 330 4,889
average visa issued for EB1 ROW+Non ROW over the last 5 years have been 26K,
Now assuming this year the demand would be close to average then. It leaves 14K for EB2
Implying 12/2003 dates movement is very likely as 14k>5k (your number)
I can share some estimates for EB2 India through Dec03. I wish had the cases as a database, Then we could query for all dates.
Column 1: PD
Column 2: Nbr. Of EB2 India pending from
Column 3: Estimated Universe of EB2 India Pending ( to Universe ratio of 6.75%)
Column 4: Cumulative EB2 India pending
2000-01 0 - -
2000-03 0 - -
2000-04 1 15 15
2000-06 1 15 30
2000-08 0 - 30
2000-11 1 15 44
2000-12 0 - 44
2001-01 0 - 44
2001-03 1 15 59
2001-04 3 44 104
2001-05 2 30 133
2001-06 6 89 222
2001-07 3 44 267
2001-08 1 15 281
2001-09 1 15 296
2001-10 6 89 385
2001-11 2 30 415
2001-12 2 30 444
2002-01 5 74 519
2002-02 4 59 578
2002-03 1 15 593
2002-04 3 44 637
2002-05 11 163 800
2002-06 7 104 904
2002-07 5 74 978
2002-08 5 74 1,052
2002-09 5 74 1,126
2002-10 14 207 1,333
2002-11 16 237 1,570
2002-12 11 163 1,733
2003-01 13 193 1,926
2003-02 12 178 2,104
2003-03 20 296 2,400
2003-04 13 193 2,593
2003-05 16 237 2,830
2003-06 17 252 3,081
2003-07 22 326 3,407
2003-08 18 267 3,674
2003-09 18 267 3,941
2003-10 29 430 4,370
2003-11 17 252 4,622
2003-12 18 267 4,889
Total 330 4,889
more...
pictures Asin wallpaper
Abhinaym
08-11 10:13 AM
It's out now EB2 I and C are 08JAN05.
Visa Bulletin September 2009 (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4558.html)
Visa Bulletin September 2009 (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4558.html)
dresses Download Asin Wallpapers, Asin
imh1b
12-23 03:51 PM
Anyone filed a lawsuit yet? Someone please update.
There was one guy who was planning to do hunger strike some time back. Did he actually do it?
Or are we all waiting for the next visa bulletin?
There was one guy who was planning to do hunger strike some time back. Did he actually do it?
Or are we all waiting for the next visa bulletin?
more...
makeup Asin Wallpapers
gk_2000
06-10 04:20 PM
Done..
girlfriend Asin Wallpapers , Bollywood
kumar1
12-10 01:57 PM
Why are you jumping like s stupid dog? Please explain.
and EB2-India by a month; yaaaaay :)
and EB2-India by a month; yaaaaay :)
hairstyles Asin Wallpapers.
thomachan72
04-11 09:32 AM
Before taking up any agenda, check with IV core whether it is the right time.
If it was the right time, why wouldn't IV core initiate any action items when members are so willing to take up those ?
I think Suhail raised a verry valid point. However, to recapture unused visa numbers might not just be an administrative fix. it would require a law being passed just for that and that then becomes a whole different issue.
We know visa numbers have been wasted but can we persuade and get a majority vote on a legislation that would recapture unused visa numbers?? That to me is a mighty big task in itself.... just like raising the country limits.
I am certainly not discouraing anybody....
On the other hand, is there any legal issue involved that could be fought in a court of law?? Since there were more applications pending than the allowed anual limit why were not sufficient numbers of visas issued? was it because there was a per country limit?? If that is true they can simply say unless the per country limit is removed they cannot issue more numbers to India/china.
Personally, I therefore feel more inclined to fight for these:-
1) Taking of the per country limits (toughest one)
2) Allowing change of status application irrespective of availability of visa numbers
3) Allowing for H1b stamping from within the US
4) premium processing of I-140
If it was the right time, why wouldn't IV core initiate any action items when members are so willing to take up those ?
I think Suhail raised a verry valid point. However, to recapture unused visa numbers might not just be an administrative fix. it would require a law being passed just for that and that then becomes a whole different issue.
We know visa numbers have been wasted but can we persuade and get a majority vote on a legislation that would recapture unused visa numbers?? That to me is a mighty big task in itself.... just like raising the country limits.
I am certainly not discouraing anybody....
On the other hand, is there any legal issue involved that could be fought in a court of law?? Since there were more applications pending than the allowed anual limit why were not sufficient numbers of visas issued? was it because there was a per country limit?? If that is true they can simply say unless the per country limit is removed they cannot issue more numbers to India/china.
Personally, I therefore feel more inclined to fight for these:-
1) Taking of the per country limits (toughest one)
2) Allowing change of status application irrespective of availability of visa numbers
3) Allowing for H1b stamping from within the US
4) premium processing of I-140
alex99
10-29 08:57 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^
zuhail
03-10 11:54 PM
If we put the word H1B in the Visa Re-capturing bill, the bill would be doomed. As few have rightly pointed out, it would be taken out of context probably advertised and interpreted as increasing H1B visas.
If we put the words, eliminating per country limits, it would doomed. The CNN headlines would scream "Indians and Chinese are coming".
If we put any changes to the current requirements of I-485 filing, it would be interpreted as diluting the existing laws to import more cheap foreign workers faster. The anti-immigration forces would be all over it like a monkey on a cupcake.
If we keep it simple : Re-capturing unused visa numbers for Employment Based Categories for Foreign Born Professionals already employed in the US legally and in the queue for Permanent Residency, we have a high chance of success.
IV team please start the fund raising for re-capturing visa numbers. Thanks.
If we put the words, eliminating per country limits, it would doomed. The CNN headlines would scream "Indians and Chinese are coming".
If we put any changes to the current requirements of I-485 filing, it would be interpreted as diluting the existing laws to import more cheap foreign workers faster. The anti-immigration forces would be all over it like a monkey on a cupcake.
If we keep it simple : Re-capturing unused visa numbers for Employment Based Categories for Foreign Born Professionals already employed in the US legally and in the queue for Permanent Residency, we have a high chance of success.
IV team please start the fund raising for re-capturing visa numbers. Thanks.