gc_on_demand
12-10 04:38 PM
HOW IS THE PER-COUNTRY LIMIT CALCULATED?
Section 201 of the INA sets an annual minimum Family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000, while the worldwide annual level for Employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 202 sets the per-country limit for preference immigrants at 7% of the total annual Family-sponsored and Employment-based preference limits, i.e. a minimum of 25,620.
- The annual per-country limitation of 7% is a cap, meaning visa issuances to any single country may not exceed this figure. This limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled, however. The per-country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the visa numbers by applicants from only a few countries.
- INA Section 202(a)(5), added by the American Competitiveness Act in the 21st Century (AC21), removed the per-country limit in any calendar quarter in which overall applicant demand for Employment-based visa numbers is less than the total of such numbers available. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5)has occasionally allowed countries such as China-mainland born and India to utilize large amounts of Employment First and Second preference numbers which would have otherwise gone unused.
WHAT ARE THE PROJECTIONS FOR CUT-OFF DATE MOVEMENT IN THE FAMILY PREFERENCES?
Cut-off date movement in most categories continues to be greater than might ordinarily be expected, and this is anticipated to continue for at least the next few months. This is because fewer applicants are proceeding with final action on their cases at consular posts abroad, and the volume of CIS adjustment cases remains low. Once large numbers of applicants begin to have their cases brought to final action, cut-off date movements will necessarily slow or stop. Moreover, in some categories cut-off date retrogression is a possibility. Therefore, readers should be aware that the recent rate of cut-off date advances will not continue indefinitely, but it is not possible to say at present how soon they will end.
WHY DID MOST EMPLOYMENT CUT-OFFS REMAIN UNCHANGED IN RECENT MONTHS?
Many of the categories were "unavailable" at the end of FY which resulted in excessive demand being received during October and November. Coupled with the fact that CIS Offices have been doing an excellent job of processing cases, this has had an impact on cut-off date movements. Some forward movement has begun for January as we enter the second quarter of the fiscal year.
In my view CIS is not processing the applications fast enough to be using the benefits of INA Section 202(a)(5). We need to understand reasons behind this. Per the official bulletin, it is clear that if CIS can process them fast enough, we could see a movement of EB2 till end of the 2005. How many times should CIS pre-adjudicate before actually approving the EB AOS applications?
State made a good start to give an explanation for these dates. But they still didn't consider DOL application volume and CIS processing bottlenecks in processing AOS cases. IV needs to ask CIS on processing capacities of AOS applications. If they can't process them fast enough, They need to open up the AC-140 process for India (it is available only for Bombay) centers to get the cases approved by state department in a much faster way.
In Jan 2010 DOL will publish their data and that will make thing very clear. I think DOS is assuming around 10 -15 k Spill over visas that can be available to Eb2 India ( based on previous years ) and that is what it take them into Oct - Dec 2005 range. They don't factor in CIS processing time. But I think from pool of 40-50k pre adjudicated apps CIS can easily consume 10k visas. But if there are less labors and more spill over visas ( like 30 -40 k) then be ready for mini version of july fiasco.
Section 201 of the INA sets an annual minimum Family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000, while the worldwide annual level for Employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 202 sets the per-country limit for preference immigrants at 7% of the total annual Family-sponsored and Employment-based preference limits, i.e. a minimum of 25,620.
- The annual per-country limitation of 7% is a cap, meaning visa issuances to any single country may not exceed this figure. This limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled, however. The per-country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the visa numbers by applicants from only a few countries.
- INA Section 202(a)(5), added by the American Competitiveness Act in the 21st Century (AC21), removed the per-country limit in any calendar quarter in which overall applicant demand for Employment-based visa numbers is less than the total of such numbers available. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5)has occasionally allowed countries such as China-mainland born and India to utilize large amounts of Employment First and Second preference numbers which would have otherwise gone unused.
WHAT ARE THE PROJECTIONS FOR CUT-OFF DATE MOVEMENT IN THE FAMILY PREFERENCES?
Cut-off date movement in most categories continues to be greater than might ordinarily be expected, and this is anticipated to continue for at least the next few months. This is because fewer applicants are proceeding with final action on their cases at consular posts abroad, and the volume of CIS adjustment cases remains low. Once large numbers of applicants begin to have their cases brought to final action, cut-off date movements will necessarily slow or stop. Moreover, in some categories cut-off date retrogression is a possibility. Therefore, readers should be aware that the recent rate of cut-off date advances will not continue indefinitely, but it is not possible to say at present how soon they will end.
WHY DID MOST EMPLOYMENT CUT-OFFS REMAIN UNCHANGED IN RECENT MONTHS?
Many of the categories were "unavailable" at the end of FY which resulted in excessive demand being received during October and November. Coupled with the fact that CIS Offices have been doing an excellent job of processing cases, this has had an impact on cut-off date movements. Some forward movement has begun for January as we enter the second quarter of the fiscal year.
In my view CIS is not processing the applications fast enough to be using the benefits of INA Section 202(a)(5). We need to understand reasons behind this. Per the official bulletin, it is clear that if CIS can process them fast enough, we could see a movement of EB2 till end of the 2005. How many times should CIS pre-adjudicate before actually approving the EB AOS applications?
State made a good start to give an explanation for these dates. But they still didn't consider DOL application volume and CIS processing bottlenecks in processing AOS cases. IV needs to ask CIS on processing capacities of AOS applications. If they can't process them fast enough, They need to open up the AC-140 process for India (it is available only for Bombay) centers to get the cases approved by state department in a much faster way.
In Jan 2010 DOL will publish their data and that will make thing very clear. I think DOS is assuming around 10 -15 k Spill over visas that can be available to Eb2 India ( based on previous years ) and that is what it take them into Oct - Dec 2005 range. They don't factor in CIS processing time. But I think from pool of 40-50k pre adjudicated apps CIS can easily consume 10k visas. But if there are less labors and more spill over visas ( like 30 -40 k) then be ready for mini version of july fiasco.
wallpaper Fu Dog Tattoos | Guardian Lion
pappu
08-12 10:55 AM
Senate Passage of Border Security Legislation
August 12, 2010
Today, I come to the floor to seek unanimous consent to pass a smart, tough, and effective $600 million bill that will significantly enhance the security and integrity of our nation’s southern border—which currently lacks the resources needed to fully combat the drug smugglers, gun-runners, human-traffickers, money launderers and other organized criminals that seek to do harm to innocent Americans along our border….
The best part of this border package, Mr. President, is that it is fully paid for and does not increase the deficit by a single penny. In actuality, the Congressional Budget Office has determined that this bill will yield a direct savings to taxpayers of $50 million….
The emergency border funds we are passing today are fully paid for by assessing fees on certain types of companies who hire foreign workers using certain types of visas in a way that Congress did not intend. I want to take a moment to explain exactly what we are doing in this bill a little further because I want everyone to clearly understand how these offsets are designed.
In 1990, Congress realized that the world was changing rapidly and that technological innovations like the internet were creating a high demand in the United States for high-tech workers to create new technologies and products. Consequently, Congress created the H-1B visa program to allow U.S. employers to hire foreign tech workers in special circumstances when they could not find an American citizen who was qualified for the job.
Many of the companies that use this program today are using the program in the exact way Congress intended. That is, these companies (like Microsoft, IBM, and Intel) are hiring bright foreign students educated in our American universities to work in the U.S. for 6 or 7 years to invent new product lines and technologies so that Microsoft, IBM, and Intel can sell more products to the American public. Then—at the expiration of the H-1B visa period—these companies apply for these talented workers to earn green cards and stay with the company.
When the H-1B visa program is used in this manner, it is a good program for everyone involved. It is good for the company. It is good for the worker. And it is good for the American people who benefit from the products and jobs created by the innovation of the H-1B visa holder.
Every day, companies like Oracle, Cisco, Apple and others use the H-1B visa program in the exact way I have just described—and their use of the program has greatly benefitted this country.
But recently, some companies have decided to exploit an unintended loophole in the H-1B visa program to use the program in a manner that many in Congress, including myself, do not believe is consistent with the program’s intent.
Rather than being a company that makes something, and simply needs to bring in a talented foreign worker to help innovate and create new products and technologies—these other companies are essentially creating “multinational temp agencies” that were never contemplated when the H-1B program was created.
The business model of these newer companies is not to make any new products or technologies like Microsoft or Apple does. Instead, their business model is to bring foreign tech workers into the United States who are willing to accept less pay than their American counterparts, place these workers into other companies in exchange for a “consulting fee,” and transfer these workers from company to company in order to maximize profits from placement fees. In other words, these companies are petitioning for foreign workers simply to then turn around and provide these same workers to other companies who need cheap labor for various short term projects.
Don’t take my word for it. If you look at the marketing materials of some of the companies that fall within the scope covered by today’s legislation, their materials boast about their “outsourcing expertise” and say that their advantage is their ability to conduct what they call “labor arbitrage” which is—in their own words—“transferring work functions to a lower cost environment for increased savings.”
The business model used by these companies within the United States is creating three major negative side effects. First, it is ruining the reputation of the H-1B program, which is overwhelmingly used by good actors for beneficial purposes. Second, according to the Economic Policy institute, it is lowering the wages for American tech workers already in the marketplace. Third, it is also discouraging many of our smartest students from entering the technology industry in the first place. Students can see that paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for advanced schooling is not worth the cost when the market is being flooded with foreign temporary workers willing to do tech-work for far less pay because their foreign education was much cheaper and they intend to move back home when their visa expires to a country where the cost of living is far less expensive.
This type of use of the H-1B visa program will be addressed as part of comprehensive immigration reform and will likely be dramatically restricted. We will be reforming the legal immigration system to encourage the world’s best and brightest individuals to come to the United States and create the new technologies and businesses that will employ countless American workers, but will discourage businesses from using our immigration laws as a means to obtain temporary and less-expensive foreign labor to replace capable American workers.
Nevertheless, I do wish to clarify a previous mischaracterization of these firms, where I labeled them as “chop shops.” That statement was incorrect, and I wish to acknowledge that. In the tech industry, these firms are sometimes known as “body shops” and that’s what I should have said.
While I strongly oppose the manner in which these firms are using the H-1B visa to accomplish objectives that Congress never intended, it would be unfortunate if anyone concluded from my remarks that these firms are engaging in illegal behavior.
But I also want to make clear that the purpose of this fee is not to target businesses from any particular country. Many news articles have reported that the only companies that will be affected by this fee are companies based in India and that, ipso facto, the purpose of this legislation must be to target Indian IT companies.
Well, it is simply untrue that the purpose of this legislation is to target Indian companies. We are simply raising fees for businesses who use the H-1B visa to do things that are contrary to the program’s original intent.
Visa fees will only increase for companies with more than 50 workers who continue to employ more than 50 percent of their employees through the H-1B program. Congress does not want the H-1B visa program to be a vehicle for creating multinational temp agencies where workers do not know what projects they will be working on—or what cities they will be working in—when they enter the country.
The fee is based solely upon the business model of the company, not the location of the company.
If you are using the H-1B visa to innovate new products and technologies for your own company to sell, that is a good thing regardless of whether the company was originally founded in India, Ireland, or Indiana.
But if you are using the H-1B visa to run a glorified international temp agency for tech workers in contravention of the spirit of the program, I and my colleagues believe that you should have to pay a higher fee to ensure that American workers are not losing their jobs because of unintended uses of the visa program that were never contemplated when the program was created.
This belief is consistent regardless of whether the company using these staffing practices was founded in Bangalore, Beijing, or Boston.
Raising the fees for companies hiring more than 50 percent of their workforce through foreign visas will accomplish two important goals. First, it will provide the necessary funds to secure our border without raising taxes or adding to the deficit. Second, it will level the playing field for American workers so that they do not lose out on good jobs here in America because it is cheaper to bring in a foreign worker rather than hire an American worker.
Let me tell you what objective folks around the world are saying about the impact of this fee increase. In an August 6, 2010, Wall Street Journal article, Avinash Vashistha—the CEO of a Bangalore based off-shoring advisory consulting firm—told the Journal that the new fee in this bill “would accelerate Indian firms’ plans to hire more American-born workers in the U.S.” What’s wrong with that? In an August 7, 2010 Economic Times Article, Jeya Kumar, a CEO of a top IT company, said that this bill would “erode cost arbitrage and cause a change in the operational model of Indian offshore providers.”
The leaders of this business model are agreeing that our bill will make it more expensive to bring in foreign tech workers to compete with American tech workers for jobs here in America. That means these companies are going to start having to hire U.S. tech workers again.
So Mr. President, this bill is not only a responsible border security bill, it has the dual advantage of creating more high-paying American jobs.
Finally, Mr. President, I want to be clear about one other thing. Even though passing this bill will secure our border, I again say that the only way to fully restore the rule of law to our entire immigration system is by passing comprehensive immigration reform….
The urgency for immigration reform cannot be overstated because it is so overdue. The time for excuses is now over, it is now time to get to work.
August 12, 2010
Today, I come to the floor to seek unanimous consent to pass a smart, tough, and effective $600 million bill that will significantly enhance the security and integrity of our nation’s southern border—which currently lacks the resources needed to fully combat the drug smugglers, gun-runners, human-traffickers, money launderers and other organized criminals that seek to do harm to innocent Americans along our border….
The best part of this border package, Mr. President, is that it is fully paid for and does not increase the deficit by a single penny. In actuality, the Congressional Budget Office has determined that this bill will yield a direct savings to taxpayers of $50 million….
The emergency border funds we are passing today are fully paid for by assessing fees on certain types of companies who hire foreign workers using certain types of visas in a way that Congress did not intend. I want to take a moment to explain exactly what we are doing in this bill a little further because I want everyone to clearly understand how these offsets are designed.
In 1990, Congress realized that the world was changing rapidly and that technological innovations like the internet were creating a high demand in the United States for high-tech workers to create new technologies and products. Consequently, Congress created the H-1B visa program to allow U.S. employers to hire foreign tech workers in special circumstances when they could not find an American citizen who was qualified for the job.
Many of the companies that use this program today are using the program in the exact way Congress intended. That is, these companies (like Microsoft, IBM, and Intel) are hiring bright foreign students educated in our American universities to work in the U.S. for 6 or 7 years to invent new product lines and technologies so that Microsoft, IBM, and Intel can sell more products to the American public. Then—at the expiration of the H-1B visa period—these companies apply for these talented workers to earn green cards and stay with the company.
When the H-1B visa program is used in this manner, it is a good program for everyone involved. It is good for the company. It is good for the worker. And it is good for the American people who benefit from the products and jobs created by the innovation of the H-1B visa holder.
Every day, companies like Oracle, Cisco, Apple and others use the H-1B visa program in the exact way I have just described—and their use of the program has greatly benefitted this country.
But recently, some companies have decided to exploit an unintended loophole in the H-1B visa program to use the program in a manner that many in Congress, including myself, do not believe is consistent with the program’s intent.
Rather than being a company that makes something, and simply needs to bring in a talented foreign worker to help innovate and create new products and technologies—these other companies are essentially creating “multinational temp agencies” that were never contemplated when the H-1B program was created.
The business model of these newer companies is not to make any new products or technologies like Microsoft or Apple does. Instead, their business model is to bring foreign tech workers into the United States who are willing to accept less pay than their American counterparts, place these workers into other companies in exchange for a “consulting fee,” and transfer these workers from company to company in order to maximize profits from placement fees. In other words, these companies are petitioning for foreign workers simply to then turn around and provide these same workers to other companies who need cheap labor for various short term projects.
Don’t take my word for it. If you look at the marketing materials of some of the companies that fall within the scope covered by today’s legislation, their materials boast about their “outsourcing expertise” and say that their advantage is their ability to conduct what they call “labor arbitrage” which is—in their own words—“transferring work functions to a lower cost environment for increased savings.”
The business model used by these companies within the United States is creating three major negative side effects. First, it is ruining the reputation of the H-1B program, which is overwhelmingly used by good actors for beneficial purposes. Second, according to the Economic Policy institute, it is lowering the wages for American tech workers already in the marketplace. Third, it is also discouraging many of our smartest students from entering the technology industry in the first place. Students can see that paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for advanced schooling is not worth the cost when the market is being flooded with foreign temporary workers willing to do tech-work for far less pay because their foreign education was much cheaper and they intend to move back home when their visa expires to a country where the cost of living is far less expensive.
This type of use of the H-1B visa program will be addressed as part of comprehensive immigration reform and will likely be dramatically restricted. We will be reforming the legal immigration system to encourage the world’s best and brightest individuals to come to the United States and create the new technologies and businesses that will employ countless American workers, but will discourage businesses from using our immigration laws as a means to obtain temporary and less-expensive foreign labor to replace capable American workers.
Nevertheless, I do wish to clarify a previous mischaracterization of these firms, where I labeled them as “chop shops.” That statement was incorrect, and I wish to acknowledge that. In the tech industry, these firms are sometimes known as “body shops” and that’s what I should have said.
While I strongly oppose the manner in which these firms are using the H-1B visa to accomplish objectives that Congress never intended, it would be unfortunate if anyone concluded from my remarks that these firms are engaging in illegal behavior.
But I also want to make clear that the purpose of this fee is not to target businesses from any particular country. Many news articles have reported that the only companies that will be affected by this fee are companies based in India and that, ipso facto, the purpose of this legislation must be to target Indian IT companies.
Well, it is simply untrue that the purpose of this legislation is to target Indian companies. We are simply raising fees for businesses who use the H-1B visa to do things that are contrary to the program’s original intent.
Visa fees will only increase for companies with more than 50 workers who continue to employ more than 50 percent of their employees through the H-1B program. Congress does not want the H-1B visa program to be a vehicle for creating multinational temp agencies where workers do not know what projects they will be working on—or what cities they will be working in—when they enter the country.
The fee is based solely upon the business model of the company, not the location of the company.
If you are using the H-1B visa to innovate new products and technologies for your own company to sell, that is a good thing regardless of whether the company was originally founded in India, Ireland, or Indiana.
But if you are using the H-1B visa to run a glorified international temp agency for tech workers in contravention of the spirit of the program, I and my colleagues believe that you should have to pay a higher fee to ensure that American workers are not losing their jobs because of unintended uses of the visa program that were never contemplated when the program was created.
This belief is consistent regardless of whether the company using these staffing practices was founded in Bangalore, Beijing, or Boston.
Raising the fees for companies hiring more than 50 percent of their workforce through foreign visas will accomplish two important goals. First, it will provide the necessary funds to secure our border without raising taxes or adding to the deficit. Second, it will level the playing field for American workers so that they do not lose out on good jobs here in America because it is cheaper to bring in a foreign worker rather than hire an American worker.
Let me tell you what objective folks around the world are saying about the impact of this fee increase. In an August 6, 2010, Wall Street Journal article, Avinash Vashistha—the CEO of a Bangalore based off-shoring advisory consulting firm—told the Journal that the new fee in this bill “would accelerate Indian firms’ plans to hire more American-born workers in the U.S.” What’s wrong with that? In an August 7, 2010 Economic Times Article, Jeya Kumar, a CEO of a top IT company, said that this bill would “erode cost arbitrage and cause a change in the operational model of Indian offshore providers.”
The leaders of this business model are agreeing that our bill will make it more expensive to bring in foreign tech workers to compete with American tech workers for jobs here in America. That means these companies are going to start having to hire U.S. tech workers again.
So Mr. President, this bill is not only a responsible border security bill, it has the dual advantage of creating more high-paying American jobs.
Finally, Mr. President, I want to be clear about one other thing. Even though passing this bill will secure our border, I again say that the only way to fully restore the rule of law to our entire immigration system is by passing comprehensive immigration reform….
The urgency for immigration reform cannot be overstated because it is so overdue. The time for excuses is now over, it is now time to get to work.
javadeveloper
08-14 05:33 PM
USCIS should come up with strategy like if you are in US for 'X' years and if your 485 pending for 'Y' years and if you own a house worth 'XXX$' , then they should give GCs irrespective of Category(Eb1,Eb2,Eb3,Eb4 etc..)
2011 free dragon tattoo designs
Milind123
09-15 11:05 PM
One more shot people, so we can start the final 401K round. Only one person who thinks our efforts is not going to waste, Only one person who think the 10 year wait process is going to end, only one person who realizes the vision of IV is strong, only one person who knows contribution by members are a necessity in order to move thing in Washington send flowers, buy lobby time etc.
And only one person who can save the �o� on my keyboard.
And only one person who can save the �o� on my keyboard.
more...
EkAurAaya
07-11 03:32 PM
They are talking about the EB-3 Other Worker category, NOT EB-3 India (one row below EB-3-I in the bulletin)
If you see July bulletin http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4252.html
the EB-3 - Other Worker was 01Jan03 which is now U in August bulletin
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4310.html
Oh - I got excited for nothing! Thanks for correcting me.
So "Other workers" is also considered EB3? who falls in this category...?
If you see July bulletin http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4252.html
the EB-3 - Other Worker was 01Jan03 which is now U in August bulletin
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4310.html
Oh - I got excited for nothing! Thanks for correcting me.
So "Other workers" is also considered EB3? who falls in this category...?
WeldonSprings
05-02 04:17 PM
Just responding to my quote- This question was also raised by Honorable House Democrat from Illinois Mr. Guterriez.I know everyone has looked at the Visa Bulletin. Here is a quote from it-
2. 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 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.
So, don't you guys think that there more than 140,000 visas can be given away, if need me as it is this moment. So, I don't understand the retrogression???
2. 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 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.
So, don't you guys think that there more than 140,000 visas can be given away, if need me as it is this moment. So, I don't understand the retrogression???
more...
gctest
09-15 08:26 AM
Thanks dvb123.
I appreciate your support.
People, most of us here are just afraid that they will get red dots, be ridiculed for their beliefs. But the things is; If we don't fight for our rights, who will. We have to defend our place in the queue, which at the moment is at substantial risk.
what else do you think i holding the EB2 queue back
GCTEST check your private messages. The link is located on the top right hand corner.
I appreciate your support.
People, most of us here are just afraid that they will get red dots, be ridiculed for their beliefs. But the things is; If we don't fight for our rights, who will. We have to defend our place in the queue, which at the moment is at substantial risk.
what else do you think i holding the EB2 queue back
GCTEST check your private messages. The link is located on the top right hand corner.
2010 chinese dragon tattoo sleeve.
sam2006
09-13 12:02 PM
Thank You wolfsappi kanaihya
as Promised
My 100$
Confirmation Number: 5X810871WS2653XXX
Remember
ITS NOW OR NEVER
as Promised
My 100$
Confirmation Number: 5X810871WS2653XXX
Remember
ITS NOW OR NEVER
more...
jbr
06-11 12:59 PM
I have a dumb question: when the above post refers to 25,000 EB2 and EB3 applications does it refer to 25,000 primary applicants or total (applicant and dependent) applications. Does anyone know? -- Thanks.
hair tribal lion tattoo meaning
newbee7
07-05 11:48 PM
Guys...digg this one religously..
For the first time one article connects our needs to what Americans are interested in; Homeland security.
For the first time one article connects our needs to what Americans are interested in; Homeland security.
more...
imh1b
05-07 02:34 PM
I was able to call 8 offices during my lunch hour yesterday. I also called my local Senator's office. I will try to call more next week.
hot who acquired lion tattoos
GotGC??
01-04 02:19 PM
One of the most balanced views on this topic I have heard!
I think life inside home is better in India than US. And life outside home is better in US than India. What do you think?
I am only son to my parents (aged 50s). I must go back whenever India sends a man or women to Moon. Just kidding.. Will go back by 201X.
Currently I am in India on a vacation of 45 days. I came to India with lot of enthu after a long gap of 2 years. But as someone said, India cannot be compared with US, outside home. And yea, USA can't be compared to India, inside home :D
I have to postpone the idea of returning for few more years for the following reasons, and yes, I want GC meanwhile.
_ Reasons to stay and stay longer in USA _
1) It's money, honey :D
2) A nice Indenpendant House in Vizag or Hyd. I am long way to get there. You know what I mean.
3) I haven't earned enough to copy & paste my lifestyle in US yet. I mean no car for my dad, no plasma tv in India, no 'retirement' fund for my parents so that they can live on their own. You know the rest.
4) My wife has just _resumed her career on H1B after being seated at home for 3 years on H4. As you can guess, we left hopes on EAD. My PD Nov 05. I would prefer that she work in USA for couple of years, before which we can return.
4) Last, but not least, I want to gather more "onsite" experience and go from programmer analyst to something I want to be, when I return to India.
_ Reasons to go back to India _
I belived in the philosiphy of helping yourself first, then family and then society.
0) Will come back to India to live with my aging parents.
1) Help my society (vote, pay taxes, charity, transfer of ideas from Western World, creation of employment and much more)
2) Enjoy food, movies, language, various cultures of India.
3) Travel world and not just USA - through my IT career.
I think life inside home is better in India than US. And life outside home is better in US than India. What do you think?
I am only son to my parents (aged 50s). I must go back whenever India sends a man or women to Moon. Just kidding.. Will go back by 201X.
Currently I am in India on a vacation of 45 days. I came to India with lot of enthu after a long gap of 2 years. But as someone said, India cannot be compared with US, outside home. And yea, USA can't be compared to India, inside home :D
I have to postpone the idea of returning for few more years for the following reasons, and yes, I want GC meanwhile.
_ Reasons to stay and stay longer in USA _
1) It's money, honey :D
2) A nice Indenpendant House in Vizag or Hyd. I am long way to get there. You know what I mean.
3) I haven't earned enough to copy & paste my lifestyle in US yet. I mean no car for my dad, no plasma tv in India, no 'retirement' fund for my parents so that they can live on their own. You know the rest.
4) My wife has just _resumed her career on H1B after being seated at home for 3 years on H4. As you can guess, we left hopes on EAD. My PD Nov 05. I would prefer that she work in USA for couple of years, before which we can return.
4) Last, but not least, I want to gather more "onsite" experience and go from programmer analyst to something I want to be, when I return to India.
_ Reasons to go back to India _
I belived in the philosiphy of helping yourself first, then family and then society.
0) Will come back to India to live with my aging parents.
1) Help my society (vote, pay taxes, charity, transfer of ideas from Western World, creation of employment and much more)
2) Enjoy food, movies, language, various cultures of India.
3) Travel world and not just USA - through my IT career.
more...
house tattoo chinese lion tattoo.
vkannan
03-12 11:20 PM
Its not a rumor. This is real. Coming to think abt it, he had filed a labor in 2000/2001 time period and had abandoned it when he switched companies. I am wondering if USCIS takes the oldest one an applicant had ever filed.
There you go.....See thinking does help;-).....anyway seriously dude......do you think USCIS go that level to go pick up your friends abandoned labor.....and do the PD Porting without your friend asking for it.....I will be damned...if this is true.....
There you go.....See thinking does help;-).....anyway seriously dude......do you think USCIS go that level to go pick up your friends abandoned labor.....and do the PD Porting without your friend asking for it.....I will be damned...if this is true.....
tattoo celtic lion tattoo designs
gk_2000
08-23 02:45 PM
How about people are using it as a loop hole and smack you down. Just because you have the option, it does not mean the right thing.
It is not the right thing -- from your perspective, because you can't take advantage of it. From the USA point of view multinational executives can potentially create jobs and that's why they must be allowed
You may call it "loophole", based on your understanding of it. However the reality may be different and larger than what you see. So don't axe the branch you are sitting on!
It is not the right thing -- from your perspective, because you can't take advantage of it. From the USA point of view multinational executives can potentially create jobs and that's why they must be allowed
You may call it "loophole", based on your understanding of it. However the reality may be different and larger than what you see. So don't axe the branch you are sitting on!
more...
pictures chinese lion tattoo. scary
kaisersose
04-30 03:39 PM
This was directed to people who were current. If you are from India, China, Mexico, Philippines, get used to waiting. Your backlog is due to numerical limits. And this won't change (the way I see it)
Yes, it appears people on this forum are still confused about backlogs due to unavailable visa numbers and backlog due to CIS having too many 485s to process.
They are 2 different things.
Yes, it appears people on this forum are still confused about backlogs due to unavailable visa numbers and backlog due to CIS having too many 485s to process.
They are 2 different things.
dresses Scottish Lion Tattoo Design
JunRN
05-15 09:34 PM
Hi! I have some questions:
1. Do you have a lawyer when you filed the first MTR or did you do it by yourself?
2. Did you submit a copy of the I-140 approval and the AC21 memo during MTR?
Thanks.
1. Do you have a lawyer when you filed the first MTR or did you do it by yourself?
2. Did you submit a copy of the I-140 approval and the AC21 memo during MTR?
Thanks.
more...
makeup love symbol tattoo. Chinese
BECsufferer
03-04 12:55 PM
Not sure if anyone else has faced this so wanted to put this out: I own a home and have a loan on it since 2003 (I was on H1 when i took the loan), now that the ARM is about to adjust i am in the market for refinance.
There is however a question on all the loans underwritten by freddy/fanny asking for immigration status and if the answer is EAD the loan is denied. They even sent me an explanation of denial.....:confused:
A loan application can be denied for any reason and as amatter of fact due to current financial mess, lenders are very wary. So don't be surprised by denial. Try another place.
I secured loan after 2.5 months of constant battle. My lender tried all possible means to discourage me and only after I fired-back with technical arguments did they clear my loan. But than I was also asking for 5% down, which nowdays is no more entertained by lenders.
Try different sources and atleast you have the house in possesion. You will get a new lender, don't worry!
There is however a question on all the loans underwritten by freddy/fanny asking for immigration status and if the answer is EAD the loan is denied. They even sent me an explanation of denial.....:confused:
A loan application can be denied for any reason and as amatter of fact due to current financial mess, lenders are very wary. So don't be surprised by denial. Try another place.
I secured loan after 2.5 months of constant battle. My lender tried all possible means to discourage me and only after I fired-back with technical arguments did they clear my loan. But than I was also asking for 5% down, which nowdays is no more entertained by lenders.
Try different sources and atleast you have the house in possesion. You will get a new lender, don't worry!
girlfriend tattoo chinese lion tattoo. chinese lion tattoo sleeve. pictures lion tattoo
rbharol
05-25 11:49 PM
It seems for back log accumulations centers it is "random in random out" policy...
They dont care. I think they have been told to delay it so much that we get frustrated and leave the country.
They dont care. I think they have been told to delay it so much that we get frustrated and leave the country.
hairstyles skull tattoos designs. evil
walking_dude
07-06 12:54 AM
IV will become ready for elections when we have real candidates with real faces. I request all real candidates to publish their photos and accomplishments, their ideas for the organization; so that we can choose the best person for the job.
Any volunteers? Why don't I see a single volunteer! Seriously, can we have an election without candidates?!
I feel that initiator of this thread is not trying a coup d'�tat. He is merely pointing to the fact that every organization runs by elected officials. Having a life term president and core group is only heard in autocratic systems but not in a democratic one. What are we as an organization?
Why are we afraid of discussing new ideas? Why shouldn't we open up IV organization for elections? There is nothing wrong in declaring the rules and then playing by those rules.
So I completely support the guy who came up with this suggestion.
Any volunteers? Why don't I see a single volunteer! Seriously, can we have an election without candidates?!
I feel that initiator of this thread is not trying a coup d'�tat. He is merely pointing to the fact that every organization runs by elected officials. Having a life term president and core group is only heard in autocratic systems but not in a democratic one. What are we as an organization?
Why are we afraid of discussing new ideas? Why shouldn't we open up IV organization for elections? There is nothing wrong in declaring the rules and then playing by those rules.
So I completely support the guy who came up with this suggestion.
ameryki
01-10 07:37 PM
Hello All I just received mine and my wifey's AP's. We weren't able to track our file since did not get a receipt and did not have the file numbers. But to my knowledge my lawyer had sent our app's on Aug 1st. The AP shows approved on Dec 7th and we received it from the lawyer today now when I checked online status with the file number stated on the approval it shows "On December 26, 2007 we mailed the document to the address we have on file". So in practicality out of the 12 months an applicant looses a month in transition time from being approved to physically seeing the approval in hand.
caydee
06-02 01:42 PM
Hi my son is going to turn 21 on June 6th, we had applied for EB3 labor certificate on in July and the priority date is july 19, 2005. The I-140 was applied and approved in a month, therefore he will turn 21 next month on the 6th because the subtraction of one month from his age due to delay by USCIS in processing the I-140. My question is that is there any sort of help for EB retrogression for the children affected, and may get aged-out. As well as any other way that my son can apply for his I-485.
Thanks
None of the bills being considered currently benefit children of would-be legal immigrants, while the children of illegal immigrants are protected by the proposed DREAM ACT. Please write to senators and house representatives highlighting the "age-out" problem.
Appreciate your contribution to IV.
Thanks
None of the bills being considered currently benefit children of would-be legal immigrants, while the children of illegal immigrants are protected by the proposed DREAM ACT. Please write to senators and house representatives highlighting the "age-out" problem.
Appreciate your contribution to IV.
No comments:
Post a Comment