nixstor
07-04 08:56 PM
Excellent analysis but it does have flaws
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
We all understand this and what you are saying, But What is in law is more important than OB's recommendations. First of all the office of OB might not have recommended to pass on any name checks. It might have advised to some how expedite them. More over, I dont think that they take the annual report seriously. We know how many times DOS officials and USCIS officials testify before congress. Why don't they tell congress that in order to clear backlogs
a) They need FBI to expedite name checks (they might have testified about this)
b) They need to recapture visa numbers (AFAIK, they never did this because your case is not pending unless you filed for AOS/485. We are not a part of the back log)
Their biggest problem now is if all of us file for 485, we will continue to be the back log for ever on the back of USCIS for ages to come unless recapture occurs. What ever be the number 200K or 700K, they simply dont want it.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
I am sure you might have read this from murthy's website (http://www.murthy.com/news/n_dosebn.html) or not, but DOS/CA/VO officials shared this piece with them. As per the above article, final quarter quota should not open until Jul 2nd. I understand that agencies can implement and interpret certain stuff, but you cannot interpret and implement one thing on Jun 13th and another on Jul 2nd. If its written into law, that the quarterly allocation is a must, USCIS is in violation and DOS/CA/VO as well for not policing them of visa number usage.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Understood, if they can clear 60K cases in 18 days, I doubt they will have any issues clearing them in 90 days. It goes back to the point of us becoming the biggest hump on USCIS
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories “current” for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories “current” ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of “current” there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making “current” for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as “current” in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
I think we all agree that there was no need to make every category current given that we know how many will become eligible for 485 filing. How ever, The OB's office will be pretty pissed if they use him as the trump card. Also, I got the annual report from OB's office in email on Jun 12th 07. VB came out on 14th? What you are saying is USCIS has worked over night to analyze OB's report or they had access to OB's report 15-20 days ahead. Everything points to me that there was a lack of communication between the two agencies on an issue with huge stakes.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
We need to do both as the success is not guaranteed in either situation. I do not know if AILF will win the law suit. On the other side, Senators like Kennedy who control immigration issues will not give a damn in the current situation. If the issue gets to a point where USCIS & DOS officials testify before congress, the root problem will be solved. If we just win the lawsuit and get in, USCIS is only going to sulk us for 10 years in the name of security check.In the end, We should be able to portray the whole situation as if USCIS has been put in a ugly predicament to utilize visa numbers under the arcane laws. Bashing DOS & USCIS left and right now is not of any use in the long run.
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
We all understand this and what you are saying, But What is in law is more important than OB's recommendations. First of all the office of OB might not have recommended to pass on any name checks. It might have advised to some how expedite them. More over, I dont think that they take the annual report seriously. We know how many times DOS officials and USCIS officials testify before congress. Why don't they tell congress that in order to clear backlogs
a) They need FBI to expedite name checks (they might have testified about this)
b) They need to recapture visa numbers (AFAIK, they never did this because your case is not pending unless you filed for AOS/485. We are not a part of the back log)
Their biggest problem now is if all of us file for 485, we will continue to be the back log for ever on the back of USCIS for ages to come unless recapture occurs. What ever be the number 200K or 700K, they simply dont want it.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
I am sure you might have read this from murthy's website (http://www.murthy.com/news/n_dosebn.html) or not, but DOS/CA/VO officials shared this piece with them. As per the above article, final quarter quota should not open until Jul 2nd. I understand that agencies can implement and interpret certain stuff, but you cannot interpret and implement one thing on Jun 13th and another on Jul 2nd. If its written into law, that the quarterly allocation is a must, USCIS is in violation and DOS/CA/VO as well for not policing them of visa number usage.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Understood, if they can clear 60K cases in 18 days, I doubt they will have any issues clearing them in 90 days. It goes back to the point of us becoming the biggest hump on USCIS
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories “current” for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories “current” ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of “current” there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making “current” for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as “current” in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
I think we all agree that there was no need to make every category current given that we know how many will become eligible for 485 filing. How ever, The OB's office will be pretty pissed if they use him as the trump card. Also, I got the annual report from OB's office in email on Jun 12th 07. VB came out on 14th? What you are saying is USCIS has worked over night to analyze OB's report or they had access to OB's report 15-20 days ahead. Everything points to me that there was a lack of communication between the two agencies on an issue with huge stakes.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
We need to do both as the success is not guaranteed in either situation. I do not know if AILF will win the law suit. On the other side, Senators like Kennedy who control immigration issues will not give a damn in the current situation. If the issue gets to a point where USCIS & DOS officials testify before congress, the root problem will be solved. If we just win the lawsuit and get in, USCIS is only going to sulk us for 10 years in the name of security check.In the end, We should be able to portray the whole situation as if USCIS has been put in a ugly predicament to utilize visa numbers under the arcane laws. Bashing DOS & USCIS left and right now is not of any use in the long run.
wallpaper uenas noches amor mio. Gracias amor mío. Gracias amor mío. bchreng
masouds
02-15 04:24 PM
Are you sure this is the reason why they have per country limits :confused:
Or you dont want that way :D
Well, I do have a vested interest in maintaining status quo, at least with regard to the per country caps. :)
But, working in one of the Valley companies, I see a lot of people from India and China who just don't mix with rest of the people, say, from Poland or Germany or France or Iran. US (the whole government, including USCIS) likes the idea of 'Melting pot' when it comes to immigration. When you melt a lot of metals with each other, you don't end up with a fragmented alloy, since you've capped the amount of each metal in your pot. That is how you get 'Little Italy's and 'China Town's and the latest one in San Jose, CA: 'Saigon Business district'
Or you dont want that way :D
Well, I do have a vested interest in maintaining status quo, at least with regard to the per country caps. :)
But, working in one of the Valley companies, I see a lot of people from India and China who just don't mix with rest of the people, say, from Poland or Germany or France or Iran. US (the whole government, including USCIS) likes the idea of 'Melting pot' when it comes to immigration. When you melt a lot of metals with each other, you don't end up with a fragmented alloy, since you've capped the amount of each metal in your pot. That is how you get 'Little Italy's and 'China Town's and the latest one in San Jose, CA: 'Saigon Business district'
techmia
07-01 04:40 PM
Everyone is busy partying.
2011 Extrañame, amor mio
sat0207
04-27 09:18 AM
Hey read this link very informative http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/publicaffairs/factsheets/security_checks_42506.pdf
more...
komaragiri
07-23 02:29 PM
It's part of initial evidence. Not sure why your lawyer mentioned that u don't need it for I-485 filing.
Jerrome
07-12 05:28 PM
I feel this move is to benefit EB-2 China, Since the EB1 and EB2 overflow are evenly distributed across china and india, keeping PD with 2004 would be a loss for china and gain for India. So by keeping 2006 June, USCIS will have enough visa numbers for China . India's share will be consumed by 2004 and 2005 applicants.
Even if India's PD is going to be in 2006 mid, this would result some adhoc or lucky one in 2006 getting GC than a majority of applicants. PD for india would move back to 2004 or 2005 by october 08.
If USCIS follows the same rule again then by next year end the PD for India will move.
This is my guess.
Even if India's PD is going to be in 2006 mid, this would result some adhoc or lucky one in 2006 getting GC than a majority of applicants. PD for india would move back to 2004 or 2005 by october 08.
If USCIS follows the same rule again then by next year end the PD for India will move.
This is my guess.
more...
GCKaIntezar
01-30 03:15 PM
See attached. Added my comments. Please feel free to add/modify.
I suggest that keep it 1 page long only.
I suggest that keep it 1 page long only.
2010 uenas noches amor mio.
shreekhand
08-16 02:53 PM
There is no injustice in the VB...just a higher demand from EB3.
If there is any injustice then it is with the present per country limits without regard to the demand and skills that emanate from a country.
It Is Too Bad For Eb 3 , Why This Injustice With Eb 3 ?
If there is any injustice then it is with the present per country limits without regard to the demand and skills that emanate from a country.
It Is Too Bad For Eb 3 , Why This Injustice With Eb 3 ?
more...
gc28262
03-12 09:11 AM
I completely agree with you.. in the last 3-4 years of forming IV what lobbying efforts did the IV folk do after July 2007 fiasco?? With all the donations and money they are making from advertisements on this website what have they accomplished? they could not even have an established and reliable relationship with DOS or USCIS to get clear information out to its members?? I think it is a BIG F-A-I-L-U-R-E on the part of IV if they cannot even get some valid information let alone bringing some change in the immigration system. And when we are all discussing in anticipation of this much awaited April bulletin, what do the IV admin folk do?? Start another DONOR FORUM thread and talk about what?? B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T!! If starting a new DONOR FORUM thread is all you can do for all the donors? what good is it?? Before we go ahead and bash USCIS, IV folk have a lot of explanation to do -
1. What links do you have with USCIS?
2. What efforts are being made?
3. What is the future POA?
4. If sitting around and waiting for the next visa bulletin is all you IV leadership is doing then stop asking for DONATIONS!!
Peace!
If pouring in some money will fetch you a green card, there would be thousands of companies running this business. I am sure most of us will be more than happy to dole out couple of grands for it. Even USCIS would be happy to do that. We wouldn't need a grassroot organization for that.
Remember, with all the clout of Congress Hispanic Caucus, they couldn't introduce CIR so far.
1. What links do you have with USCIS?
2. What efforts are being made?
3. What is the future POA?
4. If sitting around and waiting for the next visa bulletin is all you IV leadership is doing then stop asking for DONATIONS!!
Peace!
If pouring in some money will fetch you a green card, there would be thousands of companies running this business. I am sure most of us will be more than happy to dole out couple of grands for it. Even USCIS would be happy to do that. We wouldn't need a grassroot organization for that.
Remember, with all the clout of Congress Hispanic Caucus, they couldn't introduce CIR so far.
hair uenas noches amor- le di
ursosweet
07-16 10:24 PM
i suggest rather than talking big words, lets do something.
like someone on immigrationportal has drafted a letter to time warner stating the misrepresentation of facts by that rascal lou dobbs about h1b visa holders.
IV core team, once this july fiasco is dealt with, lets draft a long letter and send it to these senators with a copy of our pay stubs showing them that we pay what americans pay.
i had written letters to my senators and congressman and to NPR abt. the July 2007 fiasco. The more we stand by each other, the more difficult for anti-immigrants and racists to penetrate.
PK
like someone on immigrationportal has drafted a letter to time warner stating the misrepresentation of facts by that rascal lou dobbs about h1b visa holders.
IV core team, once this july fiasco is dealt with, lets draft a long letter and send it to these senators with a copy of our pay stubs showing them that we pay what americans pay.
i had written letters to my senators and congressman and to NPR abt. the July 2007 fiasco. The more we stand by each other, the more difficult for anti-immigrants and racists to penetrate.
PK
more...
rockstart
03-10 11:07 AM
Guru's
I have a small doubt on AC -21 especially the same / similar interpretation. in Perm Application there are two places where there is job description. One is Section H field 11 ( Job Opportunity/ job duties) and other one is Section F field 2 ( Prevailing Wage/ SOC code) now both define what the job is the Section H is company specific and Section F is list of USCIS codes under which this particular job falls as subset.
The question is will USCIS judge using section F or Section H for same/ similar interpretation because Section F is pretty Generic and as long as you are in same field it works example in IT if you were say DBA and now data modeler or Systems Analyst or coder they are pretty much same. Here is an example of one such code
15-1051 Computer Systems Analysts
Analyze science, engineering, business, and all other data processing problems for application to electronic data processing systems. Analyze user requirements, procedures, and problems to automate or improve existing systems and review computer system capabilities, workflow, and scheduling limitations. May analyze or recommend commercially available software. Exclude persons working primarily as "Engineers" (17-2011 through 17-2199), "Mathematicians" (15-2021), or "Scientists" (19-1011 through 19-3099). May supervise computer programmers.
But in case they try to interpret Section H is it very complex and has specific tools that can get outdated or obselete with time. So it will be difficult to do an Ac -21 with that Example if they mention SQL Server or Ab-Initio in section H and now you take a full time in company using Oracle or Informatica will that cause an issue?
I have a small doubt on AC -21 especially the same / similar interpretation. in Perm Application there are two places where there is job description. One is Section H field 11 ( Job Opportunity/ job duties) and other one is Section F field 2 ( Prevailing Wage/ SOC code) now both define what the job is the Section H is company specific and Section F is list of USCIS codes under which this particular job falls as subset.
The question is will USCIS judge using section F or Section H for same/ similar interpretation because Section F is pretty Generic and as long as you are in same field it works example in IT if you were say DBA and now data modeler or Systems Analyst or coder they are pretty much same. Here is an example of one such code
15-1051 Computer Systems Analysts
Analyze science, engineering, business, and all other data processing problems for application to electronic data processing systems. Analyze user requirements, procedures, and problems to automate or improve existing systems and review computer system capabilities, workflow, and scheduling limitations. May analyze or recommend commercially available software. Exclude persons working primarily as "Engineers" (17-2011 through 17-2199), "Mathematicians" (15-2021), or "Scientists" (19-1011 through 19-3099). May supervise computer programmers.
But in case they try to interpret Section H is it very complex and has specific tools that can get outdated or obselete with time. So it will be difficult to do an Ac -21 with that Example if they mention SQL Server or Ab-Initio in section H and now you take a full time in company using Oracle or Informatica will that cause an issue?
hot Besitos y uenas noches
ushkand
07-24 11:50 AM
I can't say for certain but from recent USCIS actions and the latest FAQ released, I see them issuing an RFE instead of outright rejecting the application. If they will accept applications without medical, they should be able to do the same for an employment letter. Ofcourse, this is just my humble opinion.
more...
house uenas noches amor mio.
optimystic
03-22 09:51 PM
Optimystic!
Did you see any LUDs on your 485 over the past few months?
Thanks,
The latest LUDS on our 485s were around Dec 17 2007. That was around the time we got our AP. No other updates after that.
Did you see any LUDs on your 485 over the past few months?
Thanks,
The latest LUDS on our 485s were around Dec 17 2007. That was around the time we got our AP. No other updates after that.
tattoo BUENAS NOCHES CENICIENTA
DDD
03-14 12:06 AM
If ya'll do like a character model contest next time, I think I will be in. But we will need like a 4 week due date...lol. Good job all.
more...
pictures Quiero ser tuya, que seas mio.
inthehole
07-18 12:12 PM
hi tapukakababa, can you please provide me with a number for USCIS nebraska SC. I would like to talk to them as well.
Phone Number: 1-800-375-5283
Options 1, 2, 2, 6, 2, 2, 1 (For english)
Phone Number: 1-800-375-5283
Options 1, 2, 2, 6, 2, 2, 1 (For english)
dresses Buenas noches amor mío y
perm2gc
01-10 06:21 PM
http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=33
more...
makeup El dia llegará amor mio,
purplehazea
06-12 12:01 PM
just to let you know, even with PD current people have to wait 60-360 days for approval by service center.
You cannot imagine what will happen to processing efficiency at USCIS with additional work.
You cannot imagine what will happen to processing efficiency at USCIS with additional work.
girlfriend uenas noches amor mio. tu: jajaja uenas noches nick
pkak
07-13 06:00 PM
All the data shows that we have 20K EB2 I/C with PD before 6/1/2006, and it is comparable with the unused 20K quota from EB1 and EB2-ROW. As stated by Openhemer, the 2 year jump is due to the spillover of 20K to EB2 instead of EB3-ROW and there will NOT be any significant retrogression in Oct. However, a petition is being organized in this forum to stopping this spillover. Only if the petition succeed, we will see EB2 date goes back to 2004.
EB2-India folks should also initiate a petition campaign (on lines of the EB3-India folks) to make sure that these 25K visas do get adjudicated before fiscal year �08 ends.
USCIS may well end up wasting a bulk of these visas, contending that since they are statutorily required to adjudicate all EAD applications within 90 days, and there is a surge in EAD renewals because of (a) July-07 visa bulletin fiasco; and (b) people applying for renewal this month, hoping to get 2 year EAD. Therefore, because of surge in EAD applications, they do not have resources to use up all of this year�s visa numbers.
If this happens even EB3 India will be potential losers also.
EB2-India folks should also initiate a petition campaign (on lines of the EB3-India folks) to make sure that these 25K visas do get adjudicated before fiscal year �08 ends.
USCIS may well end up wasting a bulk of these visas, contending that since they are statutorily required to adjudicate all EAD applications within 90 days, and there is a surge in EAD renewals because of (a) July-07 visa bulletin fiasco; and (b) people applying for renewal this month, hoping to get 2 year EAD. Therefore, because of surge in EAD applications, they do not have resources to use up all of this year�s visa numbers.
If this happens even EB3 India will be potential losers also.
hairstyles uenas noches amor mio. how much one#39;s friends who believe in one rather
ramus
07-03 10:47 PM
Do you know even to come to site and get some info also need money..
Not to hurt you but just giving one small example of why we need money...
That is a valid concern veerug brought up and it would be great if the IV core team can list how IV will complement AILF during this lawsuit.
I understand that it may not be the right time since even now AILF is in the process of identifying a strategy and IV team may not have had time to detail this yet. But, it would help if there is a sticky with this info,probably in the same sticky that pappu posted, URGENT IV Message: Lawsuit and other update, so everyone can understand the motivation and the action items for this.
Regarding the media drive,I believe that we have a better chance of getting more attention if we can get information on the scandal info that USCIS might have gone the extra mile to revoke July bulletin availability dates.
Thanks for this portal for everyone to get organized on immigration issues.
Amar
Not to hurt you but just giving one small example of why we need money...
That is a valid concern veerug brought up and it would be great if the IV core team can list how IV will complement AILF during this lawsuit.
I understand that it may not be the right time since even now AILF is in the process of identifying a strategy and IV team may not have had time to detail this yet. But, it would help if there is a sticky with this info,probably in the same sticky that pappu posted, URGENT IV Message: Lawsuit and other update, so everyone can understand the motivation and the action items for this.
Regarding the media drive,I believe that we have a better chance of getting more attention if we can get information on the scandal info that USCIS might have gone the extra mile to revoke July bulletin availability dates.
Thanks for this portal for everyone to get organized on immigration issues.
Amar
moonrah
07-01 10:32 PM
Online petition is a great idea. But what will it accomplish?? Ultimately all those questions have to addressed in the form of a bill and that needs to be passed in the Congress. Is it a coincidence, we already have a bill HR5921 addressing those questions raised by OP All we need to do is channel our energy to make this bill along with the other Rep. Lofgren bills a success.
IV is already raising all those questions mentioned in the petition with the lawmakers. So what is new in this petition?
Even after thousands of calls, what if they don't pass the bill? I am not pessimistic but I want to have this pass desparately. Lets think about all the possibilities and have solutions or atleast plan for all of those. Just think about this, if someone files a lawsuit on us, we will be sweating and running here and there even though we know we are gonna win. lawsuit will make them think, make them spend money. Trust me nobody wants to go through that husstle. And if we win, they have no way but do something about per country quota limit whether congress passes the bill or not. On the downside, if we loose, they can worsen the situation for us in which case they have to face anger from business community and during election season, goverment wouldn't like to do that.
All I am saying is if we have a case we should pursue it. Otherwise there is no point of fighting loosing battle.
IV is already raising all those questions mentioned in the petition with the lawmakers. So what is new in this petition?
Even after thousands of calls, what if they don't pass the bill? I am not pessimistic but I want to have this pass desparately. Lets think about all the possibilities and have solutions or atleast plan for all of those. Just think about this, if someone files a lawsuit on us, we will be sweating and running here and there even though we know we are gonna win. lawsuit will make them think, make them spend money. Trust me nobody wants to go through that husstle. And if we win, they have no way but do something about per country quota limit whether congress passes the bill or not. On the downside, if we loose, they can worsen the situation for us in which case they have to face anger from business community and during election season, goverment wouldn't like to do that.
All I am saying is if we have a case we should pursue it. Otherwise there is no point of fighting loosing battle.
ksairi
08-15 04:32 PM
D. EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCE VISA AVAILABILITY FOR SEPTEMBER
Due to the return of unused July numbers by consular posts abroad, and the limited amount of pending demand eligible for final processing at consular posts, it has been possible to reestablish cut-off dates in many of the Employment preference categories.
Please link it.
Due to the return of unused July numbers by consular posts abroad, and the limited amount of pending demand eligible for final processing at consular posts, it has been possible to reestablish cut-off dates in many of the Employment preference categories.
Please link it.