WeldonSprings
08-27 12:06 PM
As per this link and comments by the Director of USCIS-
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21175
Though we still have challenges to overcome, USCIS is currently showing improvements as a result of process improvements. As of April 25, 2008, USCIS had adjudicated over 65 percent of its FY 2008 target for employment-based visas. With five months to go in FY 2008, this is a strong start. We plan to continue implementing process improvements and new reporting mechanisms for managing these important applications.
I485 Receipt I485 Pending I485-processed FB I-485 EB I-485
Oct-07 237915 842231 50548 42500 8048
Nov-07 51773 845691 48313 42500 5813
Dec-07 35020 833141 47570 42500 5070
Jan-08 35771 813238 55674 42500 13174
Feb-08 38210 787516 63932 42500 21432
Mar-08 43548 762938 68126 42500 25626
Apr-08 50951 742597 71292 42500 28792
May-08 45357 739934 48020 42500 5520
* Data from USCIS months processing report
** Oct 07 Receipt number changed from 137915 to 237915 (just looked incorrect)
** FB is flat (730k-220k CP / 12 months)
We have 113475 EB I-485 processed until May 08 (in 8 months), if we take 80% acceptance rate the number of visa used will be 90780 and if we use 90% acceptance rate USCIS may have used 102127 visas.
June processing numbers are available
I485 Receipt I485 Pending I485-processed FB I-485 EB I-485
June-08 46024 740969 44989 42500 2489
It seems that in FY-2008-Total number of Employment Visas approved were-
Till April 2008=>8048 (Oct'07) + 5813(Nov'07) + 5070(Dec'07) +13174(Jan'08) + 21432(Feb'08) + 25626(Mar'08) + 28792(Apr'08) + 5520(May'08) + 2489(Jun'08) = 115964 (till Jun'08) out of 162704 for 2008.
Also, till April 2008, they had used=> 107955 which is 66% of 162,794.
So, the above comment by the Director of USCIS that till April 08, they had used 65% of the Fiscal 2008 quota is correct.
My guess in July and August is that they have used around 11000.
So liberally there are still 35000 unused visas for Sept. 08 and conservatively around 22000 for Sept. 08.
I posted June number at
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=273472&postcount=64
July numbers are still awaited.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21175
Though we still have challenges to overcome, USCIS is currently showing improvements as a result of process improvements. As of April 25, 2008, USCIS had adjudicated over 65 percent of its FY 2008 target for employment-based visas. With five months to go in FY 2008, this is a strong start. We plan to continue implementing process improvements and new reporting mechanisms for managing these important applications.
I485 Receipt I485 Pending I485-processed FB I-485 EB I-485
Oct-07 237915 842231 50548 42500 8048
Nov-07 51773 845691 48313 42500 5813
Dec-07 35020 833141 47570 42500 5070
Jan-08 35771 813238 55674 42500 13174
Feb-08 38210 787516 63932 42500 21432
Mar-08 43548 762938 68126 42500 25626
Apr-08 50951 742597 71292 42500 28792
May-08 45357 739934 48020 42500 5520
* Data from USCIS months processing report
** Oct 07 Receipt number changed from 137915 to 237915 (just looked incorrect)
** FB is flat (730k-220k CP / 12 months)
We have 113475 EB I-485 processed until May 08 (in 8 months), if we take 80% acceptance rate the number of visa used will be 90780 and if we use 90% acceptance rate USCIS may have used 102127 visas.
June processing numbers are available
I485 Receipt I485 Pending I485-processed FB I-485 EB I-485
June-08 46024 740969 44989 42500 2489
It seems that in FY-2008-Total number of Employment Visas approved were-
Till April 2008=>8048 (Oct'07) + 5813(Nov'07) + 5070(Dec'07) +13174(Jan'08) + 21432(Feb'08) + 25626(Mar'08) + 28792(Apr'08) + 5520(May'08) + 2489(Jun'08) = 115964 (till Jun'08) out of 162704 for 2008.
Also, till April 2008, they had used=> 107955 which is 66% of 162,794.
So, the above comment by the Director of USCIS that till April 08, they had used 65% of the Fiscal 2008 quota is correct.
My guess in July and August is that they have used around 11000.
So liberally there are still 35000 unused visas for Sept. 08 and conservatively around 22000 for Sept. 08.
I posted June number at
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=273472&postcount=64
July numbers are still awaited.
wallpaper HDTV Widescreen Wallpapers of
sriramkalyan
06-08 11:21 AM
I am doing MS in Technology Management from Howee School of Technology Management at Stevens Institute of Technology!!
Similar ones are offered at Penn State, Rutgers, MIT .. totally on Web.
Similar ones are offered at Penn State, Rutgers, MIT .. totally on Web.
sledge_hammer
06-19 04:59 PM
Do we use form G-325 or G-325A?
2011 Widescreen Wallpapers Pack
eb3India
06-12 03:12 PM
why should anyone now listen to Bush, he just a lameduck at this point and don't bring his war funding victory, they just did'nt have any other choice but support brave soldiers and Bush know that
My point is CIR starts and ends with illegal immigration our reforms are just a sideeffect which may or may not happen.
what we need is a new stratergy which address our issues again I repeat our issue only, which means no H1B increase, just a system reform which ends retrogession.
for which we don't need any law change, we need someone to held accountable for USCIS wasting as many as 40K visas, Everyone in this country is accountable and letz use it
My point is CIR starts and ends with illegal immigration our reforms are just a sideeffect which may or may not happen.
what we need is a new stratergy which address our issues again I repeat our issue only, which means no H1B increase, just a system reform which ends retrogession.
for which we don't need any law change, we need someone to held accountable for USCIS wasting as many as 40K visas, Everyone in this country is accountable and letz use it
more...
chanduv23
07-13 01:57 PM
A RALLY IS BEING ORGANIZED IN SAN JOSE TOMORROW. PLEASE CHANNELIZE ALL YOUR POSITIVE ENERGY IN ACCOMPLISHING THIS TASK.
DONT WASTE TIME ON NEGATIVE ENERGY.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10086
DONT WASTE TIME ON NEGATIVE ENERGY.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10086
alisa
01-25 09:38 PM
I had trouble sifting through all that data and figuring out what that was all about.
Could you give the specific report that you used for these numbers. And, if possible, any hints on how you arrived at the data below. I would appreciate that.
Thanks....
Can you re-estimate the new dates. Using this data
******* EB Pref*******EB3
FY**|*Total*|INDIA | *Total* |India
2000|107,024| 15888| 049,736| 05567
2001|179,195| 41720| 086,058| 16405
2002|174,968| 41919| 088,555| 17428
2003|082,137| 20818| 046,613| 10680
2004|155,330| 39496| 085,969| 19962
2005|246,877| 47160| 129,070| 23399
2006|?????????TBP in the near future ???????
THis are the number of visas issued for each fiscal year since FY 2000 for the EB preference.
They are under this link:DOS Visa Statistics (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/statistics/statistics_1476.html)
andy
Could you give the specific report that you used for these numbers. And, if possible, any hints on how you arrived at the data below. I would appreciate that.
Thanks....
Can you re-estimate the new dates. Using this data
******* EB Pref*******EB3
FY**|*Total*|INDIA | *Total* |India
2000|107,024| 15888| 049,736| 05567
2001|179,195| 41720| 086,058| 16405
2002|174,968| 41919| 088,555| 17428
2003|082,137| 20818| 046,613| 10680
2004|155,330| 39496| 085,969| 19962
2005|246,877| 47160| 129,070| 23399
2006|?????????TBP in the near future ???????
THis are the number of visas issued for each fiscal year since FY 2000 for the EB preference.
They are under this link:DOS Visa Statistics (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/statistics/statistics_1476.html)
andy
more...
kishdam
02-20 03:28 PM
Thats a slight good news (in the current bad news or no news era regarding legal immigration) - hopefully there are are enough EB1 spillover visas to move EB2 by a few months each quarter.
2010 high resolution widescreen
GCScrewed
07-04 11:06 AM
Paskal,
It is possible that EB1 C might become unavailable, because you might be looking at it more closer than I am. But I still find it hard to believe that an MNC will just create a phony Managerial position for every Joe Bloggs, an abuse similar to Labor substitution and satellite offices in states where labor processing was fast etc. Lets say an MNC really promoted some one to a position that qualifies for EB1, moves him out and moves him back, it is still by the book and can't be compared to labor sub, which were sold for money. Labor sub by itself is NO crime irrespective of what we think. The rampant abuse of it caused the demise. Same rule applies to some one who goes out and comes back as its all by the rules and no abuse is involved. In responding to the OP, My intention was to say that MNC's do not go to such an extent of creating a Managerial position that do not exist or have an employee do the same work in the name of managerial position. Some companies might have abused it in such way on few occasions, but thats definitely NOT a practice as rampant as Labor Sub's once was. If that were true and as easy as depicted, A lot of people & companies would have done it, by now. We don't need to teach the gamers. They are a step ahead in getting things done, if there is a way.
Given the severe backlog of EB2 and EB3, some people will find ways to outsmart the system so that they can get the greencards sooner. If those loopholes are not plugged now, it will make a mess just as Labor Sub once did.
I think we should pursue a goal that benefit everyone in the backlogs... not just a specific types, say I, C vs ROW; EB1 vs. EB2 vs. EB3; STEM vs. Non-STEM; Schedule A vs. Non-Schedule A; Healthcare vs. Non-Healthcare; IT vs. Non-IT. The only cause which will get everyone on the same page and therefore is worth pursuing is to recapture unused #s so that all people in the backlogs can go through the pipeline quickly. Of course, all the government agencies, esp. USCIS, must be held accountable for processing cases in a consistent and orderly way. This may be another goal IV should pursue. Just my opinion.
It is possible that EB1 C might become unavailable, because you might be looking at it more closer than I am. But I still find it hard to believe that an MNC will just create a phony Managerial position for every Joe Bloggs, an abuse similar to Labor substitution and satellite offices in states where labor processing was fast etc. Lets say an MNC really promoted some one to a position that qualifies for EB1, moves him out and moves him back, it is still by the book and can't be compared to labor sub, which were sold for money. Labor sub by itself is NO crime irrespective of what we think. The rampant abuse of it caused the demise. Same rule applies to some one who goes out and comes back as its all by the rules and no abuse is involved. In responding to the OP, My intention was to say that MNC's do not go to such an extent of creating a Managerial position that do not exist or have an employee do the same work in the name of managerial position. Some companies might have abused it in such way on few occasions, but thats definitely NOT a practice as rampant as Labor Sub's once was. If that were true and as easy as depicted, A lot of people & companies would have done it, by now. We don't need to teach the gamers. They are a step ahead in getting things done, if there is a way.
Given the severe backlog of EB2 and EB3, some people will find ways to outsmart the system so that they can get the greencards sooner. If those loopholes are not plugged now, it will make a mess just as Labor Sub once did.
I think we should pursue a goal that benefit everyone in the backlogs... not just a specific types, say I, C vs ROW; EB1 vs. EB2 vs. EB3; STEM vs. Non-STEM; Schedule A vs. Non-Schedule A; Healthcare vs. Non-Healthcare; IT vs. Non-IT. The only cause which will get everyone on the same page and therefore is worth pursuing is to recapture unused #s so that all people in the backlogs can go through the pipeline quickly. Of course, all the government agencies, esp. USCIS, must be held accountable for processing cases in a consistent and orderly way. This may be another goal IV should pursue. Just my opinion.
more...
Ramu25
04-26 10:52 PM
Can I apply for the adjustment of status by my self without the H1 - employers Notice.From L1 to H1.
hair wallpaper high definition.
transpass
04-10 12:07 PM
Here are the details for last year and years before:
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
Thanks Kondur. That was a very good presentation of the numbers. I very much appreciate it.
Now,
1. Why did EB1 last year needed spillover visas, although it was current all the time? If a category is current, isn't that it has less demand than allocated numbers?
2. As per May bulletin, EB4 might need a cut off. So we cannot expect any spillover from EB4. So that is clear. Now the spillover chances are from EB5, EB2 ROW and EB1(?). I am including EB1 because, given the current economy over the past year, should there be a better possibility of more spillover from EB2 ROW and EB1 compared to last year?
3. Also why are the total EB numbers different in different fiscal years (e.g., 141020 in FY2009, 162949 in FY 2008 and 154497 in FY2007)? In FYs 2007 and 2008 did the extra visas come from Family based while it did not for FY 2009? If so, why is it so?
4. Based on Pending 485 data of March 2010, I barely see few hundred EB4s. And hardly considerable number of EB1s. What's going on? If we go by this data, we should be getting good chunk of spillover numbers...
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Green%20Card/Green%20Card%20Through%20a%20Job/Employment%20Based%20I-485%20Pending%20Inventory-Total%203-8-2010.pdf
Thanks,
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
Thanks Kondur. That was a very good presentation of the numbers. I very much appreciate it.
Now,
1. Why did EB1 last year needed spillover visas, although it was current all the time? If a category is current, isn't that it has less demand than allocated numbers?
2. As per May bulletin, EB4 might need a cut off. So we cannot expect any spillover from EB4. So that is clear. Now the spillover chances are from EB5, EB2 ROW and EB1(?). I am including EB1 because, given the current economy over the past year, should there be a better possibility of more spillover from EB2 ROW and EB1 compared to last year?
3. Also why are the total EB numbers different in different fiscal years (e.g., 141020 in FY2009, 162949 in FY 2008 and 154497 in FY2007)? In FYs 2007 and 2008 did the extra visas come from Family based while it did not for FY 2009? If so, why is it so?
4. Based on Pending 485 data of March 2010, I barely see few hundred EB4s. And hardly considerable number of EB1s. What's going on? If we go by this data, we should be getting good chunk of spillover numbers...
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Green%20Card/Green%20Card%20Through%20a%20Job/Employment%20Based%20I-485%20Pending%20Inventory-Total%203-8-2010.pdf
Thanks,
more...
amsgc
07-13 11:25 PM
I read somewhere that now all the applications - 485/EAD/AP, for one particular applicant, are adjudicated by the same officer. This is a new process change to improve efficiency. I think the article I read indicated that it was already working that way at TSC.
Unfortunately, i don't have the link, but I will post it if i come across it.
Wow.. you think people on the 485 production line are the ones who also do EAD's or get pulled out to do EAD work, nice simple thinking ! :p
The ones who adjudicate EAD's are usually rookie IO's recently from training or IIO's lent to the service center for emergencies, like last year when officers were flown in from disctrict offices during the surge to NSC for adjudicating EAD within 90 days...in addition to transferring to EAD apps to CSC.
I-485 CAO's are usually the most experienced adjudicators.
Unfortunately, i don't have the link, but I will post it if i come across it.
Wow.. you think people on the 485 production line are the ones who also do EAD's or get pulled out to do EAD work, nice simple thinking ! :p
The ones who adjudicate EAD's are usually rookie IO's recently from training or IIO's lent to the service center for emergencies, like last year when officers were flown in from disctrict offices during the surge to NSC for adjudicating EAD within 90 days...in addition to transferring to EAD apps to CSC.
I-485 CAO's are usually the most experienced adjudicators.
hot high resolution widescreen
GCard_Dream
12-13 11:58 AM
Well ... that's the sad part. Everyone in core team is probably reading this but no significant feedback or suggestion has come from them. May be they are all too busy or this topic doesn't have any merit or has been discussed in depth already before. I am not sure what's going on.
Nomi my friend, looks like we are on our own on this one. ;)
Do you think no one from core team reading this thread??
Nomi my friend, looks like we are on our own on this one. ;)
Do you think no one from core team reading this thread??
more...
house High Resolution Wallpapers
sunnymit
07-13 03:44 PM
Same boat as you! Legally in this country for more than 11 years! Hope they approve on time. Debating whether to extend the EAD or wait for the card
I wouldn't think of not renewing my EAD if I were you. Of course I don't know your case details, but if your EAD is expiring anytime soon, just renew it. Its worth the $380 or so you will have to shell out. Not to dishearten you (or myself) but I know someone who has been waiting to get a GC and he has a PD of Jun 2001. u never know how long it might take...
I wouldn't think of not renewing my EAD if I were you. Of course I don't know your case details, but if your EAD is expiring anytime soon, just renew it. Its worth the $380 or so you will have to shell out. Not to dishearten you (or myself) but I know someone who has been waiting to get a GC and he has a PD of Jun 2001. u never know how long it might take...
tattoo High-definition widescreen
grinch
03-09 07:22 PM
entries due tomorrow, and I don't know what I'm gona do with mine. I want to fix so much, but theres no time, I'll get my final render in tomorrow
more...
pictures high definition widescreen wallpapers. High Resolution Wallpaper,
rkartik78
07-05 01:56 PM
I think atleast the forums section should be made restricted to contributing members. I see many newcomers (both paying and freebies) come to this site and hoping to get a quick guidence on their immigration issue. They come here becasue they know a) they will get some answer quickly b) that answer will make sense and experinced users here who have gone through similar situation will share their insights.
Those are major outcomes or results for not paying any dime.
I can understand someone's concern about asking everyone to pay certain amount. But most of us here are earning decent wages and can contribute atleast 3$ a month (or 25$ a year) for such a service.
If those members want to contribute more as many of us do then they are most welcome to do so.
In $$$ terms of the 12K + members we can retain 40% (about 5K) and each of them contributes atleast 25$ a year (one time payment) = $75,000.00
Remember this $75K is only based on basic membership fees. Any dropouts or reduced rate of conversion will be compensated by those '20$ a month' paying members (roughly by 1 as to 10).
In short, I support this idea of having majority of forums under restricted umbrella.
- PMAMP
Yes.... This exactly is the need of the hour!! Man, seriously, instead of debating whether to make IV a paid or unpaid website, why not use the time speakin with congressman or senators. If you feel bad by this post of mine, do take time to write a long passage again to contradict me.
Those are major outcomes or results for not paying any dime.
I can understand someone's concern about asking everyone to pay certain amount. But most of us here are earning decent wages and can contribute atleast 3$ a month (or 25$ a year) for such a service.
If those members want to contribute more as many of us do then they are most welcome to do so.
In $$$ terms of the 12K + members we can retain 40% (about 5K) and each of them contributes atleast 25$ a year (one time payment) = $75,000.00
Remember this $75K is only based on basic membership fees. Any dropouts or reduced rate of conversion will be compensated by those '20$ a month' paying members (roughly by 1 as to 10).
In short, I support this idea of having majority of forums under restricted umbrella.
- PMAMP
Yes.... This exactly is the need of the hour!! Man, seriously, instead of debating whether to make IV a paid or unpaid website, why not use the time speakin with congressman or senators. If you feel bad by this post of mine, do take time to write a long passage again to contradict me.
dresses hd widescreen wallpapers.
gc_lover
07-18 11:29 AM
I think next time any one of us talks to USCIS, we should ask this question as to "Whether they have generated any rejection notices for apps received on July 2 2007 and have they mailed them".....my attorney says so far they have not received any rejection notices for apps filed on July 2 2007.
I checked with someone who has hired Rajiv Khanna and they said the same thing to him. So far, they have not generated any rejection notice for any application filed on and after July 2nd. Since this came from Rajiv Khanna I would think that it's some what credible information.
We will just have to wait and see till our checks get cashed!
I checked with someone who has hired Rajiv Khanna and they said the same thing to him. So far, they have not generated any rejection notice for any application filed on and after July 2nd. Since this came from Rajiv Khanna I would think that it's some what credible information.
We will just have to wait and see till our checks get cashed!
more...
makeup High-resolution 3D computer
tapukakababa
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.
I called at the same number you provided all of us in your earlier posts
1-800-375-5283, with ext 1,2,3,6
I called at the same number you provided all of us in your earlier posts
1-800-375-5283, with ext 1,2,3,6
girlfriend high definition widescreen
desi3933
01-30 02:43 PM
I agree with the point above, but does this even apply to CrazyGhoda/OP? Because, he already has I485/AOS pending, which is a legal presence in the US in itself. Hence, I don't see him accruing any "out of status/illegal presence" days. He "MIGHT" have to show a future/current employer who is sponsoring his GC, depending on what his RFE asks for.
Please comment.
You didn't get it. One could have filed I-485 and still accruing out-of-status days. Hint - Employment history and salary details since last admission.
Please note that I am not implying that CrazyGhoda is accumulating out-of-status, I don't have all the details for his case.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
Please comment.
You didn't get it. One could have filed I-485 and still accruing out-of-status days. Hint - Employment history and salary details since last admission.
Please note that I am not implying that CrazyGhoda is accumulating out-of-status, I don't have all the details for his case.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
hairstyles High definition widescreen
gimme_GC2006
03-09 02:02 PM
hey bsbawa atleast ur pd is apr 04, now it is feb 04 for you , there is hope that you will get it by this year end atleast, think about folks like me, i have to wait till 2019 to get my eb3 to current......... so stop crying and be happy that atleast ur in EB2........ :o
lol..dont say 2019..my PD is almost same as yours and I aint hanging around till 2019..by that time I will be old and no idea what will I do with..GC..probaly hope for citizenship and apply for retirement benefits :confused::confused::confused:
Edit: Never mind..yours is EB3..so may be mine will come in 2015
lol..dont say 2019..my PD is almost same as yours and I aint hanging around till 2019..by that time I will be old and no idea what will I do with..GC..probaly hope for citizenship and apply for retirement benefits :confused::confused::confused:
Edit: Never mind..yours is EB3..so may be mine will come in 2015
snathan
03-07 01:00 PM
i need to accomodate people coming from NJ, CA, FL.
if anyone wants to offer place at their home please let me know.
You forgot people from TX....? I need accommodation.
thanks
if anyone wants to offer place at their home please let me know.
You forgot people from TX....? I need accommodation.
thanks
pointlesswait
02-21 11:39 AM
if u can keep thd same PD whenu change from eB3 to eB2..you should do it immediately!
Does anyone want to make a guess of when EB3 India 2002 will become current ? I am thinking of changing the case to EB2.. Should I change my case or should I wait for EB3 to be current ?
Does anyone want to make a guess of when EB3 India 2002 will become current ? I am thinking of changing the case to EB2.. Should I change my case or should I wait for EB3 to be current ?