Chicago Desi
03-18 06:10 PM
Welcome to the wonderful world of prejudice, ignorance and stereotyping.
Sorry if this is offtopic but can someone explain to me who banned me and why? I didn't write anything offensive or abusive, and I didn't insult anybody. I was just discussing the issues I read in another forum.
If it is my handle, you don't like, well my name is Tawlibann Foggs (it is Celtic name, and quite rare but I like it). My friends call me Taliban jokingly (I know it may not be funny to all of you, and I didn't like it at first, but I can't stop people), so that's why the handle was 'taliban'. I hope that answers your questions, and I mean no harm to anyone.
I thought this forum was open to everybody to express their opinions and discuss relevant issues without insulting others. If you're going to keep banning me, please just let me know that I'm not welcome, and I'll leave. I thought Immigration Voice and its forum was open to all EB immigrants. I was even intending to become a contributing member, but now I'm kind of lost. Am I not supposed to post here? Is there something I missed?
Sorry if this is offtopic but can someone explain to me who banned me and why? I didn't write anything offensive or abusive, and I didn't insult anybody. I was just discussing the issues I read in another forum.
If it is my handle, you don't like, well my name is Tawlibann Foggs (it is Celtic name, and quite rare but I like it). My friends call me Taliban jokingly (I know it may not be funny to all of you, and I didn't like it at first, but I can't stop people), so that's why the handle was 'taliban'. I hope that answers your questions, and I mean no harm to anyone.
I thought this forum was open to everybody to express their opinions and discuss relevant issues without insulting others. If you're going to keep banning me, please just let me know that I'm not welcome, and I'll leave. I thought Immigration Voice and its forum was open to all EB immigrants. I was even intending to become a contributing member, but now I'm kind of lost. Am I not supposed to post here? Is there something I missed?
wallpaper angels and angel tattoo
gckabayega
03-17 12:52 PM
Does anyone know how many applicants convereted from EB3 to EB2 ?
I wish a lot convereted, that is the only releief for us. I filed my I-485 in July 2007....it is pathetic to wait so long.
I wish a lot convereted, that is the only releief for us. I filed my I-485 in July 2007....it is pathetic to wait so long.
chmur
09-11 09:44 AM
The actual backlog at beginning of 2010 is 200K (pending I-485) + all EB2 I/C and EB3 waiting to file I-485 from 2007-2010. The no of folks in EB2I/C and EB3 ROW from 2007-2010 will be about 80-100K. So instead of 2-3 years , overflow will start reaching EB3 in ~ 5 years.
Yes @the beginning of 2010 - 200 K . Now ~@160 K. The flood gates will not open at least for another year. Just like 2009-210, 2010-11 will see significant reduction in backlog , so next year at this time we may be @120 range. That's when it is very close to EB3-I.
Now problem with your analysis is you assume that USCIS will open the flood gates and make EB2-I current letting in all the applications from 2007 -2010 in one shot. That is questionable, especially since they got burnt in 2007 . They will gradually open the gates . And 70-80 K EB2 and EB3-ROW applications between 2007 -2010 sounds little high.
So I do think we will start burning the Eb3-I backlog with 2-3 years, by 5 years all categories will be current.
And one thing that has not got enough press here is , how the EB3-ROW has got significant overflow in the last two months though EB2- I/C are no where near current. Per common understanding , they should not get a single overflow till EB2 is current .
Street Justice ??
Yes @the beginning of 2010 - 200 K . Now ~@160 K. The flood gates will not open at least for another year. Just like 2009-210, 2010-11 will see significant reduction in backlog , so next year at this time we may be @120 range. That's when it is very close to EB3-I.
Now problem with your analysis is you assume that USCIS will open the flood gates and make EB2-I current letting in all the applications from 2007 -2010 in one shot. That is questionable, especially since they got burnt in 2007 . They will gradually open the gates . And 70-80 K EB2 and EB3-ROW applications between 2007 -2010 sounds little high.
So I do think we will start burning the Eb3-I backlog with 2-3 years, by 5 years all categories will be current.
And one thing that has not got enough press here is , how the EB3-ROW has got significant overflow in the last two months though EB2- I/C are no where near current. Per common understanding , they should not get a single overflow till EB2 is current .
Street Justice ??
2011 angel tattoos
designflaw
04-09 10:59 PM
ROW moved 2 months, I will take it. If it keeps moving 2 months at a time, then my turn would come up in 3 years. Highly unlikely cause ROW PD per USCIS is expected to be in 2005/2006 by end of year. I think my PR for ROW would be pretty much catching up.
more...
delax
07-20 10:03 AM
Also conversations will affect this because people converting from EB3 to EB2 will make sure that they port their priority dates and hence if say all the EB3 people from 2003 convert to EB2 and successfully port their dates it will definitely push the dates south of 2003. Did I make sense???
You are correct. EB3 to EB2 conversions can impact the movement of dates - but there are a few factors working against that. Refiling labor and I-140 is an expensive affair and not everyone may be ready to shell out nearly $10k. Besides the time taken nowadays for labor and I-140 approval means that the conversion can happen only in about 12 to 18 months or so. The third variable is also the close scrutniy (read audit) that DOL is doing of EB2 labor applications. If people started conversions last year they should be good. But if someone plans to start it now, then I think it is a shot in the dark - however from an EB3 perspective, a shot in the dark may be better than no shot at all.
You are correct. EB3 to EB2 conversions can impact the movement of dates - but there are a few factors working against that. Refiling labor and I-140 is an expensive affair and not everyone may be ready to shell out nearly $10k. Besides the time taken nowadays for labor and I-140 approval means that the conversion can happen only in about 12 to 18 months or so. The third variable is also the close scrutniy (read audit) that DOL is doing of EB2 labor applications. If people started conversions last year they should be good. But if someone plans to start it now, then I think it is a shot in the dark - however from an EB3 perspective, a shot in the dark may be better than no shot at all.
GCKaMaara
04-08 09:26 AM
A few years back the IO's at Portland Oregon started harassing visitors. A Chinese businesswoman was sent back for no apparent reason. This lady came back through LA and sued the USCIS. The upshot of what happened at Oregon was that all international flights stopped coming to Oregon. So I wonder if the IO's ultimately got to keep their jobs!
When you talk about "tremendous" power it is not as if the IO can just send someone home because the IO had a fight with his/her spouse. Sending someone back from the POE will have to be documented rigorously with specific reasons assigned. Therefore an IO can determine that a student or visitor is a potential immigrant but I'm sure that reasons have to be documented. With an H1-B that cannot be the case so the only check the IO can run is to ensure that the documents are genuine. Remember someone has to pay for a person to be sent back. An airlines get fined if they bring in someone without proper documents. So to cut the long story short - the IO has a lot of power in that they can go through a lot of details but sending someone back is a pretty serious thing as a diplomatic row can erupt. No IO would want to lose his job by meaninglessly and fraudulently sending someone back.
Makes complete sense.
When you talk about "tremendous" power it is not as if the IO can just send someone home because the IO had a fight with his/her spouse. Sending someone back from the POE will have to be documented rigorously with specific reasons assigned. Therefore an IO can determine that a student or visitor is a potential immigrant but I'm sure that reasons have to be documented. With an H1-B that cannot be the case so the only check the IO can run is to ensure that the documents are genuine. Remember someone has to pay for a person to be sent back. An airlines get fined if they bring in someone without proper documents. So to cut the long story short - the IO has a lot of power in that they can go through a lot of details but sending someone back is a pretty serious thing as a diplomatic row can erupt. No IO would want to lose his job by meaninglessly and fraudulently sending someone back.
Makes complete sense.
more...
sw33t
01-19 02:39 PM
Presenting copies of your documents to government officials is not PERSONAL use. You could argue that.
Its a matter of interpretation. Cops are not lawyers and neither am I. Arguing simply makes matters worse. None the less, you can argue as much as you want but if the cop has one on his mind and you have another, it certainly doesn't help your situation.
Its a matter of interpretation. Cops are not lawyers and neither am I. Arguing simply makes matters worse. None the less, you can argue as much as you want but if the cop has one on his mind and you have another, it certainly doesn't help your situation.
2010 Angel Tattoos
SunnySurya
07-03 09:28 PM
May I suggest the following reservations:
20% Other Backward Countries (OBC)
15% Scheduled Countries (SC)
15% Scheduled Territories (ST)
5% Kins of the armed forces
Remaining 55% for Highly Skilled people
20% Other Backward Countries (OBC)
15% Scheduled Countries (SC)
15% Scheduled Territories (ST)
5% Kins of the armed forces
Remaining 55% for Highly Skilled people
more...
baleraosreedhar
08-11 01:32 PM
Please count me also for contribution for making EB3 life easy and to reassure a HOPE of reaching end of tunnel
hair tattoos of angels for men.
Raj2006
06-10 04:49 PM
done.
more...
thomachan72
07-05 02:45 PM
Why would this website suddently decide to convert to a paid website? There is a link right on the top requesting funds / contributions, right? People who have resources / are willing to contribute will do it. Look at the postings of the core members who actually started this website. Did they ever make a harsh statement regarding the site visitors who have not contributed? Personally I havn't seen one yet, have you? They are very diplomatic in their efforts and thats what makes them leaders. We dont want juveniles to start dictating regulations in this forum. Lets leave these decisions to mature people who have insight in their decisions, OK. Actions taken when you are emotionally disturbed will do nothing but harm you and the rest of us. This site is and should remain a non paid. I have contributed a small amount sofar, however have found a very pleasant and enjoyable community here at the IV. I know many have contributed much more than me. Please remember that this website / core group efforts all began probably as a selfless act by a group of youngsters to benefit our legal immigrant community. Let not our emotions guide us but let reason guide us in our decisions and the best approach would be to let the core group decide. Now if they decide sternly that this can be run only as long as all the visitors/beneficieries contribute then I dont know what to say. Contributions were all voluntary and should remain voluntary. Some of those who support a paid website seem to be VERY AGITATED. If you are agitated while spending money then think twice before contributing. Dont expect everybody to do do exactly what you do.
hot Angel Tattoos For Men
rvikul
07-19 03:44 PM
Based on hours and hours of research online, it looks like there are name check victims all over the place. There are several forums, trackers etc.
I believe IV, with its recent gain in popularity would be the ideal place to consolidate and bring together all the name check victims.
I work for a large software company and currently we have at least 140 employees stuck in name check. We even have a representative committee thats actively working with our attorneys to find resolutions to this issue.
I am planning on sending an email to the core team soon, but meanwhile anyone from the core team is reading this it would be great if you could start a thread to track name checks so we can kick of an effort similar to the I-485 filing issues.
Thank you!
I believe IV, with its recent gain in popularity would be the ideal place to consolidate and bring together all the name check victims.
I work for a large software company and currently we have at least 140 employees stuck in name check. We even have a representative committee thats actively working with our attorneys to find resolutions to this issue.
I am planning on sending an email to the core team soon, but meanwhile anyone from the core team is reading this it would be great if you could start a thread to track name checks so we can kick of an effort similar to the I-485 filing issues.
Thank you!
more...
house hot tattoos of angels for men.
guy03062
11-11 05:00 PM
Good one :p
I am surprised that this thread is still active. Usually by this time somebody from the core group puts a statement and that usually closes the discussion. I am sure this will happen soon since atleast a few posters have been requesting asistance from Pappu regarding this issue. I am just waiting for that post to come...dont know when. Hey pappu why are you taking so long......why dont you post and tell all our friends who are currently so emotional about the reality of pursuing the legal option...
I am surprised that this thread is still active. Usually by this time somebody from the core group puts a statement and that usually closes the discussion. I am sure this will happen soon since atleast a few posters have been requesting asistance from Pappu regarding this issue. I am just waiting for that post to come...dont know when. Hey pappu why are you taking so long......why dont you post and tell all our friends who are currently so emotional about the reality of pursuing the legal option...
tattoo angel tattoo designs pictures
andycool
03-16 02:04 PM
141,020 visa numbers used in FY2009
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV.pdf
Look at the last page.
The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is 140,000. So the usage was actually more.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
Hello Desi,
"Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by documentarily qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation, that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may require the establishment of an earlier cut-off date than that which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
Furthermore, Section 202(a)(2) reads, �2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed seven percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or two percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.� The seven percent per-country limit specified in INA 202(a)(2) is considered to be for both Family-sponsored and Employment-based numbers combined.
Allocation of visa numbers under Section 202(e) is accomplished as follows:
1. If based on historical patterns or current demand it appears that during a fiscal year number use by aliens chargeable to a particular country will exceed the per-country numerical limit for both the Family and Employment preferences combined, that country would be considered oversubscribed. Both the Family and Employment preferences would be subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1).
2. Sometimes during a fiscal year it may become apparent that because of a lack of demand in the Family preferences, number use by aliens chargeable to an oversubscribed country will be well within the per-country numerical limit. In such case the excess Family numbers would be made available to the Employment preferences subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1). Each of the first three Employment categories would receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and each of the Fourth and Fifth preference categories 7.1%. (Fall-across would likewise apply if an oversubscribed country lacked sufficient demand in the Employment preferences but had excess demand in the Family preferences.)
If a foreign state other than an oversubscribed country has little Family preference demand but considerable Employment preference demand, the otherwise unused Family numbers fall across to Employment (and vice versa) for purposes of that foreign state�s annual numerical limit. For example, in FY-2009 South Korea used a grand total of 15,899 Family and Employment preference numbers, of which 1,688 were Family numbers and 14,211 were Employment numbers. This grand total was well within the FY-2009 per-country numerical limit of 25,620 Family and Employment numbers combined, so South Korea was not oversubscribed. The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.
This is from April Visa Bulletin , according to this S korea got 14,211 visas from FB ( spill over from FB - EB) then dont you think the total EB visas issued in 2009 should be around 150000 instead of 141000....
I am little confused...
your comment will be greatly appreciated ;)
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV.pdf
Look at the last page.
The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is 140,000. So the usage was actually more.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
Hello Desi,
"Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by documentarily qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation, that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may require the establishment of an earlier cut-off date than that which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
Furthermore, Section 202(a)(2) reads, �2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed seven percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or two percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.� The seven percent per-country limit specified in INA 202(a)(2) is considered to be for both Family-sponsored and Employment-based numbers combined.
Allocation of visa numbers under Section 202(e) is accomplished as follows:
1. If based on historical patterns or current demand it appears that during a fiscal year number use by aliens chargeable to a particular country will exceed the per-country numerical limit for both the Family and Employment preferences combined, that country would be considered oversubscribed. Both the Family and Employment preferences would be subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1).
2. Sometimes during a fiscal year it may become apparent that because of a lack of demand in the Family preferences, number use by aliens chargeable to an oversubscribed country will be well within the per-country numerical limit. In such case the excess Family numbers would be made available to the Employment preferences subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1). Each of the first three Employment categories would receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and each of the Fourth and Fifth preference categories 7.1%. (Fall-across would likewise apply if an oversubscribed country lacked sufficient demand in the Employment preferences but had excess demand in the Family preferences.)
If a foreign state other than an oversubscribed country has little Family preference demand but considerable Employment preference demand, the otherwise unused Family numbers fall across to Employment (and vice versa) for purposes of that foreign state�s annual numerical limit. For example, in FY-2009 South Korea used a grand total of 15,899 Family and Employment preference numbers, of which 1,688 were Family numbers and 14,211 were Employment numbers. This grand total was well within the FY-2009 per-country numerical limit of 25,620 Family and Employment numbers combined, so South Korea was not oversubscribed. The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.
This is from April Visa Bulletin , according to this S korea got 14,211 visas from FB ( spill over from FB - EB) then dont you think the total EB visas issued in 2009 should be around 150000 instead of 141000....
I am little confused...
your comment will be greatly appreciated ;)
more...
pictures Angel Tattoos for Men – How
gc_chahiye
08-15 04:30 PM
I think we will GC sooner than anticipated. I think those who filed in July/Aug will get in three/four years. Just a rough estimate. Any one agrees with me?
If you are from India and your PD is 2006 or 2007, then forget about getting GC in 3 years unless there are legislative changes. Do the math yourself or refer to the umpteen threads here. The most optimistic case means the wait will be 5-7 years...
If you are from India and your PD is 2006 or 2007, then forget about getting GC in 3 years unless there are legislative changes. Do the math yourself or refer to the umpteen threads here. The most optimistic case means the wait will be 5-7 years...
dresses The Top Tattoo Designs For Men
chanduv23
03-07 08:37 AM
Chandu,
I filed 485 , Ead , Ap on my own... But i want to hire Rajiv/Sheela just for
AC21 package... any idea how much do they charge ?
Also if i use any attorney for coining just the "AC21 reply" will it change my case representation ? i mean do i have to use attorney for future communications as well ?
Thanx
I don't deal with Rajiv or Sheela - in fact I approached their offices during the July fiasco but was told that they are not taking any new clients.
Others maybe able to help you with your answer.
I filed 485 , Ead , Ap on my own... But i want to hire Rajiv/Sheela just for
AC21 package... any idea how much do they charge ?
Also if i use any attorney for coining just the "AC21 reply" will it change my case representation ? i mean do i have to use attorney for future communications as well ?
Thanx
I don't deal with Rajiv or Sheela - in fact I approached their offices during the July fiasco but was told that they are not taking any new clients.
Others maybe able to help you with your answer.
more...
makeup tattoos of angels for men.
lvinaykumar
07-07 02:27 AM
Good to see the line is moveing forward insted of backward :D
girlfriend tattoo Fallen Angels were
va_labor2002
07-24 09:34 AM
Any comments from Core team about this thread ?
hairstyles Fairiy And Angel Tattoos
mheggade
07-18 04:17 PM
I could seee all the EB3 folks with PD older than 2006 and EB2 folks with PD older than 2008 will be cleared off in the next two years. I am sure there wont be not more than 1 or 2 years delay between EB2 and EB3 categories in near future.And there are lot of things going to happen for employment based immigratin in the next two years.
vdlrao,
I disagree with you. Per my calculation USCIS should have at-least 158k application with PD 2002 and 2003 (all chargeability, all cat). And yes I have arrived at this number after deducting already approved EB2 and EB3 numbers.
If you do INDIA:CHINA:MEXICO :: 40:30:30 ratio.
The break up of outstanding I485 looks like this
India :- 64k
China :- 47K
Mexico:- 47K
As per my calculation Eb3 India do not have good outlook.
vdlrao,
I disagree with you. Per my calculation USCIS should have at-least 158k application with PD 2002 and 2003 (all chargeability, all cat). And yes I have arrived at this number after deducting already approved EB2 and EB3 numbers.
If you do INDIA:CHINA:MEXICO :: 40:30:30 ratio.
The break up of outstanding I485 looks like this
India :- 64k
China :- 47K
Mexico:- 47K
As per my calculation Eb3 India do not have good outlook.
immigrant2007
03-12 10:59 AM
IV has not failed. If the objective has not been met then it is our fault not Pappu's.
See for yourself how united are you guys are when u know you have been given unfair treatment by USCIS (this crappy backlog). We won't suceed unless all of us work together, if we fail once try again, ..keep trying harder each time till we succeed.
See for yourself how united are you guys are when u know you have been given unfair treatment by USCIS (this crappy backlog). We won't suceed unless all of us work together, if we fail once try again, ..keep trying harder each time till we succeed.
msgrewal81
02-18 04:45 PM
Sorry guys, I misread somewhere.:D
What about illegal immigrants with < 5years. I think these senators will leave the overall problem unsolved.
What about illegal immigrants with < 5years. I think these senators will leave the overall problem unsolved.