Mouns
04-30 03:48 PM
The adjucation will always be of the same quality.
Although it is too long now, they won't speed it up :mad:
Although it is too long now, they won't speed it up :mad:
funny
09-12 01:44 PM
At least I won't give u red dots if you can enlighten us how to get us out of this mess. And yes, we do want our green card so I don't think we can stop the process or stop spending money on that. Also please advise us how to bring all 70K people under one umbrella?
I am in too...How can we organize all the members...70,000 is a lot of people, Any thing done effectively and efficiently will make an impact.
I am in too...How can we organize all the members...70,000 is a lot of people, Any thing done effectively and efficiently will make an impact.
tejonidhi
07-14 01:40 PM
Here is the confirmation 7YB1J-BR7B7:)
JunRN
09-28 07:09 PM
Receipting people are not the ones adjudicating the cases. They are different people. So there is no used stopping the receipting.
If this news is true, then we can see "wild" approvals before the end of September. Some people with complete cases may overtake others.
If this news is true, then we can see "wild" approvals before the end of September. Some people with complete cases may overtake others.
more...
mohanty99
07-17 11:13 PM
Given That All Dates Are Now Current And There Will Be Hundreds Of I-485 Filings By August 17, Will The Uscis Process Them In Order Of The Original Labor Cert Priority Date Or The Date Of Receipt Of The I-485 Filing Itself?
immi_twinges
07-20 03:31 PM
She recently announced in her campaign that she will increase the H1B visas
She also made a statement that she will try for more benefits for permanent residents.
She does not want to support only the people who are in the process of immigration???
Whats up with that.
May be she is afraid of Lou Dobbs...Recently he has been criticizing her for her Indian ties
or may be she is pro Rich Indian Americans ... this might sound ridiculous but her voting ney is crazy
They always comment about us stealing the middle class jobs...tell me one case where they don't prefer US citizen over immigrant.
I have been interviewing for couple of companies ...the first question they ask is ...Are you US citizen 2nd question r u Permanent resident ..no..
Then we are sorry.
Companies do not prefer US citizens over Immigrants...I don't know where this misconception comes in to play...
There was a guy in our office who used to complain about Chineese and Indians stealing jobs...Believe he is a big slacker ..he recently got fired...people like him form these programmers guilds.
We do not work for less and we are not paid less...may be they deduct our Gc expenses but not much
Why is there a misconception about us?
Lets get this thought out of these bone heads
We are not middle class job stealers...We are the building blocks of a strong middle class
She also made a statement that she will try for more benefits for permanent residents.
She does not want to support only the people who are in the process of immigration???
Whats up with that.
May be she is afraid of Lou Dobbs...Recently he has been criticizing her for her Indian ties
or may be she is pro Rich Indian Americans ... this might sound ridiculous but her voting ney is crazy
They always comment about us stealing the middle class jobs...tell me one case where they don't prefer US citizen over immigrant.
I have been interviewing for couple of companies ...the first question they ask is ...Are you US citizen 2nd question r u Permanent resident ..no..
Then we are sorry.
Companies do not prefer US citizens over Immigrants...I don't know where this misconception comes in to play...
There was a guy in our office who used to complain about Chineese and Indians stealing jobs...Believe he is a big slacker ..he recently got fired...people like him form these programmers guilds.
We do not work for less and we are not paid less...may be they deduct our Gc expenses but not much
Why is there a misconception about us?
Lets get this thought out of these bone heads
We are not middle class job stealers...We are the building blocks of a strong middle class
more...
9years
10-28 01:47 PM
Hi All,
My attorney and company (both) received copy of Approval Notice. One thing I noticed is Priority Date on Approval Notice is my EB3 Priority Date( October 2003 ). I think some kind update (porting) has happened. I have not seen any change in LUD on my I-485. This is just to update all and hope this information may be useful to someone.
Thank you and Best of Luck to all.
My attorney and company (both) received copy of Approval Notice. One thing I noticed is Priority Date on Approval Notice is my EB3 Priority Date( October 2003 ). I think some kind update (porting) has happened. I have not seen any change in LUD on my I-485. This is just to update all and hope this information may be useful to someone.
Thank you and Best of Luck to all.
smarteey
12-28 01:59 PM
Hi Jimmi,
Count me in as well. I live in Irvine.... Great effort.... Lets get this rolling...
Regards,
Smarteey
Count me in as well. I live in Irvine.... Great effort.... Lets get this rolling...
Regards,
Smarteey
more...
WeldonSprings
05-02 04:17 PM
Just responding to my quote- This question was also raised by Honorable House Democrat from Illinois Mr. Guterriez.I know everyone has looked at the Visa Bulletin. Here is a quote from it-
2. Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320.
So, don't you guys think that there more than 140,000 visas can be given away, if need me as it is this moment. So, I don't understand the retrogression???
2. Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320.
So, don't you guys think that there more than 140,000 visas can be given away, if need me as it is this moment. So, I don't understand the retrogression???
kumhyd2
07-10 01:19 AM
Another leader is born in
San Diego;)
San Diego;)
more...
franklin
07-16 01:59 AM
...let your Nor Cal members know - I'm trying to prepare a comprehensive document with lessons learned from the San Jose rally. Sort of a post mortem "what went right, what went wrong, how to improve" thing. It may take a few days, as we are all recovering and catching up!
Feel free to pm or email if you need anything or have questions.
I don't want to sound like a know-it-all, but we are more than willing to help out however we can.
Drona, from SoCal, was up for the rally and integral in helping out as well.
Feel free to pm or email if you need anything or have questions.
I don't want to sound like a know-it-all, but we are more than willing to help out however we can.
Drona, from SoCal, was up for the rally and integral in helping out as well.
mpadapa
07-11 08:40 AM
Great news for EB2 folks.
If EB2-I moves to June 2006 then EB2 C will almost be in the same or better position. So June 2007 bulletin folks aka EB2-C (Jan 2006) will be the main beneficiary. EB2 I folks who are lucky with RD before the current processing dates (mid July) can expect surprise mails. Good luck
If EB2-I moves to June 2006 then EB2 C will almost be in the same or better position. So June 2007 bulletin folks aka EB2-C (Jan 2006) will be the main beneficiary. EB2 I folks who are lucky with RD before the current processing dates (mid July) can expect surprise mails. Good luck
more...
conundrum
04-30 03:13 PM
The member from Chicago is mainly concerned about the family based limits. He wants to know what the limit is or if there is a cap in the first place
chanduv23
05-15 10:03 PM
For that only I am telling we need to teach a lesson. Take them once to court, and if we can get the judement once in our favour it will nail the coffin. If we lose, some one else try again in different court.
Shan - I totally understand your frustration and where you are coming from. I had the same level of aggression when i first started participated in IV activities and I am sure, a lot of people want to pursue things in an aggressive manner.
But lets calm down for a minute.
The OP initially contacted IV after googling up and came across our threads and I spoke to him. He was frustrated with opening two MTRs and was looking into mandamus.
I requested him to do the following - exhaust all adminisrative procedures first. Contact Ombudsman, Senators, Congressman, try all options.
See - these kind of decisions are not easy and not not everyone understands this stuff.
Once you go to court, it may take a couple of hearings and you will also have the other side arguing their cause.
We must always remember that - we are in a civilised nation and people on the other side are willing to listen and try to resolve stuff in the best way possible
- Lobbying, awareness etc.. are basic principles of IV .
we are not here to teach someone a lesson or fight with someone - we are here because we want our issues resolved and we must work in the best possible way.
Nevertheless - one must know how litigation also works in case that is the only option.
I request people to please share their ideas and thoughts on how to tackle such issues.
Let frustration not dictate your views. I understand that we all want issues to be resolved and get really aggressive on these forums - but lets just relax and think and see what is the best possible solution.
Shan - I totally understand your frustration and where you are coming from. I had the same level of aggression when i first started participated in IV activities and I am sure, a lot of people want to pursue things in an aggressive manner.
But lets calm down for a minute.
The OP initially contacted IV after googling up and came across our threads and I spoke to him. He was frustrated with opening two MTRs and was looking into mandamus.
I requested him to do the following - exhaust all adminisrative procedures first. Contact Ombudsman, Senators, Congressman, try all options.
See - these kind of decisions are not easy and not not everyone understands this stuff.
Once you go to court, it may take a couple of hearings and you will also have the other side arguing their cause.
We must always remember that - we are in a civilised nation and people on the other side are willing to listen and try to resolve stuff in the best way possible
- Lobbying, awareness etc.. are basic principles of IV .
we are not here to teach someone a lesson or fight with someone - we are here because we want our issues resolved and we must work in the best possible way.
Nevertheless - one must know how litigation also works in case that is the only option.
I request people to please share their ideas and thoughts on how to tackle such issues.
Let frustration not dictate your views. I understand that we all want issues to be resolved and get really aggressive on these forums - but lets just relax and think and see what is the best possible solution.
more...
nc14
07-06 08:20 AM
One of the most comprehensive articles reflecting our plight. Please digg.
imm_pro
07-20 03:44 PM
Hillary is such a 2 face person...She collects all the campaign funds from the tech lobbies with her pro skilled immmigrant oratory skills and at the same time appease the anti immigration rightists..
also whats up with the senators from CA..both of them NAYed..what are the influential tech companies doing ?
IV shuould highlight these upcoming bills like this on the front page and ask members to respond accordingly.
also whats up with the senators from CA..both of them NAYed..what are the influential tech companies doing ?
IV shuould highlight these upcoming bills like this on the front page and ask members to respond accordingly.
more...
485Mbe4001
08-04 01:13 PM
FYI ..sorry to be blunt...your profile contains significant factual errors, please correct those first...just trying to help you as you are trying to help us. together we shall overcome.:p
Read in red above and comments on it below:
1- You are telling the person writing visa bulletin that he does not do his job right.
Sorry to be blunt, but I find this letter factually incorrect and lacks a purpose that will help us.
Read in red above and comments on it below:
1- You are telling the person writing visa bulletin that he does not do his job right.
Sorry to be blunt, but I find this letter factually incorrect and lacks a purpose that will help us.
nirenjoshi
03-09 06:03 PM
Added info about April VB to past VBs table.
http://immigrationvoice.org/wiki/index.php/Past_Visa_Bulletin_Data
The way dates are moved doesn't seem to have any fact based intelligent logic.
Thanks.. I was about to create a table myself based on the archived bulletins..
However, there isnt much to infer - as you say there doesnt seem to be any logic in the movement of dates. The lack of transparency is quite frustrating.:mad:
http://immigrationvoice.org/wiki/index.php/Past_Visa_Bulletin_Data
The way dates are moved doesn't seem to have any fact based intelligent logic.
Thanks.. I was about to create a table myself based on the archived bulletins..
However, there isnt much to infer - as you say there doesnt seem to be any logic in the movement of dates. The lack of transparency is quite frustrating.:mad:
gc_on_demand
04-30 03:21 PM
Will there be a voting today to decide to move further in this process ? OR commette chairman will decide based on hearing ...
anilsal
07-16 12:37 PM
have posted info on this campaign to their chapters. I am sure this high-five campaign will be a great success. Keep the fire on.
485Mbe4001
06-10 12:32 PM
From Ron Gotchers site:-
Something is seriously out of whack. EB3 is "unavailable." EB3 "other workers" however have a cutoff date. The applicable statute provides:
"
Quote:
203(b)(3) Skilled workers, professionals, and other workers.--
203(b)(3)(A) In general.--Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (1) and (2), to the following classes of aliens who are not described in paragraph (2):
. . .
203(b)(3)(B) Limitation on other workers.--Not more than 10,000 of the visas made available under this paragraph in any fiscal year may be available for qualified immigrants described in subparagraph (A)(iii). "
That's not a set aside for "other workers" - it is a limit. In other words, "other workers are not guaranteed 10,000 visas each year, they are limited to no more than 10,000 visas out of the 28.6% of the overall quota that is guaranteed to EB3 applicants.
How can "other workers" have a cutoff date when the rest of EB3 is unavailable?
Something is seriously out of whack. EB3 is "unavailable." EB3 "other workers" however have a cutoff date. The applicable statute provides:
"
Quote:
203(b)(3) Skilled workers, professionals, and other workers.--
203(b)(3)(A) In general.--Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (1) and (2), to the following classes of aliens who are not described in paragraph (2):
. . .
203(b)(3)(B) Limitation on other workers.--Not more than 10,000 of the visas made available under this paragraph in any fiscal year may be available for qualified immigrants described in subparagraph (A)(iii). "
That's not a set aside for "other workers" - it is a limit. In other words, "other workers are not guaranteed 10,000 visas each year, they are limited to no more than 10,000 visas out of the 28.6% of the overall quota that is guaranteed to EB3 applicants.
How can "other workers" have a cutoff date when the rest of EB3 is unavailable?
No comments:
Post a Comment