krupa
12-12 08:57 PM
Everywhere they mention spillover...they say quarterly. But they don't really enforce it. :mad:
At least , they improved the bulletin by adding more detailed information as well as an explanation about how it works.
USCIS issue GC not more than 9% of quota for eligible quota by each country during each first three quarters. Spill over happens only in last quarter of a fiscal year.
At least , they improved the bulletin by adding more detailed information as well as an explanation about how it works.
USCIS issue GC not more than 9% of quota for eligible quota by each country during each first three quarters. Spill over happens only in last quarter of a fiscal year.
wallpaper new Jeffree Star album.
Lasantha
06-08 06:36 PM
My PD is Dec 2002. Still waiting for the 45 day letter.
Dallas Backlog Center
This is strange because my LC with PD of March 2005 was approved in September last year by Dallas. So they don't really do this FIFO basis.
I am sorry to hear that you had to wait so long.
Dallas Backlog Center
This is strange because my LC with PD of March 2005 was approved in September last year by Dallas. So they don't really do this FIFO basis.
I am sorry to hear that you had to wait so long.
gk_2000
08-23 10:12 PM
Send your recommendations to USCIS/DOL and your certification about bsc and bcom. Also enlighten us with your larger perspective of how this multinational executive making 32K per annum adding more jobs/potential to the economy.
I have nothing to recommend to them as things are fine as they are. And there will be no recommendation coming from me to close any door at all, whether it be for EB2 or anyone else.
You can go ahead and recommend against EB3 BSc BCom losers, as it is your business
To shut down a program because of a few mis-users : I am sure you WONT agree to extend this logic to your precious EB2 application when someone points out how someone else misused it
I have nothing to recommend to them as things are fine as they are. And there will be no recommendation coming from me to close any door at all, whether it be for EB2 or anyone else.
You can go ahead and recommend against EB3 BSc BCom losers, as it is your business
To shut down a program because of a few mis-users : I am sure you WONT agree to extend this logic to your precious EB2 application when someone points out how someone else misused it
2011 album JEFFREE STAR PHOTOS
ak_2006
05-15 09:46 AM
Here is the scoop.
from US Congresswoman's office, an immigration specialist spoke to their liaison at the Nebraska Service Center.
Liaison confirmed the following:
1. I-140 approval in September, 2007 (actually 09/04/2009 as I have the hard copy)
2. I-140 revocation in Feb, 2009 ( he has not provided the day of the month, but from LUD I have it strongly pointing to 02/03/2009)
I have not told the Congresswoman's office about the I-140 revocation. Just mentioned that it might have happened as I have left the company.
3. Liaison did confirm that even after the I-140 being withdrawn I am eligible for adjustment thru AC21.
4. Liaison did agree that if the I-140 was revoked within the stipulated time given in AC21, Nebraska’s decision to deny the I-485 may have been in error. (which in my case is true)
Immigration specialist at the Congresswoman's office is going to contact the Director of NSC to review this matter with a supervisor
Unanswered questions:
1. If the Liaison can see that my I-140 is approved on 09/04/2009, why is that the adjudicating officer is responding with a denial on 09/04/2009 and subsequent denial of I-485?
2. Are they both not looking at my information with same interface?
Conclusion:
Atleast in my case it looks deliberate and intentional.
Hi ind_game,
For me, 1. I-140 approval in September, 2007 (actually 09/04/2009 as I have the hard copy) has typo. I think your 09/04/2009 should be 2007.
Please correct.
from US Congresswoman's office, an immigration specialist spoke to their liaison at the Nebraska Service Center.
Liaison confirmed the following:
1. I-140 approval in September, 2007 (actually 09/04/2009 as I have the hard copy)
2. I-140 revocation in Feb, 2009 ( he has not provided the day of the month, but from LUD I have it strongly pointing to 02/03/2009)
I have not told the Congresswoman's office about the I-140 revocation. Just mentioned that it might have happened as I have left the company.
3. Liaison did confirm that even after the I-140 being withdrawn I am eligible for adjustment thru AC21.
4. Liaison did agree that if the I-140 was revoked within the stipulated time given in AC21, Nebraska’s decision to deny the I-485 may have been in error. (which in my case is true)
Immigration specialist at the Congresswoman's office is going to contact the Director of NSC to review this matter with a supervisor
Unanswered questions:
1. If the Liaison can see that my I-140 is approved on 09/04/2009, why is that the adjudicating officer is responding with a denial on 09/04/2009 and subsequent denial of I-485?
2. Are they both not looking at my information with same interface?
Conclusion:
Atleast in my case it looks deliberate and intentional.
Hi ind_game,
For me, 1. I-140 approval in September, 2007 (actually 09/04/2009 as I have the hard copy) has typo. I think your 09/04/2009 should be 2007.
Please correct.
more...
mpadapa
09-10 09:21 PM
HR 5882 has the answer for the FIFO problem.
USCIS is pretty good with approving cased based on PD for 3/4th of the year and in the last quarter they for the "Hail mary" play and DOS gives a wide PD range during the last quarter for USCIS to play. Apart from recapturing wasted visa's HR 5882 also has an automatic recapture provision to avoid any future visa wastage. If this provision is in place then UCSIS/DOS will not be in a position to playing the "some how use up visa by sep 31" card to approve random cases.
Rather than focusing on HR 5882 many are still pondering about LUD's and sill day dreaming. The demand for visa's is much higher than the supply of visa's, it doesn't matter what new spillover policy USCIS adopts, it can only provide incremental improvements. For a quantum improvment in the situation we need a legislation and HR 5882 is the best option we have now.
Can some gurus answer this...
Is there some wording in any laws/rules that says USCIS, no matter what, should not be approving cases out of PD order?
OR is PD just a *guidance* to maintain some sort of FIFO and there are enough loopholes in the law that allows USCIS to skirt around them and approve cases with later PDs by claiming that they are actually doing us a service by not wasting visa numbers by approving cases any which way they can?
If its the latter, then we can't do much other than appealing to their conscience and ask them to do a fairer job.
USCIS is pretty good with approving cased based on PD for 3/4th of the year and in the last quarter they for the "Hail mary" play and DOS gives a wide PD range during the last quarter for USCIS to play. Apart from recapturing wasted visa's HR 5882 also has an automatic recapture provision to avoid any future visa wastage. If this provision is in place then UCSIS/DOS will not be in a position to playing the "some how use up visa by sep 31" card to approve random cases.
Rather than focusing on HR 5882 many are still pondering about LUD's and sill day dreaming. The demand for visa's is much higher than the supply of visa's, it doesn't matter what new spillover policy USCIS adopts, it can only provide incremental improvements. For a quantum improvment in the situation we need a legislation and HR 5882 is the best option we have now.
Can some gurus answer this...
Is there some wording in any laws/rules that says USCIS, no matter what, should not be approving cases out of PD order?
OR is PD just a *guidance* to maintain some sort of FIFO and there are enough loopholes in the law that allows USCIS to skirt around them and approve cases with later PDs by claiming that they are actually doing us a service by not wasting visa numbers by approving cases any which way they can?
If its the latter, then we can't do much other than appealing to their conscience and ask them to do a fairer job.
vayumahesh
10-22 09:12 AM
My application was filed under PERM EB2 on May 12th and it got approved on Sep 2nd. Filed I-140 under premium processing yesterday. My attorney has requested earlier priority date (June 2003, EB3) while filing EB2 I-140. He said, once I-140 is approved and priority date porting is done, I-485 may be approved automatically. If not approved for a period of time (say a month or so), interfiling may be requested.
more...
pappu
02-01 11:59 PM
could someone take the initiative of organizing conference calls.
2010 Jeffree Star - Album Art
PD_Dec2002
06-01 03:46 PM
THIS IS VALID ONLY IF THE CIR BILL BECOMES A LAW IN ITS CURRENT FORM....
From what I know (largely due to the posts on these forums), if your I-140 was not filed by May 15th 2007, you will have to reapply for your GC in the new system.
LC or I-485 is not relevant here. The cutoff date is determined by your I-140 filing date.
Also, between May 15th 2007 and October 1st 2008 (likely), no new I-140s can be applied. Thus, it would make no sense to apply for a LC either. USCIS will only process backlogged I-485 cases and issue green cards.
Finally, it is really unfair for them to set this cutoff date retroactively. But it is legal for them to do this. Can't sue them for it.
Hope this clears things.
Thanks,
Jayant
From what I know (largely due to the posts on these forums), if your I-140 was not filed by May 15th 2007, you will have to reapply for your GC in the new system.
LC or I-485 is not relevant here. The cutoff date is determined by your I-140 filing date.
Also, between May 15th 2007 and October 1st 2008 (likely), no new I-140s can be applied. Thus, it would make no sense to apply for a LC either. USCIS will only process backlogged I-485 cases and issue green cards.
Finally, it is really unfair for them to set this cutoff date retroactively. But it is legal for them to do this. Can't sue them for it.
Hope this clears things.
Thanks,
Jayant
more...
rimco99
07-20 10:03 AM
BTW how did Obama vote?????
Obama is another joker!!!. He abstained.
Obama is another joker!!!. He abstained.
hair jeffree star without
priti8888
07-23 06:07 PM
My husband doesn't even want to look. He says he'll become too agitated, so only let him know the good news. I'm addicted too, but this could become a problem for me, since this week I have finals at school:o
I am the better half too!:) Anyway, just an FYI. Since you got your RD, i would suggest you inquire about your and your familys name check status in the next few months. As far as i know, name checks are cleared whithin a few months of RD or few months after 1st Fingerprint. This would just give you some peace of mind...
I am the better half too!:) Anyway, just an FYI. Since you got your RD, i would suggest you inquire about your and your familys name check status in the next few months. As far as i know, name checks are cleared whithin a few months of RD or few months after 1st Fingerprint. This would just give you some peace of mind...
more...
reddymjm
03-12 10:48 AM
Just send an email with details to adminstrator2.
hot Jeffree Star interview and
h1techSlave
03-03 02:09 PM
There is no need for people to call USCIS. The PD date movement is based on demand. Even for a worst case scenario, USCIS should use 3300 visas for EB3-I. By Aug 2009, if they have only used 1000 visas, then DOS will move the PD for EB3-I by a couple of months.
Now my prediction. We will see PD current for all categories except for EB3-I/EB2-I/EB2-C in by August 2009. EB3-I would reach 2003 Jan. EB2-I and EB2-C will reach 2006 Jan.
I have no real basis for my prediction. Like Michael Crichton would say, no body can predict the future. We can only guess about what would happen in the future. Some of that guess is a calculated/informed guess; still it is just a guess.
How many of the returning people would call USCIS to cancel their 485s? I see almost zero.
Now my prediction. We will see PD current for all categories except for EB3-I/EB2-I/EB2-C in by August 2009. EB3-I would reach 2003 Jan. EB2-I and EB2-C will reach 2006 Jan.
I have no real basis for my prediction. Like Michael Crichton would say, no body can predict the future. We can only guess about what would happen in the future. Some of that guess is a calculated/informed guess; still it is just a guess.
How many of the returning people would call USCIS to cancel their 485s? I see almost zero.
more...
house Akon singned Jeffree Star.
jonty_11
07-14 01:30 PM
I know some of you must think:
"What the heck difference is FIVE dollars going to make?????"
Well $5 x 30,000 = $150,000 I hope people understand that, $150,000 is NOTHING to sneeze at. So people, you dont even need to dig too deep. Just FIVE DOLLARS.
Less than the cost of a SUBWAY Sandwich LUNCH.
Subway sandwich and that too a FOOTLONG.....so get going to mail those checks.
"What the heck difference is FIVE dollars going to make?????"
Well $5 x 30,000 = $150,000 I hope people understand that, $150,000 is NOTHING to sneeze at. So people, you dont even need to dig too deep. Just FIVE DOLLARS.
Less than the cost of a SUBWAY Sandwich LUNCH.
Subway sandwich and that too a FOOTLONG.....so get going to mail those checks.
tattoo and singer Jeffree Star at
newuser
07-18 12:35 PM
As a $20 recurring contributor till now, I am upgrading my monthly contribution to $50 from today onwards.
Good luck to everyone and my wishes to IV CORE.
Also IV membership just crossed the 21000 mark.
Threads: 5,912, Posts: 118,961, Members: 21,000 , Active Members: 14,163
Good luck to everyone and my wishes to IV CORE.
Also IV membership just crossed the 21000 mark.
Threads: 5,912, Posts: 118,961, Members: 21,000 , Active Members: 14,163
more...
pictures Face to Face: Jeffree Star
m306m
05-27 08:28 AM
^ to the top ^
dresses album JEFFREE STAR PHOTOS
waitingmygc
05-18 04:22 PM
Hi Chanduv23,
Thanks for the reply.
Can you let all of us know the follwoing:
1. What are the steps involved in to do everything right?
2. Is one of the step "ex employer informing USCIS about the job change has gone through this"?
3. If not then what are the disadvantages or if can't trust employer ?
Please let us know about all the steps involved to switch employer by invoking AC-21?
regards,
waitingmygc
Thanks for the reply.
Can you let all of us know the follwoing:
1. What are the steps involved in to do everything right?
2. Is one of the step "ex employer informing USCIS about the job change has gone through this"?
3. If not then what are the disadvantages or if can't trust employer ?
Please let us know about all the steps involved to switch employer by invoking AC-21?
regards,
waitingmygc
more...
makeup album Jeffree Star
eb3_nepa
07-14 03:14 PM
Just dropped a check for $5. I hope all of the remaining members do the same.
Mailing a check is just as good as a bill pay.
For those who are unaware as to what the "Bill Pay" option is, basically the Bill pay option is a great way to take advantage of your bank cutting a cheque as opposed to you cutting a cheque. That way you can write cheques without having to:
1) Actually write out a cheque
2) Spend money to post it (and take the extra effort to mail the cheque out).
Keep the contributions flowing.
Mailing a check is just as good as a bill pay.
For those who are unaware as to what the "Bill Pay" option is, basically the Bill pay option is a great way to take advantage of your bank cutting a cheque as opposed to you cutting a cheque. That way you can write cheques without having to:
1) Actually write out a cheque
2) Spend money to post it (and take the extra effort to mail the cheque out).
Keep the contributions flowing.
girlfriend by Jeffree Star
cheg
07-23 04:03 PM
"my PD were current in 2005.
One thing is confirmed:
When PD are "current" they approve cases based on RD.
My guess is in Oct or Nov 2007 PD would retrogress to jan/may-2004 for EB3 India. So hang in there guys!!..They will approve a lot of cases with older RD by Sept 30. They are hell bent on not wasting any visa numbers henceforth."
PD for EB3 India in the June Visa Bulletin was 1st June 2003, meaning all those whose Priority Date on the LC on or before 01st June 2003 are eligible to apply for the next 2 stages.
If so, how could someone with a PD of Aug 2004 in EB3 India apply? Perhaps I am missing something.
One thing is confirmed:
When PD are "current" they approve cases based on RD.
My guess is in Oct or Nov 2007 PD would retrogress to jan/may-2004 for EB3 India. So hang in there guys!!..They will approve a lot of cases with older RD by Sept 30. They are hell bent on not wasting any visa numbers henceforth."
PD for EB3 India in the June Visa Bulletin was 1st June 2003, meaning all those whose Priority Date on the LC on or before 01st June 2003 are eligible to apply for the next 2 stages.
If so, how could someone with a PD of Aug 2004 in EB3 India apply? Perhaps I am missing something.
hairstyles Jeffree Star
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???
hopefullegalimmigrant
01-07 02:58 PM
The agony is understandable. Even I set my vacation based on an anticipatory AP receipt. I even asked around what are the various methods for accountability that we can hope for but one one seemed to respond excpect for one or two members.
Desertfox
04-30 05:30 PM
I sincerely hope that your interpretation is correct!
For all those who are upset with the House hearing, please take it easy. Please do not expect the hearing to discuss the details of each and every GC applicant's case. The objective of the hearing was to bring the folks involved in visa bulletins and GC processing, and make them all publically say and agree that Lofgren-Sensenbrenner bill will not flood the country with new people on the borders but at the same time since the federal agencies did not do their job properly, so it would make sense to recapture the visa numbers, and that's it.
I think that this objective was achieved pretty handsomely without much opposition. So everybody was on the same page, other than Ranking member King, whose job in such meetings is to oppose whatever the committee chair is proposing. Rep. King did not have much to say as Rep. Sensenbrenner has co-sponsored the bill. Noticeably, Rep. Gutierrez supported the bill, which means Hispanic Caucus may not oppose it either, hopefully. So it was all good.
For all those who are upset with the House hearing, please take it easy. Please do not expect the hearing to discuss the details of each and every GC applicant's case. The objective of the hearing was to bring the folks involved in visa bulletins and GC processing, and make them all publically say and agree that Lofgren-Sensenbrenner bill will not flood the country with new people on the borders but at the same time since the federal agencies did not do their job properly, so it would make sense to recapture the visa numbers, and that's it.
I think that this objective was achieved pretty handsomely without much opposition. So everybody was on the same page, other than Ranking member King, whose job in such meetings is to oppose whatever the committee chair is proposing. Rep. King did not have much to say as Rep. Sensenbrenner has co-sponsored the bill. Noticeably, Rep. Gutierrez supported the bill, which means Hispanic Caucus may not oppose it either, hopefully. So it was all good.
No comments:
Post a Comment