ramineni11
05-17 04:56 PM
Yes, I told so many people the same when they asked me "what to do". And left it upto them.
So I assume you told this to your neighbor who lives downstairs :D
So I assume you told this to your neighbor who lives downstairs :D
wallpaper Poems amp; Quotes Best Friends
abhijitp
07-06 02:18 PM
We need someone to youtube this and help with the media campaign!
And then we can try to make it one of the most watched videos-- provided of course that the coverage shows legal immigrants in good light.
And then we can try to make it one of the most watched videos-- provided of course that the coverage shows legal immigrants in good light.
gc28262
06-10 05:21 PM
We shouldn't give much significance to what USCIS and DOS officials say. Both of these departments don't have a grasp on what is happening in their respective organizations.
They are just government officials doing some PR activity for the sake of it.
I also don't give any significance to the description that DOS provides in visa bulletins ( Due to extreme demand, visa category X is oversubscribed.. blah blah blah ...):mad:
They are just government officials doing some PR activity for the sake of it.
I also don't give any significance to the description that DOS provides in visa bulletins ( Due to extreme demand, visa category X is oversubscribed.. blah blah blah ...):mad:
2011 friends quotes wallpapers.
mariusp
06-05 09:46 AM
Please read this: http://immigration-information.com/forums/blog.php?b=9
and look at the date when it was posted. Is it a coincidence that IV started a similar initiative two days later? could be... but he deserves some recognition. Ron is an immigration lawyer and not a 10k member organization such as IV so he does what he can, and in my opinion provides a good free of charge, service to the community, something that I don't see a lot of other people doing.
I am not sure. Here is what my opinion is :
I think he posts spicy messages on his forum to market himself. He uses strong language against USCIS to gain support from his prospective clients.
Has he ever stood up for immigrants other than writing strong worded posts? Give me examples as I do not know any? I may be wrong in my assumption.
and look at the date when it was posted. Is it a coincidence that IV started a similar initiative two days later? could be... but he deserves some recognition. Ron is an immigration lawyer and not a 10k member organization such as IV so he does what he can, and in my opinion provides a good free of charge, service to the community, something that I don't see a lot of other people doing.
I am not sure. Here is what my opinion is :
I think he posts spicy messages on his forum to market himself. He uses strong language against USCIS to gain support from his prospective clients.
Has he ever stood up for immigrants other than writing strong worded posts? Give me examples as I do not know any? I may be wrong in my assumption.
more...
rajakannan
06-27 08:04 AM
The lawyer's office are overwhelmed with applications that they need to address. People are worried whether their respective attorney's will file the papers in time. Keeping that situation is perspective, I dont think this initiative is feasible at all, even if it makes sense to a few...
It's for people who are atleast able to file within Jul 30th will give them a guarantee, for others they are unlucky if the lawers delay after jul 30th.
It's for people who are atleast able to file within Jul 30th will give them a guarantee, for others they are unlucky if the lawers delay after jul 30th.
asharda
07-06 04:43 PM
ABEY DHAKKAN
TRUTH HURTS AND WHY ARE SO SORRY..
DID ANYONE ASK U FOR YOUR WISE COMMENTS ..
KEEP UR TRAP SHUT IF U HAVE NOTHING TO SAY
May be you have to say or have said too much already! Why don't you take a chill pill and relax... you do what you feel is right and let others follow their heart
RELAX DUDE! take a break!
TRUTH HURTS AND WHY ARE SO SORRY..
DID ANYONE ASK U FOR YOUR WISE COMMENTS ..
KEEP UR TRAP SHUT IF U HAVE NOTHING TO SAY
May be you have to say or have said too much already! Why don't you take a chill pill and relax... you do what you feel is right and let others follow their heart
RELAX DUDE! take a break!
more...
darslee
07-06 04:59 PM
Who understands the word Gandhigiri. Stop stuff like this :mad:
I am not even Indian and I understand it!
I am not even Indian and I understand it!
2010 love and sad poems.
mrow
06-19 07:18 PM
Thought I should share my EB-3 (horror) story:
First initiated my RIR labor in 01/2002
PD: Aug 02,2002
RD: Sept 18, 2003
Approval: June 19 2007
I765 & 131 renewed 4 times.
Though I graduated with a Masters' degree from here back in '98, I was wrongly advised by a lawyer (who I unfortunately knew) who said I did'nt meet min. salary requirements and put me in EB-3 instead of EB-2 (though all my friends who graduated with me were in EB-2 and I knew they could'nt be making a whole lot more than I was). So if your lawyer wants to put you in EB-3 even though you're eligible for EB-2 change lawyers right away; It will mean a world of difference when things go bad. Chances are, the lawyer wants minimum paperwork & hassles to deal with. To add to bad luck, I had an Indian manager who refused to pay for my green card and even the ads for RIR labor, even though he got his green card paid for. Anyways priority dates were current for all categories back then (2002-3) just like it is today when they reclaimed unused numbers so this attorney had said EB3 vs EB2 won't be a problem and convinced me to go with EB3. This 'current' situation went on for some time (a year or so perhaps(?) to 2004 or 05; I do not remember) and then the DOS went and retrogressed EB3 back to 1999! During the year or two Priority Dates were current the INS (as it was called then) took their sweet time in processing cases progressing real slow. So when they were about 3-4 months away from processing my PD and I thought I was real close to 485 approval, the DOS did their thing and retrogressed dates all the way back to 1999 and has become current only now. It hit me with a gale force effect when it retrogressed.
It's almost like things swing like a pendulum between the two departments. If you're real lucky and time it right things can go smooth. If not yes you're screwed like I was and things can go bad one after the other. This time around I was almost sure the USCIS will take a go slow policy and wait for dates to retrogress once again like the last time. I was very surprised by the HUGE movements of 485 processing dates. Things are looking far better this time with these dates. Focus on getting your EAD and Advance paroles ASAP. I-140 premium processing will be worth it. Good luck to you all.
First initiated my RIR labor in 01/2002
PD: Aug 02,2002
RD: Sept 18, 2003
Approval: June 19 2007
I765 & 131 renewed 4 times.
Though I graduated with a Masters' degree from here back in '98, I was wrongly advised by a lawyer (who I unfortunately knew) who said I did'nt meet min. salary requirements and put me in EB-3 instead of EB-2 (though all my friends who graduated with me were in EB-2 and I knew they could'nt be making a whole lot more than I was). So if your lawyer wants to put you in EB-3 even though you're eligible for EB-2 change lawyers right away; It will mean a world of difference when things go bad. Chances are, the lawyer wants minimum paperwork & hassles to deal with. To add to bad luck, I had an Indian manager who refused to pay for my green card and even the ads for RIR labor, even though he got his green card paid for. Anyways priority dates were current for all categories back then (2002-3) just like it is today when they reclaimed unused numbers so this attorney had said EB3 vs EB2 won't be a problem and convinced me to go with EB3. This 'current' situation went on for some time (a year or so perhaps(?) to 2004 or 05; I do not remember) and then the DOS went and retrogressed EB3 back to 1999! During the year or two Priority Dates were current the INS (as it was called then) took their sweet time in processing cases progressing real slow. So when they were about 3-4 months away from processing my PD and I thought I was real close to 485 approval, the DOS did their thing and retrogressed dates all the way back to 1999 and has become current only now. It hit me with a gale force effect when it retrogressed.
It's almost like things swing like a pendulum between the two departments. If you're real lucky and time it right things can go smooth. If not yes you're screwed like I was and things can go bad one after the other. This time around I was almost sure the USCIS will take a go slow policy and wait for dates to retrogress once again like the last time. I was very surprised by the HUGE movements of 485 processing dates. Things are looking far better this time with these dates. Focus on getting your EAD and Advance paroles ASAP. I-140 premium processing will be worth it. Good luck to you all.
more...
BharatPremi
03-24 03:24 PM
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=5482
hair Happy Anniversary Poem
burnt
12-19 04:22 PM
If I try to use my AC21 then does title matter?
Example:
new offer has a title of "Lead software engineer".Current position is "Systems
Engineer".
Gurus please help
Iad
As per my understanding, The job duties should match your LC(Though position might be slightly different.), make sure that your Job Duties are Similar
Example:
new offer has a title of "Lead software engineer".Current position is "Systems
Engineer".
Gurus please help
Iad
As per my understanding, The job duties should match your LC(Though position might be slightly different.), make sure that your Job Duties are Similar
more...
ItIsNotFunny
07-06 11:58 PM
http://digg.com/politics/Green_card_hopefuls_to_resort_to_Gandhigiri_in_US
22 diggs already. 500 diggs will make it a top story!
Hey man! I am the 100th digger. Still a long way to go. Keep digging :)
22 diggs already. 500 diggs will make it a top story!
Hey man! I am the 100th digger. Still a long way to go. Keep digging :)
hot 2011 est friend poems for
yabadaba
12-28 11:19 AM
how do I avoid that scenario?
If I send some information to USCIS that I am invoking AC 21, they would not allow my employer to revoke I 140?
as far as i know, you cannot avoid that scenario of the employer withdrawing I-140. You can speak to them, but there is no way you can guarantee what they do. Your boss may agree but ur corp lawyers or HR may have different ideas.
just make sure u document everything including ur ac21 request to uscis. mayke sure u have an attorney on record who will file ur ac21...if u want to be supersafe.
as long as u have the documentation and correct letters from your company, even if they have a rfe on ur case, u can provide documentation...if they issue a noid or deny ur petition, ur lawyer can help u file a mtr (motion to reopen/reconsider) and resolve it for u.
i am not speaking from personal experience but from what i have been reading on the forums for a few years now.
on the plus side u will have hundred if not thousands of ppl invoking ac21 in the next few days...so uscis will be well aware of the law, clauses, etc when it comes time to adjudicate urs.
If I send some information to USCIS that I am invoking AC 21, they would not allow my employer to revoke I 140?
as far as i know, you cannot avoid that scenario of the employer withdrawing I-140. You can speak to them, but there is no way you can guarantee what they do. Your boss may agree but ur corp lawyers or HR may have different ideas.
just make sure u document everything including ur ac21 request to uscis. mayke sure u have an attorney on record who will file ur ac21...if u want to be supersafe.
as long as u have the documentation and correct letters from your company, even if they have a rfe on ur case, u can provide documentation...if they issue a noid or deny ur petition, ur lawyer can help u file a mtr (motion to reopen/reconsider) and resolve it for u.
i am not speaking from personal experience but from what i have been reading on the forums for a few years now.
on the plus side u will have hundred if not thousands of ppl invoking ac21 in the next few days...so uscis will be well aware of the law, clauses, etc when it comes time to adjudicate urs.
more...
house My good friend Cheri has left
veeyes2009
02-14 10:25 AM
After reading your posts i checked my cases online and LUD changed on 02/10 (Mine) & 02/13 (my wife) too for the first time since they are filed .... Both cases start with LIN xxxxxxxx & both are at NSC, EB3-I, PD March 2005. We have given FP twice so far once after filing the cases and other when we applied for EAD/AP extensions.
No emails though .... Not sure what they are checking or updating ...
Hoping for the best like you all ... good luck. Please share if you have any updates
No emails though .... Not sure what they are checking or updating ...
Hoping for the best like you all ... good luck. Please share if you have any updates
tattoo universe quote quotes poem
longq
12-20 03:41 PM
Hello IV and its core members,
I am one of the members of the forum and suffering due to the severe retrogression of EB visas. I highly appreciate IV�s effort to bring some legislative relief to address the severe backlogs in EB visas. I too participated in all IVs campaign in urging the law makers to bring some relief for this crisis. However, I have some concern here; about the method followed U.S DOS in allocating EB visas particularly in EB2 category for India and China. I am worried whether U.S DOS is violating the INA 202 (a), by suspending AC21 provision that eliminates country quota in EB categories. If they are violating by mistake, it is our responsibility to notify/clarify with them or we need to understand the law clearly. This is very important. Because, even if 110th congress passes SKIL bill, if DOS violates the AC21 law then it will not help applicants from oversubscribed countries (India and China). Here is my analysis based on following facts.
The cutoff date for EB2 India has moved just 7 days since last 9 months. However EB2 �Row has been current. EB2- ROW has never retrogressed before. EB3 ROW has seen considerable movement in last 9 months.
There may be four possible separate or combination of following reasons for the freeze of cutoff dates for India in EB2 at Jan 2003.
1. The backlog elimination effort of DOL pumped massive approved labor certificates from BEC. There may be tons of EB2 applicants from India and China with PD in the year 2001 and 2002 might have applied 485s based on recent approvals from BEC. However I doubt that. Because, in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003, EB3 India and China were �current�. No body cared about filing EB2 labor certification till the later part of 2004. Most lawyers preferred to file EB3 as it was easy, and there were no difference between EB3 and EB2 at that time. First ever indication for EB3 retrogression was issued by DOS only in later part of 2004. I doubt so many people have filed EB2-labor till 2003, keeping in mind that EB3 will retrogress in 2004 or future. Traditionally EB2 has been less demanding compare to EB1 and EB3.
2. Perhaps, there may be a huge demand by ROW (Due to PERM) to consume all the 86% of visa numbers in EB2 category in every month that prompts DOS to allocate only 7% to India and China. I doubt this too, because India and China itself consume about 60% of EB2 visas.
3. There may be lot of EB3 Indians and Chinese with PD 2001 and 2002 porting their PD from EB3 to EB2 by filing new LC and EB2-I-140. This may escalate the demand. However, how many will do this? How many employers will to do this �favor� for their employees? A real US employer/big corporations will not do double time work for an employee. Only consulting/staffing companies will do this. I think this may be a small group (or may not be?).
4. There may be another possible reason. There may be something wrong with U.S.DOS in allocating visa numbers in EB2 category, as per section 202 (a) of current INA. They may be issuing only 2800 (7% of 40,000) visas to India and China in EB2 and redirecting unused EB2 numbers to EB3 category. They may be imposing hard country cap in EB2 (Suspending AC21 law as per their VB Nov 2005). There is a large room for this speculation, due to the pattern of cutoff date movement in EB2 category. This is just a speculation. This argument/speculation is valid if DOS has issued less than 40,000 EB2 visas in FY 2006 as mandated by the law, and issued those numbers (40,000 minus actually issued) to EB3-ROW. In my view, it violates section 203 (b) (2) of the INA. One has to wait till they release statistics for FY 2006, to see how many EB2 visas are issued in that FY.
Here is some detailed analysis that says why it violates the law.
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 203 a and b of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets numbers for each preference categories with in FB and EB.
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. This section also explains how to handle unused numbers with respect to country quota.
Even before AC21 rule enacted in 2000, there was no �hard� country cap as per INA then. Here is the section of INA before year 2000, describes how to allocate unused visas, if overall/total demand for FB an EB visas are less than supply*.
INA 202 (a) (3)
�Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a-Family category) and (b-Employment category) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter�.
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
After 2000 (After AC21) the following law was added to INA in the section 202.
INA 202 (a) (5) (A)
EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
As per my simple interpretation of above AC21 rule, DOS should allocate unused visas by ROW �EB2 (ROW- countries other than India and China in EB2 category) for the first two months of any calendar quarter to over-subscribed countries (India & China) at the third month of that calendar quarter. They should not allocate to lower Preference category (EB3), if demand is more in higher preference category (EB2) to consume all the visa numbers in that preference category. They should allocate visas to all the documentarily qualified applicants in that (EB2) preference category, irrespective of country of birth. If they followed this rule/law, there may be a considerable movement in cut-off dates for India and China in Dec 2005, Mar, June and Sep of 2006 in EB2 (last month of each calendar quarter in a fiscal year). We have not witnessed such movement in last 1.5 years. No one knows how DOS is allocating numbers. They may be allocating only 7% visas to India and China in EB2 category very strictly, every month, and allocating unused numbers to EB3 category, by suspending AC21 law as indicated in their Nov 2005 Visa Bulletin. If they do so, it is against the law, at least in my interpretation of AC21 rule that eliminates country quota in EB categories.
DOS can not interpret above AC21 rule that eliminates per country limit applies �totally� to all EB categories put together, not by individual preference categories. I.e. If they say they will issue more than 2,800 visas to EB2- India per year (more than 7% of 40,000), provided overall demand for EB visas are less than 140,000. If they interpret the law like this, then there is no need for section 202(a) (5) (A) due to AC21 law. The law before AC21 {i.e. section 202 (a) (3)} itself address the elimination of country quota in both FB and EB category*. Then, section 202(a) (5) (A) is a duplicate wording of section 202(a) (3). So, this section of AC21 law becomes a redundant/duplicate law. Then, there is no meaning of employment �preference� category if they interpret �totally or overall worldwide demand�. In other words, a non-Indian/Chinese restaurant cook (EB3) is more preferred than a NIW PhDs (EB2) from India or China. Is it the intend of the congress when enacting AC21 law in removing per country limitation in EB category? Is it the American Competitiveness in 21st century? I highly doubt that.
Now it is the time to ask US DOS, how they are allocating visa number in EB2 category. If DOS interpreting the law differently, then we need to ask the law makers (Congress) what is their original intension behind the section 202(a)(5)(A) when they drafted the AC21 law in 2000 and how it is differ from 202 (a) (3).
Perhaps Core IV team can initiate to discuss/consult this issue with an immigration lawyer and place an enquiry with DOS or Law makers, if needed.
(*Note: DOS do not mix FB and EB categories for visa number allocation/calculation to meet the per country limit. They keep both in separate track to meet separately the 7% limit)
I am one of the members of the forum and suffering due to the severe retrogression of EB visas. I highly appreciate IV�s effort to bring some legislative relief to address the severe backlogs in EB visas. I too participated in all IVs campaign in urging the law makers to bring some relief for this crisis. However, I have some concern here; about the method followed U.S DOS in allocating EB visas particularly in EB2 category for India and China. I am worried whether U.S DOS is violating the INA 202 (a), by suspending AC21 provision that eliminates country quota in EB categories. If they are violating by mistake, it is our responsibility to notify/clarify with them or we need to understand the law clearly. This is very important. Because, even if 110th congress passes SKIL bill, if DOS violates the AC21 law then it will not help applicants from oversubscribed countries (India and China). Here is my analysis based on following facts.
The cutoff date for EB2 India has moved just 7 days since last 9 months. However EB2 �Row has been current. EB2- ROW has never retrogressed before. EB3 ROW has seen considerable movement in last 9 months.
There may be four possible separate or combination of following reasons for the freeze of cutoff dates for India in EB2 at Jan 2003.
1. The backlog elimination effort of DOL pumped massive approved labor certificates from BEC. There may be tons of EB2 applicants from India and China with PD in the year 2001 and 2002 might have applied 485s based on recent approvals from BEC. However I doubt that. Because, in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003, EB3 India and China were �current�. No body cared about filing EB2 labor certification till the later part of 2004. Most lawyers preferred to file EB3 as it was easy, and there were no difference between EB3 and EB2 at that time. First ever indication for EB3 retrogression was issued by DOS only in later part of 2004. I doubt so many people have filed EB2-labor till 2003, keeping in mind that EB3 will retrogress in 2004 or future. Traditionally EB2 has been less demanding compare to EB1 and EB3.
2. Perhaps, there may be a huge demand by ROW (Due to PERM) to consume all the 86% of visa numbers in EB2 category in every month that prompts DOS to allocate only 7% to India and China. I doubt this too, because India and China itself consume about 60% of EB2 visas.
3. There may be lot of EB3 Indians and Chinese with PD 2001 and 2002 porting their PD from EB3 to EB2 by filing new LC and EB2-I-140. This may escalate the demand. However, how many will do this? How many employers will to do this �favor� for their employees? A real US employer/big corporations will not do double time work for an employee. Only consulting/staffing companies will do this. I think this may be a small group (or may not be?).
4. There may be another possible reason. There may be something wrong with U.S.DOS in allocating visa numbers in EB2 category, as per section 202 (a) of current INA. They may be issuing only 2800 (7% of 40,000) visas to India and China in EB2 and redirecting unused EB2 numbers to EB3 category. They may be imposing hard country cap in EB2 (Suspending AC21 law as per their VB Nov 2005). There is a large room for this speculation, due to the pattern of cutoff date movement in EB2 category. This is just a speculation. This argument/speculation is valid if DOS has issued less than 40,000 EB2 visas in FY 2006 as mandated by the law, and issued those numbers (40,000 minus actually issued) to EB3-ROW. In my view, it violates section 203 (b) (2) of the INA. One has to wait till they release statistics for FY 2006, to see how many EB2 visas are issued in that FY.
Here is some detailed analysis that says why it violates the law.
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 203 a and b of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets numbers for each preference categories with in FB and EB.
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. This section also explains how to handle unused numbers with respect to country quota.
Even before AC21 rule enacted in 2000, there was no �hard� country cap as per INA then. Here is the section of INA before year 2000, describes how to allocate unused visas, if overall/total demand for FB an EB visas are less than supply*.
INA 202 (a) (3)
�Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a-Family category) and (b-Employment category) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter�.
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
After 2000 (After AC21) the following law was added to INA in the section 202.
INA 202 (a) (5) (A)
EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
As per my simple interpretation of above AC21 rule, DOS should allocate unused visas by ROW �EB2 (ROW- countries other than India and China in EB2 category) for the first two months of any calendar quarter to over-subscribed countries (India & China) at the third month of that calendar quarter. They should not allocate to lower Preference category (EB3), if demand is more in higher preference category (EB2) to consume all the visa numbers in that preference category. They should allocate visas to all the documentarily qualified applicants in that (EB2) preference category, irrespective of country of birth. If they followed this rule/law, there may be a considerable movement in cut-off dates for India and China in Dec 2005, Mar, June and Sep of 2006 in EB2 (last month of each calendar quarter in a fiscal year). We have not witnessed such movement in last 1.5 years. No one knows how DOS is allocating numbers. They may be allocating only 7% visas to India and China in EB2 category very strictly, every month, and allocating unused numbers to EB3 category, by suspending AC21 law as indicated in their Nov 2005 Visa Bulletin. If they do so, it is against the law, at least in my interpretation of AC21 rule that eliminates country quota in EB categories.
DOS can not interpret above AC21 rule that eliminates per country limit applies �totally� to all EB categories put together, not by individual preference categories. I.e. If they say they will issue more than 2,800 visas to EB2- India per year (more than 7% of 40,000), provided overall demand for EB visas are less than 140,000. If they interpret the law like this, then there is no need for section 202(a) (5) (A) due to AC21 law. The law before AC21 {i.e. section 202 (a) (3)} itself address the elimination of country quota in both FB and EB category*. Then, section 202(a) (5) (A) is a duplicate wording of section 202(a) (3). So, this section of AC21 law becomes a redundant/duplicate law. Then, there is no meaning of employment �preference� category if they interpret �totally or overall worldwide demand�. In other words, a non-Indian/Chinese restaurant cook (EB3) is more preferred than a NIW PhDs (EB2) from India or China. Is it the intend of the congress when enacting AC21 law in removing per country limitation in EB category? Is it the American Competitiveness in 21st century? I highly doubt that.
Now it is the time to ask US DOS, how they are allocating visa number in EB2 category. If DOS interpreting the law differently, then we need to ask the law makers (Congress) what is their original intension behind the section 202(a)(5)(A) when they drafted the AC21 law in 2000 and how it is differ from 202 (a) (3).
Perhaps Core IV team can initiate to discuss/consult this issue with an immigration lawyer and place an enquiry with DOS or Law makers, if needed.
(*Note: DOS do not mix FB and EB categories for visa number allocation/calculation to meet the per country limit. They keep both in separate track to meet separately the 7% limit)
more...
pictures value of a good friend.
axp817
07-07 06:56 PM
I missed this, will it be aired again, can it be viewed online?
Thanks,
Thanks,
dresses poems for good friends. poems
syzygy
06-05 11:41 AM
It looks like USCIS can make any new laws or change rules of game anytime. They live by their will.
more...
makeup My good friends at
krishna-AP
11-16 10:29 PM
I am planning to move India permanently this year end,
What is the procedure to file Tax from India? Please give your suggestion as I do not want to live any more. Please give your valueable input. I do not know how to start new thread in this forum.
What is the procedure to file Tax from India? Please give your suggestion as I do not want to live any more. Please give your valueable input. I do not know how to start new thread in this forum.
girlfriend poems for good friends. poems; poems for good friends. poems for good
Legal
07-20 01:08 PM
However if you can get visitor visa and after entering america, if you apply for a I-485, most probably USCIS will approve your case. Therefore, In my opinion the challenge is getting B1/B2 visa when her husband is waiting for a adjustment of status.
No, it is not a question of whether she can get a visitor visa or not. I think the question is whether she CAN RISK applying for a visitor visa? The answer is NO. Filing for her to join or H1 seem to be the only options.
No, it is not a question of whether she can get a visitor visa or not. I think the question is whether she CAN RISK applying for a visitor visa? The answer is NO. Filing for her to join or H1 seem to be the only options.
hairstyles poems friends friend
lutherpraveen
09-19 07:38 PM
Who is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything, and the value of nothing.
-Oscar Wilde
Yes we did the rally we were great with all those signs, and appearing in the Indy TV but...
-Oscar Wilde
Yes we did the rally we were great with all those signs, and appearing in the Indy TV but...
ndbhatt
05-30 05:55 PM
Done! Voted "yes"
glen
04-01 06:27 PM
Fax 10 & 11 done.
No comments:
Post a Comment