asanghi
02-26 02:48 PM
No need for AP. If someone mails him the GC, he can get back to the U.S. with it.
Please recheck your info before dispensing advice. Adjustment of Status application is based on premise that you are already present in USA. At the time approval, you should be present in USA. Thus the need for AP. If your Green card AOS application has been approved while you are out of country. You NEED AP to enter.
Please recheck your info before dispensing advice. Adjustment of Status application is based on premise that you are already present in USA. At the time approval, you should be present in USA. Thus the need for AP. If your Green card AOS application has been approved while you are out of country. You NEED AP to enter.
wallpaper best friend. Advanced
dontcareaboutGC
03-19 11:24 AM
Ignore this if this is a repost!
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security,
and International Law
Hearing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Government Perspectives
on Immigration Statistics
Testimony of Charles Oppenheim
Chief, Immigrant Control and Reporting Division
Visa Services Office
U.S. Department of State
June 6, 2007
2:00 p.m.
2141 Rayburn House Office Building
Chairman Lofgren, Ranking Member King, and distinguished members of
the Committee, it is a pleasure to be here this afternoon to answer
your questions and provide an overview of our immigrant visa control
and reporting program operated by the U.S. Department of State. The
Department of State is responsible for administering the provisions of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) related to the numerical
limitations on immigrant visa issuances. At the beginning of each
month, the Visa Office (VO) receives a report from each consular post
listing totals of documentarily-qualified immigrant visa applicants in
categories subject to numerical limitation. Cases are grouped in three
different categories: 1) foreign state chargeability, 2) preference,
and 3) priority date.
Foreign state chargeability for visa purposes refers to the fact that
an immigrant is chargeable to the numerical limitation for the foreign
state or dependent area in which the immigrant's place of birth is
located. Exceptions are provided for a child (unmarried and under 21
years of age) or spouse accompanying or following to join a principal
to prevent the separation of family members, as well as for an
applicant born in the United States or in a foreign state of which
neither parent was a native or resident. Alternate chargeability is
desirable when the visa cut-off date for the foreign state of a parent
or spouse is more advantageous than that of the applicant's foreign
state.
As established by the Immigration and Nationality Act, preference is
the visa category that can be assigned based on relationships to U.S.
citizens or legal permanent residents. Family-based immigration falls
under two basic categories: unlimited and limited. Preferences
established by law for the limited category are:
Family First Preference (F1): Unmarried sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their minor children, if any.
Family Second Preference (F2): Spouses, minor children, and unmarried
sons and daughters of lawful permanent residents.
Family Third Preference (F3): Married sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their spouses and minor children.
Family Fourth Preference (F4): Brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens
and their spouses and minor children provided the U.S. citizen is at
least 21 years of age.
The Priority Date is normally the date on which the petition to accord
the applicant immigrant status was filed, generally with U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). VO subdivides the annual
preference and foreign state limitations specified by the INA into
monthly allotments. The totals of documentarily-qualified applicants
which have been reported to VO are compared each month with the
numbers available for the next regular allotment. The determination of
how many numbers are available requires consideration of several
variables, including: past number use; estimates of future number use
and return rates; and estimates of USCIS demand based on cut-off date
movements. Once this consideration is completed, the cutoff dates are
established and numbers are allocated to reported applicants in order
of their priority dates, the oldest dates first.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy
all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is
considered "Current." For example: If the monthly allocation target is
10,000, and we only have 5,000 applicants, the category can be
"Current.� Whenever the total of documentarily-qualified applicants in
a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for
the particular month, the category is considered to be
"oversubscribed" and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
The cut-off date is the priority date of the first
documentarily-qualified applicant who could not be accommodated for a
visa number. For example, if the monthly target is 10,000 and we have
25,000 applicants, then we would need to establish a cut-off date so
that only 10,000 numbers would be allocated. In this case, the cut-off
would be the priority date of the 10,001st applicant.
Only persons with a priority date earlier than a cut-off date are
entitled to allotment of a visa number. The cut-off dates are the 1st,
8th, 15th, and 22nd of a month, since VO groups demand for numbers
under these dates. (Priority dates of the first through seventh of a
month are grouped under the 1st, the eighth through the 14th under the
8th, etc.) VO attempts to establish the cut-off dates for the
following month on or about the 8th of each month. The dates are
immediately transmitted to consular posts abroad and USCIS, and also
published in the Visa Bulletin and online at the website
www.travel.state.gov. Visa allotments for use during that month are
transmitted to consular posts. USCIS requests visa allotments for
adjustment of status cases only when all other case processing has
been completed. I am submitting the latest Visa Bulletin for the
record or you can click on: Visa Bulletin for June 2007.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE SYSTEM AND CLARIFICATION OF SOME
FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS:
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified
at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every
applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date
been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, visa allotments
are made only on the basis of the total applicants reported
�documentarily qualified� (or, theoretically ready for interview) each
month. Demand for visa numbers can fluctuate from one month to
another, with the inevitable impact on cut-off dates.
If an applicant is reported documentarily qualified but allocation of
a visa number is not possible because of a visa availability cut-off
date, the demand is recorded at VO and an allocation is made as soon
as the applicable cut-off date advances beyond the applicant's
priority date. There is no need for such applicant to be reported a
second time.
Visa numbers are always allotted for all documentarily-qualified
applicants with a priority date before the relevant cut-off date, as
long as the case had been reported to VO in time to be included in the
monthly calculation of visa availability. Failure of visa number
receipt by the overseas processing office could mean that the request
was not dispatched in time to reach VO for the monthly allocation
cycle, or that information on the request was incomplete or inaccurate
(e.g., incorrect priority date).
Allocations to Foreign Service posts outside the regular monthly cycle
are possible in emergency or exceptional cases, but only at the
request of the office processing the case. Note that, should
retrogression of a cut-off date be announced, VO can honor
extraordinary requests for additional numbers only if the applicant's
priority date is earlier than the retrogressed cut-off date. Not all
numbers allocated are actually used for visa issuance; some are
returned to VO and are reincorporated into the pool of numbers
available for later allocation during the fiscal year. The rate of
return of unused numbers may fluctuate from month to month, just as
demand may fluctuate. Lower returns mean fewer numbers available for
subsequent reallocation. Fluctuations can cause cut-off date movement
to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly
possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches
the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7 percent is a
cap, which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed.
Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The
country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the
annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This
limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled,
however. A portion of the numbers provided to the Family Second
preference category is exempt from this per-country cap. The American
Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (AC21) removed the
per-country limit in any calendar quarter in which overall applicant
demand for Employment-based visa numbers is less than the total of
such numbers available.
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 a cut-off date which is earlier 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.)
The committee submitted several questions that fell outside of VO�s
area of work, therefore, I have provided in my written testimony today
the answers only to those questions that the Department of State can
answer. Thank you for this opportunity.
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security,
and International Law
Hearing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Government Perspectives
on Immigration Statistics
Testimony of Charles Oppenheim
Chief, Immigrant Control and Reporting Division
Visa Services Office
U.S. Department of State
June 6, 2007
2:00 p.m.
2141 Rayburn House Office Building
Chairman Lofgren, Ranking Member King, and distinguished members of
the Committee, it is a pleasure to be here this afternoon to answer
your questions and provide an overview of our immigrant visa control
and reporting program operated by the U.S. Department of State. The
Department of State is responsible for administering the provisions of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) related to the numerical
limitations on immigrant visa issuances. At the beginning of each
month, the Visa Office (VO) receives a report from each consular post
listing totals of documentarily-qualified immigrant visa applicants in
categories subject to numerical limitation. Cases are grouped in three
different categories: 1) foreign state chargeability, 2) preference,
and 3) priority date.
Foreign state chargeability for visa purposes refers to the fact that
an immigrant is chargeable to the numerical limitation for the foreign
state or dependent area in which the immigrant's place of birth is
located. Exceptions are provided for a child (unmarried and under 21
years of age) or spouse accompanying or following to join a principal
to prevent the separation of family members, as well as for an
applicant born in the United States or in a foreign state of which
neither parent was a native or resident. Alternate chargeability is
desirable when the visa cut-off date for the foreign state of a parent
or spouse is more advantageous than that of the applicant's foreign
state.
As established by the Immigration and Nationality Act, preference is
the visa category that can be assigned based on relationships to U.S.
citizens or legal permanent residents. Family-based immigration falls
under two basic categories: unlimited and limited. Preferences
established by law for the limited category are:
Family First Preference (F1): Unmarried sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their minor children, if any.
Family Second Preference (F2): Spouses, minor children, and unmarried
sons and daughters of lawful permanent residents.
Family Third Preference (F3): Married sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their spouses and minor children.
Family Fourth Preference (F4): Brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens
and their spouses and minor children provided the U.S. citizen is at
least 21 years of age.
The Priority Date is normally the date on which the petition to accord
the applicant immigrant status was filed, generally with U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). VO subdivides the annual
preference and foreign state limitations specified by the INA into
monthly allotments. The totals of documentarily-qualified applicants
which have been reported to VO are compared each month with the
numbers available for the next regular allotment. The determination of
how many numbers are available requires consideration of several
variables, including: past number use; estimates of future number use
and return rates; and estimates of USCIS demand based on cut-off date
movements. Once this consideration is completed, the cutoff dates are
established and numbers are allocated to reported applicants in order
of their priority dates, the oldest dates first.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy
all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is
considered "Current." For example: If the monthly allocation target is
10,000, and we only have 5,000 applicants, the category can be
"Current.� Whenever the total of documentarily-qualified applicants in
a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for
the particular month, the category is considered to be
"oversubscribed" and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
The cut-off date is the priority date of the first
documentarily-qualified applicant who could not be accommodated for a
visa number. For example, if the monthly target is 10,000 and we have
25,000 applicants, then we would need to establish a cut-off date so
that only 10,000 numbers would be allocated. In this case, the cut-off
would be the priority date of the 10,001st applicant.
Only persons with a priority date earlier than a cut-off date are
entitled to allotment of a visa number. The cut-off dates are the 1st,
8th, 15th, and 22nd of a month, since VO groups demand for numbers
under these dates. (Priority dates of the first through seventh of a
month are grouped under the 1st, the eighth through the 14th under the
8th, etc.) VO attempts to establish the cut-off dates for the
following month on or about the 8th of each month. The dates are
immediately transmitted to consular posts abroad and USCIS, and also
published in the Visa Bulletin and online at the website
www.travel.state.gov. Visa allotments for use during that month are
transmitted to consular posts. USCIS requests visa allotments for
adjustment of status cases only when all other case processing has
been completed. I am submitting the latest Visa Bulletin for the
record or you can click on: Visa Bulletin for June 2007.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE SYSTEM AND CLARIFICATION OF SOME
FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS:
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified
at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every
applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date
been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, visa allotments
are made only on the basis of the total applicants reported
�documentarily qualified� (or, theoretically ready for interview) each
month. Demand for visa numbers can fluctuate from one month to
another, with the inevitable impact on cut-off dates.
If an applicant is reported documentarily qualified but allocation of
a visa number is not possible because of a visa availability cut-off
date, the demand is recorded at VO and an allocation is made as soon
as the applicable cut-off date advances beyond the applicant's
priority date. There is no need for such applicant to be reported a
second time.
Visa numbers are always allotted for all documentarily-qualified
applicants with a priority date before the relevant cut-off date, as
long as the case had been reported to VO in time to be included in the
monthly calculation of visa availability. Failure of visa number
receipt by the overseas processing office could mean that the request
was not dispatched in time to reach VO for the monthly allocation
cycle, or that information on the request was incomplete or inaccurate
(e.g., incorrect priority date).
Allocations to Foreign Service posts outside the regular monthly cycle
are possible in emergency or exceptional cases, but only at the
request of the office processing the case. Note that, should
retrogression of a cut-off date be announced, VO can honor
extraordinary requests for additional numbers only if the applicant's
priority date is earlier than the retrogressed cut-off date. Not all
numbers allocated are actually used for visa issuance; some are
returned to VO and are reincorporated into the pool of numbers
available for later allocation during the fiscal year. The rate of
return of unused numbers may fluctuate from month to month, just as
demand may fluctuate. Lower returns mean fewer numbers available for
subsequent reallocation. Fluctuations can cause cut-off date movement
to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly
possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches
the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7 percent is a
cap, which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed.
Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The
country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the
annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This
limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled,
however. A portion of the numbers provided to the Family Second
preference category is exempt from this per-country cap. The American
Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (AC21) removed the
per-country limit in any calendar quarter in which overall applicant
demand for Employment-based visa numbers is less than the total of
such numbers available.
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 a cut-off date which is earlier 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.)
The committee submitted several questions that fell outside of VO�s
area of work, therefore, I have provided in my written testimony today
the answers only to those questions that the Department of State can
answer. Thank you for this opportunity.
royus77
09-22 08:17 PM
As long as greedy corporations like microsoft exist noting will happen to H1B program..its the economy that's it ..once it start moving up h1b will become l1b and the import of cheap labor starts once again .....you guys are just spreading fear nothing else ....
2011 funny friendship sayings and
abhijitp
01-25 05:07 PM
Dreamworld,
Please submit your vote here:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=16806
Please submit your vote here:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=16806
more...
Googler
06-18 08:23 PM
Instead in CIR Section 531 (COMPLETION OF BACKGROUND AND SECURITY CHECKS) takes away the right for courts to rule on writs of mandamus filings:
"(k) Prohibition of Judicial Enforcement- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court may require any act described in subsection (i) or (j) to be completed by a certain time or award any relief for the failure to complete such acts."
please please stop reading the old bill
the new one is on the iv home page
or in thomas look at sa.1150 under the s.1358 bill
Thanks for pointing that out Paskal. I stand corrected.
S.A. 1150 Section 216 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r110:2:./temp/~r110MkRgxl:e138316:) says:
SEC. 216. STREAMLINED PROCESSING OF BACKGROUND CHECKS CONDUCTED FOR IMMIGRATION BENEFITS.
(a) INFORMATION SHARING; INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE.--Section 105 (8 U.S.C. 1105) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE.--
``(1) IN GENERAL.--The Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General shall establish an interagency task force to resolve cases in which an application or petition for an immigration benefit conferred under this Act has been delayed due to an outstanding background check investigation for more than 2 years after the date on which such application or petition was initially filed.
``(2) MEMBERSHIP.--The interagency task force established under paragraph (1) shall include representatives from Federal agencies with immigration, law enforcement, or national security responsibilities under this Act.''.
(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation such sums as are necessary for each fiscal year, 2008 through 2012 for enhancements to existing systems for conducting background and security checks necessary to support immigration security and orderly processing of applications.
(c) REPORT ON BACKGROUND AND SECURITY CHECKS.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report on the background and security checks conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation on behalf of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.
(2) CONTENT.--The report required under paragraph (1) shall include--
(A) a description of the background and security check program;
(B) a statistical breakdown of the background and security check delays associated with different types of immigration applications;
(C) a statistical breakdown of the background and security check delays by applicant country of origin; and
(D) the steps that the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking to expedite background and security checks that have been pending for more than 180 days.
Doesn't promise any results and it is not clear if this extra appropriations will be used for the much ballyhooed transformation that Michael Cannon says might kick in in 2010, or for clearing the current backlog BUT is much better than trying to take away the right to file mandamus suits. Also leads us to believe that 180 days is the acceptable amount of time for a namecheck.
"(k) Prohibition of Judicial Enforcement- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court may require any act described in subsection (i) or (j) to be completed by a certain time or award any relief for the failure to complete such acts."
please please stop reading the old bill
the new one is on the iv home page
or in thomas look at sa.1150 under the s.1358 bill
Thanks for pointing that out Paskal. I stand corrected.
S.A. 1150 Section 216 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r110:2:./temp/~r110MkRgxl:e138316:) says:
SEC. 216. STREAMLINED PROCESSING OF BACKGROUND CHECKS CONDUCTED FOR IMMIGRATION BENEFITS.
(a) INFORMATION SHARING; INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE.--Section 105 (8 U.S.C. 1105) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE.--
``(1) IN GENERAL.--The Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General shall establish an interagency task force to resolve cases in which an application or petition for an immigration benefit conferred under this Act has been delayed due to an outstanding background check investigation for more than 2 years after the date on which such application or petition was initially filed.
``(2) MEMBERSHIP.--The interagency task force established under paragraph (1) shall include representatives from Federal agencies with immigration, law enforcement, or national security responsibilities under this Act.''.
(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation such sums as are necessary for each fiscal year, 2008 through 2012 for enhancements to existing systems for conducting background and security checks necessary to support immigration security and orderly processing of applications.
(c) REPORT ON BACKGROUND AND SECURITY CHECKS.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report on the background and security checks conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation on behalf of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.
(2) CONTENT.--The report required under paragraph (1) shall include--
(A) a description of the background and security check program;
(B) a statistical breakdown of the background and security check delays associated with different types of immigration applications;
(C) a statistical breakdown of the background and security check delays by applicant country of origin; and
(D) the steps that the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking to expedite background and security checks that have been pending for more than 180 days.
Doesn't promise any results and it is not clear if this extra appropriations will be used for the much ballyhooed transformation that Michael Cannon says might kick in in 2010, or for clearing the current backlog BUT is much better than trying to take away the right to file mandamus suits. Also leads us to believe that 180 days is the acceptable amount of time for a namecheck.
pd_recapturing
09-26 10:51 AM
You made my day. Thanks so much. :):):):):):):)
I don't understand why people are right now so worried about priority date retrogression. If you have passed 180 days after I140 approval, go ahead, change your job and incase your 485 gets denied, reapply with new employer, with new new job description, using old PD and get GC soon as your priority date will be current. Am I missing something?
There is no way I am going to spend 6-7 years in the same job with the same title(maybe even same company).
ohhhh wow !! .. Man ...It not so easy as it looks on paper ...U will find tons of ppl in the stage of limbo after doing all this ... (including me though :(
My sincere advice, DO not even think about it ..
I don't understand why people are right now so worried about priority date retrogression. If you have passed 180 days after I140 approval, go ahead, change your job and incase your 485 gets denied, reapply with new employer, with new new job description, using old PD and get GC soon as your priority date will be current. Am I missing something?
There is no way I am going to spend 6-7 years in the same job with the same title(maybe even same company).
ohhhh wow !! .. Man ...It not so easy as it looks on paper ...U will find tons of ppl in the stage of limbo after doing all this ... (including me though :(
My sincere advice, DO not even think about it ..
more...
ames
03-05 02:22 PM
ames, post your picture in your own thread with a title for it under the Just Draw Yourself sectoin of the forums HERE (http://www.kirupa.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=152).
This thread is for the list of entries and to notify big K of your entry if it's not added to the list of entries within 24 hours.
Nice Job by the way.
Hello and thanks for letting me know Lord Rahl. Sorry about that - I am just new here. I posted my own thread for it to hopefully be entered. And thank you for your compliment! I also like your self portrait drawing! I like to sketch with pen and ink or pencil myself. I have seen some great entries so far! :)
This thread is for the list of entries and to notify big K of your entry if it's not added to the list of entries within 24 hours.
Nice Job by the way.
Hello and thanks for letting me know Lord Rahl. Sorry about that - I am just new here. I posted my own thread for it to hopefully be entered. And thank you for your compliment! I also like your self portrait drawing! I like to sketch with pen and ink or pencil myself. I have seen some great entries so far! :)
2010 funny love quotes and sayings.
pardesh
02-01 08:59 PM
I recently entered the US using AP, basically she would be abandoning her F1 as soon as she enters using her AP. Her status changes from International Student to Pending Immigrant (or something similar). BTW carry at least two original copies of AP. Even if she plans to work on EAD at school or later after graduation, it just makes sense to enter using her AP (think..).
more...
benbear
11-09 09:07 AM
It is safe to say notice date in Sept equal to receipting by USCIS in Sept, because at notice date, USCIS actually open your file then send receipt.
So,from , EB receipt in Sept vs. receipt in Oct = 2:1
150k in Sept. include both EB(100K) and FB (50K).
(Note: assume received FB every month 50K. 50K is a reasonable assumption,
otherwise it's no way for USCIS to approve 800K AOS a year.)
Since EB in Sept vs. Oct is 2:1, so total EB receipting in Oct. should be 50K.
Out of the 655k total, the key is lead time for FB approval, how many month?
This is the key! If we assume average FB approval takes 6 month,
then EB out of the 655k is 655K-50Kx6=355K.
Add the 50K EB in Oct. Total EB backlog is 405K.
Still the key is average FB approval time, any gurus has any idea.
I am sure the time is not 12 month. If it's 12 month,
then EB backlog= 655K-50Kx12+50K=105k. :D:D:D Which is impossible!!
That same link you gave tells us that 655k is pending/back-log for AOS....
So,from , EB receipt in Sept vs. receipt in Oct = 2:1
150k in Sept. include both EB(100K) and FB (50K).
(Note: assume received FB every month 50K. 50K is a reasonable assumption,
otherwise it's no way for USCIS to approve 800K AOS a year.)
Since EB in Sept vs. Oct is 2:1, so total EB receipting in Oct. should be 50K.
Out of the 655k total, the key is lead time for FB approval, how many month?
This is the key! If we assume average FB approval takes 6 month,
then EB out of the 655k is 655K-50Kx6=355K.
Add the 50K EB in Oct. Total EB backlog is 405K.
Still the key is average FB approval time, any gurus has any idea.
I am sure the time is not 12 month. If it's 12 month,
then EB backlog= 655K-50Kx12+50K=105k. :D:D:D Which is impossible!!
That same link you gave tells us that 655k is pending/back-log for AOS....
hair funny quotes about friendship
qualified_trash
09-21 11:01 AM
joozz.......
do not worry about where the lawyer is located. immigration law is under federal jurisdiction.
pick a good lawyer (www.murthy.com, www.shahandkishore.com, www.immigration.com) and go with them
do not worry about where the lawyer is located. immigration law is under federal jurisdiction.
pick a good lawyer (www.murthy.com, www.shahandkishore.com, www.immigration.com) and go with them
more...
hopelessGC
04-21 01:45 PM
Yes, you can move to H4 and then to H1-B as long as that H1-B is filed within 12 months. Otherwise, your application will be subject to 65K cap limit
H4 can be filed onself, I have seen some of my friends do it. To file AOS once PD is current, it is essential that one be in H1-B status.
Guys, let us refrain from making incorrect statements. This can affect someone's decision negatively. Post answers only if your are sure that it is a correct answer or have personal experience.
H4 can be filed onself, I have seen some of my friends do it. To file AOS once PD is current, it is essential that one be in H1-B status.
Guys, let us refrain from making incorrect statements. This can affect someone's decision negatively. Post answers only if your are sure that it is a correct answer or have personal experience.
hot love quotes “ .
LostInGCProcess
09-18 05:31 PM
LostInGCProcess, his I140 is not approve, how come he can use his EAD ?
AOS can only be use after his I140 is approved.
Thx
That is not true. Once you have EAD on hand, you can chose to work using your EAD. I-140 pending or approval has nothing to do with working on EAD. The risk is, if his I-140 is not approved, then it would automatically trigger a NOID for I-485 and his EAD becomes invalid....thats the risk factor. But one can work if one has EAD.
AOS can only be use after his I140 is approved.
Thx
That is not true. Once you have EAD on hand, you can chose to work using your EAD. I-140 pending or approval has nothing to do with working on EAD. The risk is, if his I-140 is not approved, then it would automatically trigger a NOID for I-485 and his EAD becomes invalid....thats the risk factor. But one can work if one has EAD.
more...
house love quotes tagalog funny.
pappu
02-18 01:06 AM
Hello Varsha and NJ chapter members,
Thank you for taking the lead with the Meet the lawmaker initiative. It is very important for our EB community to be active and vibrant on the issues that are important to us. We cannot emphasize enough the importance of meeting the lawmaker in our home states. As you already know, in campaign like ours, it is the most vibrant communities who ultimately succeed.
The real question is when would there be sufficient number of community members who would feel the need and the motivation to be vibrantly active. It is the fence sitters that we have to convince so that more number of green card applicants, suffering due to retrogression, would feel the urge to actively participate in fixing their own issues. And your act of sharing your experiences with the community about what you were able to accomplish, is a big step in the right direction to motivate others to emulate what you have been able to do. In effect, today, you helped raise the level of consciousness of the community and prompted a sizeable number of members to think and believe that they could meet the lawmakers and make the difference in this debate. I am confident that most members, who listened to your narration tonight, were convinced that they could do it too. That is the message that we have to send out so that the energies emanating from our frustration due to delays with the system, which are often times visible on IV forums, could be channelized into positive direction. We see that there are many reasons why people do not actively participate in Immigration Voice efforts. A large part of these community members could be described in two broad categories:-
(1.) Green card applicants who are totally unaware of the current situation and thus they are indifferent towards the reasoning and the depth of the problem causing delays in the system. They think that their individual applications will get approved in "few months" so there is nothing they need to do.
(2.) The victims of the retrogression come from various parts of the world.
The members who belong to this group are already disheartened with the delay of their application and have waited patiently for their turn in the line for several years. This long period of wait has made this group of people to lose faith and so they do not believe in themselves. They don't actually think that they can make any difference in this debate to facilitate anything that would change the system. Because they do not believe in themselves, these people do not also believe that others like them can do anything to change the system either. So often times they refuse to participate, not knowing that they are refusing to participate in an effort that will ultimately facilitate the change in the system.
The positive message, like the one from you on the conference call today will help more and more members to believe that they can actively participate in changing the system to change their and their families' lives. And it is this belief in our own self that will ultimately wake-up this community. I am confident that after listening to your narration on today's call, more and more members will sincerely attempt to meet their lawmakers and will educate other members about their efforts. I believe that this community has a massive potential to make the change. The only question is when would the sizable number of IV members feel motivated enough to get up to actively participate in this process to facilitate the coming change? After today's call, I believe that the answer to this question is, very soon.
Again, Thank you for actively participating in the effort and more importantly, encouraging others to participate actively. Please continue to help and motivate other members in the organization.
Regards,
Pappu on behalf of IV team
Thank you for taking the lead with the Meet the lawmaker initiative. It is very important for our EB community to be active and vibrant on the issues that are important to us. We cannot emphasize enough the importance of meeting the lawmaker in our home states. As you already know, in campaign like ours, it is the most vibrant communities who ultimately succeed.
The real question is when would there be sufficient number of community members who would feel the need and the motivation to be vibrantly active. It is the fence sitters that we have to convince so that more number of green card applicants, suffering due to retrogression, would feel the urge to actively participate in fixing their own issues. And your act of sharing your experiences with the community about what you were able to accomplish, is a big step in the right direction to motivate others to emulate what you have been able to do. In effect, today, you helped raise the level of consciousness of the community and prompted a sizeable number of members to think and believe that they could meet the lawmakers and make the difference in this debate. I am confident that most members, who listened to your narration tonight, were convinced that they could do it too. That is the message that we have to send out so that the energies emanating from our frustration due to delays with the system, which are often times visible on IV forums, could be channelized into positive direction. We see that there are many reasons why people do not actively participate in Immigration Voice efforts. A large part of these community members could be described in two broad categories:-
(1.) Green card applicants who are totally unaware of the current situation and thus they are indifferent towards the reasoning and the depth of the problem causing delays in the system. They think that their individual applications will get approved in "few months" so there is nothing they need to do.
(2.) The victims of the retrogression come from various parts of the world.
The members who belong to this group are already disheartened with the delay of their application and have waited patiently for their turn in the line for several years. This long period of wait has made this group of people to lose faith and so they do not believe in themselves. They don't actually think that they can make any difference in this debate to facilitate anything that would change the system. Because they do not believe in themselves, these people do not also believe that others like them can do anything to change the system either. So often times they refuse to participate, not knowing that they are refusing to participate in an effort that will ultimately facilitate the change in the system.
The positive message, like the one from you on the conference call today will help more and more members to believe that they can actively participate in changing the system to change their and their families' lives. And it is this belief in our own self that will ultimately wake-up this community. I am confident that after listening to your narration on today's call, more and more members will sincerely attempt to meet their lawmakers and will educate other members about their efforts. I believe that this community has a massive potential to make the change. The only question is when would the sizable number of IV members feel motivated enough to get up to actively participate in this process to facilitate the coming change? After today's call, I believe that the answer to this question is, very soon.
Again, Thank you for actively participating in the effort and more importantly, encouraging others to participate actively. Please continue to help and motivate other members in the organization.
Regards,
Pappu on behalf of IV team
tattoo friend quotes funny.
TomTancredo
03-11 05:30 PM
This is a very subjective question of intent? If the employer has no problem and willing to support the petition and a job offer when the RFE arrives, how will the UCSIS ever determine intent.
Lets assume the greencard is approved and can it be revoked if i never work for the employer.
And will the fac that i worked for them in the past and resigned before filing a I 14o be a negative factor for adjudication.
They will issue an RFE and ask you to prove otherwise.... They can flag your GC and can come after you at the time of Naturalization .. They can ask you when you enter and exit the country about how you got your GC..(This happens very frequently).. They can ask you if you ever worked ...
if a company is doing business based on US immigration system , USCIS has many ways to find about it .
If you have worked for them at the time of filing labor or 140 or 485 statge ... it should be easy to prove the intent because you have paystubs/w-2/...etc
Lets assume the greencard is approved and can it be revoked if i never work for the employer.
And will the fac that i worked for them in the past and resigned before filing a I 14o be a negative factor for adjudication.
They will issue an RFE and ask you to prove otherwise.... They can flag your GC and can come after you at the time of Naturalization .. They can ask you when you enter and exit the country about how you got your GC..(This happens very frequently).. They can ask you if you ever worked ...
if a company is doing business based on US immigration system , USCIS has many ways to find about it .
If you have worked for them at the time of filing labor or 140 or 485 statge ... it should be easy to prove the intent because you have paystubs/w-2/...etc
more...
pictures friendship quotes and
ksita48
07-23 09:30 PM
Brief Description of my Case Joined Vision Systems Group INC,(VSGInc), Southplains Field, NJ in the year March 2003. My H1B was transferred to VSG Inc from my previous company which got merged with another company. VSG Inc filed my Labor Certification in 2003 (EB3) on Dec 23,2003 which has gone to Back Log Center, Harrisburg, PA and got approved only in Dec, 2006. In July 2006 VSG Inc, filed PERM under EB2 and got approved and filed I140 under EB2. But when USCIS sent RFE, my company has withdrawn the I140 without responding to RFE. In July 2007, during 2007 visa fiasco, VSG Inc filed I140 electronically, and I485 and other papers concurrently in July 02, 2007. Got the receipt notices for I140 dated 07-02-2007 and for I485 and others on 06-05-2008. Received EAD and travel docs in July 2008. My I140 is still pending at Nebraska Service center as on date. When contacted trough the Local Congress Man, Dept. Of Home land Security replied on Feb 09, 2009 as follows: �The processing of I-140 has been delayed, not yet ready for decision as it has been selected for extended security review, independent of FBI name check and fingerprints. Until the review is completed, we cannot move forward on this case. We will make every effort to make a decision on this case as soon as the review is complete. However, we have contacted the security team POC to see if this case can be reviewed to see if it can be moved for adjudication.� VISION SYSTEMS GROUP, INC., a New Jersey Domestic Profit Corporation, with a branch office in Coon Rapids, Iowa, was also indicted in a ten count federal indictment that included one count of conspiracy, eight counts of mail fraud, and one count of �Notice of Forfeiture� in the amount of $7,400,000. The investigation is being conducted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in collaboration with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services - Fraud Detection and National Security Division (FDNS); U.S. Department of Labor - Office of Inspector General; U.S. Postal Inspection Service (USPIS); U.S. Department of State; and is supported by the U.S. Attorney�s Office for the Southern District of Iowa. At the out set I am in a complete depressed state an seek your help and know the fate of my AOS applications like I-140, I485 and others and the best possible course of action I may have to take immediately. My concerns and questions: 1. Should I transfer my H1b to another company? 2. What will happen to my pending I-140 and I-485 petitions? 3. Or should I continue with the present company wait for the outcome? 4. How much time it may take to finally conclude this process normally? 5. If the company is proved guilty and be closed by the Govt. or blacklisted what will happen to the Employees like me who are absolutely not concern, nor involved and go by Rules and in the project working If you can throw some light on these matters, It would be of great relief to me who has spent in this country for 11 years legally paying all the taxes.:confused:
dresses Funny Quote: Life has taught
gc_chahiye
12-07 04:48 PM
... Project Managers are not eligible for EB1. (Don't give that section any bright ideas) Only multi-national executives (VP and above are)
in addition to researchers who have exceptional track-record (no, publishing papers in IEEE digest doesn't count
nope. My own manager in my previous company got his GC done in EB1. He is not a VP or anything, just a project manager! Some reports here, some in the india office + a nice case prepared by a top lawfirm and you can be all set.
in addition to researchers who have exceptional track-record (no, publishing papers in IEEE digest doesn't count
nope. My own manager in my previous company got his GC done in EB1. He is not a VP or anything, just a project manager! Some reports here, some in the india office + a nice case prepared by a top lawfirm and you can be all set.
more...
makeup Quotes Short Short Quotes
pappu
11-10 10:57 PM
USCIS Ombudsmun Report - Total I140 approved:
Approved
2000:89,583
2001: 99,659
2002: 93,533
2003:62,281
2004:67,552
2005:94,211
2006:104,168
Oct 2006 to April 2007: 65,098
found this on another site
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2006/table10d.xls
dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2006/table10d.xls
Approved
2000:89,583
2001: 99,659
2002: 93,533
2003:62,281
2004:67,552
2005:94,211
2006:104,168
Oct 2006 to April 2007: 65,098
found this on another site
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2006/table10d.xls
dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2006/table10d.xls
girlfriend Love Quotes Life Quotes Funny
amitjoey
05-19 04:45 PM
If I assume that every year EB3-India gets 5000 GC-Visa. From 2001 - 2008 Total = 40,000 EB3-India Visas
Is number of applications in 2001 and 2002 is > 40,000.
Its very hard to believe.
Its not 40,000 labor or 140's dude every GC is minimum 2 (applicant + spouse) in some cases if you add children then it can consume 3-4 visa's from the quota and that is what is making the line even more longer.
The reason it is stuck at 2001 is because a lot of people that did not belong to the EB3 queue got visas out of EB3 IN 2001. This was because of a law that was passed in 2000 that sunset in April 2001. Thousands of so called "special immigrants".. (Illegals- I guess) got them. See: http://www.usavisanow.com/245iext.html
These were individuals that came in - illegally, but their employers could not file for them. Interestingly and Ironic is that legals were not eligible to apply under that act - LIFE ACT, 2001
http://www.brama.com/news/press/010405_lifeact2000.html
Also, add the wastage that happens every year. USCIS wastes (does not use) a lot of visas every year and they lapse.
Also some years, when there was a visa recapture (I believe 2003-2004).. 50,000 of the so-counted EB3's were given away to nurses. There was a special category.
Is number of applications in 2001 and 2002 is > 40,000.
Its very hard to believe.
Its not 40,000 labor or 140's dude every GC is minimum 2 (applicant + spouse) in some cases if you add children then it can consume 3-4 visa's from the quota and that is what is making the line even more longer.
The reason it is stuck at 2001 is because a lot of people that did not belong to the EB3 queue got visas out of EB3 IN 2001. This was because of a law that was passed in 2000 that sunset in April 2001. Thousands of so called "special immigrants".. (Illegals- I guess) got them. See: http://www.usavisanow.com/245iext.html
These were individuals that came in - illegally, but their employers could not file for them. Interestingly and Ironic is that legals were not eligible to apply under that act - LIFE ACT, 2001
http://www.brama.com/news/press/010405_lifeact2000.html
Also, add the wastage that happens every year. USCIS wastes (does not use) a lot of visas every year and they lapse.
Also some years, when there was a visa recapture (I believe 2003-2004).. 50,000 of the so-counted EB3's were given away to nurses. There was a special category.
hairstyles Friendship Quotes Funny
samsu
03-22 08:31 AM
Hi,
My Situation is very similar to above mentioned and I would appreciate if someone can give comments.
My I-485 was filed during July'07 and I-140 was approved during the same time but I was on H1 until Feb'10 working for employer directly and lost my job. I have found new job now starting March 15 but I am not going to transfer H1 and started working on EAD. I am not sure about filling AC21 as it might create unnecessary confusion and I don't want to miss out in case my date become current (Nov'06) due to spill over.
Now, I have to travel internationally for work and will be using first time my AP but not sure how to answer question on my employer without filling AC21.
I can bring AC21 memo and show them paycheck from last employer and new employer (with little more than one month gap in between) but not sure if that is enough. Let me know your suggestion.
Also, my old employer will most likely not revoke 140.
Thanks,
Sam
My Situation is very similar to above mentioned and I would appreciate if someone can give comments.
My I-485 was filed during July'07 and I-140 was approved during the same time but I was on H1 until Feb'10 working for employer directly and lost my job. I have found new job now starting March 15 but I am not going to transfer H1 and started working on EAD. I am not sure about filling AC21 as it might create unnecessary confusion and I don't want to miss out in case my date become current (Nov'06) due to spill over.
Now, I have to travel internationally for work and will be using first time my AP but not sure how to answer question on my employer without filling AC21.
I can bring AC21 memo and show them paycheck from last employer and new employer (with little more than one month gap in between) but not sure if that is enough. Let me know your suggestion.
Also, my old employer will most likely not revoke 140.
Thanks,
Sam
jsb
01-28 09:24 AM
Sorry for the stupid question.
Is it necessary to inform CIS about job change using AC21?
Few of my friends havent informed.
Please read posts above. There is no need to send anything to USCIS unless asked.
Is it necessary to inform CIS about job change using AC21?
Few of my friends havent informed.
Please read posts above. There is no need to send anything to USCIS unless asked.
harrydr
01-06 08:05 AM
Please advise if 5.5+ years of experience and an Advanced degree in Electronics would qualify me for porting me from EB2 to EB1. I have been waiting to file for my I-140 over an year now but things aren't looking anywhere near to it.
So just wanted to understand if this was even legally possible.
So just wanted to understand if this was even legally possible.
