immigration_indian
07-04 12:55 AM
There is a link to file I REPORT ON CNN
I have filed one
http://www.cnn.com/exchange/
I have filed one
http://www.cnn.com/exchange/
wallpaper %IMG_DESC_1%
immi_seeker
09-15 02:39 PM
Here are my Estimate of pending EB2 India case for give years
<=2004 2000
2005 10000
2006 13000
2007(july) 5000
==============
Total 30000
==============
This number is very close to Ron Gocthers number prediction a few months back (minus sept approvals).
Collaboration on visa quota data/analysis - Page 6 - Immigration Information Discussion Forum (http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/general-immigration-questions/8419-collaboration-on-visa-quota-data-analysis-6.html)
Pending as of 15 July 2009 145000
EB2 50000
EB3 94000
EB2India (2.4/3.5 EB2) 35714
We can use the LCA number and come close these numbers as well
2005
EB2 India LCA for 2005 = RIR (3000) + PERM (60% of 7290) ~ 7400
Assuming 20% abandon applicant we get = 5900
1.2 dependent per applicant give ~ 13000 I-485 applicantions
Assuming 10% approved in 2008 and 10% rejected/abandon I-485 and 5% cross-charageability we get => pending 10000 pending I-485 application for 2005
2006
India PERM applications = 18000
EB2 India PERM applications (60%) = 10800
Assuming 20% abandon applicant we get = 8640
1.2 dependent per applicant give ~ 19000 I-485 applicantions
Assuming 10% approved in 2008 and 10% rejected/abandon I-485 and 10% cross-charageability we get => pending 13000 pending I-485 application for 2006
So if we see spillover of more than 30K the date will move beyond July 2007.
Considering the slow economy that spill over is reasonable.
<=2004 2000
2005 10000
2006 13000
2007(july) 5000
==============
Total 30000
==============
This number is very close to Ron Gocthers number prediction a few months back (minus sept approvals).
Collaboration on visa quota data/analysis - Page 6 - Immigration Information Discussion Forum (http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/general-immigration-questions/8419-collaboration-on-visa-quota-data-analysis-6.html)
Pending as of 15 July 2009 145000
EB2 50000
EB3 94000
EB2India (2.4/3.5 EB2) 35714
We can use the LCA number and come close these numbers as well
2005
EB2 India LCA for 2005 = RIR (3000) + PERM (60% of 7290) ~ 7400
Assuming 20% abandon applicant we get = 5900
1.2 dependent per applicant give ~ 13000 I-485 applicantions
Assuming 10% approved in 2008 and 10% rejected/abandon I-485 and 5% cross-charageability we get => pending 10000 pending I-485 application for 2005
2006
India PERM applications = 18000
EB2 India PERM applications (60%) = 10800
Assuming 20% abandon applicant we get = 8640
1.2 dependent per applicant give ~ 19000 I-485 applicantions
Assuming 10% approved in 2008 and 10% rejected/abandon I-485 and 10% cross-charageability we get => pending 13000 pending I-485 application for 2006
So if we see spillover of more than 30K the date will move beyond July 2007.
Considering the slow economy that spill over is reasonable.
eb2_mumbai
09-28 10:48 AM
I have a few questions of guru's on this forum.
What made USCIS change the rules of spill over from EB3 to EB2. We all know that rules changed in 2007 but I am not sure what prompted USCIS to make the change was it AILA or IV or just internal USCIS review?
The reason I ask this question is when I was looking at the EB3 thread there were lots of people especially with PD between 2001 & 2004 who feel they can start a campaign to revert this spill over decision to pre 2007 criteria. I am neither opposing them nor supporting them but I want to understand the reasons the changes were made.
At this moment I feel their appeal is more at emotional level rather than having a sound resoning. Its like we are waiting since 8 years so please assign us these spillover numbers. But I do not feel that will cut ice with CIS. We need to work for visa recapture but till this spilover thing is put to rest no one will concentrate on recapture
What made USCIS change the rules of spill over from EB3 to EB2. We all know that rules changed in 2007 but I am not sure what prompted USCIS to make the change was it AILA or IV or just internal USCIS review?
The reason I ask this question is when I was looking at the EB3 thread there were lots of people especially with PD between 2001 & 2004 who feel they can start a campaign to revert this spill over decision to pre 2007 criteria. I am neither opposing them nor supporting them but I want to understand the reasons the changes were made.
At this moment I feel their appeal is more at emotional level rather than having a sound resoning. Its like we are waiting since 8 years so please assign us these spillover numbers. But I do not feel that will cut ice with CIS. We need to work for visa recapture but till this spilover thing is put to rest no one will concentrate on recapture
2011 %IMG_DESC_2%
dealsnet
01-14 10:24 AM
Good catch !!!!!!!!!!! HA....HA.......H.....AAAAAAAA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Woman period yes. Man period no.
You man or woman or nether?
Woman period yes. Man period no.
You man or woman or nether?
more...
dilipcr
06-16 02:24 PM
There's two themes in this thread that are interesting.
1. A couple of members advanced the argument that retrogression is good since it weeds out the supposedly undeserving. Here's a startling quote:
2. The question of luck.
I would like to share our story, because it touches on both these themes: I have two US graduate degrees; so does my wife. We've paid over 100K in federal income taxes in each of the past several years and I'm now a partner at my firm; the idea that folks are stuck in retrogression because they are undereducated low-cost workers is not realistic. And there are many cases similar to ours (some of which I read about on IV). We are stuck in retrogression because we have no answer to the country-quota bottleneck.
So, sure, retreogression may provide perverse pleasure to a select few greencard holders, but the inconvenience that retrogression causes most of us does not serve a greater Darwinian good.
What of luck? While luck has put us in retrogression, it has favored us in many ways --- we have a great family, a lovely home, and a bunch of good friends. I am sure all of us have seen similar plus sides of luck. But luck is stubborn when it comes to the greencard: when the window opened up last year, many folks with PD 2006 were approved, while many like us with older PD were left waiting. Luck is a strange animal -- it lets you see the map of the world in your handheld, but won't let you travel freely because of retrogression.
There's this story about luck and how one can get around it in some cases. It is not very relevant here, but here's the story: A wise man came to a village and observed a family living in great poverty. All the family had was a cow and a sack of grain. They would work very hard, but their net worth never rose beyond the "cow + sack of grain" level. The wise man, being wise, figured out what's going on. He asked the family to give away the cow and have a party with whatever grain they had. The family initially thought this advice was daft, but eventually complied out of respect for the wise man. The night after they had squandered everything, Brahma could be seen quietly bringing the family another cow and a sack of grain. What the wise man had figured out was that this level of net worth was preordained for that family -- whether they work hard or party. Not a great story to tell your kids to teach them about hard work; but provides an alternate perspective when you're stuck in line.
To be honest, you are the kind of people, with the right attitude and qualifications, who deserve the GC and should not be subject to these mindless wait times. I am truly sorry for you. Hope the best for you
1. A couple of members advanced the argument that retrogression is good since it weeds out the supposedly undeserving. Here's a startling quote:
2. The question of luck.
I would like to share our story, because it touches on both these themes: I have two US graduate degrees; so does my wife. We've paid over 100K in federal income taxes in each of the past several years and I'm now a partner at my firm; the idea that folks are stuck in retrogression because they are undereducated low-cost workers is not realistic. And there are many cases similar to ours (some of which I read about on IV). We are stuck in retrogression because we have no answer to the country-quota bottleneck.
So, sure, retreogression may provide perverse pleasure to a select few greencard holders, but the inconvenience that retrogression causes most of us does not serve a greater Darwinian good.
What of luck? While luck has put us in retrogression, it has favored us in many ways --- we have a great family, a lovely home, and a bunch of good friends. I am sure all of us have seen similar plus sides of luck. But luck is stubborn when it comes to the greencard: when the window opened up last year, many folks with PD 2006 were approved, while many like us with older PD were left waiting. Luck is a strange animal -- it lets you see the map of the world in your handheld, but won't let you travel freely because of retrogression.
There's this story about luck and how one can get around it in some cases. It is not very relevant here, but here's the story: A wise man came to a village and observed a family living in great poverty. All the family had was a cow and a sack of grain. They would work very hard, but their net worth never rose beyond the "cow + sack of grain" level. The wise man, being wise, figured out what's going on. He asked the family to give away the cow and have a party with whatever grain they had. The family initially thought this advice was daft, but eventually complied out of respect for the wise man. The night after they had squandered everything, Brahma could be seen quietly bringing the family another cow and a sack of grain. What the wise man had figured out was that this level of net worth was preordained for that family -- whether they work hard or party. Not a great story to tell your kids to teach them about hard work; but provides an alternate perspective when you're stuck in line.
To be honest, you are the kind of people, with the right attitude and qualifications, who deserve the GC and should not be subject to these mindless wait times. I am truly sorry for you. Hope the best for you
PlainSpeak
01-13 12:57 PM
why doesn't anyone in iv core get it dammit..... this is crystal clear..... what more do u want...... now get mov'in & get green cards for all of us by next week..... :rolleyes:
why doesn't anyone in iv core get it dammit..... this is crystal clear..... what more do u want...... now get mov'in & get green cards for all of us by next week.....
For a second after seeing your statement i thought some is getting what i am saying but the smile at the very end destroyed that illusion
But in any case whether you agree with me or not (or whether as some say i am in cloud cooko land- to which all i can say is i woke up when will you) i appreciate a reply to the post
why doesn't anyone in iv core get it dammit..... this is crystal clear..... what more do u want...... now get mov'in & get green cards for all of us by next week.....
For a second after seeing your statement i thought some is getting what i am saying but the smile at the very end destroyed that illusion
But in any case whether you agree with me or not (or whether as some say i am in cloud cooko land- to which all i can say is i woke up when will you) i appreciate a reply to the post
more...
immigrant2007
08-17 08:56 PM
don't we have something better to discuss on this forum rather than shah rukh khan's personal issue.
2010 %IMG_DESC_3%
ebizash
07-21 12:17 PM
I hate their scheming means to rope you in. They keep calling you and bug you to death. Is there anything that you could do to repel Amway desis? Any sprays, creams, poison?
If you want to be gentle - You can say that you have done it in the past and quit...
If you want to scare them - you can also add I quit because I got an audit from IRS and USCIS as it is illegal on non-immigrant visa....that will scare the hell outta them...
If you want to be gentle - You can say that you have done it in the past and quit...
If you want to scare them - you can also add I quit because I got an audit from IRS and USCIS as it is illegal on non-immigrant visa....that will scare the hell outta them...
more...
desi3933
06-16 04:33 PM
Where did you get that 80k number? You think 80k is good salary for that job, someone else may say 65k, I may say 90k. The salary, among other things, is determined by market forces. If you can't find enough people with xyz then company will be forced to offer more.
As long as there are people who are ready to work on salary 52k (example), employer will not pay 70k. As long as employer is following all the legal requirements, no one can dictate salary for the job.
I agree that the employer will pay the salary that is consummate with the market. No well meaning employer will undercut to save a few pennies at the risk of losing out on quality.
What if the market pay scales are distorted through pervasive fraud ? If you look at it from an employer's view, it gets murkier. Believe it or not, low cost always signal lower quality. Trust me this is marketing 101. Google low cost and the perceptive signals. It is truly tough for the employer to trust the low cost employee's skillset.
Now the distortion comes into play when outsourcing companies flout rules and undercut the market through pervasive fraud. Like other industries such as manufacturing/agriculture etc, IT wages are destined to decline but not at this rate. The acceleration in the decline of wages is perpetuated by these scum outsourcing companies. If the decline in wages were let to decline at the speed of market, then it gives talented people time to upgrade skills or move to other industries without having to sacrifice quality of living. So per your argument, yes the end employer is following the rules by employing people from the outsourcing company because the employer does not know or looks the other way of the outsourcing company committing pervasive fraud. Oh BTW that 80K number was just to highlight that the L1s should be paid high too. It was not based on any scientific or statistical evidence.
>> I agree that the employer will pay the salary that is consummate with the market.
I am glad we are on the same page on this. It is employer who decides how much to pay. Employee decides whether to take the offer or not. Simple.
>> Now the distortion comes into play when outsourcing companies flout rules and undercut the market through pervasive fraud.
Well, you can report the fraudulent activity. If one is wronged, he/she has option of legal route and claiming punitive damages.
>> The acceleration in the decline of wages is perpetuated by these scum outsourcing companies. If the decline in wages were let to decline at the speed of market, then it gives talented people time to upgrade skills or move to other industries without having to sacrifice quality of living.
If my employer pays me less salary, I have option to move to another job. Just like my employer has option to fire me and replace with another qualified worker. Again, unless otherwise, I assume all actions are legal. I don't know about you, but when I came to USA, nobody give me assurance or guarantee that this job is future will pay me at least xx k per year so as to maintain quality of life. Here, two person of equal talent, could be earning 60k and 120k per year. It depends on your skill set, how do you sell yourself, and luck. An example - I have backgound both in Comp Science and Finance, so I look for opportunities where I can use both of them for effective leverage. If you think that I didn't face outsourcing challage or was not given pink slip, then you are wrong. As most professionals, I have seen good days and not-so-good days.
>> Oh BTW that 80K number was just to highlight that the L1s should be paid high too.
With your admission, it is employer's choice on how much to pay. As long as law is followed, you or I can NOT decide on anyone else's salary.
>> For the most part it is if it were left to market forces. Employers, rationally, would only want as much as talent for the price they pay. Most importantly, employers would be willing to go the extra mile to sponsor green cards only if they perceive that the immigrant employee would add value both in the present and the future.
Bad things do happen. Projects get cancelled as Customer is no longer interested. Employer wants to move from Chicago to Dallas, that may prompt employee to look elsewhere. Some employers do not process green card at all (It happened to me, a Big Bank was not processing Green Cards in 1999). You assume all good and rosy will happen to guenine employers and good employees.
>> Now again, when I say employers, I mean the genuine employers and not the fly by night consulting body shops or the outsourcing companies.
Just as some employers with permanent positions are not good, there are some employers in Consulting and Outsourcing world that may be good. Let USCIS and other agencies determine who are genuine employers or not.
>> I strongly believe that EB based GC for a very large part is built on merit. You may see sme cases wherein some ordinary people getting green cards. They, in my opinion , are mostly from these body shops who got "lucky". Cant believe I am using that word !!!
No sir. It is employer-employment based. If you don't have employer to back your I-140, how will get green card. Do you know there is a category - Eb3 skilled worker, where benefiery does not even need bachelor degree. What do you think, those people are "lucky". If so, please take your arguement to Senators and USCIS to restict GC for "merit based" only. Until then, as long as one is getting green card, as per current law, (again as per current law), who are we to complain?
GC is not IIT-JEE exam where there is only one classification. Clear the exam and get the admission. There are varoius categories from EB-1 (Rocket Scientist) to EB-4 (Priest). This is not one-size-fits-all.
We need to look at issues faced by EB based community from a distance and without the glasses of issues faced personally by us. Until then, it is fight that one is more deserving than the other.
.
As long as there are people who are ready to work on salary 52k (example), employer will not pay 70k. As long as employer is following all the legal requirements, no one can dictate salary for the job.
I agree that the employer will pay the salary that is consummate with the market. No well meaning employer will undercut to save a few pennies at the risk of losing out on quality.
What if the market pay scales are distorted through pervasive fraud ? If you look at it from an employer's view, it gets murkier. Believe it or not, low cost always signal lower quality. Trust me this is marketing 101. Google low cost and the perceptive signals. It is truly tough for the employer to trust the low cost employee's skillset.
Now the distortion comes into play when outsourcing companies flout rules and undercut the market through pervasive fraud. Like other industries such as manufacturing/agriculture etc, IT wages are destined to decline but not at this rate. The acceleration in the decline of wages is perpetuated by these scum outsourcing companies. If the decline in wages were let to decline at the speed of market, then it gives talented people time to upgrade skills or move to other industries without having to sacrifice quality of living. So per your argument, yes the end employer is following the rules by employing people from the outsourcing company because the employer does not know or looks the other way of the outsourcing company committing pervasive fraud. Oh BTW that 80K number was just to highlight that the L1s should be paid high too. It was not based on any scientific or statistical evidence.
>> I agree that the employer will pay the salary that is consummate with the market.
I am glad we are on the same page on this. It is employer who decides how much to pay. Employee decides whether to take the offer or not. Simple.
>> Now the distortion comes into play when outsourcing companies flout rules and undercut the market through pervasive fraud.
Well, you can report the fraudulent activity. If one is wronged, he/she has option of legal route and claiming punitive damages.
>> The acceleration in the decline of wages is perpetuated by these scum outsourcing companies. If the decline in wages were let to decline at the speed of market, then it gives talented people time to upgrade skills or move to other industries without having to sacrifice quality of living.
If my employer pays me less salary, I have option to move to another job. Just like my employer has option to fire me and replace with another qualified worker. Again, unless otherwise, I assume all actions are legal. I don't know about you, but when I came to USA, nobody give me assurance or guarantee that this job is future will pay me at least xx k per year so as to maintain quality of life. Here, two person of equal talent, could be earning 60k and 120k per year. It depends on your skill set, how do you sell yourself, and luck. An example - I have backgound both in Comp Science and Finance, so I look for opportunities where I can use both of them for effective leverage. If you think that I didn't face outsourcing challage or was not given pink slip, then you are wrong. As most professionals, I have seen good days and not-so-good days.
>> Oh BTW that 80K number was just to highlight that the L1s should be paid high too.
With your admission, it is employer's choice on how much to pay. As long as law is followed, you or I can NOT decide on anyone else's salary.
>> For the most part it is if it were left to market forces. Employers, rationally, would only want as much as talent for the price they pay. Most importantly, employers would be willing to go the extra mile to sponsor green cards only if they perceive that the immigrant employee would add value both in the present and the future.
Bad things do happen. Projects get cancelled as Customer is no longer interested. Employer wants to move from Chicago to Dallas, that may prompt employee to look elsewhere. Some employers do not process green card at all (It happened to me, a Big Bank was not processing Green Cards in 1999). You assume all good and rosy will happen to guenine employers and good employees.
>> Now again, when I say employers, I mean the genuine employers and not the fly by night consulting body shops or the outsourcing companies.
Just as some employers with permanent positions are not good, there are some employers in Consulting and Outsourcing world that may be good. Let USCIS and other agencies determine who are genuine employers or not.
>> I strongly believe that EB based GC for a very large part is built on merit. You may see sme cases wherein some ordinary people getting green cards. They, in my opinion , are mostly from these body shops who got "lucky". Cant believe I am using that word !!!
No sir. It is employer-employment based. If you don't have employer to back your I-140, how will get green card. Do you know there is a category - Eb3 skilled worker, where benefiery does not even need bachelor degree. What do you think, those people are "lucky". If so, please take your arguement to Senators and USCIS to restict GC for "merit based" only. Until then, as long as one is getting green card, as per current law, (again as per current law), who are we to complain?
GC is not IIT-JEE exam where there is only one classification. Clear the exam and get the admission. There are varoius categories from EB-1 (Rocket Scientist) to EB-4 (Priest). This is not one-size-fits-all.
We need to look at issues faced by EB based community from a distance and without the glasses of issues faced personally by us. Until then, it is fight that one is more deserving than the other.
.
hair %IMG_DESC_4%
gondalguru
06-28 04:24 PM
Does your attorney cost $400 to $800 an hour. I work with a law firm and our attorneys per hour rates are from $400 up. I don't understand your description of "very very high profile" attorney.
Yes they cost around 350$ an hour. So I guess that makes them very very very high profile. Right.
Yes they cost around 350$ an hour. So I guess that makes them very very very high profile. Right.
more...
soljabhai
12-13 04:15 PM
we, as non citizens, obviously do not have all the rights that the citizens possess. We don't know whether this rule is or is not constitutional (And as someone rightly pointed out that the expertise of a constitutional attorney is required).
However if it can be shown that certain citizens/corporations ( for example microsoft, google etc who also make efforts and lobby congress to change the law ) are unduly disadvantaged by this per country cap, then they can be plaintiff. So in a sense, we have allies in the corporate sector with tons of money (and who want to make more!) So they might be willing to support us,
if it is indeed found that the rule can be challenged.
However if it can be shown that certain citizens/corporations ( for example microsoft, google etc who also make efforts and lobby congress to change the law ) are unduly disadvantaged by this per country cap, then they can be plaintiff. So in a sense, we have allies in the corporate sector with tons of money (and who want to make more!) So they might be willing to support us,
if it is indeed found that the rule can be challenged.
hot %IMG_DESC_5%
amsgc
07-04 12:58 AM
Agreed !!
These days i'm driving back from work instead of taking the Train/subway because my client location changed and i built this habit of listening to
Talk radio by guys like Howie Carr , Michael Savage etc.. ( WRKO 680 at Boston) and they really influence Public decision....
They were beating the s*** out of Bush, Ted kennedy because of CIR ( atleast verbally ) and calls after calls were coming from local american Public...
But our story may not be very interesting for Locals - so talk radio probably won't take it up as a Topic ???
It depends on how you put the issue across to the talk show host/american public. If you say how you want a green card, high skilled, legal immigrants, etc., then general junta is going to club it all into the "immigration issue" and our voice will be lost.
However, if you put yourself across as someone who got the shaft by the government, victim of mismanagement of govt. agencies, and possible msiconduct, then people are likely to listen. This is because American citizenry is very particular about where their tax dollars are going, and if they don't find transparency in government functions, they will demand explanations.
If you listen to the programs, then you should call.
These days i'm driving back from work instead of taking the Train/subway because my client location changed and i built this habit of listening to
Talk radio by guys like Howie Carr , Michael Savage etc.. ( WRKO 680 at Boston) and they really influence Public decision....
They were beating the s*** out of Bush, Ted kennedy because of CIR ( atleast verbally ) and calls after calls were coming from local american Public...
But our story may not be very interesting for Locals - so talk radio probably won't take it up as a Topic ???
It depends on how you put the issue across to the talk show host/american public. If you say how you want a green card, high skilled, legal immigrants, etc., then general junta is going to club it all into the "immigration issue" and our voice will be lost.
However, if you put yourself across as someone who got the shaft by the government, victim of mismanagement of govt. agencies, and possible msiconduct, then people are likely to listen. This is because American citizenry is very particular about where their tax dollars are going, and if they don't find transparency in government functions, they will demand explanations.
If you listen to the programs, then you should call.
more...
house %IMG_DESC_17%
geve
11-09 09:17 AM
You are right my friend. In fact you explained every thing. Your concerns are valid. However as you said you are overreacting. In other words you are stretching your strengths.
You said 4 of them are your friends. By giving complaint on company i do not know what is the outcome. Can also effect the approved GC candidates.
There is fine line between DHARMAM AND NYAYAM. Personnally i do not think they did wrong. Neither the company nor the candidates. They just used the available system.
We can argue or put our opinion to the law makers. One of my friend who came along with me on the same flight, same day from india throught same company can apply for citizenship next year.
where as me
EB3 -- May 2003
I-140 approved Mar 2006
We are all on same page. Forget about what happened to others. Think what we can do? I am not trying to teach, just trying to coll you down.
You said 4 of them are your friends. By giving complaint on company i do not know what is the outcome. Can also effect the approved GC candidates.
There is fine line between DHARMAM AND NYAYAM. Personnally i do not think they did wrong. Neither the company nor the candidates. They just used the available system.
We can argue or put our opinion to the law makers. One of my friend who came along with me on the same flight, same day from india throught same company can apply for citizenship next year.
where as me
EB3 -- May 2003
I-140 approved Mar 2006
We are all on same page. Forget about what happened to others. Think what we can do? I am not trying to teach, just trying to coll you down.
tattoo %IMG_DESC_6%
GCFROMOHIO
03-26 06:18 PM
Hi All,
I currently have an EB3 March 2003 priority date labor I140 approved with my company. Recently, I wanted to move to consulting, sothat I can get my GC converted to EB2 as the dates are only 2 months apart. I have asked my company if they are willing to take me as a contractor once I am out of the company and go to a consulting company. They said that it should be fine, but they said if GC is the only purpose, they can try to do something about converting my existing labor to EB2. It's a very big fortune 500 company and they do all their labors in EB3. My question is:
1. Can I re-apply another labor in EB2 for a position that qualifies in the same company and can port the existing EB3 priority date? Has anyone done this in the past?
2. Can I use any prior priority date approved labor in the same company, even though my EB3 I140 is approved with the same company.
3. Can I move to consulting company and reapply in EB2 with existing priority date and work for the same company that has my current labor.
The company legal counsel said that they would come back to me with some answers this week, but I want to get second opinion from all of you in this regard. I have my Masters in 2000 and MBA in 2004 with 8 years experience and so EB2 qualification shouldn't be a problem
Any help will be greatly appreciated!
Thanks,
I currently have an EB3 March 2003 priority date labor I140 approved with my company. Recently, I wanted to move to consulting, sothat I can get my GC converted to EB2 as the dates are only 2 months apart. I have asked my company if they are willing to take me as a contractor once I am out of the company and go to a consulting company. They said that it should be fine, but they said if GC is the only purpose, they can try to do something about converting my existing labor to EB2. It's a very big fortune 500 company and they do all their labors in EB3. My question is:
1. Can I re-apply another labor in EB2 for a position that qualifies in the same company and can port the existing EB3 priority date? Has anyone done this in the past?
2. Can I use any prior priority date approved labor in the same company, even though my EB3 I140 is approved with the same company.
3. Can I move to consulting company and reapply in EB2 with existing priority date and work for the same company that has my current labor.
The company legal counsel said that they would come back to me with some answers this week, but I want to get second opinion from all of you in this regard. I have my Masters in 2000 and MBA in 2004 with 8 years experience and so EB2 qualification shouldn't be a problem
Any help will be greatly appreciated!
Thanks,
more...
pictures %IMG_DESC_7%
lazycis
02-14 05:17 PM
Another prove of government misconduct is violation of regulations
In addition to the aspirational 180-day deadline in 8 U.S.C. � 1571(b), the 8 C.F.R. � 103.2(b)(18) sets forth a detailed timetable for “withholding adjudication of a visa petition or other application if . . . an investigation has been undertaken involving a matter relating to eligibility or the exercise of discretion . . . .”
I doubt these regulations were followed in thousands of delayed I-485s.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=223449&postcount=3
We have also over a hundred WOM rulings were court acknowledged that the USCIS "unreasonably delayed" adjudication of applications. Moreover, the USCIS intentionally pushed people to go to court
http://bibdaily.com/pdfs/Mocanu%201-14-08.pdf
"For reasons stated at the hearing and in this Memorandum, I have reached a tentative conclusion that Defendant USCIS, overwhelmed by these applications, has adopted a strategy of favoring delay by litigation, instead of developing an orderly and transparent administrative resolution. Although this strategy is often evident in private party damages litigation, it is improper in these cases."
In addition to the aspirational 180-day deadline in 8 U.S.C. � 1571(b), the 8 C.F.R. � 103.2(b)(18) sets forth a detailed timetable for “withholding adjudication of a visa petition or other application if . . . an investigation has been undertaken involving a matter relating to eligibility or the exercise of discretion . . . .”
I doubt these regulations were followed in thousands of delayed I-485s.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=223449&postcount=3
We have also over a hundred WOM rulings were court acknowledged that the USCIS "unreasonably delayed" adjudication of applications. Moreover, the USCIS intentionally pushed people to go to court
http://bibdaily.com/pdfs/Mocanu%201-14-08.pdf
"For reasons stated at the hearing and in this Memorandum, I have reached a tentative conclusion that Defendant USCIS, overwhelmed by these applications, has adopted a strategy of favoring delay by litigation, instead of developing an orderly and transparent administrative resolution. Although this strategy is often evident in private party damages litigation, it is improper in these cases."
dresses %IMG_DESC_12%
ss1026
03-29 01:38 PM
To those ignorants or idiots who voted for Rahul Gandhi or Sonia Gandhi:
This is a book shows facts about Nehru Dynasty in India: http://www.scribd.com/doc/1777536/Nehru-Gandhi-Family-Secrets
US just elected a President who father and step father are Muslims. And that is great and the world appreciates that because it shows that this country can judge a person by his skills or character and not get stuck in bigoted views about muslims or other minorities. And we love this country for that
But when it comes to India, don't you think of voting for Rahul gandhi because he might have some blood of either a parsi or ('god forbid') muslim in him. That certainly should dis qualify him, shouldn't it. Nepotism is certainly bad but this takes the cake. Dont vote for him because he might be 10% parsi/muslim (I am sure you have not forgotten about the italian heritage but you can raise that later). But certainly criminals and perpetrators of Genocide would be desirable PM choices. Rock on
This is a book shows facts about Nehru Dynasty in India: http://www.scribd.com/doc/1777536/Nehru-Gandhi-Family-Secrets
US just elected a President who father and step father are Muslims. And that is great and the world appreciates that because it shows that this country can judge a person by his skills or character and not get stuck in bigoted views about muslims or other minorities. And we love this country for that
But when it comes to India, don't you think of voting for Rahul gandhi because he might have some blood of either a parsi or ('god forbid') muslim in him. That certainly should dis qualify him, shouldn't it. Nepotism is certainly bad but this takes the cake. Dont vote for him because he might be 10% parsi/muslim (I am sure you have not forgotten about the italian heritage but you can raise that later). But certainly criminals and perpetrators of Genocide would be desirable PM choices. Rock on
more...
makeup %IMG_DESC_9%
dvb123
02-15 10:48 AM
my friend you really need to dig deeper into stuff...most things are more than meets the eye. courts are very reluctant to strike down laws. the supreme court will strike down a federal law ONLY if it's against the constitution itself...ie there has to be a fundamental problem. this is true both in the US and in India.
the fact that a law inconveniences people is just not enough ground.
Yup Paskal I have a dug a little deeper. Although this case is about DV visa it is very similar to our Visa recatpure situation.
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:yJNFLn-AtcsJ:vls.law.vill.edu/Locator/3d/Jan2004/031075p.pdf+court+order+immigrant+visa+number&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=in
the fact that a law inconveniences people is just not enough ground.
Yup Paskal I have a dug a little deeper. Although this case is about DV visa it is very similar to our Visa recatpure situation.
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:yJNFLn-AtcsJ:vls.law.vill.edu/Locator/3d/Jan2004/031075p.pdf+court+order+immigrant+visa+number&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=in
girlfriend %IMG_DESC_14%
Pineapple
12-14 02:54 PM
Yep.
So what you are saying, in other words, is 7% limit is for every country in the world (Except USA:)) correct?
So what you are saying, in other words, is 7% limit is for every country in the world (Except USA:)) correct?
hairstyles %IMG_DESC_11%
snathan
03-30 02:38 PM
We need food and shelter to sleep than Nuclear Deal I like your Future prediction of Nuclear deal.!!. (obviously, we are hungry and looking for food and place to sleep :)
Letz change the Govt and see what will they do in future. (We did n't see anything big with Congress for the past 4 decades -
Show Mr.Advani's track record before changing the govt.
Otherwise why its only Advani. We can try with Mayavathi, Mulayam, Jayalalitha and Karunanithi also...
Letz change the Govt and see what will they do in future. (We did n't see anything big with Congress for the past 4 decades -
Show Mr.Advani's track record before changing the govt.
Otherwise why its only Advani. We can try with Mayavathi, Mulayam, Jayalalitha and Karunanithi also...
racoon786
07-10 11:44 AM
I am planning on moving to Canada in the next 12 months since I already have PR there. I have no hopes for getting GC any time soon and wouldn't want to be toyed by the USCIS, DOS, Senators and all the anti-immigration lobbies out there.
logiclife
06-27 11:35 AM
From pages 36-37 of CIS Ombudsman's 2007 Annual Report to Congress (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOMB_Annual%20Report_2007.pdf).
In the 2006 Annual Report (at p. 16, AR 2006 -- 02), the Ombudsman also recommended that USCIS assign visa numbers to employment-based green card applications as applicants file them. The Ombudsman continues to recommend that USCIS work with DOS to reinstate that process which existed in the early 1980s, wherein DOS issued visa numbers for both employment and family-based applications for applicants as they applied rather than as they were approved. This process would ensure that USCIS does not accept more applications than the number of visas available.
With respect to the recommendation that USCIS assign visa numbers to cases as they are received, the process the Ombudsman describes was the process in place a number of years ago. DOS, which manages overall visa number allocations, modified that process to the procedure in effect today. It is their policy to allocate visa numbers to USCIS adjustment cases only as the point of approval is reached.
However, through the tri-agency meetings, DOS explained that the modification to the program occurred in the early 1980s because INS could not adhere to the requirements to return unused visa numbers immediately. The Ombudsman understands that DOS prefers that cases are reported qualified for a visa earlier than at approval. In the last several months, there have been several suggestions on how to accomplish that task, but operational concerns remain. The Ombudsman hopes that USCIS and DOS can reestablish the older program with improved processing and technology to ensure timely and accurate reporting of cases ready-to-issue and to prevent the future loss of visa numbers.
Yes. Agreed. But what this means is that if they approve too many cases then they may issue August bulletin with retrogressed dates. And that's fine because they can do that and everyone expects dates to retrogress either in August bulletin or in subsequent bulletin.
Which portion of the Ombudsman report says that "In the middle of the month for which bulletin is already out there with current dates, they can just stop accepting applications and sort of "REVISE" an already issued bulletin".
WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT ???
And I am still looking for source of information where in the middle of the month for which a bulletin was already issued in preceding month, USCIS chose to stop accepting petitions and not honor the bulletin issued by DOS with current dates.
I am seeing a lot of copy-paste from lawyers websites but NONE, I repeat, NONE has a government website URL or any official source.
Those who still want to believe can choose to believe this. It will make people file on July 1st, if its in their hands. If its in the hands of HR department and company lawyers, it will make them raise their blood pressure until the lawyer sends them an email on July 25th that the Fedex went out today.
I believe that regardless of what August bulletin shows, July bulletin on DOS website applies to month of July all the way thru July 31st and as long as you file before July 31st, you are fine.
I made myself look like an idiot by asking such questions to my lawyer, who is already going nuts over the suddenly sky-rocketing workload of 485 petitions. There is another guy who made a fool of himself by asking the lawyer this question.
And people keep posting new updates and baseless sources to add credence to this baseless rumor. Suit yourself.
In the 2006 Annual Report (at p. 16, AR 2006 -- 02), the Ombudsman also recommended that USCIS assign visa numbers to employment-based green card applications as applicants file them. The Ombudsman continues to recommend that USCIS work with DOS to reinstate that process which existed in the early 1980s, wherein DOS issued visa numbers for both employment and family-based applications for applicants as they applied rather than as they were approved. This process would ensure that USCIS does not accept more applications than the number of visas available.
With respect to the recommendation that USCIS assign visa numbers to cases as they are received, the process the Ombudsman describes was the process in place a number of years ago. DOS, which manages overall visa number allocations, modified that process to the procedure in effect today. It is their policy to allocate visa numbers to USCIS adjustment cases only as the point of approval is reached.
However, through the tri-agency meetings, DOS explained that the modification to the program occurred in the early 1980s because INS could not adhere to the requirements to return unused visa numbers immediately. The Ombudsman understands that DOS prefers that cases are reported qualified for a visa earlier than at approval. In the last several months, there have been several suggestions on how to accomplish that task, but operational concerns remain. The Ombudsman hopes that USCIS and DOS can reestablish the older program with improved processing and technology to ensure timely and accurate reporting of cases ready-to-issue and to prevent the future loss of visa numbers.
Yes. Agreed. But what this means is that if they approve too many cases then they may issue August bulletin with retrogressed dates. And that's fine because they can do that and everyone expects dates to retrogress either in August bulletin or in subsequent bulletin.
Which portion of the Ombudsman report says that "In the middle of the month for which bulletin is already out there with current dates, they can just stop accepting applications and sort of "REVISE" an already issued bulletin".
WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT ???
And I am still looking for source of information where in the middle of the month for which a bulletin was already issued in preceding month, USCIS chose to stop accepting petitions and not honor the bulletin issued by DOS with current dates.
I am seeing a lot of copy-paste from lawyers websites but NONE, I repeat, NONE has a government website URL or any official source.
Those who still want to believe can choose to believe this. It will make people file on July 1st, if its in their hands. If its in the hands of HR department and company lawyers, it will make them raise their blood pressure until the lawyer sends them an email on July 25th that the Fedex went out today.
I believe that regardless of what August bulletin shows, July bulletin on DOS website applies to month of July all the way thru July 31st and as long as you file before July 31st, you are fine.
I made myself look like an idiot by asking such questions to my lawyer, who is already going nuts over the suddenly sky-rocketing workload of 485 petitions. There is another guy who made a fool of himself by asking the lawyer this question.
And people keep posting new updates and baseless sources to add credence to this baseless rumor. Suit yourself.
No comments:
Post a Comment