desi3933
03-10 02:28 PM
>> Once they reached last quarter then they will make EB2-I/C current and distribute those spill-over visas across EB.
Would you mind explaining two "they" here? Whom you are referring to?
Hint: This is a trap question.
Since you chose to not to answer my question, I assume you have no idea what you are talking about.
Please ignore MDix.
Would you mind explaining two "they" here? Whom you are referring to?
Hint: This is a trap question.
Since you chose to not to answer my question, I assume you have no idea what you are talking about.
Please ignore MDix.
wallpaper hot is Alissa White-Gluz
imh1b
11-12 04:26 PM
If EB2 I becomes current , who benefits its EB3 I as the spillover will go EB3 India as India is the most retrogressed country. Our effort does not impact ROW EB2 as they are current any way. EB2 China will also benefit as spill over will help them. So supporting quarterly spillover is in EB3 India's. Make EB2 C and all over flow goes to EB3 I. Finally by opposing this it will not help EB3 I any way unless it makes you happy to see everybody suffer as long as you are suffering.
WRONG.
YOU are an EB2 India guy for sure and your PD is close.
If spillover happens, all visas will get used up by EB2 India only. EB3 India gets nothing. There are way too many Indians in the system. Even if something is left from EB2 India, EB3 ROW will get breadcrums.
EB3 India gets nothing. So stop giving wrong logic. I will oppose IV helping EB2 guys with close priority dates and not caring about everyone else.
WRONG.
YOU are an EB2 India guy for sure and your PD is close.
If spillover happens, all visas will get used up by EB2 India only. EB3 India gets nothing. There are way too many Indians in the system. Even if something is left from EB2 India, EB3 ROW will get breadcrums.
EB3 India gets nothing. So stop giving wrong logic. I will oppose IV helping EB2 guys with close priority dates and not caring about everyone else.
gcinprogress
06-10 05:16 PM
Sent. Also added my friends.
2011 Alissa White-Gluz
vine93
03-18 02:14 PM
I booked for myself . Need sufficient miles for one person .He has participated last year too.
more...
anilsal
12-12 09:37 AM
Nobody knows whether congressional action is needed to allow I-485 to be filed during retrogression?
good idea
09-09 03:58 PM
I would like to see all EB3 AS DONORS.
I have read so many posts in the past where senior members have clearly said that their is nothing possible for EB3 alone and if something is possible it would be for EB.
(as per calculator, I am going to get my GC in 2030) Would contribution of all EB3 help them in any way?
I have read so many posts in the past where senior members have clearly said that their is nothing possible for EB3 alone and if something is possible it would be for EB.
(as per calculator, I am going to get my GC in 2030) Would contribution of all EB3 help them in any way?
more...
EB3_SEP04
05-26 06:41 PM
I haven't heard anything like this (yes random checks I seen by cops in NJ) but not searching all cars on a highway and then verifying if everyone is legal and harassing them if they have not carried their immigration papers.
I read long ago after 9/11 that law enforcements used this tactic to jail folks who were suspected terrorists but if they are using this to discourage immigration (legal immigrants) it would be a real shame.
where are these commands coming from its not like one county suddenly gets up and starts doing random inspection, their must be a higher authority who is making these rules
I think the law/rule was passed/enacted in late 2008 by prev govt to make some psychos happy. It is a big problem in AZ and CA where these people routinely get in the commercial buses and ask everyone's status. so ACLU posted signs in buses telling people their rights. see my OP.
I read long ago after 9/11 that law enforcements used this tactic to jail folks who were suspected terrorists but if they are using this to discourage immigration (legal immigrants) it would be a real shame.
where are these commands coming from its not like one county suddenly gets up and starts doing random inspection, their must be a higher authority who is making these rules
I think the law/rule was passed/enacted in late 2008 by prev govt to make some psychos happy. It is a big problem in AZ and CA where these people routinely get in the commercial buses and ask everyone's status. so ACLU posted signs in buses telling people their rights. see my OP.
2010 Alissa White Gluz - The
transpass
04-10 12:07 PM
Here are the details for last year and years before:
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
Thanks Kondur. That was a very good presentation of the numbers. I very much appreciate it.
Now,
1. Why did EB1 last year needed spillover visas, although it was current all the time? If a category is current, isn't that it has less demand than allocated numbers?
2. As per May bulletin, EB4 might need a cut off. So we cannot expect any spillover from EB4. So that is clear. Now the spillover chances are from EB5, EB2 ROW and EB1(?). I am including EB1 because, given the current economy over the past year, should there be a better possibility of more spillover from EB2 ROW and EB1 compared to last year?
3. Also why are the total EB numbers different in different fiscal years (e.g., 141020 in FY2009, 162949 in FY 2008 and 154497 in FY2007)? In FYs 2007 and 2008 did the extra visas come from Family based while it did not for FY 2009? If so, why is it so?
4. Based on Pending 485 data of March 2010, I barely see few hundred EB4s. And hardly considerable number of EB1s. What's going on? If we go by this data, we should be getting good chunk of spillover numbers...
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Green%20Card/Green%20Card%20Through%20a%20Job/Employment%20Based%20I-485%20Pending%20Inventory-Total%203-8-2010.pdf
Thanks,
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
Thanks Kondur. That was a very good presentation of the numbers. I very much appreciate it.
Now,
1. Why did EB1 last year needed spillover visas, although it was current all the time? If a category is current, isn't that it has less demand than allocated numbers?
2. As per May bulletin, EB4 might need a cut off. So we cannot expect any spillover from EB4. So that is clear. Now the spillover chances are from EB5, EB2 ROW and EB1(?). I am including EB1 because, given the current economy over the past year, should there be a better possibility of more spillover from EB2 ROW and EB1 compared to last year?
3. Also why are the total EB numbers different in different fiscal years (e.g., 141020 in FY2009, 162949 in FY 2008 and 154497 in FY2007)? In FYs 2007 and 2008 did the extra visas come from Family based while it did not for FY 2009? If so, why is it so?
4. Based on Pending 485 data of March 2010, I barely see few hundred EB4s. And hardly considerable number of EB1s. What's going on? If we go by this data, we should be getting good chunk of spillover numbers...
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Green%20Card/Green%20Card%20Through%20a%20Job/Employment%20Based%20I-485%20Pending%20Inventory-Total%203-8-2010.pdf
Thanks,
more...
BharatPremi
04-08 08:50 AM
HI BharatPremi,
Thanks for your response.
are the cases with 'Received Regional Office' status should be counted as Certified cases?.
Regards,
Alex
I think, No. FInal really certified labor has "certified" status only.
Thanks for your response.
are the cases with 'Received Regional Office' status should be counted as Certified cases?.
Regards,
Alex
I think, No. FInal really certified labor has "certified" status only.
hair Alissa White-Gluz by ~niss11
eb3retro
08-17 12:14 PM
Chill guys just kidding no point getting worked up about all this.I know it's causing a lot of angst.The best course of action is to get back to our lives and let the chips fall as they may.
you write some ridiculous stuff in your first post and you want us to chill out. Get a sense of this board and its professional members, before you post any nonsense like that.
you write some ridiculous stuff in your first post and you want us to chill out. Get a sense of this board and its professional members, before you post any nonsense like that.
more...
pappu
11-20 01:09 PM
All pls PM each other and exchange phone numbers and emails so that you can start building your local IV community. Once you have contacted each other, you can start the action items for state chapters.
hot Alyssa white gluz is singing
vinzak
11-10 10:01 PM
I think is a great idea.
From my understanding, there is a law on the books which isn't being implemented. It only follows that we go to court to ensure this law is implemented as written.
I would fully support such a measure and be willing to donate time and money for this.
I am sure various immi law associations would be willing to fight for this too.
From my understanding, there is a law on the books which isn't being implemented. It only follows that we go to court to ensure this law is implemented as written.
I would fully support such a measure and be willing to donate time and money for this.
I am sure various immi law associations would be willing to fight for this too.
more...
house Alissa White-Gluz by
indianindian2006
07-14 06:09 PM
This is aboslutly incorrect. Dont spread false information.
Here is the Q&A in USCIS memo abot changing employer before 180 days
Question 10. Should service centers or district offices deny portability cases on the sole basis that the alien has left his or her employment with the I-140 petitioner prior to the I-485 application pending for 180 days?
Answer: No. The basis for adjustment is not actual (current) employment but prospective employment. Since there is no requirement that the alien have ever been employed by the petitioner while the I-140 and/or I-485 was pending, the fact that an alien left the I-140 petitioner before the I-485 has been pending 180 days will not necessarily render the alien ineligible to port. However, in all cases an offer of employment must have been bona fide. This means that, as of the time the I-140 was filed and at the time of filing the I-485 if not filed concurrently, the I-140 petitioner must have had the intent to employ the beneficiary, and the alien must have intended to undertake the employment, upon adjustment. Adjudicators should not presume absence of such intent and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate
You are correct but his case could be that his employer cancelled his 140 which could damage his case more than the use of AC21 to change employers.
Here is the Q&A in USCIS memo abot changing employer before 180 days
Question 10. Should service centers or district offices deny portability cases on the sole basis that the alien has left his or her employment with the I-140 petitioner prior to the I-485 application pending for 180 days?
Answer: No. The basis for adjustment is not actual (current) employment but prospective employment. Since there is no requirement that the alien have ever been employed by the petitioner while the I-140 and/or I-485 was pending, the fact that an alien left the I-140 petitioner before the I-485 has been pending 180 days will not necessarily render the alien ineligible to port. However, in all cases an offer of employment must have been bona fide. This means that, as of the time the I-140 was filed and at the time of filing the I-485 if not filed concurrently, the I-140 petitioner must have had the intent to employ the beneficiary, and the alien must have intended to undertake the employment, upon adjustment. Adjudicators should not presume absence of such intent and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate
You are correct but his case could be that his employer cancelled his 140 which could damage his case more than the use of AC21 to change employers.
tattoo Alissa White-Gluz
vik352
07-01 04:03 PM
Hi,
I feel that per country quota for EB green cards is ridiculous. A skilled worker from India and China has to wait for GC 10 years, whereas a person from ROW gets it in few years/months. I wish I had known all the delays/pains in GC processing before I started my career here. We should start an online petetion/a law suit to end this disciminatory quota and address it to President/all the congressman/all the media.
Simple questions in the online petition/law suit:
1) Do you think it is fair for a person from India/China to wait for 10 years whereas a person from other country gets it in few years?
2) When there is no per country quota in H1B visas, do you think it is fair to have it in EB visas?
3) Do you think it is fair to have the same quota for India/China compared to a small country?
4) Everyone is aware of the legal immigration problems here, atlease try to make it same for everyone.
Most of us are Ivy League or good college graduates and work in good companies. We can mention our names, school and company information in the petition. All those who don't agree with me, please dont respond.
Can IV core come up with an online petition?
I feel that per country quota for EB green cards is ridiculous. A skilled worker from India and China has to wait for GC 10 years, whereas a person from ROW gets it in few years/months. I wish I had known all the delays/pains in GC processing before I started my career here. We should start an online petetion/a law suit to end this disciminatory quota and address it to President/all the congressman/all the media.
Simple questions in the online petition/law suit:
1) Do you think it is fair for a person from India/China to wait for 10 years whereas a person from other country gets it in few years?
2) When there is no per country quota in H1B visas, do you think it is fair to have it in EB visas?
3) Do you think it is fair to have the same quota for India/China compared to a small country?
4) Everyone is aware of the legal immigration problems here, atlease try to make it same for everyone.
Most of us are Ivy League or good college graduates and work in good companies. We can mention our names, school and company information in the petition. All those who don't agree with me, please dont respond.
Can IV core come up with an online petition?
more...
pictures alissa white gluz belleza del
aroranuj
10-16 06:50 PM
Notarized & mailed my FOIA letter today...
dresses alissa white gluz. Alissa White-Gluz, THE AGONIST
va_labor2002
07-24 09:34 AM
Any comments from Core team about this thread ?
more...
makeup dresses her band! it#39;s for all the alissa white gluz.
sivakumar
02-22 01:48 PM
thanks GCwaitforever I just wish that after april you change your name to GCRecivedFinally :->
girlfriend alissa white gluz. Bam Margera amp; Alissa White- alissa white gluz.
2ndJuly
09-11 11:53 AM
Here is the info from NumbersUSA:
Vote on Foreign-Worker Bills Postponed Amid Growing Opposition
Updated Thursday, September 11, 2008, 10:00 AM
The House Judiciary Committee yesterday postponed consideration of bills containing massive foreign worker increases (H.R. 5882 and H.R. 5924) after the committee's debate stalled during discussions on the armed forces amnesty bill (H.R. 6020). The committee is expected to resume consideration of all three bills on September 18
Vote on Foreign-Worker Bills Postponed Amid Growing Opposition
Updated Thursday, September 11, 2008, 10:00 AM
The House Judiciary Committee yesterday postponed consideration of bills containing massive foreign worker increases (H.R. 5882 and H.R. 5924) after the committee's debate stalled during discussions on the armed forces amnesty bill (H.R. 6020). The committee is expected to resume consideration of all three bills on September 18
hairstyles Alissa White-Gluz – The
Sachin_Stock
06-10 01:58 PM
You did not submit because it was ok for you. I know people who got RFE asking for employment proof.
It might be case that their case numbers were associated with firms who were sponsored initially by 'desi' consulting. Hence more rigorous checks for them. I didn't submit employment letter. I wasn't even ASKED for one. None of the questions in form asked for employer name. None of the mail-in items included employer letter either.
It might be case that their case numbers were associated with firms who were sponsored initially by 'desi' consulting. Hence more rigorous checks for them. I didn't submit employment letter. I wasn't even ASKED for one. None of the questions in form asked for employer name. None of the mail-in items included employer letter either.
Canadian_Dream
04-04 02:18 PM
The Durbin-Grassley bill would prohibit employers from hiring H-1B employees who are then outsourced to other companies. This is a method that some companies use to evade restrictions on hiring H-1Bs.
http://durbin.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=271783
http://durbin.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=271783
sathishav
02-18 09:24 AM
Guys,
1. I live in Cary and planning to drive to DC on Apr 04/05. Open to car pool.
2. I just came across this forum and made a small $50 donation. ( More later on how things work out) . I still don't have access to Donor forums. I did mail StarSun my unique#.
inputs appreciated.
1. I live in Cary and planning to drive to DC on Apr 04/05. Open to car pool.
2. I just came across this forum and made a small $50 donation. ( More later on how things work out) . I still don't have access to Donor forums. I did mail StarSun my unique#.
inputs appreciated.
0 comments:
Post a Comment