boreal
07-13 01:56 PM
I'm sure most cases have recd at least a computerized review by now, many of the LUDs are for fingerprinting, name checks, change of processing centers etc. Yes there is definitely activity.
However, it does not mean that all pre Jun06 cut-off cases have been pre-adjudicated.
I agree. Infact my application hasnt even been touched once (July 2, RD), no soft LUD either, even after FP .. makes me believe that there might be other applications out there too that have never been touched so far..so we cant assume that all the cases prior to July 2007 have already been pre-adjudicated, just because the processing-dates at NSC say July 2007. I think the processing dates reflect only those cases whose PD was current when the processing-dates timeframe came out. We will know more accurately when the processing-dates are updated next month. If the processing-dates, even after next month's update remain at July, 2007, then we can probably assume that our cases have already been pre-adjudicated. (still makes me wonder how that can happen without any soft LUDs at all, but anything is possible). I will keep my fingers crossed and hope for the best.
However, it does not mean that all pre Jun06 cut-off cases have been pre-adjudicated.
I agree. Infact my application hasnt even been touched once (July 2, RD), no soft LUD either, even after FP .. makes me believe that there might be other applications out there too that have never been touched so far..so we cant assume that all the cases prior to July 2007 have already been pre-adjudicated, just because the processing-dates at NSC say July 2007. I think the processing dates reflect only those cases whose PD was current when the processing-dates timeframe came out. We will know more accurately when the processing-dates are updated next month. If the processing-dates, even after next month's update remain at July, 2007, then we can probably assume that our cases have already been pre-adjudicated. (still makes me wonder how that can happen without any soft LUDs at all, but anything is possible). I will keep my fingers crossed and hope for the best.
wallpaper Ideas straight from kate moss Lily+allen+short+hairstyles
grinch
02-27 07:21 PM
Ah great!!! thanks bluesun!
And I have a question, how do I make geometry become a light source in maya?! I know I've seen it before, but I can't find it now...
And I have a question, how do I make geometry become a light source in maya?! I know I've seen it before, but I can't find it now...
GCVivek
05-23 01:46 PM
Here is the issue: If you are thinking of doing MBA to get a management job in a US company and are an Indian, please forget it. You might get a low level management position paying at most 80K. MBA is not for everyone - you have to have it in you to get something out of an MBA. It's not about landing that good job. You hear about the 1 crore offers that IIM students get from top American companies? Well, they are kicked out of the job in 1 year and then join Infosys or Wipro. Not because they are not brilliant but because their conversational skills are terrible and so is their language. Unless you are planning to settle in India OR REALLY THINKING OF PUTTING A LOT OF EFFORT in mastering the English language and your outlook, an MBA is not going to serve you in the US.
Like, someone said, an MBA is more than just a degree. You can get a better, much higher paying job (300K+) without an MBA but with excellent logic, hard work, conversational skills and outgoing personality. No GC required :)
Like, someone said, an MBA is more than just a degree. You can get a better, much higher paying job (300K+) without an MBA but with excellent logic, hard work, conversational skills and outgoing personality. No GC required :)
2011 Lily Allen#39;s blunt bob
svr_76
02-18 08:57 PM
It will not cause backlog for the undocument. Check my previous posting on this thread. The bill states that aliens adjustment by DHS sec. using this bill will not affect from the numercial visa numbers. In short- No backlog for undocumented folks whereas per country quote of existing application India, China continues...
Anyways...who said ppl are wanting to fix the legal immi. problem here...Here the interest in more in the other category.
Anyways...who said ppl are wanting to fix the legal immi. problem here...Here the interest in more in the other category.
more...
newuser
04-20 08:41 PM
Anyone from West Coast?
yawl
07-16 05:13 PM
they are shameless liars and racists
more...
GCAmigo
01-31 03:27 PM
What if the H4 candidate recieves H1 but decides not to start a job at all. What will be his/her status in that case? H4 or H1?
H1-B without paystub...
H1-B without paystub...
2010 Lily Allen was the cover girl
tooclose
07-13 07:14 AM
What is the need for all this ? The visa bulletin is out but no one cares to read it I guess. Every bulletin has these or words to this effect.
"Only applicants who have a priority date earlier than the cut-off date may be allotted a number."
So the date that you see in the table is NOT eligible for visa numbers.
Thanks for the information. I believe I have to wait for another month to get any updates from the Sep visa bulletin or wait till same time next year since my PD is Mar-06.
Congrats to all to have received it and good luck to those who have become current !
"Only applicants who have a priority date earlier than the cut-off date may be allotted a number."
So the date that you see in the table is NOT eligible for visa numbers.
Thanks for the information. I believe I have to wait for another month to get any updates from the Sep visa bulletin or wait till same time next year since my PD is Mar-06.
Congrats to all to have received it and good luck to those who have become current !
more...
perm2gc
01-02 05:58 PM
Could you guys please give me the matter to post so that I dont have to type in the whole story again...thanks
Please check the first page on the thread.you will see the content to post.
thks
Please check the first page on the thread.you will see the content to post.
thks
hair Lily Allen Bob
ramaonline
04-20 06:04 PM
I live in the bay area, I am available for making calls and also any other work for the event before 4:00 pm - sent a pm
more...
Macaca
09-19 09:33 AM
The placards were heavy. My shoulders hurt and I workout 4 days/week.
Workout with a physical trainer specially trained in carrying placards before the rally!
Workout with a physical trainer specially trained in carrying placards before the rally!
hot Lily Allen
jfredr
08-15 02:36 PM
i think visa bulletin is history
more...
house Lily Allen Arriving At
sanju
09-11 12:05 PM
wow..they resume discussions on sept 18th?
There is a slight correction, they will resume 4 hours break time on sept 18th.
There is a slight correction, they will resume 4 hours break time on sept 18th.
tattoo Lily Allen short hairstyle
EkAurAaya
07-16 07:38 PM
I've so many hard working American friends... it really make me want to work harder to compete with them, but these bunch of cry babies at Numbers are scared of skilled workers, they don't want to upgrade their skills, they want to work 9-5 and get paid for their incompetencies.
more...
pictures Lily Allen
nixstor
07-04 08:56 PM
Excellent analysis but it does have flaws
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
We all understand this and what you are saying, But What is in law is more important than OB's recommendations. First of all the office of OB might not have recommended to pass on any name checks. It might have advised to some how expedite them. More over, I dont think that they take the annual report seriously. We know how many times DOS officials and USCIS officials testify before congress. Why don't they tell congress that in order to clear backlogs
a) They need FBI to expedite name checks (they might have testified about this)
b) They need to recapture visa numbers (AFAIK, they never did this because your case is not pending unless you filed for AOS/485. We are not a part of the back log)
Their biggest problem now is if all of us file for 485, we will continue to be the back log for ever on the back of USCIS for ages to come unless recapture occurs. What ever be the number 200K or 700K, they simply dont want it.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
I am sure you might have read this from murthy's website (http://www.murthy.com/news/n_dosebn.html) or not, but DOS/CA/VO officials shared this piece with them. As per the above article, final quarter quota should not open until Jul 2nd. I understand that agencies can implement and interpret certain stuff, but you cannot interpret and implement one thing on Jun 13th and another on Jul 2nd. If its written into law, that the quarterly allocation is a must, USCIS is in violation and DOS/CA/VO as well for not policing them of visa number usage.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Understood, if they can clear 60K cases in 18 days, I doubt they will have any issues clearing them in 90 days. It goes back to the point of us becoming the biggest hump on USCIS
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories “current” for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories “current” ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of “current” there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making “current” for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as “current” in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
I think we all agree that there was no need to make every category current given that we know how many will become eligible for 485 filing. How ever, The OB's office will be pretty pissed if they use him as the trump card. Also, I got the annual report from OB's office in email on Jun 12th 07. VB came out on 14th? What you are saying is USCIS has worked over night to analyze OB's report or they had access to OB's report 15-20 days ahead. Everything points to me that there was a lack of communication between the two agencies on an issue with huge stakes.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
We need to do both as the success is not guaranteed in either situation. I do not know if AILF will win the law suit. On the other side, Senators like Kennedy who control immigration issues will not give a damn in the current situation. If the issue gets to a point where USCIS & DOS officials testify before congress, the root problem will be solved. If we just win the lawsuit and get in, USCIS is only going to sulk us for 10 years in the name of security check.In the end, We should be able to portray the whole situation as if USCIS has been put in a ugly predicament to utilize visa numbers under the arcane laws. Bashing DOS & USCIS left and right now is not of any use in the long run.
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
We all understand this and what you are saying, But What is in law is more important than OB's recommendations. First of all the office of OB might not have recommended to pass on any name checks. It might have advised to some how expedite them. More over, I dont think that they take the annual report seriously. We know how many times DOS officials and USCIS officials testify before congress. Why don't they tell congress that in order to clear backlogs
a) They need FBI to expedite name checks (they might have testified about this)
b) They need to recapture visa numbers (AFAIK, they never did this because your case is not pending unless you filed for AOS/485. We are not a part of the back log)
Their biggest problem now is if all of us file for 485, we will continue to be the back log for ever on the back of USCIS for ages to come unless recapture occurs. What ever be the number 200K or 700K, they simply dont want it.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
I am sure you might have read this from murthy's website (http://www.murthy.com/news/n_dosebn.html) or not, but DOS/CA/VO officials shared this piece with them. As per the above article, final quarter quota should not open until Jul 2nd. I understand that agencies can implement and interpret certain stuff, but you cannot interpret and implement one thing on Jun 13th and another on Jul 2nd. If its written into law, that the quarterly allocation is a must, USCIS is in violation and DOS/CA/VO as well for not policing them of visa number usage.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Understood, if they can clear 60K cases in 18 days, I doubt they will have any issues clearing them in 90 days. It goes back to the point of us becoming the biggest hump on USCIS
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories “current” for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories “current” ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of “current” there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making “current” for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as “current” in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
I think we all agree that there was no need to make every category current given that we know how many will become eligible for 485 filing. How ever, The OB's office will be pretty pissed if they use him as the trump card. Also, I got the annual report from OB's office in email on Jun 12th 07. VB came out on 14th? What you are saying is USCIS has worked over night to analyze OB's report or they had access to OB's report 15-20 days ahead. Everything points to me that there was a lack of communication between the two agencies on an issue with huge stakes.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
We need to do both as the success is not guaranteed in either situation. I do not know if AILF will win the law suit. On the other side, Senators like Kennedy who control immigration issues will not give a damn in the current situation. If the issue gets to a point where USCIS & DOS officials testify before congress, the root problem will be solved. If we just win the lawsuit and get in, USCIS is only going to sulk us for 10 years in the name of security check.In the end, We should be able to portray the whole situation as if USCIS has been put in a ugly predicament to utilize visa numbers under the arcane laws. Bashing DOS & USCIS left and right now is not of any use in the long run.
dresses lily allen short hairstyle
DarkChild
02-16 03:25 AM
@ thirdworldman: WOW!
more...
makeup short hairstyle
vamsi_poondla
02-13 11:02 PM
USCIS did not form any new rule to create divide and rule. If we are divided that is because we are thinking of ourselves as ultimate judges of all events and think that our opinion is right.
girlfriend Lilly Allen short bob haircut
GCKaMaara
03-12 10:59 AM
It doesn't make sense on either side:
1. IV is not going to change its policy of hiding information. If you are comfortable with the approach then contribute otherwise don't.
2. Shouting and bashing here on website will gain nothing.
Do something creative. I think the basic problem is not hiding information. Basic problem is that as a non-profit organization, we don't have elections. We as a group have no rights to choose who is core. But thats how it is.
1. IV is not going to change its policy of hiding information. If you are comfortable with the approach then contribute otherwise don't.
2. Shouting and bashing here on website will gain nothing.
Do something creative. I think the basic problem is not hiding information. Basic problem is that as a non-profit organization, we don't have elections. We as a group have no rights to choose who is core. But thats how it is.
hairstyles Nme radio miss hairstyles
Desertfox
12-10 07:06 PM
Hi friends,
I need your help!!!
I'm here at California with L-2 visa. I can stay legally in US but i can not get a SSN number, i can work too.But For a driver license they ask for SSN. Do i still get the Driver License or no?
Thank you very much...
If you have valid L-2 status, you need to apply for your EAD (file I-765 with USCIS) to be able to work legally. Once your I-765 is approved, you will get your EAD card and you will have to take it to your local SSN office and apply for a SSN. Having your EAD (employment authorization) card allows you to apply for a SSN. Also no matter what, you will need a SSN to work legally.
I need your help!!!
I'm here at California with L-2 visa. I can stay legally in US but i can not get a SSN number, i can work too.But For a driver license they ask for SSN. Do i still get the Driver License or no?
Thank you very much...
If you have valid L-2 status, you need to apply for your EAD (file I-765 with USCIS) to be able to work legally. Once your I-765 is approved, you will get your EAD card and you will have to take it to your local SSN office and apply for a SSN. Having your EAD (employment authorization) card allows you to apply for a SSN. Also no matter what, you will need a SSN to work legally.
sundar61982
08-06 04:52 PM
Got email approvals on our I485 with PD of Mar10 2006 on EB-2.. Was at NSC.. Looks like they are processing beyond the Mar1st cutoff date..
abhijitrajan
11-13 12:41 AM
Does it make sense to file and FOIA request asking how USCIS is implementing quarterly spillover. As I understand it USCIS is not obligated to respond to a letter but they have to respond to FOIA. Any comments from people who know how FOIA works and whether it's applicable?
0 comments:
Post a Comment