vicky007
04-26 02:59 PM
Here is a link confirming the above:
http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=5551
The strange thing here is that it says TSA and not FBI will be doing the backgound check, where as i am sure i heard on the NPR report that it will be the FBI which will do the initial Name Check.
Regards.
http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=5551
The strange thing here is that it says TSA and not FBI will be doing the backgound check, where as i am sure i heard on the NPR report that it will be the FBI which will do the initial Name Check.
Regards.
wallpaper miss you sister quotes. i miss
CSPAvictim
07-10 05:38 PM
Note: Administrators/Moderators, please move this post to the appropriate thread, or delete it if this has already been posted elsewhere.
Source: http://www.murthy.com
Update on AILF's Legal Action Center Visa Bulletin Litigation (Updated 7/10/07) Posted 2:45pm
The response has been so strong that currently we do not need any more potential plaintiffs who submitted an adjustment application for receipt in July, unless the individuals have an unusual situation or especially compelling facts, such as an aging-out child. At this time, we also would like to hear from the �non-filers� -- people who did not and do not plan to submit an adjustment application for receipt in July but would have done so �but for� the DOS and USCIS actions. These individuals will represent a separate class of plaintiffs. And we�d like to hear from more �other worker� adjustment applicants who applied in June, even if they have not yet received a rejection notice. These individuals will represent a separate class as well.
If the lawsuit is successful (and we fully expect it will be), the court will certify classes, and all people who meet the class descriptions will receive the relief the court orders. The class members will not need to �sign up� with AILF to enjoy those rights.
Regarding �non-filers� � As our July 7 InfoNet update explained, and as we explain in our FAQ, we will include a class of people who would have submitted their adjustment applications for receipt in July, �but for� the government�s actions. The government may try to, or the court may want to treat this class differently from the class of people who submitted applications for receipt in July. Our aim is to do the best possible for both groups.
How soon will we file the law suit? Very soon. It is not easy or quick to prepare class action litigation involving numerous people and numerous claims, but we are working quickly because of the urgency of these events for so many people.
Injunction? AILF knows many people want a quick resolution, as do we. A temporary or ill-conceived order might create more chaos and confusion than we saw in late June / early July. And the government presumably would immediately appeal, creating even more confusion about whether applications were being accepted. By contrast, we intend to seek an injunction that will be forward-looking and will not create another crisis situation for AILA members or the government.
Source: http://www.murthy.com
Update on AILF's Legal Action Center Visa Bulletin Litigation (Updated 7/10/07) Posted 2:45pm
The response has been so strong that currently we do not need any more potential plaintiffs who submitted an adjustment application for receipt in July, unless the individuals have an unusual situation or especially compelling facts, such as an aging-out child. At this time, we also would like to hear from the �non-filers� -- people who did not and do not plan to submit an adjustment application for receipt in July but would have done so �but for� the DOS and USCIS actions. These individuals will represent a separate class of plaintiffs. And we�d like to hear from more �other worker� adjustment applicants who applied in June, even if they have not yet received a rejection notice. These individuals will represent a separate class as well.
If the lawsuit is successful (and we fully expect it will be), the court will certify classes, and all people who meet the class descriptions will receive the relief the court orders. The class members will not need to �sign up� with AILF to enjoy those rights.
Regarding �non-filers� � As our July 7 InfoNet update explained, and as we explain in our FAQ, we will include a class of people who would have submitted their adjustment applications for receipt in July, �but for� the government�s actions. The government may try to, or the court may want to treat this class differently from the class of people who submitted applications for receipt in July. Our aim is to do the best possible for both groups.
How soon will we file the law suit? Very soon. It is not easy or quick to prepare class action litigation involving numerous people and numerous claims, but we are working quickly because of the urgency of these events for so many people.
Injunction? AILF knows many people want a quick resolution, as do we. A temporary or ill-conceived order might create more chaos and confusion than we saw in late June / early July. And the government presumably would immediately appeal, creating even more confusion about whether applications were being accepted. By contrast, we intend to seek an injunction that will be forward-looking and will not create another crisis situation for AILA members or the government.
boreal
07-12 06:00 PM
the current 485 processing dates for both NSC and TSC are in July'07.
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=TSC
which means, processing of all the 485's with a PD before July'07 are completed and ready to be assigned a visa number.
Are you sure about this? That means USCIS has been doing the pre-adjudication for applications whose PD was not current?
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=TSC
which means, processing of all the 485's with a PD before July'07 are completed and ready to be assigned a visa number.
Are you sure about this? That means USCIS has been doing the pre-adjudication for applications whose PD was not current?
2011 miss you sister quotes. i miss
dummgelauft
08-21 12:51 PM
I did not marry the man I was engaged to. I came here initially for ONE month and was approved at the airport customs terminal to stay that long. When I got here, it was for a visit with my fiance only. Unfortunately, things did not work out and we broke it off. Thank God! However, I was staying with his uncle and aunt, and they had a disabled man in the house. HE turned out to be my sponsor when they asked me to care for him while they were doing long haul trucking. I agreed to do this and we immediately contacted USCIS to get instructions on what needed to be filed first. With that information in hand, we filed everything they requested. All the stuff on the RFE I received has never been mentioned before now and if it had, it would have been filed along with the rest. There are tons of applications, how is one supposed to know what to file and when if there are no specific instructions? I have gone through all the copies we have of all the required applications and I still do not see anything where all these other forms were to be filed along with the I-485.
Nothing was done illegally. He filed the application on my behalf, signed, sealed and delivered it himself. I did not do this on my own, I just signed whatever I was required to sign, he did the rest.
If all of this was illegal, then why was I not informed of this nearly 6 years ago when we filed the first application? Seems a bit odd that if I was illegal and they know where I am and who I live with that they wouldn't be quick to throw me out, but they have not done so.
My former fiance has nothing to do with this, I never intended to stay here when I first came, it was merely a visit but circumstances were such that I was needed at a moment's notice so we filed the necessary paperwork as quickly as possible and thought we were doing the right thing. No one has ever said otherwise until now and I think that is rather unfair to spring it all on me at this point and expect me to get it all done within 30 days. I know I am not the only applicant out there and I realize there is a huge backlog of other applications, I'm not that stupid to think that they will make me a priority, but one measly letter informing me that I was here illegally sometime over a 6 year period is not asking to much is it? Why would they send me all the other Notices of Action if I was here illegally and they knew it?
Something is terribly screwed up and I guess I have no choice but to find an attorney who can deal with this mess.
Okay, It is still a bit fuzzy, but lot clearer than your initial post. Almost all of us here on this forum are professionally qualified Employment Based applicants, with fairly straightforward, albeit extremently slow moving cases. Nearly all of us have been sponsored by our employers and we make sure that we are legal, in this country, every day of the year.
Now, coming to your case.
I am certain this "disabled man" you are caring for, had all good intentions, but he screwed up royally. You can not just "apply for a I-485". There has to be a basis from one of the following
(1) Family based
(2) Employment based
(3) Humanitarian / Refugee
(4) Diversity Based
It is still not clear, what CATEGORY he applied for you under.
(a) Can not be family based (you are not his spouse, child, sibling etc)
(b) You CERTAINLY DO NOT qualify under Employment based application.
(c) You absolutey CAN NOT apply under Refugee or Diversity (Canadians are shut out of diversity visa quota)
So, it is now time to stop pretending that you "were needed here". Nobody is indispensible.
Get your self back in to Cananda and work towards building your life back up.
Bon fin semaine!!
Nothing was done illegally. He filed the application on my behalf, signed, sealed and delivered it himself. I did not do this on my own, I just signed whatever I was required to sign, he did the rest.
If all of this was illegal, then why was I not informed of this nearly 6 years ago when we filed the first application? Seems a bit odd that if I was illegal and they know where I am and who I live with that they wouldn't be quick to throw me out, but they have not done so.
My former fiance has nothing to do with this, I never intended to stay here when I first came, it was merely a visit but circumstances were such that I was needed at a moment's notice so we filed the necessary paperwork as quickly as possible and thought we were doing the right thing. No one has ever said otherwise until now and I think that is rather unfair to spring it all on me at this point and expect me to get it all done within 30 days. I know I am not the only applicant out there and I realize there is a huge backlog of other applications, I'm not that stupid to think that they will make me a priority, but one measly letter informing me that I was here illegally sometime over a 6 year period is not asking to much is it? Why would they send me all the other Notices of Action if I was here illegally and they knew it?
Something is terribly screwed up and I guess I have no choice but to find an attorney who can deal with this mess.
Okay, It is still a bit fuzzy, but lot clearer than your initial post. Almost all of us here on this forum are professionally qualified Employment Based applicants, with fairly straightforward, albeit extremently slow moving cases. Nearly all of us have been sponsored by our employers and we make sure that we are legal, in this country, every day of the year.
Now, coming to your case.
I am certain this "disabled man" you are caring for, had all good intentions, but he screwed up royally. You can not just "apply for a I-485". There has to be a basis from one of the following
(1) Family based
(2) Employment based
(3) Humanitarian / Refugee
(4) Diversity Based
It is still not clear, what CATEGORY he applied for you under.
(a) Can not be family based (you are not his spouse, child, sibling etc)
(b) You CERTAINLY DO NOT qualify under Employment based application.
(c) You absolutey CAN NOT apply under Refugee or Diversity (Canadians are shut out of diversity visa quota)
So, it is now time to stop pretending that you "were needed here". Nobody is indispensible.
Get your self back in to Cananda and work towards building your life back up.
Bon fin semaine!!
more...
arudalas
09-10 02:41 PM
www.cspan.org/watch/index.asp
swissgear
06-10 03:59 PM
sent...thanks
more...
moonrah
07-02 10:23 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again - I don't see how the per country limit is unfair! It was set up so that immigrants from ALL nations would have EQUAL opportunity to immigrate to the U.S. and to prevent any one (or two) countries from monopolizing the visa numbers. Getting rid of the per country limit would most certainly lead to immigration from a limited number of sources (countries) and thus jeopardize the diversity of the immigration process. Getting rid of it would be like robbing Peter to pay Paul because those countries who are severely retrogressed now would only see limited benefits and those who are not all that retrogressed would fall backwards - is that fair!? It seems these forms are dominated by "certain" groups who have their own agenda and don't really care about ROW! It makes me feel uncomfortable being an IV member from ROW!
Whatever you are saying is true for Family based categories. Employement category is defined to have skilled immigrants to help US businesses, that is why it is called employment based category. Let me explain you what you are saying. You are saying that I will ask compnay A to wait for five years to give promotion to person X, because quotas for his country are not available, and until he gets his green card he can not get promotion, instead give promotion to person Y which is less qualified but can get green card next month since his country has quotas available. Now does it make sense for company A to give promotion to less qualified person just because person X can not get his green card? Company won't do that and will end up sponsoring another qualified person. Or let me explain you in different way. If certain company has need for specific skill for long term and provided that there are not enough citizens to do that job, in this case company has to sponsor an immigrant, but since the requirement is for long term, company doesn't want him to be on immigrant visa for long term because sponsoring immigrant visa means money and more liability. In this case, even though company has much better match from a country whose immigrant visa are not available for many years, company might end up taking immigrant who is less qualified for the job. And company might say that, we can not take you since you won't be able to get green card for many years. If company does that then it would be an discrimination, but company doesn't have any choice.
Initially, it would have been good idea to have country limits because nobody was anticipating this kind of backlogs. But in current situation it doesn't make sense to keep it like that way. Goverment understands it, but they don't want to do anything because this has become political issue because of groups which represent illegal immigrants. With time goverment and companies have to be practicle and change policies or laws. This has been happening and it should happen, particularly when it doesn't make sense. For goverment diversity is important but for company getting job done is more important. And primary purpose of EB category is to get things done.
Whatever you are saying is true for Family based categories. Employement category is defined to have skilled immigrants to help US businesses, that is why it is called employment based category. Let me explain you what you are saying. You are saying that I will ask compnay A to wait for five years to give promotion to person X, because quotas for his country are not available, and until he gets his green card he can not get promotion, instead give promotion to person Y which is less qualified but can get green card next month since his country has quotas available. Now does it make sense for company A to give promotion to less qualified person just because person X can not get his green card? Company won't do that and will end up sponsoring another qualified person. Or let me explain you in different way. If certain company has need for specific skill for long term and provided that there are not enough citizens to do that job, in this case company has to sponsor an immigrant, but since the requirement is for long term, company doesn't want him to be on immigrant visa for long term because sponsoring immigrant visa means money and more liability. In this case, even though company has much better match from a country whose immigrant visa are not available for many years, company might end up taking immigrant who is less qualified for the job. And company might say that, we can not take you since you won't be able to get green card for many years. If company does that then it would be an discrimination, but company doesn't have any choice.
Initially, it would have been good idea to have country limits because nobody was anticipating this kind of backlogs. But in current situation it doesn't make sense to keep it like that way. Goverment understands it, but they don't want to do anything because this has become political issue because of groups which represent illegal immigrants. With time goverment and companies have to be practicle and change policies or laws. This has been happening and it should happen, particularly when it doesn't make sense. For goverment diversity is important but for company getting job done is more important. And primary purpose of EB category is to get things done.
2010 i miss you sister quotes. i
dvb123
02-19 12:12 AM
This radical idea will end retrogression radically. This concept is little tough for people who have no knowledge of country quota to understand.
1. There is a bill in the house now
HR 264 Introduced to Congress
Section A - It will grant GC to people with > 5 years in US
Section B - For EB skilled immigration for people with <5 years in US, it makes LC process more difficult.
2. We must encourage this bill with some amendments. Section A which automatically gives green card to people > 5 years in US should be ELIMINATED. Section B should remain.
3. This causes a reduction in I-485's and CP's because you need to be resident in United States for a minimum of 5 years to apply for Labor. Then ROW people would be able to apply for I-140 and I-485 automatically.
4. In the last quarter of every year the leftover visas(EB1 and EB2 ROW people will not be able to apply for labor->I-140+I-485 until they stayed in US for 5 years) will be spilled to EB 2 and EB 3 India and China. EB3 ROW, India and China visa retrogression issue will be solved because we will have spillovers for atleast 5 years. This bill is not against ROW people. EB3 ROW people will benefit immensely.
5. The restrictionists will be happy because nobody can start the green card process without staying in US for atleast 5 years (F1 + h1, j1 + h1, f1 only, j1 only, h1 only statuses)
So, we should support HR 264 bill with a few amendments if possible.
1. There is a bill in the house now
HR 264 Introduced to Congress
Section A - It will grant GC to people with > 5 years in US
Section B - For EB skilled immigration for people with <5 years in US, it makes LC process more difficult.
2. We must encourage this bill with some amendments. Section A which automatically gives green card to people > 5 years in US should be ELIMINATED. Section B should remain.
3. This causes a reduction in I-485's and CP's because you need to be resident in United States for a minimum of 5 years to apply for Labor. Then ROW people would be able to apply for I-140 and I-485 automatically.
4. In the last quarter of every year the leftover visas(EB1 and EB2 ROW people will not be able to apply for labor->I-140+I-485 until they stayed in US for 5 years) will be spilled to EB 2 and EB 3 India and China. EB3 ROW, India and China visa retrogression issue will be solved because we will have spillovers for atleast 5 years. This bill is not against ROW people. EB3 ROW people will benefit immensely.
5. The restrictionists will be happy because nobody can start the green card process without staying in US for atleast 5 years (F1 + h1, j1 + h1, f1 only, j1 only, h1 only statuses)
So, we should support HR 264 bill with a few amendments if possible.
more...
logiclife
01-31 04:33 PM
If I-140 has been approved, would it still be fine to apply for transfer from H1-B to F1 status by using form I-539 & university issued I-20 ? How long does it take to transfer status from H1B to F1 ? When can one start school �. Only after I-539 approval or after only applying ?
For pursuing an MBA, does it matter if one is on F1 or H4 (spouse is on separate H1)
How long does it take to transfer status from H1B to H4 ?
You seem to be planning a very elaborate move here from H1 to F1 to H4, or whatever.
You need a lawyer otherwise coz one mistake will take away several years of your career. And no case is identical to another one, so what applies to someone else may not apply to you.
For pursuing an MBA, does it matter if one is on F1 or H4 (spouse is on separate H1)
How long does it take to transfer status from H1B to H4 ?
You seem to be planning a very elaborate move here from H1 to F1 to H4, or whatever.
You need a lawyer otherwise coz one mistake will take away several years of your career. And no case is identical to another one, so what applies to someone else may not apply to you.
hair I Miss You Sister Quotes. i
jackrabbit
07-17 11:01 AM
(2) H-1B salaries are tax-exempt - no FICA, no federal or state income taxes. They can live at the same level as tax-paying Americans at a lower cost. Therefore, Congress allows foreigners to "low-ball" American workers.
Does anyone know if we can sue them. I am sure that they are a registered organization.
Does anyone know if we can sue them. I am sure that they are a registered organization.
more...
Leo07
06-10 07:53 PM
Thanks a bunch!
hot i miss you sister quotes
nlssubbu
09-24 01:52 PM
Can you please provide the link ?
I refered to USCIS website but did not find a mention of copies of DL.
PLease advise.
Thanks
I do not think that copies of DL is necessary. Please double check with your attoney before sending them.
I refered to USCIS website but did not find a mention of copies of DL.
PLease advise.
Thanks
I do not think that copies of DL is necessary. Please double check with your attoney before sending them.
more...
house i miss you already quotes. i
immigrationmatters30
09-19 02:25 PM
What if 485 was not filed but have an approved 140? Economy is taking big hits on the all the consulting firms even the big ones.I know this because I work for one and I was told budget spending on IT is going to be really tight moving forward for another couple of years espcially in financial sector.
tattoo I Miss You Sister Quotes. miss
willgetgc2005
02-14 05:37 PM
Berkeleybee,
Just so that you know, I am caught in the name check too. This is a bigger blackhole than even labor processing. Becos atleast labor processing your Immigration Attorneys can write to BECs (You may or may not get a reply, that is a different issue, but atleast it is allowed). In case of FBI name check, you just cant do much. It is a much dreaded process in the whole game and needs to get enough focus. Eventually, it is going to be everybodys problem.
Thanks.
Just so that you know, I am caught in the name check too. This is a bigger blackhole than even labor processing. Becos atleast labor processing your Immigration Attorneys can write to BECs (You may or may not get a reply, that is a different issue, but atleast it is allowed). In case of FBI name check, you just cant do much. It is a much dreaded process in the whole game and needs to get enough focus. Eventually, it is going to be everybodys problem.
Thanks.
more...
pictures tattoo I Miss You Sister. miss
immique
07-03 01:42 AM
I've said it before and I'll say it again - I don't see how the per country limit is unfair! It was set up so that immigrants from ALL nations would have EQUAL opportunity to immigrate to the U.S. and to prevent any one (or two) countries from monopolizing the visa numbers. Getting rid of the per country limit would most certainly lead to immigration from a limited number of sources (countries) and thus jeopardize the diversity of the immigration process. Getting rid of it would be like robbing Peter to pay Paul because those countries who are severely retrogressed now would only see limited benefits and those who are not all that retrogressed would fall backwards - is that fair!? It seems these forms are dominated by "certain" groups who have their own agenda and don't really care about ROW! It makes me feel uncomfortable being an IV member from ROW!
how can you argue that quota system in EB categories is fair when there is no quota system in H1 visas? do you really think it is fair that a person from retrogressed country wait for 7-10 years in the same category or even a higher EB category when a similar person in other countries see their application cleared in a few months. just imagine yourself being in the less favorable/retrogressed category. EB system is based on qualifications and not the country of Origin. I don't have any issue regarding diversity. diversity is good but I don't think penalizing qualified individuals from a few countries just based on the country of Origin bodes well for the future of immigration especially when US is trying to attract high skilled immigrants.
how can you argue that quota system in EB categories is fair when there is no quota system in H1 visas? do you really think it is fair that a person from retrogressed country wait for 7-10 years in the same category or even a higher EB category when a similar person in other countries see their application cleared in a few months. just imagine yourself being in the less favorable/retrogressed category. EB system is based on qualifications and not the country of Origin. I don't have any issue regarding diversity. diversity is good but I don't think penalizing qualified individuals from a few countries just based on the country of Origin bodes well for the future of immigration especially when US is trying to attract high skilled immigrants.
dresses miss you sister quotes. i miss
newuser
04-21 07:46 PM
Could someone post the meeting notes.
more...
makeup i miss you sister quotes
Eternal_Hope
12-10 01:56 PM
Another reason for the slow movement is people getting married.. a spouse potentially accounts for yet another visa number and this adds to the unpredictability of the system. It gets even worse with non-US born kids.
The solution to all our visa backlog issues is:
1. Stop marrying.......
2. Dont have children ...or atleast not in your home country
Brilliant!
The solution to all our visa backlog issues is:
1. Stop marrying.......
2. Dont have children ...or atleast not in your home country
Brilliant!
girlfriend i miss you sister quotes. i
Googler
02-20 02:54 PM
I'd posted elsewhere about my Feb 13, 2008 conversation with the DOS official who sets cutoff dates:
And then there this piece of info from Ron Gotcher posted on Feb 14, 2008
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4285
"Last night, at a meeting of the American Immigration Lawyer's Assocation Southern California chapter, Charles Oppenheim spoke. Mr. Oppenheim is the officer within the Visa Office tasked with calculating visa bulletin cutoff dates each month. He offered the following thoughts as to cutoff date movement in the upcoming months:
In April, India and China EB2 will be set at 12/01/2003
EB3 for India and China will slow down for the rest of the fiscal year."
I am riveted by this because I spoke to Oppenheim just the day before this meeting (he referred to it). This was the conversation in which he told me that at present EB-2 India would only get numbers leftover from EB-1 India -- the problem is he doesn't know either exactly how many EB-2 India adjudicated applications there are in any specific PD range -- so every month he makes wild guesses, with the intent of using up visas. So I guess at least as of 2/14/08 he thought moving the date to 12/1/03 would more than mop up whatever was leftover from EB-1 India. Given the end of the FBI boondoggle (the effects of which have not been quantified by Oppenheim or USCIS) I'd predict that even a date in early 2002 would be good enough to mop up. Let us see if he changes his mind by mid March.
But his statement at the AILA meeting has been bothering me so I talked to him again today. Here is what he said -- that he is considering not only the EB-1 India excess, but the entire EB-1 worldwide excess being given to oversubscribed EB-2! I asked him about his earlier statement and he said that he had had a chance to look at the numbers and determine that unlike recent years EB-1 worldwide is not using numbers up at a rate that would max out EB-1 usage. BUT. He is waiting for USCIS to give him an estimate of the number of EB-2 India applications that would become eligible if he moves the cutoff dates up to 12/1/03, he will set the date ONLY after he gets that data and determines that there won't be too many within that cutoff date.
I also asked him to confirm that he was relying on his interpretation of Section 202(a)(5) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558 dbe) of the INA in order to proceed with this spillover. This is his current interpretation of that section -- spillover from EB-1 to EB-2 IF there appears to be a worldwide excess in EB-1, when there is no worldwide excess in EB-1 then country specific spillover for example, from EB-1 India to EB-2 India only etc. In past years like FY06, EB-1 ROW was looking maxed out, so barely any spillover from EB-1 to oversubscribed EB-2.
And then there this piece of info from Ron Gotcher posted on Feb 14, 2008
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4285
"Last night, at a meeting of the American Immigration Lawyer's Assocation Southern California chapter, Charles Oppenheim spoke. Mr. Oppenheim is the officer within the Visa Office tasked with calculating visa bulletin cutoff dates each month. He offered the following thoughts as to cutoff date movement in the upcoming months:
In April, India and China EB2 will be set at 12/01/2003
EB3 for India and China will slow down for the rest of the fiscal year."
I am riveted by this because I spoke to Oppenheim just the day before this meeting (he referred to it). This was the conversation in which he told me that at present EB-2 India would only get numbers leftover from EB-1 India -- the problem is he doesn't know either exactly how many EB-2 India adjudicated applications there are in any specific PD range -- so every month he makes wild guesses, with the intent of using up visas. So I guess at least as of 2/14/08 he thought moving the date to 12/1/03 would more than mop up whatever was leftover from EB-1 India. Given the end of the FBI boondoggle (the effects of which have not been quantified by Oppenheim or USCIS) I'd predict that even a date in early 2002 would be good enough to mop up. Let us see if he changes his mind by mid March.
But his statement at the AILA meeting has been bothering me so I talked to him again today. Here is what he said -- that he is considering not only the EB-1 India excess, but the entire EB-1 worldwide excess being given to oversubscribed EB-2! I asked him about his earlier statement and he said that he had had a chance to look at the numbers and determine that unlike recent years EB-1 worldwide is not using numbers up at a rate that would max out EB-1 usage. BUT. He is waiting for USCIS to give him an estimate of the number of EB-2 India applications that would become eligible if he moves the cutoff dates up to 12/1/03, he will set the date ONLY after he gets that data and determines that there won't be too many within that cutoff date.
I also asked him to confirm that he was relying on his interpretation of Section 202(a)(5) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558 dbe) of the INA in order to proceed with this spillover. This is his current interpretation of that section -- spillover from EB-1 to EB-2 IF there appears to be a worldwide excess in EB-1, when there is no worldwide excess in EB-1 then country specific spillover for example, from EB-1 India to EB-2 India only etc. In past years like FY06, EB-1 ROW was looking maxed out, so barely any spillover from EB-1 to oversubscribed EB-2.
hairstyles i miss you sister quotes;
yetanotherguyinline
05-15 03:00 PM
If you are considering MBA please do these things before you decide.
1. Be absolutely sure why you want a MBA (have a specific reason like I want to move into ABC career or I want to do XYA in X years). Research the programs available and pick a program that suits your goals.
2. Talk to spectrum of people who have either achieved or on a patch to achieving ABC or XYZ you have identified in the above step. Find out how MBA helped them achieve their goals. Talk to people who have just finished MBA or in class right now along with people who have done MBA 10 years ago.
MBA is not just a degree, its much more than that. Depending on the program you get into, the brand and the networks can add far more value than what just a degree could have.
Disclaimer: I am enrolled in MBA program at Haas (University of California, Berkeley). So my views might be biased.
1. Be absolutely sure why you want a MBA (have a specific reason like I want to move into ABC career or I want to do XYA in X years). Research the programs available and pick a program that suits your goals.
2. Talk to spectrum of people who have either achieved or on a patch to achieving ABC or XYZ you have identified in the above step. Find out how MBA helped them achieve their goals. Talk to people who have just finished MBA or in class right now along with people who have done MBA 10 years ago.
MBA is not just a degree, its much more than that. Depending on the program you get into, the brand and the networks can add far more value than what just a degree could have.
Disclaimer: I am enrolled in MBA program at Haas (University of California, Berkeley). So my views might be biased.
gceverywhere
09-19 12:01 PM
Thank you. I believe that we should register legalimmigrationvoice.org (and not .com) as we are a non-profit organization.
Can you please get that registered as well?
I have registered this domain. If needed, please send me PM; I can initiate the transfer process. I have already added a forwarding address to the immigrationvoice.com.
This is my from of contribution.
Can you please get that registered as well?
I have registered this domain. If needed, please send me PM; I can initiate the transfer process. I have already added a forwarding address to the immigrationvoice.com.
This is my from of contribution.
bharani
10-17 11:08 AM
Just mailed the letter.
0 comments:
Post a Comment