gc28262
07-19 07:56 PM
My thoughts:
I understand and share the despair and hopelessness felt by EB3 guys.
Unfortunately when Visa bulletin comes out and when EB2 progresses, we EB3 guys are suddenly aware of our plight and switch to action mode. After a while this enthusiasm fades away till the next bulletin. These emotional responses won't get us anywhere. If we need to get our issues resolved, we need to work on a consistent basis irrespective of the visa bulletin status. We all need to take more active participation in IVs action items as well as contributing to IV efforts as much as we can. IMO signing up for contributions is the easiest thing to do.
Spillover issues:
Upto 2007 these spillovers were coming to EB3. Some folks analysed INA and figured it out that USCIS/DOS was interpreting spillovers incorrectly and that it should flow across. So they contacted USCIS with their findings and argued for their cause. Since then USCIS/DOS interpretation of spillover interpretation changed. Remember these folks did a thorough analysis of the laws and then approached USCIS/DOS. So to change it the other way you have to have a solid legal basis. Writing to lawmakers just out of frustration will not help. If USCIS/DOS is interpreting spillovers correctly as per law, there isn't much anyone can change it without a legislative change.
If we have to go through legislative path, there are easier fixes that can be achieved by legislative fixes like visa recapture etc. That is the reason, IV has planned a long term strategy to end retrogression for all categories. We all need to participate in these action items, contact lawmakers etc with our issues.
Here is an official IV discussion about spillover rules:
ImmigrationVoice.org - USCIS data analysis (http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=97&Itemid=36#_Toc246743452)
Visa spillage rules
There is a supply of 140,000 permanent visas in the EB category for a year. EB1, EB2, EB3 have an equal share of 28.6% or 40,040 visas per year. There is a 7% cap per country on the overall legal immigration including family and skill based. This amounts to 25,620 visas for a single country in EB category. There is a rule to cap 27% of a category in a quarter. So in the first quarter only 10,811 (rounded) visas can be given in any of the categories.
If the supply exceeds demand capped by per country, then per country quota is relaxed to the matching ratio of family based approvals. For practical consideration, it means that the spillover visas beyond 25,620 to a single country can’t be given in the first 3 quarters. The last quarter spillover will need to be first in first out for all the retrogressed countries. This should not limit immigrants from other countries to use up their quota.
Following is the rule from INA Section 201to maintain ratio. There is a different section to override this logic in the last quarter of any calendar year.
(e) Special Rules for Countries at Ceiling. - If it is determined that the total number of immigrant visas made available under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area will exceed the numerical limitation specified in subsection (a)(2) in any fiscal year, in determining the allotment of immigrant visa numbers to natives under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203, visa numbers with respect to natives of that state or area shall be allocated (to the extent practicable and otherwise consistent with this section and section 203) in a manner so that
(1) the ratio of the visa numbers made available under section 203(a) to the visa numbers made available under section 203(b) is equal to the ratio of the worldwide level of immigration under section 201(c) to such level under section 201 (d);
(2) except as provided in subsection (a)(4), the proportion of the visa numbers made available under each of paragraphs (1) through (4) of section 203(a) is equal to the ratio of the total number of visas made available under the respective paragraph to the total number of visas made available under section 203(a), and
(3) 3/ except as provided in subsection (a)(5), the proportion of the visa numbers made available under each of paragraphs (1) through (5) of section 203(b) is equal to the ratio of the total number of visas made available under the respective paragraph to the total number of visas made available under section 203(b).
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as limiting the number of visas that may be issued to natives of a foreign state or dependent area under section 203(a) or 203(b) if there is insufficient demand for visas for such natives under section 203(b) or 203(a), respectively, or as limiting the number of visas that may be issued under section 203(a)(2)(A) pursuant to subsection (a)(4)(A).
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as limiting the number of visas that may be issued to natives of a foreign state or dependent area under section 203(a) or 203(b) if there is insufficient demand for visas for such natives under section 203(b) or 203(a) , respectively, or as limiting the number of visas that may be issued under section 203(a)(2)(A) pursuant to subsection (a)(4)(A).
I understand and share the despair and hopelessness felt by EB3 guys.
Unfortunately when Visa bulletin comes out and when EB2 progresses, we EB3 guys are suddenly aware of our plight and switch to action mode. After a while this enthusiasm fades away till the next bulletin. These emotional responses won't get us anywhere. If we need to get our issues resolved, we need to work on a consistent basis irrespective of the visa bulletin status. We all need to take more active participation in IVs action items as well as contributing to IV efforts as much as we can. IMO signing up for contributions is the easiest thing to do.
Spillover issues:
Upto 2007 these spillovers were coming to EB3. Some folks analysed INA and figured it out that USCIS/DOS was interpreting spillovers incorrectly and that it should flow across. So they contacted USCIS with their findings and argued for their cause. Since then USCIS/DOS interpretation of spillover interpretation changed. Remember these folks did a thorough analysis of the laws and then approached USCIS/DOS. So to change it the other way you have to have a solid legal basis. Writing to lawmakers just out of frustration will not help. If USCIS/DOS is interpreting spillovers correctly as per law, there isn't much anyone can change it without a legislative change.
If we have to go through legislative path, there are easier fixes that can be achieved by legislative fixes like visa recapture etc. That is the reason, IV has planned a long term strategy to end retrogression for all categories. We all need to participate in these action items, contact lawmakers etc with our issues.
Here is an official IV discussion about spillover rules:
ImmigrationVoice.org - USCIS data analysis (http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=97&Itemid=36#_Toc246743452)
Visa spillage rules
There is a supply of 140,000 permanent visas in the EB category for a year. EB1, EB2, EB3 have an equal share of 28.6% or 40,040 visas per year. There is a 7% cap per country on the overall legal immigration including family and skill based. This amounts to 25,620 visas for a single country in EB category. There is a rule to cap 27% of a category in a quarter. So in the first quarter only 10,811 (rounded) visas can be given in any of the categories.
If the supply exceeds demand capped by per country, then per country quota is relaxed to the matching ratio of family based approvals. For practical consideration, it means that the spillover visas beyond 25,620 to a single country can’t be given in the first 3 quarters. The last quarter spillover will need to be first in first out for all the retrogressed countries. This should not limit immigrants from other countries to use up their quota.
Following is the rule from INA Section 201to maintain ratio. There is a different section to override this logic in the last quarter of any calendar year.
(e) Special Rules for Countries at Ceiling. - If it is determined that the total number of immigrant visas made available under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area will exceed the numerical limitation specified in subsection (a)(2) in any fiscal year, in determining the allotment of immigrant visa numbers to natives under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203, visa numbers with respect to natives of that state or area shall be allocated (to the extent practicable and otherwise consistent with this section and section 203) in a manner so that
(1) the ratio of the visa numbers made available under section 203(a) to the visa numbers made available under section 203(b) is equal to the ratio of the worldwide level of immigration under section 201(c) to such level under section 201 (d);
(2) except as provided in subsection (a)(4), the proportion of the visa numbers made available under each of paragraphs (1) through (4) of section 203(a) is equal to the ratio of the total number of visas made available under the respective paragraph to the total number of visas made available under section 203(a), and
(3) 3/ except as provided in subsection (a)(5), the proportion of the visa numbers made available under each of paragraphs (1) through (5) of section 203(b) is equal to the ratio of the total number of visas made available under the respective paragraph to the total number of visas made available under section 203(b).
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as limiting the number of visas that may be issued to natives of a foreign state or dependent area under section 203(a) or 203(b) if there is insufficient demand for visas for such natives under section 203(b) or 203(a), respectively, or as limiting the number of visas that may be issued under section 203(a)(2)(A) pursuant to subsection (a)(4)(A).
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as limiting the number of visas that may be issued to natives of a foreign state or dependent area under section 203(a) or 203(b) if there is insufficient demand for visas for such natives under section 203(b) or 203(a) , respectively, or as limiting the number of visas that may be issued under section 203(a)(2)(A) pursuant to subsection (a)(4)(A).
wallpaper Emma Watson | People Tree
sparklinks
09-02 03:29 PM
I filed on June 18th (RD) and I am still waiting...current one Expires in 3 weeks. Any suggestion what I should do.
bskrishna
12-07 02:40 PM
Is it going to hurt if we wait for some more time.It is not that we are missing getting our green cards and our priority dates are current. I have also got my case transferred from NSC-->CSC--> TSC. I agree that stuttling the paper work around the country is an extremely inefficient way to conduct business, but that is what CIS is. I got my transfer notice on the October 5th. I guess they will need more time to get my paper work and schedule an FP appointment.
2011 Emma Watson poses for
caliducas
09-17 09:57 PM
My attorney got the receipt notices in the mail today. See my signature below.
more...
kingnaga
10-04 12:46 AM
Don worry bros, we're gonna get it soo...n. waiting sucks, but better than not applying u no...
mps
08-26 11:35 AM
I know one of my friend, his H1 extension was denied through a consulting company (basically Bodyshopper). Reason given was - "consulting not allowed on H1".
Lucky him, client hired him by sponsoring his H1 and this time it was approved.
Looks like USCIS is going after Desi Bodyshoppers (which I believe is long due).
Some desi bodyshop owner gave me red for sharing this.
Well, I just hope your pawn-shop goes down soon, so that you learn to earn your own bread instead of being a parasite !
Lucky him, client hired him by sponsoring his H1 and this time it was approved.
Looks like USCIS is going after Desi Bodyshoppers (which I believe is long due).
Some desi bodyshop owner gave me red for sharing this.
Well, I just hope your pawn-shop goes down soon, so that you learn to earn your own bread instead of being a parasite !
more...
gcseeker2002
07-05 12:09 PM
my 485 also reached Nebraska on July 2nd at 9:01 am
by FEDEX.
Is my boat Sinking or floating
All boats have been sunk by the USCIS torpedo , one massive torpedo that sank 300000 boats to the bottom of the ocean, some even below that
by FEDEX.
Is my boat Sinking or floating
All boats have been sunk by the USCIS torpedo , one massive torpedo that sank 300000 boats to the bottom of the ocean, some even below that
2010 2011 makeup emma watson 2011
smuggymba
07-20 11:25 AM
Don't make stupid statements like this. It goes to show your intelligence and that you are an instigator. With statements like that you will alienate EB3 more. BTW, I contributed to DC advocacy and many other EB3s also did the same. That money apparently seemed to have have helped EB2 and not EB3.
Regarding you comment on action, many IV leaders are EB3.
It's more of a motivation to get up and do something. How much was collected? I know many ppl contributed but the contribution was very less...so u shut up ur hole or whatever language u prefer to use at ur home. My point was to do rather than posting. If u didn't get that, sorry.
Regarding you comment on action, many IV leaders are EB3.
It's more of a motivation to get up and do something. How much was collected? I know many ppl contributed but the contribution was very less...so u shut up ur hole or whatever language u prefer to use at ur home. My point was to do rather than posting. If u didn't get that, sorry.
more...
gc_kaavaali
08-31 01:52 PM
Congratulations!!!!
My wife and i got emails from USCIS and we checked our status online and it is now CPO. The approval is based on my wife's applicatiion ( EB2 India, Dec 2005). I had two applications one as her dependent and another my own that is EB3 I, Jan 2004.
My wife and i got emails from USCIS and we checked our status online and it is now CPO. The approval is based on my wife's applicatiion ( EB2 India, Dec 2005). I had two applications one as her dependent and another my own that is EB3 I, Jan 2004.
hair In 2010, Emma Watson visited
permfiling
05-08 03:17 PM
You can still go to court against the congress, that is what is the freedom of constitution in this country.
Since Obama administration has a open door policy, why don't we take a appointment and discuss this issue ?
Since Obama administration has a open door policy, why don't we take a appointment and discuss this issue ?
more...
eastindia
02-22 09:11 AM
Anyone still depressed?
Then come to lobby day in April or contribute money for it.
Then come to lobby day in April or contribute money for it.
hot /08/emma-watson-promotes-
perm
07-03 10:45 AM
Are you guys serious. and if so. I am IN.
For those who will 'JUST MOVE ON'......... Please don't and you should not just forget this.
Just be yourself and express it out
so is the plan to send flowers collectively, on the same day?
Is there a way we can help the citizens / GC / Locals and they can too, in - return, send flowers and the note on our behalf?
lago raho...
For those who will 'JUST MOVE ON'......... Please don't and you should not just forget this.
Just be yourself and express it out
so is the plan to send flowers collectively, on the same day?
Is there a way we can help the citizens / GC / Locals and they can too, in - return, send flowers and the note on our behalf?
lago raho...
more...
house Emma Watson: Chic and Stylish
sankap
07-10 04:43 PM
No, I've not "come down from legal standpoint to employer standpoint!" Your assumptions/inferences are based on generalizations. All I meant was there are many perspectives/interpretations for "permanent." Yes, if you're an H1B on a FT job, there are high chances are that the employer thinks that's a "FT and permanent" position--even though GC is filed for future job. Why don't you ask your employer that question when you were/are on H1B, pre/post-I-140 petition? That is, were/are you working there as a temp or "perm?" on H-1B? And, yes, *legally* speaking, if an employment is at-will, it can't be "permanent." That is, if an employer fires you (for performance or downturn) , you just can't sue him on the ground that you were promised a "permanent" job, can you?
Now you have come down from legal standpoint to employer standpoint! :D
The answer to your question is No.
Employer sponsors GC so that employee that is temporarily employed on H-1B can become permanently employed on GC job.
Again, you are mixing H-1B job with GC job.
Let me ask that question again (because you got confused last time)
Look at the I-140 application for GC (Page 2, Part 6, Question 5)
http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/i-140.pdf
I wonder why uscis is asking "Is this a permanent position?", if according to you, "*no* job in this country is "permanent" (legally speaking)"
Did your attorney put No for this question for your I-140 app?
You still believe that no job is permanent. If so, all I can say, more power to you.
Have a good day!
_______________________
US citizen of Indian origin
Now you have come down from legal standpoint to employer standpoint! :D
The answer to your question is No.
Employer sponsors GC so that employee that is temporarily employed on H-1B can become permanently employed on GC job.
Again, you are mixing H-1B job with GC job.
Let me ask that question again (because you got confused last time)
Look at the I-140 application for GC (Page 2, Part 6, Question 5)
http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/i-140.pdf
I wonder why uscis is asking "Is this a permanent position?", if according to you, "*no* job in this country is "permanent" (legally speaking)"
Did your attorney put No for this question for your I-140 app?
You still believe that no job is permanent. If so, all I can say, more power to you.
Have a good day!
_______________________
US citizen of Indian origin
tattoo Emma Watson au Bangladesh
abq_gc
08-18 02:44 PM
How do you know that people with more recent priority dates are getting approved and you have been left out? You know this because these members of IV share this info with you and you are talking about using this info against them.
I won't be surprised if this will discourage people to just silently leave the forum after getting approvals.
well if they want to do that.. they can do that... wont discourage us from fighting this injustice against everyone in the legal immigration community... i for one consider the plight of EB-3 at this time to be more than that of EB-2... but why are just fighting among ourselves... instead of doing something as a group ??
I won't be surprised if this will discourage people to just silently leave the forum after getting approvals.
well if they want to do that.. they can do that... wont discourage us from fighting this injustice against everyone in the legal immigration community... i for one consider the plight of EB-3 at this time to be more than that of EB-2... but why are just fighting among ourselves... instead of doing something as a group ??
more...
pictures Das andere Gesicht von Bangladesh 1 Teil 4 von 4. 10:36 Emma Watson
apt29
01-30 05:02 PM
Funny... Sathweb took his post back, which even he does not agree with anymore and you now agree with it..
Point is very simple: If a person has a valid job offer then by all means go ahead and apply for H1 from any status (be it H4, F1, B or Z...) but if you don't have a proper job offer then please don't apply for the H1 visa through a body shop as you are taking away a valuable visa #, which unfortunately are very limited.
QUOTE=sumanitha;314025]I Completely agree with your reply. First, when I read the comment of that guy, I couldnt accept at all.
You have given a nice and neat reply.[/QUOTE]
Pardon me, if this is not appropriate question. You mentioned that your wife went to School here. Is it Masters Degree? If yes, she can apply for H1 under the 20,000 quota, which is not lottery based(at least for few weeks).
Point is very simple: If a person has a valid job offer then by all means go ahead and apply for H1 from any status (be it H4, F1, B or Z...) but if you don't have a proper job offer then please don't apply for the H1 visa through a body shop as you are taking away a valuable visa #, which unfortunately are very limited.
QUOTE=sumanitha;314025]I Completely agree with your reply. First, when I read the comment of that guy, I couldnt accept at all.
You have given a nice and neat reply.[/QUOTE]
Pardon me, if this is not appropriate question. You mentioned that your wife went to School here. Is it Masters Degree? If yes, she can apply for H1 under the 20,000 quota, which is not lottery based(at least for few weeks).
dresses Emma Watson is a model for
immigrationvoice1
03-26 10:23 AM
Any comment from anyone?
Wanted to know what the members here think of the probability of receiving RFE from USCIS to find out whether the applicant is still in a "same or similar" job when the time comes to adjudicate cases for for EB3 India.
I ask this because in a poll conducted in a separate thread, it seems the number of people waiting for their GCs are more with PDs before Dec 2004 than after that date.
When the dates become current again for these people, do you think USCIS will be sending RFEs to get the employment information for every single of them ? Is there is a percentage from the pending applications that they pick for RFE, assuming all applicants who changed employers DID NOT notify USCIS when they changed jobs OR is it completely up to the whims of the adjudicating officer to send an RFE ?
There are several people I know who changed employers with EAD, never notified USCIS and got their GCs without any RFE. Trying to understand whether USCIS will think twice before sending RFEs for everyone as the number of applicants waiting with PDs of 2004 and earlier are huge now than ever before. Won't it be too overwhelming for them to issue RFEs to all and manage their responses?
Wanted to know what the members here think of the probability of receiving RFE from USCIS to find out whether the applicant is still in a "same or similar" job when the time comes to adjudicate cases for for EB3 India.
I ask this because in a poll conducted in a separate thread, it seems the number of people waiting for their GCs are more with PDs before Dec 2004 than after that date.
When the dates become current again for these people, do you think USCIS will be sending RFEs to get the employment information for every single of them ? Is there is a percentage from the pending applications that they pick for RFE, assuming all applicants who changed employers DID NOT notify USCIS when they changed jobs OR is it completely up to the whims of the adjudicating officer to send an RFE ?
There are several people I know who changed employers with EAD, never notified USCIS and got their GCs without any RFE. Trying to understand whether USCIS will think twice before sending RFEs for everyone as the number of applicants waiting with PDs of 2004 and earlier are huge now than ever before. Won't it be too overwhelming for them to issue RFEs to all and manage their responses?
more...
makeup Emma Watson as Hermione
crazy_gc
06-10 12:12 PM
What service center was it from? Was it a concurrent filing of I140 and 485?
NSC and it was just 140...yet to dispatch 485 application
NSC and it was just 140...yet to dispatch 485 application
girlfriend quot;Emma Watson is one down to
abhijitp
11-21 02:49 PM
Reply to a very insensitive post
And what should the person/family do right now?
Return to their country like nothing happened? What about the primary applicant's present job?
Just live here in the USA, as if nothing happened? What happens to the family if they go out of status all of a sudden?
There is no need to make the GC your only goal in life, but please don't be insensitive... there is much more to the issue than meets the eye!
And what should the person/family do right now?
Return to their country like nothing happened? What about the primary applicant's present job?
Just live here in the USA, as if nothing happened? What happens to the family if they go out of status all of a sudden?
There is no need to make the GC your only goal in life, but please don't be insensitive... there is much more to the issue than meets the eye!
hairstyles makeup makeup hot Emma Watson – Vogue 2011 emma watson vogue shoot 2011.
javadeveloper
07-20 09:12 PM
IF you are in such a big hole, you will have to come forward and work for yourself. We want others to work for us and solve our problems. That is my issue here. With 11.25 K EB3 members we would have still collected quarter million bucks.(@ 25$/person) If EB3-I does not care for itself, why would anybody else give a damn? (PS : I did contribute for the drive as I want everybody's issues with respect to GC resolved, not just mine)
So, the original post still stands true.
Problem was ours (EB2 & EB3) and we fought together until EB2&EB3 dates were retrogressed.Now the problem is only for EB3s so EB3s only have to come forward and work for ourselves. Thank you Sir...
What I am saying is we(EB2&3) will fight together and you are saying that It's your problem and you(EB3) have to work for yourself.So do we have to start a new community called eb3immigrationvoice?
So, the original post still stands true.
Problem was ours (EB2 & EB3) and we fought together until EB2&EB3 dates were retrogressed.Now the problem is only for EB3s so EB3s only have to come forward and work for ourselves. Thank you Sir...
What I am saying is we(EB2&3) will fight together and you are saying that It's your problem and you(EB3) have to work for yourself.So do we have to start a new community called eb3immigrationvoice?
siva9
09-12 04:19 PM
My application reached NSC on July 31, 2007.
Today I received my receipt numbers from my lawer.
Today I received my receipt numbers from my lawer.
gc_eb2_waiter
11-30 03:51 PM
Please check your message.
No comments:
Post a Comment