amitjoey
06-25 12:42 PM
IV members have saved you a lot of money on attorney phone calls, getting answers to medical test questions and other general questions. Please contribute to IV so that we can keep this effort going. While everybody is busy collecting documents and paperwork for 485, core IV again is doing there personal paperwork and + lobbying.
Please contribute, especially if you are new and never contributed. Please do not be a freeloader and get your questions answered and run away.
Please contribute, especially if you are new and never contributed. Please do not be a freeloader and get your questions answered and run away.
wallpaper Bethenny Frankel Naked PETA Ad
apnair2002
02-04 04:10 PM
Since January 2006, the nation's Capital has been fairly quite on immigration news for a number of reasons. Firstly, the comprehensive immigration reform legislative bills were planned to be tabled in February 2006, but reportedly this has been pushed off until March 27, 2006. Secondly, the New Director of Citizenship and Immigration Services took office last months. Additionally, the career immigration benefits leader, William Yates, retired and new acting director took over the immigration benefits management responsibility. Understandably, when the heads of the organization change, pending review of the policies and directions, the organization's activities on policy making usually remain on halt.
As opposed to the immigration benefits issues, there have been flurry of news coming out of all sources throughout the country relating to the immigration enfocement and border security initiatives. There are sporatic and increasing reports that ICE has swifted the enforcement policy from leniency to reinforcement over the illegal aliens despite its inability to keep up with expanding detenion facilities to house the detained illegal aliens. The ICE has just announced that it will cease the practice of arrest and return of the border crossers and enforce detention of such border crossers. There were reports that ICE officials stopped certain traffics in certain locations in Minnesota to demand legal documents and enforced illegal immigration action against the detected illegal aliens.
Until the immigration legislative activities are recharged and energized and the new CIS Director has a handle on the immigration benefits policy and management direction, it is expected that the nation's capital may remain in low key for a while when it comes to the employment-based immigration.
source http://www.immigration-law.com/
As opposed to the immigration benefits issues, there have been flurry of news coming out of all sources throughout the country relating to the immigration enfocement and border security initiatives. There are sporatic and increasing reports that ICE has swifted the enforcement policy from leniency to reinforcement over the illegal aliens despite its inability to keep up with expanding detenion facilities to house the detained illegal aliens. The ICE has just announced that it will cease the practice of arrest and return of the border crossers and enforce detention of such border crossers. There were reports that ICE officials stopped certain traffics in certain locations in Minnesota to demand legal documents and enforced illegal immigration action against the detected illegal aliens.
Until the immigration legislative activities are recharged and energized and the new CIS Director has a handle on the immigration benefits policy and management direction, it is expected that the nation's capital may remain in low key for a while when it comes to the employment-based immigration.
source http://www.immigration-law.com/
Robert Kumar
04-01 06:33 PM
I don't want to be a spoilsport.
But there is a possibility that EB2I has not yet retrogressed (inspite of heavy porting) because USCIS knows EB1C 12000 will flow to EB2 right. In that case we may not see movement of dates in par with 12000 spillover.
Maybe I am pessimistic.
In all calculations, it is mentioned that porting at max could be 6k/year. How did we come up with this number? Any proof or just a guess?
Thanks.
"Inspite of heavy porting". Dude, with just two posts, and that in last 2 months, where do you get that info.
Let us know how did you come up with that conclusion.
But there is a possibility that EB2I has not yet retrogressed (inspite of heavy porting) because USCIS knows EB1C 12000 will flow to EB2 right. In that case we may not see movement of dates in par with 12000 spillover.
Maybe I am pessimistic.
In all calculations, it is mentioned that porting at max could be 6k/year. How did we come up with this number? Any proof or just a guess?
Thanks.
"Inspite of heavy porting". Dude, with just two posts, and that in last 2 months, where do you get that info.
Let us know how did you come up with that conclusion.
2011 wallpaper ethenny frankel peta
BharatPremi
09-24 06:24 PM
I completely agree with your last 2 lines. But I don't agree with the even dividing of the number into 5 categories of I,P,C,M,ROW.
Let's take an example. Suppose for some odd coincidence....the first 8000 odd EB3 apps that USCIS processes starting Oct 1.....none are from I,P,C,M. Suppose First 2500 are from Uk, next 2500 from France, next 2500 Germany and the next 508 from Pakistan. Now the number for ROW at this point would be 8008. Now they get another app from UK next. Will they refuse to process that app as the ROW figure had reached? Then they will still process more than 2500 for I,P,C,M. Won't that be unfair to UK applicants.
As I have said a couple of times now, and so have a few others - ROW cannot be capped at X/5. Due to the high demand from I,P,C,M....it likely gets a MINIMUM of (100 - (7 X 4)) X EB3 cap.
That was a ateempt to establish a "fair assumtion" so It may be wrong. But simultaneously you also should not assume FIFO within EB-ROW as you tried to explain as we really do not know whether USCIS follows FIFO.. Bottomline USCIS, by law, can not exceed 9% limit for any ROW based countries (Britain, pakistan,...) as well.
Let's take an example. Suppose for some odd coincidence....the first 8000 odd EB3 apps that USCIS processes starting Oct 1.....none are from I,P,C,M. Suppose First 2500 are from Uk, next 2500 from France, next 2500 Germany and the next 508 from Pakistan. Now the number for ROW at this point would be 8008. Now they get another app from UK next. Will they refuse to process that app as the ROW figure had reached? Then they will still process more than 2500 for I,P,C,M. Won't that be unfair to UK applicants.
As I have said a couple of times now, and so have a few others - ROW cannot be capped at X/5. Due to the high demand from I,P,C,M....it likely gets a MINIMUM of (100 - (7 X 4)) X EB3 cap.
That was a ateempt to establish a "fair assumtion" so It may be wrong. But simultaneously you also should not assume FIFO within EB-ROW as you tried to explain as we really do not know whether USCIS follows FIFO.. Bottomline USCIS, by law, can not exceed 9% limit for any ROW based countries (Britain, pakistan,...) as well.
more...
Dice
05-09 08:43 PM
Then why do you bother to desparately stay in US? Vote with your feet.
Hey Hunter you loon , you and your ilk got kicked out of Dice because of your racist BS ;), was'nt that enough? now you come crying here, nobody gives damn about you, we kicked you racists out of Dice and cleaned it up and we'll do it wherever required, now STFU and leave you unemployed fool, you'll get IP banned anyways as soon as the MODs come in here.
Hey Hunter you loon , you and your ilk got kicked out of Dice because of your racist BS ;), was'nt that enough? now you come crying here, nobody gives damn about you, we kicked you racists out of Dice and cleaned it up and we'll do it wherever required, now STFU and leave you unemployed fool, you'll get IP banned anyways as soon as the MODs come in here.
BharatPremi
03-25 04:11 PM
Not a lawyer, obviously :) , but the first line on I-9 about discrimination covers "hiring, discharging, or recruiting or referring... It is illegal to discriminate against work eligible individuals."
Yes, "Interviewing" is not written there. And we all know that "Recruiting" or "Hiring" is not equivalent of "interviewing"
Yes, "Interviewing" is not written there. And we all know that "Recruiting" or "Hiring" is not equivalent of "interviewing"
more...
chanduv23
08-05 11:34 PM
Why has AILA not yet filed a class action lawsuit? Why have no lawyers filed a lawsuit on behalf of the entire community?
Let us ask thiis question to all our lawyers and ask them to communicate to AILA? Speeding up namechecks will truly help immigrants and will annony employers who want to keep us waiting as long as possible.
This is an open question to all lawyers reading this post. If you can file such a lawsuit, it will be a big help to this community and you will prove to us that you truely care for our cause.
U kidding??? Very few lawyers go out of the way to do something to further our cause.
Let us ask thiis question to all our lawyers and ask them to communicate to AILA? Speeding up namechecks will truly help immigrants and will annony employers who want to keep us waiting as long as possible.
This is an open question to all lawyers reading this post. If you can file such a lawsuit, it will be a big help to this community and you will prove to us that you truely care for our cause.
U kidding??? Very few lawyers go out of the way to do something to further our cause.
2010 tattoo Bethenny Frankel: I #39
lotsofspace
01-10 11:37 AM
It is not popular to say so but I have this doubt too.
Currently at least there is no requirement to notify and you only need to prove you still have a similar job OFFER (not necessarily working) if and when there is an RFE.
Only good thing happened to us in last decade, as far as I can remember, is AC21 and concurrent filing.
All these immigration laws are designed to keep us indebted/bonded to the employer. They might see this as a liberating provision and try to chain us back. This may or may not happen, but just my paranoid reaction,.
Hope AC21 don't go away like labor substitution has. :(
i don't what is the problem you have with AC21? it works just fine and nobody has a problem with it.
if you ask them to mess with it, and it seems to have no problem, they will either make it worse or take it away.
i think you guys are far too risk averse and want everything guaranteed in black and white. it does not work that way and we are not so important in the scheme of things anyway.
Currently at least there is no requirement to notify and you only need to prove you still have a similar job OFFER (not necessarily working) if and when there is an RFE.
Only good thing happened to us in last decade, as far as I can remember, is AC21 and concurrent filing.
All these immigration laws are designed to keep us indebted/bonded to the employer. They might see this as a liberating provision and try to chain us back. This may or may not happen, but just my paranoid reaction,.
Hope AC21 don't go away like labor substitution has. :(
i don't what is the problem you have with AC21? it works just fine and nobody has a problem with it.
if you ask them to mess with it, and it seems to have no problem, they will either make it worse or take it away.
i think you guys are far too risk averse and want everything guaranteed in black and white. it does not work that way and we are not so important in the scheme of things anyway.
more...
dagabaaj
01-06 12:22 PM
This surely is an idea worth pursuing. Will require a real hard push. Where does one start other than writing on change.gov? In this economic environment this may be a real hard sell in my opinion. I think all will benefit from this naysayers too.
hair ethenny frankel peta.
Prashant
09-10 12:04 PM
Thanks bud!, it changed me from red to green :)
Let me give you a green buddy and see if it changes something for you.
Folks please call it all counts.
.................................................. .
$470 + made calls to all congressmen/women on the HR5882 list.
Go IV Go.....
Let me give you a green buddy and see if it changes something for you.
Folks please call it all counts.
.................................................. .
$470 + made calls to all congressmen/women on the HR5882 list.
Go IV Go.....
more...
hr_aries
01-06 05:02 PM
It looks like Nassua, Bahamas consulate is not yet using PIMS ..There are people who received their passports either on the same day(few people) or on the next day in this Dec 2007.
hot peta ad,ethenny frankel
Ramg
08-21 05:56 PM
One can also sign-up for Annual Pre-Pay with Vonage which will cost $20 per month for the same World Plan. Vonage - Support - Annual Pre-Pay (http://www.vonage.com/support.php?keyword=AnnualPrePay)
Just pay $240 upfornt. I did the same. Now all the features of Vonage World for $20. :)
Today I asked the customer service, they told me, I have to 315 dollars for annual plan. 239.99 + taxes = 315 dollars
Just pay $240 upfornt. I did the same. Now all the features of Vonage World for $20. :)
Today I asked the customer service, they told me, I have to 315 dollars for annual plan. 239.99 + taxes = 315 dollars
more...
house Bethenny Frankel Bridezilla
vkrishn
09-23 12:33 AM
Let me give you an example and you would understand my point. USCIS Customer Services Directorate received 16 million calls from the public and 300,000 from Members of Congress. Add to it, all other items people do to get attention for their case and think that by sending an email or a phone call from Senator or by a lawyer, the officer will realize his mistake and quickly open the file and approve it. If you look at the responses people post to their inquiries, you would see that most responses are standard. USCIS is not just approving 140K greencards but more than a million greencards, hundreds of thousands of H1 and other visa types, EADs etc...every year. Greencards do not get issued on the day date gets current. It is not a automatic process. There is lot of human work involved and many people do not understand that or spend time understanding it. They would rather waste their time either on useless task of tracking or calling customer service every single day.
Pappu,
I doubt things would have materialized if i just kept waiting and here is why.
July 12th: I opened a SR to check on my I485. Purpose was to see if Namecheck was cleared. I wish USCIS gave me that info easily on the website.
July 29th: I get a response by email that they cannot find my I140. I was told to call back with I140 receipt number. This is a bizarre response as i don't know how they accepted my I485 in August 2007 when they can't find my I140.
So i call back and i was told to wait 30 days from July 29th to give the I140 receipt number since its not been 30 days since first receipt. They were counting 30 days from response they sent on july 29th. Now what do i do?
Aug 3rd i went to Infopass and showed them my I140 and I485. They told me i can see your I140 but i cannot say whether this is the I140 linked to I485 because case is at NSC.
So i went to my cognresswoman and based on her enquiry, the PD linked to my I1485 on USCIS system was Feb 16th 2007 instead of Feb 16th 2006. Her office faxed the I140 approval notice and made USCIS correct this error.
I tried checking with USCIS through NCSC and Infopass to see if the PD and category linked to my I485 is correct about 5-6 times and never got a correct response.
If congresswoman's office had not helped correct the PD with USCIS i doubt my case would have even been picked up for adjudication.
Only good thing i got at Infopass was that during my last visit, IO was indian. She told me to write to NSC with a copy of I485 and approved I140 letting them know that PD is current for the past 35 days. She told me that she is not sure why its not been picked up for adjudication as Namecheck and fingerprints were valid and i was pre adjudicated. She was not able to find out if the PD and category linked to my I485 was correct.
When there is no clear transparency, i don't see anything wrong in contacting the necessary people to check on your case.
Pappu,
I doubt things would have materialized if i just kept waiting and here is why.
July 12th: I opened a SR to check on my I485. Purpose was to see if Namecheck was cleared. I wish USCIS gave me that info easily on the website.
July 29th: I get a response by email that they cannot find my I140. I was told to call back with I140 receipt number. This is a bizarre response as i don't know how they accepted my I485 in August 2007 when they can't find my I140.
So i call back and i was told to wait 30 days from July 29th to give the I140 receipt number since its not been 30 days since first receipt. They were counting 30 days from response they sent on july 29th. Now what do i do?
Aug 3rd i went to Infopass and showed them my I140 and I485. They told me i can see your I140 but i cannot say whether this is the I140 linked to I485 because case is at NSC.
So i went to my cognresswoman and based on her enquiry, the PD linked to my I1485 on USCIS system was Feb 16th 2007 instead of Feb 16th 2006. Her office faxed the I140 approval notice and made USCIS correct this error.
I tried checking with USCIS through NCSC and Infopass to see if the PD and category linked to my I485 is correct about 5-6 times and never got a correct response.
If congresswoman's office had not helped correct the PD with USCIS i doubt my case would have even been picked up for adjudication.
Only good thing i got at Infopass was that during my last visit, IO was indian. She told me to write to NSC with a copy of I485 and approved I140 letting them know that PD is current for the past 35 days. She told me that she is not sure why its not been picked up for adjudication as Namecheck and fingerprints were valid and i was pre adjudicated. She was not able to find out if the PD and category linked to my I485 was correct.
When there is no clear transparency, i don't see anything wrong in contacting the necessary people to check on your case.
tattoo Bethenny+frankel+peta+
funny
09-09 06:34 PM
Posting it in this thread, as this is related to HR5882.
Make Immigration Work for Working Immigrants
http://townhall.com/Columnists/CesarConda/2008/09/09/make_immigration_work_for_working_immigrants
Employment-based immigrants contribute greatly to America, although you would not know it from the way current U.S. policy treats them. Due to low quotas, a typical skilled immigrant sponsored by an American company now waits 6 to 10 years for a green card (permanent residence). The House Judiciary Committee marks up legislation this week to change that, representing likely the only measure Congress may take in the remaining weeks to aid innovation, the economy and the competitiveness of U.S. companies.
H.R. 5882, authored by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), would reduce wait times for green cards and help retain talented people in the United States. It would do this by providing green cards that had been allotted in previous years but went unused, primarily due to bureaucratic obstacles.
�A developed country�s competitiveness now comes primarily from its capacity to innovate � the ability to create the new products and services that people want,� according to Curtis Carlson of the Silicon Valley research firm SRI International. Skilled immigrants are a vital source of America�s capacity to innovate.
The National Venture Capital Association reports that 1 in 4 publicly-trade companies that began with venture capital since 1990 had at least one immigrant founder. While the vast majority of employees at U.S. firms are Americans, when U.S. employers recruit on college campuses they find foreign nationals represent a high proportion of the graduates in key fields. In 2006, 73% of new electrical engineering Ph.D.s in the U.S. were granted to international students, according to the National Science Foundation, while in 2005, foreign nationals received 55 percent of electrical engineering master�s degrees and 42 percent of computer science master�s degrees.
H-1B temporary visas, which have been exhausted each of the past 5 fiscal years, only allow individuals to stay on a temporary basis, so an employment-based green card is necessary to stay here permanently. The separate quota for green cards for skilled immigrants is set at 140,000 a year (including dependents of the skilled immigrant). That quota has also been insufficient to meet demand, creating waits of 6 to 10 years for a green card.
The great uncertainty these waits create lead some to give up and leave the United States and others to not even begin the process. The current long waits �cause a reverse brain drain affecting American competitiveness and innovation,� according to Aman Kapoor, executive director of the group Immigration Voice. �At the same time, these green card backlogs create severe quality of life issues for the applicants and their families.�
Those who understand markets realize that there is no such thing as a fixed number of jobs, as critics of high skill immigration maintain. A 2008 National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP) study found that for every skilled foreign national requested (for H-1B visas) with the Department of Labor, U.S. technology companies increase their employment by 5 workers. Many U.S. executives confirm this experience at their firms. Looking to America�s next generation of scientists and engineers, a 2004 NFAP study found more than half of the finalists for the Intel Science Talent Search, the leading contest for top U.S. high school science students, were the children of skilled immigrants.
In addition to the reduced waiting times for green cards from H.R. 5882, Congress can take other steps. It can fix the labor certification process for skilled immigrants under which the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) requires companies to engage in expensive and time-consuming advertisements to show no qualified Americans are available for certain jobs. Neither the law nor the original DOL regulations required such advertisements. Yet DOL is using its questionable authority to, among other things, audit thousands of green card cases from the nation�s largest immigration law firm, Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy. The Fragomen firm has filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court alleging DOL has exceeded its authority. Congressional oversight is warranted.
Congress can also eliminate the per country limit for skilled immigrants, which pushes back wait times for Indian and Chinese professionals, exempt from green card quotas those who earn a master�s degree or higher, and increase the quotas for H-1B temporary visas.
While H.R. 5882 will not solve all our immigration problems, it represents an important effort to retain talented individuals in America so they can help create jobs and innovation in the United States.
Stuart Anderson is a former Staff Director of the Senate Immigration Subcommittee and now Executive Director of the National Foundation for American Policy, a nonpartisan policy research group based in Arlington, Va.
No one is calling anymore?? Please call guys if you have not...Leave a voice message....but call
Make Immigration Work for Working Immigrants
http://townhall.com/Columnists/CesarConda/2008/09/09/make_immigration_work_for_working_immigrants
Employment-based immigrants contribute greatly to America, although you would not know it from the way current U.S. policy treats them. Due to low quotas, a typical skilled immigrant sponsored by an American company now waits 6 to 10 years for a green card (permanent residence). The House Judiciary Committee marks up legislation this week to change that, representing likely the only measure Congress may take in the remaining weeks to aid innovation, the economy and the competitiveness of U.S. companies.
H.R. 5882, authored by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), would reduce wait times for green cards and help retain talented people in the United States. It would do this by providing green cards that had been allotted in previous years but went unused, primarily due to bureaucratic obstacles.
�A developed country�s competitiveness now comes primarily from its capacity to innovate � the ability to create the new products and services that people want,� according to Curtis Carlson of the Silicon Valley research firm SRI International. Skilled immigrants are a vital source of America�s capacity to innovate.
The National Venture Capital Association reports that 1 in 4 publicly-trade companies that began with venture capital since 1990 had at least one immigrant founder. While the vast majority of employees at U.S. firms are Americans, when U.S. employers recruit on college campuses they find foreign nationals represent a high proportion of the graduates in key fields. In 2006, 73% of new electrical engineering Ph.D.s in the U.S. were granted to international students, according to the National Science Foundation, while in 2005, foreign nationals received 55 percent of electrical engineering master�s degrees and 42 percent of computer science master�s degrees.
H-1B temporary visas, which have been exhausted each of the past 5 fiscal years, only allow individuals to stay on a temporary basis, so an employment-based green card is necessary to stay here permanently. The separate quota for green cards for skilled immigrants is set at 140,000 a year (including dependents of the skilled immigrant). That quota has also been insufficient to meet demand, creating waits of 6 to 10 years for a green card.
The great uncertainty these waits create lead some to give up and leave the United States and others to not even begin the process. The current long waits �cause a reverse brain drain affecting American competitiveness and innovation,� according to Aman Kapoor, executive director of the group Immigration Voice. �At the same time, these green card backlogs create severe quality of life issues for the applicants and their families.�
Those who understand markets realize that there is no such thing as a fixed number of jobs, as critics of high skill immigration maintain. A 2008 National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP) study found that for every skilled foreign national requested (for H-1B visas) with the Department of Labor, U.S. technology companies increase their employment by 5 workers. Many U.S. executives confirm this experience at their firms. Looking to America�s next generation of scientists and engineers, a 2004 NFAP study found more than half of the finalists for the Intel Science Talent Search, the leading contest for top U.S. high school science students, were the children of skilled immigrants.
In addition to the reduced waiting times for green cards from H.R. 5882, Congress can take other steps. It can fix the labor certification process for skilled immigrants under which the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) requires companies to engage in expensive and time-consuming advertisements to show no qualified Americans are available for certain jobs. Neither the law nor the original DOL regulations required such advertisements. Yet DOL is using its questionable authority to, among other things, audit thousands of green card cases from the nation�s largest immigration law firm, Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy. The Fragomen firm has filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court alleging DOL has exceeded its authority. Congressional oversight is warranted.
Congress can also eliminate the per country limit for skilled immigrants, which pushes back wait times for Indian and Chinese professionals, exempt from green card quotas those who earn a master�s degree or higher, and increase the quotas for H-1B temporary visas.
While H.R. 5882 will not solve all our immigration problems, it represents an important effort to retain talented individuals in America so they can help create jobs and innovation in the United States.
Stuart Anderson is a former Staff Director of the Senate Immigration Subcommittee and now Executive Director of the National Foundation for American Policy, a nonpartisan policy research group based in Arlington, Va.
No one is calling anymore?? Please call guys if you have not...Leave a voice message....but call
more...
pictures makeup Bethenny Frankel of the
pani_6
08-21 12:28 PM
On what basis you are saying that Oct'2008 PD will be similar to Jun'2007. Didn't you read the note in Sep'2008 VB that PD for EB3 category will retrogress further.
If you cann't support EB3 community then at least don't misguide people here. EB3-I is in severe pain right now and people like you can't understand it.
The EB-3 the Visa bull is talking about is that of EB-3 other workers not for general EB-3 category..
In Jul07 they gave away lots of Visa to EB-3 so from earlier years they may not be much EB-3's left..I am guessing..so it may actually start off at Mid of 03..
If you cann't support EB3 community then at least don't misguide people here. EB3-I is in severe pain right now and people like you can't understand it.
The EB-3 the Visa bull is talking about is that of EB-3 other workers not for general EB-3 category..
In Jul07 they gave away lots of Visa to EB-3 so from earlier years they may not be much EB-3's left..I am guessing..so it may actually start off at Mid of 03..
dresses Bethenny Frankel: Nude For
ita
09-09 05:40 PM
Called everyone from pappu's list.
Thank you.
Thank you.
more...
makeup ethenny frankel peta pics.
bayarea07
09-14 01:00 PM
Any call this weekend, I am planning to call all except the supporters today.
Please CAL CALL CALL !!!!
Please CAL CALL CALL !!!!
girlfriend Frankel s father is famous
desighee
08-21 01:13 PM
i just changed the plan online and it works!!
awesome..already made about an hour of free call!
awesome..already made about an hour of free call!
hairstyles ethenny frankel peta
nuke
09-24 02:58 PM
Current visa bulletin states following.
2. Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320.
Question: What does the line 'Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620.' means???
2. Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320.
Question: What does the line 'Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620.' means???
Hunter
05-09 01:57 PM
You guys are just too lazy to study new technologies that is ever changing. You are more interested in having beers and watching football
Let us talk about the "skills" introduced by H1/L1/offshore companies
a) One guy takes the phone interview for 15 other guys with "skills" they preted to have
b) Lying on the resume with "skills" that you don't have, so that you can learn the "skill" at the expense of the client
c) "Skill" in Violating B1 visa laws and sending people on B1 to do actual work to client
d) "Skill" in violating L1 law which is used to drive down the wages by 20-30%
e) "Skill" demonstrated by indian offshorers to enter into a contract with a large corporation where they will provide warm bodies in exchange for a very low billing rate. Client wouldn't have any ability to interview the incoming cosultant, which means the offshorer employee is learning at the expense of the foolish client. Then that will be touted as "savings".
f) "Skill" of fly-by-night operators to shave off 70% of the billing rate through a 6-level pyramid of contracting companies
Should I add to this list of "skills" further?
Let us talk about the "skills" introduced by H1/L1/offshore companies
a) One guy takes the phone interview for 15 other guys with "skills" they preted to have
b) Lying on the resume with "skills" that you don't have, so that you can learn the "skill" at the expense of the client
c) "Skill" in Violating B1 visa laws and sending people on B1 to do actual work to client
d) "Skill" in violating L1 law which is used to drive down the wages by 20-30%
e) "Skill" demonstrated by indian offshorers to enter into a contract with a large corporation where they will provide warm bodies in exchange for a very low billing rate. Client wouldn't have any ability to interview the incoming cosultant, which means the offshorer employee is learning at the expense of the foolish client. Then that will be touted as "savings".
f) "Skill" of fly-by-night operators to shave off 70% of the billing rate through a 6-level pyramid of contracting companies
Should I add to this list of "skills" further?
BharatPremi
09-24 03:36 PM
"7% country speciific limit for primary applicants" and "2% country specific dependent limit" is mentioned in every bulletin published so far and so actually it is 9% limit - country specific together.
But question is " what is the meaning of it?" and "How to read it?"
Now the tables what are published in bulletin and we smash our heads daily on them are meant for "Visa number availability" not for "Physical Green card orderering".
So numbers (28.6% divided by 5 per each preference-country) are meant for USCIS to process and assign visa numbers till that limit reached.
"7% + 2%" country specific limit is meant for "Sending Greencard /Ordering Greencard".
In simplest form, EB-I will have 8008 X 3 (Without spilied over) = 24024 applications assigned Visa number this year and out of that ( 9% X 140000 = 12600) lucky ones will get their physical green cards THIS YEAR. The rest will get their physical green cards next year though their files have been assigned numbers (Pre-adjudicated.) this year.
Above mentioned explanation is the real meaning of this bullshit.
calculating and interpreting 0.07 x 0.286 for particular country is a wrong concept and I know millions of us follow that in their analysis and arguments but that is completely wrong.
But question is " what is the meaning of it?" and "How to read it?"
Now the tables what are published in bulletin and we smash our heads daily on them are meant for "Visa number availability" not for "Physical Green card orderering".
So numbers (28.6% divided by 5 per each preference-country) are meant for USCIS to process and assign visa numbers till that limit reached.
"7% + 2%" country specific limit is meant for "Sending Greencard /Ordering Greencard".
In simplest form, EB-I will have 8008 X 3 (Without spilied over) = 24024 applications assigned Visa number this year and out of that ( 9% X 140000 = 12600) lucky ones will get their physical green cards THIS YEAR. The rest will get their physical green cards next year though their files have been assigned numbers (Pre-adjudicated.) this year.
Above mentioned explanation is the real meaning of this bullshit.
calculating and interpreting 0.07 x 0.286 for particular country is a wrong concept and I know millions of us follow that in their analysis and arguments but that is completely wrong.
