BlueSunD
02-27 12:12 AM
Well this is what I�ve got so far, still a lot of things missing or to be fixed :)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v55/BlueSunD/Maya/NeWmetro02.jpg
Sorry if it looks kind of blurry, but it�s just a preview render :) I would love to see how every body else is doing........... well, great I guess, but I�m just so curious! :D
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v55/BlueSunD/Maya/NeWmetro02.jpg
Sorry if it looks kind of blurry, but it�s just a preview render :) I would love to see how every body else is doing........... well, great I guess, but I�m just so curious! :D
wallpaper by bruna about Bianca Balti,
mirage
07-02 08:03 AM
I think you guys keep forgetting IV's success of getting it's amendments as brownback amendment in the CIR last fall. The beauty was the amendment was not even discussed or debated or voted by the senate as it was added by Sen. specter as manager's amendment. So don't make loose statements about IV.
srikondoji
12-27 09:13 AM
Hi all,
By the end of the day, i will post an article in two different websites. However, there is another idea, i want throw in here, which can bring much more publicity and coverage.
Did anybody hear the services of 'Press Release'? Iam sure few members here know about it.
Look here for more details http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=press+release
The cost will be in the range of $100 to $400 which includes article writeup and release of the news item to 100's of publishers and we can even choose the location/region where these publications can occur. It can include news papers and or web only releases. Most of such releases have got wide distribution including nytimes/washingtonpost, google news, yahoo news and other indian news papers.
Should we give this a try?
Thanks
By the end of the day, i will post an article in two different websites. However, there is another idea, i want throw in here, which can bring much more publicity and coverage.
Did anybody hear the services of 'Press Release'? Iam sure few members here know about it.
Look here for more details http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=press+release
The cost will be in the range of $100 to $400 which includes article writeup and release of the news item to 100's of publishers and we can even choose the location/region where these publications can occur. It can include news papers and or web only releases. Most of such releases have got wide distribution including nytimes/washingtonpost, google news, yahoo news and other indian news papers.
Should we give this a try?
Thanks
2011 Bianca Balti - Go Go Tales
newbee7
07-05 12:58 AM
"Although USCIS stated in its 2006 Annual Report Response (at p. 8) that it provides detailed data to DOS, the tri-agency group identified gaps in USCIS’ data. Through these discussions, the Ombudsman learned that accounting and processing methods differ at the Nebraska and Texas Service Centers (where USCIS processes employment-based petitions)."
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOMB_Annual%20Report_2007.pdf
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOMB_Annual%20Report_2007.pdf
more...
andy garcia
09-27 12:33 PM
You don't have to struggle in home country. You were born and raised there and I do not see a need to struggle.
And you are not struggling here also, you have come to pursue your dream, everyone here have jobs, we are just trying to fix a broken system here.
I have 2 European co-workers. They both told me, "The only way we will go back to Europe is when we die".
And you are not struggling here also, you have come to pursue your dream, everyone here have jobs, we are just trying to fix a broken system here.
I have 2 European co-workers. They both told me, "The only way we will go back to Europe is when we die".
grinch
02-26 02:54 PM
Hey guys!
I'm finally back from the beautiful Italy, and I'm ready to start getting back into the battle!
March 10th sounds pretty good, yet I just might need a couple days or so, depending on how my time goes.
and soulty, your not going to participate?! Aw hoe come man! I was looking forward to your entry!
I'm still working hard, almost done!
I'm finally back from the beautiful Italy, and I'm ready to start getting back into the battle!
March 10th sounds pretty good, yet I just might need a couple days or so, depending on how my time goes.
and soulty, your not going to participate?! Aw hoe come man! I was looking forward to your entry!
I'm still working hard, almost done!
more...
shivarajan
05-27 06:35 PM
It's absolutely true that few official documents they do not take color photocopy in many "office" shops (e.g vehicle title etc). May be the guy considered this too to be in that category. I have faced it myself on many occasions with different people.
Just b'cos something did not happen to us we can't abruptly come to conclusions :rolleyes:
Just b'cos something did not happen to us we can't abruptly come to conclusions :rolleyes:
2010 GQ US 2010 - Bianca Balti amp; Liu Wen amp; Angela Lindvall amp; Chatel Howard
sanju
02-19 02:58 PM
Looks like lots of >5 years people here. :D
It is my feeling that "Illegals>5 years" should not be preferred over "legals<5 years".
really? so you mean illegals are not humans? Or just because you are not in the category, you think only you deserve to live a "respectable" "decent" life, and others should wait in line until you are satisfied. That way of looking at things is exactly the way Citizens look at green cards, people will green card look at non-green holders, people with H1/L1 look at illegals. And that behavior or way of looking at others can described in one phrase - "I'm better than you." And when rules are changed, and we can no longer subscribe t that "false" notion of "I'm better than you.", you think there is something wrong with the bill.
What is wrong with the bill that gives everything that you want, and in addition to it, gives that "illegal alien" what he deserves, not on the grounds of a degree, which is merely a piece of paper, but on the grounds of how humans ought to treat other humans? This bill gives everything that legal skilled community wants, but idiots could not stop beating down on something being given to someone else. That's why the degree(S) that we have is nothing more than garbage, because even after acquiring these degrees, we have not acquired the KNOWLEDGE of how to treat others.
You do what you do and I do what I do.
One more thing, you can't do ANYTHING, other than coming to this anonymous forum and beating down the drum of righteousness, as if everything you have done is right, and others, who did no do the things the same way are somehow daemons. BULL.
.
It is my feeling that "Illegals>5 years" should not be preferred over "legals<5 years".
really? so you mean illegals are not humans? Or just because you are not in the category, you think only you deserve to live a "respectable" "decent" life, and others should wait in line until you are satisfied. That way of looking at things is exactly the way Citizens look at green cards, people will green card look at non-green holders, people with H1/L1 look at illegals. And that behavior or way of looking at others can described in one phrase - "I'm better than you." And when rules are changed, and we can no longer subscribe t that "false" notion of "I'm better than you.", you think there is something wrong with the bill.
What is wrong with the bill that gives everything that you want, and in addition to it, gives that "illegal alien" what he deserves, not on the grounds of a degree, which is merely a piece of paper, but on the grounds of how humans ought to treat other humans? This bill gives everything that legal skilled community wants, but idiots could not stop beating down on something being given to someone else. That's why the degree(S) that we have is nothing more than garbage, because even after acquiring these degrees, we have not acquired the KNOWLEDGE of how to treat others.
You do what you do and I do what I do.
One more thing, you can't do ANYTHING, other than coming to this anonymous forum and beating down the drum of righteousness, as if everything you have done is right, and others, who did no do the things the same way are somehow daemons. BULL.
.
more...
karan007
03-07 05:09 AM
I am in the same boat. Consulted 2 attorneys, both of them provided very different overview. As per one using AC21 was very easy, didn't require much paperwork from employer (letter of employment with job responsibilities). The other one suggested that the new employer needs to support the green card process & made it sound like serious work.
Another interesting note was, the attorney who mentioned it was easy, would have charged $500 for the process vs $2500 + expenses. So kind off figured that one has to justify charge $2,500, hence the additional paperwork, etc (scare factor).
I did some research over the web. Came to the conclusion that utilizing AC21 is pretty simple. I am moving forward with it and starting my new job in April.
Since this is a big decision, I would suggest that you get a second opinion
Good Luck...
Another interesting note was, the attorney who mentioned it was easy, would have charged $500 for the process vs $2500 + expenses. So kind off figured that one has to justify charge $2,500, hence the additional paperwork, etc (scare factor).
I did some research over the web. Came to the conclusion that utilizing AC21 is pretty simple. I am moving forward with it and starting my new job in April.
Since this is a big decision, I would suggest that you get a second opinion
Good Luck...
hair Bianca Balti and Lara
sandeepsriv
01-18 11:50 AM
I have just contributed $20 and although I have not signed up for recurring but I will try to contribute every month.
Sandeep
Sandeep
more...
techskill
08-15 02:33 PM
Nobody is waiting for it now.It is going to be 'U' for all.In fact i think everybody has forgotten about the visa bulletin. They are more worried about their checks being cashed and RDs.
hot Bianca Balti indian sari 3
abstractvision
03-19 01:15 PM
Question on AOS processing based on PD/RD - Currently, EB2 INDIA is Dec 03. Assuming May 08 VB goes to Jan 03 (EB2 INDIA) , will the EB2 INDIA AOS applications with Feb - Dec 03 PDs still get processed??
My understanding is that at the time of approval, priority date of the petition must be in accordance with current visa bulletin for visa number availability.
In short, in my opinion..the answer is NO
My understanding is that at the time of approval, priority date of the petition must be in accordance with current visa bulletin for visa number availability.
In short, in my opinion..the answer is NO
more...
house http://www.stylosophy.it/img/ianca-alti-. 17 loves
![bianca balti tim. Bianca Balti [model] - Page 8](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_v5bxIiD2zeE5wTRZTZN2lDve2dTWItkmQT2nQdAt7Etr6t7LqzYkIzeHYxd8MHpZ7uM0WmsFQP1OBiOddAdWbSF25CatfIQLUrr9Eg65sU_l3Po9EzHOmrUGTdIZ0a7wkdp1FR24BCjsgiXZ0=s0-d "Bianca Balti [model] - Page 8")
immigrant2007
02-19 12:20 PM
in case someone has already raised tis point then please pardon my ignorance.
Not sure if anyone came across this in the same bill, for all those who will benefit by 5 year cluse they will be beneift but at the same time they will be excluded from the annual numerical limitation quota that means PD dates moving rapidly for as early as all who were here on 20-FEB-2004 (if the bill is passed today which we all know wont happen). So I guess not bad in giving it a shot for raising support for it
BTW did anyone also looked at the exact text
"It is 5 year of continuous physical presence"
My question and doubt is how different is it from "5 year of legal presence v/s physical presence". People who didnt go to homeland for vacation are less than 10%.
Not sure if anyone came across this in the same bill, for all those who will benefit by 5 year cluse they will be beneift but at the same time they will be excluded from the annual numerical limitation quota that means PD dates moving rapidly for as early as all who were here on 20-FEB-2004 (if the bill is passed today which we all know wont happen). So I guess not bad in giving it a shot for raising support for it
BTW did anyone also looked at the exact text
"It is 5 year of continuous physical presence"
My question and doubt is how different is it from "5 year of legal presence v/s physical presence". People who didnt go to homeland for vacation are less than 10%.
tattoo Labels: Bianca Balti, Pictures
Berkeleybee
02-14 01:17 PM
Retrohatao,
Also want to tell you that as the CA team meets lawmakers we give them an informational packet that includes:
(1) Our presentation
(2) CIS Ombudsman's Report:
http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/CIS_AnnualReport_2005.pdf
(3) GAO Report on Backlogs at USCIS
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0620.pdf
(4) Exec Summary of NAS Rising Above a Gathering Storm
http://fermat.nap.edu/catalog/11463.html
(5) How Visa Date Cutoffs Are Established from July 2000 Bulletin
http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/visa_bulletin/2000-07bulletin.html
Number (3), the GAO report describes the security check problem in tremendous detail. We give this report to lawmakers to remind them of the farcical nature of the security check problem. Note also that the CIS Ombudsman's report also includes critical commentary on the security check problem.
To reiterate, we are committed to removing ALL the hurdles in the process, not pick and choose between them.
best,
Berkeleybee
Also want to tell you that as the CA team meets lawmakers we give them an informational packet that includes:
(1) Our presentation
(2) CIS Ombudsman's Report:
http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/CIS_AnnualReport_2005.pdf
(3) GAO Report on Backlogs at USCIS
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0620.pdf
(4) Exec Summary of NAS Rising Above a Gathering Storm
http://fermat.nap.edu/catalog/11463.html
(5) How Visa Date Cutoffs Are Established from July 2000 Bulletin
http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/visa_bulletin/2000-07bulletin.html
Number (3), the GAO report describes the security check problem in tremendous detail. We give this report to lawmakers to remind them of the farcical nature of the security check problem. Note also that the CIS Ombudsman's report also includes critical commentary on the security check problem.
To reiterate, we are committed to removing ALL the hurdles in the process, not pick and choose between them.
best,
Berkeleybee
more...
pictures Bianca Balti: lo stile di una
ksvreg
06-10 01:45 PM
best bet is eb3 to eb2 conversion in addition to advocacy efforts?
dresses Bianca Balti quot;Natural Beautyquot; for Vanity Fair Italy March 2011 by Signe
GCard_Dream
12-13 10:06 AM
I am all for making contribution as well as sending faxes or personal letters. Count me in.
No responses yet ...Oh come on guys ...YOU want to pay $10 now or want to wait for 10 years to get your GREEN CARD ???
No responses yet ...Oh come on guys ...YOU want to pay $10 now or want to wait for 10 years to get your GREEN CARD ???
more...
makeup ianca balti tim : Terribilia
gauravsh
03-09 06:45 PM
Quick question guys :- My PD is feb 2008 and I140 was approved in july 08.
I also want to call my congessman, can you please tell what are the things you talk to them?
A brief guidance will help many others like me to make a call.
~
I also want to call my congessman, can you please tell what are the things you talk to them?
A brief guidance will help many others like me to make a call.
~
girlfriend Tim arriva Bianca Balti
panvel123
09-11 11:31 AM
HR 5882 was approved by sub-committee last month and is currently awaiting markup by house judiciary committee, once the markup is done it may be sent to the floor of congress for debate and vote
hairstyles bellissima Bianca Balti:
rajuseattle
07-14 07:14 PM
ajthakur,
U r covered under AC-21 if I-140 is not revoked by your previous employer.
Be truthful to USCIS and using a very good attorney firm drat AC-21 and Employment verification letter to USCIS. Since your PD is current chances are after reviewing the new employment letter USCIS might approve your case.
Please dont waste time in on this forum, instead spend some money to consult Rajeev Khanna or Sheela Murthy, it is worth spending every penny on the advice and their services for invoking AC-21.
Per your RFE notice it looks like, USCIS is only interested in verifying your current employment in the similar profession. good employment verification letter and AC-21 draft is good to save your GC.
RFE might have triggered due to previous H1B transfer, it has nothing to do with your employer revoking I-140. Trust me lot of desi consulting companies dont want to take any "Panga" with USCIS and 99% of the time they just ignore employees leaving them. So dont worry, dial in Murthy or Khanna consulting services and see what's their take on your case. If you are getting any help from new Employer's attorney that will be free of cost to you.
Bottomline you need a competent attorney for answering this RFE and invoking AC-21.
U r covered under AC-21 if I-140 is not revoked by your previous employer.
Be truthful to USCIS and using a very good attorney firm drat AC-21 and Employment verification letter to USCIS. Since your PD is current chances are after reviewing the new employment letter USCIS might approve your case.
Please dont waste time in on this forum, instead spend some money to consult Rajeev Khanna or Sheela Murthy, it is worth spending every penny on the advice and their services for invoking AC-21.
Per your RFE notice it looks like, USCIS is only interested in verifying your current employment in the similar profession. good employment verification letter and AC-21 draft is good to save your GC.
RFE might have triggered due to previous H1B transfer, it has nothing to do with your employer revoking I-140. Trust me lot of desi consulting companies dont want to take any "Panga" with USCIS and 99% of the time they just ignore employees leaving them. So dont worry, dial in Murthy or Khanna consulting services and see what's their take on your case. If you are getting any help from new Employer's attorney that will be free of cost to you.
Bottomline you need a competent attorney for answering this RFE and invoking AC-21.
snathan
07-28 08:38 PM
Guys,
Hope this thread will be useful for somebody who is looking for american company for green card processing. They wont get into the trap. So I am giving out the information from the known source(friends).
Company1: Deloitte
Company2: Chase
These two companies promised doing green card cards,they filed h1s, but did not file green card.Whatever reason (bad economy) may be, they did not sponsor green cards for those they promised to do. So be careful. It is not gaurantee.
Also, you can list the companies you know whoever promised, but did not file.
A sure invitation for defamation suit. Good luck.
Hope this thread will be useful for somebody who is looking for american company for green card processing. They wont get into the trap. So I am giving out the information from the known source(friends).
Company1: Deloitte
Company2: Chase
These two companies promised doing green card cards,they filed h1s, but did not file green card.Whatever reason (bad economy) may be, they did not sponsor green cards for those they promised to do. So be careful. It is not gaurantee.
Also, you can list the companies you know whoever promised, but did not file.
A sure invitation for defamation suit. Good luck.
McLuvin
03-12 01:55 PM
finally the bulletin has been posted in the DOS website...
Visa Bulletin for April 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4747.html)
They have given a brief description about "BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS"
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, a significant amount of demand is received each month for applicants who have priority dates which are significantly earlier than the applicable cut-off dates. In addition, fluctuations in demand can cause cut-off date movement to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7% is a cap which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed. Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled, however.
Applicability of Section 202(a)(5): INA Section 202(a)(5), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, removed the per-country limit on Employment-based immigrants in any calendar quarter in which applicant demand for numbers in one or more Employment-based preferences is less than the total of such numbers available. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5) has allowed countries such as China � mainland born and India to utilize large amounts of Employment First and Second preference numbers which would have otherwise gone unused. Such numbers are provided strictly in priority date order without regard to the foreign state chargeability, and the same cut-off date applies to any country benefiting from this provision.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by documentarily qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation, that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may require the establishment of an earlier cut-off date than that which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
Furthermore, Section 202(a)(2) reads, �2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed seven percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or two percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.� The seven percent per-country limit specified in INA 202(a)(2) is considered to be for both Family-sponsored and Employment-based numbers combined.
Allocation of visa numbers under Section 202(e) is accomplished as follows:
If based on historical patterns or current demand it appears that during a fiscal year number use by aliens chargeable to a particular country will exceed the per-country numerical limit for both the Family and Employment preferences combined, that country would be considered oversubscribed. Both the Family and Employment preferences would be subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1).
Sometimes during a fiscal year it may become apparent that because of a lack of demand in the Family preferences, number use by aliens chargeable to an oversubscribed country will be well within the per-country numerical limit. In such case the excess Family numbers would be made available to the Employment preferences subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1). Each of the first three Employment categories would receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and each of the Fourth and Fifth preference categories 7.1%. (Fall-across would likewise apply if an oversubscribed country lacked sufficient demand in the Employment preferences but had excess demand in the Family preferences.)
If a foreign state other than an oversubscribed country has little Family preference demand but considerable Employment preference demand, the otherwise unused Family numbers fall across to Employment (and vice versa) for purposes of that foreign state�s annual numerical limit. For example, in FY-2009 South Korea used a grand total of 15,899 Family and Employment preference numbers, of which 1,688 were Family numbers and 14,211 were Employment numbers. This grand total was well within the FY-2009 per-country numerical limit of 25,620 Family and Employment numbers combined, so South Korea was not oversubscribed. The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.
Visa Bulletin for April 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4747.html)
They have given a brief description about "BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS"
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, a significant amount of demand is received each month for applicants who have priority dates which are significantly earlier than the applicable cut-off dates. In addition, fluctuations in demand can cause cut-off date movement to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7% is a cap which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed. Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled, however.
Applicability of Section 202(a)(5): INA Section 202(a)(5), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, removed the per-country limit on Employment-based immigrants in any calendar quarter in which applicant demand for numbers in one or more Employment-based preferences is less than the total of such numbers available. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5) has allowed countries such as China � mainland born and India to utilize large amounts of Employment First and Second preference numbers which would have otherwise gone unused. Such numbers are provided strictly in priority date order without regard to the foreign state chargeability, and the same cut-off date applies to any country benefiting from this provision.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by documentarily qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation, that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may require the establishment of an earlier cut-off date than that which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
Furthermore, Section 202(a)(2) reads, �2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed seven percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or two percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.� The seven percent per-country limit specified in INA 202(a)(2) is considered to be for both Family-sponsored and Employment-based numbers combined.
Allocation of visa numbers under Section 202(e) is accomplished as follows:
If based on historical patterns or current demand it appears that during a fiscal year number use by aliens chargeable to a particular country will exceed the per-country numerical limit for both the Family and Employment preferences combined, that country would be considered oversubscribed. Both the Family and Employment preferences would be subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1).
Sometimes during a fiscal year it may become apparent that because of a lack of demand in the Family preferences, number use by aliens chargeable to an oversubscribed country will be well within the per-country numerical limit. In such case the excess Family numbers would be made available to the Employment preferences subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1). Each of the first three Employment categories would receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and each of the Fourth and Fifth preference categories 7.1%. (Fall-across would likewise apply if an oversubscribed country lacked sufficient demand in the Employment preferences but had excess demand in the Family preferences.)
If a foreign state other than an oversubscribed country has little Family preference demand but considerable Employment preference demand, the otherwise unused Family numbers fall across to Employment (and vice versa) for purposes of that foreign state�s annual numerical limit. For example, in FY-2009 South Korea used a grand total of 15,899 Family and Employment preference numbers, of which 1,688 were Family numbers and 14,211 were Employment numbers. This grand total was well within the FY-2009 per-country numerical limit of 25,620 Family and Employment numbers combined, so South Korea was not oversubscribed. The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.
No comments:
Post a Comment