mallu
01-26 01:25 PM
It really is amazing how much hot air has been generated on this thread over a well established transit visa requirement.
The reason transit visas are required in the UK is that many passengers with an intention to transit the UK have stayed. The transit visa was introduced as a way of making sure (as much as possible) that the passenger has the intention and the ability to transit the UK and to enter a third country.
The list of nationals that are required to have a visa to transit the UK represents a list of countries where there has been a particular problem with over stayers. It is not race based, but merely an effort to target the problem.
It really does not matter what anyone thinks about the transit visa requirement because it is UK law. Everyone has a choice whether or not to transit the UK. Going back to the original post, to book a ticket without researching visa requirements and then trying to deflect personal responsibility by blaming the visa requirement is ridiculous.
If one doesn't like transit policy of a country, just avoid that transit point, rather than putting curse on that country ( or try changing the policy of that country through democratic means, if one can ).
The reason transit visas are required in the UK is that many passengers with an intention to transit the UK have stayed. The transit visa was introduced as a way of making sure (as much as possible) that the passenger has the intention and the ability to transit the UK and to enter a third country.
The list of nationals that are required to have a visa to transit the UK represents a list of countries where there has been a particular problem with over stayers. It is not race based, but merely an effort to target the problem.
It really does not matter what anyone thinks about the transit visa requirement because it is UK law. Everyone has a choice whether or not to transit the UK. Going back to the original post, to book a ticket without researching visa requirements and then trying to deflect personal responsibility by blaming the visa requirement is ridiculous.
If one doesn't like transit policy of a country, just avoid that transit point, rather than putting curse on that country ( or try changing the policy of that country through democratic means, if one can ).
wallpaper %IMG_DESC_1%
eb_retrogession
02-03 09:20 AM
Prez Mr. Bush visiting Intel Corporation today!!!!
sundarpn
01-03 12:29 AM
pl. keep this updated. thx
2011 %IMG_DESC_2%
kumarc123
01-09 03:20 PM
I am surprised to see this thread active this long. Earlier I have with help of Saralayar and other members have bring this point to attention. But at that time no one was supporting Idea.
I see increasing support for the Idea as GC journey become longer and longer.
Earlier I have pointed following points that I want to bring to remind if we want to get real support for this idea of early CITIZENSHIP AFTER GREEN CARD
(1) I-140 and I-485 must be approved.
(@) Time should be considered only after getting GC
(3) For getting closer for political support our proposal should be close to Existing laws for FAMILY BASED and MARRIAGE BASED CITIZENSHIPS
So we should argur that if YOU HAVE MASTER AND ABOVE IN STEM FILEDS YOu can get CITIZEN SHIP 5 yrs from date of Approval of I-140 ( which make it closer to fmaily based) and THREE YEARS from Date of Approval of I-485 (closer to marriage based citizens). You can get earlier of two . But when you get Citizenship your I-485 must be approved for ATLEAST 1 year.
The above requirements can get closer to Marriage and family based and also help 90% of IV members.
Adding the clause for the EDUCATIONAL THING might be able to get more political support also
Thanks
Thanks for all your input, but I have one question you specified citizenship for immigrants with approved I40 & 485, but how about the poeple like me, who have I40 approved, OD 2007 , could not apply for for 485 because case was stuck in labor process?
I value your input, but my 2 cents lets not mix t0o many spices in the dish or the dish will be tasteless,
The point is lets stick with recapture of visas. One smart effort is better than 100 efforts, lets not confuse them with all that we want, we want only one thing, escape from misery of wait for a green card.
Thank you
I see increasing support for the Idea as GC journey become longer and longer.
Earlier I have pointed following points that I want to bring to remind if we want to get real support for this idea of early CITIZENSHIP AFTER GREEN CARD
(1) I-140 and I-485 must be approved.
(@) Time should be considered only after getting GC
(3) For getting closer for political support our proposal should be close to Existing laws for FAMILY BASED and MARRIAGE BASED CITIZENSHIPS
So we should argur that if YOU HAVE MASTER AND ABOVE IN STEM FILEDS YOu can get CITIZEN SHIP 5 yrs from date of Approval of I-140 ( which make it closer to fmaily based) and THREE YEARS from Date of Approval of I-485 (closer to marriage based citizens). You can get earlier of two . But when you get Citizenship your I-485 must be approved for ATLEAST 1 year.
The above requirements can get closer to Marriage and family based and also help 90% of IV members.
Adding the clause for the EDUCATIONAL THING might be able to get more political support also
Thanks
Thanks for all your input, but I have one question you specified citizenship for immigrants with approved I40 & 485, but how about the poeple like me, who have I40 approved, OD 2007 , could not apply for for 485 because case was stuck in labor process?
I value your input, but my 2 cents lets not mix t0o many spices in the dish or the dish will be tasteless,
The point is lets stick with recapture of visas. One smart effort is better than 100 efforts, lets not confuse them with all that we want, we want only one thing, escape from misery of wait for a green card.
Thank you
more...
murugesh.naidu@gmail.com
08-27 01:11 PM
I called vonage cs too...she confirmed the 5k limit exists for residential vonage world program. Minutes are counted only against outgoing calls. 5000 min is approximately ~ 2.6 hours per day for 31 days which I think should be sufficient, unless you are running some kind of a business from home.
In a case the 5k limit is nearing or has exceeded, vonage will send an email alerting us to this, at which point we will need to talk to their usage management team. This team will evaluate the situation for us - mostly that translates to this - if we exceed this again, they may make us get the next higher premium plan.
Hope this helps..!
In a case the 5k limit is nearing or has exceeded, vonage will send an email alerting us to this, at which point we will need to talk to their usage management team. This team will evaluate the situation for us - mostly that translates to this - if we exceed this again, they may make us get the next higher premium plan.
Hope this helps..!
rahulsharma73
07-10 08:41 PM
Hi Guys,
I sent the flowers on the address suggested bu some links on some websites but USCIS is not accepting if exact suite number is not mentioned on the address. I called their office and asked for the addtress for Emilio Gonzalez but they did not give suite#. But they mentioned that he is on 5th Floor.
Please use the following address:
Emilio T. Gonzalez
5th Floor
20 Massachusetts Avenue Northwest
Washington D.C. 20529
I know it will cost some money but please have faith on this campaign and keep sending the flowers. It will definitely create a big wave. This is the only way you can get some media recognition otherwsie no one other than us gain anything from it. Politicians are not intersted in talking about it. For media whole DOS / USCIS hoax is not worth covering as it will not get attention from americans. But by participating in the campaign will really get some attention.
Let's help ourselves by sending flowers!
Regards,
Rahul
I sent the flowers on the address suggested bu some links on some websites but USCIS is not accepting if exact suite number is not mentioned on the address. I called their office and asked for the addtress for Emilio Gonzalez but they did not give suite#. But they mentioned that he is on 5th Floor.
Please use the following address:
Emilio T. Gonzalez
5th Floor
20 Massachusetts Avenue Northwest
Washington D.C. 20529
I know it will cost some money but please have faith on this campaign and keep sending the flowers. It will definitely create a big wave. This is the only way you can get some media recognition otherwsie no one other than us gain anything from it. Politicians are not intersted in talking about it. For media whole DOS / USCIS hoax is not worth covering as it will not get attention from americans. But by participating in the campaign will really get some attention.
Let's help ourselves by sending flowers!
Regards,
Rahul
more...
waitforevergc
05-09 09:20 PM
Guys..cool down..
Let us not give people like 'Hunter' too much weightage.
Ignore trolls.
Posters like Hunter get some sort of sadistic pleasure bashing India and Indians.
Let us ignore them.
And mods, please block such posters like Hunter in future. Such a waste of space.
Let us not give people like 'Hunter' too much weightage.
Ignore trolls.
Posters like Hunter get some sort of sadistic pleasure bashing India and Indians.
Let us ignore them.
And mods, please block such posters like Hunter in future. Such a waste of space.
2010 %IMG_DESC_3%
InTheMoment
08-04 09:21 PM
Very relevant info regarding FBI namecheck:
http://immigrationportal.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=16343&d=1179435102
Relevant part below:
Testimony of Michael Cannon,
Section Chief
National Name Check Program Section
Records Management Division
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
Feb 9th, 2006, US District Court
Southern District of Florida
(1) 1 am currently the Section Chief of the National Name Check Program Section ("NNCPS"), formerly pa rt of the Record/Information Dissemination Section ("RIDS"), Records Management Division ("RMD"), at the Federal Bureau of Investigation Headqua rters ("FBIHQ")
in Washington , D.C. I have held this position since March 7, 2005 . This declaration supplements my January 30, 2006 declaration previously submitted in this ma tter and is intended to provide further information in accordance with the order issued in the above captioned case
on February 9, 2006 by the Honorable United States Dist rict Judge Ursula Ungaro-Henagcs .
(2) This Honorable Court is seeking additional information on the FBI' s name check process, including the amount of time, on average, required to complete a name check requiring a secondary manual search; the average time required to retrieve and review an FBI record for
possible derogatory information ; and why it took three years to complete the plaintiffs name check.
(3) The amount of time, on average , required to complete a name check requiring a secondary manual search varies from case to case. Because there is a backlog of cases currently pending, it is difficult to compute an overall average. As mentioned in my January 30, 2006
declaration, approximately 68% of the name checks submitted by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) are electronically returned to USCIS Headquarters as having "No Record" within 48 hours, with a secondary manual search usually identifying an additional 22% of the requests as having a "No Record," for an overall 90% "No Record " response rate . The additional 22% identified as having a "No Record" are returned to USCIS Headquarters within 30 - 60 days of the date of their original submission. As mentioned in my
January 30, 2006 declaration, the remaining 10% are identified as possibly being the subject of an FBI record, which requires the retrieval and review of the record .
(4) Many times, the delay associated with the processing of the remaining 10% is not so much the actual time it takes to process a name check, but the time it takes for an analyst to get to the name check request in order to process it. This is due to the constant volume of name
checks submitted by USCIS, in addition to the FBI's other customers, combined with the FBI's current work on processing the residual name checks from the 2 .7 million name check requests submitted by USCIS in November 2002, as compared to the National Name Check Program's
(NNCP's) limited resources. So far this fiscal year, the NNCP has received a total average of over 62,400 name checks per week, with over 27,700 coming from USCIS on a weekly basis .
(5) The average time required to retrieve and review an FBI record for possible derogatory information is case specific, it depends on the number of files an analyst must obtain (which is dictated by the number of "hits" on a name), the location and availability of those files, and the amount of information contained in a file . If a file is located at the Alexandria Records Center located in Alexandria, Virginia, an analyst will be able to obtain a file within a matter of days . If a file is located in a field office or other FBI location, the applicable information must be requested from that location. 'here are over 265 different FBI locations that could house information pertinent to a name check request, If a file is electronically available, an analyst will have immediate access to a file. Additionally, once an analyst receives the file, or the pertinent information contained in a file, the analyst must review it for possible derogatory information . The length of time this takes depends on the amount of information in a file and its complexity.
(6)The name check request for the plaintiff Maria Trujillos was submitted by USCIS 28 on March 25, 2003 . The timing was such that the submission of the plaintiffs name check request immediately followed the submission of the 2 .7 million names resubmitted by USCIS November 2002 , which unfortunately delayed NNCP' s ability to immediately address the plaintiffs name check request. Plaintiffs name check could not be immediately addressed because the submission of the 2.7 million name checks further depleted NNCP's ability to quickly address its current workload at that time , in addition to hindering NNCP's ability to address future submissions, which included the plaintiff s name check . This, combined with the factors outlined in paragraphs (3) - (5) above, contributed to the time it took to complete the plaintiffs name check .
http://immigrationportal.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=16343&d=1179435102
Relevant part below:
Testimony of Michael Cannon,
Section Chief
National Name Check Program Section
Records Management Division
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
Feb 9th, 2006, US District Court
Southern District of Florida
(1) 1 am currently the Section Chief of the National Name Check Program Section ("NNCPS"), formerly pa rt of the Record/Information Dissemination Section ("RIDS"), Records Management Division ("RMD"), at the Federal Bureau of Investigation Headqua rters ("FBIHQ")
in Washington , D.C. I have held this position since March 7, 2005 . This declaration supplements my January 30, 2006 declaration previously submitted in this ma tter and is intended to provide further information in accordance with the order issued in the above captioned case
on February 9, 2006 by the Honorable United States Dist rict Judge Ursula Ungaro-Henagcs .
(2) This Honorable Court is seeking additional information on the FBI' s name check process, including the amount of time, on average, required to complete a name check requiring a secondary manual search; the average time required to retrieve and review an FBI record for
possible derogatory information ; and why it took three years to complete the plaintiffs name check.
(3) The amount of time, on average , required to complete a name check requiring a secondary manual search varies from case to case. Because there is a backlog of cases currently pending, it is difficult to compute an overall average. As mentioned in my January 30, 2006
declaration, approximately 68% of the name checks submitted by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) are electronically returned to USCIS Headquarters as having "No Record" within 48 hours, with a secondary manual search usually identifying an additional 22% of the requests as having a "No Record," for an overall 90% "No Record " response rate . The additional 22% identified as having a "No Record" are returned to USCIS Headquarters within 30 - 60 days of the date of their original submission. As mentioned in my
January 30, 2006 declaration, the remaining 10% are identified as possibly being the subject of an FBI record, which requires the retrieval and review of the record .
(4) Many times, the delay associated with the processing of the remaining 10% is not so much the actual time it takes to process a name check, but the time it takes for an analyst to get to the name check request in order to process it. This is due to the constant volume of name
checks submitted by USCIS, in addition to the FBI's other customers, combined with the FBI's current work on processing the residual name checks from the 2 .7 million name check requests submitted by USCIS in November 2002, as compared to the National Name Check Program's
(NNCP's) limited resources. So far this fiscal year, the NNCP has received a total average of over 62,400 name checks per week, with over 27,700 coming from USCIS on a weekly basis .
(5) The average time required to retrieve and review an FBI record for possible derogatory information is case specific, it depends on the number of files an analyst must obtain (which is dictated by the number of "hits" on a name), the location and availability of those files, and the amount of information contained in a file . If a file is located at the Alexandria Records Center located in Alexandria, Virginia, an analyst will be able to obtain a file within a matter of days . If a file is located in a field office or other FBI location, the applicable information must be requested from that location. 'here are over 265 different FBI locations that could house information pertinent to a name check request, If a file is electronically available, an analyst will have immediate access to a file. Additionally, once an analyst receives the file, or the pertinent information contained in a file, the analyst must review it for possible derogatory information . The length of time this takes depends on the amount of information in a file and its complexity.
(6)The name check request for the plaintiff Maria Trujillos was submitted by USCIS 28 on March 25, 2003 . The timing was such that the submission of the plaintiffs name check request immediately followed the submission of the 2 .7 million names resubmitted by USCIS November 2002 , which unfortunately delayed NNCP' s ability to immediately address the plaintiffs name check request. Plaintiffs name check could not be immediately addressed because the submission of the 2.7 million name checks further depleted NNCP's ability to quickly address its current workload at that time , in addition to hindering NNCP's ability to address future submissions, which included the plaintiff s name check . This, combined with the factors outlined in paragraphs (3) - (5) above, contributed to the time it took to complete the plaintiffs name check .
more...
vin13
09-24 03:24 PM
Good Job by 'BharatPremi' on the analysis.
I believe it is horizontal spillover and not vertical spillover. I think it makes a huge difference for EB-2 on how the spillover is calculated.
Its a great start to analyze with some numbers rather than the predictions based on wish.
I believe it is horizontal spillover and not vertical spillover. I think it makes a huge difference for EB-2 on how the spillover is calculated.
Its a great start to analyze with some numbers rather than the predictions based on wish.
hair %IMG_DESC_4%
skd
07-09 06:39 PM
This is perfect. It will drag more media attention!!!
He will get credit for all these flowers, and we will soung stupid that we just care obout our-slves but USCIS cares abou veterans.
USCIS people...trying to make fun of our misery
He will get credit for all these flowers, and we will soung stupid that we just care obout our-slves but USCIS cares abou veterans.
USCIS people...trying to make fun of our misery
more...
imh1b
11-18 03:08 PM
Calling India will be super cheap now.
Google Voice Blog: Google welcomes Gizmo5 (http://googlevoiceblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/google-welcomes-gizmo5.html)
Google welcomes Gizmo5
Thursday, November 12, 2009 | 2:30 PM
Today we're pleased to announce we've acquired Gizmo5, a company that provides Internet-based calling software for mobile phones and computers. While we don't have any specific features to announce right now, Gizmo5's engineers will be joining the Google Voice team to continue improving the Google Voice and Gizmo5 experience. Current Gizmo5 users will still be able to use the service, though we will be suspending new signups for the time being, and existing users will no longer be able to sign up for a call-in number.
We've acquired a number of small companies over the past five years, and the people and technology that have come to Google from other places have contributed in many ways, large and small, to all kinds of Google products. Since the GrandCentral team joined Google in 2007, they've done incredible things with Google's technology and resources to launch and improve Google Voice.
We welcome the Gizmo5 team to Google and look forward to working together to bringing more useful features to Google Voice.
Google Voice Blog: Google welcomes Gizmo5 (http://googlevoiceblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/google-welcomes-gizmo5.html)
Google welcomes Gizmo5
Thursday, November 12, 2009 | 2:30 PM
Today we're pleased to announce we've acquired Gizmo5, a company that provides Internet-based calling software for mobile phones and computers. While we don't have any specific features to announce right now, Gizmo5's engineers will be joining the Google Voice team to continue improving the Google Voice and Gizmo5 experience. Current Gizmo5 users will still be able to use the service, though we will be suspending new signups for the time being, and existing users will no longer be able to sign up for a call-in number.
We've acquired a number of small companies over the past five years, and the people and technology that have come to Google from other places have contributed in many ways, large and small, to all kinds of Google products. Since the GrandCentral team joined Google in 2007, they've done incredible things with Google's technology and resources to launch and improve Google Voice.
We welcome the Gizmo5 team to Google and look forward to working together to bringing more useful features to Google Voice.
hot %IMG_DESC_5%
dskhabra
09-24 12:19 PM
28.6%/5 = 5.72% for EB3-India + Spillover from EB2 and EB1, not more than 10,000 of which to "Other Workers".
28.6%/5 = 5.72% for EB2-India + spillover from EB1
28.6%/5 = 5.72% for EB1-India + spillover from EB4 and EB5
Each category is 28.6% WW Quota.
WW Quota consists of 5 country specific sub-quotas 1)India 2)China 3) Mexico 4) Philipines 5)ROW.
Based on page 1, I do math as under for Philippines categories.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota for EB4 -->7% x 140000/5=1960, Pending: 70 Quota to be spilled over to EB1= 1890
2) Quota for EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 0 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1960
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 1890 + EB5 spillover 1960 = 11858 - pending 74 = Total
11784 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 11784 =19792, Pending: 510, So total 19282 VISA numbers will be spilled
over to EB3.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 19282 spill over =27290 - 11563 Pending = 15727 VISA extra.
6) “Other Workers” – Pending: 264 TOTAL UNUSED VISAS = 15727-264 = 15463 UNUSED VISAS will go to the quota
of other countries.
Based on page 3, I do math as under for ROW categories.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota for EB4 -->7% x 140000/5=1960, Pending: 1378 Quota to be spilled over to EB1= 582
2) Quota for EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 40 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1920
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 582 + EB5 spillover 1920 = 10510 - pending 2477 = Total
8033 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 8033 =16031, Pending: 7150, So total 8881 VISA numbers will be spilled
over to EB3.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 8881 spill over =16889. Pending: 62840 -16889 = 45951 applications will
still be pending and pushed to year 2011.
Based on page 4, I do math as under for China categories.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota For EB4 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 384 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1576
2) Quota For EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 13 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1947
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 1576 + EB5 spillover 1947 = 11531 - pending 607 =
Total 10924 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 10924 =18932, Pending: 19333, So total 401 applications will be pushed to
year 2011 with pending approval.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + no spillover = 8008 – 6343 Pending = 1665 visas Extra.
6) “Other Workers” – Pending: 30 TOTAL UNUSED VISAS = 1665-30 = 1635 UNUSED VISAS will go to the quota
of other countries.
Based on page 5, I do math as under for India categories.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota for EB4 -->7% x 140000/5=1960, Pending: 123 Quota to be spilled over to EB1= 1960-123 = 1837
2) Quota for EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 13 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1960-13 = 1947
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 1837 + EB5 spillover 1947 = 11792 - pending 418 = Total
11374 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 11374 =19382, Pending: 47728, So total 28346 applications will still be
pending for year 2011.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008, no spill over. Pending: 62607 -8008 = 54599 applications will still be pending
and pushed to year 2011.
Based on page 6, I do math as under for Mexico categories.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota For EB4 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 62 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1960-62=1898
2) Quota For EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 0 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1960
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 1898 + EB5 spillover 1960 = 11866 - pending 174 =
Total 11692 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 11692 =19700, Pending: 211, So total 19489 applications will spill over to
EB3 category.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 19489 spillover = 27497 – 7878 Pending = 19619 visas Extra.
6) “Other Workers” – Pending: 8415 TOTAL UNUSED VISAS = 19619-8415 = 11204 UNUSED VISAS will go to the quota
of other countries.
TOTAL UNUSED VISAS = 15463 + 1635 + 11204 = 28302.
Assuming these unused visas from Philippines, China and Mexico will be used for India, ROW equally India will benefit additional 14151 VISAS this year. Assuming all of these go to EB2 India Pushed down figure for EB2-India for the year 2011 will be 28346 – 14151 = 14195 pending EB2-I applications ready to go to year 2011.
One point, as we are seeing horizontal spill over for the last couple of years...so numbers unused in EB2 ROW will go to EB2 I and EB2 C not to EB3 ROW
So in your calculation ALL EB2 ROW/Philippines/Mexico unused VISA numbers should be spilled over to EB2I and EB2C not to EB3 ROW/Philippines/Mexico.
28.6%/5 = 5.72% for EB2-India + spillover from EB1
28.6%/5 = 5.72% for EB1-India + spillover from EB4 and EB5
Each category is 28.6% WW Quota.
WW Quota consists of 5 country specific sub-quotas 1)India 2)China 3) Mexico 4) Philipines 5)ROW.
Based on page 1, I do math as under for Philippines categories.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota for EB4 -->7% x 140000/5=1960, Pending: 70 Quota to be spilled over to EB1= 1890
2) Quota for EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 0 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1960
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 1890 + EB5 spillover 1960 = 11858 - pending 74 = Total
11784 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 11784 =19792, Pending: 510, So total 19282 VISA numbers will be spilled
over to EB3.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 19282 spill over =27290 - 11563 Pending = 15727 VISA extra.
6) “Other Workers” – Pending: 264 TOTAL UNUSED VISAS = 15727-264 = 15463 UNUSED VISAS will go to the quota
of other countries.
Based on page 3, I do math as under for ROW categories.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota for EB4 -->7% x 140000/5=1960, Pending: 1378 Quota to be spilled over to EB1= 582
2) Quota for EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 40 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1920
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 582 + EB5 spillover 1920 = 10510 - pending 2477 = Total
8033 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 8033 =16031, Pending: 7150, So total 8881 VISA numbers will be spilled
over to EB3.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 8881 spill over =16889. Pending: 62840 -16889 = 45951 applications will
still be pending and pushed to year 2011.
Based on page 4, I do math as under for China categories.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota For EB4 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 384 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1576
2) Quota For EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 13 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1947
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 1576 + EB5 spillover 1947 = 11531 - pending 607 =
Total 10924 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 10924 =18932, Pending: 19333, So total 401 applications will be pushed to
year 2011 with pending approval.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + no spillover = 8008 – 6343 Pending = 1665 visas Extra.
6) “Other Workers” – Pending: 30 TOTAL UNUSED VISAS = 1665-30 = 1635 UNUSED VISAS will go to the quota
of other countries.
Based on page 5, I do math as under for India categories.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota for EB4 -->7% x 140000/5=1960, Pending: 123 Quota to be spilled over to EB1= 1960-123 = 1837
2) Quota for EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 13 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1960-13 = 1947
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 1837 + EB5 spillover 1947 = 11792 - pending 418 = Total
11374 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 11374 =19382, Pending: 47728, So total 28346 applications will still be
pending for year 2011.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008, no spill over. Pending: 62607 -8008 = 54599 applications will still be pending
and pushed to year 2011.
Based on page 6, I do math as under for Mexico categories.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota For EB4 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 62 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1960-62=1898
2) Quota For EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 0 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1960
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 1898 + EB5 spillover 1960 = 11866 - pending 174 =
Total 11692 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 11692 =19700, Pending: 211, So total 19489 applications will spill over to
EB3 category.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 19489 spillover = 27497 – 7878 Pending = 19619 visas Extra.
6) “Other Workers” – Pending: 8415 TOTAL UNUSED VISAS = 19619-8415 = 11204 UNUSED VISAS will go to the quota
of other countries.
TOTAL UNUSED VISAS = 15463 + 1635 + 11204 = 28302.
Assuming these unused visas from Philippines, China and Mexico will be used for India, ROW equally India will benefit additional 14151 VISAS this year. Assuming all of these go to EB2 India Pushed down figure for EB2-India for the year 2011 will be 28346 – 14151 = 14195 pending EB2-I applications ready to go to year 2011.
One point, as we are seeing horizontal spill over for the last couple of years...so numbers unused in EB2 ROW will go to EB2 I and EB2 C not to EB3 ROW
So in your calculation ALL EB2 ROW/Philippines/Mexico unused VISA numbers should be spilled over to EB2I and EB2C not to EB3 ROW/Philippines/Mexico.
more...
house %IMG_DESC_17%
bikram_das_in
09-23 11:02 PM
Has anybody calculated how many spill over visa numbers will available from 2009?
tattoo %IMG_DESC_6%
JaiHo
09-24 02:59 PM
I am not considering any spill over etc...
here is what says on visa bulletin
Visa Bulletin October 2009 (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4575.html)
The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000.
EMPLOYMENT-BASED PREFERENCES
First: Priority Workers: 28.6% of the worldwide employment-based preference level, plus any numbers not required for fourth and fifth preferences.
Second: Members of the Professions Holding Advanced Degrees or Persons of Exceptional Ability: 28.6% of the worldwide employment-based preference level, plus any numbers not required by first preference.
Third: Skilled Workers, Professionals, and Other Workers: 28.6% of the worldwide level, plus any numbers not required by first and second
preferences, not more than 10,000 of which to "Other Workers".
worldwide level = 140000
EB3 = 28.6% of 140000
can you please clarify ?
no...
You are assuming that the spillover from remaining countries in EB3 will be allocated to EB3 I/C/P/M. The spillover rules that changed in 2007 will ensure that those visas will first go to E1 -> EB2 and then fall to us if there is an overflow. Unfortunately that will not happen because there are many retrogressed individuals in EB2 and they will get the visas first.
here is what says on visa bulletin
Visa Bulletin October 2009 (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4575.html)
The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000.
EMPLOYMENT-BASED PREFERENCES
First: Priority Workers: 28.6% of the worldwide employment-based preference level, plus any numbers not required for fourth and fifth preferences.
Second: Members of the Professions Holding Advanced Degrees or Persons of Exceptional Ability: 28.6% of the worldwide employment-based preference level, plus any numbers not required by first preference.
Third: Skilled Workers, Professionals, and Other Workers: 28.6% of the worldwide level, plus any numbers not required by first and second
preferences, not more than 10,000 of which to "Other Workers".
worldwide level = 140000
EB3 = 28.6% of 140000
can you please clarify ?
no...
You are assuming that the spillover from remaining countries in EB3 will be allocated to EB3 I/C/P/M. The spillover rules that changed in 2007 will ensure that those visas will first go to E1 -> EB2 and then fall to us if there is an overflow. Unfortunately that will not happen because there are many retrogressed individuals in EB2 and they will get the visas first.
more...
pictures %IMG_DESC_7%
Macaca
12-05 05:37 PM
JUAN GONZALEZ: Lou, I�d just like to ask you one last question. We have very little time left. But you�ve criticized many American companies, but CJR, Columbia Journalism Review, came out with a report in 2004 that questioned that your private newsletter, which goes to investors, has recommended investing in several of these companies that�that you actually list�
LOU DOBBS: You know what? When I came here, Juan, I knew this would be a lot of fun with you two, but you�re really ridiculous�
JUAN GONZALEZ: You actually list�
LOU DOBBS: �because I haven�t had a newsletter for three years, partner. I shut down the newsletter.
JUAN GONZALEZ: No, but when your newsletter was operating, it was recommending�
LOU DOBBS: Oh, OK, when it was operating.
JUAN GONZALEZ: �some of the very companies that you were criticizing for outsourcing.
LOU DOBBS: This is a very difficult thing for ideologues like you two to contend with�that is, balancing two concepts at the same time. But is there a correlation between investment in companies and a business practice that is absolutely pervasive in corporate America? Can you think of a single corporation in America that is not supporting outsourcing of jobs to overseas labor markets, cheap overseas labor markets?
AMY GOODMAN: We�re going to have�
LOU DOBBS: If you can name one�
AMY GOODMAN: We have five seconds, Lou.
LOU DOBBS: �then I�ll suggest to you that there was probably a problem with that. If you can�t, then you know that it was utter nonsense, and you shouldn�t have brought it up.
AMY GOODMAN: Was it part of why you shut it down?
LOU DOBBS: No, not really.
AMY GOODMAN: We�re going to leave it there.
LOU DOBBS: I was bored with it.
AMY GOODMAN: Lou Dobbs, thank you very much for joining us. His book is Independents Day: Awakening the American Spirit.
LOU DOBBS: You know what? When I came here, Juan, I knew this would be a lot of fun with you two, but you�re really ridiculous�
JUAN GONZALEZ: You actually list�
LOU DOBBS: �because I haven�t had a newsletter for three years, partner. I shut down the newsletter.
JUAN GONZALEZ: No, but when your newsletter was operating, it was recommending�
LOU DOBBS: Oh, OK, when it was operating.
JUAN GONZALEZ: �some of the very companies that you were criticizing for outsourcing.
LOU DOBBS: This is a very difficult thing for ideologues like you two to contend with�that is, balancing two concepts at the same time. But is there a correlation between investment in companies and a business practice that is absolutely pervasive in corporate America? Can you think of a single corporation in America that is not supporting outsourcing of jobs to overseas labor markets, cheap overseas labor markets?
AMY GOODMAN: We�re going to have�
LOU DOBBS: If you can name one�
AMY GOODMAN: We have five seconds, Lou.
LOU DOBBS: �then I�ll suggest to you that there was probably a problem with that. If you can�t, then you know that it was utter nonsense, and you shouldn�t have brought it up.
AMY GOODMAN: Was it part of why you shut it down?
LOU DOBBS: No, not really.
AMY GOODMAN: We�re going to leave it there.
LOU DOBBS: I was bored with it.
AMY GOODMAN: Lou Dobbs, thank you very much for joining us. His book is Independents Day: Awakening the American Spirit.
dresses %IMG_DESC_12%
rockyrock
07-31 03:52 PM
Pappu, special thanks for researching this topic, and posting updates regularly.
Last week I too consulted a high profile (about $200 per 15 minutes... you should be able to guess, I am not sure I am alowed to mention the name) lawyer to discuss this issue. To give you a brief background, my lawyer did not include the Employment Verification letter
1) He told me that he would re-submit the AOS. The comparison to the medical clearance requirement, according to him, was pointless, as they are two different things. If USCIS issues a statement they will not reject solely based on the EVL, then we can assume that is the truth. Their statement on Medical clearance cannot be interpreted to say they won't reject on the basis of another missing requirement, say the EVL.
2) Filing two AOS packets can indeed also cause confusion, but it is a smaller risk according to him, and should be mitigated by a covering letter that says you are re-submitting to provide the XYZ document that was missed from the first packet.
Based on this info, I have asked my lawyer to get a confirmation from the USCIS on the document that he missed in my case-- the EVL. If USCIS okays that, we do not resubmit. If they don't do that within a week, I will try to re-submit... not going to be easy considering my lawyer may not be in agreement... but that is what would be the correct way out of this, according to the second opinion I got last week.
Thanks!
just a question on #2 above - if you are filing second AOS with EVL, why not just withdraw the first AOS once you get the receipt? Wouldn't this be safer?
Last week I too consulted a high profile (about $200 per 15 minutes... you should be able to guess, I am not sure I am alowed to mention the name) lawyer to discuss this issue. To give you a brief background, my lawyer did not include the Employment Verification letter
1) He told me that he would re-submit the AOS. The comparison to the medical clearance requirement, according to him, was pointless, as they are two different things. If USCIS issues a statement they will not reject solely based on the EVL, then we can assume that is the truth. Their statement on Medical clearance cannot be interpreted to say they won't reject on the basis of another missing requirement, say the EVL.
2) Filing two AOS packets can indeed also cause confusion, but it is a smaller risk according to him, and should be mitigated by a covering letter that says you are re-submitting to provide the XYZ document that was missed from the first packet.
Based on this info, I have asked my lawyer to get a confirmation from the USCIS on the document that he missed in my case-- the EVL. If USCIS okays that, we do not resubmit. If they don't do that within a week, I will try to re-submit... not going to be easy considering my lawyer may not be in agreement... but that is what would be the correct way out of this, according to the second opinion I got last week.
Thanks!
just a question on #2 above - if you are filing second AOS with EVL, why not just withdraw the first AOS once you get the receipt? Wouldn't this be safer?
more...
makeup %IMG_DESC_9%
eb_retrogession
01-07 05:12 PM
Added to the above Senator Arlen Specter's bill is a good bill:
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) Introduces Largest Immigration Increase in U.S. History
Printer-Friendly Version
Send this article to a friend!
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) needed the assistance of the White House in early 2005 to overcome opposition within his own party to his chairmanship. In late November, Specter repaid the Bush Administration by unveiling draft legislation that would bring about a massive increase in government- mandated immigration to the U.S.
President Bush, in his immigration address on November 28, pledged to work for an increase in the number of green cards issued each year and stated his intent to work with Sen. Specter to bring it about. Specter�s draft legislation would send government mandated immigration levels into the 2 million-a-year range.
Under Specter�s draft legislation, the cap on family-preference immigration would be increased by 254,000 visas annually and hundreds of thousands of additional relatives would be exempted from annual limits. In addition, Specter proposes raising the cap on employment-based immigration by 150,000 a year, and allocating any unused visas to other preference categories.
If enacted, Specter�s legislation would mandate the largest increase in immigration in this nation�s history. Moreover, according to FAIR�s analysis, such legislation would fuel the demand for still higher levels of immigration as more extended family members line up to follow an ever-growing number of immigrants streaming into our country.
1/06
Do you know if there is a bill number and a section associated with Specter's proposal?
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) Introduces Largest Immigration Increase in U.S. History
Printer-Friendly Version
Send this article to a friend!
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) needed the assistance of the White House in early 2005 to overcome opposition within his own party to his chairmanship. In late November, Specter repaid the Bush Administration by unveiling draft legislation that would bring about a massive increase in government- mandated immigration to the U.S.
President Bush, in his immigration address on November 28, pledged to work for an increase in the number of green cards issued each year and stated his intent to work with Sen. Specter to bring it about. Specter�s draft legislation would send government mandated immigration levels into the 2 million-a-year range.
Under Specter�s draft legislation, the cap on family-preference immigration would be increased by 254,000 visas annually and hundreds of thousands of additional relatives would be exempted from annual limits. In addition, Specter proposes raising the cap on employment-based immigration by 150,000 a year, and allocating any unused visas to other preference categories.
If enacted, Specter�s legislation would mandate the largest increase in immigration in this nation�s history. Moreover, according to FAIR�s analysis, such legislation would fuel the demand for still higher levels of immigration as more extended family members line up to follow an ever-growing number of immigrants streaming into our country.
1/06
Do you know if there is a bill number and a section associated with Specter's proposal?
girlfriend %IMG_DESC_14%
sparky123
07-11 10:18 AM
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/washbizblog/?hpid=news-col-blogs
I also think organizing a protest/rally in DC is an excellent idea. I live in the area and will be sure to join.
Can we have a poll for this?
1) Rally in DC on a weekday (Monday would be the best. But except friday anyday should work)
2) Rally on a saturday
I also think organizing a protest/rally in DC is an excellent idea. I live in the area and will be sure to join.
Can we have a poll for this?
1) Rally in DC on a weekday (Monday would be the best. But except friday anyday should work)
2) Rally on a saturday
hairstyles %IMG_DESC_11%
AreWeThereYet
08-17 11:36 AM
Hi guys
Just now (12.30 PM EST) I got a mail from USCIS saying your application has been approved. I didn't do anything (never opened SR or contacted Senator) but last week I did had an info pass appointment which was useless. MY PD was Feb 2005 EB2 INDIA (The fun part is My AP and EAD are still pending for over 4 months)
Wish you good luck guys
Thanks again
Enjoy your green status.
Just now (12.30 PM EST) I got a mail from USCIS saying your application has been approved. I didn't do anything (never opened SR or contacted Senator) but last week I did had an info pass appointment which was useless. MY PD was Feb 2005 EB2 INDIA (The fun part is My AP and EAD are still pending for over 4 months)
Wish you good luck guys
Thanks again
Enjoy your green status.
jungalee43
09-09 06:17 PM
I am not getting anyone to answer the phone in chairman Conyers' office. I am not going to voice mail also. All that I am hearing from the other end is ring, ring and ring... endless.
CADude
09-24 11:02 PM
Write/fax to congressman/senator/USCIS complaint dept, if you wish so. It's better than doing nothing. my 2 cents.
Delivered to Mickels at 9:01 on Jul 2nd to NSC. No CC, no receipt, nothing!! Wondering what to do !!
Delivered to Mickels at 9:01 on Jul 2nd to NSC. No CC, no receipt, nothing!! Wondering what to do !!
No comments:
Post a Comment