dealsnet
08-26 12:33 PM
NOW LINGO COME UP WITH NEW OFFER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
COMPETITION STARTS NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lingo's special Offer! NOW with New Hello World Unlimited Plan that gives India for $2.9c /m..
$4.95 1st 3months there after $21.95 unlimited plan - Sign-up to get Free Adapter (Note: $99.95 if you choose to cancel after the 30 day money back guarantee and before 2 years )
Final Price : $4.95 1st 3months + Free Activation + $14.95 Shipping + No Tax in most states
OTHER: Also See other Plans like Hello America basic $4.95/m plan, Talk365 1year plan for $195/yr & w/South Asia for $29.95 etc )
You get unlimited calling each month of residential VoIP service to call anyone in 30 Countries. Unlimited calling to anywhere in the US, including HI, AK, USVI, and PR, Unlimited calling to Canada, Puerto Rico, and 30 countries including Western Europe plus Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and South Korea* plus a lot of great calling features
COMPETITION STARTS NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lingo's special Offer! NOW with New Hello World Unlimited Plan that gives India for $2.9c /m..
$4.95 1st 3months there after $21.95 unlimited plan - Sign-up to get Free Adapter (Note: $99.95 if you choose to cancel after the 30 day money back guarantee and before 2 years )
Final Price : $4.95 1st 3months + Free Activation + $14.95 Shipping + No Tax in most states
OTHER: Also See other Plans like Hello America basic $4.95/m plan, Talk365 1year plan for $195/yr & w/South Asia for $29.95 etc )
You get unlimited calling each month of residential VoIP service to call anyone in 30 Countries. Unlimited calling to anywhere in the US, including HI, AK, USVI, and PR, Unlimited calling to Canada, Puerto Rico, and 30 countries including Western Europe plus Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and South Korea* plus a lot of great calling features
wallpaper planted goldfish tank.
msusa123
09-15 09:53 AM
Good news... I got CPO at 9:05AM.
I raised SR for my case on 9/2 and no response until today morning and raised SR for my wife yesterday night. No changes to my wife application.
I asked my attorney sending an e-mail for TSC streamline process and I do not know whether he acted on it or not.
Good luck every one who are waiting for approval
I raised SR for my case on 9/2 and no response until today morning and raised SR for my wife yesterday night. No changes to my wife application.
I asked my attorney sending an e-mail for TSC streamline process and I do not know whether he acted on it or not.
Good luck every one who are waiting for approval
stuck_here
01-25 12:06 AM
StuckHere: As a backstop, do you have AP in hand? If yes, my attorney has recommended sending a letter withdrawing your H1-B stamping application to the consulate where you interviewed. Then with a copy of the letter in hand, and with your AP, seek to reenter the US on your own terms... Good luck...
I have just filed for PERM in nov '07.. and I don't have an AP handy either. Can I get my company to apply for one ?
THanks !
I have just filed for PERM in nov '07.. and I don't have an AP handy either. Can I get my company to apply for one ?
THanks !
2011 My 29 goldfish planted tank.
royus77
06-21 01:11 PM
In the section 11 of the document what should be the text incase you are supporting your spouse and child @100%
Appreciate your help
///////////////////////////////
I
intend
do not intend to make specific contributions to the support of the person(s) named in item 3.
(If you check "intend," indicate the exact nature and duration of the contributions. For example, if you intend to furnishroom and board, state for how long and, if money, state the amount in U.S. dollars and state whether it is to be given in a lumpsum, weekly or monthly, and for how long.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////
Thanks
roy
Appreciate your help
///////////////////////////////
I
intend
do not intend to make specific contributions to the support of the person(s) named in item 3.
(If you check "intend," indicate the exact nature and duration of the contributions. For example, if you intend to furnishroom and board, state for how long and, if money, state the amount in U.S. dollars and state whether it is to be given in a lumpsum, weekly or monthly, and for how long.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////
Thanks
roy
more...
immi_seeker
08-18 11:26 PM
Recieved physical cards today.
CPO - Aug 6th
Post decision - August 13th
Approval recieved in snail mail - August 11th
Cards recieved - August 18th
Thus the GC journey of 9 years and 8 months ends. Currently no difference in life it makes. May be when i travel GC may be of more help. (no AP H1B stuff to worry about)
Good luck to all who are current and to all who are waiting. Hang in there. You will definitely get it.
CPO - Aug 6th
Post decision - August 13th
Approval recieved in snail mail - August 11th
Cards recieved - August 18th
Thus the GC journey of 9 years and 8 months ends. Currently no difference in life it makes. May be when i travel GC may be of more help. (no AP H1B stuff to worry about)
Good luck to all who are current and to all who are waiting. Hang in there. You will definitely get it.
pani_6
08-21 04:58 PM
As per your profile
Labor Approval Date: 04/21/2003 I140 Mailed Date: 05/05/2007
May I ask you the reason for 4 year gap for I-140 filing? Are you using Labor Substitution?
One more -
Since you are waiting for decade, I assume your PD is 1998 or 1999. Is that correct?
03 is my pd..not approval date..mine was bec'ed.yes from about 01..
Labor Approval Date: 04/21/2003 I140 Mailed Date: 05/05/2007
May I ask you the reason for 4 year gap for I-140 filing? Are you using Labor Substitution?
One more -
Since you are waiting for decade, I assume your PD is 1998 or 1999. Is that correct?
03 is my pd..not approval date..mine was bec'ed.yes from about 01..
more...
pappu
01-08 10:26 AM
Some of the feedback we got when we met our legislators here in Dallas was, when ever we send letters of these kinds they get much more attention when
1) The letter has a personal story in it
2) Letter is hand written
If the letter is hand written and has a personal story in it (along with the IV agenda) then it's likely that some one will read it. On the other hand if it's just a printed copy of a standard letter then it's just going to get tossed into a bin.
Yes you are correct.
1) The letter has a personal story in it
2) Letter is hand written
If the letter is hand written and has a personal story in it (along with the IV agenda) then it's likely that some one will read it. On the other hand if it's just a printed copy of a standard letter then it's just going to get tossed into a bin.
Yes you are correct.
2010 From Goldfish Bowl to Planted
DallasBlue
09-27 02:18 PM
http://www.ailf.org/lac/lac_pa_chrono.shtml
http://www.ailf.org/lac/mandamus-jurisdiction9-24-07%20PA.pdf
1. What are the general arguments that the government makes to dismiss a mandamus/APA case for lack of jurisdiction?
The government�s motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction are filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP). The government generally makes some combination of the following four arguments, all of which center on alleged agency discretion with respect to adjudication of adjustment applications:
� That USCIS does not have a duty to adjudicate an adjustment application and therefore an essential element of the mandamus claim is missing;
� That the pace of adjudication of an adjustment application is discretionary and therefore not subject to mandamus relief;
� That adjudication of adjustment applications is committed to agency discretion by law and not subject to APA relief; and
� That 8 U.S.C. � 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), which limits judicial review over certain discretionary issues in immigration cases, bars review of these mandamus and APA cases.
2. In responding to a motion to dismiss, can I argue that at least some of the issues raised by the government are not jurisdictional?
Yes. An initial response to a government motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is to question whether, in fact, the government has raised a jurisdictional challenge. The Supreme Court has distinguished between jurisdiction � which is the court�s power to hear the case � and the sufficiency of a valid cause of action. See, e.g., Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1988); see also Ahmed v. DHS, 328 F.3d 383, 386-87 (7th Cir. 2003) (distinguishing between the court�s power to adjudicate the case, which is jurisdictional, and the court�s power to grant relief, which is not jurisdictional).
The failure to state a valid cause of action calls for a judgment on the merits and not for dismissal for want of jurisdiction. Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682 (1946). The Supreme Court has made clear that:
�jurisdiction � is not defeated � by the possibility that the averments might fail to state a cause of action on which petitioners could actually recover.� Rather, the district court has jurisdiction if �the right of the petitioners to recover under their complaint will be sustained if the [ ] laws of the United States are given one construction and will be defeated if they are given another ��
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. at 89 (quoting Bell, 327 U.S. at 682, 685). Thus, one court has held that in resolving whether mandamus jurisdiction is present in an immigration case, the allegations of the complaint are taken as true (unless patently frivolous) to avoid �tackling the merits under the ruse of assessing jurisdiction.� Ahmed, 328 F.3d at 386-387.
Applying these principles, the Seventh Circuit held in Ahmed that the question of whether a statute imposed a �duty� on the government for purposes of mandamus relief was not a jurisdictional question. As the court explained:
[T]he district court has jurisdiction under � 1361 [the mandamus statute] to determine whether the prerequisites for mandamus relief have been satisfied: does the plaintiff have a clear right to the relief sought; does the defendant have a duty to perform the act in question; and is there no other adequate remedy available. � A conclusion that any one of those prerequisites is missing should lead the district court to deny the petition, not [for lack of jurisdiction], but because the plaintiff has not demonstrated an entitlement to this form of extraordinary relief.
Ahmed, 328 F.3d at 386-87.
Thus, where the government claims that jurisdiction is lacking because a prerequisite to mandamus is missing, the plaintiff can respond by arguing that this is not a jurisdictional question and cannot lead to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1). Most likely, you also will want to address the substance of the challenge, also, as an alternative way to dispute the government�s motion. See, e.g., � 3, below.
http://www.ailf.org/lac/mandamus-jurisdiction9-24-07%20PA.pdf
1. What are the general arguments that the government makes to dismiss a mandamus/APA case for lack of jurisdiction?
The government�s motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction are filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP). The government generally makes some combination of the following four arguments, all of which center on alleged agency discretion with respect to adjudication of adjustment applications:
� That USCIS does not have a duty to adjudicate an adjustment application and therefore an essential element of the mandamus claim is missing;
� That the pace of adjudication of an adjustment application is discretionary and therefore not subject to mandamus relief;
� That adjudication of adjustment applications is committed to agency discretion by law and not subject to APA relief; and
� That 8 U.S.C. � 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), which limits judicial review over certain discretionary issues in immigration cases, bars review of these mandamus and APA cases.
2. In responding to a motion to dismiss, can I argue that at least some of the issues raised by the government are not jurisdictional?
Yes. An initial response to a government motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is to question whether, in fact, the government has raised a jurisdictional challenge. The Supreme Court has distinguished between jurisdiction � which is the court�s power to hear the case � and the sufficiency of a valid cause of action. See, e.g., Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1988); see also Ahmed v. DHS, 328 F.3d 383, 386-87 (7th Cir. 2003) (distinguishing between the court�s power to adjudicate the case, which is jurisdictional, and the court�s power to grant relief, which is not jurisdictional).
The failure to state a valid cause of action calls for a judgment on the merits and not for dismissal for want of jurisdiction. Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682 (1946). The Supreme Court has made clear that:
�jurisdiction � is not defeated � by the possibility that the averments might fail to state a cause of action on which petitioners could actually recover.� Rather, the district court has jurisdiction if �the right of the petitioners to recover under their complaint will be sustained if the [ ] laws of the United States are given one construction and will be defeated if they are given another ��
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. at 89 (quoting Bell, 327 U.S. at 682, 685). Thus, one court has held that in resolving whether mandamus jurisdiction is present in an immigration case, the allegations of the complaint are taken as true (unless patently frivolous) to avoid �tackling the merits under the ruse of assessing jurisdiction.� Ahmed, 328 F.3d at 386-387.
Applying these principles, the Seventh Circuit held in Ahmed that the question of whether a statute imposed a �duty� on the government for purposes of mandamus relief was not a jurisdictional question. As the court explained:
[T]he district court has jurisdiction under � 1361 [the mandamus statute] to determine whether the prerequisites for mandamus relief have been satisfied: does the plaintiff have a clear right to the relief sought; does the defendant have a duty to perform the act in question; and is there no other adequate remedy available. � A conclusion that any one of those prerequisites is missing should lead the district court to deny the petition, not [for lack of jurisdiction], but because the plaintiff has not demonstrated an entitlement to this form of extraordinary relief.
Ahmed, 328 F.3d at 386-87.
Thus, where the government claims that jurisdiction is lacking because a prerequisite to mandamus is missing, the plaintiff can respond by arguing that this is not a jurisdictional question and cannot lead to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1). Most likely, you also will want to address the substance of the challenge, also, as an alternative way to dispute the government�s motion. See, e.g., � 3, below.
more...
Abhinaym
03-31 09:03 AM
Looks like this year USCIS understood they need some money and accept some extra applications, which may be the same file I485 when PD is not current. and date might go to end of 2007.
Just a thought
Ghee shakkar for you ...
Just a thought
Ghee shakkar for you ...
hair makeup planted goldfish tank.
nlalchandani
05-23 10:06 AM
I would like a second opinion on the below comments from my attorney:
1. On the 131 the last page (having signatures) has this question:
On a separate sheet(s) of paper, please explain how you qualify for an advance parole document and what circumstances warrant
issuance of advance parole. Include copies of any documents you wish considered.
[Atorney's reply] not relevent to your application leave it blank.
Do you think it is not relevant if I am filing for Advanced payroll...
2. 325 PART 3 B and also EAD Question on 765- For my spouse, the A# - Should this be filled up from her last EAD card (vald from 2003-2005 when she was on L2) OR left blank.?
[attorney reply] BLANK
any comments ?? If my wife had an EAD even though not valid, should that not be mentioned?
3. I asked my attorney for copy of the final documents submitted to USCIS and I was told that they do not share the cover letter the attorney writes up. Other forms, I can print online (they have a database after fnal corrections).
Upon asking for the employment letter they submit, I was told that I should request from my employer?
Any comments??
4. If I get RFEs or I need to use AC21 in the future, what all do I need from the 485 application that would help me if I do not decide to use my law firm?
I do have the 140 approval copy (1 page) and details of the labor skills, title and salary and not the actual labor copy that was submitted for 140 approval.
1. On the 131 the last page (having signatures) has this question:
On a separate sheet(s) of paper, please explain how you qualify for an advance parole document and what circumstances warrant
issuance of advance parole. Include copies of any documents you wish considered.
[Atorney's reply] not relevent to your application leave it blank.
Do you think it is not relevant if I am filing for Advanced payroll...
2. 325 PART 3 B and also EAD Question on 765- For my spouse, the A# - Should this be filled up from her last EAD card (vald from 2003-2005 when she was on L2) OR left blank.?
[attorney reply] BLANK
any comments ?? If my wife had an EAD even though not valid, should that not be mentioned?
3. I asked my attorney for copy of the final documents submitted to USCIS and I was told that they do not share the cover letter the attorney writes up. Other forms, I can print online (they have a database after fnal corrections).
Upon asking for the employment letter they submit, I was told that I should request from my employer?
Any comments??
4. If I get RFEs or I need to use AC21 in the future, what all do I need from the 485 application that would help me if I do not decide to use my law firm?
I do have the 140 approval copy (1 page) and details of the labor skills, title and salary and not the actual labor copy that was submitted for 140 approval.
more...
garybanz
01-08 02:29 PM
I will participate in this wholeheartedly. One suggestion to the admin: perhaps we can post this in other websites also like ? I know a lot of people use that site for posting problems etc and whoever is not in IV might also get to know about it.
I hear that the guy who runs is not very helpful, but it will be great if we can have a link on Sheela Murthy's web site. She might like to help us out.
I hear that the guy who runs is not very helpful, but it will be great if we can have a link on Sheela Murthy's web site. She might like to help us out.
hot Gold Fish Tank clip art
saimrathi
07-11 02:34 PM
Wouldn't it be nice if he could speak for the peaceful rally in protest of USCIS in San Jose... Just a thought...
I'd be surprised if Arnie is anti-immigration considering he is an immigrant himself.
I'd be surprised if Arnie is anti-immigration considering he is an immigrant himself.
more...
house Planted goldfish tank
singhsa3
10-21 08:28 PM
Can you please state the source of ur information.
The contents of this postings are based on what I have read from various Lawyer's website and my lawyer's suggestions.
Multiple I-485 Fillings Scenario:
1. Two I-485 for the with the same primary applicant
Case a: One I-140/I-485 Pending with another employer and one I-140/I-485 to be filed in July with the current employer.
Case b: One I-140/I-485 Pending due to substituted labor (and cannot be expedited because premium processing not available). Another I-485 to be filed based on approved I-140 (on one's own labor). Both from the same employer.
2. Two I-485 with different primary applicants (Primary on one and dependent on other)
Case a: I-140 for one is approved while other's pending
Case b: Both I-140 Approved
Case c: Both filling concurrently in June
Pros and Cons
Scenario 1, Case a: In this case there is a substantial risk that I-485 filed with first employer might lead to issues esp if I-140 is not approved. Thus is a good idea to file another one with current employer. (Pro)
Scenario 1, Case a: How can one Adjust the Status from two employer at the same time. (Con)
Scenario 1, Case b: Since first I-485 application is already filed and I-140's outcome is not known. It is a good idea to file another one as a fall back option. If one waits for the outcome of first I-140 and it is denied and then it will be too late to file another I-485 because dates might have retrogressed.
Scenario 2, Case a: One with the approved I-140 should file I-485 with other as dependent.
Scenario 2, Case b: I-485 for both is almost ensured and thus filling two will give added cover in case something happens. One might have a better priority date than other. (Pro)
Scenario 2, Case b: Job loss of one would still allow other with AC-21 benefits. (Pro)
Scenario 2, Case b:Only one of the two partners has to stick to the job description and other is free to pursue anything (including studies).
Scenario 2, Case c: Use I-140 Premium Processing on at least one application for added certainty.
Summary of Pros and Cons
Pros:
1. More flexibility as there are two applications to fall back on.
2. Only opportunity to file EAD/AP before retrogression kicks in.
3. Useful if I-140 is pending and outcome of it is unknown.
4. There are NO USCIS memos that prohibits such filling explicitly.
5. Many lawyers have recommended this as a best option.
6. It has been mentioned that USCIS cancels the second I-485 after approving the other. That makes this a hassle free option.
7. If there are issues with multiple filling one of the application can be withdrawn.
8. If later on it turns out two application is a norm and right thing to do and retrogression hits one has no one to blame but himself.
Cons:
1. Cost of two fillings (if paid by self)
2. There have been indications by lawyers that two fillings could lead to unnecessary delays and interviews.
3. Apart from delays there has been indications that USCIS might issue an
RFE and ask to choose one.
Conclusion
========
There is nothing wrong with two filings, worst case scenario could be an RFE from USCIS to choose one. Best case scenario is USCIS upon approving one cancels other. Two filings indeed give you a peace of mind and reduce risk during the process. It doesn't change the outcome (like your application will not be denied just because you have filed two). If a little delay is acceptable to you as a price you pay to reduce a bigger risk and added benefits then multiple filing is right thing to do.
The contents of this postings are based on what I have read from various Lawyer's website and my lawyer's suggestions.
Multiple I-485 Fillings Scenario:
1. Two I-485 for the with the same primary applicant
Case a: One I-140/I-485 Pending with another employer and one I-140/I-485 to be filed in July with the current employer.
Case b: One I-140/I-485 Pending due to substituted labor (and cannot be expedited because premium processing not available). Another I-485 to be filed based on approved I-140 (on one's own labor). Both from the same employer.
2. Two I-485 with different primary applicants (Primary on one and dependent on other)
Case a: I-140 for one is approved while other's pending
Case b: Both I-140 Approved
Case c: Both filling concurrently in June
Pros and Cons
Scenario 1, Case a: In this case there is a substantial risk that I-485 filed with first employer might lead to issues esp if I-140 is not approved. Thus is a good idea to file another one with current employer. (Pro)
Scenario 1, Case a: How can one Adjust the Status from two employer at the same time. (Con)
Scenario 1, Case b: Since first I-485 application is already filed and I-140's outcome is not known. It is a good idea to file another one as a fall back option. If one waits for the outcome of first I-140 and it is denied and then it will be too late to file another I-485 because dates might have retrogressed.
Scenario 2, Case a: One with the approved I-140 should file I-485 with other as dependent.
Scenario 2, Case b: I-485 for both is almost ensured and thus filling two will give added cover in case something happens. One might have a better priority date than other. (Pro)
Scenario 2, Case b: Job loss of one would still allow other with AC-21 benefits. (Pro)
Scenario 2, Case b:Only one of the two partners has to stick to the job description and other is free to pursue anything (including studies).
Scenario 2, Case c: Use I-140 Premium Processing on at least one application for added certainty.
Summary of Pros and Cons
Pros:
1. More flexibility as there are two applications to fall back on.
2. Only opportunity to file EAD/AP before retrogression kicks in.
3. Useful if I-140 is pending and outcome of it is unknown.
4. There are NO USCIS memos that prohibits such filling explicitly.
5. Many lawyers have recommended this as a best option.
6. It has been mentioned that USCIS cancels the second I-485 after approving the other. That makes this a hassle free option.
7. If there are issues with multiple filling one of the application can be withdrawn.
8. If later on it turns out two application is a norm and right thing to do and retrogression hits one has no one to blame but himself.
Cons:
1. Cost of two fillings (if paid by self)
2. There have been indications by lawyers that two fillings could lead to unnecessary delays and interviews.
3. Apart from delays there has been indications that USCIS might issue an
RFE and ask to choose one.
Conclusion
========
There is nothing wrong with two filings, worst case scenario could be an RFE from USCIS to choose one. Best case scenario is USCIS upon approving one cancels other. Two filings indeed give you a peace of mind and reduce risk during the process. It doesn't change the outcome (like your application will not be denied just because you have filed two). If a little delay is acceptable to you as a price you pay to reduce a bigger risk and added benefits then multiple filing is right thing to do.
tattoo 100 l planted tank
indio0617
09-26 10:13 AM
Though I like Obama as a person who promises positive change, I am afraid this will turn into disaster for all of us.
If all of you had watched the drama unfolding last year with CIR and Durbin's proposed draconic measures you will all know what is in store for us. We all know who will be pulling the strings as far as immigration policy making goes with democrats in the white house.
If all of you had watched the drama unfolding last year with CIR and Durbin's proposed draconic measures you will all know what is in store for us. We all know who will be pulling the strings as far as immigration policy making goes with democrats in the white house.
more...
pictures goldfish planted aquarium
needhelp!
01-11 02:35 PM
Yeah.. weird right? The only conclusion can be that they DO have a hidden agenda.
I Unless they have a hidden agenda, they should be supporting IV's letter campaign.
How is this in conflict? Am I missing something?
I Unless they have a hidden agenda, they should be supporting IV's letter campaign.
How is this in conflict? Am I missing something?
dresses Architectural Goldfish Tank
adusumilli
09-24 11:48 AM
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.
How did you come up with dividing by 5 that is like 20% per country. isn't the cap 7% per country?
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.
How did you come up with dividing by 5 that is like 20% per country. isn't the cap 7% per country?
more...
makeup 2011 tattoo planted goldfish
ArunAntonio
06-21 02:21 PM
OK I will help in the research.. but this is what I have seen.. all the lawyers are just advising or strongly advising.. no one has metioned why one should NOT do multiple applications, the only reason I have heard so far is that multiple applications (4 - if both the spouses apply for each other as dependents) may cause confusion in allocating the A# and that may lead to problems and complications and eventual delays....
but both me and my wife already have A#'s so does that mean that there wont be any confusion as uscis need not allot A#'s for us.....
jeez.. man ... some one should know better......
anyways I will do more research and pm you if I find any more information apart from what I have stated above.
ArunAntonio, can you pls help search other threads so that we can lay all arguements in one thread and see how different lawyers approach this issue. Only pick answers from lawyers and no opinions. Once we have all advices in one place it will be easy to decide and see pros and cons
but both me and my wife already have A#'s so does that mean that there wont be any confusion as uscis need not allot A#'s for us.....
jeez.. man ... some one should know better......
anyways I will do more research and pm you if I find any more information apart from what I have stated above.
ArunAntonio, can you pls help search other threads so that we can lay all arguements in one thread and see how different lawyers approach this issue. Only pick answers from lawyers and no opinions. Once we have all advices in one place it will be easy to decide and see pros and cons
girlfriend hot planted goldfish tank. a
appas123
08-19 04:15 PM
Wanted to let everybody know that we received our green cards in hand today. We immediately made a trip to the Social Security office to update the records and get rid of the clause that says "not valid for work without INS authorization". We also signed a new I-9 with the green card.
hairstyles 2011 planted goldfish tank. a
baburob2
01-10 07:17 PM
also very recently a new bill has been drafted. but i don't have more info. A gist of it is:
Republican Senate candidate David Kramer on Monday proposed an immigration reform plan that opens the door to legal status for illegal workers who have been in the United States for five years or more.
For more details look at the below url
http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2006/01/09/nebraska/doc43c29737b68d6696911913.txt
Republican Senate candidate David Kramer on Monday proposed an immigration reform plan that opens the door to legal status for illegal workers who have been in the United States for five years or more.
For more details look at the below url
http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2006/01/09/nebraska/doc43c29737b68d6696911913.txt
PlainSpeak
04-06 08:32 AM
And their news page has also changed to reflect this "modest" movement (previously it stated - "the movement will not be weeks or months but could be years")
On both extremes, it's nothing but just an attempt to generate traffic to the website I guess.
Interesting that he claims - the modest movement will be because of the 7% country cap. In my understanding, it does not apply when spiilover happens (plz correct me if I am wrong)
Yes you are right ..
Country caps are not followed or implemented in spillover visas. Why do you think EB2I moved to May 2006 last year July 2010
On both extremes, it's nothing but just an attempt to generate traffic to the website I guess.
Interesting that he claims - the modest movement will be because of the 7% country cap. In my understanding, it does not apply when spiilover happens (plz correct me if I am wrong)
Yes you are right ..
Country caps are not followed or implemented in spillover visas. Why do you think EB2I moved to May 2006 last year July 2010
PBECVictim
06-29 05:35 PM
I am joining Law Suit. I am leaving this country, if they make it 'U' for Eb2 and Eb3 for India.
No comments:
Post a Comment