NO_Free_Rider
10-11 10:58 PM
My labor approved from PBEC (PD May 2003-EB3 India) on Aug 20!
Yes, and I hear only EAD, AP, spouse' FP etc in this forum now.
I missed the date by just a week:( .Not sure what to do here . People on the forum seems to be concerned about Fingerprinting and getting EAD's only .
Yes, and I hear only EAD, AP, spouse' FP etc in this forum now.
I missed the date by just a week:( .Not sure what to do here . People on the forum seems to be concerned about Fingerprinting and getting EAD's only .
wallpaper haircut+like+justin+ieber
optimystic
10-22 09:46 PM
Are you talking about EB3-I? If not, ignore this post...
EB3-I dates are in Oct 01, there are no cases to approve, what will they approve?
What makes you think they are processing EB2-I more? Same logic applies here. Wait for the next bulletin, if you are EB3-I in 02 you'll get what is long overdue?
I am sure there are bunch of cases with PD < Oct 01. My PD is May 2001.
Something fishy going on. I have already been thru one whole month earlier this year (Apr or May) with my PD being current but my Processing date retrogressed at NSC. And the same this time too. I am planning to take an Info pass once we enter November irrespective of where Processing dates are at. That will be one more whole month with my PD being current and yet no approval received. :mad:
EB3-I dates are in Oct 01, there are no cases to approve, what will they approve?
What makes you think they are processing EB2-I more? Same logic applies here. Wait for the next bulletin, if you are EB3-I in 02 you'll get what is long overdue?
I am sure there are bunch of cases with PD < Oct 01. My PD is May 2001.
Something fishy going on. I have already been thru one whole month earlier this year (Apr or May) with my PD being current but my Processing date retrogressed at NSC. And the same this time too. I am planning to take an Info pass once we enter November irrespective of where Processing dates are at. That will be one more whole month with my PD being current and yet no approval received. :mad:
pcjandyala
08-05 11:08 PM
Please see the signature
2011 miley cyrus haircut like
singhsa3
01-04 02:57 PM
Thats a very good suggestion. He should lobby to create a new categoy of Green Card for "MBBS".
MBBS : Mia (Husband), Biwi 1 (Wife 1), Biwi 2 (Wife 2) and Sons.
:D:D:D:D:D
First of all your freind is brave...
He can request IV to put another item in lobby agenda for brave category...
MBBS : Mia (Husband), Biwi 1 (Wife 1), Biwi 2 (Wife 2) and Sons.
:D:D:D:D:D
First of all your freind is brave...
He can request IV to put another item in lobby agenda for brave category...
more...
Macaca
09-19 03:54 PM
From Congress quietly returns to immigration (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=167577&postcount=1090) A broad overhaul failed this summer, but an array of smaller measures is under discussion, including ways to legalize certain workers By Nicole Gaouette (nicole.gaouette@latimes.com) | Los Angeles Times Staff Writer,
September 17, 2007
Republicans also are considering a bill that would overhaul visas for high-skilled foreigners.
Senate Republicans are also discussing ways to increase the number of visas for high-skilled workers, now capped at 65,000 a year.
September 17, 2007
Republicans also are considering a bill that would overhaul visas for high-skilled foreigners.
Senate Republicans are also discussing ways to increase the number of visas for high-skilled workers, now capped at 65,000 a year.
h1techSlave
06-10 01:13 PM
Can you call up the customer service to know your status as to whether you are pre-adjudicated or not?
As per this everyone who got pre-adjudicated would be receiving their GC in FY2010. But, there are people from EB3I with PD as late as 2007 who got RFEs recently and got their cases pre-adjudicated( I am one of them even though my PD is March 2003 and when I called up NSC, they said my case was pre-adjudicated and waiting for a Visa number ).
With EB3I staying at 1 Nov 2001 when the new FY2010 quota starts in October doesnt match to what Ron Gotcher says.
Anyone have any opinion?
As per this everyone who got pre-adjudicated would be receiving their GC in FY2010. But, there are people from EB3I with PD as late as 2007 who got RFEs recently and got their cases pre-adjudicated( I am one of them even though my PD is March 2003 and when I called up NSC, they said my case was pre-adjudicated and waiting for a Visa number ).
With EB3I staying at 1 Nov 2001 when the new FY2010 quota starts in October doesnt match to what Ron Gotcher says.
Anyone have any opinion?
more...
longq
12-29 10:56 AM
I tend to agree with your interpretation that "NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE" refers to those beyond 140K. The language of law is always beautiful, isn't it?:)
Anyhow, I still think it merits a deeper investigation and consultation with attorneys.
No one analysed the statue of the language used in 202 5 a.
If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5).
The key is OR. If the the intension of the language is total demand is less than 140,000, then it would have been "If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5)"
The language used in the 202 5 a, explicitly defines each preference catagory seperatly. Also it says "the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued".
For example the unused visas by EB1, let us assume 10,000.
The visas avaliable in EB2 is 40,000 as per 203 b 2.
Therfore the total visas in EB2 is 50,000.
If the total demand is less than 50,000 in EB2 (India+Cina+ROW), the 7% quota is not applicaple.
This is the very direct, simple interpretation of 202 5 A.
Therefore one cannot (EB3-ROW) interpret, for their convenience. Thats why I suggest the IV to discuss with experinced attorney and make a enquiry with law makers or DOS, if required. Otherwise (if it is wrong it is a big blow to India and China). We will get only 2800 per year.
Anyhow, I still think it merits a deeper investigation and consultation with attorneys.
No one analysed the statue of the language used in 202 5 a.
If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5).
The key is OR. If the the intension of the language is total demand is less than 140,000, then it would have been "If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5)"
The language used in the 202 5 a, explicitly defines each preference catagory seperatly. Also it says "the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued".
For example the unused visas by EB1, let us assume 10,000.
The visas avaliable in EB2 is 40,000 as per 203 b 2.
Therfore the total visas in EB2 is 50,000.
If the total demand is less than 50,000 in EB2 (India+Cina+ROW), the 7% quota is not applicaple.
This is the very direct, simple interpretation of 202 5 A.
Therefore one cannot (EB3-ROW) interpret, for their convenience. Thats why I suggest the IV to discuss with experinced attorney and make a enquiry with law makers or DOS, if required. Otherwise (if it is wrong it is a big blow to India and China). We will get only 2800 per year.
2010 miley cyrus tattoo of justin
pooja_34
12-22 03:08 PM
Again, incorrect english - Why dont you go learn english and then post here - Till then use your local language forums only !
I am not in the bed with you to take your direction
I am not in the bed with you to take your direction
more...
TwinkleM
02-17 10:19 PM
Still your I 140 info does not show up. Also, my pd is of april 2006. But I -140 not approved yet, pending since june 2006. Ur new update is only giving me a good hope.
hair miley cyrus haircut like
aachoo
02-23 07:41 PM
Got my RFE finally. It is for an employment letter. They gave me until 3/19. (RFE was generated on 2/13)
-a
-a
more...
dilber
06-04 05:48 PM
class action lawsuit?? for using up too many visa's too fast?
wow. for once (& only once) I feel sad for USCIS. They are damned if they do, and damned if they dont. Usually all talk of class action lawsuits have been for visa numbers that they wasted by approving too slowly. Now another one for going too fast... :D
Seriously, I would be very very happy they are for a change working really fast so no wastage of numbers this time around. common guys don't you think is it good for us over all. may be we will not see some movement for some time but at least you know that we are not suffering because of USCIS's inefficiency.
wow. for once (& only once) I feel sad for USCIS. They are damned if they do, and damned if they dont. Usually all talk of class action lawsuits have been for visa numbers that they wasted by approving too slowly. Now another one for going too fast... :D
Seriously, I would be very very happy they are for a change working really fast so no wastage of numbers this time around. common guys don't you think is it good for us over all. may be we will not see some movement for some time but at least you know that we are not suffering because of USCIS's inefficiency.
hot justin bieber haircut 2011
gc_kaavaali
12-08 01:46 PM
Hi,
IV is trying to achieve these things...but it cannot do until unless members contribute something...IV need contributions to invest in the omnibus bill Lobbying efforts.. for more details look at below thread...
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=15905
Get one thing done is better than spreading limited resources on multiple topics. To increase immigration quotas is not achievable before presidential election is done.
Why not just focus on getting name check delay solved. It is under congress scrutiny already, all need are to add more oil to the fire.
IV is trying to achieve these things...but it cannot do until unless members contribute something...IV need contributions to invest in the omnibus bill Lobbying efforts.. for more details look at below thread...
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=15905
Get one thing done is better than spreading limited resources on multiple topics. To increase immigration quotas is not achievable before presidential election is done.
Why not just focus on getting name check delay solved. It is under congress scrutiny already, all need are to add more oil to the fire.
more...
house hairstyles justin bieber march
chanduv23
11-17 08:59 AM
In fact, I got laid off recently, my LC gone, which was filed on Sep,2004. I am looking for job again on my 8th year H1B extension. In this uncertain future it is better to return home for me.
I was in similar situation last year, I got layed off after working for 5 years in same company and was on my 6th year h1b with eb3 L/C pending in BEC. I switched to consulting immediately and got extension based on the old L/C and applied for new GC.
These are situations that are not under our control. We must live with these FOL
I was in similar situation last year, I got layed off after working for 5 years in same company and was on my 6th year h1b with eb3 L/C pending in BEC. I switched to consulting immediately and got extension based on the old L/C and applied for new GC.
These are situations that are not under our control. We must live with these FOL
tattoo miley cyrus haircut like
rajuram
01-04 11:41 AM
Thanks
I don't think PMP is useful in promotions......it may be helpful in getting a new job though.....but then you are limited in your career..........PMP doesn't help you moving upwards.....!
My 2 cents!
I don't think PMP is useful in promotions......it may be helpful in getting a new job though.....but then you are limited in your career..........PMP doesn't help you moving upwards.....!
My 2 cents!
more...
pictures Miley Cyrus modeled her
dingudi
11-19 01:51 PM
I dont know what to do. I opened an SR on Oct 8,2007. My ND is Sept 10. And so far no FP appointment yet. My app is at TSC.
Apahilaj/anyone with similar dates , did you guys get the FP yet.
Apahilaj/anyone with similar dates , did you guys get the FP yet.
dresses miley cyrus haircut justin
scorpion00
06-16 11:26 PM
I support this campaign and will act upon any action item.One quick question, is the visa revalidation only for people who already hold H1 visa stamp on passport or COS from F1-H1 also falls in the same category?
more...
makeup miley cyrus haircut like
sankap
07-25 11:01 AM
You said: "...my mind is tricking me to think about it. I checked all these forums until 2A.M last night. I am not having enough sleep...I am really getting frustrated ..."
I'd strongly recommend you to seek medical advice for possible anxiety.
I'd strongly recommend you to seek medical advice for possible anxiety.
girlfriend miley cyrus haircut justin
longq
12-20 03:41 PM
Hello IV and its core members,
I am one of the members of the forum and suffering due to the severe retrogression of EB visas. I highly appreciate IV�s effort to bring some legislative relief to address the severe backlogs in EB visas. I too participated in all IVs campaign in urging the law makers to bring some relief for this crisis. However, I have some concern here; about the method followed U.S DOS in allocating EB visas particularly in EB2 category for India and China. I am worried whether U.S DOS is violating the INA 202 (a), by suspending AC21 provision that eliminates country quota in EB categories. If they are violating by mistake, it is our responsibility to notify/clarify with them or we need to understand the law clearly. This is very important. Because, even if 110th congress passes SKIL bill, if DOS violates the AC21 law then it will not help applicants from oversubscribed countries (India and China). Here is my analysis based on following facts.
The cutoff date for EB2 India has moved just 7 days since last 9 months. However EB2 �Row has been current. EB2- ROW has never retrogressed before. EB3 ROW has seen considerable movement in last 9 months.
There may be four possible separate or combination of following reasons for the freeze of cutoff dates for India in EB2 at Jan 2003.
1. The backlog elimination effort of DOL pumped massive approved labor certificates from BEC. There may be tons of EB2 applicants from India and China with PD in the year 2001 and 2002 might have applied 485s based on recent approvals from BEC. However I doubt that. Because, in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003, EB3 India and China were �current�. No body cared about filing EB2 labor certification till the later part of 2004. Most lawyers preferred to file EB3 as it was easy, and there were no difference between EB3 and EB2 at that time. First ever indication for EB3 retrogression was issued by DOS only in later part of 2004. I doubt so many people have filed EB2-labor till 2003, keeping in mind that EB3 will retrogress in 2004 or future. Traditionally EB2 has been less demanding compare to EB1 and EB3.
2. Perhaps, there may be a huge demand by ROW (Due to PERM) to consume all the 86% of visa numbers in EB2 category in every month that prompts DOS to allocate only 7% to India and China. I doubt this too, because India and China itself consume about 60% of EB2 visas.
3. There may be lot of EB3 Indians and Chinese with PD 2001 and 2002 porting their PD from EB3 to EB2 by filing new LC and EB2-I-140. This may escalate the demand. However, how many will do this? How many employers will to do this �favor� for their employees? A real US employer/big corporations will not do double time work for an employee. Only consulting/staffing companies will do this. I think this may be a small group (or may not be?).
4. There may be another possible reason. There may be something wrong with U.S.DOS in allocating visa numbers in EB2 category, as per section 202 (a) of current INA. They may be issuing only 2800 (7% of 40,000) visas to India and China in EB2 and redirecting unused EB2 numbers to EB3 category. They may be imposing hard country cap in EB2 (Suspending AC21 law as per their VB Nov 2005). There is a large room for this speculation, due to the pattern of cutoff date movement in EB2 category. This is just a speculation. This argument/speculation is valid if DOS has issued less than 40,000 EB2 visas in FY 2006 as mandated by the law, and issued those numbers (40,000 minus actually issued) to EB3-ROW. In my view, it violates section 203 (b) (2) of the INA. One has to wait till they release statistics for FY 2006, to see how many EB2 visas are issued in that FY.
Here is some detailed analysis that says why it violates the law.
Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 203 a and b of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets numbers for each preference categories with in FB and EB.
Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320. This section also explains how to handle unused numbers with respect to country quota.
Even before AC21 rule enacted in 2000, there was no �hard� country cap as per INA then. Here is the section of INA before year 2000, describes how to allocate unused visas, if overall/total demand for FB an EB visas are less than supply*.
INA 202 (a) (3)
�Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a-Family category) and (b-Employment category) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter�.
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
After 2000 (After AC21) the following law was added to INA in the section 202.
INA 202 (a) (5) (A)
EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
As per my simple interpretation of above AC21 rule, DOS should allocate unused visas by ROW �EB2 (ROW- countries other than India and China in EB2 category) for the first two months of any calendar quarter to over-subscribed countries (India & China) at the third month of that calendar quarter. They should not allocate to lower Preference category (EB3), if demand is more in higher preference category (EB2) to consume all the visa numbers in that preference category. They should allocate visas to all the documentarily qualified applicants in that (EB2) preference category, irrespective of country of birth. If they followed this rule/law, there may be a considerable movement in cut-off dates for India and China in Dec 2005, Mar, June and Sep of 2006 in EB2 (last month of each calendar quarter in a fiscal year). We have not witnessed such movement in last 1.5 years. No one knows how DOS is allocating numbers. They may be allocating only 7% visas to India and China in EB2 category very strictly, every month, and allocating unused numbers to EB3 category, by suspending AC21 law as indicated in their Nov 2005 Visa Bulletin. If they do so, it is against the law, at least in my interpretation of AC21 rule that eliminates country quota in EB categories.
DOS can not interpret above AC21 rule that eliminates per country limit applies �totally� to all EB categories put together, not by individual preference categories. I.e. If they say they will issue more than 2,800 visas to EB2- India per year (more than 7% of 40,000), provided overall demand for EB visas are less than 140,000. If they interpret the law like this, then there is no need for section 202(a) (5) (A) due to AC21 law. The law before AC21 {i.e. section 202 (a) (3)} itself address the elimination of country quota in both FB and EB category*. Then, section 202(a) (5) (A) is a duplicate wording of section 202(a) (3). So, this section of AC21 law becomes a redundant/duplicate law. Then, there is no meaning of employment �preference� category if they interpret �totally or overall worldwide demand�. In other words, a non-Indian/Chinese restaurant cook (EB3) is more preferred than a NIW PhDs (EB2) from India or China. Is it the intend of the congress when enacting AC21 law in removing per country limitation in EB category? Is it the American Competitiveness in 21st century? I highly doubt that.
Now it is the time to ask US DOS, how they are allocating visa number in EB2 category. If DOS interpreting the law differently, then we need to ask the law makers (Congress) what is their original intension behind the section 202(a)(5)(A) when they drafted the AC21 law in 2000 and how it is differ from 202 (a) (3).
Perhaps Core IV team can initiate to discuss/consult this issue with an immigration lawyer and place an enquiry with DOS or Law makers, if needed.
(*Note: DOS do not mix FB and EB categories for visa number allocation/calculation to meet the per country limit. They keep both in separate track to meet separately the 7% limit)
I am one of the members of the forum and suffering due to the severe retrogression of EB visas. I highly appreciate IV�s effort to bring some legislative relief to address the severe backlogs in EB visas. I too participated in all IVs campaign in urging the law makers to bring some relief for this crisis. However, I have some concern here; about the method followed U.S DOS in allocating EB visas particularly in EB2 category for India and China. I am worried whether U.S DOS is violating the INA 202 (a), by suspending AC21 provision that eliminates country quota in EB categories. If they are violating by mistake, it is our responsibility to notify/clarify with them or we need to understand the law clearly. This is very important. Because, even if 110th congress passes SKIL bill, if DOS violates the AC21 law then it will not help applicants from oversubscribed countries (India and China). Here is my analysis based on following facts.
The cutoff date for EB2 India has moved just 7 days since last 9 months. However EB2 �Row has been current. EB2- ROW has never retrogressed before. EB3 ROW has seen considerable movement in last 9 months.
There may be four possible separate or combination of following reasons for the freeze of cutoff dates for India in EB2 at Jan 2003.
1. The backlog elimination effort of DOL pumped massive approved labor certificates from BEC. There may be tons of EB2 applicants from India and China with PD in the year 2001 and 2002 might have applied 485s based on recent approvals from BEC. However I doubt that. Because, in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003, EB3 India and China were �current�. No body cared about filing EB2 labor certification till the later part of 2004. Most lawyers preferred to file EB3 as it was easy, and there were no difference between EB3 and EB2 at that time. First ever indication for EB3 retrogression was issued by DOS only in later part of 2004. I doubt so many people have filed EB2-labor till 2003, keeping in mind that EB3 will retrogress in 2004 or future. Traditionally EB2 has been less demanding compare to EB1 and EB3.
2. Perhaps, there may be a huge demand by ROW (Due to PERM) to consume all the 86% of visa numbers in EB2 category in every month that prompts DOS to allocate only 7% to India and China. I doubt this too, because India and China itself consume about 60% of EB2 visas.
3. There may be lot of EB3 Indians and Chinese with PD 2001 and 2002 porting their PD from EB3 to EB2 by filing new LC and EB2-I-140. This may escalate the demand. However, how many will do this? How many employers will to do this �favor� for their employees? A real US employer/big corporations will not do double time work for an employee. Only consulting/staffing companies will do this. I think this may be a small group (or may not be?).
4. There may be another possible reason. There may be something wrong with U.S.DOS in allocating visa numbers in EB2 category, as per section 202 (a) of current INA. They may be issuing only 2800 (7% of 40,000) visas to India and China in EB2 and redirecting unused EB2 numbers to EB3 category. They may be imposing hard country cap in EB2 (Suspending AC21 law as per their VB Nov 2005). There is a large room for this speculation, due to the pattern of cutoff date movement in EB2 category. This is just a speculation. This argument/speculation is valid if DOS has issued less than 40,000 EB2 visas in FY 2006 as mandated by the law, and issued those numbers (40,000 minus actually issued) to EB3-ROW. In my view, it violates section 203 (b) (2) of the INA. One has to wait till they release statistics for FY 2006, to see how many EB2 visas are issued in that FY.
Here is some detailed analysis that says why it violates the law.
Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 203 a and b of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets numbers for each preference categories with in FB and EB.
Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320. This section also explains how to handle unused numbers with respect to country quota.
Even before AC21 rule enacted in 2000, there was no �hard� country cap as per INA then. Here is the section of INA before year 2000, describes how to allocate unused visas, if overall/total demand for FB an EB visas are less than supply*.
INA 202 (a) (3)
�Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a-Family category) and (b-Employment category) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter�.
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
After 2000 (After AC21) the following law was added to INA in the section 202.
INA 202 (a) (5) (A)
EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
As per my simple interpretation of above AC21 rule, DOS should allocate unused visas by ROW �EB2 (ROW- countries other than India and China in EB2 category) for the first two months of any calendar quarter to over-subscribed countries (India & China) at the third month of that calendar quarter. They should not allocate to lower Preference category (EB3), if demand is more in higher preference category (EB2) to consume all the visa numbers in that preference category. They should allocate visas to all the documentarily qualified applicants in that (EB2) preference category, irrespective of country of birth. If they followed this rule/law, there may be a considerable movement in cut-off dates for India and China in Dec 2005, Mar, June and Sep of 2006 in EB2 (last month of each calendar quarter in a fiscal year). We have not witnessed such movement in last 1.5 years. No one knows how DOS is allocating numbers. They may be allocating only 7% visas to India and China in EB2 category very strictly, every month, and allocating unused numbers to EB3 category, by suspending AC21 law as indicated in their Nov 2005 Visa Bulletin. If they do so, it is against the law, at least in my interpretation of AC21 rule that eliminates country quota in EB categories.
DOS can not interpret above AC21 rule that eliminates per country limit applies �totally� to all EB categories put together, not by individual preference categories. I.e. If they say they will issue more than 2,800 visas to EB2- India per year (more than 7% of 40,000), provided overall demand for EB visas are less than 140,000. If they interpret the law like this, then there is no need for section 202(a) (5) (A) due to AC21 law. The law before AC21 {i.e. section 202 (a) (3)} itself address the elimination of country quota in both FB and EB category*. Then, section 202(a) (5) (A) is a duplicate wording of section 202(a) (3). So, this section of AC21 law becomes a redundant/duplicate law. Then, there is no meaning of employment �preference� category if they interpret �totally or overall worldwide demand�. In other words, a non-Indian/Chinese restaurant cook (EB3) is more preferred than a NIW PhDs (EB2) from India or China. Is it the intend of the congress when enacting AC21 law in removing per country limitation in EB category? Is it the American Competitiveness in 21st century? I highly doubt that.
Now it is the time to ask US DOS, how they are allocating visa number in EB2 category. If DOS interpreting the law differently, then we need to ask the law makers (Congress) what is their original intension behind the section 202(a)(5)(A) when they drafted the AC21 law in 2000 and how it is differ from 202 (a) (3).
Perhaps Core IV team can initiate to discuss/consult this issue with an immigration lawyer and place an enquiry with DOS or Law makers, if needed.
(*Note: DOS do not mix FB and EB categories for visa number allocation/calculation to meet the per country limit. They keep both in separate track to meet separately the 7% limit)
hairstyles miley cyrus haircut like
gc_buddy
07-27 01:37 PM
E-filed EAD on : 06/19
Reciepts recd on 06/26
Finger print recd on 07/01 for date of 07/11
Card Production Ordered status : 07/25
Awaiting the EAD card..
Reciepts recd on 06/26
Finger print recd on 07/01 for date of 07/11
Card Production Ordered status : 07/25
Awaiting the EAD card..
lazycis
12-28 11:32 AM
Hi,
I-140 approved - June 2006
I-485 Filed in July 2007
AP- Approved Oct 2007
FP - Done in Oct 2007
Can someone tell me how to check whether Finger Printing is cleared and case has been sent/approved from FBI Name Check
FP status check phone is 304-625-5590. Name check is a different story. Write a letter to your congressman/senator or even Mr. President to inquiry about the name check status.
I-140 approved - June 2006
I-485 Filed in July 2007
AP- Approved Oct 2007
FP - Done in Oct 2007
Can someone tell me how to check whether Finger Printing is cleared and case has been sent/approved from FBI Name Check
FP status check phone is 304-625-5590. Name check is a different story. Write a letter to your congressman/senator or even Mr. President to inquiry about the name check status.
qualified_trash
05-26 10:02 AM
Jaime,
It is easier for you to go to India if your company sends you there on an expat assignment. As the pool of available labor is very high, it is IMHO very difficult for you to go independently. You can also try to google for agencies that recruit people for specific skills etc that maybe in short supply in your specific industry. I am not sure what your skills are (IT, Sales, Marketing or Engineering etc). More information would let people give you better pointers.
It is easier for you to go to India if your company sends you there on an expat assignment. As the pool of available labor is very high, it is IMHO very difficult for you to go independently. You can also try to google for agencies that recruit people for specific skills etc that maybe in short supply in your specific industry. I am not sure what your skills are (IT, Sales, Marketing or Engineering etc). More information would let people give you better pointers.