anilsal
10-30 03:21 PM
realized late that he had the expiry date wrong in his mind. So he has applied and it is > 100 days. They moved the already CPO date from Oct 10 to 29th, stating "lack of printable cards" (learned through info pass).
Imagine he is sitting at home, not working for > 3 months because he did not keep track of his expiry dates.
Because of one negligence, he is losing a lot of salary by not working. :(
The current EAD delays is certainly scary. Hope it is an exception not the norm.:mad:
Imagine he is sitting at home, not working for > 3 months because he did not keep track of his expiry dates.
Because of one negligence, he is losing a lot of salary by not working. :(
The current EAD delays is certainly scary. Hope it is an exception not the norm.:mad:
wallpaper love quotes to him from her.
god_bless_you
02-20 06:21 PM
Office of Communications
www.uscis.gov
Questions & Answers February 20, 2008
FBI Name Check
Q1. How has USCIS changed its national security reporting and adjudication
requirements?
A1. USCIS has not changed its background check policies as those policies related to naturalization
applications. Recently, the agency did modify its existing guidance for applications where the
immigration laws allow for the detention and removal of individuals if actionable information from a FBI
name check response is received after approval. For these types of applications, including applications
for lawful permanent residence, the adjudicators will approve the application if it is otherwise approvable
and the FBI name check request has been pending for more than 180 days. No application for lawful
permanent residence will be approved until a definitive FBI fingerprint check and Interagency Border
Inspection Services (IBIS) check are completed and resolved favorably.
Q2. Why is this policy being implemented?
A2. This policy change is in response to a 2005 DHS Inspector General recommendation that USCIS
align its background check screening policies with those of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Q3. Is this policy consistent with the national security priorities of USCIS and the Department of
Homeland Security?
A3. Yes. No application for lawful permanent residence will be approved until a definitive FBI
fingerprint check and Interagency Border Inspection Services (IBIS) check are completed and resolved
favorably. In addition, in the unlikely event that DHS receives actionable information after the
application is approved, it will initiate removal proceedings. Lastly, in general these individuals have
been in the United States for some time and have previously been subjected to DHS background checks.
Q4. What applications are affected by this policy change?
A4. Applications included in this policy are:
�� I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status;
�� I-601, Application for Waiver of Ground of Inadmissibility;
�� I-687, Application for Status as a Temporary Resident Under Section 245A of the Immigration
and Nationality Act; and
�� I-698, Application to Adjust Status from Temporary to Permanent Resident (Under Section 245A
of Public Law 99-603).
Q5. How many applications for lawful permanent residence are affected by this policy change?
A3. USCIS is currently aware of approximately 47,000 applications for permanent residence (I-485) cases
that are otherwise approvable but for the fact that an FBI name check is pending. In a subset of these
case, the FBI name check request that been pending for more than 180 days. USCIS anticipates that the
majority of the cases that are subject to this policy modification will be processed by mid-March 2008.
Q5. Does this policy change affect naturalization applications?
A5. No. There is no change in the requirement that FBI name check, FBI fingerprint and IBIS check
results be obtained and resolved prior to the adjudication of an Application for Naturalization (N-400),
Q6. How long will it take for USCIS to work through these cases affected by the policy change?
A6. USCIS has begun identifying the cases affected by this policy modification in each field office and
service center. Each office will evaluate the pending cases and will adjust their workload accordingly.
USCIS anticipates that the majority of the cases that are subject to this policy modification will be
processed by mid-March 2008. We recommend that customers wait until mid-March before inquiring
about their cases. This will allow each office sufficient time to identify and adjudicate pending cases.
Q7. USCIS Director Gonzalez pledged in his January 17, 2008, testimony regarding naturalization
backlogs before Congress not to cut corners in the adjudicative process or risk national security in
the interest of production? Does this policy comply with the Director’s pledge?
A7. Yes. There is no change in the requirement that FBI name check, FBI fingerprint and IBIS check
results be obtained and resolved prior to the adjudication of an Application for Naturalization (N-400),
For those applications for permanent residence that are affected by this policy modification, no
application will be approved until a definitive FBI fingerprint check and Interagency Border Inspection
Services (IBIS) check are completed and resolved favorably. USCIS will continue to initiate the FBI
name check requests upon receipt of the applications and will review, monitor and track cases approved
under this policy until the FBI name check is complete. In the unlikely event that DHS receives
actionable information after the application is approved, it will initiate removal proceedings.
Q8. The memorandum identifies I-485, I-601, I-687 and I-698 forms. Is there a plan to include
other forms, specifically nonimmigrant and naturalization, in this policy?
A8. No.
Q9. Should customers contact USCIS through the 1-800 customer service number or make an
INFOPASS appointment to visit their local office if they believe their application meets the criteria
of this new policy?
A9. We recommend that customers wait until mid-March before inquiring about cases affected by this
policy modification. This will allow each office sufficient time to identify and adjudicate the relevant
pending cases. If no action is taken by mid-March, we recommend inquiring with the USCIS customer
service line at 1-800-375-5283.
Q10. Will USCIS automatically notify an applicant to appear at an Application Support Center if their fingerprints have expired?
A10. Applicants will be notified through an appointment notice if new/updated fingerprint checks are
needed.
– USCIS –
www.uscis.gov
Questions & Answers February 20, 2008
FBI Name Check
Q1. How has USCIS changed its national security reporting and adjudication
requirements?
A1. USCIS has not changed its background check policies as those policies related to naturalization
applications. Recently, the agency did modify its existing guidance for applications where the
immigration laws allow for the detention and removal of individuals if actionable information from a FBI
name check response is received after approval. For these types of applications, including applications
for lawful permanent residence, the adjudicators will approve the application if it is otherwise approvable
and the FBI name check request has been pending for more than 180 days. No application for lawful
permanent residence will be approved until a definitive FBI fingerprint check and Interagency Border
Inspection Services (IBIS) check are completed and resolved favorably.
Q2. Why is this policy being implemented?
A2. This policy change is in response to a 2005 DHS Inspector General recommendation that USCIS
align its background check screening policies with those of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Q3. Is this policy consistent with the national security priorities of USCIS and the Department of
Homeland Security?
A3. Yes. No application for lawful permanent residence will be approved until a definitive FBI
fingerprint check and Interagency Border Inspection Services (IBIS) check are completed and resolved
favorably. In addition, in the unlikely event that DHS receives actionable information after the
application is approved, it will initiate removal proceedings. Lastly, in general these individuals have
been in the United States for some time and have previously been subjected to DHS background checks.
Q4. What applications are affected by this policy change?
A4. Applications included in this policy are:
�� I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status;
�� I-601, Application for Waiver of Ground of Inadmissibility;
�� I-687, Application for Status as a Temporary Resident Under Section 245A of the Immigration
and Nationality Act; and
�� I-698, Application to Adjust Status from Temporary to Permanent Resident (Under Section 245A
of Public Law 99-603).
Q5. How many applications for lawful permanent residence are affected by this policy change?
A3. USCIS is currently aware of approximately 47,000 applications for permanent residence (I-485) cases
that are otherwise approvable but for the fact that an FBI name check is pending. In a subset of these
case, the FBI name check request that been pending for more than 180 days. USCIS anticipates that the
majority of the cases that are subject to this policy modification will be processed by mid-March 2008.
Q5. Does this policy change affect naturalization applications?
A5. No. There is no change in the requirement that FBI name check, FBI fingerprint and IBIS check
results be obtained and resolved prior to the adjudication of an Application for Naturalization (N-400),
Q6. How long will it take for USCIS to work through these cases affected by the policy change?
A6. USCIS has begun identifying the cases affected by this policy modification in each field office and
service center. Each office will evaluate the pending cases and will adjust their workload accordingly.
USCIS anticipates that the majority of the cases that are subject to this policy modification will be
processed by mid-March 2008. We recommend that customers wait until mid-March before inquiring
about their cases. This will allow each office sufficient time to identify and adjudicate pending cases.
Q7. USCIS Director Gonzalez pledged in his January 17, 2008, testimony regarding naturalization
backlogs before Congress not to cut corners in the adjudicative process or risk national security in
the interest of production? Does this policy comply with the Director’s pledge?
A7. Yes. There is no change in the requirement that FBI name check, FBI fingerprint and IBIS check
results be obtained and resolved prior to the adjudication of an Application for Naturalization (N-400),
For those applications for permanent residence that are affected by this policy modification, no
application will be approved until a definitive FBI fingerprint check and Interagency Border Inspection
Services (IBIS) check are completed and resolved favorably. USCIS will continue to initiate the FBI
name check requests upon receipt of the applications and will review, monitor and track cases approved
under this policy until the FBI name check is complete. In the unlikely event that DHS receives
actionable information after the application is approved, it will initiate removal proceedings.
Q8. The memorandum identifies I-485, I-601, I-687 and I-698 forms. Is there a plan to include
other forms, specifically nonimmigrant and naturalization, in this policy?
A8. No.
Q9. Should customers contact USCIS through the 1-800 customer service number or make an
INFOPASS appointment to visit their local office if they believe their application meets the criteria
of this new policy?
A9. We recommend that customers wait until mid-March before inquiring about cases affected by this
policy modification. This will allow each office sufficient time to identify and adjudicate the relevant
pending cases. If no action is taken by mid-March, we recommend inquiring with the USCIS customer
service line at 1-800-375-5283.
Q10. Will USCIS automatically notify an applicant to appear at an Application Support Center if their fingerprints have expired?
A10. Applicants will be notified through an appointment notice if new/updated fingerprint checks are
needed.
– USCIS –
sandy_anand
11-25 06:42 PM
Thanks a million, core team, for the effort!!!!!! As many have already raised the issue, can you please clarify that core does indeed forecast a jump of nearly 3 years for EB-2 India between Jul-10 and Oct-10?
2011 love quotes for him from her.
sats123
06-19 10:26 PM
Chandu might be right.
Carlau, I looked into the database. Thats a very good info. I found the record and also title. Thanks for your help.
I will be getting my doctor's report shortly.
I did contact another law firm, they want a letter from employer.
Sats123, Chanduv23 is correct, also reading that with the paystubs you can avoid the employer letter saying that you work in such position and for such salary, finding out what position they used to file your labor (did you find it in the database on my previous post) and considering that you are about to get ripped off, it would be advisable that you go through that lawyer that someone was saying charges 1000 to file your papers and 500 for your spouse;
Did you get the medicals? I know it takes time now to get an appointment, and if you want to file the I-485 on your own, please ask if you have questions, I think you can get out of this trap and before the immigration rates hike on July 30th.
Carlau, I looked into the database. Thats a very good info. I found the record and also title. Thanks for your help.
I will be getting my doctor's report shortly.
I did contact another law firm, they want a letter from employer.
Sats123, Chanduv23 is correct, also reading that with the paystubs you can avoid the employer letter saying that you work in such position and for such salary, finding out what position they used to file your labor (did you find it in the database on my previous post) and considering that you are about to get ripped off, it would be advisable that you go through that lawyer that someone was saying charges 1000 to file your papers and 500 for your spouse;
Did you get the medicals? I know it takes time now to get an appointment, and if you want to file the I-485 on your own, please ask if you have questions, I think you can get out of this trap and before the immigration rates hike on July 30th.
more...
LostInGCProcess
10-29 09:40 AM
So much for so called "highly skilled". Young guys out there, in their 20s....think twice about making America your permanent home. Right now, it is very discouraging.
It is sad. When you call USCIS to get some information, its almost like we are hitting against an Iron wall. They dont give out any information except read from a standard text. They could as well have some automated machine to read those out.
I just want to know if there is an official explanation for the delay in EAD renewal from USCIS. Wonder why it takes that long when they already have all our 'janamkundli' with them.
It is sad. When you call USCIS to get some information, its almost like we are hitting against an Iron wall. They dont give out any information except read from a standard text. They could as well have some automated machine to read those out.
I just want to know if there is an official explanation for the delay in EAD renewal from USCIS. Wonder why it takes that long when they already have all our 'janamkundli' with them.
Saralayar
12-18 02:49 PM
Sorry to hear about your situation. You should've taken unpaid leave for two weeks instead of a lay off. Now you definitely should not file AC21 and hope that the USCIS will not issue RFE (rarely happens). It doesn't matter how you quit, if the USCIS finds about it, it will probably deny I-485.
Regarding Shusterman's Q&A. I am not sure where is he coming from. The law does not provide for lay-off exception.
Recently I heard that if you are laid off from the company, then the 180 days period won't come into picutre and you can very well move to another company, provided your I-140 is approved and not revoked. I think they have made some modifications recently to the law on this type of cases. Talk to your Lawer to find out these changes.
Regarding Shusterman's Q&A. I am not sure where is he coming from. The law does not provide for lay-off exception.
Recently I heard that if you are laid off from the company, then the 180 days period won't come into picutre and you can very well move to another company, provided your I-140 is approved and not revoked. I think they have made some modifications recently to the law on this type of cases. Talk to your Lawer to find out these changes.
more...
Libra
07-08 11:19 AM
NBC news is old one on youtube and i rated 5 stars, but i think green card(other one) is new and awesome. rated 5 stars.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEpN96P_1LA&NR=1
I loved it. If I am right, this is posted by an IV core team member.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEpN96P_1LA&NR=1
I loved it. If I am right, this is posted by an IV core team member.
2010 love quotes for him from her.
swamy
04-01 10:47 PM
Ramba and others
Thanks for all your responses, It is clearly the attorneys fault.
- I have a letter I wrote to the attorney asking them to withdraw the representation. and the letter clearly states that.
- I have a copy of the letter the attorney sent to USCIS and this letter is clearly asking USCIS to withdraw the case.
The error is with the Attorney and it is one of the big immigration firms.
What really bothers me is that the error is not on USCIS's part but the error is of the Attorney so I am afraid that USCIS may not be too inclined to reinstate the case.
Does any one know if the client has any legal protection from errors and mistakes made by the attorneys
Does any one know if the client has any legal protection from errors and mistakes made by the attorneys
Please help.
oh boy - pls tell me its not fragomen!
Thanks for all your responses, It is clearly the attorneys fault.
- I have a letter I wrote to the attorney asking them to withdraw the representation. and the letter clearly states that.
- I have a copy of the letter the attorney sent to USCIS and this letter is clearly asking USCIS to withdraw the case.
The error is with the Attorney and it is one of the big immigration firms.
What really bothers me is that the error is not on USCIS's part but the error is of the Attorney so I am afraid that USCIS may not be too inclined to reinstate the case.
Does any one know if the client has any legal protection from errors and mistakes made by the attorneys
Does any one know if the client has any legal protection from errors and mistakes made by the attorneys
Please help.
oh boy - pls tell me its not fragomen!
more...
Dipika
08-06 12:12 PM
count me for Dec 2004.
hair love quotes for her from him.
xu1
04-01 03:38 PM
sent..
i was IMing with a friend working for microsoft and trying to tell him about IV. he had already been a contributing member! :)
i was IMing with a friend working for microsoft and trying to tell him about IV. he had already been a contributing member! :)
more...
raysaikat
07-19 06:20 PM
Now my hunch is that risk no. 1 is a low risk. Either the dates won't retrogress again, or even if they do, they will move forward in October again. So we can live with that.
Risk no. 2 is a bigger risk. But can USCIS take a decision on my I-485 petition so quickly. I don't think so. But if it does, then we lovers will be torn apart.
And lastly, has anybody ever heard of "Follow to join" procedure? What exactly is it and can we utilize it to our benefit?
If your GC is approved before your wife can enter US and apply for I-485, then she can do "following to join" through consular processing. The apparent wisdom seems to be that the application has to be done quite quickly, but I had read in one website that there is no time limit to apply (it is possible that the law changed in that regard; you need to seek a competent lawyer's advice and check the current rules). I also read that visa numbers are not required for following to join; i.e., she can get GC even if PD retrogrades. Again, that could be a outdated law, or perhaps that wording was for the "following to join" procedure for the spouses of US citizens. In any case, if you act quickly and properly, there is not much to worry about not being able to get your wife into US after your GC.
Risk no. 2 is a bigger risk. But can USCIS take a decision on my I-485 petition so quickly. I don't think so. But if it does, then we lovers will be torn apart.
And lastly, has anybody ever heard of "Follow to join" procedure? What exactly is it and can we utilize it to our benefit?
If your GC is approved before your wife can enter US and apply for I-485, then she can do "following to join" through consular processing. The apparent wisdom seems to be that the application has to be done quite quickly, but I had read in one website that there is no time limit to apply (it is possible that the law changed in that regard; you need to seek a competent lawyer's advice and check the current rules). I also read that visa numbers are not required for following to join; i.e., she can get GC even if PD retrogrades. Again, that could be a outdated law, or perhaps that wording was for the "following to join" procedure for the spouses of US citizens. In any case, if you act quickly and properly, there is not much to worry about not being able to get your wife into US after your GC.
hot love quotes for him and her. i
satishku_2000
05-31 01:35 AM
I am on a non immigrant visa and am fairly close to getting my green card through EB-1 under current system - so am basically screwed if the new law passes. I have sent my share of web faxes and have made my wife/ friends at work do the same. I view green card as a logistical convenience and not a do or die thing. If GC does not work out and my work visa upper limit expires - my company would move me elsewhere (or I can get another job somewhere else)....I dont consider myself beholden to any country except India (my country of birth) and would happily move around till I can afford to settle down comfortably in India
However, if I think rationally without being condescending, here is my take:
Legislators in a democratic country are answerable to the people who vote (that excludes all of us). If the Indian MPs start listening to the thousands of neighboring country (no offence intended - just illustration of a point) immigrants while making up their mind on any legislation - I would be damn pissed off - regardless of whether they pay taxes or not.
When we all came to US on work visas - US Govt did not make any promises about green card nor did they extend an express invitation to most of us (there may be some exceptional scientists/ educators etc here and I beg their apology)......the contract was between us and sponsoring employers..not with the US Govt...US Govt may choose to legislate the way they deem fit without asking us or listening to us- regardless of what 1 million folks have to say
The opposition to the new law from skilled, legal non-immigrants is not united....nor are the demands uniform....a divided front can never be a strong front.
No matter what IV or any other organization does (not to take anything away from the great work being done here)......the senators/ congressmen would listen only to those who have voting rights....I dont think anything is being done here to change public opinion of the common US citizen.....and I am not even sure how to do that....common US citizens think that Indians (and other work visa holders) are here to take away the nice white collar jobs which they took for granted.......
Senators/ congressment do not (and they should not in a real democracy) have any opinion - they are supposed to mirror the opinion of the voting majority...the reason they care about the illegal immigrants is because the ethnic segment from which an overwhelming number of illegals come from - their legal US citizen brethren have put their electoral weight behind this.....since many families are like 50% legal and 50% illegal......
with all due respect to you sir, Can you please explain us what to do? If someone want to pack bags and leave they can always do that and my humble advice to those people is dont waste your time on these forums.
However, if I think rationally without being condescending, here is my take:
Legislators in a democratic country are answerable to the people who vote (that excludes all of us). If the Indian MPs start listening to the thousands of neighboring country (no offence intended - just illustration of a point) immigrants while making up their mind on any legislation - I would be damn pissed off - regardless of whether they pay taxes or not.
When we all came to US on work visas - US Govt did not make any promises about green card nor did they extend an express invitation to most of us (there may be some exceptional scientists/ educators etc here and I beg their apology)......the contract was between us and sponsoring employers..not with the US Govt...US Govt may choose to legislate the way they deem fit without asking us or listening to us- regardless of what 1 million folks have to say
The opposition to the new law from skilled, legal non-immigrants is not united....nor are the demands uniform....a divided front can never be a strong front.
No matter what IV or any other organization does (not to take anything away from the great work being done here)......the senators/ congressmen would listen only to those who have voting rights....I dont think anything is being done here to change public opinion of the common US citizen.....and I am not even sure how to do that....common US citizens think that Indians (and other work visa holders) are here to take away the nice white collar jobs which they took for granted.......
Senators/ congressment do not (and they should not in a real democracy) have any opinion - they are supposed to mirror the opinion of the voting majority...the reason they care about the illegal immigrants is because the ethnic segment from which an overwhelming number of illegals come from - their legal US citizen brethren have put their electoral weight behind this.....since many families are like 50% legal and 50% illegal......
with all due respect to you sir, Can you please explain us what to do? If someone want to pack bags and leave they can always do that and my humble advice to those people is dont waste your time on these forums.
more...
house love quotes for him and her.
qvadis
12-29 12:14 AM
Being on the other side (EB3-ROW) I read the law a bit differently ;-)
In short:
- INA 202 (a) (2) establishes a 7% country limit for both FB and EB categories together and per fiscal year.
- INA 202 (a) (3) allows to make unused visas available per quarter in excess to the 7% country limit.
- INA 202 (e) specifies that any visas in excess to 7% must be distributed equally to FB and EB, and each sub-categories.
- INA 202 (a) (5) gives preference to EB (over FB) and determines the allottment for additional visas with preference to EB1 over EB2, etc.
INA 202 (a) (5)
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.
I guess the question here is, what does "visas available" in conjunction with INA 203(b) mean.
INA 203 (b) (3) (EB3)
[...] Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) [...]
The way I read it all this is that the rules in INA 203 (b) (1)...(5) should be applied first before INA 202 (a) (5), ie. additional visas are only available if EB-3 ROW is current.
So, the allottment should work as follows:
Any unused visas in EB-1 (with regards to 7% country limit) will spill over to EB-2, and unused visas from EB-2 to EB-3, etc. If there are still unused visas, they will be used for countries that are subject to the 7% limit, first in EB-1, then EB-2, etc.
Even before AC21 rule enacted in 2000, there was no �hard� country cap as per INA then. [...]
INA 202 (a) (3)
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
(*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 would disagree with the premise in your note. You could also read it that the 7% applies to the sum of both FB and EB categories: "[T]he total number of immigrant visas [...] under subsections (a) and (b) [...] may not exceed 7 percent [...] of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections [...].�
Subsection (e) actually seems to suggest that any additional visas have to be allotted proportional to FB and EB categories:
[I]INA 202 (e)
If it is determined that the total number of immigrant visas [...] will exceed the numerical limitation [...] visa numbers with respect to natives of that state or area shall be allocated (to the extent practicable and otherwise consistent with this section and section 203) in a manner so that -
(1)
the ratio of the visa numbers made available under section 203(a) to the visa numbers made available under section 203(b) is equal to the ratio of the worldwide level of immigration under section 201(c) to such level under section 201 (d);
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
I guess the important phrase in the law is IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE. You seem to interpret 203 (b) as only up to 28.5% are available without the ones spilled over from higher categories.
In short:
- INA 202 (a) (2) establishes a 7% country limit for both FB and EB categories together and per fiscal year.
- INA 202 (a) (3) allows to make unused visas available per quarter in excess to the 7% country limit.
- INA 202 (e) specifies that any visas in excess to 7% must be distributed equally to FB and EB, and each sub-categories.
- INA 202 (a) (5) gives preference to EB (over FB) and determines the allottment for additional visas with preference to EB1 over EB2, etc.
INA 202 (a) (5)
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.
I guess the question here is, what does "visas available" in conjunction with INA 203(b) mean.
INA 203 (b) (3) (EB3)
[...] Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) [...]
The way I read it all this is that the rules in INA 203 (b) (1)...(5) should be applied first before INA 202 (a) (5), ie. additional visas are only available if EB-3 ROW is current.
So, the allottment should work as follows:
Any unused visas in EB-1 (with regards to 7% country limit) will spill over to EB-2, and unused visas from EB-2 to EB-3, etc. If there are still unused visas, they will be used for countries that are subject to the 7% limit, first in EB-1, then EB-2, etc.
Even before AC21 rule enacted in 2000, there was no �hard� country cap as per INA then. [...]
INA 202 (a) (3)
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
(*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 would disagree with the premise in your note. You could also read it that the 7% applies to the sum of both FB and EB categories: "[T]he total number of immigrant visas [...] under subsections (a) and (b) [...] may not exceed 7 percent [...] of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections [...].�
Subsection (e) actually seems to suggest that any additional visas have to be allotted proportional to FB and EB categories:
[I]INA 202 (e)
If it is determined that the total number of immigrant visas [...] will exceed the numerical limitation [...] visa numbers with respect to natives of that state or area shall be allocated (to the extent practicable and otherwise consistent with this section and section 203) in a manner so that -
(1)
the ratio of the visa numbers made available under section 203(a) to the visa numbers made available under section 203(b) is equal to the ratio of the worldwide level of immigration under section 201(c) to such level under section 201 (d);
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
I guess the important phrase in the law is IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE. You seem to interpret 203 (b) as only up to 28.5% are available without the ones spilled over from higher categories.
tattoo love quotes for him and her.
priderock
08-13 04:09 PM
Just curious, why would any one file again just because they did not get the receipt for the first one (unless there is a legitimate concern like no Fedex/currier tracking for the first one , change of conditions like have second/better LC etc)?
What guarantees the second one will be accepted ? Just improving the odds ? Then, why stop at filing two applications ??
What guarantees the second one will be accepted ? Just improving the odds ? Then, why stop at filing two applications ??
more...
pictures love quotes for him and her.
prioritydate
08-05 07:42 PM
I am trying to keep track of 2004 cases. I think USCIS is not doing fair justice by not giving preference to 2004 cases. Please post your priority date, I-140 approval dates(if approved), I-485 received dates, Name check cleared date(if cleared), finger print cleared date(if you gave finger prints and they got cleared)
My Details :
PD : 12/23/2004
I-140 Approval Date :05/03/2007
I-485 Received Date : 07/26/2007
Name Check Cleared.
Gave Finger Prints.
I think mine is straight forward case. :confused:
My Details :
PD : 12/23/2004
I-140 Approval Date :05/03/2007
I-485 Received Date : 07/26/2007
Name Check Cleared.
Gave Finger Prints.
I think mine is straight forward case. :confused:
dresses love quotes for her to him.
lordoftherings
07-16 11:59 PM
This is the same argument used by anti-immigrants.
I am a nurse so we better flood the job market; don't you think so?
Now how does that makes me an anti-immigrant :mad: :mad: :mad: . I am ofcourse happy that so many of my friends here are going one step further in getting GC. Something is better than nothing. But, suddenly more than 1/2 mill people getting EAD will have some effect on the market. People(on H1B) loosing jobs after 3-4 months may find themselves in a difficult situation to get a job.
I am on H1B myself, how can I ever be an anti-immigrant ?:) :) I was expecting a little bit more permamnent solution and not a band-aid solution as somebody pointed out.
lotr
I am a nurse so we better flood the job market; don't you think so?
Now how does that makes me an anti-immigrant :mad: :mad: :mad: . I am ofcourse happy that so many of my friends here are going one step further in getting GC. Something is better than nothing. But, suddenly more than 1/2 mill people getting EAD will have some effect on the market. People(on H1B) loosing jobs after 3-4 months may find themselves in a difficult situation to get a job.
I am on H1B myself, how can I ever be an anti-immigrant ?:) :) I was expecting a little bit more permamnent solution and not a band-aid solution as somebody pointed out.
lotr
more...
makeup love quotes missing him. love
casinoroyale
06-19 03:44 PM
But the text in the I-131 instructions is contradicting what you said.
If you have current AP, you can travel while your AP renewal is pending. AP renewal will be from the date when your current AP expire.
If you have current AP, you can travel while your AP renewal is pending. AP renewal will be from the date when your current AP expire.
girlfriend love quotes for him and her. i
whattodo21
12-08 09:31 AM
If an RFE is issued, how long does it take to get EAD/AP? Will the USCIS still honor the 90/120 day issuance?
hairstyles love quotes for him and her.
akhilmahajan
06-19 10:34 AM
^^^^BUmp^^^^
Check your PM. This is what i sent.
Check your PM. This is what i sent.
looivy
11-04 06:54 AM
In light of these election results, what is IV's new game plan for EB backlogged sufferers.
Piecemeal???
Should we start reaching out to Boehner?
Please only let IV committee respond to my question.
Piecemeal???
Should we start reaching out to Boehner?
Please only let IV committee respond to my question.
ak_manu
01-12 12:08 PM
I am traveling this month end to India via Frankfurt. I am on AP. I checked with German consulate in US and officer told me we need transit visa both ways (going and coming back). there are no exceptions. He confirmed the same twice when I went in person to get Transit visa.
I would rather listen to German consulate office rather than interpreting stupid sentences on German consulate web site. So please do get Transit visa with 2 entries.
I would rather listen to German consulate office rather than interpreting stupid sentences on German consulate web site. So please do get Transit visa with 2 entries.