rweworld1
07-12 04:38 PM
Hi,
My PD is March 1st 2006. Just wondering is March 1st is in or out? i.e. cut off is March 2nd or March 1st?
thanks,
Rwe
My PD is March 1st 2006. Just wondering is March 1st is in or out? i.e. cut off is March 2nd or March 1st?
thanks,
Rwe
wallpaper Girly Foot Tattoos
alisa
01-27 09:25 AM
I am glad you posted this.
I will put the numbers in the excel spreadsheet and see what comes out.
But these might give more sensible results than the preposterous wait times that we were getting.
If the average depletion rate for India is 34K per annum, then the wait times would look a lot better I think.
I am assuming that these numbers include the dependents. So, if 34K adjustment of status were awareded, then, roughly speaking, there were 17K primary applicants, and 17K dependents? Am I correct?
Also, for the accumulation rate, when we say that 65K H-1 visas are given out annually, I am assuming that does not include the dependents. Am I right??
FISCAL ------ Employment ------- EB3
YEAR ----- Total ---- INDIA | Total --- India
2000 ----- 111,024 | 15888 | 51,711 | -5567 :IV FY 2000 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2000%20table%20V.pdf)
2001 ----- 186,536 | 41720 | 90,274 | 16405 :IV FY 2001 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2001%20table%20V.pdf)
2002 ----- 171,583 | 41919 | 87,574 | 17428 :IV FY 2002 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2002%20table%20V.pdf)
2003 ----- -83,020 | 20818 | 47,354 | 10680 :IV FY 2003 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2003%20table%20V.pdf)
2004 ----- 157,107 | 39496 | 88,114 | 19962 :IV FY 2004 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY04tableV.pdf)
2005 ----- 242,335 | 47160 |122,130 | 23399 :IV FY 2005 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY05tableV.pdf)
6 yr total - 951,605| 207001| 487,157| 93441
Annual Avg --------- 34500 | -------- 15574
If this trend would have continued. There should not be any MAJOR retrogression problem, but if you remember from the Nov 05 VB. The warning was very clear:
During FY due to anticipated heavy demand, the AC21 provisions are not expected to apply, and the amount of Employment numbers available to any single country will be subject to the 7% cap. It is anticipated that the addition of unused FY-2005 Family numbers and the remaining AC21 numbers to the 140,000 annual minimum will result in an FY-2006 annual Employment limit of 152,000. This will mean an Employment per-country limit for FY-2006 of approximately 10,650.
To illustrate the effect of the reduced per-county limitation during FY-2006 on the oversubscribed countries, it should be noted that during FY-2005 India used approximately 47,175 Employment numbers.
If you plug this number into your analysis the result might be a couple of years of advance for your predictions.
andy
I will put the numbers in the excel spreadsheet and see what comes out.
But these might give more sensible results than the preposterous wait times that we were getting.
If the average depletion rate for India is 34K per annum, then the wait times would look a lot better I think.
I am assuming that these numbers include the dependents. So, if 34K adjustment of status were awareded, then, roughly speaking, there were 17K primary applicants, and 17K dependents? Am I correct?
Also, for the accumulation rate, when we say that 65K H-1 visas are given out annually, I am assuming that does not include the dependents. Am I right??
FISCAL ------ Employment ------- EB3
YEAR ----- Total ---- INDIA | Total --- India
2000 ----- 111,024 | 15888 | 51,711 | -5567 :IV FY 2000 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2000%20table%20V.pdf)
2001 ----- 186,536 | 41720 | 90,274 | 16405 :IV FY 2001 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2001%20table%20V.pdf)
2002 ----- 171,583 | 41919 | 87,574 | 17428 :IV FY 2002 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2002%20table%20V.pdf)
2003 ----- -83,020 | 20818 | 47,354 | 10680 :IV FY 2003 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2003%20table%20V.pdf)
2004 ----- 157,107 | 39496 | 88,114 | 19962 :IV FY 2004 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY04tableV.pdf)
2005 ----- 242,335 | 47160 |122,130 | 23399 :IV FY 2005 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY05tableV.pdf)
6 yr total - 951,605| 207001| 487,157| 93441
Annual Avg --------- 34500 | -------- 15574
If this trend would have continued. There should not be any MAJOR retrogression problem, but if you remember from the Nov 05 VB. The warning was very clear:
During FY due to anticipated heavy demand, the AC21 provisions are not expected to apply, and the amount of Employment numbers available to any single country will be subject to the 7% cap. It is anticipated that the addition of unused FY-2005 Family numbers and the remaining AC21 numbers to the 140,000 annual minimum will result in an FY-2006 annual Employment limit of 152,000. This will mean an Employment per-country limit for FY-2006 of approximately 10,650.
To illustrate the effect of the reduced per-county limitation during FY-2006 on the oversubscribed countries, it should be noted that during FY-2005 India used approximately 47,175 Employment numbers.
If you plug this number into your analysis the result might be a couple of years of advance for your predictions.
andy
vin
06-12 05:06 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19127991/site/newsweek/
38/50 dems voted for bill
Only 7/38 rep voted for bill.
There is a good chance that Bush will get 15 more out of 38 to favor the bill.
38/50 dems voted for bill
Only 7/38 rep voted for bill.
There is a good chance that Bush will get 15 more out of 38 to favor the bill.
2011 mothkingdom: My toe tattoos
natrajs
07-11 10:49 PM
You are absolutely right dude :)
All (whose PD will be current) the Eb2 India folks try your luckkkkkkkkkkkkk..
Even after your PD becomes current you are still at the mercy of the IO and RD, ND and all the odd's
Its like Mega Million or Power ball lotto. I don't trust USCIS/DOS until I have the GC plastic in my hand.
In mean while we have to focus on the legislative efforts, Especially for EB3-I with out that it will be very hard.
So folks be active and get involved in IV's effort
All (whose PD will be current) the Eb2 India folks try your luckkkkkkkkkkkkk..
Even after your PD becomes current you are still at the mercy of the IO and RD, ND and all the odd's
Its like Mega Million or Power ball lotto. I don't trust USCIS/DOS until I have the GC plastic in my hand.
In mean while we have to focus on the legislative efforts, Especially for EB3-I with out that it will be very hard.
So folks be active and get involved in IV's effort
more...
Jerrome
07-12 05:28 PM
I feel this move is to benefit EB-2 China, Since the EB1 and EB2 overflow are evenly distributed across china and india, keeping PD with 2004 would be a loss for china and gain for India. So by keeping 2006 June, USCIS will have enough visa numbers for China . India's share will be consumed by 2004 and 2005 applicants.
Even if India's PD is going to be in 2006 mid, this would result some adhoc or lucky one in 2006 getting GC than a majority of applicants. PD for india would move back to 2004 or 2005 by october 08.
If USCIS follows the same rule again then by next year end the PD for India will move.
This is my guess.
Even if India's PD is going to be in 2006 mid, this would result some adhoc or lucky one in 2006 getting GC than a majority of applicants. PD for india would move back to 2004 or 2005 by october 08.
If USCIS follows the same rule again then by next year end the PD for India will move.
This is my guess.
tooclose
07-13 10:54 AM
Mar 1 2006 - Mar 7 2006 --> will be processed when cutoff date is Mar 08 2006.
Well its a no-brainer that Mar 1-7 would be processed if Mar 8 is the cut off date. It makes me think twice when they have the clause about Mar 1 - 7 if 1st is the cut-off date.
We will get to know early next month. Good luck to all !!!
Well its a no-brainer that Mar 1-7 would be processed if Mar 8 is the cut off date. It makes me think twice when they have the clause about Mar 1 - 7 if 1st is the cut-off date.
We will get to know early next month. Good luck to all !!!
more...
gcdreamer05
03-19 07:29 AM
This is the power of Immigration Voice. Not everyone has the knowledge of all these situations, so we need to gain knowledge from the past experience of others.
I am sure thread's like this will help a lot of people who have plans to join few Full Time Employees who promise but cannot keep it up.
Please continue to share...
I am sure thread's like this will help a lot of people who have plans to join few Full Time Employees who promise but cannot keep it up.
Please continue to share...
2010 heart tattoos on foot. Tattoos
andy garcia
09-10 12:15 PM
Only if you plan to remain in the U.S. permanently and you don't like the fact that you'll have to wait for many years without the ability to get a salary raise or promotion, without your spouse being able to work (if you have one) and being forced to leave the U.S. immediately if you get laid off.
If you are perfectly happy with your H1-B job and planning to stay in the U.S. only temporarily, then no, you are not in a jail or closet. But 99% of us are.
I have been here for 8 years and I do not have the option of going back to my country like you guys from India. I applied for my 485 2 years ago and my son and wife are working already.
When I was on H1, I was happy with the company. It seems that people who are using the sponsor company as a tool to get the GC are the ones complaininf the most about.
If you are perfectly happy with your H1-B job and planning to stay in the U.S. only temporarily, then no, you are not in a jail or closet. But 99% of us are.
I have been here for 8 years and I do not have the option of going back to my country like you guys from India. I applied for my 485 2 years ago and my son and wife are working already.
When I was on H1, I was happy with the company. It seems that people who are using the sponsor company as a tool to get the GC are the ones complaininf the most about.
more...
franklin
09-19 11:40 PM
Whilst in general a name change does sound like a good idea, we have spent a lot of time and money making sure that Immigration Voice as an organization is known.
It makes no sense to through that away
It makes no sense to through that away
hair Finger and toe tattoos look
mallu
04-24 09:34 PM
Hi
After long haul of almost 5 years , today I got the approval email for my 485 filed in June - 2007.I guess my wife's case should be approved soon.Last when spoke to TCS IO , I was told that biometrics is needed in my case but still they can approve & later send me the notice. I guess only after that I might get the physical card.
Had anyone experienced this scenario ?
Anyways I want to thank everyone on this forum,immigration portals, folks & every other support that I have got in this long process.
I will always be there for everyone on this forum or in any other way I can help to every legal immigrant who is waiting for the Green Card.
Thanks a lot
Priority date - 05/2003
140 approved - 10/2006 from TSC
485,131,765 RD-6/04/2007 at TSC, notices received - 06/07/2007
CA, EB2
Wife's case returned due to some error,send it again & received on 06/17/2007 as per Fedex
Wife's case RD- 7/10/2007
I131,I765 approved for both -Nov 2007
I485 approval mail - 04/24/08 - Myself
Waiting for spouse approval, physical Cards
Congrats ! Good to know that TSC is picking up India EB2 cases for approval ( whatever be the random order they have ).
After long haul of almost 5 years , today I got the approval email for my 485 filed in June - 2007.I guess my wife's case should be approved soon.Last when spoke to TCS IO , I was told that biometrics is needed in my case but still they can approve & later send me the notice. I guess only after that I might get the physical card.
Had anyone experienced this scenario ?
Anyways I want to thank everyone on this forum,immigration portals, folks & every other support that I have got in this long process.
I will always be there for everyone on this forum or in any other way I can help to every legal immigrant who is waiting for the Green Card.
Thanks a lot
Priority date - 05/2003
140 approved - 10/2006 from TSC
485,131,765 RD-6/04/2007 at TSC, notices received - 06/07/2007
CA, EB2
Wife's case returned due to some error,send it again & received on 06/17/2007 as per Fedex
Wife's case RD- 7/10/2007
I131,I765 approved for both -Nov 2007
I485 approval mail - 04/24/08 - Myself
Waiting for spouse approval, physical Cards
Congrats ! Good to know that TSC is picking up India EB2 cases for approval ( whatever be the random order they have ).
more...
anilsal
09-11 04:23 PM
Have you folks seen this movie?
Waldenpond,logiclife,pappu,sertasheep,paskal,amitp s,janilsal,jaime,
vandanaverdia,texanmom,chandu,needhelp,seahawks and the entire IV community Go To Washington.
Waldenpond,logiclife,pappu,sertasheep,paskal,amitp s,janilsal,jaime,
vandanaverdia,texanmom,chandu,needhelp,seahawks and the entire IV community Go To Washington.
hot Foot Tattoo: Three Stars
StuckInTheMuck
07-28 12:38 PM
Okay, from wine shop to religion to law to constitution, what next :)
Hmm, now I know, for me it is back to the wine shop - no intellectual quest though, just a simple thirst for quality alcohol.
Hmm, now I know, for me it is back to the wine shop - no intellectual quest though, just a simple thirst for quality alcohol.
more...
house florishes on foot tattoo
stldude
07-24 11:53 AM
I see that USCIS release a press release on 7/20 and it says the time complaince for Nebraska Center is 8/1. Does it mean that July 2nd filers will get receipt by 8/1 ( i know i'm expecting too much from USCIS)... When can we expect the receipt notices.. I guess i'm a bit nervous now..
tattoo Stars on foot tattoo (Voted
SunnySurya
07-28 12:08 PM
In my case, you are the Judge , Jury and the excutioner.
In your case, it will be the government and legal system of the USA and actually there is law preventing such things. So I was not kidding.
The transcripts on this thread will serve as a record, if need be..
And what about giving your IP address to authorities because you incited my religious feelings?
In your case, it will be the government and legal system of the USA and actually there is law preventing such things. So I was not kidding.
The transcripts on this thread will serve as a record, if need be..
And what about giving your IP address to authorities because you incited my religious feelings?
more...
pictures cute foot tattoo
yabadaba
09-26 12:44 PM
As needhelp said earlier, the damage is done. This is really shameful on the part of CNN. Maybe its a coordinated effort by the Lou Dobbs production team to equate our issues with H1B. This philosophy trickles down and freelance writers end up subscribing to that ideology giving betsy ross and her hateful group a nice platform for them to launch their attacks on us or spread even more misinformation.
One thing I started doing was identifying texts in the comments section of any news article post related to high skilled immigration. It looks like ALIPAC or one of those hate groups have a concentrated effort for members to post the same message in the comments section of any media article that is sympathetic to our predicament. We need to identify these posters and the messages - maybe it all comes from one user posting the same set of stock messages with different names.
One thing I started doing was identifying texts in the comments section of any news article post related to high skilled immigration. It looks like ALIPAC or one of those hate groups have a concentrated effort for members to post the same message in the comments section of any media article that is sympathetic to our predicament. We need to identify these posters and the messages - maybe it all comes from one user posting the same set of stock messages with different names.
dresses foot star tattoo picture
acecupid
07-13 11:09 AM
Was she sleeping all this while. Why did it take her 2 weeks to respond to the events that occured ? Looks like everyone wants a piggy back ride.:D
We know your selfish intentions !!:eek:
We know your selfish intentions !!:eek:
more...
makeup tribal foot tattoos
akhilmahajan
10-16 08:48 AM
I will be mailing my letter today for myself and my wife and will be requesting my friends to do the same. Thanks a lot for taking the initiative.
GO I/WE GO.
GO I/WE GO.
girlfriend Her regular tattoo heart and
pappu
12-13 12:50 PM
All , this subject has been raised very often and every time new members join in they start a thread and start questioning it.
- IV has indepth explored and studied this option and have found that this change is not possible administratively.
- we have not just met a lawyer. we have met few lawyers. we also have communicated with USCIS in the past.
- In the past some administrative changes have been done by USCIS, but this change cannot be done by them. All, we already had this idea long long ago and we also thought that why dont we do it if it so simple and then we dont have to go through all the legislative hurdles. But NO it cannot be done by USCIS.
- Faxing USCIS will not work. USCIS does not take policy decisions. We need to approach policy makers to get it done and that is what we are doing. By coming up with ideas, endlessly discussing despite explaination by IV and not working with IV action items we will all go in divergent directions and lose focus on the main action items we want each every member should focus. If you really feel for some idea and want to help, instead of asking IV to give explanation to every question on the forum, contact any of the active IV core members on the forum and bounce ideas. We need people with ideas and also same people willing to work on them too.
- If it was possible to get it done administratively, then in the current Skil bill push we would have/ and lawmakers would also have just asked USCIS to implement it.
Hope this explains this topic. Thanks
- IV has indepth explored and studied this option and have found that this change is not possible administratively.
- we have not just met a lawyer. we have met few lawyers. we also have communicated with USCIS in the past.
- In the past some administrative changes have been done by USCIS, but this change cannot be done by them. All, we already had this idea long long ago and we also thought that why dont we do it if it so simple and then we dont have to go through all the legislative hurdles. But NO it cannot be done by USCIS.
- Faxing USCIS will not work. USCIS does not take policy decisions. We need to approach policy makers to get it done and that is what we are doing. By coming up with ideas, endlessly discussing despite explaination by IV and not working with IV action items we will all go in divergent directions and lose focus on the main action items we want each every member should focus. If you really feel for some idea and want to help, instead of asking IV to give explanation to every question on the forum, contact any of the active IV core members on the forum and bounce ideas. We need people with ideas and also same people willing to work on them too.
- If it was possible to get it done administratively, then in the current Skil bill push we would have/ and lawmakers would also have just asked USCIS to implement it.
Hope this explains this topic. Thanks
hairstyles Girl Foot Tattoo
amsgc
07-02 09:36 PM
Regarding your argument on fairness:
On the contrary, under the current system immigrants from all nations do not have an equal opportunity to apply for a green card. Immigrants from the retrogressed countries are at an unfair disadvantage.
It is easy to see: A guy from ROW and a guy from India both are equally qualified engineers who have a EB2 PD of Jan 2008. The guy from ROW can apply to adjust status now, but the guy from India cannot apply until five years from now. That doesn't tell me that both immigrants have an equal opportunity.
Both immigrants would have had an equal opportunity if both could apply for GC at the same time. Once you have entered the country, have been gainfully employed, and your immigrant petition has been approved, how does it matter whether you came from India, china or Timbuktu? Your employer needs you for your skills, not your place of birth. Do you resolve your day to day office problems with your birth certificate pasted to your forehead?
Regarding your argument on diversity:
You need to understand that the country cap (set up 50 years ago) was NOT set up to give all countries an equal shot at sending EB immigrants to the US. The cap was based and an already existing xenophobic tendency (formally expressed way back in 1924) and the desire to retain the cultural and racial character of the US of '65. They would do fine with only handful of you if you didn't eat, drink, talk, walk and look like them.
Now, you need to understand another important point - The world has changed by leaps and bounds in the last fifty years, all made possible by advances in technology and a conscientious effort by governments to educate their people. As a result there are highly skilled people all over the world, who bring their own unique character and experience to the work place. And things have changed dramatically in the US too. Among other things, the US has become more accommodating to people of different cultural identities. Economically, the US is in need of more high skilled people than ever before. This is an irreversible trend, where the US of today is more interested in who you are and what you bring to the table than what you look like. If a few thousand Indians or Chinese are given the green card, based on their SKLLS, it will not alter the racial and cultural character of 300000000 Americans (that's 300 followed by six zeros). Rather it will only make it richer.
Usually politicians work in reactionary mode – they will espouse an idea once it is obvious that they can’t do without it. The fact that discussion to remove country caps in EB has come up in the congress means that the American people have already written it off as an absurd idea.
The law will change, whether you like it or not.
Read here and get yourself some education:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Services_Act_of_1965
Regarding the agenda:
The agenda of this organization is pretty darn obvious if you care to go through the home page. The idea is to get as close as possible to a system of immigration that appropriately addresses the needs of the US economy and is fair to both Peter and Paul. A system which gives out a green card in a timely fashion, based on skills, job requirements, and the time when the process was started. We need to advocate a change because the current system says to Paul "screw you" and rewards Peter.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - I don't see how the per country limit is unfair! It was set up so that immigrants from ALL nations would have EQUAL opportunity to immigrate to the U.S. and to prevent any one (or two) countries from monopolizing the visa numbers. Getting rid of the per country limit would most certainly lead to immigration from a limited number of sources (countries) and thus jeopardize the diversity of the immigration process. Getting rid of it would be like robbing Peter to pay Paul because those countries who are severely retrogressed now would only see limited benefits and those who are not all that retrogressed would fall backwards - is that fair!? It seems these forms are dominated by "certain" groups who have their own agenda and don't really care about ROW! It makes me feel uncomfortable being an IV member from ROW!
On the contrary, under the current system immigrants from all nations do not have an equal opportunity to apply for a green card. Immigrants from the retrogressed countries are at an unfair disadvantage.
It is easy to see: A guy from ROW and a guy from India both are equally qualified engineers who have a EB2 PD of Jan 2008. The guy from ROW can apply to adjust status now, but the guy from India cannot apply until five years from now. That doesn't tell me that both immigrants have an equal opportunity.
Both immigrants would have had an equal opportunity if both could apply for GC at the same time. Once you have entered the country, have been gainfully employed, and your immigrant petition has been approved, how does it matter whether you came from India, china or Timbuktu? Your employer needs you for your skills, not your place of birth. Do you resolve your day to day office problems with your birth certificate pasted to your forehead?
Regarding your argument on diversity:
You need to understand that the country cap (set up 50 years ago) was NOT set up to give all countries an equal shot at sending EB immigrants to the US. The cap was based and an already existing xenophobic tendency (formally expressed way back in 1924) and the desire to retain the cultural and racial character of the US of '65. They would do fine with only handful of you if you didn't eat, drink, talk, walk and look like them.
Now, you need to understand another important point - The world has changed by leaps and bounds in the last fifty years, all made possible by advances in technology and a conscientious effort by governments to educate their people. As a result there are highly skilled people all over the world, who bring their own unique character and experience to the work place. And things have changed dramatically in the US too. Among other things, the US has become more accommodating to people of different cultural identities. Economically, the US is in need of more high skilled people than ever before. This is an irreversible trend, where the US of today is more interested in who you are and what you bring to the table than what you look like. If a few thousand Indians or Chinese are given the green card, based on their SKLLS, it will not alter the racial and cultural character of 300000000 Americans (that's 300 followed by six zeros). Rather it will only make it richer.
Usually politicians work in reactionary mode – they will espouse an idea once it is obvious that they can’t do without it. The fact that discussion to remove country caps in EB has come up in the congress means that the American people have already written it off as an absurd idea.
The law will change, whether you like it or not.
Read here and get yourself some education:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Services_Act_of_1965
Regarding the agenda:
The agenda of this organization is pretty darn obvious if you care to go through the home page. The idea is to get as close as possible to a system of immigration that appropriately addresses the needs of the US economy and is fair to both Peter and Paul. A system which gives out a green card in a timely fashion, based on skills, job requirements, and the time when the process was started. We need to advocate a change because the current system says to Paul "screw you" and rewards Peter.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - I don't see how the per country limit is unfair! It was set up so that immigrants from ALL nations would have EQUAL opportunity to immigrate to the U.S. and to prevent any one (or two) countries from monopolizing the visa numbers. Getting rid of the per country limit would most certainly lead to immigration from a limited number of sources (countries) and thus jeopardize the diversity of the immigration process. Getting rid of it would be like robbing Peter to pay Paul because those countries who are severely retrogressed now would only see limited benefits and those who are not all that retrogressed would fall backwards - is that fair!? It seems these forms are dominated by "certain" groups who have their own agenda and don't really care about ROW! It makes me feel uncomfortable being an IV member from ROW!
delhikadesi
06-10 09:36 PM
done
anilsal
12-12 01:17 PM
If the attorneys have determined that there needs to be a INA change to allow I-485 filing during retrogression, has anybody bothered to find out what USCIS interpretation is?
USCIS interpretation can be binding!
USCIS interpretation can be binding!
0 comments:
Post a Comment