desi485
03-15 11:11 PM
I agree with you completely ! I wish and pray Interfilers and labor substitution applicants rot in hell.
You are a frustrated fool.
I have a friend who despite eligible for eb2, his employer filed in eb3 without his knowledge. He only came to know about this after 3 years after his labor got approved and got I-140 approved. The employer didn't provide him any papers for labor cert but somehow he got hold of his I-140 notice approval. He changed his job now and filed eb2 with new employer. I see no reason why he should not do interfile.
You are frustrated because of retrogression. Why don't you curse others, not those little less fortunate, from so called retrogressed countries? I have seen people in my organization coming from ROW countries and getting complete GC in less than 15 months. You should really get frustrated with country quota, not with your fellow sufferers.
think before you act like a fool. Say honestly that you never tried any legally available shortcut in your life.
You are a frustrated fool.
I have a friend who despite eligible for eb2, his employer filed in eb3 without his knowledge. He only came to know about this after 3 years after his labor got approved and got I-140 approved. The employer didn't provide him any papers for labor cert but somehow he got hold of his I-140 notice approval. He changed his job now and filed eb2 with new employer. I see no reason why he should not do interfile.
You are frustrated because of retrogression. Why don't you curse others, not those little less fortunate, from so called retrogressed countries? I have seen people in my organization coming from ROW countries and getting complete GC in less than 15 months. You should really get frustrated with country quota, not with your fellow sufferers.
think before you act like a fool. Say honestly that you never tried any legally available shortcut in your life.
wallpaper Lou Reed Legendary Hearts
kondur_007
04-10 10:28 AM
Does anyone have numbers for spillover last year category wise? I mean, last year how many EB4, EB5 and EB1 left out visas got spilled over to EB2? Thanks...
Here are the details for last year and years before:
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
Here are the details for last year and years before:
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
grinch
03-12 09:58 AM
great work all of you guys, my choice was between grinch's and thirdworldman. i voted thirdworldman, but i just wanna say i know grinch hasn't done this a lot, so i think you've done an excellent job man :thumb:
aw thanks man, appreciate the compliment!
aw thanks man, appreciate the compliment!
2011 Foo Fighters, Lou Reed,
prioritydate
12-20 07:42 PM
<If anything like out of status or unauthorized employed happened before your last legal entry into USA (whether is more than 180 days or less than 180 days) IT DOES NOT MATTER and you can adjust status. You are fine. What's important is that "out of status" and "unauthorized stay" periods must not happen after you last entered USA and after you filed your 485 - and if it does happen, then it should be less than 180 days.>
So, logiclife, going with your above statement, I don't have any problem with my adustment of status? My last legal entry to the U.S was Mar, 2006. I applied for AOS in July, 2007. Can you point to any USCIS memo/documents stating the above facts? I was out of status in the year 2001 (more than 180 days).
So, logiclife, going with your above statement, I don't have any problem with my adustment of status? My last legal entry to the U.S was Mar, 2006. I applied for AOS in July, 2007. Can you point to any USCIS memo/documents stating the above facts? I was out of status in the year 2001 (more than 180 days).
more...
.jpg "Rock And Roll Heart - Lou Reed")
pappu
01-09 07:53 PM
thanks for pointing it out. We need volunteers to do this task. anyone interested pls sign up here and start posting.
h1techSlave
02-04 12:07 PM
Mirage, thanks a ton for taking this up and for amc for providing some very thoughtful analysis on the whole thing. I also appreciate the very critical comments from folks like senthil et. el. It is nice that you guys are criticizing the efforts right now so that we can tackle those issues and move forward.
I am seeing enough enthusiasm for this effort. Let us move forward with this.
I am seeing enough enthusiasm for this effort. Let us move forward with this.
more...
ashatara78
03-10 04:38 PM
The EB immigration system was fine before then; thus, the problem is supply/demand, not the immigration policies.
I have no comments about comparison of family vs EB but the EB immigration system was not find before then. I have friends who were in this system in the late 1980s, early 1990s and had huge problems - had to wait a long time, could not switch jobs, could not visit back home for sibling's weddings etc.
It was probably fine during the Clinton administration for a few years 1996-1999 but I only know of a few cases, not many.
I have no comments about comparison of family vs EB but the EB immigration system was not find before then. I have friends who were in this system in the late 1980s, early 1990s and had huge problems - had to wait a long time, could not switch jobs, could not visit back home for sibling's weddings etc.
It was probably fine during the Clinton administration for a few years 1996-1999 but I only know of a few cases, not many.
2010 Lou Reed #39;New York#39;
HereIComeGC
04-24 08:52 AM
Congratulations Googler! Keep in touch with your words of wisdom!
more...
Indirant
01-27 12:20 PM
Hi varsha,
I think sanjay or Rajeev was suppose to work with Ajay in metropark
Sekar
I think sanjay or Rajeev was suppose to work with Ajay in metropark
Sekar
hair A night with Lou Reed 1983 NY.
ak27
02-08 08:00 PM
Varsha,
I can try to make it but I am not from his district..
I can try to make it but I am not from his district..
more...
.jpg "Lou Reed - The Blue Mask Album")
Abhinaym
02-19 12:02 PM
How exactly are illegals going to prove that they have been here for more than 5 years?
That's exactly what I wanted to ask! How on earth are they going to prove a presence?
1. Drivers license (that only shows the date they started)
2. Utility bills (is that possible?)
3. Bank statements (I'm not sure if undocumented ones get accounts)
4. Employment proof (right...)
5. Real estate titles
I'm not saying they can't, but trying to think how...
That's exactly what I wanted to ask! How on earth are they going to prove a presence?
1. Drivers license (that only shows the date they started)
2. Utility bills (is that possible?)
3. Bank statements (I'm not sure if undocumented ones get accounts)
4. Employment proof (right...)
5. Real estate titles
I'm not saying they can't, but trying to think how...
hot Rock And Roll Heart - Lou Reed
saimrathi
07-05 01:45 PM
Please make this a paid website, and see how many stick around.. the results will make it clear as to what it should be.. but if you do have members quitting the message boards, they will probably not return..
Instead of debating on this trivial issue, why not spread the word about the VB fiasco to the media etc...
Instead of debating on this trivial issue, why not spread the word about the VB fiasco to the media etc...
more...
house “Hooverdam is a cousin to Lou
12samanta
07-02 03:56 PM
Guys, Do not waste time in debating on the forum. If someone creates the petition then i will support and atleast send it to all my friends asking them to sign the petition. Lets do it.
tattoo Greatest Hits - Coffret 3 CD
jkays94
07-10 02:39 AM
It seems several persons are already discrediting the lawsuit and from the comments I have seen, it is apparent that some have not read the entire complaint.
In order to understand how a civil lawsuit works one needs to understand that in a complaint, one makes no legal arguments, does not cite case or precedent law but only cites the simple facts. The other side can respond to the complaint and deny or accept the allegations in part or in whole. Many cases do not go to trial, they end up in settlements or are decided through summary judgement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_judgment) (for the plaintiff or the defendants) if the case has undisputable matters of facts and one of the parties petitions for it. Several processes also take place ie Discovery long before an actual trial. I recommend reading the following wikipedia entry to familiarize one at a high level with the processes and rules involved:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Rule_of_Civil_Procedure
To get to the core legal arguments behind the case, one needs to read the counts (they are only stated and not argued/expounded on starting pg 13). Namely those are:
COUNT I: VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) (constitutional rights issue)
COUNT II: VIOLATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedures_Act)
COUNT III: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT (http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title4/civ00036.htm)
COUNT IV: EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT (http://www.hhs.gov/dab/guidelines/eaja.html)
COUNT V: PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promissory_estoppel#Promissory_estoppel)
There are several laws cited above, its thus puzzling to see requests for one to cite the laws USCIS/DOS is accused of violating when its all there in the lawsuit. The plaintiff has the burden of proving the counts they have stated at the appropriate time and not in the complaint. One does not play all their cards in the initial complaint.
Even more puzzling is the persistent fear that there would be retributory action from USCIS. Judges do not take kindly to such behavior and USCIS would have no chance defending itself on charges of retaliatory actions.
In order to understand how a civil lawsuit works one needs to understand that in a complaint, one makes no legal arguments, does not cite case or precedent law but only cites the simple facts. The other side can respond to the complaint and deny or accept the allegations in part or in whole. Many cases do not go to trial, they end up in settlements or are decided through summary judgement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_judgment) (for the plaintiff or the defendants) if the case has undisputable matters of facts and one of the parties petitions for it. Several processes also take place ie Discovery long before an actual trial. I recommend reading the following wikipedia entry to familiarize one at a high level with the processes and rules involved:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Rule_of_Civil_Procedure
To get to the core legal arguments behind the case, one needs to read the counts (they are only stated and not argued/expounded on starting pg 13). Namely those are:
COUNT I: VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) (constitutional rights issue)
COUNT II: VIOLATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedures_Act)
COUNT III: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT (http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title4/civ00036.htm)
COUNT IV: EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT (http://www.hhs.gov/dab/guidelines/eaja.html)
COUNT V: PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promissory_estoppel#Promissory_estoppel)
There are several laws cited above, its thus puzzling to see requests for one to cite the laws USCIS/DOS is accused of violating when its all there in the lawsuit. The plaintiff has the burden of proving the counts they have stated at the appropriate time and not in the complaint. One does not play all their cards in the initial complaint.
Even more puzzling is the persistent fear that there would be retributory action from USCIS. Judges do not take kindly to such behavior and USCIS would have no chance defending itself on charges of retaliatory actions.
more...
pictures NY during five nights in
alex99
04-08 09:05 AM
Thanks for your response BharatPremi .
dresses Lou REED transformer
praveenuppaluri
03-11 11:20 PM
after all the hype and tensions running high among IVans....
EB2 no change and EB3 moved by 3 months - so much for spillovers..
and the article in the OP message starts as "We are pleased to announce the April 2010 cut-off dates ...." damnn.. sure they are pleased with themselves.. :mad:
EB2 no change and EB3 moved by 3 months - so much for spillovers..
and the article in the OP message starts as "We are pleased to announce the April 2010 cut-off dates ...." damnn.. sure they are pleased with themselves.. :mad:
more...
makeup (No more Lou Reed song
pappu
06-10 03:50 PM
OPPOSE the Sanders-Grassley-Harkin amendment S.AMDT.4319 in bill H.R.4213 which severely hurts Competitiveness, Innovation and creating jobs in America
It will only take less then 1 minute of your time to click this link ImmigrationVoice.org - Advocacy -- OPPOSE the Sanders-Grassley-Harkin amendment S.AMDT.4319 in bill H.R.4213 which severely hurts Competitiveness, Innovation and creating jobs in America (http://immigrationvoice.capwiz.com/immigrationvoice/issues/alert/?alertid=15130466)
and send the message out.
Please post this link on other forums and mail to friends asking them to join this action item.
Text of the Amendment on IV Wiki: http://immigrationvoice.org/wiki/index.php/US_Congress#Immigration_related_legislation.2C_con gressional_action_and_regulatory_actions
It will only take less then 1 minute of your time to click this link ImmigrationVoice.org - Advocacy -- OPPOSE the Sanders-Grassley-Harkin amendment S.AMDT.4319 in bill H.R.4213 which severely hurts Competitiveness, Innovation and creating jobs in America (http://immigrationvoice.capwiz.com/immigrationvoice/issues/alert/?alertid=15130466)
and send the message out.
Please post this link on other forums and mail to friends asking them to join this action item.
Text of the Amendment on IV Wiki: http://immigrationvoice.org/wiki/index.php/US_Congress#Immigration_related_legislation.2C_con gressional_action_and_regulatory_actions
girlfriend Metallica and Lou Reed
a_yaja
01-31 02:24 PM
I believe it is also illegal to work before getting a social security number. When you are on H4 you dont have a social security number (you have an itin which is not good enough for working). You will not get a social security number unless you have work authorization (i797). H1 will start only after october 1, so you can apply for social security number only after October 1 (i.e if you have i 797), it will take you about 4 to 7 weeks to get ssn. You can work only after getting the ssn. Somebody correct me if i wrong here.
You can work without SSN provided you are authorized to work (H1, EAD, etc) and you have applied for SSN number. The usual practice is to pay for the first two pay cycles, and if you have not received your SSN by then, then the employer will withold wages till SSN arrives. I know this because when I came to the US as a student, I received my first paycheck without SSN. By the second paycheck (I was paid monthly), I had my SSN and so no issues. My roommate, on the other hand did not receive his SSN for nearly 3 1/2 months - the University paid his first two paychecks but did not handout his third. They told him that they would wait till he showed his SSN card to them. After he received his SSN card, they released his paycheck.
Bottom line is, you can work even without SSN card - and if you don't receive your card on time, at most the employer can withold pay until you show them your SSN card. But the employer has to pay you for any work done in legal status and they cannot refuse pay for the period during which your application was pending with SSA.
You can work without SSN provided you are authorized to work (H1, EAD, etc) and you have applied for SSN number. The usual practice is to pay for the first two pay cycles, and if you have not received your SSN by then, then the employer will withold wages till SSN arrives. I know this because when I came to the US as a student, I received my first paycheck without SSN. By the second paycheck (I was paid monthly), I had my SSN and so no issues. My roommate, on the other hand did not receive his SSN for nearly 3 1/2 months - the University paid his first two paychecks but did not handout his third. They told him that they would wait till he showed his SSN card to them. After he received his SSN card, they released his paycheck.
Bottom line is, you can work even without SSN card - and if you don't receive your card on time, at most the employer can withold pay until you show them your SSN card. But the employer has to pay you for any work done in legal status and they cannot refuse pay for the period during which your application was pending with SSA.
hairstyles Lou Reed - The Blue Mask Album
sk.aggarwal
07-29 03:02 AM
Add Wachovia now acquired by Wells Fargo to the list. They don't even do H1 extensions.
getgreensoon1
05-23 02:12 PM
All these years in US, getgreensoon1's expertise in IT ?
cntrl C and cntrl V !
That is what these computer workers do. Go to forums, steal code, copy that at the appropriate place, change variable names and screw up all the copyright issues.
cntrl C and cntrl V !
That is what these computer workers do. Go to forums, steal code, copy that at the appropriate place, change variable names and screw up all the copyright issues.
prinive
04-07 05:09 PM
Thanks.
It is NSC.
First of all Congrats!!
BTW,what is your 485 RD and processing center??
It is NSC.
First of all Congrats!!
BTW,what is your 485 RD and processing center??
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar