eilsoe
03-07 05:32 PM
well I've realized now that I can't get this thing done in time, so here's my not-so-final-but-as-final-as-it-gets images... :)
(as seen through a surv. camera)
http://www.avalon-rev.dk/junk/station2F.jpg
(as rendered through Max)
http://www.avalon-rev.dk/junk/station2FS.jpg
I really wanted to add more to 'em... :(
oh, well, consider them my finals :)
wireframe: www.avalon-rev.dk/junk/wireframe.gif
(as seen through a surv. camera)
http://www.avalon-rev.dk/junk/station2F.jpg
(as rendered through Max)
http://www.avalon-rev.dk/junk/station2FS.jpg
I really wanted to add more to 'em... :(
oh, well, consider them my finals :)
wireframe: www.avalon-rev.dk/junk/wireframe.gif
wallpaper black and white landscape
gc_chahiye
08-15 05:33 PM
Well, I mean no offense to anybody but why is EB3 ROW so far back while EB2 India and China are as per June bulletin or better?
I thought for India the approved cases were 5 times the country quota for 2007? Good for those guys that were approved but I still don't get it why ROW is 2002!
India did have tons of approvals, but I believe most were EB3 (18K) so thats gone to U. These are just a small number of unused visas that were presumably returned. October and there-on dates are a real reflection of USCIS backlog etc. (see the arbitrary use of Jan 2007 for EB1 in this VB)
I thought for India the approved cases were 5 times the country quota for 2007? Good for those guys that were approved but I still don't get it why ROW is 2002!
India did have tons of approvals, but I believe most were EB3 (18K) so thats gone to U. These are just a small number of unused visas that were presumably returned. October and there-on dates are a real reflection of USCIS backlog etc. (see the arbitrary use of Jan 2007 for EB1 in this VB)
delhiguy
07-09 04:20 PM
I am yet to see any legal basis in the case which states that DoS has to give notice of x days before changing the visa bulletin. All it says that they have "policy" of visa bulletin good for a month. Such policies, unless backed by legal basis, are not enforceable.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
Whenever i say this "Such policies, unless backed by legal basis, are not enforceable" Everybody starts bashing me up...
So you be ready toooo.
I would be very happy , if all the H1B guys get EAD , but i cant just give a statement against DOS/USCIS till i am 100% sure.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
Whenever i say this "Such policies, unless backed by legal basis, are not enforceable" Everybody starts bashing me up...
So you be ready toooo.
I would be very happy , if all the H1B guys get EAD , but i cant just give a statement against DOS/USCIS till i am 100% sure.
2011 more.
kumar1
01-09 09:38 AM
We can go all day, moving blame from Fresh students to desi consulting companies to US immigration policies. I feel that part of the problem lies on the hiring company/client as well. These days, they want to spend 40 dollars per hour for a person with 10 years of exp in Java + dot net + ETL + BO + Mainframe. Client wants that person to work like a superman during the normal business hour (8 AM to 5 PM) and they want the same person to work like a Batman (from 7 PM to 1 AM) with off shore. On weekends he also becomes Spiderman and flies to all corners of the US to support different clients/projects. Now....imagine a combination of Superman+Batman+Spiderman in 40 dollars per hours?? They get a 23 years old guy having 10 years of experience on his resume....through a desi consulting company. Who is at fault? The person who faked the resume? The person who tried to sell his resume? Or the entity who wants a combination of Superman, Batman and Spiderman in 40 dollars per hour? I am yet to find an answer!
more...
jnagendra
09-10 12:29 PM
we are behind horses.. :(
H.R. 6598: Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act of 2008
H.R. 4780: To enact title 51, United States Code, "National and Commercial Space Programs", as positive law
H.R. 6020: To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to protect the well-being of soldiers and their families, and for other purposes
H.R. 5882: To recapture employment-based immigrant visas lost to bureaucratic delays and to...
H.R. 5924: Emergency Nursing Supply Relief Act
H.R. 5950: Detainee Basic Medical Care Act of 2008
H.R. 6598: Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act of 2008
H.R. 4780: To enact title 51, United States Code, "National and Commercial Space Programs", as positive law
H.R. 6020: To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to protect the well-being of soldiers and their families, and for other purposes
H.R. 5882: To recapture employment-based immigrant visas lost to bureaucratic delays and to...
H.R. 5924: Emergency Nursing Supply Relief Act
H.R. 5950: Detainee Basic Medical Care Act of 2008
sh2005
07-13 04:42 PM
I wasn't going to jump in the debate on what was Murthy's intention when she published that letter. But I can't help noting something odd in the posts where some are claiming she will try to take credit later on for making this "big development" happen. We don't even know what this big development is!! All we have is a posting by the Core Group and couple of attorneys' websites' speculation. I am hoping it's will be a big positive development for us when it is announced, but right now we are counting our chickens before they are hatched and denouncing someone's intention based on speculations and guesses!
more...
ghost
08-12 07:22 AM
what is the percentage you are looking ? 50 -50 ?I know thousands of people who can write a check for 10K to support any law that can give them a GC in the next 3-6 months..
Here is the thing: We all can write 10K checks to get a GC in next 3-6 months but things don't work that way...small persistent steps lead to assured success...see if you can get the people you know sign up for a 6 USD per week recurring donation, it takes 5 minutes of their time.
This is like having one subway sandwich per week for 6 months, the key is to do it persistently every week/month. Thanks!
Here is the thing: We all can write 10K checks to get a GC in next 3-6 months but things don't work that way...small persistent steps lead to assured success...see if you can get the people you know sign up for a 6 USD per week recurring donation, it takes 5 minutes of their time.
This is like having one subway sandwich per week for 6 months, the key is to do it persistently every week/month. Thanks!
2010 hot Best Friend Quotes Funny.
Green.Tech
03-03 04:43 PM
That is option # 2
No, it's not!
I know guys who are going to buy a houses shortly and are not worried about EAD/GC/any of the GC related stuff, and their PD's are in 2006, 2007.
No, it's not!
I know guys who are going to buy a houses shortly and are not worried about EAD/GC/any of the GC related stuff, and their PD's are in 2006, 2007.
more...
gimme_GC2006
05-12 03:14 PM
Online MBA from University of Maryland University College matches the criteria you mentioned (to a larger extent). Also you can have MBA degree in 2 yrs. The course work is demanding and one would need TOEFL if not educated in US or few other countries. GMAT is not required.
Thanks ss777, I will checkout..do you how it is ranked?
Thanks ss777, I will checkout..do you how it is ranked?
hair hot fotos de amor y desamor.
sangmami
07-18 11:52 AM
called uscis to ask when july 2 filers are likely to get receipt notice.She said because of the load of apps expected it might take about 4 to 6 wks.I hope july 2 filers don t have to pay huge penalty for filing on the very ifirst eligible day:( (something to worry about till this journey ends i guess):(
more...
pappu
07-01 10:22 PM
Info on the lawsuit by AILA:
==============
USCIS VISA BULLETIN/
VISA AVAILABILTY LAWSUIT
Frequently Asked Questions about Participating in this Lawsuit
AILF is considering filing a lawsuit in federal district court against the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) over its rejection of otherwise properly filed adjustment of status applications for the alleged reason that a visa was not available, even though the Visa Bulletin from the Department of State (DOS) states that a visa was available at the time of filing.
Any foreign national who is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status and whose adjustment of status application has been or will be returned or rejected solely on this basis may be eligible to be a plaintiff in this lawsuit. If you are considering being a participant in this lawsuit, you may find the following frequently asked questions and answers helpful.
Q: What is AILF?
A: The American Immigration Law Foundation (AILF) is a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting the rights of immigrants and refugees and to securing fair and just application and administration of the U.S. immigration laws. In order to achieve these goals, AILF sometimes files lawsuits involving various aspects of immigration law.
Q: What is this lawsuit about?
A: This lawsuit will be filed by plaintiffs who have been harmed because USCIS rejected or returned or is expected to reject or return a properly submitted adjustment of status application for the alleged reason that no visa was immediately available even though the DOS Visa Bulletin states that a visa was available at that time.
To be eligible for adjustment to lawful permanent resident status, a foreign national must show that a visa number is “immediately available.” USCIS regulations state that the DOS Visa Bulletin is used to determine whether a visa number is immediately available. This Bulletin is published once a month and lists the visa availability dates for all categories of immigrants for the following month. Thus, for example, the July 2007 bulletin, listing visa availability dates for the entire month of July, was published in June 2007.
AILF has learned that USCIS has refused to allow certain adjustment of status applications to be filed even though the DOS Visa Bulletin states that visa numbers are available for the immigrant category at that time. USCIS rejected these applications because DOS informed it in an internal communication that no visa numbers remained for that category of immigrants. To date, this has happened only in the employment-based “other worker” category. We anticipate that it may happen in a number of other types of employment-based immigrant categories beginning in July 2007.
We believe USCIS violated the law when it failed to apply the visa availability dates listed in the Visa Bulletin, as required by a federal regulation, and instead rejected properly filed adjustment applications. Through this lawsuit, we will challenge the rejection of adjustment of status applications on this basis. We will ask the court to order USCIS to accept the rejected adjustment applications and treat them as being filed as of the date they originally would have been filed had USCIS not rejected them.
Q: What is a “plaintiff” and how do I know if I am eligible to be a “plaintiff” in this lawsuit?
A: A plaintiff is a person who files a lawsuit against someone else. We are still determining the categories of plaintiffs but an eligible plaintiff for this lawsuit may include:
[other worker category]
A foreign national who:
Submitted an adjustment of status application in the “other worker” category for receipt by USCIS in June 2007; and
Is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status; and
Did not receive a receipt notice, cancelled check, or notice of approval of the adjustment application.
[other employment-based categories]
A foreign national who:
Submitted an adjustment of status application in any employment-based category other than “other worker” for receipt by USCIS in July 2007; and
Is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status; and
Did not receive a receipt notice, cancelled check, or notice of approval of the adjustment application.
Q: Why should I be a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
2
A: If the lawsuit is successful, USCIS should accept your adjustment application and treat it as if it had been filed as of the date that you originally tried to file it. Because your adjustment application will then be considered to be pending before the agency, you may be eligible for interim benefits, including an employment authorization document, advance parole, and others.
What the lawsuit will not do is make a visa number immediately available to you if none is available. If the visa numbers have in fact been used for the current fiscal year, the court does not have the authority under the law to make a new number available to you. However, if the court orders that USCIS accept your adjustment application as of the date that you originally tried to file it, you will be at an earlier place in line when visa numbers become available again in the next fiscal year, October 1, 2007. Additionally, as mentioned, you may be eligible for interim benefits while you are waiting.
Q: What is likely to happen because of the suit?
A: Lawsuits are uncertain by nature. We cannot predict the exact outcome. However, other efforts to resolve these problems with USCIS have not succeeded. For this reason, we believe that a lawsuit is the only remaining possible way to resolve these problems.
Q: Will being a plaintiff in this lawsuit hurt my chances for permanent residence?
A: If an individual is otherwise legally entitled to have an application granted, the government cannot lawfully deny that application on the basis that the person is participating or participated in a lawsuit. If we believed the government was taking such action, we would complain to the lawyers representing the government and to the judge handling the case. In our experience, this retaliation has not happened.
Please be aware, though, that USCIS is likely to examine plaintiffs’ adjustment of status applications more closely than it otherwise might. It may ask the plaintiffs questions and ask for additional information about their adjustment applications or immigration status. See below regarding “discovery.”
Q: How much time must plaintiffs spend on this lawsuit?
A: Plaintiffs will have to provide us with the information and documentation we need in order to prepare the lawsuit. AILF will do most of the work in the lawsuit on paper. Depending on how the case proceeds, the government and its attorneys may want to ask the plaintiffs some questions about their case, either through written questions and answers or in person. This is called “discovery.” One type of discovery is a “deposition,” which is an interview where parties are asked questions about their cases.
Depositions are possible but not common in this type of case. In the event that discovery and/or depositions were required, an AILF attorney or an attorney working with us would assist plaintiffs to comply with any discovery requests, and would appear with plaintiffs at any deposition at no charge (see below). At a later stage, a plaintiff may be required to be present at
3
a hearing or a trial and possibly be asked to testify about their particular case, but this is quite rare.
Q: Will it cost me anything to be a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
A: AILF and any co-counsel will not charge any attorney’s fees for representing individuals in this lawsuit. AILF and any co-counsel also will pay the costs and expenses associated with the lawsuit, such as filing fees, copying, long distance calls, travel expenses for AILF attorneys and staff, depositions, transcripts, etc. In the unlikely event that an individual should be required to be present at a deposition, hearing or a trial, we may ask that he/she pay their own travel and lodging expenses, if any. Those expenses would be reimbursed if the lawsuit is successful and we recover costs.
Q: Will anyone know that I am a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
A: Lawsuits are public information, and are available as a public court document. Many courts now have lawsuits and other documents available electronically, accessible via the internet. Also, USCIS will, of course, know the identity of the plaintiffs. We also will discuss plaintiffs’ cases with any other lawyers working with us on the lawsuit. It also is possible that the media – newspapers, radio, or TV reporters – will see the court documents and decide to do a story on the lawsuit.
Q: What should I do if I am eligible and interested in being a plaintiff in the lawsuit?
A: Please quickly submit the Questionnaire for Potential Plaintiffs and send us the documents requested. If you do not have the Questionnaire, please send an email to visabulletin@ailf.org, and we will send it to you. You may also fax a request to AILF LAC at (202) 742-5619. Please indicate this is a question about the visa bulletin litigation.
If you have any questions that are not answered by this FAQ or the questionnaire, please send them to visabulletin@ailf.org or fax to (202) 742-65619, and we will respond. Thank you!
===============
==============
USCIS VISA BULLETIN/
VISA AVAILABILTY LAWSUIT
Frequently Asked Questions about Participating in this Lawsuit
AILF is considering filing a lawsuit in federal district court against the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) over its rejection of otherwise properly filed adjustment of status applications for the alleged reason that a visa was not available, even though the Visa Bulletin from the Department of State (DOS) states that a visa was available at the time of filing.
Any foreign national who is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status and whose adjustment of status application has been or will be returned or rejected solely on this basis may be eligible to be a plaintiff in this lawsuit. If you are considering being a participant in this lawsuit, you may find the following frequently asked questions and answers helpful.
Q: What is AILF?
A: The American Immigration Law Foundation (AILF) is a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting the rights of immigrants and refugees and to securing fair and just application and administration of the U.S. immigration laws. In order to achieve these goals, AILF sometimes files lawsuits involving various aspects of immigration law.
Q: What is this lawsuit about?
A: This lawsuit will be filed by plaintiffs who have been harmed because USCIS rejected or returned or is expected to reject or return a properly submitted adjustment of status application for the alleged reason that no visa was immediately available even though the DOS Visa Bulletin states that a visa was available at that time.
To be eligible for adjustment to lawful permanent resident status, a foreign national must show that a visa number is “immediately available.” USCIS regulations state that the DOS Visa Bulletin is used to determine whether a visa number is immediately available. This Bulletin is published once a month and lists the visa availability dates for all categories of immigrants for the following month. Thus, for example, the July 2007 bulletin, listing visa availability dates for the entire month of July, was published in June 2007.
AILF has learned that USCIS has refused to allow certain adjustment of status applications to be filed even though the DOS Visa Bulletin states that visa numbers are available for the immigrant category at that time. USCIS rejected these applications because DOS informed it in an internal communication that no visa numbers remained for that category of immigrants. To date, this has happened only in the employment-based “other worker” category. We anticipate that it may happen in a number of other types of employment-based immigrant categories beginning in July 2007.
We believe USCIS violated the law when it failed to apply the visa availability dates listed in the Visa Bulletin, as required by a federal regulation, and instead rejected properly filed adjustment applications. Through this lawsuit, we will challenge the rejection of adjustment of status applications on this basis. We will ask the court to order USCIS to accept the rejected adjustment applications and treat them as being filed as of the date they originally would have been filed had USCIS not rejected them.
Q: What is a “plaintiff” and how do I know if I am eligible to be a “plaintiff” in this lawsuit?
A: A plaintiff is a person who files a lawsuit against someone else. We are still determining the categories of plaintiffs but an eligible plaintiff for this lawsuit may include:
[other worker category]
A foreign national who:
Submitted an adjustment of status application in the “other worker” category for receipt by USCIS in June 2007; and
Is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status; and
Did not receive a receipt notice, cancelled check, or notice of approval of the adjustment application.
[other employment-based categories]
A foreign national who:
Submitted an adjustment of status application in any employment-based category other than “other worker” for receipt by USCIS in July 2007; and
Is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status; and
Did not receive a receipt notice, cancelled check, or notice of approval of the adjustment application.
Q: Why should I be a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
2
A: If the lawsuit is successful, USCIS should accept your adjustment application and treat it as if it had been filed as of the date that you originally tried to file it. Because your adjustment application will then be considered to be pending before the agency, you may be eligible for interim benefits, including an employment authorization document, advance parole, and others.
What the lawsuit will not do is make a visa number immediately available to you if none is available. If the visa numbers have in fact been used for the current fiscal year, the court does not have the authority under the law to make a new number available to you. However, if the court orders that USCIS accept your adjustment application as of the date that you originally tried to file it, you will be at an earlier place in line when visa numbers become available again in the next fiscal year, October 1, 2007. Additionally, as mentioned, you may be eligible for interim benefits while you are waiting.
Q: What is likely to happen because of the suit?
A: Lawsuits are uncertain by nature. We cannot predict the exact outcome. However, other efforts to resolve these problems with USCIS have not succeeded. For this reason, we believe that a lawsuit is the only remaining possible way to resolve these problems.
Q: Will being a plaintiff in this lawsuit hurt my chances for permanent residence?
A: If an individual is otherwise legally entitled to have an application granted, the government cannot lawfully deny that application on the basis that the person is participating or participated in a lawsuit. If we believed the government was taking such action, we would complain to the lawyers representing the government and to the judge handling the case. In our experience, this retaliation has not happened.
Please be aware, though, that USCIS is likely to examine plaintiffs’ adjustment of status applications more closely than it otherwise might. It may ask the plaintiffs questions and ask for additional information about their adjustment applications or immigration status. See below regarding “discovery.”
Q: How much time must plaintiffs spend on this lawsuit?
A: Plaintiffs will have to provide us with the information and documentation we need in order to prepare the lawsuit. AILF will do most of the work in the lawsuit on paper. Depending on how the case proceeds, the government and its attorneys may want to ask the plaintiffs some questions about their case, either through written questions and answers or in person. This is called “discovery.” One type of discovery is a “deposition,” which is an interview where parties are asked questions about their cases.
Depositions are possible but not common in this type of case. In the event that discovery and/or depositions were required, an AILF attorney or an attorney working with us would assist plaintiffs to comply with any discovery requests, and would appear with plaintiffs at any deposition at no charge (see below). At a later stage, a plaintiff may be required to be present at
3
a hearing or a trial and possibly be asked to testify about their particular case, but this is quite rare.
Q: Will it cost me anything to be a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
A: AILF and any co-counsel will not charge any attorney’s fees for representing individuals in this lawsuit. AILF and any co-counsel also will pay the costs and expenses associated with the lawsuit, such as filing fees, copying, long distance calls, travel expenses for AILF attorneys and staff, depositions, transcripts, etc. In the unlikely event that an individual should be required to be present at a deposition, hearing or a trial, we may ask that he/she pay their own travel and lodging expenses, if any. Those expenses would be reimbursed if the lawsuit is successful and we recover costs.
Q: Will anyone know that I am a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
A: Lawsuits are public information, and are available as a public court document. Many courts now have lawsuits and other documents available electronically, accessible via the internet. Also, USCIS will, of course, know the identity of the plaintiffs. We also will discuss plaintiffs’ cases with any other lawyers working with us on the lawsuit. It also is possible that the media – newspapers, radio, or TV reporters – will see the court documents and decide to do a story on the lawsuit.
Q: What should I do if I am eligible and interested in being a plaintiff in the lawsuit?
A: Please quickly submit the Questionnaire for Potential Plaintiffs and send us the documents requested. If you do not have the Questionnaire, please send an email to visabulletin@ailf.org, and we will send it to you. You may also fax a request to AILF LAC at (202) 742-5619. Please indicate this is a question about the visa bulletin litigation.
If you have any questions that are not answered by this FAQ or the questionnaire, please send them to visabulletin@ailf.org or fax to (202) 742-65619, and we will respond. Thank you!
===============
hot quotes on birthday wishes.
grinch
02-26 02:54 PM
Hey guys!
I'm finally back from the beautiful Italy, and I'm ready to start getting back into the battle!
March 10th sounds pretty good, yet I just might need a couple days or so, depending on how my time goes.
and soulty, your not going to participate?! Aw hoe come man! I was looking forward to your entry!
I'm still working hard, almost done!
I'm finally back from the beautiful Italy, and I'm ready to start getting back into the battle!
March 10th sounds pretty good, yet I just might need a couple days or so, depending on how my time goes.
and soulty, your not going to participate?! Aw hoe come man! I was looking forward to your entry!
I'm still working hard, almost done!
more...
house wallpaper Windows 8 m3
californian_GC
01-16 12:11 PM
I signed up through my BOA account. I made $20 recurring payments for the next 12 months.
tattoo girlfriend Where to quotes
akilhere
10-12 03:42 PM
Hi 'akilhere',
You should go for new medical report as last one is too old. For vaccinations, you can use your last report but for TB and other blood test, you should go for recent.
I'm not sure whether RFE would be for medical report. In my case, my civil surgeon was not in USCIS's current list of authorised civil surgeons and somehow, my x-ray report was missing from report also.
It may be EVL. In either case, it is easy work as you have not changed your employer (no AC-21 issue).
I got the RFE. Its says that the civil surgeon did not attach the copy of the radiologist report to form I-693. It needs the report on an official letterhead.
It also says that I don't need to take another medical exam for this.
I've contacted the Doctor's office and asked them for the same. Did you get the same RFE?
Thanks,
You should go for new medical report as last one is too old. For vaccinations, you can use your last report but for TB and other blood test, you should go for recent.
I'm not sure whether RFE would be for medical report. In my case, my civil surgeon was not in USCIS's current list of authorised civil surgeons and somehow, my x-ray report was missing from report also.
It may be EVL. In either case, it is easy work as you have not changed your employer (no AC-21 issue).
I got the RFE. Its says that the civil surgeon did not attach the copy of the radiologist report to form I-693. It needs the report on an official letterhead.
It also says that I don't need to take another medical exam for this.
I've contacted the Doctor's office and asked them for the same. Did you get the same RFE?
Thanks,
more...
pictures girlfriend Justin Bieber
Googler
02-20 02:54 PM
I'd posted elsewhere about my Feb 13, 2008 conversation with the DOS official who sets cutoff dates:
And then there this piece of info from Ron Gotcher posted on Feb 14, 2008
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4285
"Last night, at a meeting of the American Immigration Lawyer's Assocation Southern California chapter, Charles Oppenheim spoke. Mr. Oppenheim is the officer within the Visa Office tasked with calculating visa bulletin cutoff dates each month. He offered the following thoughts as to cutoff date movement in the upcoming months:
In April, India and China EB2 will be set at 12/01/2003
EB3 for India and China will slow down for the rest of the fiscal year."
I am riveted by this because I spoke to Oppenheim just the day before this meeting (he referred to it). This was the conversation in which he told me that at present EB-2 India would only get numbers leftover from EB-1 India -- the problem is he doesn't know either exactly how many EB-2 India adjudicated applications there are in any specific PD range -- so every month he makes wild guesses, with the intent of using up visas. So I guess at least as of 2/14/08 he thought moving the date to 12/1/03 would more than mop up whatever was leftover from EB-1 India. Given the end of the FBI boondoggle (the effects of which have not been quantified by Oppenheim or USCIS) I'd predict that even a date in early 2002 would be good enough to mop up. Let us see if he changes his mind by mid March.
But his statement at the AILA meeting has been bothering me so I talked to him again today. Here is what he said -- that he is considering not only the EB-1 India excess, but the entire EB-1 worldwide excess being given to oversubscribed EB-2! I asked him about his earlier statement and he said that he had had a chance to look at the numbers and determine that unlike recent years EB-1 worldwide is not using numbers up at a rate that would max out EB-1 usage. BUT. He is waiting for USCIS to give him an estimate of the number of EB-2 India applications that would become eligible if he moves the cutoff dates up to 12/1/03, he will set the date ONLY after he gets that data and determines that there won't be too many within that cutoff date.
I also asked him to confirm that he was relying on his interpretation of Section 202(a)(5) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558 dbe) of the INA in order to proceed with this spillover. This is his current interpretation of that section -- spillover from EB-1 to EB-2 IF there appears to be a worldwide excess in EB-1, when there is no worldwide excess in EB-1 then country specific spillover for example, from EB-1 India to EB-2 India only etc. In past years like FY06, EB-1 ROW was looking maxed out, so barely any spillover from EB-1 to oversubscribed EB-2.
And then there this piece of info from Ron Gotcher posted on Feb 14, 2008
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4285
"Last night, at a meeting of the American Immigration Lawyer's Assocation Southern California chapter, Charles Oppenheim spoke. Mr. Oppenheim is the officer within the Visa Office tasked with calculating visa bulletin cutoff dates each month. He offered the following thoughts as to cutoff date movement in the upcoming months:
In April, India and China EB2 will be set at 12/01/2003
EB3 for India and China will slow down for the rest of the fiscal year."
I am riveted by this because I spoke to Oppenheim just the day before this meeting (he referred to it). This was the conversation in which he told me that at present EB-2 India would only get numbers leftover from EB-1 India -- the problem is he doesn't know either exactly how many EB-2 India adjudicated applications there are in any specific PD range -- so every month he makes wild guesses, with the intent of using up visas. So I guess at least as of 2/14/08 he thought moving the date to 12/1/03 would more than mop up whatever was leftover from EB-1 India. Given the end of the FBI boondoggle (the effects of which have not been quantified by Oppenheim or USCIS) I'd predict that even a date in early 2002 would be good enough to mop up. Let us see if he changes his mind by mid March.
But his statement at the AILA meeting has been bothering me so I talked to him again today. Here is what he said -- that he is considering not only the EB-1 India excess, but the entire EB-1 worldwide excess being given to oversubscribed EB-2! I asked him about his earlier statement and he said that he had had a chance to look at the numbers and determine that unlike recent years EB-1 worldwide is not using numbers up at a rate that would max out EB-1 usage. BUT. He is waiting for USCIS to give him an estimate of the number of EB-2 India applications that would become eligible if he moves the cutoff dates up to 12/1/03, he will set the date ONLY after he gets that data and determines that there won't be too many within that cutoff date.
I also asked him to confirm that he was relying on his interpretation of Section 202(a)(5) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558 dbe) of the INA in order to proceed with this spillover. This is his current interpretation of that section -- spillover from EB-1 to EB-2 IF there appears to be a worldwide excess in EB-1, when there is no worldwide excess in EB-1 then country specific spillover for example, from EB-1 India to EB-2 India only etc. In past years like FY06, EB-1 ROW was looking maxed out, so barely any spillover from EB-1 to oversubscribed EB-2.
dresses us air force wallpaper.
gc_maine2
09-01 08:39 AM
I am also interested in online MBA, please share if you get any more information on Aspen.
anyone who has done MBA from USD, please provide your inputs.
Thanks
I just found that Aspen University is offering online MBA at $3600 (end to end) + books.
The univ is accredited by DTE but not sure about its market value.
I am thinking about low cost MBA and the options (apart from newly discovered super low cost Aspen) are --
University of South Dakota (USD) (18 K)
&
University of Massachusetts (UMass) (30 K)
Does any one know if USD has a decent market value ?
anyone who has done MBA from USD, please provide your inputs.
Thanks
I just found that Aspen University is offering online MBA at $3600 (end to end) + books.
The univ is accredited by DTE but not sure about its market value.
I am thinking about low cost MBA and the options (apart from newly discovered super low cost Aspen) are --
University of South Dakota (USD) (18 K)
&
University of Massachusetts (UMass) (30 K)
Does any one know if USD has a decent market value ?
more...
makeup 7 1 speaker setup
alex99
04-07 03:55 PM
Hi,
I was going through the flatcenter PERM data for year 2004.
In the Coulm Last_sig_Event, some of data rows have value
'Received Regional Office'.
Anyboay has an idea what does this mean?.
Regards,
Alex
I was going through the flatcenter PERM data for year 2004.
In the Coulm Last_sig_Event, some of data rows have value
'Received Regional Office'.
Anyboay has an idea what does this mean?.
Regards,
Alex
girlfriend 2010 Lady Bugs 1st Birthday
tapukakababa
07-18 12:12 PM
hi tapukakababa, can you please provide me with a number for USCIS nebraska SC. I would like to talk to them as well.
I called at the same number you provided all of us in your earlier posts
1-800-375-5283, with ext 1,2,3,6
I called at the same number you provided all of us in your earlier posts
1-800-375-5283, with ext 1,2,3,6
hairstyles Beautiful Flower Field
gcformeornot
03-16 12:52 PM
think IV membership should be vetted. Only way to stop fools like these.
GCVictim
07-23 02:55 PM
my lawyer also told same thing, no need employer letter for 485.
Only I submitted letter for LC and 140 only.
So, according to my knowledge no need of employer letter
Only I submitted letter for LC and 140 only.
So, according to my knowledge no need of employer letter
gcseeker2002
12-27 10:38 AM
Dubai - no issues without valid stamp
Frankfurt, Munich, Hamburg - I heard no issues now, if u have valid i 797 - waiting forr some comments
Amsterdam/Schiphol - No issue without valid stamp
London - ?????
Seoul - ?????
Singapore - ??????
Bangkok - ?????
Kuwait - ?????
Zurich -- ????
Geneva -- ???
God Bless Asian countries :
Singapore - Never heard of transit visa
Bangkok - Never heard of transit visa
Seoul - Never heard of transit visa
Tokyo - They may introduce it soon as they think they are western country
Frankfurt, Munich, Hamburg - I heard no issues now, if u have valid i 797 - waiting forr some comments
Amsterdam/Schiphol - No issue without valid stamp
London - ?????
Seoul - ?????
Singapore - ??????
Bangkok - ?????
Kuwait - ?????
Zurich -- ????
Geneva -- ???
God Bless Asian countries :
Singapore - Never heard of transit visa
Bangkok - Never heard of transit visa
Seoul - Never heard of transit visa
Tokyo - They may introduce it soon as they think they are western country
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar