designserve
02-06 05:19 PM
Ask him to go to hell!!!
Pls go on and join wherever you like and tell him this is a free country like India.Go to a lawyer and sue him if he talks any further...Not to worry,my friend.
Pls go on and join wherever you like and tell him this is a free country like India.Go to a lawyer and sue him if he talks any further...Not to worry,my friend.
wallpaper Hometown: Laguna Beach, CA
d100763
06-22 09:26 PM
VDAMINATOR!
THAT BRA LOOKS LIKE IT WAS DRAWN WITH PHOTOSHOP!
You p0rn lover...
Touch�...:smirk:
THAT BRA LOOKS LIKE IT WAS DRAWN WITH PHOTOSHOP!
You p0rn lover...
Touch�...:smirk:
mps
08-15 05:00 PM
:p You just killed spirit of "AC21"
:D Now you may want to add that - USCIS should request proof of employement each year from anyone who gets GC in EB category right !
I noticed a flaw in GC process with respect to �Ability to pay� and �AC21�
Here are the definitions
Ability to pay - Suppose a company files for I-140, it has to prove its ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary.
AC21 states that an employee can change jobs to a similar position if I-485 is pending for more than 180 days. This could happen when I-485 is pending for more than 180 days or after its approval.
Let�s consider the following scenario
1) Company A files for I-140 and I-485 concurrently and proves its ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary at I-140 stage.
2) I-140 gets approved and I-485 is pending for more than 180 days.
3) The employee quits employer A and remains idle (or) becomes self employed (or) joins employer B in a different position.
4) During the I-485 adjudication he provides an offer letter from employer C with similar roles, responsibilities and wage as the proposed GC position with Company A and says that he intends to work with employer C after I-485 approval.
5) I-485 gets approved.
Here is the flaw. USCIS doesn�t check if employer C has the ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary. All it asks for is an offer letter with wage, duties and annual salary.
What if company C is running in loss and not in a position to pay the proffered wage.
Why should USCIS make a big deal out of ability to pay when it�s not checked across all employers where the beneficiary intends to work?
:D Now you may want to add that - USCIS should request proof of employement each year from anyone who gets GC in EB category right !
I noticed a flaw in GC process with respect to �Ability to pay� and �AC21�
Here are the definitions
Ability to pay - Suppose a company files for I-140, it has to prove its ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary.
AC21 states that an employee can change jobs to a similar position if I-485 is pending for more than 180 days. This could happen when I-485 is pending for more than 180 days or after its approval.
Let�s consider the following scenario
1) Company A files for I-140 and I-485 concurrently and proves its ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary at I-140 stage.
2) I-140 gets approved and I-485 is pending for more than 180 days.
3) The employee quits employer A and remains idle (or) becomes self employed (or) joins employer B in a different position.
4) During the I-485 adjudication he provides an offer letter from employer C with similar roles, responsibilities and wage as the proposed GC position with Company A and says that he intends to work with employer C after I-485 approval.
5) I-485 gets approved.
Here is the flaw. USCIS doesn�t check if employer C has the ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary. All it asks for is an offer letter with wage, duties and annual salary.
What if company C is running in loss and not in a position to pay the proffered wage.
Why should USCIS make a big deal out of ability to pay when it�s not checked across all employers where the beneficiary intends to work?
2011 Lauren Conrad and her Audi R8
chanduv23
10-09 03:15 PM
Fromnaija and ChanduV-
I may be moving to California in early November. So, I am sorry I am not able to offer a leading role in AZ. But, I believe it will greatly help others considering such a role, if you could explain what kind of responsibilities and commitments such a position may entail.
U can definitely lead till then :), I may also be moving out of Tri State - nature of job is like that.
Lets find more people.
We need people to come out of their closets and start getting active
I may be moving to California in early November. So, I am sorry I am not able to offer a leading role in AZ. But, I believe it will greatly help others considering such a role, if you could explain what kind of responsibilities and commitments such a position may entail.
U can definitely lead till then :), I may also be moving out of Tri State - nature of job is like that.
Lets find more people.
We need people to come out of their closets and start getting active
more...
kishdam
03-17 10:18 AM
I was reading at immigration-law.com that a new bill SUSTAIN act is introduced by Lamar Smith in the house and is referred to the judiciary committee. This bill seems proposing the increase of H1B numbers from 65k to 195k. Does this bill have any EB related measures? This bill may be unlikely to get voted anytime soon but if it has some EB measures at least we get some exposure.
JunRN
08-11 06:58 PM
True again. The problem will come during naturalization. Reasons why you change employers will be asked and scrutinized.
more...
dealsnet
08-04 12:07 PM
We will forget many legal requirement after getting GC due to the excitment.
But we need to do these things to finish our GC journey.
Thank you for this information. Never realized that this should be done.
But we need to do these things to finish our GC journey.
Thank you for this information. Never realized that this should be done.
2010 Beach,#39; Lauren Conrad
RandyK
10-01 07:00 PM
What is the status of this bill ? Anyone?
Is Sen Cornyn's amendment to this bill still considered ?
Nothing about this bill has comeup during the last few days.......
Is Sen Cornyn's amendment to this bill still considered ?
Nothing about this bill has comeup during the last few days.......
more...
sreedhar
09-07 11:42 PM
Hi Sree, which country immigration are you talking about ? :o
:D
I am talking about US Immigration...I clearly mentioned USCIS right.
Thanks..Sree
:D
I am talking about US Immigration...I clearly mentioned USCIS right.
Thanks..Sree
hair New Lauren Conrad Reality Show
ks_ls
01-14 07:11 AM
Hello,
My sister is 33 years of age and appeared for visitor's visa with her 3-year old daughter.
The visa was denied by the Mumbai consulate. Was asked the following questions:
1. Why do you want to visit the US? --> Tourism
2. Who will you travel in the US? --> Brother
3. Is your husband going with you? -- NO
4. Husband's salary? ---> upwards of 35 lakhs working with an MNC
5. How long ? two months
6. Where will you travel ? ---> DC, NY, Chicago, Disney etc
7. What's the status of your brother? H1-B
8. Does he have any children? NO
Sorry your financial condition is not good..rejected!! Not sure what triggered that comment.
Now, I am thinking of applying for the visa second time in a month or so. I am not sure why they said your financial condition is not good. Sister tried to show the document but the officer would not look at it.
The guesswork begins. Next time, I am wondering if I should be the sponsor of her application or show that her husband can sponsor the trip.
Any advice? Any experiences people have?
Thanks
My sister is 33 years of age and appeared for visitor's visa with her 3-year old daughter.
The visa was denied by the Mumbai consulate. Was asked the following questions:
1. Why do you want to visit the US? --> Tourism
2. Who will you travel in the US? --> Brother
3. Is your husband going with you? -- NO
4. Husband's salary? ---> upwards of 35 lakhs working with an MNC
5. How long ? two months
6. Where will you travel ? ---> DC, NY, Chicago, Disney etc
7. What's the status of your brother? H1-B
8. Does he have any children? NO
Sorry your financial condition is not good..rejected!! Not sure what triggered that comment.
Now, I am thinking of applying for the visa second time in a month or so. I am not sure why they said your financial condition is not good. Sister tried to show the document but the officer would not look at it.
The guesswork begins. Next time, I am wondering if I should be the sponsor of her application or show that her husband can sponsor the trip.
Any advice? Any experiences people have?
Thanks
more...
cagedcactus
05-03 06:59 PM
"senator_levin@levin.senate.gov" to me
show details Apr 30 (3 days ago)
Dear Mr. Amin:
Thank you for contacting me regarding immigration and border security. I appreciate receiving your views on these important issues.
Our immigration system is broken and needs reform. I believe an effective immigration policy must include comprehensive border security and comprehensive immigration reform. We must secure our borders against real threats from terrorism and protect U.S. workers, while preserving the freedoms and principles on which our nation was founded. We must address reforms realistically, stem the tide of illegal immigrants entering the country and be fair to those who are here legally.
I support comprehensive border security reform. I voted in favor of an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2007 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L.109-289) that appropriated $1.83 billion to construct 370 miles of triple-layered fencing and 461 miles of vehicle barriers along the southwest border of our country. I also supported an amendment to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief (P.L.109-13) that provided $390 million to hire an additional 650 border patrol agents, 250 immigration investigators, and 168 immigration enforcement agents and deportation officers, as well as to fund an additional 2,000 detention beds for immigration enforcement purposes.
I believe any reform must protect U.S. workers. For this reason, I voted in favor of an amendment to the Fair Minimum Wage Act (H.R.2) that would bar employers who violate immigration laws by hiring undocumented workers from receiving federal government contracts for up to 10 years. The Fair Minimum Wage Act passed the Senate on February 1, 2007, and must now be considered by a House-Senate conference committee to reconcile the differences between the Senate and House versions of the bill. I believe it is important to ensure that employers hire only those legally eligible to work and that employees are treated fairly. I support a broad-based Electronic Employment Verification (EEV) system, which builds upon the existing voluntary pilot program, to increase the reliability of employment authorization checks. In the 109th Congress, I supported a number of worker protection amendments to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (S.2611). I voted in favor of an amendment that would have established a true prevailing wage for all occupations to ensure that U.S. workers� wages are not lowered as a result of the guest worker program, and I supported an amendment that would have required employers to make good faith efforts to recruit U.S. workers first. S.2611 passed the Senate by a bipartisan vote of 62-36. Unfortunately, S.2611 was blocked by the House because of opposition to the immigration provisions in the Senate bill. The bill was not passed before the end of the 109th Congress.
Comprehensive immigration reform must remove the �magnet� that has attracted millions of people to cross the border illegally. We should not provide amnesty, but instead permit currently undocumented workers to earn the right to obtain legal status over a long period of time, under restrictive conditions, including being required to pay fees and back taxes. These individuals would be required to apply through the same immigration process as everyone else and take their place in line behind all those whose applications are pending. I will continue to work with my colleagues in the Senate toward effective solutions that address our nation�s real immigration problems. Without a comprehensive approach to immigration reform, our current problems with illegal immigration will likely continue.
Thank you again for contacting me.
Sincerely,
Carl Levin
CC to senator_levin
show details 7:36 pm (1 minute ago)
Respected Sir,
I wanted to bring to your attention the woes of immigrants who are legally here in U.S. Specifically, the high-skilled workers who are experiencing decade-long waits to get Green Cards (the employment based Green Cards). There are approximately half a million such people in U.S. today whose lives are in limbo as they wait to get their Green Cards. I encourage you to visit http://immigrationvoice.org, an organization comprising of such people who are lobbying the Congress to help get some relief urgently.
The focus of immigration reform has solely been on illegal immigration. What is not so well understood is that the fate of legal immigrants has been tied with that of the illegal immigrants (because there is just one bill that the Congress will debate - CIR/STRIVE). It is ironic that if this bill does not pass, legal immigrants would be left hanging in the dark again, even when there is bi-partisan support for their cause!
The waiting times for getting an employment-based (EB) Green Card (GC) are increasing each day for nationals of all countries. But especially hard-hit are people from India and China, whose waiting times are expected to increase to 10-15 years, if the current trend continues. The demand for EB-GC keeps increasing because over the last decade an average of about 100,000 skilled workers have joined the U.S. work-force each year (using H-1B visa, and graduating foreign students), but only 50,000 new employment-based Green Cards are issued. U.S. issues 140,000 EB GC but even family members are counted-off from this quota, which thus effectively reduces to about one-third. Therefore, each year about 50,000 skilled workers join the queue for a Green Card.
Once the wait for a Green Card starts, all major life-decisions are influenced by the Green Card application process. Decisions about traveling abroad, marrying, investing, kids' education, and changing cities are then based on the stage in which one's GC application is. The biggest impact of the wait is on the person's professional career. Once the process starts, changing jobs usually means re-filing for a GC, implying that the person starts from the end of the line again. Even promotions within the same company are not without risks, as any change in job descriptions necessitates refilling the application. So a person waiting for a GC is expected to remain in the same job with the same company and without any substantial increase (or decrease) in pay! The skilled worker therefore lives life in constant limbo.
The psychological impact of being stuck and being treated as less than equal, even while paying all taxes (including SS and Medicare, to which they are not even entitled to without becoming permanent residents) is immense.
Your help is very much needed to eliminate this unfair backlog and reform the system, so that no innocent and law abiding person should suffer anymore. Your kind reply is very valuable to me.
I appreciate your time and help.
Regards,
CC
Above is the email conversation beween me and Senetor Levine. He seems to be in support for Legal immigration, but is against Amnesty.
My reply here is basically a nice written post by a fellow member here (Eternal_hope).
So credit for writing goes to him.
A similar reply was sent to senetor Debbie Stabenow (Michigan too)
Please comment......
show details Apr 30 (3 days ago)
Dear Mr. Amin:
Thank you for contacting me regarding immigration and border security. I appreciate receiving your views on these important issues.
Our immigration system is broken and needs reform. I believe an effective immigration policy must include comprehensive border security and comprehensive immigration reform. We must secure our borders against real threats from terrorism and protect U.S. workers, while preserving the freedoms and principles on which our nation was founded. We must address reforms realistically, stem the tide of illegal immigrants entering the country and be fair to those who are here legally.
I support comprehensive border security reform. I voted in favor of an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2007 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L.109-289) that appropriated $1.83 billion to construct 370 miles of triple-layered fencing and 461 miles of vehicle barriers along the southwest border of our country. I also supported an amendment to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief (P.L.109-13) that provided $390 million to hire an additional 650 border patrol agents, 250 immigration investigators, and 168 immigration enforcement agents and deportation officers, as well as to fund an additional 2,000 detention beds for immigration enforcement purposes.
I believe any reform must protect U.S. workers. For this reason, I voted in favor of an amendment to the Fair Minimum Wage Act (H.R.2) that would bar employers who violate immigration laws by hiring undocumented workers from receiving federal government contracts for up to 10 years. The Fair Minimum Wage Act passed the Senate on February 1, 2007, and must now be considered by a House-Senate conference committee to reconcile the differences between the Senate and House versions of the bill. I believe it is important to ensure that employers hire only those legally eligible to work and that employees are treated fairly. I support a broad-based Electronic Employment Verification (EEV) system, which builds upon the existing voluntary pilot program, to increase the reliability of employment authorization checks. In the 109th Congress, I supported a number of worker protection amendments to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (S.2611). I voted in favor of an amendment that would have established a true prevailing wage for all occupations to ensure that U.S. workers� wages are not lowered as a result of the guest worker program, and I supported an amendment that would have required employers to make good faith efforts to recruit U.S. workers first. S.2611 passed the Senate by a bipartisan vote of 62-36. Unfortunately, S.2611 was blocked by the House because of opposition to the immigration provisions in the Senate bill. The bill was not passed before the end of the 109th Congress.
Comprehensive immigration reform must remove the �magnet� that has attracted millions of people to cross the border illegally. We should not provide amnesty, but instead permit currently undocumented workers to earn the right to obtain legal status over a long period of time, under restrictive conditions, including being required to pay fees and back taxes. These individuals would be required to apply through the same immigration process as everyone else and take their place in line behind all those whose applications are pending. I will continue to work with my colleagues in the Senate toward effective solutions that address our nation�s real immigration problems. Without a comprehensive approach to immigration reform, our current problems with illegal immigration will likely continue.
Thank you again for contacting me.
Sincerely,
Carl Levin
CC to senator_levin
show details 7:36 pm (1 minute ago)
Respected Sir,
I wanted to bring to your attention the woes of immigrants who are legally here in U.S. Specifically, the high-skilled workers who are experiencing decade-long waits to get Green Cards (the employment based Green Cards). There are approximately half a million such people in U.S. today whose lives are in limbo as they wait to get their Green Cards. I encourage you to visit http://immigrationvoice.org, an organization comprising of such people who are lobbying the Congress to help get some relief urgently.
The focus of immigration reform has solely been on illegal immigration. What is not so well understood is that the fate of legal immigrants has been tied with that of the illegal immigrants (because there is just one bill that the Congress will debate - CIR/STRIVE). It is ironic that if this bill does not pass, legal immigrants would be left hanging in the dark again, even when there is bi-partisan support for their cause!
The waiting times for getting an employment-based (EB) Green Card (GC) are increasing each day for nationals of all countries. But especially hard-hit are people from India and China, whose waiting times are expected to increase to 10-15 years, if the current trend continues. The demand for EB-GC keeps increasing because over the last decade an average of about 100,000 skilled workers have joined the U.S. work-force each year (using H-1B visa, and graduating foreign students), but only 50,000 new employment-based Green Cards are issued. U.S. issues 140,000 EB GC but even family members are counted-off from this quota, which thus effectively reduces to about one-third. Therefore, each year about 50,000 skilled workers join the queue for a Green Card.
Once the wait for a Green Card starts, all major life-decisions are influenced by the Green Card application process. Decisions about traveling abroad, marrying, investing, kids' education, and changing cities are then based on the stage in which one's GC application is. The biggest impact of the wait is on the person's professional career. Once the process starts, changing jobs usually means re-filing for a GC, implying that the person starts from the end of the line again. Even promotions within the same company are not without risks, as any change in job descriptions necessitates refilling the application. So a person waiting for a GC is expected to remain in the same job with the same company and without any substantial increase (or decrease) in pay! The skilled worker therefore lives life in constant limbo.
The psychological impact of being stuck and being treated as less than equal, even while paying all taxes (including SS and Medicare, to which they are not even entitled to without becoming permanent residents) is immense.
Your help is very much needed to eliminate this unfair backlog and reform the system, so that no innocent and law abiding person should suffer anymore. Your kind reply is very valuable to me.
I appreciate your time and help.
Regards,
CC
Above is the email conversation beween me and Senetor Levine. He seems to be in support for Legal immigration, but is against Amnesty.
My reply here is basically a nice written post by a fellow member here (Eternal_hope).
So credit for writing goes to him.
A similar reply was sent to senetor Debbie Stabenow (Michigan too)
Please comment......
hot After Laguna Beach ended I
franklin
07-21 06:42 PM
OR change your birth country to England :)
Sorry that won't help :)
Sorry that won't help :)
more...
house Lauren Conrad aka LC: formerly
morchu
04-29 05:53 PM
F1 is a pure non-immigrant visa. Means at the time of F1 application, if the consulate feels that there is an "immigration intent" they will (and have to) reject the F1. Just by stating that her fiancee is an immigrant, I see potential F1 rejection due to "immigration intent".
Thanks snathan and aravindhome for your responses.
I'm going to consult an attorney on this for sure...
After i consulted my friends and after going through some other posts i figured that F1 is the best option i have now.
My fiancee is interested in pursuing her higher education, but just wanted to find out if it would be OK that i sponsor her education and state that her fiance is in US with green card at the time of visa application?.. would this cause any problems for getting her F1 visa?
OR should she not mention anything about me in any stage be it in University Admisssion process or the F1 visa application process?
I know all of the other options (H1, L1, B1 and GC sponsor for spouse) would require much time.
aravindhome-- i'm not sure how fast can she get a canadian PR and then come to this Country?...On what basis is she going to enter this country?
Thanks a lot
Ravi
Thanks snathan and aravindhome for your responses.
I'm going to consult an attorney on this for sure...
After i consulted my friends and after going through some other posts i figured that F1 is the best option i have now.
My fiancee is interested in pursuing her higher education, but just wanted to find out if it would be OK that i sponsor her education and state that her fiance is in US with green card at the time of visa application?.. would this cause any problems for getting her F1 visa?
OR should she not mention anything about me in any stage be it in University Admisssion process or the F1 visa application process?
I know all of the other options (H1, L1, B1 and GC sponsor for spouse) would require much time.
aravindhome-- i'm not sure how fast can she get a canadian PR and then come to this Country?...On what basis is she going to enter this country?
Thanks a lot
Ravi
tattoo Kristin Cavallari Laguna Beach
bondgoli007
07-14 04:39 PM
I was audited on 6/09 and Fragommenr responded on 6/30...No response so far and I have emailed my Fragommen paralegal the following questions;
1. Typically how long does DOL take to respond to an Audit?
2. What kind of response can I expect? Will it be an approval or a further Audit?
3. What % of cases get a further audit after a response is filed to an initial Audit?
I will send out a response when I hear from him.
Side question: Is my Priority date the date when PERM was applied or the date the PERM will be approved?
Thanks.
1. Typically how long does DOL take to respond to an Audit?
2. What kind of response can I expect? Will it be an approval or a further Audit?
3. What % of cases get a further audit after a response is filed to an initial Audit?
I will send out a response when I hear from him.
Side question: Is my Priority date the date when PERM was applied or the date the PERM will be approved?
Thanks.
more...
pictures Spun from: quot;Laguna Beachquot;
chanduv23
03-14 12:07 PM
Charles Oppenheim, Chief of Immigrant Visa Control and Reporting Division at the U.S. Department of State (DOS) was a guest speaker at a February 28, 2007 Washington D.C. Chapter meeting of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA). Mr. Oppenheim was kind enough to share his office�s visa number / Visa Bulletin expectations for 2007.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF RETROGRESSION
Mr. Oppenheim discussed the historical background that has led to the current retrogression situation. Retrogression is not something new or unfamiliar in immigration law, as long-time MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers may recall. For many, however, who may have become involved in the green card process since 2001, it is new and, of course, highly problematic. Employment-based (or EB) numbers were current from 2001 through 2005 due to a legislative "fix." This legislation authorized prior, unused immigrant visa numbers from several earlier years to be recaptured and put back into the immigration system. That quota of recaptured numbers was exhausted during Fiscal Year (FY) 2005. As a result, in FYs 2005, 2006 and 2007 we have witnessed severe backlogs in the EB3 categories for all countries and, starting in FY2006, in the EB2 categories for China and India.
PREDICTIONS FOR EB IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBERS
Employment-Based First Preference / EB1
Mr. Oppenheim stated that the employment-based first preference (EB1) category is expected to remain current for all countries of chargeability, including India and China. This is likely throughout the remainder of FY2007 (ending September 30, 2007).
Mr. Oppenheim explained what he referred to as the �trickling effect� of unused visa numbers between EB categories. This trickling effect has resulted in the EB1 category's having remained current. The numbers in the employment-based fourth preference (EB4) and employment-based fifth preference (EB5) categories that are unused are transferred up to the EB1 category. Without this trickling affect, the EB1 category would not remain current for India and China.
This also has an impact on EB2, as unused EB1 numbers trickle down to EB2. There are not enough numbers for India and China, however, to allow the EB2 for these two countries to become current. But it has helped to move EB2 forward for these two countries, to some extent.
Employment-Based Second Preference / EB2
The employment-based second preference (EB2) category is expected to remain at its current cutoff dates for nationals of India and China. These dates have been stagnant at April 22, 2005 for China and January 8, 2003 for India for a few months.
Employment-Based Third Preference / EB3
No forward movement is expected for the employment-based third preference (EB3) category. In fact, as predicted in the March Visa Bulletin and confirmed by Mr. Oppenheim, there is a strong possibility that the EB3 numbers that are not in the "worldwide" chargeability will further retrogress, or move backward. This is expected to occur in the summer of 2007. This backward movement is based upon excessive demand for the limited supply of visa numbers. This will adversely affect nationals of India and China.
Double Dipping
Another problem important to note is one of �doubling dipping� for visa numbers by some individuals. As explained by Mr. Oppenheim, if an employment-based beneficiary filed for adjustment of status in the U.S. and for consular processing overseas, that individual could acquire two visa numbers if both cases are approved. This would result in a wasted immigrant visa number. As a result of this scenario, the DOS and the USCIS are planning a system that would coordinate their visa number allocation, so that each will be aware if the other has already issued a visa number for a particular individual, to prevent waste of this kind.
CONCLUSION
We appreciate Mr. Oppenheim's continued willingness to address matters related to visa numbers and the Visa Bulletin. The lack of employment-based visa numbers is a source of great frustration for many and Mr. Oppenheim's predictions do not assuage that feeling. It is better to have an understanding of the reality of the situation, however, than to operate in ignorance or with unrealistic expectations. The shortage of visa numbers, once again, underscores the need for legislation in this area, to increase the numbers, change the counting of the numbers (from one per person to one per family), or to revamp the system entirely.
This trickling effect was already discussed. It is from murthy.com .
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF RETROGRESSION
Mr. Oppenheim discussed the historical background that has led to the current retrogression situation. Retrogression is not something new or unfamiliar in immigration law, as long-time MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers may recall. For many, however, who may have become involved in the green card process since 2001, it is new and, of course, highly problematic. Employment-based (or EB) numbers were current from 2001 through 2005 due to a legislative "fix." This legislation authorized prior, unused immigrant visa numbers from several earlier years to be recaptured and put back into the immigration system. That quota of recaptured numbers was exhausted during Fiscal Year (FY) 2005. As a result, in FYs 2005, 2006 and 2007 we have witnessed severe backlogs in the EB3 categories for all countries and, starting in FY2006, in the EB2 categories for China and India.
PREDICTIONS FOR EB IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBERS
Employment-Based First Preference / EB1
Mr. Oppenheim stated that the employment-based first preference (EB1) category is expected to remain current for all countries of chargeability, including India and China. This is likely throughout the remainder of FY2007 (ending September 30, 2007).
Mr. Oppenheim explained what he referred to as the �trickling effect� of unused visa numbers between EB categories. This trickling effect has resulted in the EB1 category's having remained current. The numbers in the employment-based fourth preference (EB4) and employment-based fifth preference (EB5) categories that are unused are transferred up to the EB1 category. Without this trickling affect, the EB1 category would not remain current for India and China.
This also has an impact on EB2, as unused EB1 numbers trickle down to EB2. There are not enough numbers for India and China, however, to allow the EB2 for these two countries to become current. But it has helped to move EB2 forward for these two countries, to some extent.
Employment-Based Second Preference / EB2
The employment-based second preference (EB2) category is expected to remain at its current cutoff dates for nationals of India and China. These dates have been stagnant at April 22, 2005 for China and January 8, 2003 for India for a few months.
Employment-Based Third Preference / EB3
No forward movement is expected for the employment-based third preference (EB3) category. In fact, as predicted in the March Visa Bulletin and confirmed by Mr. Oppenheim, there is a strong possibility that the EB3 numbers that are not in the "worldwide" chargeability will further retrogress, or move backward. This is expected to occur in the summer of 2007. This backward movement is based upon excessive demand for the limited supply of visa numbers. This will adversely affect nationals of India and China.
Double Dipping
Another problem important to note is one of �doubling dipping� for visa numbers by some individuals. As explained by Mr. Oppenheim, if an employment-based beneficiary filed for adjustment of status in the U.S. and for consular processing overseas, that individual could acquire two visa numbers if both cases are approved. This would result in a wasted immigrant visa number. As a result of this scenario, the DOS and the USCIS are planning a system that would coordinate their visa number allocation, so that each will be aware if the other has already issued a visa number for a particular individual, to prevent waste of this kind.
CONCLUSION
We appreciate Mr. Oppenheim's continued willingness to address matters related to visa numbers and the Visa Bulletin. The lack of employment-based visa numbers is a source of great frustration for many and Mr. Oppenheim's predictions do not assuage that feeling. It is better to have an understanding of the reality of the situation, however, than to operate in ignorance or with unrealistic expectations. The shortage of visa numbers, once again, underscores the need for legislation in this area, to increase the numbers, change the counting of the numbers (from one per person to one per family), or to revamp the system entirely.
This trickling effect was already discussed. It is from murthy.com .
dresses Laguna Beach was the home
clif
07-29 08:10 AM
Two other issues could be:
1. You will not be able to travel on student visa. If you enter US on student visa, it is considered as abandonment of I-485 application.
2. You need recent salary statements for EAD renewal every year.
1. You will not be able to travel on student visa. If you enter US on student visa, it is considered as abandonment of I-485 application.
2. You need recent salary statements for EAD renewal every year.
more...
makeup MTV#39;s quot;Laguna Beach: The
Prashanthi
10-20 05:15 PM
My advice you need to prepare a comprehensive package of documentation since your case is really messed up.
1) Get a legal translation of your original BC from Hindi to English. You can enlist help of some one you know (not a direct family member) or proffesional translation agency to do this. If done by some individual get it notarized.
2) Now prepare a letter highlighting the sections that are correct and sections that are incorrect (like name of child)
3) Get 2 affidavits from your parents/ relatives which the corrected information (also add the other BC info required refer to IV wiki for details). Make sure that these affidavits contain enough details to explain why the name and other details changed.
4) Get as much documentation as possible which can suppliment the new info. Example 10th / 12th certificates, School Leaving Certificates, PAN Card, Indian Drivers License, Nationality/ Domicile certificates, Caste Certificate, Election Card etc etc that can support the new name.
I agree with the above, please follow his advice. In general letter from the consulate is not accepted as proof of birth because they follow the passport details and dont do any further investigation.
1) Get a legal translation of your original BC from Hindi to English. You can enlist help of some one you know (not a direct family member) or proffesional translation agency to do this. If done by some individual get it notarized.
2) Now prepare a letter highlighting the sections that are correct and sections that are incorrect (like name of child)
3) Get 2 affidavits from your parents/ relatives which the corrected information (also add the other BC info required refer to IV wiki for details). Make sure that these affidavits contain enough details to explain why the name and other details changed.
4) Get as much documentation as possible which can suppliment the new info. Example 10th / 12th certificates, School Leaving Certificates, PAN Card, Indian Drivers License, Nationality/ Domicile certificates, Caste Certificate, Election Card etc etc that can support the new name.
I agree with the above, please follow his advice. In general letter from the consulate is not accepted as proof of birth because they follow the passport details and dont do any further investigation.
girlfriend LAUREN CONRAD amp; LO BOSWORTH
h1techSlave
04-22 02:23 PM
Each RFE will result in lawyer fees, medical exams, etc. to the tune of $2000.
Even if they issue 100, 000 RFEs, the resultant increase in GDP = 100K * 2000 = $200 million.
Even if they issue 100, 000 RFEs, the resultant increase in GDP = 100K * 2000 = $200 million.
hairstyles Lauren Conrad: I would say the
vxg
06-04 09:21 AM
The new bill does not care about STEM. The only qualification you need is a degree in ILLEGAL immigration.
ahasan
05-31 10:18 AM
This is my first time $100 contribution.
Paypal Id: 31T703381K4953443
Paypal Id: 31T703381K4953443
Ramba
03-26 11:42 AM
There is a little chance to overcome this issue. Because of promotion in same occupation classification, one can not upgrade the education requirement to Master degree, if the same occupation required Bachelors degree in junior level. If your employer requested more experience (rather than education), probabaly they may approve the second LC, as it is geneune for asking more experience for senor level.
Now DOL and USCIS is tightening the requirement as everyone is shooting for higher requirement to apply in EB2.
Now DOL and USCIS is tightening the requirement as everyone is shooting for higher requirement to apply in EB2.
No comments:
Post a Comment