WeldonSprings
05-27 12:44 PM
You probably won't get a FP notice if you have done biometrics done before for I-485.
So may just have to wait for approval.
I E-filed on Apr-13th. Sent doc's on Apr-19th. LUD Apr-21st. No Photo's sent with doc's.
Waiting for FP/Approval.
So may just have to wait for approval.
I E-filed on Apr-13th. Sent doc's on Apr-19th. LUD Apr-21st. No Photo's sent with doc's.
Waiting for FP/Approval.
wallpaper loki gods minifig minifigs
gkaplan
04-22 12:13 AM
country if birth is germany
eager_immi
02-11 08:47 AM
They don't listen to anyone they are answerable to why would they listen to people with least amount if rights.
The Judicial system is run by Bush and et al..they wont listen to soemone who they are not answerable to.
The Judicial system is run by Bush and et al..they wont listen to soemone who they are not answerable to.
2011 as Loki, the Norse god of
laksmi
12-03 08:17 PM
My wife is not H4, she is working on EAD and we applied her I-485 last July. She has to travel to India for an emegency. We applied for AP last month, have the receipt but it is not approved. Is it okay if she travels to India without AP approval? I will be here and I can take her approved AP when I go there after two months.
I heard that if she travels without AP, her I-485 is considered abonded. Is this true? Can we apply for her H4 (as I am still on H1). Any advice on how to get her back?
Thanks!
If your wife is having H4 visa on her passport and visa is still valid, she can use H4 itself to move in and out of country, no need of AP.
I heard that if she travels without AP, her I-485 is considered abonded. Is this true? Can we apply for her H4 (as I am still on H1). Any advice on how to get her back?
Thanks!
If your wife is having H4 visa on her passport and visa is still valid, she can use H4 itself to move in and out of country, no need of AP.
more...
ABC of GC
06-08 06:30 AM
Its not abt H1-B abuse, its abt the way it was brought up. Instead of looking into his own house (USCIS and DOL) Sen.Durbin held Indian companies responsible and almost started bashing them. Little did he anticipate that they will come back in this way.
H1-B abuse is a different issue. Sen. Durbin should have looked into rulemaking part of the game than bashing players of the game.
When the US was instrumental in doing WTO negotiations during late 90's (BTW-your's truely grew up during that period witnessing this through newspaper articles - was an exact reversal of roles played by India and US then)they never realized that globalizing markets would lead to globalizing labor market also. Now, IT has become a virtual industry with a pretty much open labor market. Professionals making Rs.50000 ($1200) are competing with those making $5000 a month. US politicians made a classic judgement error in 90's. Now, protectionist measures are being brought in by the very same people who championed globalization for a decade.
The letter puts things in perspective for sen. Durbin. It seems to carry a veiled warning about backlash of these protectionist measures on the US companies doing business in India. Starting from McDonalds,subway,coke (now even Walmart) to Ford, GM, IBM, Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, Abott, J&J, JP Morgan, Bank of America and many more have huge business interests in India. The size of Indian market totals upto atleast 0.8 billion human individuals with need for housing, auto, computers, electronics, healthcare, finance, consumer products etc. Losing an inch of it can make an international co. nervous.
As far as Indian consumers go they now have options- British, German, Japanese, French and now even the Indian companies.
Durbin tried to scare a cat, unfortunately for him it turned out to be a big wild cat- aTiger.
Well Said
H1-B abuse is a different issue. Sen. Durbin should have looked into rulemaking part of the game than bashing players of the game.
When the US was instrumental in doing WTO negotiations during late 90's (BTW-your's truely grew up during that period witnessing this through newspaper articles - was an exact reversal of roles played by India and US then)they never realized that globalizing markets would lead to globalizing labor market also. Now, IT has become a virtual industry with a pretty much open labor market. Professionals making Rs.50000 ($1200) are competing with those making $5000 a month. US politicians made a classic judgement error in 90's. Now, protectionist measures are being brought in by the very same people who championed globalization for a decade.
The letter puts things in perspective for sen. Durbin. It seems to carry a veiled warning about backlash of these protectionist measures on the US companies doing business in India. Starting from McDonalds,subway,coke (now even Walmart) to Ford, GM, IBM, Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, Abott, J&J, JP Morgan, Bank of America and many more have huge business interests in India. The size of Indian market totals upto atleast 0.8 billion human individuals with need for housing, auto, computers, electronics, healthcare, finance, consumer products etc. Losing an inch of it can make an international co. nervous.
As far as Indian consumers go they now have options- British, German, Japanese, French and now even the Indian companies.
Durbin tried to scare a cat, unfortunately for him it turned out to be a big wild cat- aTiger.
Well Said
msp1976
02-15 11:33 AM
How about requesting a $1donation when a non-contributing member ask a question, or $5 dollars for ten posts.It is not much but will definitely bring some revenue.
We can have a forum like member only access...where the question can only be posted by payed members or by people who pay a small donation? The idea is that the amount requested is not much ,which anyone can afford, but the number of questions people ask on our forum will definitely generate some revenue.
We can start a volunteer thread as a pilot program to see what kind of response we get...what do Core and rest of the member think of it?
Some of us have a fair study of the immigration laws....Our knowledge is anecdotal.....but still we are not lawyers and we donot want to get into a situation in which we get sued for providing potentially incorrect info....No one wants to mislead anyone but accepting money for service makes us step into an unknown territory....
We want to educate members as much as possible but this is not core business...
All advice we provide is with a caveat that users should check with their lawyesr for feasibility....
We can have a forum like member only access...where the question can only be posted by payed members or by people who pay a small donation? The idea is that the amount requested is not much ,which anyone can afford, but the number of questions people ask on our forum will definitely generate some revenue.
We can start a volunteer thread as a pilot program to see what kind of response we get...what do Core and rest of the member think of it?
Some of us have a fair study of the immigration laws....Our knowledge is anecdotal.....but still we are not lawyers and we donot want to get into a situation in which we get sued for providing potentially incorrect info....No one wants to mislead anyone but accepting money for service makes us step into an unknown territory....
We want to educate members as much as possible but this is not core business...
All advice we provide is with a caveat that users should check with their lawyesr for feasibility....
more...
go_guy123
01-20 10:29 AM
None of us here has little luck... We were close to CIR this year and now new math is in picture.. Two possibility for CIR in 2010...
(1) Dems will not touch it.
(2) GOP will not support it because people will think Dems passed it and that will help them to win midterm election.
CIR was impossible all along. It was delusional to think such a political hot potato can pass.
Not just my opinion ...but also that of IV board member: Greg Siskind.
The good part is as democratic party losses seats....the CIR lobby weakens and piecemeal will have better chance.
(1) Dems will not touch it.
(2) GOP will not support it because people will think Dems passed it and that will help them to win midterm election.
CIR was impossible all along. It was delusional to think such a political hot potato can pass.
Not just my opinion ...but also that of IV board member: Greg Siskind.
The good part is as democratic party losses seats....the CIR lobby weakens and piecemeal will have better chance.
2010 Odin and Loki wear Viking
puvathoor
02-17 09:02 AM
Even if Charles did say that EB2 India / China will have a cut off date of Dec 2003, how come the lawyers did not question him on this logic?
EB2 India was U from Feb 2008... The way I (and most people) interpreted that was that all visas for FY 2008 were used up... The possibility of new visas was only through spillover from other categories (or recapture of unused visas from other years).
What's happening here that after being moved to Jan 2000 before becoming U in Feb, suddenly things are moving all the way to 2003.
While I would love for this to happen, this seems to be a very remote possibility.
EB2 India was U from Feb 2008... The way I (and most people) interpreted that was that all visas for FY 2008 were used up... The possibility of new visas was only through spillover from other categories (or recapture of unused visas from other years).
What's happening here that after being moved to Jan 2000 before becoming U in Feb, suddenly things are moving all the way to 2003.
While I would love for this to happen, this seems to be a very remote possibility.
more...
voldemar
03-26 10:10 PM
Hi,
Does anyone know if people on H4 are allowed to work unpaid? For example, can a person on an H4 visa file for an H1B visa with a start date of October 1st, 2007 but work on a volunteer basis (i.e., unpaid) at the same job while waiting for the H1B to come?
Thanks,
AndyPeople on H4 not supposed to take job that normally would be paid. They can do trully volunteer job like community service, charity work any other work that don't have to be paid. In your case it's real work, because you will be paid for it after Oct.1. So employer will hire someone else to do this job till that date. If you work unpaid you replace this guy.
P.S. I'm not a lawyer ;)
Does anyone know if people on H4 are allowed to work unpaid? For example, can a person on an H4 visa file for an H1B visa with a start date of October 1st, 2007 but work on a volunteer basis (i.e., unpaid) at the same job while waiting for the H1B to come?
Thanks,
AndyPeople on H4 not supposed to take job that normally would be paid. They can do trully volunteer job like community service, charity work any other work that don't have to be paid. In your case it's real work, because you will be paid for it after Oct.1. So employer will hire someone else to do this job till that date. If you work unpaid you replace this guy.
P.S. I'm not a lawyer ;)
hair he#39;s a Viking God and not
ritwik_ind
11-24 07:52 AM
Good Every one!
;'( I am already out
;'( I am already out
more...
guygeek007
07-19 09:07 AM
This is my GC application history
1. PD for Labor - Aug 2003
2. Labor(Regular) Application Approved - Nov 2005
3. i-140 applied in Jan 2006
4. RFE received question was for company not self, i-140 withdrawn.
5. Transferred my H1 to the companys sister concern and reapplied for i140 in June 2006.
6. Applied for i140 premium processing on June 22nd, 2007.
Current status for i-140 : Recieved and pending at Nebraska service center.
Questions
Q1. What is i-140 receipt date for premium processing. Is it the date the fed-ex package is recvd by USCIS or is it a date issued by USCIS that should reach my lawyer?
Q2. If in case the USCIS need to provide my attorney a receipt date, we have NOT received one as yet. Does that mean they have not even looked at the application as yet?
Q3. Can i apply for i485 in the worst case that i do not receive approval for i140 by Aug 17th under the concurrent filing rule.
Any assistance would be highly appreciated.
1. PD for Labor - Aug 2003
2. Labor(Regular) Application Approved - Nov 2005
3. i-140 applied in Jan 2006
4. RFE received question was for company not self, i-140 withdrawn.
5. Transferred my H1 to the companys sister concern and reapplied for i140 in June 2006.
6. Applied for i140 premium processing on June 22nd, 2007.
Current status for i-140 : Recieved and pending at Nebraska service center.
Questions
Q1. What is i-140 receipt date for premium processing. Is it the date the fed-ex package is recvd by USCIS or is it a date issued by USCIS that should reach my lawyer?
Q2. If in case the USCIS need to provide my attorney a receipt date, we have NOT received one as yet. Does that mean they have not even looked at the application as yet?
Q3. Can i apply for i485 in the worst case that i do not receive approval for i140 by Aug 17th under the concurrent filing rule.
Any assistance would be highly appreciated.
hot Loki
leo2606
09-24 03:42 PM
My wife is on H1-B valid till May-2010 and she got EAD for 2 years as well.
She is planning to take up permanent job at the client place she is currently working as a consultant.
What is the best? tranfering the H1-B or using EAD. Does she need to invok e AC-21 in bothe the cases?
She is planning to take up permanent job at the client place she is currently working as a consultant.
What is the best? tranfering the H1-B or using EAD. Does she need to invok e AC-21 in bothe the cases?
more...
house The Loki Nebula -2010 by R.
vbkris77
09-22 10:38 PM
Corporations save more than 10K.. It doesn't work..
Average cost of employment in US for high tech is around 90$ per hour and social security
percentage is 6%, So the max is less than 10K per year or less than 0.5 USD per hour.
These companies actually pay far less than 90$ for offshore resources..
Since it really doesn't work, it has high chances of passage into bill :rolleyes: and president will promptly sign it before this session recesses.. :cool:
It will also be passed in an unanimous consent by both parties..
Title: Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act
Sponsor: Sen Durbin, Richard [IL] (introduced 9/21/2010)
Cosponsors Sen Dorgan, Byron L. [ND] -
Sen Reid, Harry [NV] -
Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] -
Introduced in the Senate.
This bill will give companies a two-year holiday from their share of Social Security payroll withholding taxes for each employee they hire to replace a worker at a foreign-based facility. The Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act would bar companies from taking tax credits or deductions for the cost of closing a U.S.-based facility to move the operation overseas.Companies could still take deductions for severance and job placement services for employees who lose their jobs as a result of a U.S. plant closing. Under the legislation, companies that close a U.S.-based business and expand it overseas would no longer be allowed to defer U.S. income taxes on foreign subsidiaries.
Reid has the option to set up a procedural vote next week
Average cost of employment in US for high tech is around 90$ per hour and social security
percentage is 6%, So the max is less than 10K per year or less than 0.5 USD per hour.
These companies actually pay far less than 90$ for offshore resources..
Since it really doesn't work, it has high chances of passage into bill :rolleyes: and president will promptly sign it before this session recesses.. :cool:
It will also be passed in an unanimous consent by both parties..
Title: Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act
Sponsor: Sen Durbin, Richard [IL] (introduced 9/21/2010)
Cosponsors Sen Dorgan, Byron L. [ND] -
Sen Reid, Harry [NV] -
Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] -
Introduced in the Senate.
This bill will give companies a two-year holiday from their share of Social Security payroll withholding taxes for each employee they hire to replace a worker at a foreign-based facility. The Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act would bar companies from taking tax credits or deductions for the cost of closing a U.S.-based facility to move the operation overseas.Companies could still take deductions for severance and job placement services for employees who lose their jobs as a result of a U.S. plant closing. Under the legislation, companies that close a U.S.-based business and expand it overseas would no longer be allowed to defer U.S. income taxes on foreign subsidiaries.
Reid has the option to set up a procedural vote next week
tattoo God of War were in vogue.
GC092003
04-18 06:59 PM
I tried today. I filed in California on March and it went to texas...
more...
pictures Loki 2
scorpioduo
10-14 03:42 PM
Hi all,
I have to go to India on 1st jan , 2009 for 2 weeks , for my brother's marriage on jan 14,2009, but my existing advance parole expires on jan 12 2009.
I have filed for the renewal of advance parole but I want to know as to what other option do I have , if I dont get my renewal advance parole by jan 1st ?
If my AP expires on jan 12th and I come back on jan 16th and tell the customs agents that i have applied for a renewal and just didnt get it before I left, is that acceptable?
Thanks for your help in advance!
I have to go to India on 1st jan , 2009 for 2 weeks , for my brother's marriage on jan 14,2009, but my existing advance parole expires on jan 12 2009.
I have filed for the renewal of advance parole but I want to know as to what other option do I have , if I dont get my renewal advance parole by jan 1st ?
If my AP expires on jan 12th and I come back on jan 16th and tell the customs agents that i have applied for a renewal and just didnt get it before I left, is that acceptable?
Thanks for your help in advance!
dresses VIKING MASK God Norse Old Hand
kami97
06-11 03:25 PM
Thanks so much for the info. Really appreciate it. I think I will then wait and see if they send a RFE. Best wishes to all!
more...
makeup The viking god of rock n#39; roll
dontcareaboutGC
03-19 11:24 AM
Ignore this if this is a repost!
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security,
and International Law
Hearing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Government Perspectives
on Immigration Statistics
Testimony of Charles Oppenheim
Chief, Immigrant Control and Reporting Division
Visa Services Office
U.S. Department of State
June 6, 2007
2:00 p.m.
2141 Rayburn House Office Building
Chairman Lofgren, Ranking Member King, and distinguished members of
the Committee, it is a pleasure to be here this afternoon to answer
your questions and provide an overview of our immigrant visa control
and reporting program operated by the U.S. Department of State. The
Department of State is responsible for administering the provisions of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) related to the numerical
limitations on immigrant visa issuances. At the beginning of each
month, the Visa Office (VO) receives a report from each consular post
listing totals of documentarily-qualified immigrant visa applicants in
categories subject to numerical limitation. Cases are grouped in three
different categories: 1) foreign state chargeability, 2) preference,
and 3) priority date.
Foreign state chargeability for visa purposes refers to the fact that
an immigrant is chargeable to the numerical limitation for the foreign
state or dependent area in which the immigrant's place of birth is
located. Exceptions are provided for a child (unmarried and under 21
years of age) or spouse accompanying or following to join a principal
to prevent the separation of family members, as well as for an
applicant born in the United States or in a foreign state of which
neither parent was a native or resident. Alternate chargeability is
desirable when the visa cut-off date for the foreign state of a parent
or spouse is more advantageous than that of the applicant's foreign
state.
As established by the Immigration and Nationality Act, preference is
the visa category that can be assigned based on relationships to U.S.
citizens or legal permanent residents. Family-based immigration falls
under two basic categories: unlimited and limited. Preferences
established by law for the limited category are:
Family First Preference (F1): Unmarried sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their minor children, if any.
Family Second Preference (F2): Spouses, minor children, and unmarried
sons and daughters of lawful permanent residents.
Family Third Preference (F3): Married sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their spouses and minor children.
Family Fourth Preference (F4): Brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens
and their spouses and minor children provided the U.S. citizen is at
least 21 years of age.
The Priority Date is normally the date on which the petition to accord
the applicant immigrant status was filed, generally with U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). VO subdivides the annual
preference and foreign state limitations specified by the INA into
monthly allotments. The totals of documentarily-qualified applicants
which have been reported to VO are compared each month with the
numbers available for the next regular allotment. The determination of
how many numbers are available requires consideration of several
variables, including: past number use; estimates of future number use
and return rates; and estimates of USCIS demand based on cut-off date
movements. Once this consideration is completed, the cutoff dates are
established and numbers are allocated to reported applicants in order
of their priority dates, the oldest dates first.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy
all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is
considered "Current." For example: If the monthly allocation target is
10,000, and we only have 5,000 applicants, the category can be
"Current.� Whenever the total of documentarily-qualified applicants in
a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for
the particular month, the category is considered to be
"oversubscribed" and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
The cut-off date is the priority date of the first
documentarily-qualified applicant who could not be accommodated for a
visa number. For example, if the monthly target is 10,000 and we have
25,000 applicants, then we would need to establish a cut-off date so
that only 10,000 numbers would be allocated. In this case, the cut-off
would be the priority date of the 10,001st applicant.
Only persons with a priority date earlier than a cut-off date are
entitled to allotment of a visa number. The cut-off dates are the 1st,
8th, 15th, and 22nd of a month, since VO groups demand for numbers
under these dates. (Priority dates of the first through seventh of a
month are grouped under the 1st, the eighth through the 14th under the
8th, etc.) VO attempts to establish the cut-off dates for the
following month on or about the 8th of each month. The dates are
immediately transmitted to consular posts abroad and USCIS, and also
published in the Visa Bulletin and online at the website
www.travel.state.gov. Visa allotments for use during that month are
transmitted to consular posts. USCIS requests visa allotments for
adjustment of status cases only when all other case processing has
been completed. I am submitting the latest Visa Bulletin for the
record or you can click on: Visa Bulletin for June 2007.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE SYSTEM AND CLARIFICATION OF SOME
FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS:
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified
at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every
applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date
been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, visa allotments
are made only on the basis of the total applicants reported
�documentarily qualified� (or, theoretically ready for interview) each
month. Demand for visa numbers can fluctuate from one month to
another, with the inevitable impact on cut-off dates.
If an applicant is reported documentarily qualified but allocation of
a visa number is not possible because of a visa availability cut-off
date, the demand is recorded at VO and an allocation is made as soon
as the applicable cut-off date advances beyond the applicant's
priority date. There is no need for such applicant to be reported a
second time.
Visa numbers are always allotted for all documentarily-qualified
applicants with a priority date before the relevant cut-off date, as
long as the case had been reported to VO in time to be included in the
monthly calculation of visa availability. Failure of visa number
receipt by the overseas processing office could mean that the request
was not dispatched in time to reach VO for the monthly allocation
cycle, or that information on the request was incomplete or inaccurate
(e.g., incorrect priority date).
Allocations to Foreign Service posts outside the regular monthly cycle
are possible in emergency or exceptional cases, but only at the
request of the office processing the case. Note that, should
retrogression of a cut-off date be announced, VO can honor
extraordinary requests for additional numbers only if the applicant's
priority date is earlier than the retrogressed cut-off date. Not all
numbers allocated are actually used for visa issuance; some are
returned to VO and are reincorporated into the pool of numbers
available for later allocation during the fiscal year. The rate of
return of unused numbers may fluctuate from month to month, just as
demand may fluctuate. Lower returns mean fewer numbers available for
subsequent reallocation. Fluctuations can cause cut-off date movement
to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly
possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches
the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7 percent is a
cap, which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed.
Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The
country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the
annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This
limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled,
however. A portion of the numbers provided to the Family Second
preference category is exempt from this per-country cap. The American
Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (AC21) removed the
per-country limit in any calendar quarter in which overall applicant
demand for Employment-based visa numbers is less than the total of
such numbers available.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by
documentarily-qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds
the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation,
that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may
require the establishment of a cut-off date which is earlier than that
which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The
prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same
percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual
limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off
dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off
dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
The committee submitted several questions that fell outside of VO�s
area of work, therefore, I have provided in my written testimony today
the answers only to those questions that the Department of State can
answer. Thank you for this opportunity.
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security,
and International Law
Hearing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Government Perspectives
on Immigration Statistics
Testimony of Charles Oppenheim
Chief, Immigrant Control and Reporting Division
Visa Services Office
U.S. Department of State
June 6, 2007
2:00 p.m.
2141 Rayburn House Office Building
Chairman Lofgren, Ranking Member King, and distinguished members of
the Committee, it is a pleasure to be here this afternoon to answer
your questions and provide an overview of our immigrant visa control
and reporting program operated by the U.S. Department of State. The
Department of State is responsible for administering the provisions of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) related to the numerical
limitations on immigrant visa issuances. At the beginning of each
month, the Visa Office (VO) receives a report from each consular post
listing totals of documentarily-qualified immigrant visa applicants in
categories subject to numerical limitation. Cases are grouped in three
different categories: 1) foreign state chargeability, 2) preference,
and 3) priority date.
Foreign state chargeability for visa purposes refers to the fact that
an immigrant is chargeable to the numerical limitation for the foreign
state or dependent area in which the immigrant's place of birth is
located. Exceptions are provided for a child (unmarried and under 21
years of age) or spouse accompanying or following to join a principal
to prevent the separation of family members, as well as for an
applicant born in the United States or in a foreign state of which
neither parent was a native or resident. Alternate chargeability is
desirable when the visa cut-off date for the foreign state of a parent
or spouse is more advantageous than that of the applicant's foreign
state.
As established by the Immigration and Nationality Act, preference is
the visa category that can be assigned based on relationships to U.S.
citizens or legal permanent residents. Family-based immigration falls
under two basic categories: unlimited and limited. Preferences
established by law for the limited category are:
Family First Preference (F1): Unmarried sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their minor children, if any.
Family Second Preference (F2): Spouses, minor children, and unmarried
sons and daughters of lawful permanent residents.
Family Third Preference (F3): Married sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their spouses and minor children.
Family Fourth Preference (F4): Brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens
and their spouses and minor children provided the U.S. citizen is at
least 21 years of age.
The Priority Date is normally the date on which the petition to accord
the applicant immigrant status was filed, generally with U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). VO subdivides the annual
preference and foreign state limitations specified by the INA into
monthly allotments. The totals of documentarily-qualified applicants
which have been reported to VO are compared each month with the
numbers available for the next regular allotment. The determination of
how many numbers are available requires consideration of several
variables, including: past number use; estimates of future number use
and return rates; and estimates of USCIS demand based on cut-off date
movements. Once this consideration is completed, the cutoff dates are
established and numbers are allocated to reported applicants in order
of their priority dates, the oldest dates first.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy
all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is
considered "Current." For example: If the monthly allocation target is
10,000, and we only have 5,000 applicants, the category can be
"Current.� Whenever the total of documentarily-qualified applicants in
a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for
the particular month, the category is considered to be
"oversubscribed" and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
The cut-off date is the priority date of the first
documentarily-qualified applicant who could not be accommodated for a
visa number. For example, if the monthly target is 10,000 and we have
25,000 applicants, then we would need to establish a cut-off date so
that only 10,000 numbers would be allocated. In this case, the cut-off
would be the priority date of the 10,001st applicant.
Only persons with a priority date earlier than a cut-off date are
entitled to allotment of a visa number. The cut-off dates are the 1st,
8th, 15th, and 22nd of a month, since VO groups demand for numbers
under these dates. (Priority dates of the first through seventh of a
month are grouped under the 1st, the eighth through the 14th under the
8th, etc.) VO attempts to establish the cut-off dates for the
following month on or about the 8th of each month. The dates are
immediately transmitted to consular posts abroad and USCIS, and also
published in the Visa Bulletin and online at the website
www.travel.state.gov. Visa allotments for use during that month are
transmitted to consular posts. USCIS requests visa allotments for
adjustment of status cases only when all other case processing has
been completed. I am submitting the latest Visa Bulletin for the
record or you can click on: Visa Bulletin for June 2007.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE SYSTEM AND CLARIFICATION OF SOME
FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS:
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified
at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every
applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date
been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, visa allotments
are made only on the basis of the total applicants reported
�documentarily qualified� (or, theoretically ready for interview) each
month. Demand for visa numbers can fluctuate from one month to
another, with the inevitable impact on cut-off dates.
If an applicant is reported documentarily qualified but allocation of
a visa number is not possible because of a visa availability cut-off
date, the demand is recorded at VO and an allocation is made as soon
as the applicable cut-off date advances beyond the applicant's
priority date. There is no need for such applicant to be reported a
second time.
Visa numbers are always allotted for all documentarily-qualified
applicants with a priority date before the relevant cut-off date, as
long as the case had been reported to VO in time to be included in the
monthly calculation of visa availability. Failure of visa number
receipt by the overseas processing office could mean that the request
was not dispatched in time to reach VO for the monthly allocation
cycle, or that information on the request was incomplete or inaccurate
(e.g., incorrect priority date).
Allocations to Foreign Service posts outside the regular monthly cycle
are possible in emergency or exceptional cases, but only at the
request of the office processing the case. Note that, should
retrogression of a cut-off date be announced, VO can honor
extraordinary requests for additional numbers only if the applicant's
priority date is earlier than the retrogressed cut-off date. Not all
numbers allocated are actually used for visa issuance; some are
returned to VO and are reincorporated into the pool of numbers
available for later allocation during the fiscal year. The rate of
return of unused numbers may fluctuate from month to month, just as
demand may fluctuate. Lower returns mean fewer numbers available for
subsequent reallocation. Fluctuations can cause cut-off date movement
to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly
possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches
the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7 percent is a
cap, which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed.
Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The
country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the
annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This
limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled,
however. A portion of the numbers provided to the Family Second
preference category is exempt from this per-country cap. The American
Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (AC21) removed the
per-country limit in any calendar quarter in which overall applicant
demand for Employment-based visa numbers is less than the total of
such numbers available.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by
documentarily-qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds
the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation,
that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may
require the establishment of a cut-off date which is earlier than that
which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The
prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same
percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual
limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off
dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off
dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
The committee submitted several questions that fell outside of VO�s
area of work, therefore, I have provided in my written testimony today
the answers only to those questions that the Department of State can
answer. Thank you for this opportunity.
girlfriend Loki
girishvar
07-13 08:14 PM
Hello all, If you are from Texas please reply to this thread to get together and activate our state chapter. Any ideas are welcome. So please post to this thread and see how we can contribute/Volunteer to make IV stronger.
Thank you
I am in San Antonio, Texas
Thank you
I am in San Antonio, Texas
hairstyles Norse Gods
immieb2
10-14 09:04 AM
I went to the Chennai consulate in July 2008 with blue jeans and bright colored T shirt and I got my H1 visa stamped. No issues. But I sure felt like the odd man out there, NO ONE else was wearing a jeans and shirt. At the interview she asked me how is the weather in Michigan, that's about it..
Is it mandatory to wear business formal? I am going to get visa stamping with my wife, she is applying for H4.
Thanks!
Is it mandatory to wear business formal? I am going to get visa stamping with my wife, she is applying for H4.
Thanks!
raju123
06-26 12:25 PM
NumberUSA reported following possible amendments. Nothing for EB !!!
If this is the case, we should strongly oppose the bill.
http://www.numbersusa.com/hottopic/senateaction0507.html
According to El Bolet�n, �the official Senate Democratic Hispanic Task Force newsletter,� the following proposals are now under consideration for possible consideration if cloture is invoked:
Democratic Amendments
* Dodd-Menendez S.A. 1199: would increase the annual cap on green cards for parents and extend the parent visitor visa.
* Webb S.A. 1313: Community ties for [amnesty]
* Baucus-Tester S.A. 1236: would strike all reference[s] to REAL ID.
* Sanders-Grassley S.A. 1332 : prohibits companies that have announced mass lay-offs from receiving any new visas, unless these companies could prove that overall employment at their companies would not be reduced by these lay-offs.
* Byrd-Gregg-Cochran S.A. 1344: adds a $500 fee to obtain [amnesty] and sets aside the revenues collected in order to fund border and interior enforcement.
* Menendez-Obama-Feingold S.A. 1317: increases family points in merit system
* Brown S.A. 1340: requires that before employers can be approved to employ Y-1 workers, they must have listed the specific job opportunity with the state employment service agency.
* McCaskill S.A. 1468: increases ban on federal contracts, grants or cooperative agreements to employers who are repeat violators of hiring immigrants who are not authorized to work
* Levin-Brownback S.A.1486: gives access to Iraqis to apply for refugee status under existing U.S. law.
* Leahy S.A. 1386: protect scholars who have been persecuted in their home countries on account of their beliefs, scholarship, or identity.
* Schumer: provides for tamper-proof biometric social security cards
* Boxer S.A. 1198: reduces Y visa cap by number of Y workers who overstay
Republican Amendments
* Alexander S.A. 1161: requires DHS and the Department of State to notify a foreign embassy when one of their nationals has become a U.S. citizen
* Bond S.A. 1255: prohibits green cards for [illegal aliens granted amnesty]
* Coleman S.A. 1473: outlaws state and local policies that prevent public officials * including police and health and safety workers (except for emergency medical assistance)*from inquiring about the immigration status of those they serve if there is �probable cause� to believe the individual being questioned is undocumented.
* Domenici S.A. 1335/1258: increases Federal judgeships
* Ensign S.A. 1490: redetermines work history for current beneficiaries of social security depending on their citizenship status
* Graham S.A. 1465: enforcement. Still being drafted.
* Grassley-Baucus-Obama S.A. 1441: strikes and replaces Title III on employer enforcement
* Hutchinson S.A. 1440: changes the �touchback� requirement from the time of applying for adjustment of status, as it currently stands in the Senate proposed bill, to the time of applying for the Z visa. Increases the number of individuals required to touchback
* Thune S.A. 1174: prevents [illegal aliens] from [being granted amnesty] until all triggers have been met.
* Chambliss S.A. 1318: Totalization agreements
* Isakson S.A. 1282: Preemption/Home Depot
* Graham: Criminal penalties/mandatory minimums for overstays
If this is the case, we should strongly oppose the bill.
http://www.numbersusa.com/hottopic/senateaction0507.html
According to El Bolet�n, �the official Senate Democratic Hispanic Task Force newsletter,� the following proposals are now under consideration for possible consideration if cloture is invoked:
Democratic Amendments
* Dodd-Menendez S.A. 1199: would increase the annual cap on green cards for parents and extend the parent visitor visa.
* Webb S.A. 1313: Community ties for [amnesty]
* Baucus-Tester S.A. 1236: would strike all reference[s] to REAL ID.
* Sanders-Grassley S.A. 1332 : prohibits companies that have announced mass lay-offs from receiving any new visas, unless these companies could prove that overall employment at their companies would not be reduced by these lay-offs.
* Byrd-Gregg-Cochran S.A. 1344: adds a $500 fee to obtain [amnesty] and sets aside the revenues collected in order to fund border and interior enforcement.
* Menendez-Obama-Feingold S.A. 1317: increases family points in merit system
* Brown S.A. 1340: requires that before employers can be approved to employ Y-1 workers, they must have listed the specific job opportunity with the state employment service agency.
* McCaskill S.A. 1468: increases ban on federal contracts, grants or cooperative agreements to employers who are repeat violators of hiring immigrants who are not authorized to work
* Levin-Brownback S.A.1486: gives access to Iraqis to apply for refugee status under existing U.S. law.
* Leahy S.A. 1386: protect scholars who have been persecuted in their home countries on account of their beliefs, scholarship, or identity.
* Schumer: provides for tamper-proof biometric social security cards
* Boxer S.A. 1198: reduces Y visa cap by number of Y workers who overstay
Republican Amendments
* Alexander S.A. 1161: requires DHS and the Department of State to notify a foreign embassy when one of their nationals has become a U.S. citizen
* Bond S.A. 1255: prohibits green cards for [illegal aliens granted amnesty]
* Coleman S.A. 1473: outlaws state and local policies that prevent public officials * including police and health and safety workers (except for emergency medical assistance)*from inquiring about the immigration status of those they serve if there is �probable cause� to believe the individual being questioned is undocumented.
* Domenici S.A. 1335/1258: increases Federal judgeships
* Ensign S.A. 1490: redetermines work history for current beneficiaries of social security depending on their citizenship status
* Graham S.A. 1465: enforcement. Still being drafted.
* Grassley-Baucus-Obama S.A. 1441: strikes and replaces Title III on employer enforcement
* Hutchinson S.A. 1440: changes the �touchback� requirement from the time of applying for adjustment of status, as it currently stands in the Senate proposed bill, to the time of applying for the Z visa. Increases the number of individuals required to touchback
* Thune S.A. 1174: prevents [illegal aliens] from [being granted amnesty] until all triggers have been met.
* Chambliss S.A. 1318: Totalization agreements
* Isakson S.A. 1282: Preemption/Home Depot
* Graham: Criminal penalties/mandatory minimums for overstays
myeb2gc
02-24 08:43 PM
How long did you get extension for without purchase order or letter from client ?
Hi, i got it for 2 years 10 months, but not 3 years even after having approved 140.But it seems ok...
Hi, i got it for 2 years 10 months, but not 3 years even after having approved 140.But it seems ok...
No comments:
Post a Comment