images %IMG_DESC_8%
pappu
01-30 10:00 AM
Pappu, what are the anti-immigration websites you talked about? I'm curious and want to see what they are thinking. thanks.
-----------------
Hope sth will happen in Feb. :)
20/month
alipac FAIR.
-----------------
Hope sth will happen in Feb. :)
20/month
alipac FAIR.
wallpaper %IMG_DESC_1%
WaldenPond
03-13 11:03 AM
You are partially right.
One thing I know for sure - you know how to copy paste and repeat the same post again and again :)
ItIsNotFunny,
Please be considerate towards members spending time to fix issues that affect you and your family. At the time when english_august posted, these was some problem in the application. I know this because the message I posted just before english_august was also repeated 2-3 times. Kindly give others benefit of the doubt before cherry picking their faults.
You are already enjoying the benefit of filing 485/EAD/AP in July-07. Atleast be considerate towards people who contributed their time, energy and resources to - in lot of ways influence the outcome of July visa bulletin.
And if you or H1bslave et al don't see any value in IV, then why do you visit this website and why do expect updates?
One thing I know for sure - you know how to copy paste and repeat the same post again and again :)
ItIsNotFunny,
Please be considerate towards members spending time to fix issues that affect you and your family. At the time when english_august posted, these was some problem in the application. I know this because the message I posted just before english_august was also repeated 2-3 times. Kindly give others benefit of the doubt before cherry picking their faults.
You are already enjoying the benefit of filing 485/EAD/AP in July-07. Atleast be considerate towards people who contributed their time, energy and resources to - in lot of ways influence the outcome of July visa bulletin.
And if you or H1bslave et al don't see any value in IV, then why do you visit this website and why do expect updates?
vnsriv
03-13 11:26 AM
it doesnt hurt to believe, you are 9 months away...:-)
As the guy who posted it said, this is a normal process....Consulates will know 3 to 4 days before...
That is correct, 9 months and then I will return to my country for good.
I am waiting for the day when we get the GC , we will tear it into pieces and throw in front of consulate.
Cheers
As the guy who posted it said, this is a normal process....Consulates will know 3 to 4 days before...
That is correct, 9 months and then I will return to my country for good.
I am waiting for the day when we get the GC , we will tear it into pieces and throw in front of consulate.
Cheers
2011 %IMG_DESC_2%
logiclife
03-14 06:10 PM
raj3078:
Please send a private message to Macaca to ask him whatever you want to ask him.
macaca:
If you want to respond to raj3078, please send him a PM.
Both: keep this outside of public forums.
How to send Private messages?
Click on the userid of the person you wish to communicate and then click on "Send a private message to ...." option to send him/her a PM.
To check private messages you've received, please click on "Private messages" link on the top-right corner of forums page.
Please send a private message to Macaca to ask him whatever you want to ask him.
macaca:
If you want to respond to raj3078, please send him a PM.
Both: keep this outside of public forums.
How to send Private messages?
Click on the userid of the person you wish to communicate and then click on "Send a private message to ...." option to send him/her a PM.
To check private messages you've received, please click on "Private messages" link on the top-right corner of forums page.
more...
Brightsider
07-24 11:48 AM
Having seen numerous threads in which the exchanges became rude/sarcastic/rude or even outright abusive and vulgar, I was hoping that this would not become one.
Ron, while you may have a point in what you say, sarcasm and taunts will get you no where. As you said, the 'antis' are gearing up, suggesting (I presume) that the effort of all of us should be more concerted and determined. But you are not doing yourself any favor by saying the things that you do.
Raji had a point of view, and has not been rude or offensive in expressing it. In fact, her/his first post was out why it is not good to use the AILA template. Well, PASKAL did try to address. Raji's tone or tenor of posts did not merit a peremptory reply, much less a rude one.
Be that as it may, I do believe fervently that even if someone insists/demands an answer, you can always ignore it instead of being rude or aggressive.
That way there will be more people on IV'S side.
Ron, while you may have a point in what you say, sarcasm and taunts will get you no where. As you said, the 'antis' are gearing up, suggesting (I presume) that the effort of all of us should be more concerted and determined. But you are not doing yourself any favor by saying the things that you do.
Raji had a point of view, and has not been rude or offensive in expressing it. In fact, her/his first post was out why it is not good to use the AILA template. Well, PASKAL did try to address. Raji's tone or tenor of posts did not merit a peremptory reply, much less a rude one.
Be that as it may, I do believe fervently that even if someone insists/demands an answer, you can always ignore it instead of being rude or aggressive.
That way there will be more people on IV'S side.
wait4ever
10-30 07:38 AM
What is this reverse brain drain ? there is no such thing - folks who are here are going to hang on tooth & nail to stay here come hell or high water - the only ones who are going back are the ones who have no other option.
more...
PD_Dec2002
07-10 09:07 PM
However this smacks of unfairness as well. See this comment on Greg Siskind's blog (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2007/07/service-centers.html#comments) in response to the news about TSC holding the applications while NSC's been retirning them and some July 02 packages have been returned as well.
Greg,
Where did you get this news? If they partially returned some cases received on July 02, it is very very very unfair for those got returned. They were the first getting in the line and now they have to wait at the end of the line??? If USCIS is going to treat the returned cases that way, they will face more lawsuits to come. If they are to hold later on cases, they have have have to allow the returned cases to be sent back and put in front of the line, with delivery notice as the proof of getting sent back.
This is very annoying notice indeed.
Posted by: no more patience | July 10, 2007 at 05:02 PM
----------------------
Thanks,
Jayant
Greg,
Where did you get this news? If they partially returned some cases received on July 02, it is very very very unfair for those got returned. They were the first getting in the line and now they have to wait at the end of the line??? If USCIS is going to treat the returned cases that way, they will face more lawsuits to come. If they are to hold later on cases, they have have have to allow the returned cases to be sent back and put in front of the line, with delivery notice as the proof of getting sent back.
This is very annoying notice indeed.
Posted by: no more patience | July 10, 2007 at 05:02 PM
----------------------
Thanks,
Jayant
2010 %IMG_DESC_3%
honge_kamyaab
09-14 08:56 AM
Hi rheoretro,
First of all I commend your and everyone in putting their effort. I totally agree with you that we need more people and money. I think people are first to come and money will automatically follow.
While word-of-mouth is effective we can augment this to get attention using other means:
1. We can persuade news portals to advertise for our cause in a corner that might help us to get more people. Most Indians I know read Indian news everyday. If we can convince e.g., eenadu.net a telugu newspaper, to run ads we can get attention of lot people.
2. Please start selling the current acheivements that are not confidential. Like you might have been successful in persuading a high profile senator about this problem. Put his quotes on our site and also possible grab attention from bloggers.
3. If we can also tap academia who support skilled immigration that would help us. Let us put there studies in our reference section (I am assuming we didn't do this yet). This
makes senator to reference our site and make their lives easy.
4. Please do not discount freewill members who do not have a GC problem but savor
helping others with immigration problem. It could be Americans or Immigrants we'll get them all in.
I think these actions will help us grow our strength. I know it is easy said than done. I will send a mail to rediff and eenadu to put our banner on their frontpage. If anyone has contacts working for these website. That will make it whole lot easier.
-Kishore.
First of all I commend your and everyone in putting their effort. I totally agree with you that we need more people and money. I think people are first to come and money will automatically follow.
While word-of-mouth is effective we can augment this to get attention using other means:
1. We can persuade news portals to advertise for our cause in a corner that might help us to get more people. Most Indians I know read Indian news everyday. If we can convince e.g., eenadu.net a telugu newspaper, to run ads we can get attention of lot people.
2. Please start selling the current acheivements that are not confidential. Like you might have been successful in persuading a high profile senator about this problem. Put his quotes on our site and also possible grab attention from bloggers.
3. If we can also tap academia who support skilled immigration that would help us. Let us put there studies in our reference section (I am assuming we didn't do this yet). This
makes senator to reference our site and make their lives easy.
4. Please do not discount freewill members who do not have a GC problem but savor
helping others with immigration problem. It could be Americans or Immigrants we'll get them all in.
I think these actions will help us grow our strength. I know it is easy said than done. I will send a mail to rediff and eenadu to put our banner on their frontpage. If anyone has contacts working for these website. That will make it whole lot easier.
-Kishore.
more...
musicwithcolors
06-02 02:11 AM
:pleased: after those kinds of comments it makes it really hard for me not to spam this thread. so i will:
thanks!
thanks!
hair %IMG_DESC_4%
Winner
03-03 10:57 AM
Could members who had this insurance post their experience?
?
I think your question should be "Could members who had to use this insurance for ER visits post their experience?"
It�s good until you file a claim, but you should look for what happens after that.
?
I think your question should be "Could members who had to use this insurance for ER visits post their experience?"
It�s good until you file a claim, but you should look for what happens after that.
more...
trueguy
08-25 04:41 PM
Yes, AFAIK the FB spillover is added to the base quota and then divided between the ranks. At least I hope DoS and USCIS don't mess up with this calculation.
BTW: Where were you able to find this information?
its clearly written in Sep'2008 bulletin. However, seems like EB3-I wont' get any of it and all numbers will be given to EB2. we loose again.
BTW: Where were you able to find this information?
its clearly written in Sep'2008 bulletin. However, seems like EB3-I wont' get any of it and all numbers will be given to EB2. we loose again.
hot %IMG_DESC_5%
sam_hoosier
11-26 04:04 PM
After talking to my lawyer, I have decided to forego my H1B renewal and instead move to EAD. This allows me the flexibility to move to better roles with my current employer, as well as other employers.
As has been mentioned on some other threads, the most common reasons for your I-485 denial (fraud, out of status, communicable disease, criminal or felon etc.) would probably also mean that you are ineligible for an H1B too. As long as you are confident that you do not fall into any of these categories, the risk is very minimal.
As has been mentioned on some other threads, the most common reasons for your I-485 denial (fraud, out of status, communicable disease, criminal or felon etc.) would probably also mean that you are ineligible for an H1B too. As long as you are confident that you do not fall into any of these categories, the risk is very minimal.
more...
house %IMG_DESC_17%
sen_raju
07-16 12:43 PM
signed
tattoo %IMG_DESC_6%
unitednations
03-31 11:51 AM
I (and I�m sure others too) would like to know how the following works,
Employer X filed labor, 140 for their employee. Both were approved (assumption - no RFEs, etc. until now), 485 was filed for in July 2007, and remains pending.
The employee was employed with Employer X from before the labor was applied and until ~360 days after the 485 was filed, and was always paid more than the LC prevailing wage/offered salary.
In July 2008, the employee leaves employer X and joins employer Y under AC21 provisions. An AC21 letter, G-28N are submitted.
140 never gets revoked by employer X.
In Jan 2009, employer X receives an Ability to Pay RFE for another pending 140 of theirs.
At this point, employer X has 16 140s that are open (pending OR approved with 485 pending to be filed/filed and pending). Out of those 16 140s, one was for the employee that left under AC21.
When they respond to that RFE, I do understand that they could be asked to show ability to pay for all 16 140s, even for the one that doesn�t work for them anymore, because of the fact that it was never revoked.
In this case, is the employee (that left) covered or at risk? I ask this question because the employee that left submitted AC21 documentation immediately upon leaving, thus notifying the USCIS that the �ability to pay� responsibility for his case, if any at all, now lies with the new future employer. There probably isn�t any clear definition of such a situation in the law, but can such an argument ever hold up in court, and protect the employee�s AOS application from getting affected due to any ability to pay issues the old employer (X) has had AFTER the employee left them.
The only person on here that I expect to be able to give a non-speculative answer to this is UN, unless someone else has personally gone through something similar.
Long post, I know, and I hope it does get read.
Thank you.
I worked on a very big case back in 2006.
Company had 20 pending 140's which were filed in 2005
Company had 42 approved 140's
in Janaury 2006 they sent RFE on one of the cases and asked for ability to pay. Before response was sent; second rfe is received on another pending casestating ability to pay and that uscis has noted company has filed many 140's; then third rfe is received on another case asking ability to pay on all pending cases (note this was in vermont service center and at this time the whole cybersoftech issue was going on; so there was a heightened alert from vermont service center).
In preparing for the response to the 20 pending cases; we had to analyze the 42 approved cases to ensure that just in case USCIS went after those cases together with the 20 then we should be ready in this particular response to justify the 42 approved cases.
In the response we only showed the 20 pending cases and that we had ability to pay for them.
Within three weeks; USCIS sent notice of intent to revoke the approved 140's. In the notice of intent to revoke; they stated that their records showed 20 pending; 42 approved cases and 205 h-1b's filed. USCIS went through their calculations and stated that if the average salary was xxx on all these petitions then the company would have to have paid close to $15 million in salaries which was (at that time the 2004 tax returns) more then five times the revenue. USCIS also went on to state they thought the company was involved in fraudulently obtaining h-1b's and 140's.
Now; company guy talks to Shusterman and he wants $2k per case and he can only handle the immigration component and that he neeed a CPA (which was me) and the company guy should also get a criminal attorney.
Well anyways; because in the first 20 cases we thought uscis may go after the approved 140's; the financials looked the right way to support all the cases.
The response was very scientific; hire dates; priority dates; amounts people got paid before priority date; amounts paid after; dates people left the company, etc.
In the various calculations; we proved out that even with people leaving who used ac21; we still had ability to pay for them (ie., even though they were no longer there we still had the financials to pay them). Then we gave another scenario that ability to pay clock should stop once person used ac21. We then did recalculation under this scenario.
In every scenario we showed we had ability to pay. Now; we never requested USCIS to revoke the approved 140's for people who had left; in one of the scenarios we adjusted the calculation to stop showing ability to pay once a person left.
USCIS re-approved all the cases. However; they sent notice of intent to deny for pepole who left using ac21. those candidates then gave updated letters and they all eventually got the greencards approved.
Now;this particular case is a little different because even though people left; the company still had ability to pay for them. Therefore, it is difficult to draw conclusion from this for other peoples particular cases. In this case; the fair value of the work I did for them would have cost them about $100K (i actually did audited financial statements for them; they are the only company I did audited financial statements for becuase the stakes were very very high for everyone concerned).
I can tell you that when a company does get this type of RFE; it is very difficult to substantiate everyone together and the calculations and supporting documentation is very complex AND companies have very little desire to help those who have already left. In these types of queries; the company/lawyer doesn't even bother to justify those who have already left; they just ask for revoation and they prove ability to pay for those who are still left with the company. Therefore; USCIS could just make the determination that those revoked cases were approved in error.
The main law for ability to pay is that company has to prove it from priority date until person obtains lawful permanent residency; law was never changed/modified to accomodate ability to pay for a company whose candidates have left using ac21.
Note: This is all pure speculation of what is going on in these cases. I am just writing out loud of why/if there is a shift within uscis.
Employer X filed labor, 140 for their employee. Both were approved (assumption - no RFEs, etc. until now), 485 was filed for in July 2007, and remains pending.
The employee was employed with Employer X from before the labor was applied and until ~360 days after the 485 was filed, and was always paid more than the LC prevailing wage/offered salary.
In July 2008, the employee leaves employer X and joins employer Y under AC21 provisions. An AC21 letter, G-28N are submitted.
140 never gets revoked by employer X.
In Jan 2009, employer X receives an Ability to Pay RFE for another pending 140 of theirs.
At this point, employer X has 16 140s that are open (pending OR approved with 485 pending to be filed/filed and pending). Out of those 16 140s, one was for the employee that left under AC21.
When they respond to that RFE, I do understand that they could be asked to show ability to pay for all 16 140s, even for the one that doesn�t work for them anymore, because of the fact that it was never revoked.
In this case, is the employee (that left) covered or at risk? I ask this question because the employee that left submitted AC21 documentation immediately upon leaving, thus notifying the USCIS that the �ability to pay� responsibility for his case, if any at all, now lies with the new future employer. There probably isn�t any clear definition of such a situation in the law, but can such an argument ever hold up in court, and protect the employee�s AOS application from getting affected due to any ability to pay issues the old employer (X) has had AFTER the employee left them.
The only person on here that I expect to be able to give a non-speculative answer to this is UN, unless someone else has personally gone through something similar.
Long post, I know, and I hope it does get read.
Thank you.
I worked on a very big case back in 2006.
Company had 20 pending 140's which were filed in 2005
Company had 42 approved 140's
in Janaury 2006 they sent RFE on one of the cases and asked for ability to pay. Before response was sent; second rfe is received on another pending casestating ability to pay and that uscis has noted company has filed many 140's; then third rfe is received on another case asking ability to pay on all pending cases (note this was in vermont service center and at this time the whole cybersoftech issue was going on; so there was a heightened alert from vermont service center).
In preparing for the response to the 20 pending cases; we had to analyze the 42 approved cases to ensure that just in case USCIS went after those cases together with the 20 then we should be ready in this particular response to justify the 42 approved cases.
In the response we only showed the 20 pending cases and that we had ability to pay for them.
Within three weeks; USCIS sent notice of intent to revoke the approved 140's. In the notice of intent to revoke; they stated that their records showed 20 pending; 42 approved cases and 205 h-1b's filed. USCIS went through their calculations and stated that if the average salary was xxx on all these petitions then the company would have to have paid close to $15 million in salaries which was (at that time the 2004 tax returns) more then five times the revenue. USCIS also went on to state they thought the company was involved in fraudulently obtaining h-1b's and 140's.
Now; company guy talks to Shusterman and he wants $2k per case and he can only handle the immigration component and that he neeed a CPA (which was me) and the company guy should also get a criminal attorney.
Well anyways; because in the first 20 cases we thought uscis may go after the approved 140's; the financials looked the right way to support all the cases.
The response was very scientific; hire dates; priority dates; amounts people got paid before priority date; amounts paid after; dates people left the company, etc.
In the various calculations; we proved out that even with people leaving who used ac21; we still had ability to pay for them (ie., even though they were no longer there we still had the financials to pay them). Then we gave another scenario that ability to pay clock should stop once person used ac21. We then did recalculation under this scenario.
In every scenario we showed we had ability to pay. Now; we never requested USCIS to revoke the approved 140's for people who had left; in one of the scenarios we adjusted the calculation to stop showing ability to pay once a person left.
USCIS re-approved all the cases. However; they sent notice of intent to deny for pepole who left using ac21. those candidates then gave updated letters and they all eventually got the greencards approved.
Now;this particular case is a little different because even though people left; the company still had ability to pay for them. Therefore, it is difficult to draw conclusion from this for other peoples particular cases. In this case; the fair value of the work I did for them would have cost them about $100K (i actually did audited financial statements for them; they are the only company I did audited financial statements for becuase the stakes were very very high for everyone concerned).
I can tell you that when a company does get this type of RFE; it is very difficult to substantiate everyone together and the calculations and supporting documentation is very complex AND companies have very little desire to help those who have already left. In these types of queries; the company/lawyer doesn't even bother to justify those who have already left; they just ask for revoation and they prove ability to pay for those who are still left with the company. Therefore; USCIS could just make the determination that those revoked cases were approved in error.
The main law for ability to pay is that company has to prove it from priority date until person obtains lawful permanent residency; law was never changed/modified to accomodate ability to pay for a company whose candidates have left using ac21.
Note: This is all pure speculation of what is going on in these cases. I am just writing out loud of why/if there is a shift within uscis.
more...
pictures %IMG_DESC_7%
cool_guy_onnet1
05-24 01:07 PM
:eek:
Dude, you have no Idea, I calculated this morning and I have spent.......
$56,500 on Green card (20% of my salary for last 3 years) + lawyers and other $hit.. Let Emplyers pay this.
Dude, you have no Idea, I calculated this morning and I have spent.......
$56,500 on Green card (20% of my salary for last 3 years) + lawyers and other $hit.. Let Emplyers pay this.
dresses %IMG_DESC_12%
NKR
08-20 12:56 PM
NKR - Sorry, I wasn't very clear and it got misunderstood.
What I am trying to say is that whether GC takes 1 years or 5years, it is worth the wait IMHO. If I have to do all over again knowing it could take 5-6 years, I will do it. But that's just my personal opinion.
How are things going on your side, NKR? Good Luck.
I am an early 2004 EB2 filer. I am hoping that mine would get approved at least before Oct. My EAD, AP, H1 and DL is getting expired in Oct. Glad to know that citizenship is making a difference in your life. I am happy for you. Good Luck
What I am trying to say is that whether GC takes 1 years or 5years, it is worth the wait IMHO. If I have to do all over again knowing it could take 5-6 years, I will do it. But that's just my personal opinion.
How are things going on your side, NKR? Good Luck.
I am an early 2004 EB2 filer. I am hoping that mine would get approved at least before Oct. My EAD, AP, H1 and DL is getting expired in Oct. Glad to know that citizenship is making a difference in your life. I am happy for you. Good Luck
more...
makeup %IMG_DESC_9%
spdy_mn
06-14 01:34 PM
This is how it works. If you file for your 485 now, the next thing that is expected from you is to wait for the receipt, that would take 3 to 4 weeks. Then you will get finger print notice, that might come in three months time. Once you are done with all this then check the processing date of the respective service centre where you have filed your 485 application.
Now coming to the question of unmarried filers, if the principal aplicant's date of marriage is beofe his or her 485 adjudication of adjustment of status, there are two ways principal applicant file for 485 for his or her spouse. The spouse can travel to US on H4 and file for 485 or the principal applicant can do consular processing. Now consular processing is good for those cases whosw w PD is current but since retrogression can kick in anytime it is better to travel to US on H4 and file for 485.
Another important aspect is if you file 485, EAD, Advance Parole and you use EAD, you loose your H1 status, hence on EAD you can not bring in your wife. So unmarried filersn it goes like thisn you go ahead and fileyour 485, then go to your home country brng in your wife on H4n as you have aleast s months of time if NSC, TSC or CSC 485 processing is not current and it is hown 1 month for receipt of 485, three months of time for getting the finger print notice and you can postpone by another month of FP by rescheduling it to another month. So literally you have 4 to 5 months to get married and by that time the dates will retrogress again. So dont worry, just go ahead file your 485 and start looking to get married. But try to bring in your spouse asap so that you can file for your spouses 485 also till the time PD is current. If you are not able to file for 485 for your spouse and you have filed for yourself and whenthe dates retrogresses again when your spouse comed to US you would not be able to use EAD as using EAD nullifies H1 and H4 status. So desi consulting companies will keep on sucking your blood as you cannot change job using EAD. If you need more info on this let me know I have gone through this and waited for almost three years to file for my spouse I resheduled my FP notice in 2004 to get married by the time my wife came retrogression kicked in and waited till June 2007 to file for my wife. My PD june 2002 still waiting
That explains almost every thing. Thanks so much
Now coming to the question of unmarried filers, if the principal aplicant's date of marriage is beofe his or her 485 adjudication of adjustment of status, there are two ways principal applicant file for 485 for his or her spouse. The spouse can travel to US on H4 and file for 485 or the principal applicant can do consular processing. Now consular processing is good for those cases whosw w PD is current but since retrogression can kick in anytime it is better to travel to US on H4 and file for 485.
Another important aspect is if you file 485, EAD, Advance Parole and you use EAD, you loose your H1 status, hence on EAD you can not bring in your wife. So unmarried filersn it goes like thisn you go ahead and fileyour 485, then go to your home country brng in your wife on H4n as you have aleast s months of time if NSC, TSC or CSC 485 processing is not current and it is hown 1 month for receipt of 485, three months of time for getting the finger print notice and you can postpone by another month of FP by rescheduling it to another month. So literally you have 4 to 5 months to get married and by that time the dates will retrogress again. So dont worry, just go ahead file your 485 and start looking to get married. But try to bring in your spouse asap so that you can file for your spouses 485 also till the time PD is current. If you are not able to file for 485 for your spouse and you have filed for yourself and whenthe dates retrogresses again when your spouse comed to US you would not be able to use EAD as using EAD nullifies H1 and H4 status. So desi consulting companies will keep on sucking your blood as you cannot change job using EAD. If you need more info on this let me know I have gone through this and waited for almost three years to file for my spouse I resheduled my FP notice in 2004 to get married by the time my wife came retrogression kicked in and waited till June 2007 to file for my wife. My PD june 2002 still waiting
That explains almost every thing. Thanks so much
girlfriend %IMG_DESC_14%
gneerajg
10-24 03:37 PM
Thanks for the reply and it is not an subsitute it is an original case .so your suggesting that my PD should be May 2007 instead of April 2001. But the problem is that attorney filed the labor certification in 2001 without obtaining the PW and now the PW has come up 71656/- so there is a huge gap what I was getting in 2001 and then we requested PW for the last years from 2001 onwards and now they are telling that they can not do it also if we download the PW from the archives it is still much more than the PW send by DOL. so is there any way to get the PW for those years in back. I hired a new and very capable attorney but what he is suggesting that if we could the PW for 2001 what we applied in application then it is a piece of cake. My occupational code is 15-1031 and it I filed from California, LA county. I will really appreciate for your guidance and suggestion
Neeraj
40k+ in 2006
35k+ in 2005
33k+ in 2004
EB-3 PD 2001
Filed I-140 & I-485 on May 5,2007
Neeraj
40k+ in 2006
35k+ in 2005
33k+ in 2004
EB-3 PD 2001
Filed I-140 & I-485 on May 5,2007
hairstyles %IMG_DESC_11%
sc3
06-12 03:02 PM
See the following link for explanation:
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4252.html
Excerpt from above link
EMPLOYMENT-BASED PREFERENCES
First: Priority Workers: 28.6% of the worldwide employment-based preference level, plus any numbers not required for fourth and fifth preferences.
Second: Members of the Professions Holding Advanced Degrees or Persons of Exceptional Ability: 28.6% of the worldwide employment-based preference level, plus any numbers not required by first preference.
Third: Skilled Workers, Professionals, and Other Workers: 28.6% of the worldwide level, plus any numbers not required by first and second preferences, not more than 10,000 of which to "Other Workers".
Fourth: Certain Special Immigrants: 7.1% of the worldwide level.
Fifth: Employment Creation: 7.1% of the worldwide level, not less than 3,000 of which reserved for investors in a targeted rural or high-unemployment area, and 3,000 set aside for investors in regional centers by Sec. 610 of P.L. 102-395.
Exactly, everywhere the language is similar.
If EB3 were to get only the leftover numbers after EB2 is finished, the statement would read "...not required by second preference", because the statement in EB2's paragraph "not required by first preference" would add to Eb2 numbers (and may no longer be differentiated as EB1 rollover numbers). So a statement in EB3 along the lines of "not required by second preference" will clearly say that rollover from EB1 is to EB2 only. And any further rollover from EB2 will be considered depending on the demand for EB2.
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4252.html
Excerpt from above link
EMPLOYMENT-BASED PREFERENCES
First: Priority Workers: 28.6% of the worldwide employment-based preference level, plus any numbers not required for fourth and fifth preferences.
Second: Members of the Professions Holding Advanced Degrees or Persons of Exceptional Ability: 28.6% of the worldwide employment-based preference level, plus any numbers not required by first preference.
Third: Skilled Workers, Professionals, and Other Workers: 28.6% of the worldwide level, plus any numbers not required by first and second preferences, not more than 10,000 of which to "Other Workers".
Fourth: Certain Special Immigrants: 7.1% of the worldwide level.
Fifth: Employment Creation: 7.1% of the worldwide level, not less than 3,000 of which reserved for investors in a targeted rural or high-unemployment area, and 3,000 set aside for investors in regional centers by Sec. 610 of P.L. 102-395.
Exactly, everywhere the language is similar.
If EB3 were to get only the leftover numbers after EB2 is finished, the statement would read "...not required by second preference", because the statement in EB2's paragraph "not required by first preference" would add to Eb2 numbers (and may no longer be differentiated as EB1 rollover numbers). So a statement in EB3 along the lines of "not required by second preference" will clearly say that rollover from EB1 is to EB2 only. And any further rollover from EB2 will be considered depending on the demand for EB2.
pcs
04-25 01:20 PM
Get some more people like you
lelica32
08-13 08:27 AM
I have a question. My Firm is a really small one, just 1 employer + my = 2. The tax returns are not so good, becouse all the money was invested in a second business. The firm started in June 2005. The Firm has ca. $65.000 in a saving account. My salary will be $2000/month. Will be enough this $65.000 for the USCIS, for the Ability to pay.
0 comments:
Post a Comment