reddymjm
09-09 02:26 PM
I would like to see all EB3 AS DONORS.
wallpaper coloring pages for kids. kids
larun
06-12 08:36 AM
Done
coolmanasip
03-07 09:45 AM
you are lucky man.....what you say makes sense.......but here is the reality.......
GC process is 3 step process and the lawyer is representing you (485 stage) as well as the employer (labor and 140 stage)........So, if you leave the employer, most lawyers will refuse to continue to represent you unless they authorized in written by the employer....it is a conflict of interest for them.......hence, I think I will go to some other lawyer for AC 21......and thats why the money.....
It is bit shocking to know that one will have to pay for just AC21 notification. I mean, if you already have lawyer associated with your GC file, which I believe, most of us should have either appointed by our employer OR hired by ourselves (Many companies give a choice to hire "your own" lawyer). I understand that since one change the employment, the general criteria is to assume that the lawyer (If paticularly appointed by past employer) is now no more attached to the case. But in truth it is not. Fulfilling AC21 notification is part of the whole end to end package since case remains same unless you notify USCIS to change your attorney. In my case I was given a choice to hire "My Own lawyer" and once I started to work on EAD, virtually now he is my lawyer not "my employer's lawyer" and hence he will be sending AC21 related paperwork to USCIS though he told me that he would not do it right now as he is busy with H1 filing load. And yes no extra cost involved..
GC process is 3 step process and the lawyer is representing you (485 stage) as well as the employer (labor and 140 stage)........So, if you leave the employer, most lawyers will refuse to continue to represent you unless they authorized in written by the employer....it is a conflict of interest for them.......hence, I think I will go to some other lawyer for AC 21......and thats why the money.....
It is bit shocking to know that one will have to pay for just AC21 notification. I mean, if you already have lawyer associated with your GC file, which I believe, most of us should have either appointed by our employer OR hired by ourselves (Many companies give a choice to hire "your own" lawyer). I understand that since one change the employment, the general criteria is to assume that the lawyer (If paticularly appointed by past employer) is now no more attached to the case. But in truth it is not. Fulfilling AC21 notification is part of the whole end to end package since case remains same unless you notify USCIS to change your attorney. In my case I was given a choice to hire "My Own lawyer" and once I started to work on EAD, virtually now he is my lawyer not "my employer's lawyer" and hence he will be sending AC21 related paperwork to USCIS though he told me that he would not do it right now as he is busy with H1 filing load. And yes no extra cost involved..
2011 tom and jerry coloring pages for kids printable. free printable coloring
anilsal
12-13 01:22 PM
Having a FAQ with links to discussions held in the forums may be the answer.
more...
desi3933
01-31 05:51 PM
Thanks a lot Desi3933. I dont have words to thank you...
Another question - Once she gets on EAD does she have to get paid for 'x' number of period (Say 15 day or a month0 on EAD? And then when she re-enters on h1b (Nov 15 2009) then she will get paid from Nov 15 - Dec 31, so for year 2009 she will just have Jan month and 15 Nov till Dec 31 2009 on w-2. Is that fine since all the other time she was on EAD or out of country.
That would be absolutely fine.
Also, she will be maintaining H1 status. That is always good to have when I-485 application is pending.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
Another question - Once she gets on EAD does she have to get paid for 'x' number of period (Say 15 day or a month0 on EAD? And then when she re-enters on h1b (Nov 15 2009) then she will get paid from Nov 15 - Dec 31, so for year 2009 she will just have Jan month and 15 Nov till Dec 31 2009 on w-2. Is that fine since all the other time she was on EAD or out of country.
That would be absolutely fine.
Also, she will be maintaining H1 status. That is always good to have when I-485 application is pending.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
sandiboy
07-18 08:33 AM
Mine reached on Jul 2nd @ 7:55AM. I was also current per June bulletin but it was filed in July. No Receipt yet.
more...
Jaime
09-18 09:15 PM
First, I would like to congratulate everyone who contributed to the success of the DC rally on Sep 18, 2007...
I was there and I am proud of our ImmigrationVoice members for this FANTASTIC effort!
We are just starting and taking baby steps with these kind of activities...So, anything I mention below is not a critic, but a humble feedback/opinion...Please don't get offended.
1. We must immediately change our name to LegalImmigrationVoice.org( LIV.org)...But still Immigrationvoice.org should work....This should be done ASAP...like within next week...Please conduct a poll for this ASAP.
2. We must/should always wear formal suits for these kind of rally....this would definitely give us a very high status and definitely there will not be any confusion if the rally is by legal or illegal immigrants. Even if it is hot summer, we must stick to this dress code...
3. In all the signs we had today, we need to have one line clearly in bold as "Legal Immigrants - LegalImmigrationVoice.com - Faster Green cards for Legal highly skilled Immigrants" - bold and clear..
Also, all our T-shirts should have
"Legal Immigrants - LegalImmigrationVoice.com - Faster Green cards for Legal highly skilled Immigrants" in the back
4. One of the rally participants told me that a guide was telling a tourists bus passengers quote "these folks are illegal immigrants...", the rally participant who heard this went to the guide and explained that we are legal immigrants...if you think the guide is not smart enough to read our signs and understand that we are legal immigrants, read next point...
5. On the rally route, one gentleman, who was dressed in suit, looked well educated came up to me and asked what we are concerned about...I told him that green card process for Legal Immigrants is taking between 5-10 years and we are requesting to expedite it.....so it is clear that all our signs need this text at the bottom "Legal Immigrants - LegalImmigrationVoice.com - Faster Green cards for Legal highly skilled Immigrants"
We cannot be perfect the first or second time....Lets learn from this rally....
A pat in the back to all those who attended the rally....
Good Luck
I totally agree, even the congressman that addressed us had the two (legal and illegal confused and lumped together) He was great otherwise, but it's just that Congress and Americans are so used to associating the two, or they plain don't know about "legal highly-skilled". A major next step we need to undertake is education! Whenever we've explained the difference to our American friends they wholeheartedly support us!
I was there and I am proud of our ImmigrationVoice members for this FANTASTIC effort!
We are just starting and taking baby steps with these kind of activities...So, anything I mention below is not a critic, but a humble feedback/opinion...Please don't get offended.
1. We must immediately change our name to LegalImmigrationVoice.org( LIV.org)...But still Immigrationvoice.org should work....This should be done ASAP...like within next week...Please conduct a poll for this ASAP.
2. We must/should always wear formal suits for these kind of rally....this would definitely give us a very high status and definitely there will not be any confusion if the rally is by legal or illegal immigrants. Even if it is hot summer, we must stick to this dress code...
3. In all the signs we had today, we need to have one line clearly in bold as "Legal Immigrants - LegalImmigrationVoice.com - Faster Green cards for Legal highly skilled Immigrants" - bold and clear..
Also, all our T-shirts should have
"Legal Immigrants - LegalImmigrationVoice.com - Faster Green cards for Legal highly skilled Immigrants" in the back
4. One of the rally participants told me that a guide was telling a tourists bus passengers quote "these folks are illegal immigrants...", the rally participant who heard this went to the guide and explained that we are legal immigrants...if you think the guide is not smart enough to read our signs and understand that we are legal immigrants, read next point...
5. On the rally route, one gentleman, who was dressed in suit, looked well educated came up to me and asked what we are concerned about...I told him that green card process for Legal Immigrants is taking between 5-10 years and we are requesting to expedite it.....so it is clear that all our signs need this text at the bottom "Legal Immigrants - LegalImmigrationVoice.com - Faster Green cards for Legal highly skilled Immigrants"
We cannot be perfect the first or second time....Lets learn from this rally....
A pat in the back to all those who attended the rally....
Good Luck
I totally agree, even the congressman that addressed us had the two (legal and illegal confused and lumped together) He was great otherwise, but it's just that Congress and Americans are so used to associating the two, or they plain don't know about "legal highly-skilled". A major next step we need to undertake is education! Whenever we've explained the difference to our American friends they wholeheartedly support us!
2010 tom and jerry coloring pages for kids printable. and jerry coloring pages
makemygc
01-30 08:33 PM
[QUOTE=logiclife]Unpaid bench means you are "Out of Status". Not illegal.
I don't agree at all with this statement. People can go on a unpaid maternity leave and still maintain status.
Out of status is anyway no better than illegal.
I don't agree at all with this statement. People can go on a unpaid maternity leave and still maintain status.
Out of status is anyway no better than illegal.
more...
NKR
10-19 08:02 PM
Question 18 should be helpful to your situation with RD.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/cbo_30sept08.pdf
Thanks, then i do not know what to make out of what is in my status "we received the case in Oct at NSC" though it was applied in Aug at TSC.
I do hope that what is in this document is true.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/cbo_30sept08.pdf
Thanks, then i do not know what to make out of what is in my status "we received the case in Oct at NSC" though it was applied in Aug at TSC.
I do hope that what is in this document is true.
hair letter e coloring pages. tom
nitinboston
04-09 03:38 PM
same story every month, KLPD
more...
sammas
07-12 04:01 PM
F. DETERMINATION OF THE NUMERICAL LIMITS ON IMMIGRANTS REQUIRED UNDER THE TERMS OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT (INA)
The State Department is required to make a determination of the worldwide numerical limitations, as outlined in Section 201(c) and (d) of the INA, on an annual basis. These calculations are based in part on data provided by U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (CIS) regarding the number of immediate relative adjustments in the preceding year and the number of aliens paroled into the United States under Section 212(d)(5) in the second preceding year. Without this information, it is impossible to make an official determination of the annual limits. To avoid delays in processing while waiting for the CIS data, the Visa Office (VO) bases allocations on the minimum annual limits outlined in Section 201 of the INA. On July 7th, CIS provided the required data to VO.
The Department of State has determined the Family and Employment preference numerical limits for FY-2010 in accordance with the terms of Section 201 of the INA. These numerical limitations for FY-2010 are as follows:
Worldwide Family-Sponsored preference limit: 226,000
Worldwide Employment-Based preference limit: 150,667
Under INA Section 202(A), the per-country limit is fixed at 7% of the family and employment annual limits. For FY-2010 the per-country limit is 26,367. The dependent area annual limit is 2%, or 7,533.
The State Department is required to make a determination of the worldwide numerical limitations, as outlined in Section 201(c) and (d) of the INA, on an annual basis. These calculations are based in part on data provided by U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (CIS) regarding the number of immediate relative adjustments in the preceding year and the number of aliens paroled into the United States under Section 212(d)(5) in the second preceding year. Without this information, it is impossible to make an official determination of the annual limits. To avoid delays in processing while waiting for the CIS data, the Visa Office (VO) bases allocations on the minimum annual limits outlined in Section 201 of the INA. On July 7th, CIS provided the required data to VO.
The Department of State has determined the Family and Employment preference numerical limits for FY-2010 in accordance with the terms of Section 201 of the INA. These numerical limitations for FY-2010 are as follows:
Worldwide Family-Sponsored preference limit: 226,000
Worldwide Employment-Based preference limit: 150,667
Under INA Section 202(A), the per-country limit is fixed at 7% of the family and employment annual limits. For FY-2010 the per-country limit is 26,367. The dependent area annual limit is 2%, or 7,533.
hot Tom Jerry Coloring Pages | Tom
.soulty
02-16 07:23 PM
thanks grinch and thirdworldman(shheshh do you have a shorter username? lol)
nice render eilsoe :thumb:
nice render eilsoe :thumb:
more...
house tom and jerry coloring pages
GreenCard4US
06-11 02:54 PM
Should we contact the Indian Government?
Look I don't want to say this to you but I am left with no other choice. When CEOs such as Steve Ballmer and John Chambers are personally calling the Senators because they think this amendment is a real threat, it will be least of our worries what opponents would think about us getting scared. We are not scared, we are simply making our voices heard. If we were scared we won't be doing this.
Now, you have no freaking clue of what is going on behind the scenes, this is your third post in this forum and all these posts in opposition to our action item which we are coordinating with other coalition partners. Why do you think you know more than the folks who are right now speaking with the Senators?
Look I don't want to say this to you but I am left with no other choice. When CEOs such as Steve Ballmer and John Chambers are personally calling the Senators because they think this amendment is a real threat, it will be least of our worries what opponents would think about us getting scared. We are not scared, we are simply making our voices heard. If we were scared we won't be doing this.
Now, you have no freaking clue of what is going on behind the scenes, this is your third post in this forum and all these posts in opposition to our action item which we are coordinating with other coalition partners. Why do you think you know more than the folks who are right now speaking with the Senators?
tattoo Tom amp; Jerry Coloring (Lite) -
GCKaIntezar
01-30 03:15 PM
See attached. Added my comments. Please feel free to add/modify.
I suggest that keep it 1 page long only.
I suggest that keep it 1 page long only.
more...
pictures Tom and jerry coloring picture
sandiboy
07-23 05:42 PM
I saw a guy on who mailed appln on Jun 27th & got receipt notice for 07/18. Does it mean we are close and should expect some guys to get notices this week for Jul 2 cases ??
faqua India 11/01/2003 Nebraska EB2 06/27/2007 06/28/2007 07/18/2007
faqua India 11/01/2003 Nebraska EB2 06/27/2007 06/28/2007 07/18/2007
dresses tom and jerry coloring pages for kids. Tom and Jerry 2 All Tom and
komaragiri
08-29 05:52 PM
This is totally wate of time. Please delete this thread.
Let's not discuss on who is best and who is worst. Focus on the future action items for IV. Discuss more about those items, so that we all can get out of this mess and live happily.
Let's not discuss on who is best and who is worst. Focus on the future action items for IV. Discuss more about those items, so that we all can get out of this mess and live happily.
more...
makeup tom and jerry coloring pages
karanp25
07-14 06:28 PM
Sorry for asking too many questions. One more thing is when did you get this RFE? I am in similar situation---used AC-21 and applied for EAD back in first week of May 2008, but nothing yet from NSC. I was with my GC sponsoring employer for more than 6 months though and I-140 was approved back in 2005.
I filed EAD renewal on May 28 2008.
Service Center: Nebraska
I filed EAD renewal on May 28 2008.
Service Center: Nebraska
girlfriend online coloring page, [tom
NKR
03-17 10:50 AM
Before retrogression started in "October 2005 Bulletin, Nov 2005 effective", there are quite a few people who applied for I-485 and had PD upto sept 2004. Those cases are approved. I know couple of cases myself.
I think I was current then and I missed out on that date since I was stuck in backlog elimination centre. you could be right.
I think I was current then and I missed out on that date since I was stuck in backlog elimination centre. you could be right.
hairstyles tom and jerry coloring pages for kids printable. Early childhood kids page
gcformeornot
02-03 09:02 PM
Guru's please check if this employment letter is enough for the above mentioned RFE....
Dear Sir/Madam
Re: Employment of Mr. John Doe
This is to confirm that Mr. John Doe is currently employed in our organization as a Senior Software Engineer at the annual salary of $ x per year.
Mr. Doe�s compensation package includes medical, dental benefits, sick leave and paid holidays.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.
Sincerely yours,
adding these additional things salary offered in LC is met....... this will not work. Per my attorney salary offered in LC needs to be without any such things.......
Dear Sir/Madam
Re: Employment of Mr. John Doe
This is to confirm that Mr. John Doe is currently employed in our organization as a Senior Software Engineer at the annual salary of $ x per year.
Mr. Doe�s compensation package includes medical, dental benefits, sick leave and paid holidays.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.
Sincerely yours,
adding these additional things salary offered in LC is met....... this will not work. Per my attorney salary offered in LC needs to be without any such things.......
kondur_007
04-10 10:28 AM
Does anyone have numbers for spillover last year category wise? I mean, last year how many EB4, EB5 and EB1 left out visas got spilled over to EB2? Thanks...
Here are the details for last year and years before:
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
Here are the details for last year and years before:
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
eeezzz
02-15 03:08 PM
Exactly, And how many from South America? 30% of the population is going to be hispanic by 2050.
Perhaps your number is not based on legal immigration. It might reach this number if you add up the illegal ones, and that is why the gov. is building the walls to stop them enter at borders and try to find the illegal ones and send them out.
Perhaps your number is not based on legal immigration. It might reach this number if you add up the illegal ones, and that is why the gov. is building the walls to stop them enter at borders and try to find the illegal ones and send them out.
No comments:
Post a Comment