gc_peshwa
01-26 06:55 PM
Well done team IV! BTW has IV already published this email to newspapers? IIRC a free site like PRNEWSWIRE will also help :-)
eb3retro
08-08 07:33 PM
^^^^^
nhfirefighter13
May 3rd, 2005, 04:55 AM
Nice work Anders. Personally, I pan for the stuff on the ground and leave the in air stuff static.
RNGC
04-08 09:38 PM
As per INA 202, many of you know that for employment based immigration, the limit is 7% of 140k per country, if there are unused visas from family based or from previous years, USCIS should try to use them, which is not happenning....
see a detailed notes on INA 202 here...
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=240387
(search for gclong1)
I am trying to understand why the 7% was set ? When the law was signed. Things have drastically changed, more skilled people are coming to US from India, shouldn't the law be changed ? I think we should start pushing for more employment based visas, double it to 300k. The 7% formula has to be revisited.
Is 7% per country is fair ?
------------------------
Legal Immigrant Source Source:
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2006/table03d.xls
(More reports here...(http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/LPR06.shtm)
Population Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population
Cuba: ( BTW, Cuba is just taken as a example just to explain the math)
Total Population = 11,000,000 (11 Million)
Total Population Percent = 0.17 %
Legal Immigrants from Cuba to USA in 2006 = 45,614
Percent of Legal Immigrants from Cuba to USA compared with their population in 2006 = 0.4146 %
[(45614.0/11000000.0)*100.0 = 0.4146]
India:
Total Population = 1,131,264,000 (1.1 Billion)
Total Population Percent = 17 %
Legal Immigrants from India to USA in 2006= 61,369
Percent of Legal Immigrants from India to USA compared with their population in 2006 = 0.0054
[(61369.0/1131264000)*100.0 = 0.0054]
Cuba has a 0.4146 Legal Immigrants in US per 100 of their population
India has 0.0054 Legal Immigrants in US per 100 of their population
What is the difference in percent ?
(0.4146 - 0.0054)*100.0 = 40.92 % difference!!!!
India constitute 17% of world population, Cuba constitute .17 % of world population, so if we go by a country's population in deciding the % of EB visas it gets...
(17.0/100.0) * 140000.0 = 23,800 EB visas ?
(0.17/100.0) * 140000.0 = 238 EB visas ?
Soon, USA will be Chindia!
I am not arguing that we should follow the above formula either, just like how India and Cuba both have 7% limit, which does not make sense, the above math also does not make sense....
My argument is 7% per country limit for all countries, for a small country with 1 Million population and a big country with 1 B population does not make sense.
So, two issues need to dealt with for long term solution.
1. 140k EB visas to be increased to 300k
2. 7% per country needs to be changed (not sure what should be the criteria)
see a detailed notes on INA 202 here...
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=240387
(search for gclong1)
I am trying to understand why the 7% was set ? When the law was signed. Things have drastically changed, more skilled people are coming to US from India, shouldn't the law be changed ? I think we should start pushing for more employment based visas, double it to 300k. The 7% formula has to be revisited.
Is 7% per country is fair ?
------------------------
Legal Immigrant Source Source:
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2006/table03d.xls
(More reports here...(http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/LPR06.shtm)
Population Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population
Cuba: ( BTW, Cuba is just taken as a example just to explain the math)
Total Population = 11,000,000 (11 Million)
Total Population Percent = 0.17 %
Legal Immigrants from Cuba to USA in 2006 = 45,614
Percent of Legal Immigrants from Cuba to USA compared with their population in 2006 = 0.4146 %
[(45614.0/11000000.0)*100.0 = 0.4146]
India:
Total Population = 1,131,264,000 (1.1 Billion)
Total Population Percent = 17 %
Legal Immigrants from India to USA in 2006= 61,369
Percent of Legal Immigrants from India to USA compared with their population in 2006 = 0.0054
[(61369.0/1131264000)*100.0 = 0.0054]
Cuba has a 0.4146 Legal Immigrants in US per 100 of their population
India has 0.0054 Legal Immigrants in US per 100 of their population
What is the difference in percent ?
(0.4146 - 0.0054)*100.0 = 40.92 % difference!!!!
India constitute 17% of world population, Cuba constitute .17 % of world population, so if we go by a country's population in deciding the % of EB visas it gets...
(17.0/100.0) * 140000.0 = 23,800 EB visas ?
(0.17/100.0) * 140000.0 = 238 EB visas ?
Soon, USA will be Chindia!
I am not arguing that we should follow the above formula either, just like how India and Cuba both have 7% limit, which does not make sense, the above math also does not make sense....
My argument is 7% per country limit for all countries, for a small country with 1 Million population and a big country with 1 B population does not make sense.
So, two issues need to dealt with for long term solution.
1. 140k EB visas to be increased to 300k
2. 7% per country needs to be changed (not sure what should be the criteria)
more...
indianabacklog
07-30 10:11 PM
Are you saying that a child will age out if the child's 485 cannot be immediately adjudicated due to retrogression and the child is over 21 when that 485 is eventually processed?
Yes assuming after the deduction of the time it took to adjudicate the I140 the child is still over 21. If this occurs the childs application will automatically be transferred to the respective family based category and processed that way and we know how long the waits are for those dates to become current.
Yes assuming after the deduction of the time it took to adjudicate the I140 the child is still over 21. If this occurs the childs application will automatically be transferred to the respective family based category and processed that way and we know how long the waits are for those dates to become current.
thomachan72
10-04 02:50 PM
I don't think so, only Green cards and citizens are charged on world wide income.
Tony I wish what you said was true. There has been a great amount of discussion among our members a few months back when the last date for such disclosure was and the majority opinio was that everybody has to report all foreign accounts containing more than 10K. Interest on FDs are taxable and if you already paid tax in India then you have to disclose that in the IT returns here.
Anyway I dont know whether they would take the pain to check out all resident aliens who have bank accounts in their home countries unless, as you said, they become US citizens/GC holders.
Tony I wish what you said was true. There has been a great amount of discussion among our members a few months back when the last date for such disclosure was and the majority opinio was that everybody has to report all foreign accounts containing more than 10K. Interest on FDs are taxable and if you already paid tax in India then you have to disclose that in the IT returns here.
Anyway I dont know whether they would take the pain to check out all resident aliens who have bank accounts in their home countries unless, as you said, they become US citizens/GC holders.
more...
whiteStallion
10-17 11:52 PM
If you open a company on EAD, you are eligible for any positions that pay by W2 right?
If you have an EAD, you can take up any job which pays by W2... Opening a company has nothing to do with it.
If you are opening a company and you do Corp to Corp with any other vendor or Consultancy, then they will pay your corporation...and you get paid. From your side that is business income and you can deduct your expenses.
If you have an EAD, you can take up any job which pays by W2... Opening a company has nothing to do with it.
If you are opening a company and you do Corp to Corp with any other vendor or Consultancy, then they will pay your corporation...and you get paid. From your side that is business income and you can deduct your expenses.
texcan
02-26 11:09 AM
I would like to find out if anybody here heard of H1B denial due to lack of MASTERS DEGREE IN PHYSICAL THERAPY.
When I first read the notice of denial from USCIS I couldnt believe it. I satosfy all of the requirements stated on the letter to practice as a PT (specialty occupation) until I read a portion in OCCUPATIONAL OUTLOOK HANDBOOK (OOH) 2008-2009 (on the same notice) which stated that it requires a masters degree in PT as an entry level to practice PT.
Ive been preacticing in the US as a licensed Physcial therapist for almost 5 years. I decided to have my H1B transfered to another employer and I got denied---for the above reasons. Im devastated. And now I have to stop working in 2 days---go back to my old employer and go home when my visa expires or I dont know...there is no paln B for now.
I know this rule ( Masters required) was put in place about a few years back. I am surprised how come your employer or you did no know . There is a date/specific year, if you passed your PT before that date you can practice without a Masters.
if your pass out date is beyond that date you have to get a masters.
Solutions, not sure how well it can work at this time; but get a masters in PT.
Other solution can be is research to find out if any state still allows you to work without MS and take appropriate step to move to that state ( transfer license etc).
When I first read the notice of denial from USCIS I couldnt believe it. I satosfy all of the requirements stated on the letter to practice as a PT (specialty occupation) until I read a portion in OCCUPATIONAL OUTLOOK HANDBOOK (OOH) 2008-2009 (on the same notice) which stated that it requires a masters degree in PT as an entry level to practice PT.
Ive been preacticing in the US as a licensed Physcial therapist for almost 5 years. I decided to have my H1B transfered to another employer and I got denied---for the above reasons. Im devastated. And now I have to stop working in 2 days---go back to my old employer and go home when my visa expires or I dont know...there is no paln B for now.
I know this rule ( Masters required) was put in place about a few years back. I am surprised how come your employer or you did no know . There is a date/specific year, if you passed your PT before that date you can practice without a Masters.
if your pass out date is beyond that date you have to get a masters.
Solutions, not sure how well it can work at this time; but get a masters in PT.
Other solution can be is research to find out if any state still allows you to work without MS and take appropriate step to move to that state ( transfer license etc).
more...
Edison99
03-25 03:11 PM
Congrats the_jaguar and enjoy!
Folks,
I would like to share my success story of getting my I-485 application approved with a revoked/withdrawn I-140. We received our Green Cards and Welcome Letters in the mail yesterday. If you go through my profile, you should be able to get most of the information, but here it is anyway:
1] Company A applied for my LC followed by the I-140 application. We never got a chance to file I-485.
2] After I quite company A, they withdrew my I-140 application.
3] Company B started the process again with my labor application, followed by my new I-140 application. We didn't capture the older PD at this stage, but the A# was the same as the old one.
4] When we sent in our I-485 application, we included a letter describing that we would like to retain the older PD (we sent them a snippet of page 27 of the Field Adjudicator's Manual - Yates memo). In the interest of being transparent, we mentioned that the earlier I-140 was withdrawn by the previous employer. After an unrelated RFE, our case was finally approved last Friday (03/18).
I am sharing this information so that others who are stuck in a similar situation can use this as a datapoint in their struggle against the USCIS. I wish you all the very best in your Green Card journey.
Folks,
I would like to share my success story of getting my I-485 application approved with a revoked/withdrawn I-140. We received our Green Cards and Welcome Letters in the mail yesterday. If you go through my profile, you should be able to get most of the information, but here it is anyway:
1] Company A applied for my LC followed by the I-140 application. We never got a chance to file I-485.
2] After I quite company A, they withdrew my I-140 application.
3] Company B started the process again with my labor application, followed by my new I-140 application. We didn't capture the older PD at this stage, but the A# was the same as the old one.
4] When we sent in our I-485 application, we included a letter describing that we would like to retain the older PD (we sent them a snippet of page 27 of the Field Adjudicator's Manual - Yates memo). In the interest of being transparent, we mentioned that the earlier I-140 was withdrawn by the previous employer. After an unrelated RFE, our case was finally approved last Friday (03/18).
I am sharing this information so that others who are stuck in a similar situation can use this as a datapoint in their struggle against the USCIS. I wish you all the very best in your Green Card journey.
sanprabhu
07-17 04:32 PM
I think we should send post cards to all the senators. The message should be simple:
1. RECAPTURE of the lost EB visas for the last decade.
2. Per Country quota flexibility.
The post cards should be sent to all the 100 senators.
If people want to send flowers it should be again to soldiers at Walter Reed. I think this time it should say Thank you for your service by USCIS.
1. RECAPTURE of the lost EB visas for the last decade.
2. Per Country quota flexibility.
The post cards should be sent to all the 100 senators.
If people want to send flowers it should be again to soldiers at Walter Reed. I think this time it should say Thank you for your service by USCIS.
more...
belmontboy
05-22 07:05 PM
As mentioned by my HR attorney applied my labour application electronically on march 17th and forwarded me a case number starting with c , so i am assuming it was appl;ied at chicago center.
Its more then two months now i did not have any update from my HR inturn from attorney.
At the time of aplying attorney did not took any signature either from me or my HR , she said we have to sign at the later stages.
My fear is I might get a query or it may go into incomplete staus as it was not filled properly.
I am not sure if it should be filed in that way ....
Let me know if i am heading in right direction ...
Signature is not required for filing. u need to sign form 9089 if there is an audit or approval.
Recent trends for PERM processing are around 60-90 days.
Its more then two months now i did not have any update from my HR inturn from attorney.
At the time of aplying attorney did not took any signature either from me or my HR , she said we have to sign at the later stages.
My fear is I might get a query or it may go into incomplete staus as it was not filled properly.
I am not sure if it should be filed in that way ....
Let me know if i am heading in right direction ...
Signature is not required for filing. u need to sign form 9089 if there is an audit or approval.
Recent trends for PERM processing are around 60-90 days.
TwinkleM
06-24 12:14 AM
My H1 filed & approved thorugh company A from October 2004.
H1 then transferred to company B & approved from Nov 2005.
My GC process (EB3 Category) started & labor filed through company C for future job in Feb 2006. Labor approved & I-140 filed in June 2006. RFE received in April 2007 & documents received by INS in May 2007. SINCE THEN I-140 is pending... I-485 & EAD filed in July fiasco. EAD approved and renewed once. Valid until september 2010.
My H1 extension through company B denied in Jan 2009 (H1 expired in september 2008). MTR filed in Feb 2009, still pending. This made my EAD active as I have continued working for company B.
Another H1 filed through company C (GC sponsoring company) in April 2009 and RFE notice dated 23rd June, 2009 yet to be received.
In the process of filing 2nd labor through Comapny C ( same company), but this time under EB2 category.
At this point, my questions are:
1) Since my new H1 is through my GC sponsoring company, will RFE for H1 impact old GC process & new GC process?
2) Is my old pending I-140 eligible for premium processing since it is stuck for almost 3 years now? If yes, is it worth doing it?
The reason I want to get my old I-140 to be approved so that I can retain my old priority date.
Experts please share some knwoledge and suggest the steps best for my situation....Am really stressed out...
Thank You in advance...
H1 then transferred to company B & approved from Nov 2005.
My GC process (EB3 Category) started & labor filed through company C for future job in Feb 2006. Labor approved & I-140 filed in June 2006. RFE received in April 2007 & documents received by INS in May 2007. SINCE THEN I-140 is pending... I-485 & EAD filed in July fiasco. EAD approved and renewed once. Valid until september 2010.
My H1 extension through company B denied in Jan 2009 (H1 expired in september 2008). MTR filed in Feb 2009, still pending. This made my EAD active as I have continued working for company B.
Another H1 filed through company C (GC sponsoring company) in April 2009 and RFE notice dated 23rd June, 2009 yet to be received.
In the process of filing 2nd labor through Comapny C ( same company), but this time under EB2 category.
At this point, my questions are:
1) Since my new H1 is through my GC sponsoring company, will RFE for H1 impact old GC process & new GC process?
2) Is my old pending I-140 eligible for premium processing since it is stuck for almost 3 years now? If yes, is it worth doing it?
The reason I want to get my old I-140 to be approved so that I can retain my old priority date.
Experts please share some knwoledge and suggest the steps best for my situation....Am really stressed out...
Thank You in advance...
more...
sledge_hammer
12-03 04:59 PM
Per the exerpt below, the spouse and children of a legal alien are eligible for benefits, and it will NOT effect the GC process of the primary applicant -
http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/public_cqa.pdf
Q21: If a member of an alien's family is receiving or has received public benefits, but the individual alien hasn’t, will INS or State hold this against the alien for public charge purposes?
A21: In most cases, no. As a general rule, receipt of benefits by a member of an alien’s family is not attributed to the alien who is applying to INS or State for admission or to INS for adjustment of status to determine whether he or she is likely to become a public charge. The only time this general rule would not apply would be if the family were reliant on their family member’s cash public benefits as its sole means of support.
In particular, alien parents do not have to worry that the INS or State will consider them to be public charges if they enroll their children in programs for which they are eligible, unless these are cash programs which provide the sole financial support for the family. This is true whether the children are U.S. citizens or non-citizens.
If a parent enrolls in TANF for cash benefits for the “child only,” this could be used by INS or State for a public charge determination concerning the parent if this cash is the sole support for the family. However, if there are other sources of support or a parent is working, then the cash assistance would not represent the family's sole source of support.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/public_cqa.pdf
Q21: If a member of an alien's family is receiving or has received public benefits, but the individual alien hasn’t, will INS or State hold this against the alien for public charge purposes?
A21: In most cases, no. As a general rule, receipt of benefits by a member of an alien’s family is not attributed to the alien who is applying to INS or State for admission or to INS for adjustment of status to determine whether he or she is likely to become a public charge. The only time this general rule would not apply would be if the family were reliant on their family member’s cash public benefits as its sole means of support.
In particular, alien parents do not have to worry that the INS or State will consider them to be public charges if they enroll their children in programs for which they are eligible, unless these are cash programs which provide the sole financial support for the family. This is true whether the children are U.S. citizens or non-citizens.
If a parent enrolls in TANF for cash benefits for the “child only,” this could be used by INS or State for a public charge determination concerning the parent if this cash is the sole support for the family. However, if there are other sources of support or a parent is working, then the cash assistance would not represent the family's sole source of support.
suman
12-17 01:38 PM
Sorry I was away from my computer for a while.
Thanks for all your help Guys.
We are talking to Lawyer, Murthy law today.
It's an employment based.
This case of I-485 is 2004.
We talked to USCIS and they say to wait for notice and they do not have nay reason to tell over phone as they do not have access to NOTICE.
Hope Lawyer comes out with something.
THank you all
Great help and moral support from all of you at Immigration VOice.
Thanks for all your help Guys.
We are talking to Lawyer, Murthy law today.
It's an employment based.
This case of I-485 is 2004.
We talked to USCIS and they say to wait for notice and they do not have nay reason to tell over phone as they do not have access to NOTICE.
Hope Lawyer comes out with something.
THank you all
Great help and moral support from all of you at Immigration VOice.
more...
jliechty
January 7th, 2005, 05:34 PM
Sigma makes a good macro, as does Tamron and of course Nikon. I would buy the Nikon if I had the largest budget, but the others are not far off, if any different at all, in the quality of images that they can produce. One of the members here speaks highly of his equivalent Sigma macro (except in Canon mount).
With that said, it's a very bad idea to order anything from the site you mentioned. Check ResellerRatings (http://www.resellerratings.com/) to see some feedback before ordering anything from an online dealer. I highly recommend B&H (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/) for new gear and accessories, and KEH for used items. I have ordered from both numerous times, and have always been satisfied.
Edit: as an afterthought, I must add that anyone who tells you that your underexposure is caused by using a 35mm lens on a reduced-frame DSLR is full of "it." The only "disadvantage" of using a 35mm-based lens on most DSLRs is that the image is cropped, so the angle of view is equivalent to a lens on a 35mm camera that is 1.5X longer. There are "digital" lenses (Nikon DX or Canon EF-S) which can not cover a full 35mm frame, and are typically extremely wide (to compensate for the "crop factor" mentioned previously), but any "digitally integrated" or similar lens from Sigma or Tamron is nothing but marketing hype, IMHO.
With that said, it's a very bad idea to order anything from the site you mentioned. Check ResellerRatings (http://www.resellerratings.com/) to see some feedback before ordering anything from an online dealer. I highly recommend B&H (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/) for new gear and accessories, and KEH for used items. I have ordered from both numerous times, and have always been satisfied.
Edit: as an afterthought, I must add that anyone who tells you that your underexposure is caused by using a 35mm lens on a reduced-frame DSLR is full of "it." The only "disadvantage" of using a 35mm-based lens on most DSLRs is that the image is cropped, so the angle of view is equivalent to a lens on a 35mm camera that is 1.5X longer. There are "digital" lenses (Nikon DX or Canon EF-S) which can not cover a full 35mm frame, and are typically extremely wide (to compensate for the "crop factor" mentioned previously), but any "digitally integrated" or similar lens from Sigma or Tamron is nothing but marketing hype, IMHO.
BPforGC
05-21 04:54 PM
July 2009
July 2010
July 2011
July 2012...or
By the way things are moving backwards, We will be awarded GC posthumously in a Rose Garden Ceremony by the President (who will be my son since he was born here and eligible to be come President. He will be contesting elections in 2060 under 'American Nava Nirman Sena' Ticket).
July 2010
July 2011
July 2012...or
By the way things are moving backwards, We will be awarded GC posthumously in a Rose Garden Ceremony by the President (who will be my son since he was born here and eligible to be come President. He will be contesting elections in 2060 under 'American Nava Nirman Sena' Ticket).
more...
gc_on_demand
04-24 09:47 AM
Good Question. Why no one from IV posted that yet?
Guys
If you recall IV posted news that there will be 3 bills in house regarding backlog. Immigration-law.com didnot even know at that time. I agree that IV didnot post about their movement on bill. IV core team might be busy on lobbying. Just wait and watch.
Will there be two bills for STEM and allowing people to file I 485 ?
Guys
If you recall IV posted news that there will be 3 bills in house regarding backlog. Immigration-law.com didnot even know at that time. I agree that IV didnot post about their movement on bill. IV core team might be busy on lobbying. Just wait and watch.
Will there be two bills for STEM and allowing people to file I 485 ?
thamizhan
07-12 01:15 PM
I checked with my lawyer and they mentioned, so far they have not received my packet from USCIS.
Green.Tech
04-08 03:45 PM
Hi,
How many EB3 cases with PD before Dec 01 pending.
My PD is Oct 21st, 01, EB3 (India)
485 Filed in Jun'07, No LUD's since Aug'07
Too many... :)
How many EB3 cases with PD before Dec 01 pending.
My PD is Oct 21st, 01, EB3 (India)
485 Filed in Jun'07, No LUD's since Aug'07
Too many... :)
gcformeornot
12-31 02:22 PM
friends... its not going to affect IV agenda.... no law makers are working these days... we will try hard when they come back...... meanwhile few more clicks will secure your vote.... please do so.........
webm
09-10 05:31 PM
Even i'm in the similar situation..
Online status,CRIS email says AP approval notice mailed on Sep2nd,2009 (TSC), but still haven't received it on hand..
We never know this crazy CIS system...May be have to wait till 30days and call the customer service.:(
Online status,CRIS email says AP approval notice mailed on Sep2nd,2009 (TSC), but still haven't received it on hand..
We never know this crazy CIS system...May be have to wait till 30days and call the customer service.:(
No comments:
Post a Comment