gcnirvana
04-23 12:41 PM
Great to hear that the event was a success. I was one of the volunteers who had the oppurtunity to call CA members and I just have one suggestion. Please update your profiles with your latest email and phone numbers. Of the 25 people I called, atleast 5 or 6 had incorrect phone numbers. One even went to a fax number. The intent for IV is to reach you quickly in such case but looks like the intent for such members is 'do-not-disturb'.
wallpaper Teen superstar Justin Bieber
Indirant
03-07 08:45 PM
Varsha,
I have not heard any reply. waiting for repsonse to Ajay's request.
Thanks
Sekar
I have not heard any reply. waiting for repsonse to Ajay's request.
Thanks
Sekar
BharatPremi
03-17 02:19 PM
Based on your assumptions, it would take around 2 years to reach Dec 2003 for EB3-India.
# of visas required = 5000 or 6000 * 1.75 = 8750 or 10, 500
# of visas available = 5000
# years of wait until Dec 2003 = 1.75 to 2.1 years.
Right. But here USCIS plays its villain role. What happens is USCIS moves clock ahead depending upon last month's "demand." We always think stramline logic.. USCIS does not work that way. It will kick PD to x date for an example Dec 2002. Now at the same time it will keep RD at say for example july 2001..Now it will keep some files eating dust in Name check so end effect is "Some" will get their gC. So next month, seeing this "demand" USCIS will kick PD further.. same game.. I believe at some level it decides seeing it reaching to "3500" limit put a break. So in reality what happen is even though USCIS kicks PD ahead not "all applicants with valid PD" get their GC. If they are unlucky enough to stuck in name check or RD is not being current, they will again wait for years for next kicking cycle start from April 2001.
# of visas required = 5000 or 6000 * 1.75 = 8750 or 10, 500
# of visas available = 5000
# years of wait until Dec 2003 = 1.75 to 2.1 years.
Right. But here USCIS plays its villain role. What happens is USCIS moves clock ahead depending upon last month's "demand." We always think stramline logic.. USCIS does not work that way. It will kick PD to x date for an example Dec 2002. Now at the same time it will keep RD at say for example july 2001..Now it will keep some files eating dust in Name check so end effect is "Some" will get their gC. So next month, seeing this "demand" USCIS will kick PD further.. same game.. I believe at some level it decides seeing it reaching to "3500" limit put a break. So in reality what happen is even though USCIS kicks PD ahead not "all applicants with valid PD" get their GC. If they are unlucky enough to stuck in name check or RD is not being current, they will again wait for years for next kicking cycle start from April 2001.
2011 and selena, vanity fair
bharad
08-11 01:56 PM
A very good point raised by the OP.
Please count me in.
Please count me in.
more...
chnaveen
01-16 03:32 PM
signed up for $20 per month though paypal.
vik352
07-01 04:35 PM
We already participated in the phone campaign. What else we can do in helping the Lofgren bills?
With an online petition and > 1000 signatures, we can mail the copies to media/congressman/President.
With an online petition and > 1000 signatures, we can mail the copies to media/congressman/President.
more...
sumansk
12-20 04:04 PM
:D;)
I dont think you need to worry.. for you knwo what I am saying ...:D
I dont think you need to worry.. for you knwo what I am saying ...:D
2010 Justin Bieber and Selena
andycool
03-16 02:04 PM
141,020 visa numbers used in FY2009
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV.pdf
Look at the last page.
The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is 140,000. So the usage was actually more.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
Hello Desi,
"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 an earlier cut-off date 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.)
Furthermore, Section 202(a)(2) reads, �2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed seven percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or two percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.� The seven percent per-country limit specified in INA 202(a)(2) is considered to be for both Family-sponsored and Employment-based numbers combined.
Allocation of visa numbers under Section 202(e) is accomplished as follows:
1. If based on historical patterns or current demand it appears that during a fiscal year number use by aliens chargeable to a particular country will exceed the per-country numerical limit for both the Family and Employment preferences combined, that country would be considered oversubscribed. Both the Family and Employment preferences would be subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1).
2. Sometimes during a fiscal year it may become apparent that because of a lack of demand in the Family preferences, number use by aliens chargeable to an oversubscribed country will be well within the per-country numerical limit. In such case the excess Family numbers would be made available to the Employment preferences subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1). Each of the first three Employment categories would receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and each of the Fourth and Fifth preference categories 7.1%. (Fall-across would likewise apply if an oversubscribed country lacked sufficient demand in the Employment preferences but had excess demand in the Family preferences.)
If a foreign state other than an oversubscribed country has little Family preference demand but considerable Employment preference demand, the otherwise unused Family numbers fall across to Employment (and vice versa) for purposes of that foreign state�s annual numerical limit. For example, in FY-2009 South Korea used a grand total of 15,899 Family and Employment preference numbers, of which 1,688 were Family numbers and 14,211 were Employment numbers. This grand total was well within the FY-2009 per-country numerical limit of 25,620 Family and Employment numbers combined, so South Korea was not oversubscribed. The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.
This is from April Visa Bulletin , according to this S korea got 14,211 visas from FB ( spill over from FB - EB) then dont you think the total EB visas issued in 2009 should be around 150000 instead of 141000....
I am little confused...
your comment will be greatly appreciated ;)
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV.pdf
Look at the last page.
The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is 140,000. So the usage was actually more.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
Hello Desi,
"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 an earlier cut-off date 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.)
Furthermore, Section 202(a)(2) reads, �2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed seven percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or two percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.� The seven percent per-country limit specified in INA 202(a)(2) is considered to be for both Family-sponsored and Employment-based numbers combined.
Allocation of visa numbers under Section 202(e) is accomplished as follows:
1. If based on historical patterns or current demand it appears that during a fiscal year number use by aliens chargeable to a particular country will exceed the per-country numerical limit for both the Family and Employment preferences combined, that country would be considered oversubscribed. Both the Family and Employment preferences would be subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1).
2. Sometimes during a fiscal year it may become apparent that because of a lack of demand in the Family preferences, number use by aliens chargeable to an oversubscribed country will be well within the per-country numerical limit. In such case the excess Family numbers would be made available to the Employment preferences subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1). Each of the first three Employment categories would receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and each of the Fourth and Fifth preference categories 7.1%. (Fall-across would likewise apply if an oversubscribed country lacked sufficient demand in the Employment preferences but had excess demand in the Family preferences.)
If a foreign state other than an oversubscribed country has little Family preference demand but considerable Employment preference demand, the otherwise unused Family numbers fall across to Employment (and vice versa) for purposes of that foreign state�s annual numerical limit. For example, in FY-2009 South Korea used a grand total of 15,899 Family and Employment preference numbers, of which 1,688 were Family numbers and 14,211 were Employment numbers. This grand total was well within the FY-2009 per-country numerical limit of 25,620 Family and Employment numbers combined, so South Korea was not oversubscribed. The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.
This is from April Visa Bulletin , according to this S korea got 14,211 visas from FB ( spill over from FB - EB) then dont you think the total EB visas issued in 2009 should be around 150000 instead of 141000....
I am little confused...
your comment will be greatly appreciated ;)
more...
Cheran
03-17 12:59 PM
42% of all EB3 Green Card has priority date before December 2003!!! Man I am in deep Sh.. hmm trouble.. :eek:
hair Justin Bieber and Selena
sanjaymk
07-17 06:34 PM
Here is a rough draft of what we could use for the Webfax, please feel free to add/modify and change it to get to the final version. I feel it is a little too long so feel free to suggest your changes.
The Truth Shall Set You Free � Bible.
OR
This country will not be a good place for any of us to live in unless we make it a good place for all of us to live in. ~Theodore Roosevelt
Respected <<Senator>>,
I would like to bring it to your attention some of the false propaganda and myths about highly-skilled H1B workers that are being fabricated and spread among the Senators. Most notable among them is a fax from NumbersUSA organization.
NumbersUSA has been faxing the below document to Senators and Congressman and urging them to vote against the SKIL bill act. I would like to bring it to your attention that this document is filled with blatantly untrue and misleading statements.
Dear [This fax will go to Your U.S. Senators and U.S. Representative ]
I oppose any increase in the annual H-1B visa cap, including those in the SKIL Act. I am counting on you to oppose it.
Here are just a few reasons why I hope you will oppose the SKIL Act:
(1) The six-year visas allow foreign workers to bring in their families, and guarantee thousands of anchor babies.
(2) H-1B salaries are tax-exempt - no FICA, no federal or state income taxes. They can live at the same level as tax-paying Americans at a lower cost. Therefore, Congress allows foreigners to "low-ball" American workers.
(3) H-1Bs can leave the job they came to fill and seek other jobs, not necessarily in the "hard to fill" category.
(4) Most H-1Bs are of a "protected" ethnic group, so H-1Bs have an affirmative action preference when competing with Americans for the same jobs.
I would like to take the second point and prove the fallacy of this vicious propoganda.
A simple google search of the key words (alien taxation), leads me to this IRS document http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=129431,00.html that unambiguously states right at the beginning that
..the controlling principle is that RESIDENT ALIENS are taxed in the same manner as U.S. citizens on their worldwide income
Further links in the same website lucidly and succinctly explains with clear examples the taxes for highly skilled H1B workers(The links to these documents are furnished in the Appendix.)
As a resident of your state I would like my representatives to use their precious votes based on sound facts and information from credible and trustworthy sources, because the last thing a representative would want is their constituents doubting their credibility and decision making.
I sincerely, kindly and respectfully urge you to kindly take this into account while making your decisions in the future.
Respectfully Yours,
<Name>
Appendix.
========
http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc851.html
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=129428,00.html (Example 8 specifically)
================================================== =====
The Truth Shall Set You Free � Bible.
OR
This country will not be a good place for any of us to live in unless we make it a good place for all of us to live in. ~Theodore Roosevelt
Respected <<Senator>>,
I would like to bring it to your attention some of the false propaganda and myths about highly-skilled H1B workers that are being fabricated and spread among the Senators. Most notable among them is a fax from NumbersUSA organization.
NumbersUSA has been faxing the below document to Senators and Congressman and urging them to vote against the SKIL bill act. I would like to bring it to your attention that this document is filled with blatantly untrue and misleading statements.
Dear [This fax will go to Your U.S. Senators and U.S. Representative ]
I oppose any increase in the annual H-1B visa cap, including those in the SKIL Act. I am counting on you to oppose it.
Here are just a few reasons why I hope you will oppose the SKIL Act:
(1) The six-year visas allow foreign workers to bring in their families, and guarantee thousands of anchor babies.
(2) H-1B salaries are tax-exempt - no FICA, no federal or state income taxes. They can live at the same level as tax-paying Americans at a lower cost. Therefore, Congress allows foreigners to "low-ball" American workers.
(3) H-1Bs can leave the job they came to fill and seek other jobs, not necessarily in the "hard to fill" category.
(4) Most H-1Bs are of a "protected" ethnic group, so H-1Bs have an affirmative action preference when competing with Americans for the same jobs.
I would like to take the second point and prove the fallacy of this vicious propoganda.
A simple google search of the key words (alien taxation), leads me to this IRS document http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=129431,00.html that unambiguously states right at the beginning that
..the controlling principle is that RESIDENT ALIENS are taxed in the same manner as U.S. citizens on their worldwide income
Further links in the same website lucidly and succinctly explains with clear examples the taxes for highly skilled H1B workers(The links to these documents are furnished in the Appendix.)
As a resident of your state I would like my representatives to use their precious votes based on sound facts and information from credible and trustworthy sources, because the last thing a representative would want is their constituents doubting their credibility and decision making.
I sincerely, kindly and respectfully urge you to kindly take this into account while making your decisions in the future.
Respectfully Yours,
<Name>
Appendix.
========
http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc851.html
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=129428,00.html (Example 8 specifically)
================================================== =====
more...
no538
06-06 04:16 PM
Hi bodhi_tree and amitpan007,
Were there any LUD's on your application before the approval?
Thanks.
Were there any LUD's on your application before the approval?
Thanks.
hot Selena Gomez and Justin Bieber
yabayaba
06-11 10:41 AM
Done
more...
house 12 of 24. Selena
delax
07-14 07:39 PM
Yes. I VOLUNTARILY exclude myself from any such potential benefit.
BTW did you get a discount from Murthy for defending the firm on this website? Most of your posts are all about defending.
Great - You have your conscience to answer about excluding yourself - hopefully you will walk the talk - if not, so much for your commitment to "Gandhigiri".
And Oh! BTW I did not get a discount - but I atleast dont hurl allegations before I know the facts. Its a pity that you are missing the forest for the trees - I dont think I am defending anybody here. But just because Murthy Law Firm is more visible than a John Doe Law Office, does not make her more guilty or for that matter more innocent. She may be as guilty or as innocent as any other lawyer - her letter will only help not harm. If she takes undue credit for it "Gandhigiri" would require us to send her flowers - not hurl allegations.
Let us practice what we preach - or is the preaching only to show USCIS - since you have a vested interest there. Ask yourself this question. I dont need to tell you the answer. Cheers
BTW did you get a discount from Murthy for defending the firm on this website? Most of your posts are all about defending.
Great - You have your conscience to answer about excluding yourself - hopefully you will walk the talk - if not, so much for your commitment to "Gandhigiri".
And Oh! BTW I did not get a discount - but I atleast dont hurl allegations before I know the facts. Its a pity that you are missing the forest for the trees - I dont think I am defending anybody here. But just because Murthy Law Firm is more visible than a John Doe Law Office, does not make her more guilty or for that matter more innocent. She may be as guilty or as innocent as any other lawyer - her letter will only help not harm. If she takes undue credit for it "Gandhigiri" would require us to send her flowers - not hurl allegations.
Let us practice what we preach - or is the preaching only to show USCIS - since you have a vested interest there. Ask yourself this question. I dont need to tell you the answer. Cheers
tattoo Selena Gomez and Justin Bieber
kittu1991
03-17 01:56 PM
Thanks
Just commented on it since he has nothing better to do.
Just commented on it since he has nothing better to do.
more...
pictures Selena Gomez Justin Bieber
rayoflight
03-09 04:54 PM
I just called my congressman office and explained the sitatuion. The aide asked me to call the legislative aide in the Capitol Hill to discuss about changes. She said the congressman understands the importance however the political fraternity is currently trying to resolve the financial crisis and Immigration Reform is the last thing on their mind.
When I asked her honest opinion about visa numbers being released she did suggest that if you can join an immigration group with a good lobbying firm it can be a possibility that Congress can approve a 'piece-meal' bill releasing visa numbers by moving numbers from unused categories and/or unused from past years.
Again the emphasis was "Group focusing on Legal Immigration with a good Lobbying Firm".
Administrators, Senior Members and All:
I think it is the time to plan something big as 'Saburi' mentioned and bring our issues to their attention.
Please count me in for any rallies / organizing help.
All IV members please weigh in your thoughts.
Thanks,
Rayoflight
When I asked her honest opinion about visa numbers being released she did suggest that if you can join an immigration group with a good lobbying firm it can be a possibility that Congress can approve a 'piece-meal' bill releasing visa numbers by moving numbers from unused categories and/or unused from past years.
Again the emphasis was "Group focusing on Legal Immigration with a good Lobbying Firm".
Administrators, Senior Members and All:
I think it is the time to plan something big as 'Saburi' mentioned and bring our issues to their attention.
Please count me in for any rallies / organizing help.
All IV members please weigh in your thoughts.
Thanks,
Rayoflight
dresses Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez
ramus
07-02 08:16 PM
Thanks.. Please ask others to contribute..
Contributed $100 in the evening
Contributed $100 in the evening
more...
makeup selena gomez and justin bieber
kartikiran
08-21 09:48 AM
welcome to the world of dealing with USCIS
I am outraged that after not hearing ONE thing from them in over 2 years, that all of a sudden I am supposed to come up with all this stuff, hand over money I don't have and still not be assured my green card.
.
.
.
I am really ticked with USCIS and their utter lack of correspondence and then expecting me to bleed money from a stone for them. They are not in any hurry to process my application so why do I need to be? I've been here this long, what's another few years?
Has anyone else dealt with this or can you direct me to someone who knows what needs to be done and how?
I am outraged that after not hearing ONE thing from them in over 2 years, that all of a sudden I am supposed to come up with all this stuff, hand over money I don't have and still not be assured my green card.
.
.
.
I am really ticked with USCIS and their utter lack of correspondence and then expecting me to bleed money from a stone for them. They are not in any hurry to process my application so why do I need to be? I've been here this long, what's another few years?
Has anyone else dealt with this or can you direct me to someone who knows what needs to be done and how?
girlfriend Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez
SunnySurya
07-28 10:18 AM
If the Christ and Mother Mary can be on the bottle of wine,
If the wine can be served in church,
If the Madiras can be mentioned extensively in the relegious text,
Etc...
Then why not Lord Ganesha can be on a bottle. I think it acts more like a stop sign, a sort of warning label to all the habitual drinkers:
" Drinking and driving is hazardous to your health. Please exercise judgement"
Hi all,
I am not sure whether I should add this over here or not but I could not resist and I don't know any other way.
I went to a wine shop and was shocked to see cartoon of Ganesha used on the bottle of India Pale Beer. I am not a religious person but this thing made me nervous. Please let me know how this can be protested.
Thanks
If the wine can be served in church,
If the Madiras can be mentioned extensively in the relegious text,
Etc...
Then why not Lord Ganesha can be on a bottle. I think it acts more like a stop sign, a sort of warning label to all the habitual drinkers:
" Drinking and driving is hazardous to your health. Please exercise judgement"
Hi all,
I am not sure whether I should add this over here or not but I could not resist and I don't know any other way.
I went to a wine shop and was shocked to see cartoon of Ganesha used on the bottle of India Pale Beer. I am not a religious person but this thing made me nervous. Please let me know how this can be protested.
Thanks
hairstyles Justin Bieber amp; Selena Gomez
InTheMoment
05-26 07:13 PM
Actually entire state of NH is within 100 miles of Canada and the coast.
I feel the 100 mile rule is very reasonable and Border Patrol has every right to conduct random searches, question or detain whoever they suspect is breaking the law. Since it is clear that they could do that in this area, it is absolutely no burden for me to carry my papers when traveling here. At least it is easy when I know where the enforcement will be tighter. Harassment... absolutely not! I would so encourage something similar in my own country :)
I myself was once stopped on a cold December night in 2003 in VT on I-91 by the border patrol and all 4 occupants in the car were questioned about citizenship. We showed our I-94's. We felt good that there is someone is actually doing the enforcement of immigration laws.
Found this when I googled. Borderpatrol seems to have the authority to do whatever they did within 100 miles off any international border. It falls under 8 CFR 287.1. Entire state of NH is within 100 miles of Canada.
http://www.usborderpatrol.com/Border_Patrol608_2.htm
I feel the 100 mile rule is very reasonable and Border Patrol has every right to conduct random searches, question or detain whoever they suspect is breaking the law. Since it is clear that they could do that in this area, it is absolutely no burden for me to carry my papers when traveling here. At least it is easy when I know where the enforcement will be tighter. Harassment... absolutely not! I would so encourage something similar in my own country :)
I myself was once stopped on a cold December night in 2003 in VT on I-91 by the border patrol and all 4 occupants in the car were questioned about citizenship. We showed our I-94's. We felt good that there is someone is actually doing the enforcement of immigration laws.
Found this when I googled. Borderpatrol seems to have the authority to do whatever they did within 100 miles off any international border. It falls under 8 CFR 287.1. Entire state of NH is within 100 miles of Canada.
http://www.usborderpatrol.com/Border_Patrol608_2.htm
gg_ny
08-15 05:30 PM
There is nothing shocking about it. This is how CIS works: move it slowly so that when the new numbers come in w.e.f. october, they can take it forward. EB2 India is where it was in the June bulletin. Thru oct 2007 it should move a few months as there was a big rush to file before Oct. 2005. In fact, Oct 2009 bulletin should be great because the retrogression started in oct 2005 and the applicants in the period between April 2004 - Sept 2005 should be covered (hopefully) in the fiscal year of Oct 2007 to Sept 2008. And a whole new year quota of numbers will be available for the first few months starting from Oct.2008 with not many takers and that could spill over to EB3 retrogressed.
DesiGuy
09-13 10:59 AM
YES...good idea, we need it (gave u a green).
but (there's always one;)) at the moment, since time is short,
lets be FOCUSsed on calling the REPs.
Energy flows where Focus goes
but (there's always one;)) at the moment, since time is short,
lets be FOCUSsed on calling the REPs.
Energy flows where Focus goes
