k_usa
08-17 07:30 AM
Smisachu,
I am happy for you. The process indeed takes an emotional toll on us. Thanks for the heads up about the type of mail. I will be careful to watch out for "credit card offer" type snail mails.
After you get the CPO, the whole process seems to be automated. I think USCIS is using some workflow Product.
I guess in 80 to 90% of the cases , after CPO you shud expect your card in 11 days.
I am happy for you. The process indeed takes an emotional toll on us. Thanks for the heads up about the type of mail. I will be careful to watch out for "credit card offer" type snail mails.
After you get the CPO, the whole process seems to be automated. I think USCIS is using some workflow Product.
I guess in 80 to 90% of the cases , after CPO you shud expect your card in 11 days.
wallpaper Compaq TC1100 Tablet PC (1.0
vignesh
09-13 09:50 AM
PD: 22nd March 2006
Opened a SR on 7th Sept and wrote a request to local Congress man.
Approval: 10th Sept
Got a email approval for spouse on 10th Sept ! No changes seen in my status online but I got a response for my SR request that my case is also approved on 10th Sept, the email from SR came on 10th Sept.
Till date no changes to my status online but when you call the USCIS toll free number, I do here my case is approved on 10th Sept.
Just sharing my experience and thanks to Immigration voice forum.
Opened a SR on 7th Sept and wrote a request to local Congress man.
Approval: 10th Sept
Got a email approval for spouse on 10th Sept ! No changes seen in my status online but I got a response for my SR request that my case is also approved on 10th Sept, the email from SR came on 10th Sept.
Till date no changes to my status online but when you call the USCIS toll free number, I do here my case is approved on 10th Sept.
Just sharing my experience and thanks to Immigration voice forum.
Honda
09-23 11:47 PM
No one is answering for this question in this forum. It makes one to think that no one bothers about EB3 guys.:(
Exactly you are right. Right now they are concentrating on EB2 only. Once the EB2 becomes Current all the visas are rollover to EB3.
Exactly you are right. Right now they are concentrating on EB2 only. Once the EB2 becomes Current all the visas are rollover to EB3.
2011 Notebook Speaker for PC
singhv_1980
02-05 01:40 PM
I've been stuck in India now for 55 days !:mad:
I am sure you must have given this information earlier but can you please tell me where did you apply? And was it your first stamping or a renewal case?
Also are u stuck coz of PIMS or 221 g clause?
Thanks
I am sure you must have given this information earlier but can you please tell me where did you apply? And was it your first stamping or a renewal case?
Also are u stuck coz of PIMS or 221 g clause?
Thanks
more...
Humhongekamyab
08-25 02:48 PM
Let it be 5000 min/pm. Still, 5000 min/month give about 2.7 hours per day. Talking 2.7 hours to India per 24 hours is unusual for many. I don't even get 30 minutes to talk. Even if we want to talk 2.7 hours you will be distrbing people in India, as they may be watching cricket or Tv serials.:)
Any way, this pan is simply superb compare to the situation before 10 years. Compare to many phone providers/cable compaines, vonage customer service is simply great, at least in my experience.
Ok...the way I see this is 5000min/month at $25 (not adding taxes) is 5 cents a minutes...that is more than what I pay for my calling cards....bottom line....if your monthly calling bill is less than $ 25 there is no reason why you should get Vonage.
Any way, this pan is simply superb compare to the situation before 10 years. Compare to many phone providers/cable compaines, vonage customer service is simply great, at least in my experience.
Ok...the way I see this is 5000min/month at $25 (not adding taxes) is 5 cents a minutes...that is more than what I pay for my calling cards....bottom line....if your monthly calling bill is less than $ 25 there is no reason why you should get Vonage.
adusumilli
09-24 11:48 AM
28.6%/5 = 5.72% for EB3-India + Spillover from EB2 and EB1, not more than 10,000 of which to "Other Workers".
28.6%/5 = 5.72% for EB2-India + spillover from EB1
28.6%/5 = 5.72% for EB1-India + spillover from EB4 and EB5
Each category is 28.6% WW Quota.
WW Quota consists of 5 country specific sub-quotas 1)India 2)China 3) Mexico 4) Philipines 5)ROW.
Based on page 1, I do math as under for Philippines categories.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota for EB4 -->7% x 140000/5=1960, Pending: 70 Quota to be spilled over to EB1= 1890
2) Quota for EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 0 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1960
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 1890 + EB5 spillover 1960 = 11858 - pending 74 = Total
11784 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 11784 =19792, Pending: 510, So total 19282 VISA numbers will be spilled
over to EB3.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 19282 spill over =27290 - 11563 Pending = 15727 VISA extra.
6) �Other Workers� � Pending: 264 TOTAL UNUSED VISAS = 15727-264 = 15463 UNUSED VISAS will go to the quota
of other countries.
Based on page 3, I do math as under for ROW categories.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota for EB4 -->7% x 140000/5=1960, Pending: 1378 Quota to be spilled over to EB1= 582
2) Quota for EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 40 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1920
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 582 + EB5 spillover 1920 = 10510 - pending 2477 = Total
8033 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 8033 =16031, Pending: 7150, So total 8881 VISA numbers will be spilled
over to EB3.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 8881 spill over =16889. Pending: 62840 -16889 = 45951 applications will
still be pending and pushed to year 2011.
Based on page 4, I do math as under for China categories.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota For EB4 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 384 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1576
2) Quota For EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 13 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1947
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 1576 + EB5 spillover 1947 = 11531 - pending 607 =
Total 10924 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 10924 =18932, Pending: 19333, So total 401 applications will be pushed to
year 2011 with pending approval.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + no spillover = 8008 � 6343 Pending = 1665 visas Extra.
6) �Other Workers� � Pending: 30 TOTAL UNUSED VISAS = 1665-30 = 1635 UNUSED VISAS will go to the quota
of other countries.
Based on page 5, I do math as under for India categories.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota for EB4 -->7% x 140000/5=1960, Pending: 123 Quota to be spilled over to EB1= 1960-123 = 1837
2) Quota for EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 13 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1960-13 = 1947
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 1837 + EB5 spillover 1947 = 11792 - pending 418 = Total
11374 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 11374 =19382, Pending: 47728, So total 28346 applications will still be
pending for year 2011.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008, no spill over. Pending: 62607 -8008 = 54599 applications will still be pending
and pushed to year 2011.
Based on page 6, I do math as under for Mexico categories.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota For EB4 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 62 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1960-62=1898
2) Quota For EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 0 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1960
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 1898 + EB5 spillover 1960 = 11866 - pending 174 =
Total 11692 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 11692 =19700, Pending: 211, So total 19489 applications will spill over to
EB3 category.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 19489 spillover = 27497 � 7878 Pending = 19619 visas Extra.
6) �Other Workers� � Pending: 8415 TOTAL UNUSED VISAS = 19619-8415 = 11204 UNUSED VISAS will go to the quota
of other countries.
TOTAL UNUSED VISAS = 15463 + 1635 + 11204 = 28302.
Assuming these unused visas from Philippines, China and Mexico will be used for India, ROW equally India will benefit additional 14151 VISAS this year. Assuming all of these go to EB2 India Pushed down figure for EB2-India for the year 2011 will be 28346 � 14151 = 14195 pending EB2-I applications ready to go to year 2011.
How did you come up with dividing by 5 that is like 20% per country. isn't the cap 7% per country?
28.6%/5 = 5.72% for EB2-India + spillover from EB1
28.6%/5 = 5.72% for EB1-India + spillover from EB4 and EB5
Each category is 28.6% WW Quota.
WW Quota consists of 5 country specific sub-quotas 1)India 2)China 3) Mexico 4) Philipines 5)ROW.
Based on page 1, I do math as under for Philippines categories.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota for EB4 -->7% x 140000/5=1960, Pending: 70 Quota to be spilled over to EB1= 1890
2) Quota for EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 0 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1960
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 1890 + EB5 spillover 1960 = 11858 - pending 74 = Total
11784 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 11784 =19792, Pending: 510, So total 19282 VISA numbers will be spilled
over to EB3.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 19282 spill over =27290 - 11563 Pending = 15727 VISA extra.
6) �Other Workers� � Pending: 264 TOTAL UNUSED VISAS = 15727-264 = 15463 UNUSED VISAS will go to the quota
of other countries.
Based on page 3, I do math as under for ROW categories.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota for EB4 -->7% x 140000/5=1960, Pending: 1378 Quota to be spilled over to EB1= 582
2) Quota for EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 40 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1920
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 582 + EB5 spillover 1920 = 10510 - pending 2477 = Total
8033 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 8033 =16031, Pending: 7150, So total 8881 VISA numbers will be spilled
over to EB3.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 8881 spill over =16889. Pending: 62840 -16889 = 45951 applications will
still be pending and pushed to year 2011.
Based on page 4, I do math as under for China categories.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota For EB4 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 384 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1576
2) Quota For EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 13 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1947
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 1576 + EB5 spillover 1947 = 11531 - pending 607 =
Total 10924 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 10924 =18932, Pending: 19333, So total 401 applications will be pushed to
year 2011 with pending approval.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + no spillover = 8008 � 6343 Pending = 1665 visas Extra.
6) �Other Workers� � Pending: 30 TOTAL UNUSED VISAS = 1665-30 = 1635 UNUSED VISAS will go to the quota
of other countries.
Based on page 5, I do math as under for India categories.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota for EB4 -->7% x 140000/5=1960, Pending: 123 Quota to be spilled over to EB1= 1960-123 = 1837
2) Quota for EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 13 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1960-13 = 1947
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 1837 + EB5 spillover 1947 = 11792 - pending 418 = Total
11374 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 11374 =19382, Pending: 47728, So total 28346 applications will still be
pending for year 2011.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008, no spill over. Pending: 62607 -8008 = 54599 applications will still be pending
and pushed to year 2011.
Based on page 6, I do math as under for Mexico categories.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota For EB4 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 62 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1960-62=1898
2) Quota For EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 0 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1960
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 1898 + EB5 spillover 1960 = 11866 - pending 174 =
Total 11692 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 11692 =19700, Pending: 211, So total 19489 applications will spill over to
EB3 category.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 19489 spillover = 27497 � 7878 Pending = 19619 visas Extra.
6) �Other Workers� � Pending: 8415 TOTAL UNUSED VISAS = 19619-8415 = 11204 UNUSED VISAS will go to the quota
of other countries.
TOTAL UNUSED VISAS = 15463 + 1635 + 11204 = 28302.
Assuming these unused visas from Philippines, China and Mexico will be used for India, ROW equally India will benefit additional 14151 VISAS this year. Assuming all of these go to EB2 India Pushed down figure for EB2-India for the year 2011 will be 28346 � 14151 = 14195 pending EB2-I applications ready to go to year 2011.
How did you come up with dividing by 5 that is like 20% per country. isn't the cap 7% per country?
more...
Green_Print
07-11 03:28 AM
In such trying times its awesome to find individuals in the media willing to lend a receptive ear to the hardships faced by all of us and write a wonderful news article on it. Its even more significant especially because when people who should be listening to our concerns and who have the ability to address these issues have turned deaf ears.
She and other media personnel who have helped highlight this issue deserve at least a thank you note.
Just my thoughts.....
Dear Non-Indian Members,
When Xiyun Yang talked to me yesterday, I did mention that there are more Chinese and Pakistanis and people from other countries
She was very much interested in talking to them. ( I had mentioned this in my previous post, but would have got lost in the barrage of posts in the last few days)
I would suggest, that non-Indians, please contact Xiyun @
email:yangx@washpost.com
office phone: 202 334 6701
Also, please leave a comment on her article in the washington post and mention which country you belong and how this is also your issue, as much as everybody else
We definitely want to make this an universal issue and not just an Indian Issue
Anand Sharma
She and other media personnel who have helped highlight this issue deserve at least a thank you note.
Just my thoughts.....
Dear Non-Indian Members,
When Xiyun Yang talked to me yesterday, I did mention that there are more Chinese and Pakistanis and people from other countries
She was very much interested in talking to them. ( I had mentioned this in my previous post, but would have got lost in the barrage of posts in the last few days)
I would suggest, that non-Indians, please contact Xiyun @
email:yangx@washpost.com
office phone: 202 334 6701
Also, please leave a comment on her article in the washington post and mention which country you belong and how this is also your issue, as much as everybody else
We definitely want to make this an universal issue and not just an Indian Issue
Anand Sharma
2010 Compaq Presario SR2020NX
anilkumar0902
08-17 01:39 PM
Congrats, Anil. I know it's a big relief....enjoy your freedom..
Thanks gbof..
Thanks gbof..
more...
whitecollarslave
04-17 06:26 PM
8 USC 1324b
(a)(1) General rule
It is an unfair immigration-related employment practice for a person or other entity to discriminate against any individual (other than an unauthorized alien, as defined in section 1324a (h)(3) of this title) with respect to the hiring, or recruitment or referral for a fee, of the individual for employment or the discharging of the individual from employment—
(A) because of such individual’s national origin, or
(B) in the case of a protected individual (as defined in paragraph (3)), because of such individual’s citizenship status.
(3) “Protected individual” defined
As used in paragraph (1), the term “protected individual” means an individual who—
(A) is a citizen or national of the United States, or
(B) is an alien who is lawfully admitted for permanent residence, is granted the status of an alien lawfully admitted for temporary residence under section 1160 (a) or 1255a (a)(1) of this title, is admitted as a refugee under section 1157 of this title, or is granted asylum under section 1158 of this title;
(4) Additional exception providing right to prefer equally qualified citizens
Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, it is not an unfair immigration-related employment practice for a person or other entity to prefer to hire, recruit, or refer an individual who is a citizen or national of the United States over another individual who is an alien if the two individuals are equally qualified.
So EAD folks are excluded from "protected individuals" and employer has a right to prefer US citizens according to this.
I disagree with your conclusion. The employer has the right to prefer US Citizens over another individual only if the two individuals are equally qualified. For the cases mentioned in this thread, employers have flatly refused to consider anybody on EAD. So the clause of preference to US citizens does not apply. The you posted is the original text and does not include amendments or changes.
If you read up on section 1160 (a) or 1255a (a)(1) you will find that it includes people who have filed for AOS. It is my understanding that an EB immigrant with AOS pending is included in the "alien lawfully admitted for temporary residence under section 1160 (a) or 1255a (a)(1)" category. I am not a lawyer and could be wrong but this is my interpretation. If you are on H-1B, this does not apply. But if you have EAD and AOS pending this should apply. There is no way for an employer to distinguish between an EB immigrant with EAD and AOS pending v/s a FB immigrant with EAD and AOS pending.
(a)(1) General rule
It is an unfair immigration-related employment practice for a person or other entity to discriminate against any individual (other than an unauthorized alien, as defined in section 1324a (h)(3) of this title) with respect to the hiring, or recruitment or referral for a fee, of the individual for employment or the discharging of the individual from employment—
(A) because of such individual’s national origin, or
(B) in the case of a protected individual (as defined in paragraph (3)), because of such individual’s citizenship status.
(3) “Protected individual” defined
As used in paragraph (1), the term “protected individual” means an individual who—
(A) is a citizen or national of the United States, or
(B) is an alien who is lawfully admitted for permanent residence, is granted the status of an alien lawfully admitted for temporary residence under section 1160 (a) or 1255a (a)(1) of this title, is admitted as a refugee under section 1157 of this title, or is granted asylum under section 1158 of this title;
(4) Additional exception providing right to prefer equally qualified citizens
Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, it is not an unfair immigration-related employment practice for a person or other entity to prefer to hire, recruit, or refer an individual who is a citizen or national of the United States over another individual who is an alien if the two individuals are equally qualified.
So EAD folks are excluded from "protected individuals" and employer has a right to prefer US citizens according to this.
I disagree with your conclusion. The employer has the right to prefer US Citizens over another individual only if the two individuals are equally qualified. For the cases mentioned in this thread, employers have flatly refused to consider anybody on EAD. So the clause of preference to US citizens does not apply. The you posted is the original text and does not include amendments or changes.
If you read up on section 1160 (a) or 1255a (a)(1) you will find that it includes people who have filed for AOS. It is my understanding that an EB immigrant with AOS pending is included in the "alien lawfully admitted for temporary residence under section 1160 (a) or 1255a (a)(1)" category. I am not a lawyer and could be wrong but this is my interpretation. If you are on H-1B, this does not apply. But if you have EAD and AOS pending this should apply. There is no way for an employer to distinguish between an EB immigrant with EAD and AOS pending v/s a FB immigrant with EAD and AOS pending.
hair Compaq Presario SR2020NX
little_willy
11-20 01:43 PM
Same here.
I received the same thing. A canned reply asking to use their phone lines for inquiries. They returned my original envelope as well as my letter :rolleyes:
No responses from anyone else.
I received the same thing. A canned reply asking to use their phone lines for inquiries. They returned my original envelope as well as my letter :rolleyes:
No responses from anyone else.
more...
jayz
01-10 02:54 PM
I just mailed my letter to the President, CC-ed Senators from my state, Congresswoman from my district and of course, IV. I also attached my past correspondance with the lawmakers to the letter, so they know that this has been an on-going struggle from the grassroot level.
hot Used Laptop*COMPAQ Presario C
grupak
03-27 04:34 PM
The Federal government has a whole agency to protect people against such discrimination, and we are here speculating on nuances. If somebody denied you employment on EAD, just talk to them and see what they say. You don't need anything in writing.
Agree. Most of us are not lawyers. Why add another job duty? The only legal document that I ever sign concerning employment is the I-9. It say discriminating EAD is illegal, and should be reported. Just go with that to the govt. As it is we are spending so much time to just maintain legal status. Let DOJ, DHS do their job, and not worry about every single detail.
Tell me whats the point of IV fighting for multi-year EAD (maybe good news is around the corner) if employers won't take it.
Agree. Most of us are not lawyers. Why add another job duty? The only legal document that I ever sign concerning employment is the I-9. It say discriminating EAD is illegal, and should be reported. Just go with that to the govt. As it is we are spending so much time to just maintain legal status. Let DOJ, DHS do their job, and not worry about every single detail.
Tell me whats the point of IV fighting for multi-year EAD (maybe good news is around the corner) if employers won't take it.
more...
house SRS PC Sound, “Air tight”
gcdreamer05
11-03 03:34 PM
Not going anywhere, just providing the updates. We got what we wanted but a the same time did not like the way we got it.
How much did you spend for getting this done ? And are you really happy with what this has resulted in to, now all those in computer information manager - lc will get in to trouble, more audits.
Was this really needed?
How much did you spend for getting this done ? And are you really happy with what this has resulted in to, now all those in computer information manager - lc will get in to trouble, more audits.
Was this really needed?
tattoo HP Compaq Tablet PC TC1100
shreekhand
09-12 10:52 AM
wait for atleast 4 (6 is better still) months to figure out if it is in the "stuck in NC" status !
but it is pending with FBI since Aug 1st. Looks like they also check for fragmented names.
This is my opinion, not an advise. Use it at your own risk.
but it is pending with FBI since Aug 1st. Looks like they also check for fragmented names.
This is my opinion, not an advise. Use it at your own risk.
more...
pictures Compaq 15.6quot; Presario
waitnwatch
08-21 12:33 PM
Yes, the same law can be interpreted like this:
EB1-ROW unused visa will go to EB2-ROW
EB2-ROW unused visa will go to EB3-ROW
Same for each country.
But its not happening. What actually is happening that they are giving unused visa from EB1-ROW to EB2-ROW to EB2-I/C. WHY?
So EB3-ROW is retrogressed bcoz it doesn't get any spillover and hence it affect EB3-I.
So where is the correct interpretation? Does any body know?
Don't take me wrong here. I don't favor EB3-ROW or any particular category. I am EB3-I with PD Nov 2002.
The bottom line is that there should not exist such severe retrogression and that is what all of us should work to remove. But the law is what it is -
The law makes allotment between categories (EB1, EB2 and EB3) in Sec. 203 of the INA. Section 202 talks about country limit (note the exception clause which provides for the parallel distribution as the country limit becomes invalid if more visas are available in a category than is consumed using per country limitation).
Excerpt from Section 202 of the INA
(2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. - Subject to 1a/ 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 7 percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or 2 percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.
(3) Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter.
EB1-ROW unused visa will go to EB2-ROW
EB2-ROW unused visa will go to EB3-ROW
Same for each country.
But its not happening. What actually is happening that they are giving unused visa from EB1-ROW to EB2-ROW to EB2-I/C. WHY?
So EB3-ROW is retrogressed bcoz it doesn't get any spillover and hence it affect EB3-I.
So where is the correct interpretation? Does any body know?
Don't take me wrong here. I don't favor EB3-ROW or any particular category. I am EB3-I with PD Nov 2002.
The bottom line is that there should not exist such severe retrogression and that is what all of us should work to remove. But the law is what it is -
The law makes allotment between categories (EB1, EB2 and EB3) in Sec. 203 of the INA. Section 202 talks about country limit (note the exception clause which provides for the parallel distribution as the country limit becomes invalid if more visas are available in a category than is consumed using per country limitation).
Excerpt from Section 202 of the INA
(2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. - Subject to 1a/ 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 7 percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or 2 percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.
(3) Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter.
dresses A more powerful Compaq system
pranju
06-15 01:30 PM
i want to confim abt the G28 ( i guess it is not needed if we are filing on our own ) i see it is there in the checklist you have provided on the firstpage
thanks
thanks
more...
makeup Newegg offers the HP Compaq
tapsemi
05-27 07:37 PM
My priority date is current now and my company has already filed for my I-140. I have have two questions:
1) My wife converted from H4 to H1b last year end and she has not gone out of the country to get any H1b stamp. Will this complicate things? Does she need to go out to get a valid H1b stamp? In case of any trouble, will it be easy for us it she converts back to H4 again?
2) I saw that I485 processing times are taking about 6 months at the CA service center. Hence, under the current conditions, what is a better choice go: for Consular processing or Adjustment of Status? Thanks. :confused:
1) My wife converted from H4 to H1b last year end and she has not gone out of the country to get any H1b stamp. Will this complicate things? Does she need to go out to get a valid H1b stamp? In case of any trouble, will it be easy for us it she converts back to H4 again?
2) I saw that I485 processing times are taking about 6 months at the CA service center. Hence, under the current conditions, what is a better choice go: for Consular processing or Adjustment of Status? Thanks. :confused:
girlfriend Dell Adamo 13 Notebook
Macaca
12-05 05:16 PM
AMY GOODMAN: OK, Lou, let�s talk about some of the guests you�ve had on your show.
LOU DOBBS: Sure.
AMY GOODMAN: For example, Barbara Coe, leader of the California Coalition for Immigration Reform,�
LOU DOBBS: She�s not a guest. You�re reading from the Southern Poverty Law Center�
AMY GOODMAN: �quoted�just one second�
LOU DOBBS: She was not a guest.
AMY GOODMAN: I am going to look at the�as you said, you actually felt that the Southern Poverty Law Center was so important�
LOU DOBBS: It�s a joke.
AMY GOODMAN: �in getting information�
LOU DOBBS: It�s a joke.
AMY GOODMAN: �that you sent your producers down there to get information so that you wouldn�t represent hate groups on the air.
LOU DOBBS: In their responses, they�re nothing but a fundraising organization�
AMY GOODMAN: So let me�
LOU DOBBS: �and they�re indulging in pure BS.
AMY GOODMAN: OK. Now, let me just�
LOU DOBBS: And so are you, when you quote them.
AMY GOODMAN: Let me just talk about some of the guests that you have had on�
LOU DOBBS: Sure. They�re not guests.
AMY GOODMAN: �or quoted on the show.
LOU DOBBS: Barbara Coe was never a guest.
AMY GOODMAN: No. She was quoted on the show�
LOU DOBBS: That�s different.
AMY GOODMAN: �bitterly attacking Home Depot for betraying Americans, apparently because Hispanic day laborers often gather in front of the store looking for work. Not mentioned were her group, listed by the Southern Poverty Leadership Council as a hate group, or the fact that she routinely refers to Mexicans as �savages.� Coe recently described herself as a member of the Council of Conservative Citizens, the white pride group formed from the remnants�
LOU DOBBS: What year was that?
AMY GOODMAN: �of the segregationist White Citizens� Council of the �50s and �60s,�
LOU DOBBS: What year was she�
AMY GOODMAN: �which Thurgood Marshall called the �Uptown Klan.�
LOU DOBBS: My god, Amy, what year was that on our broadcast? What year?
AMY GOODMAN: Not clear. You can tell me what year was it on your broadcast.
LOU DOBBS: Well, actually, I can, but it was years ago. And it was before we knew what the heck was going on.
AMY GOODMAN: I�m going to talk about a few other people.
LOU DOBBS: Sure.
AMY GOODMAN: Glenn Spencer, head of the anti-immigration American Patrol, has been interviewed at least twice on the show in 2004, maybe many more times after�I don�t know. Spencer�s website is jammed with anti-Mexican vitriol. He pushes the idea the Mexican government is involved in a secret plot to take over the Southwest�
LOU DOBBS: OK.
AMY GOODMAN: �facts never mentioned on your show. His group is regarded as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League.
LOU DOBBS: You know, well, I really don�t care what�
AMY GOODMAN: Spencer has spoken at least twice to the white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens.
LOU DOBBS: You know, I got to be honest with you. I have no knowledge of this fellow. I have no idea�and you�re not telling me when he was on the broadcast.
AMY GOODMAN: You had him on the show. I said�
LOU DOBBS: No, I did not have him on the show. He was quoted�
AMY GOODMAN: January 7th�
LOU DOBBS: He was either quoted in a piece�
AMY GOODMAN: No, no, no. No, no, Lou. On January 7, 2004, and June 4, 2004�
LOU DOBBS: Ah!
AMY GOODMAN: �he was interviewed on your broadcast.
LOU DOBBS: He was not on our broadcast. He may have been in a field report. He was not on our broadcast. And, Amy, let me ask you a question: have you checked to see how many guests we�ve had on our show in the course of�what is that?�
AMY GOODMAN: You have had many.
LOU DOBBS: �three-and-a-half years? No, I mean�
AMY GOODMAN: You have had many.
LOU DOBBS: �let�s get a number. What do you think? Why are you focusing on two or three?
AMY GOODMAN: I can go on and on.
LOU DOBBS: OK, keep going. How many?
AMY GOODMAN: But I think the important point here�
LOU DOBBS: Give us a total. Give us a total of the number of guests you object to.
AMY GOODMAN: Lou, I just want to say something here. You just said to Juan, can�t he take a joke, when you talk about the incursion, Mexico taking over the United States. Yet, it is a growing theme. It is a continuing thread in your broadcast. This guy, Glenn Spencer, whether he said this on your show or not, Dobbs has not�
LOU DOBBS: Oh, no, no.
AMY GOODMAN: Just one second�has not mentioned his ties to American�
LOU DOBBS: Now I�m supposed to be�
AMY GOODMAN: Yes, you have to know who�
LOU DOBBS: I�m supposed to be responsible for what he says off my broadcast?
AMY GOODMAN: No. You should know that he was tied to American Renaissance, the group that says blacks are genetically inferior to whites. You didn�t report those ties or mention Spencer�s�
LOU DOBBS: Do you think we knew it?
AMY GOODMAN: �more wild-eyed contentions�
LOU DOBBS: Do you think we knew it?
AMY GOODMAN: �such as his�
LOU DOBBS: Amy, do you really think we knew it?
AMY GOODMAN: Just listen to this�such as his prediction�
LOU DOBBS: Do you really believe we knew that?
AMY GOODMAN: �that thousands will die in a supposedly forthcoming Mexican invasion.
LOU DOBBS: Oh, come on! You�re giving Glenn Spencer and other detestable people who would make such comments about more air time than anybody.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Lou�
LOU DOBBS: You have just given him more air�
AMY GOODMAN: But, Lou�
LOU DOBBS: �than I would have ever, and I�
AMY GOODMAN: But, Lou, let me make a final point.
LOU DOBBS: Go back and look at the quotes.
AMY GOODMAN: Let me make a final point.
LOU DOBBS: Who�s giving him more air time? You.
AMY GOODMAN: Your colleague, Wolf Blitzer�
LOU DOBBS: Yeah?
AMY GOODMAN: �on the other hand, also featured Spencer on his own show, but reported Mexico�s official response that SPLC, Southern Poverty Leadership Council�s hate group designation, said that he was a member of a hate group, as designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center. So we�re not�
LOU DOBBS: What year was that?
AMY GOODMAN: What I�m saying is that Wolf�
LOU DOBBS: What year was Wolf Blitzer?
AMY GOODMAN: �Blitzer identified him; you did not.
LOU DOBBS: What year? What year?
AMY GOODMAN: Well, I just know when you had him on your show, and you may have had him on since then.
LOU DOBBS: But do you know when Wolf Blitzer had him on?
AMY GOODMAN: Well, soon after that, I suppose. I don�t know.
LOU DOBBS: OK. After we found out that there was a problem.
AMY GOODMAN: But you know what the fact is? I don�t know. And I admit when I don�t know. And I try to get my facts straight.
LOU DOBBS: Sure. Sure. So do we.
LOU DOBBS: Sure.
AMY GOODMAN: For example, Barbara Coe, leader of the California Coalition for Immigration Reform,�
LOU DOBBS: She�s not a guest. You�re reading from the Southern Poverty Law Center�
AMY GOODMAN: �quoted�just one second�
LOU DOBBS: She was not a guest.
AMY GOODMAN: I am going to look at the�as you said, you actually felt that the Southern Poverty Law Center was so important�
LOU DOBBS: It�s a joke.
AMY GOODMAN: �in getting information�
LOU DOBBS: It�s a joke.
AMY GOODMAN: �that you sent your producers down there to get information so that you wouldn�t represent hate groups on the air.
LOU DOBBS: In their responses, they�re nothing but a fundraising organization�
AMY GOODMAN: So let me�
LOU DOBBS: �and they�re indulging in pure BS.
AMY GOODMAN: OK. Now, let me just�
LOU DOBBS: And so are you, when you quote them.
AMY GOODMAN: Let me just talk about some of the guests that you have had on�
LOU DOBBS: Sure. They�re not guests.
AMY GOODMAN: �or quoted on the show.
LOU DOBBS: Barbara Coe was never a guest.
AMY GOODMAN: No. She was quoted on the show�
LOU DOBBS: That�s different.
AMY GOODMAN: �bitterly attacking Home Depot for betraying Americans, apparently because Hispanic day laborers often gather in front of the store looking for work. Not mentioned were her group, listed by the Southern Poverty Leadership Council as a hate group, or the fact that she routinely refers to Mexicans as �savages.� Coe recently described herself as a member of the Council of Conservative Citizens, the white pride group formed from the remnants�
LOU DOBBS: What year was that?
AMY GOODMAN: �of the segregationist White Citizens� Council of the �50s and �60s,�
LOU DOBBS: What year was she�
AMY GOODMAN: �which Thurgood Marshall called the �Uptown Klan.�
LOU DOBBS: My god, Amy, what year was that on our broadcast? What year?
AMY GOODMAN: Not clear. You can tell me what year was it on your broadcast.
LOU DOBBS: Well, actually, I can, but it was years ago. And it was before we knew what the heck was going on.
AMY GOODMAN: I�m going to talk about a few other people.
LOU DOBBS: Sure.
AMY GOODMAN: Glenn Spencer, head of the anti-immigration American Patrol, has been interviewed at least twice on the show in 2004, maybe many more times after�I don�t know. Spencer�s website is jammed with anti-Mexican vitriol. He pushes the idea the Mexican government is involved in a secret plot to take over the Southwest�
LOU DOBBS: OK.
AMY GOODMAN: �facts never mentioned on your show. His group is regarded as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League.
LOU DOBBS: You know, well, I really don�t care what�
AMY GOODMAN: Spencer has spoken at least twice to the white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens.
LOU DOBBS: You know, I got to be honest with you. I have no knowledge of this fellow. I have no idea�and you�re not telling me when he was on the broadcast.
AMY GOODMAN: You had him on the show. I said�
LOU DOBBS: No, I did not have him on the show. He was quoted�
AMY GOODMAN: January 7th�
LOU DOBBS: He was either quoted in a piece�
AMY GOODMAN: No, no, no. No, no, Lou. On January 7, 2004, and June 4, 2004�
LOU DOBBS: Ah!
AMY GOODMAN: �he was interviewed on your broadcast.
LOU DOBBS: He was not on our broadcast. He may have been in a field report. He was not on our broadcast. And, Amy, let me ask you a question: have you checked to see how many guests we�ve had on our show in the course of�what is that?�
AMY GOODMAN: You have had many.
LOU DOBBS: �three-and-a-half years? No, I mean�
AMY GOODMAN: You have had many.
LOU DOBBS: �let�s get a number. What do you think? Why are you focusing on two or three?
AMY GOODMAN: I can go on and on.
LOU DOBBS: OK, keep going. How many?
AMY GOODMAN: But I think the important point here�
LOU DOBBS: Give us a total. Give us a total of the number of guests you object to.
AMY GOODMAN: Lou, I just want to say something here. You just said to Juan, can�t he take a joke, when you talk about the incursion, Mexico taking over the United States. Yet, it is a growing theme. It is a continuing thread in your broadcast. This guy, Glenn Spencer, whether he said this on your show or not, Dobbs has not�
LOU DOBBS: Oh, no, no.
AMY GOODMAN: Just one second�has not mentioned his ties to American�
LOU DOBBS: Now I�m supposed to be�
AMY GOODMAN: Yes, you have to know who�
LOU DOBBS: I�m supposed to be responsible for what he says off my broadcast?
AMY GOODMAN: No. You should know that he was tied to American Renaissance, the group that says blacks are genetically inferior to whites. You didn�t report those ties or mention Spencer�s�
LOU DOBBS: Do you think we knew it?
AMY GOODMAN: �more wild-eyed contentions�
LOU DOBBS: Do you think we knew it?
AMY GOODMAN: �such as his�
LOU DOBBS: Amy, do you really think we knew it?
AMY GOODMAN: Just listen to this�such as his prediction�
LOU DOBBS: Do you really believe we knew that?
AMY GOODMAN: �that thousands will die in a supposedly forthcoming Mexican invasion.
LOU DOBBS: Oh, come on! You�re giving Glenn Spencer and other detestable people who would make such comments about more air time than anybody.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Lou�
LOU DOBBS: You have just given him more air�
AMY GOODMAN: But, Lou�
LOU DOBBS: �than I would have ever, and I�
AMY GOODMAN: But, Lou, let me make a final point.
LOU DOBBS: Go back and look at the quotes.
AMY GOODMAN: Let me make a final point.
LOU DOBBS: Who�s giving him more air time? You.
AMY GOODMAN: Your colleague, Wolf Blitzer�
LOU DOBBS: Yeah?
AMY GOODMAN: �on the other hand, also featured Spencer on his own show, but reported Mexico�s official response that SPLC, Southern Poverty Leadership Council�s hate group designation, said that he was a member of a hate group, as designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center. So we�re not�
LOU DOBBS: What year was that?
AMY GOODMAN: What I�m saying is that Wolf�
LOU DOBBS: What year was Wolf Blitzer?
AMY GOODMAN: �Blitzer identified him; you did not.
LOU DOBBS: What year? What year?
AMY GOODMAN: Well, I just know when you had him on your show, and you may have had him on since then.
LOU DOBBS: But do you know when Wolf Blitzer had him on?
AMY GOODMAN: Well, soon after that, I suppose. I don�t know.
LOU DOBBS: OK. After we found out that there was a problem.
AMY GOODMAN: But you know what the fact is? I don�t know. And I admit when I don�t know. And I try to get my facts straight.
LOU DOBBS: Sure. Sure. So do we.
hairstyles AC Adapter for HP Compaq
DSLStart
09-25 04:18 PM
Just a quick question for current Vonage users.
Currently I use Phone Power (VOIP, almost same as Vonage). They give me one nice feature called Remote Click 2 call. What it does is, if I am in office (where there is no long distance calling allowed), I login into my phonepower.com account and click on Remote Click2Call. This asks me to enter the number where I am at, and the destination number. So I get a call at my office phone and it connects me to the destination number. And there is no charge for this call.
Does Vonage offer this kind of feature? and can we make calls to India (under their India unlimited plan) using this feature?
Thanks.
Currently I use Phone Power (VOIP, almost same as Vonage). They give me one nice feature called Remote Click 2 call. What it does is, if I am in office (where there is no long distance calling allowed), I login into my phonepower.com account and click on Remote Click2Call. This asks me to enter the number where I am at, and the destination number. So I get a call at my office phone and it connects me to the destination number. And there is no charge for this call.
Does Vonage offer this kind of feature? and can we make calls to India (under their India unlimited plan) using this feature?
Thanks.
nkavjs
09-20 12:37 PM
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Suite 7000
Washington, DC 20529
or email: USCIS-COMPLAINT@DHS.GOV
I would appericiate, few more people can send an email.
I emailed the complaint just now.Thanks for sharing
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Suite 7000
Washington, DC 20529
or email: USCIS-COMPLAINT@DHS.GOV
I would appericiate, few more people can send an email.
I emailed the complaint just now.Thanks for sharing
KanME
01-08 11:47 AM
I just contacted my senator's local office .working on the letters now .Thanks IV for coming up with this wonderful initiative..I hope our community gathers around and works together to make this a success , please put bickering and cynicism to rest for sometime and work pro actively on this new IV action item..
