eastindia
04-01 09:45 AM
Guys do not feed the freeloaders by telling anything you are reading in the donor forum. Let these people help themselves by signing up for recurring contributions if they want helpful nformation about their EB2 PD movemement. We are still not meeting of our advocacy day amount. It is all because most people want free lunches. This needs to stop. The 200 people going to DC tomorrow are going to speak for you and me for yours and mine greencard. They are taking time off and spending own money for you and me. Nothing is free in this world. IV is also doing this for you and me and we are taking it for granted. Let people do some good deed today if they want to know good information
wallpaper Golden Gate Bridge at Night
SunJoshi
12-31 03:22 PM
Hey Guyz,
Nice to see the heroes of the last fight together again. I was a little confused with the different forums but looks better now. The PDF doc link above for Comprehensive Immigration Bill (Feb-06) is not working can you please post the full link.
Best regards,
Irshad.
Irshad welcome!
Gear up for another dogfight :-)
Nice to see the heroes of the last fight together again. I was a little confused with the different forums but looks better now. The PDF doc link above for Comprehensive Immigration Bill (Feb-06) is not working can you please post the full link.
Best regards,
Irshad.
Irshad welcome!
Gear up for another dogfight :-)
gc_vbin
04-01 12:48 PM
I too had similar thoughts.. why would CIS/DOS stop keeping buffers? Is there any particular reason? Once they complete all 7/2007 applications I think it makes sense to move the date for a few months so they can accept applications. Also, remember there will be new monthly quota getting allocated to all categories. So to use those numbers should they not be progressing dates?
Rodnyb,
The below number is depressing, however dont you think DOS/USCIS always believe in keeping buffer and they may push the dates somewhere into 2009 just to accept 485 filings?
Why do think they will stop keeping any buffer?
[QUOTE=rodnyb;2494192]Teddy, I agree some of your data. Mine would be (90% confidence level)
0 pass 09/31/2007
Rodnyb,
The below number is depressing, however dont you think DOS/USCIS always believe in keeping buffer and they may push the dates somewhere into 2009 just to accept 485 filings?
Why do think they will stop keeping any buffer?
[QUOTE=rodnyb;2494192]Teddy, I agree some of your data. Mine would be (90% confidence level)
0 pass 09/31/2007
2011 Gate Bridge at night.
grupak
03-26 06:08 PM
You still did not get it. Without evidence of discrimination it would be difficult to fight against...
I think we can continue arguing this till we are blue in the face. We already have like 8 pages of discussion on this. I never had an employer pre-screen me on immigration status, doesn't mean it never happens.
We have immigrationvoice1, chandu, BharatPremi who feels they have been discriminated against based on EAD. We can collect more stories and bring it to the notice of the govt. Everyone who have been discriminated can and should also go ahead and file a complaint individually.
Let the govt decide if they can pursue based on what evidence we have. Lets not keep on discussing what the outcome will be. Lets try to do what we can.
If anyone (and I am not pointing a finger at BharatPremi) doesn't feel anything can be done, fine move on. Other who see hope, lets take the first step and inform the govt.
I think we can continue arguing this till we are blue in the face. We already have like 8 pages of discussion on this. I never had an employer pre-screen me on immigration status, doesn't mean it never happens.
We have immigrationvoice1, chandu, BharatPremi who feels they have been discriminated against based on EAD. We can collect more stories and bring it to the notice of the govt. Everyone who have been discriminated can and should also go ahead and file a complaint individually.
Let the govt decide if they can pursue based on what evidence we have. Lets not keep on discussing what the outcome will be. Lets try to do what we can.
If anyone (and I am not pointing a finger at BharatPremi) doesn't feel anything can be done, fine move on. Other who see hope, lets take the first step and inform the govt.
more...
acecupid
06-16 10:42 AM
Thanks for your reply.
what is the meaning of staff augmentation case? He work at client place and client is administered project.The s/w tool is copyright by client.The reason for asking him to come back is that prior to this company he worked for another company for two years. He left his old company before 5 year. when he joined his current company he has provided all the document mentioned in checklist such as offer letter, exp and releiving letter and last two month pay stub and they did BG for same document.During 5 years career he worked for diff client and everytime they did BG for him before putting him in project and there was no problem happen in his BG. recently his current employer find something wrong about his prior company and they asked him to provide more evidance for prior company.now he don't have any contact of his prior employer and he does not have any more evidnace for showing their company.
Because of this reason they are asking him to come back home country from last two week.He told his company that he tryed to connect his prior employer but he can not make out and he don't have anything more to show the company.
Please suggest what he can do in this situation.
If anyone come across in this situation then please reply to my question.
Appericiate your help in advacne
The way I look at your story is that you want to get back at your company in some way. You were employed as L1 by your company all this while and you did not care about fraud at that time ? You were enjoying the benefits so you did not care. Now since your company is going to send you back to India anyways, you want to do everything possible to get them in trouble.
I dont support fraud in any way and I do think such companies should be punished. But you dont have my sympathy either since you think fraud is ok as long as you are benefitting from it.
what is the meaning of staff augmentation case? He work at client place and client is administered project.The s/w tool is copyright by client.The reason for asking him to come back is that prior to this company he worked for another company for two years. He left his old company before 5 year. when he joined his current company he has provided all the document mentioned in checklist such as offer letter, exp and releiving letter and last two month pay stub and they did BG for same document.During 5 years career he worked for diff client and everytime they did BG for him before putting him in project and there was no problem happen in his BG. recently his current employer find something wrong about his prior company and they asked him to provide more evidance for prior company.now he don't have any contact of his prior employer and he does not have any more evidnace for showing their company.
Because of this reason they are asking him to come back home country from last two week.He told his company that he tryed to connect his prior employer but he can not make out and he don't have anything more to show the company.
Please suggest what he can do in this situation.
If anyone come across in this situation then please reply to my question.
Appericiate your help in advacne
The way I look at your story is that you want to get back at your company in some way. You were employed as L1 by your company all this while and you did not care about fraud at that time ? You were enjoying the benefits so you did not care. Now since your company is going to send you back to India anyways, you want to do everything possible to get them in trouble.
I dont support fraud in any way and I do think such companies should be punished. But you dont have my sympathy either since you think fraud is ok as long as you are benefitting from it.
jonty_11
06-29 05:48 PM
CIR failing and this...it all makes perfect sense now........
They will defintely retrogress...it Monday Morning....they dont want any applications coming in.....my 2 cents
They will defintely retrogress...it Monday Morning....they dont want any applications coming in.....my 2 cents
more...
ujjvalkoul
06-25 06:14 PM
Yes, everyone is helping with some advice and help in this crucial time is indespensible. Kindly continue to support the community that allows us the opportunity to share our view and thoughts in a common place....
Thx to IV.
Thx to IV.
2010 Golden Gate Bridge at night.
aj_jadeja
02-17 01:10 PM
So basically he is saying that count your blessings and thank god that you are stuck in Backlog centers or in retrogression because in Europe, its even worse. Its a nice way of saying : "It is what it is, take it or go to Europe or go back to India".
Right?
exactly :)
Right?
exactly :)
more...
vshar
04-08 10:22 PM
Hello ajaysuri, Nil, saralayaar, trueguy and all those who support this idea,
I just happened to look at this thread and I give my 100% support to this idea.
I will mail the letter mentioned at page 10.
Please let me know what else I can do.
I think IV core has gone on long vacation or they already got their GCs.
:eek:
I just happened to look at this thread and I give my 100% support to this idea.
I will mail the letter mentioned at page 10.
Please let me know what else I can do.
I think IV core has gone on long vacation or they already got their GCs.
:eek:
hair of the Golden Gate bridge
pranju
06-15 11:42 AM
Is it mandatory to submit Form G-28 ?
G-28 is for lawyer if u r gettign the help of lawyer then yes , if yrelf then no ... but please confirm with others too - thanks
G-28 is for lawyer if u r gettign the help of lawyer then yes , if yrelf then no ... but please confirm with others too - thanks
more...
Amma
09-09 02:06 PM
Luis V. Gutierrez (D-IL) - The secretary said she will pass the meeage to representative.
Howard L. Berman (D-CA) -The secretary said they are supporting the bill.
Maxine Waters (D-CA) -Went to voice message.
Bill Delahunt (D-MA) - Went to voice message
Keith Ellison (D-MN) -The secretary said to sent e mail to one Lara who is handling immigration matters. lara.cole@mail.house.gov . Going to sent a mail to her.
Anthony Weiner (D-NY) - The secretary said he will pass the message to the representative.
Minority Members (Republicans)
Steve King (R-IA) [Ranking Member] - Went to voice message.
Elton Gallegly (R-CA)- Went to voice message.
Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) -The secretary said he will pass the message to the representative.
Dan Lungren (R-CA)-The secretary said he will pass the message to the representative.
J. Randy Forbes (R-VA) -The secretary said he will pass the message to the representative.
Louie Gohmert (R-TX) -The secretary said he will pass the message to the representative.
Howard L. Berman (D-CA) -The secretary said they are supporting the bill.
Maxine Waters (D-CA) -Went to voice message.
Bill Delahunt (D-MA) - Went to voice message
Keith Ellison (D-MN) -The secretary said to sent e mail to one Lara who is handling immigration matters. lara.cole@mail.house.gov . Going to sent a mail to her.
Anthony Weiner (D-NY) - The secretary said he will pass the message to the representative.
Minority Members (Republicans)
Steve King (R-IA) [Ranking Member] - Went to voice message.
Elton Gallegly (R-CA)- Went to voice message.
Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) -The secretary said he will pass the message to the representative.
Dan Lungren (R-CA)-The secretary said he will pass the message to the representative.
J. Randy Forbes (R-VA) -The secretary said he will pass the message to the representative.
Louie Gohmert (R-TX) -The secretary said he will pass the message to the representative.
hot The Golden Gate Bridge
akhilmahajan
05-16 11:47 AM
I Am Sure This Has Been Answered Many Times, But I Have Not Been Able To Find Any Information About This.
As A Consultant, One Has To Travel To Different Places For Different Projects.
So What Happens To His/her Gc Process.
What I Have Been Reading Here Is That The Place U Get Your Labor/i140 Cleared And If U Move U Have To Get It Again.
I Am Novice In This Area And I Hope I Am Asking The Right Question.
I Will Really Appreciate If Someone Could Shed Some Light On This Issue.
Regards
As A Consultant, One Has To Travel To Different Places For Different Projects.
So What Happens To His/her Gc Process.
What I Have Been Reading Here Is That The Place U Get Your Labor/i140 Cleared And If U Move U Have To Get It Again.
I Am Novice In This Area And I Hope I Am Asking The Right Question.
I Will Really Appreciate If Someone Could Shed Some Light On This Issue.
Regards
more...
house Golden Gate Bridge Foggy Night
trueguy
08-21 03:06 PM
Here is the link I was referring to in my earlier post: http://immigration-information.com/forums/blog.php?b=13
I'm not sure whether USCIS ever *appologized* per say but the second paragraph from the link above supports my earlier argument that the new spill-over policy (which in my personal opinion is more rational) is not a random, ad hoc decision by USCIS but rather a careful one after consulting congress etc.
This is not a proof that DOS apologized. Ron Gotcher is a good lawyer but what he mentioned on his blog cann't be used in court. Anyways, thanks.
I'm not sure whether USCIS ever *appologized* per say but the second paragraph from the link above supports my earlier argument that the new spill-over policy (which in my personal opinion is more rational) is not a random, ad hoc decision by USCIS but rather a careful one after consulting congress etc.
This is not a proof that DOS apologized. Ron Gotcher is a good lawyer but what he mentioned on his blog cann't be used in court. Anyways, thanks.
tattoo Golden Gate Bridge illuminated
SunnySurya
08-07 12:09 PM
No thats not what I am saying. Let me repeat what I am saying and this comes out of the draft I am working with a lawyer
The interpretation of the intent of the law by USCIS is flawed and should be reconsidered given the enormous backlogs in various categories.
1. If the people are allowed to move between the categories it will just move the backlog from one line to another penalizing the ones already in that line.
2. It does not provides an equal opportunity to the people already in that line to move to other category who are patiently waiting for their turn.
3. The porting is subject to gaming and the people who know how to work the system will be the most benefitted by this.
4. It will also eleminate any potential for the spill of visa numbers from Eb2 to Eb3 category as Eb2 itself will be backlogged
It should be noted that the immigration benefits are associated with a job requirements and not a person's qualifications. Changing a GC category should not be allowed except in certain extraordinary circumstances and through appropriate changes in the law.
Mpadap, your arguments are valid but not pertinent to what I am trying to do. If a person becomes elligible , he/she must be allowed to apply for the positions matching his qualifications. Only thing is that he should not benefit from the portability of PD.
U are saying - The person's GC category should be same all through out the GC process, irrespective of the technical advancements the person make during the course of the GC process. A person is porting only because he is qualified for the category, U folks are talking as if there is an open slot and everyone is clamoring for it.
U'r logic should be similar to the below scenario..
A person joins a company as a Jr. Engineer, then based on U'r logic he/she cannot become a Manager (which requires an MBA / equivalent) because he entered the workforce as a Jr. Engg. Even though the fellow would've acquired necessary skills and even MBA (going part-time to school), still he/she cannot become a Manager. U are vouching that an MBA who joined few months earlier can become the Manager but not the home groomed fellow. Wow, U'r logic seems to a ground breaking thought process, please extrapolate U'r lawsuit for the case mentioned above. If you win, this might be the most ground breaking decision in US.
Personally I've reported to folks who joined company as high-school grads and worked their way up to Managerial position ofcoz acquiring the necessary college education while working. They have shown up those experience to move ahead of other folks who joined later with higher degrees.
sunnysurya and rollingflood,
Rather than focusing on divisive efforts why can't you focus on real problem - retrogression. Why don't you work towards IV's goals? You folks joined the forum few months back and have already made great impact. Hope you would channel U'r energy into something positive for the entire community.
The interpretation of the intent of the law by USCIS is flawed and should be reconsidered given the enormous backlogs in various categories.
1. If the people are allowed to move between the categories it will just move the backlog from one line to another penalizing the ones already in that line.
2. It does not provides an equal opportunity to the people already in that line to move to other category who are patiently waiting for their turn.
3. The porting is subject to gaming and the people who know how to work the system will be the most benefitted by this.
4. It will also eleminate any potential for the spill of visa numbers from Eb2 to Eb3 category as Eb2 itself will be backlogged
It should be noted that the immigration benefits are associated with a job requirements and not a person's qualifications. Changing a GC category should not be allowed except in certain extraordinary circumstances and through appropriate changes in the law.
Mpadap, your arguments are valid but not pertinent to what I am trying to do. If a person becomes elligible , he/she must be allowed to apply for the positions matching his qualifications. Only thing is that he should not benefit from the portability of PD.
U are saying - The person's GC category should be same all through out the GC process, irrespective of the technical advancements the person make during the course of the GC process. A person is porting only because he is qualified for the category, U folks are talking as if there is an open slot and everyone is clamoring for it.
U'r logic should be similar to the below scenario..
A person joins a company as a Jr. Engineer, then based on U'r logic he/she cannot become a Manager (which requires an MBA / equivalent) because he entered the workforce as a Jr. Engg. Even though the fellow would've acquired necessary skills and even MBA (going part-time to school), still he/she cannot become a Manager. U are vouching that an MBA who joined few months earlier can become the Manager but not the home groomed fellow. Wow, U'r logic seems to a ground breaking thought process, please extrapolate U'r lawsuit for the case mentioned above. If you win, this might be the most ground breaking decision in US.
Personally I've reported to folks who joined company as high-school grads and worked their way up to Managerial position ofcoz acquiring the necessary college education while working. They have shown up those experience to move ahead of other folks who joined later with higher degrees.
sunnysurya and rollingflood,
Rather than focusing on divisive efforts why can't you focus on real problem - retrogression. Why don't you work towards IV's goals? You folks joined the forum few months back and have already made great impact. Hope you would channel U'r energy into something positive for the entire community.
more...
pictures Golden Gate Bridge - San
amitjoey
07-11 01:28 PM
http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/jul/11us1.htm
dresses At night, the bridge is lit
CADude
09-24 09:30 PM
Dear Mr. XXX,
Pursuant to our conversation today, I am forwarding the reply from the Nebraska Service Center of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) regarding our inquiry into your application for Adjustment of Status (I-485).
Our office initiated an inquiry into your case as a result of your correspondence dated September 12, 2007 sent to Congresswoman Maxine Waters. If you receive or do not receive a notice of action from CIS within the next 30 days please notify our Immigration Caseworker, Blanca Jimenez at ext. 18.
Thank you for contacting the office of Congresswoman Maxine Waters to assist you in this matter.
Sincerely,
Blanca Jimenez
Constituent Services Supervisor
Office of Congresswoman Maxine Waters (CA-35)
323.757.8900 ext. 18
323.757.9506 fax
Good Morning Ms. Jimenez,
I do not show that we have data-entered Mr. XXX�s I-485 yet. The I-485 must be in line to be data-entered because we receipted an I-765 (LIN-07-245-XXXX).
The I485 application is still pending at this office. Although the Department of State Visa Bulletin indicated visas were available for most employment categories USCIS still has to adjudicate every application. NSC has approximately 26,000 I485 applications that may have a visa available and we are reviewing them as expeditiously as possible. This application is in line to be worked but it will take time. Please allow an additional 45 days for NSC to adjudicate the application. If you have not received a notice from NSC after 45 days you may submit another inquiry.
Thank you,
Congressional Liaison
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service
Nebraska Service Center
Respected Ms Waters,
Sub: USCIS inefficiency for Legal Immigration
I send my I-485 AOS application to USCIS and received on July 2nd 2007 at Nebraska Service Center, Lincoln, NE.
It's almost approx 75 days since the application received at USCIS and have not received the Receipt Notice or any notification from USCIS.
I tried to contact Customer Service at USCIS. They don't provided any information. USCIS website updates show they are processing 08/01 or later for AOS application. They are not following the First In First Out(FIFO) order.
I need help of your good to know the status of my I-485 application.
Thank you,
Pursuant to our conversation today, I am forwarding the reply from the Nebraska Service Center of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) regarding our inquiry into your application for Adjustment of Status (I-485).
Our office initiated an inquiry into your case as a result of your correspondence dated September 12, 2007 sent to Congresswoman Maxine Waters. If you receive or do not receive a notice of action from CIS within the next 30 days please notify our Immigration Caseworker, Blanca Jimenez at ext. 18.
Thank you for contacting the office of Congresswoman Maxine Waters to assist you in this matter.
Sincerely,
Blanca Jimenez
Constituent Services Supervisor
Office of Congresswoman Maxine Waters (CA-35)
323.757.8900 ext. 18
323.757.9506 fax
Good Morning Ms. Jimenez,
I do not show that we have data-entered Mr. XXX�s I-485 yet. The I-485 must be in line to be data-entered because we receipted an I-765 (LIN-07-245-XXXX).
The I485 application is still pending at this office. Although the Department of State Visa Bulletin indicated visas were available for most employment categories USCIS still has to adjudicate every application. NSC has approximately 26,000 I485 applications that may have a visa available and we are reviewing them as expeditiously as possible. This application is in line to be worked but it will take time. Please allow an additional 45 days for NSC to adjudicate the application. If you have not received a notice from NSC after 45 days you may submit another inquiry.
Thank you,
Congressional Liaison
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service
Nebraska Service Center
Respected Ms Waters,
Sub: USCIS inefficiency for Legal Immigration
I send my I-485 AOS application to USCIS and received on July 2nd 2007 at Nebraska Service Center, Lincoln, NE.
It's almost approx 75 days since the application received at USCIS and have not received the Receipt Notice or any notification from USCIS.
I tried to contact Customer Service at USCIS. They don't provided any information. USCIS website updates show they are processing 08/01 or later for AOS application. They are not following the First In First Out(FIFO) order.
I need help of your good to know the status of my I-485 application.
Thank you,
more...
makeup The Golden Gate Bridge by
trueguy
08-21 01:00 PM
I think it would be fair to split the leftover numbers the same way they split whole year quota.
50% of leftover should be given to EB2 (based on PD) and 50% of leftover should be given to EB3. Does it sound fair?
50% of leftover should be given to EB2 (based on PD) and 50% of leftover should be given to EB3. Does it sound fair?
girlfriend The Golden Gate.
coopheal
08-08 09:21 AM
I am the later...
This is my last post in this regards.
Solution of frustration is not destructive thinking which you are doing. Grow up�.
May be you might have supported previous IV campaigns. I urge you to keep supporting them instead of going anything crazy like what you are planning.
Finally if you have reasons to believe some firms are gaming the system then report them. That is American way of doing things.
This is my last post in this regards.
Solution of frustration is not destructive thinking which you are doing. Grow up�.
May be you might have supported previous IV campaigns. I urge you to keep supporting them instead of going anything crazy like what you are planning.
Finally if you have reasons to believe some firms are gaming the system then report them. That is American way of doing things.
hairstyles the Golden Gate Bridge.
bazuka6
10-29 11:21 PM
From IV: IV commends the initiative taken by it's members nk2006, pd_recpaturing, ItsNotfunny and others. As these members have observed, we all know that any one who has filed for AOS/I-485 can potentially be hit with this issue, especially in the current job market situations. If you believe in the old adage prevention is better than cure, this is an action item you have to subscribe to. It will be only a matter of time the number of such denials is going to spike.
In recent weeks there has been a spate of I485 denials by USCIS in the AC21 cases. In most of these cases, the underlying I-140 has been revoked by previous employer. But AC21 regulations and related memo�s require that I485�s should not be denied based on that � provided I485 has been pending for more than 180 days and the applicant has changed to a new job that is same or similar. USCIS has been rejecting cases without even issuing a NOID � again required by AC21 regulations. So USCIS is not following AC21 regulations and related field memo�s for whatever the reasons.
Obviously this will have a very bad impact on us � in addition to tremendous amount of stress it can have very bad economic implications including loss of job. In the current economic conditions we cannot afford to lose the job change flexibility provided by AC21 regulations. IV has started a campaign to fight this.
After a brief campaign to write to Ombudsman, it has been decided to intensify this campaign and write to various officials in USCIS hierarchy. IV core members have been actively involved in coming up with a strategy and are actively supporting this effort. By sending large number of letters we can draw their attention to this issue and resolve as quickly as possible. There are other strategies that are being discussed and will be underway soon to tackle this issue. This is the first and the most important step up on which other steps depend.
I request all the members to start sending the following 4 letters. For your convenience the letters have been completely written including addresses to be sent � all you have to do is download following 4 google documents � add the date, your name and address � and send it to the address provided on each letter.
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dcqssdt7_1d3mzhr6c
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dcqssdt7_2fp3nrhvb
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dcqssdt7_3d8h2x7dr
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dcqssdt7_4fxnvq9tw
To reiterate: You have to send 4 letters � these letters can be downloaded at the above URL�s. Edit the document to add current date, name, address etc. and mail it (regular mail). After doing that, please update the poll so we know how many letters are being sent.
To get more background on this issue and see what has been done so far, please see these two threads: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=22052;
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21716
To achieve positive results we need to send these letters in large numbers - please send them today and let everyone else be aware of this effort. Thank you.
Request to core/web site admin: can you please add a link to this thread on the IV main page to get better coverage to this campaign - thanks.
Please change Dear Madam to Dear Ms. Velarde....
Madam can be taken out of context (esp in Washington ;) )
I mailed all 4 after changes
In recent weeks there has been a spate of I485 denials by USCIS in the AC21 cases. In most of these cases, the underlying I-140 has been revoked by previous employer. But AC21 regulations and related memo�s require that I485�s should not be denied based on that � provided I485 has been pending for more than 180 days and the applicant has changed to a new job that is same or similar. USCIS has been rejecting cases without even issuing a NOID � again required by AC21 regulations. So USCIS is not following AC21 regulations and related field memo�s for whatever the reasons.
Obviously this will have a very bad impact on us � in addition to tremendous amount of stress it can have very bad economic implications including loss of job. In the current economic conditions we cannot afford to lose the job change flexibility provided by AC21 regulations. IV has started a campaign to fight this.
After a brief campaign to write to Ombudsman, it has been decided to intensify this campaign and write to various officials in USCIS hierarchy. IV core members have been actively involved in coming up with a strategy and are actively supporting this effort. By sending large number of letters we can draw their attention to this issue and resolve as quickly as possible. There are other strategies that are being discussed and will be underway soon to tackle this issue. This is the first and the most important step up on which other steps depend.
I request all the members to start sending the following 4 letters. For your convenience the letters have been completely written including addresses to be sent � all you have to do is download following 4 google documents � add the date, your name and address � and send it to the address provided on each letter.
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dcqssdt7_1d3mzhr6c
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dcqssdt7_2fp3nrhvb
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dcqssdt7_3d8h2x7dr
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dcqssdt7_4fxnvq9tw
To reiterate: You have to send 4 letters � these letters can be downloaded at the above URL�s. Edit the document to add current date, name, address etc. and mail it (regular mail). After doing that, please update the poll so we know how many letters are being sent.
To get more background on this issue and see what has been done so far, please see these two threads: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=22052;
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21716
To achieve positive results we need to send these letters in large numbers - please send them today and let everyone else be aware of this effort. Thank you.
Request to core/web site admin: can you please add a link to this thread on the IV main page to get better coverage to this campaign - thanks.
Please change Dear Madam to Dear Ms. Velarde....
Madam can be taken out of context (esp in Washington ;) )
I mailed all 4 after changes
she81
06-29 08:55 PM
To quote it in a much broader sense, America is not the end of the world - period! Just take it easy and enjoy life...don't freak out if the visa bulletin updates and you don't get to file your 485...we are all in this country by our free will..if we feel the rules of the land are not fair to us..each one of us is free to leave....
On another front, if this actually does happen, I will be the first person to sue USCIS for all the expenses, lost time and headaches that I incurred in preparing the 485 application...I think USCIS can't get away without reimbursing everyone for all of the above...
Agreed it is not the end of the world... but no monetary sum can reimburse the stress we've gone through and going through, the number of years worrying, the numerous decisions we've deferred, the immobility of career we've gone through... just in anticipation. They just brought all these people to the well to quench their thirst only to find out that it's but dried up.
On another front, if this actually does happen, I will be the first person to sue USCIS for all the expenses, lost time and headaches that I incurred in preparing the 485 application...I think USCIS can't get away without reimbursing everyone for all of the above...
Agreed it is not the end of the world... but no monetary sum can reimburse the stress we've gone through and going through, the number of years worrying, the numerous decisions we've deferred, the immobility of career we've gone through... just in anticipation. They just brought all these people to the well to quench their thirst only to find out that it's but dried up.
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.
