Dhundhun
01-19 11:22 AM
Very interesting. When we applied for 485/EAD/AP, our lawyer specifically asked for color passport copies of the first few pages. I went ahead and made copies of all pages. Am I in trouble?
Lawyer may be more knowledgable, but here is pointer to User Manual.
http://www.brother-usa.com/ModelDocuments/Consumer/Users%20Manual/UM_MFC_9840CDW_EN_1034.PDF
Read page number 106 (Legal limitations for copying).
After reading manaul and knowing that kinko prohibits such copying, there is some fact in it. It may happen that color copies of documents in some countries are not allowed, but for some other countries, they are allowed. I am an engineer and I don't have more information (pointer to sections of legal books).
Since I make copies at home, I follow user manual information. If my Lawyer asks such thing, I would show him the information and ask for clerification. If he overides, by give me clauses and sections, I would't hesitate for him. Laws keeps on changing.
This talks about passport: http://www.ehow.com/how_2038717_plan-any-type-trip.html
This talks about drivers licence in NC: http://ncsu.edu/student_affairs/legal_services/faqs/alcohol-laws.php
There is some discussion here http://boards.immigration.com/showthread.php?t=129660
Lawyer may be more knowledgable, but here is pointer to User Manual.
http://www.brother-usa.com/ModelDocuments/Consumer/Users%20Manual/UM_MFC_9840CDW_EN_1034.PDF
Read page number 106 (Legal limitations for copying).
After reading manaul and knowing that kinko prohibits such copying, there is some fact in it. It may happen that color copies of documents in some countries are not allowed, but for some other countries, they are allowed. I am an engineer and I don't have more information (pointer to sections of legal books).
Since I make copies at home, I follow user manual information. If my Lawyer asks such thing, I would show him the information and ask for clerification. If he overides, by give me clauses and sections, I would't hesitate for him. Laws keeps on changing.
This talks about passport: http://www.ehow.com/how_2038717_plan-any-type-trip.html
This talks about drivers licence in NC: http://ncsu.edu/student_affairs/legal_services/faqs/alcohol-laws.php
There is some discussion here http://boards.immigration.com/showthread.php?t=129660
wallpaper love quotes and sayings for
neoneo
09-26 09:31 PM
---
Hi,
Thanks for your feedback:
"I don't think CNN is to be faulted that much coz IV itself has lost its focus towards Employment Based Green Cards."
Your comment doesn't make sense to me. Please explain.
The point to be made is simple. Over last few months IV members, as an organization, with all it's diverse members and even more diverse immigration problems, in general have moved towards having an opinion and pushing an agenda in a direction which may affect H1-B, F1 visas and not directly EB Green cards.
It would be more prudent if the message sent across is simple-- rather than use the term generic term of legal immigrants - it should focus towards EB-Green cards, coz very few (other than the stuck )understand that H1-B is non-immigrant visa and try to club the whole GC + H1B issue together.
From CNN's point of view (and the whole world) the Legal immigrants are GC, H1, F1, B1, L1, etc .. the onus is on IV to clear that IV stands for EB based GCs. period. Use the term "Immigrant" wisely and sparsely.
Hi,
Thanks for your feedback:
"I don't think CNN is to be faulted that much coz IV itself has lost its focus towards Employment Based Green Cards."
Your comment doesn't make sense to me. Please explain.
The point to be made is simple. Over last few months IV members, as an organization, with all it's diverse members and even more diverse immigration problems, in general have moved towards having an opinion and pushing an agenda in a direction which may affect H1-B, F1 visas and not directly EB Green cards.
It would be more prudent if the message sent across is simple-- rather than use the term generic term of legal immigrants - it should focus towards EB-Green cards, coz very few (other than the stuck )understand that H1-B is non-immigrant visa and try to club the whole GC + H1B issue together.
From CNN's point of view (and the whole world) the Legal immigrants are GC, H1, F1, B1, L1, etc .. the onus is on IV to clear that IV stands for EB based GCs. period. Use the term "Immigrant" wisely and sparsely.
f_b_2007
07-18 08:32 AM
Mine reached on July 2nd 9:01 AM. I don't think they must have rejected any application. I think, if someone is saying "rejected" means USCIS refused to accept the fedex, in which case package should be returned back to lawyers in 3/4 days.
If your package was accepeted by USCIS then it would be on hold and based on yesterday's news, now it should be ready for processing. I am checking this with couple of lawyers and I will update this thread with anything I find out.
Mine reached USCIS Jul 2, 2007 10:25 AM.. no check cashed, no RD..
I will call USCIS next monday if I dont hear anything before then..
If your package was accepeted by USCIS then it would be on hold and based on yesterday's news, now it should be ready for processing. I am checking this with couple of lawyers and I will update this thread with anything I find out.
Mine reached USCIS Jul 2, 2007 10:25 AM.. no check cashed, no RD..
I will call USCIS next monday if I dont hear anything before then..
2011 funny quotes and sayings for
fullerene
07-04 08:18 PM
If we don't raise our concerns at the moment, how can we let lawmakers understand our situations and our requests? The goal of this forum is to speak out our voice. This is a very good chance to unify all of us to speak out loudly. We shall not to care too much about the outcome of the lawsuit. As far as I understand, none of us knows better on immigration laws and litigations than these lawyers. If they has decided to do something, we shall concentrate ourselves on supporting them instead of questioning them. Meanwhile we shall urge the lawmakers to pass SKILL or at least to make a more stable and predictable process to practice the immigration law.
We shall let all the lawmakers who support the CIR understand how they can resolve problems practically for 12M without any legal documents in the USA if our problems on the process cannot be resolved. The basises for addressing 12M illegal immigrants are and only are to have an effective and efficient border control system AND an effective and efficient process to handle all the legal applicants.
We shall let all the lawmakers who support the CIR understand how they can resolve problems practically for 12M without any legal documents in the USA if our problems on the process cannot be resolved. The basises for addressing 12M illegal immigrants are and only are to have an effective and efficient border control system AND an effective and efficient process to handle all the legal applicants.
more...
belmontboy
05-23 02:24 PM
I am not jealous of computer workers, I pity their life, their overall ignorance about things around and their unwarrented arrogance.
what do u do for a living man?
what do u do for a living man?
vagish
04-04 03:31 PM
Solution is :
1. Reform current H1B procedures so that it cannot be abused.
2. Make H1b cap market based.
3. Reform EB based GC process as suggested by Strive Act..
If only i was president !! :)..
keep dreaming ,
1) H1B based on market ( will never happen ) , how ever hiking it to some
rational number like 100K to 130K is a good possibility.
2) reform GC process so that after working for 5 years, with one company
one should be able to get green card without delay, this would be more
meanigful as it will demonstrate that the poners really has a full time job
as oppose to somebody just buying green card without ever
working for a company.
thanks
1. Reform current H1B procedures so that it cannot be abused.
2. Make H1b cap market based.
3. Reform EB based GC process as suggested by Strive Act..
If only i was president !! :)..
keep dreaming ,
1) H1B based on market ( will never happen ) , how ever hiking it to some
rational number like 100K to 130K is a good possibility.
2) reform GC process so that after working for 5 years, with one company
one should be able to get green card without delay, this would be more
meanigful as it will demonstrate that the poners really has a full time job
as oppose to somebody just buying green card without ever
working for a company.
thanks
more...
alex99
10-30 04:03 PM
Participate in EB3 Poll
2010 cute love quotes and sayings
Deaddocus
03-15 07:57 AM
Modern knights, :D *ducks*
more...
lvinaykumar
07-16 07:40 PM
Can we sue them for spreading false information
hair sayings and quotes
tooclose
07-12 07:23 PM
understandably so.. but I am now current after a looooong time. EB3 Dec 2001 PD. I can finally file the AOS for my wife who has been on H4 for the last 2 yrs... excellent!
Many congrats! This must be a huge relief to you and your dependents. Enjoy !!!
Many congrats! This must be a huge relief to you and your dependents. Enjoy !!!
more...
xyzgc
01-17 11:56 PM
Got lots of reds as expected. Excuse me for using strong words. I'm sympathetic towards everyone who has lost jobs or fears layoffs. I have weathered the 2001 storm in the valley. It was horrible. However, people buy expensive real estate without obtaining permanent residency first and then start laughing at others for being so conservative. Its utter stupidity. In one of the other threads I was arguing with some one over whether its a good time to buy a house or not. I am totally for buying a house even in these uncertain times provided you are a dual income and provided you have your green card and despite that some folks didn't agree with me at all!
Today, buying hiouses is risky but folks don't realize if you are on H1B, it is a temp visa you are sticking your neck out. Even if you have your EAD, it doesn't mean shit. If your employer revokes your 140 you are more or less doomed, unless you are very lucky. Now, please don't dispute this statement of mine by presenting legal facts.
I look at it this way, your gc is controlled by your employer, you get laid off by your employer, your company has ZERO interest in keeping your job position alive and considering employing you at a future date. Period.
H1B is not green card, EAD is not green card, your PD being current is not a green card.f you think you can transfer your H1 with some consulting firm and retain H1 status on bench, you are playing with fire.
Giving reds to me is not going to change the basic facts. Leaving your cars and your houses behind without paying your dues is the worst crime in the book. It destroys your credibility. Not only that you, main street, are then responsible for mortgage crisis and then you coolly blame the wall street and Mr. Bush for everything that goes wrong.
Today, buying hiouses is risky but folks don't realize if you are on H1B, it is a temp visa you are sticking your neck out. Even if you have your EAD, it doesn't mean shit. If your employer revokes your 140 you are more or less doomed, unless you are very lucky. Now, please don't dispute this statement of mine by presenting legal facts.
I look at it this way, your gc is controlled by your employer, you get laid off by your employer, your company has ZERO interest in keeping your job position alive and considering employing you at a future date. Period.
H1B is not green card, EAD is not green card, your PD being current is not a green card.f you think you can transfer your H1 with some consulting firm and retain H1 status on bench, you are playing with fire.
Giving reds to me is not going to change the basic facts. Leaving your cars and your houses behind without paying your dues is the worst crime in the book. It destroys your credibility. Not only that you, main street, are then responsible for mortgage crisis and then you coolly blame the wall street and Mr. Bush for everything that goes wrong.
hot hot love quotes and sayings
vamsi_poondla
09-26 10:55 PM
I don't know who senthil1 is, nor do i care. If you nothing to reply please don't waste white space. My comments are not to stir up arguments but an observation.
IV is sticking to employment based green card reforms. Green Card == Immigrant Visa. So, it would be silly not to use 'immigrant' in this context.
IV is not for just those currently in the 485/140 stage. It will be for future green card applicants as well and that includes H1Bs and F1 holders.
IV is sticking to employment based green card reforms. Green Card == Immigrant Visa. So, it would be silly not to use 'immigrant' in this context.
IV is not for just those currently in the 485/140 stage. It will be for future green card applicants as well and that includes H1Bs and F1 holders.
more...
house quotes and sayings for
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 ;)
tattoo cute love quotes and sayings
kaella
07-13 10:03 AM
I think it was referenced some where else in this thread , anyways here you go
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/Immigrant%20Visa%20Control%20System_operation%20of .pdf
Only persons with a priority date earlier than a cut-off date are entitled to allotment of a visa
number. The cut-off dates are the 1st, 8th, 15th, and 22nd of a month, since VO groups demand
for numbers under these dates. (Priority dates of the first through seventh of a month are grouped
under the 1st, the eighth through the fourteenth under the 8th, etc.)
Source please... or are you just kidding ?
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/Immigrant%20Visa%20Control%20System_operation%20of .pdf
Only persons with a priority date earlier than a cut-off date are entitled to allotment of a visa
number. The cut-off dates are the 1st, 8th, 15th, and 22nd of a month, since VO groups demand
for numbers under these dates. (Priority dates of the first through seventh of a month are grouped
under the 1st, the eighth through the fourteenth under the 8th, etc.)
Source please... or are you just kidding ?
more...
pictures Cute Love Quotes And Sayings
meridiani.planum
07-20 06:10 AM
.... can some one let me know if during 2005 when perm was instigated was regular labor processing also going on or was it completed stopped during that time....
upto March 2005 everything was pre-PERM, post March everything is PERM.
Those stats in the earlier post refer to only PERM LCs (1350 for India).
However I think there are going to be quite a few people with 2004/2005 pre-PERM PDs. In both mine as well as my wife's offices (big silicon valley companies) two things happened between Q4-2004 & Q1-2005 that contributed to many people with that PD:
- lawyers rushed in with filings because PERM was new, not well understood, and any case that they could file earlier, they did.
- the company had a policy of not filing GC after layoffs (2002/2003/2004) and by mid-2004 to end-2004 the economy had recovered enough that the companies felt comfortable starting GC processing again. All of us landed up in queue at the same time.
If you look at the data also you see this 'anomaly' where there is a big 'clump' of cases with PD jan/feb/march 2005.
upto March 2005 everything was pre-PERM, post March everything is PERM.
Those stats in the earlier post refer to only PERM LCs (1350 for India).
However I think there are going to be quite a few people with 2004/2005 pre-PERM PDs. In both mine as well as my wife's offices (big silicon valley companies) two things happened between Q4-2004 & Q1-2005 that contributed to many people with that PD:
- lawyers rushed in with filings because PERM was new, not well understood, and any case that they could file earlier, they did.
- the company had a policy of not filing GC after layoffs (2002/2003/2004) and by mid-2004 to end-2004 the economy had recovered enough that the companies felt comfortable starting GC processing again. All of us landed up in queue at the same time.
If you look at the data also you see this 'anomaly' where there is a big 'clump' of cases with PD jan/feb/march 2005.
dresses quotes, funny sayings,
.soulty
03-11 11:39 PM
Ok guys Poll is up! :)
I didnt include the wires on the poll since there was a character restriction.. the wires are for those interested in how the scene was created.
Wireframes:
Eilsoe: wireframe (http://www.avalon-rev.dk/junk/wireframe.gif)
BlueSunD: wireframe (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v55/BlueSunD/Maya/Final4Views.jpg)
Grinch: wireframe (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v403/grinchvader/wire.jpg)(can you provide a larger screenshot?)
Thirdworldman: wireframe (http://www.inmod.com/casey/subway_wire.jpg)
All the renders looks great, great job everyone...:thumb:
Good luck!
I didnt include the wires on the poll since there was a character restriction.. the wires are for those interested in how the scene was created.
Wireframes:
Eilsoe: wireframe (http://www.avalon-rev.dk/junk/wireframe.gif)
BlueSunD: wireframe (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v55/BlueSunD/Maya/Final4Views.jpg)
Grinch: wireframe (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v403/grinchvader/wire.jpg)(can you provide a larger screenshot?)
Thirdworldman: wireframe (http://www.inmod.com/casey/subway_wire.jpg)
All the renders looks great, great job everyone...:thumb:
Good luck!
more...
makeup love quotes and sayings
coopheal
11-12 11:43 AM
Why should some else follow up on your brilliant ideas. How about you take the lead and contact media in your area with your ideas. If the reporter is interested you can volunteer to be interviewd and also forward the information on the forum so that whoever is interested can also interview.
I see a problem in such postings. We only come up with ideas and expect someone else to work on them. I do not think at your workplace this is all you do-- Just give ideas and ask your managers and VP and CEO to follow up on your ideas.
If lobbying does not work then how come you have a 2 year EAD, You filed AOS in July 2007 due to IV, H1B time is decoupled from H4 time for your wife?
Well said.... A good idea without implementation is just dreaming....
I see a problem in such postings. We only come up with ideas and expect someone else to work on them. I do not think at your workplace this is all you do-- Just give ideas and ask your managers and VP and CEO to follow up on your ideas.
If lobbying does not work then how come you have a 2 year EAD, You filed AOS in July 2007 due to IV, H1B time is decoupled from H4 time for your wife?
Well said.... A good idea without implementation is just dreaming....
girlfriend best love quotes sayings.
karanp25
07-14 06:23 PM
When did u file your application for EAD renewal and which service center? I am not sure why you think EAD renewal triggered this I-485 RFE?
I filed for 485 during July 2007. My 140 was already approved. Due to some problems I quit my employer in August 2007. My previous employer was a desi blood sucker. I was fed up & decided to quit after working for him for 3 years. I applied for H1 transfer with a new employer based on approved 140. I got H1 approval for another 3 years. Currently I am working for the new H1 sponsoring employer. I also received an EAD card based on pending 485 for one year. I didnt notify USICS of job change in July.
I applied for EAD extension this year. The application for EAD extension is pending. I got a following RFE on my 485:
Please state whether or not you are currently working for your I-140 petitioner.
You must submit a currently dated letter from you permanent employer, describing your present job duties & position in the organization, your proferred position (if different from your current one), the date you began employement & the offered salary & wage. The letter must also indicate whether the terms & conditions of your employement based visa petition (or labor certification) continue to exist.
I am not in good terms with my previous employer so I cant ask him for a letter. I can ask my new employer for such a letter.
Will USCIS come to know I quite Employer A before completing 180 days?
Also is it possible that 140 was revoked by my previous employer?
What document should I send to USCIS now?
I filed for 485 during July 2007. My 140 was already approved. Due to some problems I quit my employer in August 2007. My previous employer was a desi blood sucker. I was fed up & decided to quit after working for him for 3 years. I applied for H1 transfer with a new employer based on approved 140. I got H1 approval for another 3 years. Currently I am working for the new H1 sponsoring employer. I also received an EAD card based on pending 485 for one year. I didnt notify USICS of job change in July.
I applied for EAD extension this year. The application for EAD extension is pending. I got a following RFE on my 485:
Please state whether or not you are currently working for your I-140 petitioner.
You must submit a currently dated letter from you permanent employer, describing your present job duties & position in the organization, your proferred position (if different from your current one), the date you began employement & the offered salary & wage. The letter must also indicate whether the terms & conditions of your employement based visa petition (or labor certification) continue to exist.
I am not in good terms with my previous employer so I cant ask him for a letter. I can ask my new employer for such a letter.
Will USCIS come to know I quite Employer A before completing 180 days?
Also is it possible that 140 was revoked by my previous employer?
What document should I send to USCIS now?
hairstyles cute love quotes and sayings
chintu25
09-10 10:44 AM
I will update here for those who cannot enter chat
Right now they are discussing
H.R. 6598
the "Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act of 2008
I will update here once HR 5882 starts
Right now they are discussing
H.R. 6598
the "Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act of 2008
I will update here once HR 5882 starts
hara_patta_for_rico
07-09 07:05 PM
I came across this law about the departmental control of numerical limitations, and I'd appreciate it if you all could post your interpretations of the same.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
Clause B is not the only thing. In any quarter they are not supposed to issue any more than 27% of 140,000(100%) = 37800. according to Clause A. After June 15th they issued 140,000 - 66000 = 74000. What about the last quarter quota of 37800? Where did it go? It was not supposed to be used before July.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
Clause B is not the only thing. In any quarter they are not supposed to issue any more than 27% of 140,000(100%) = 37800. according to Clause A. After June 15th they issued 140,000 - 66000 = 74000. What about the last quarter quota of 37800? Where did it go? It was not supposed to be used before July.
desi3933
03-10 02:28 PM
>> Once they reached last quarter then they will make EB2-I/C current and distribute those spill-over visas across EB.
Would you mind explaining two "they" here? Whom you are referring to?
Hint: This is a trap question.
Since you chose to not to answer my question, I assume you have no idea what you are talking about.
Please ignore MDix.
Would you mind explaining two "they" here? Whom you are referring to?
Hint: This is a trap question.
Since you chose to not to answer my question, I assume you have no idea what you are talking about.
Please ignore MDix.
