gc_check
06-26 02:49 PM
Kinkos is horrible!!! I went there this morning and had to wait 40 minutes for my photos and when they came back they had a greenish tint and the colors were all washed out. They looked like a two year old photoshoped them :D Clearly they would have been rejected by immigration so I asked for my money back.
I then went to Sears and they did a great job. They have professional studio equipment and all it took was 5 minutes and I had all my copies looking great like they're supposed to.
So... Sears, highly recommended. They charged me $61 for two sets of 8 photos for me and my wife which is the same price as Kinkos or CVS & Walgreens, less the horrible amateurish quality.
I took the first set of photos in Walgreens, but the background was not clean although plain white.. they was a very light spot in center of the photo, although not obvious, when asked I was told thatz how the background screen is and all photos they take are the same and they showed me few samples. I was not happy and drove straight to Sears and the photo I took came out pretty good. Same or better than the samples in the link below
http://travel.state.gov/passport/guide/composition/composition_874.html
I recommend Sears too.
I then went to Sears and they did a great job. They have professional studio equipment and all it took was 5 minutes and I had all my copies looking great like they're supposed to.
So... Sears, highly recommended. They charged me $61 for two sets of 8 photos for me and my wife which is the same price as Kinkos or CVS & Walgreens, less the horrible amateurish quality.
I took the first set of photos in Walgreens, but the background was not clean although plain white.. they was a very light spot in center of the photo, although not obvious, when asked I was told thatz how the background screen is and all photos they take are the same and they showed me few samples. I was not happy and drove straight to Sears and the photo I took came out pretty good. Same or better than the samples in the link below
http://travel.state.gov/passport/guide/composition/composition_874.html
I recommend Sears too.
wallpaper justin bieber haircut 2011
lazycis
12-28 11:25 AM
how do I avoid that scenario?
If I send some information to USCIS that I am invoking AC 21, they would not allow my employer to revoke I 140?
Leave on good terms with your current employer. If that's not possible and you have a good reason to believe that they'll withdraw I-140, conduct a pre-emptive strike and file AC21 papers with the USCIS (a new employment offer listing job title, duties, salary). That will eliminate or at least minimize a headache associated with I-140 withdrawal. Employer is free to withdraw I-140 at any time and the USCIS cannot prohibit it. However, even if I-140 is withdrawn, your I-485 remains valid if you have a new employment offer. So no worries, just plan for it and act according to your gut feeling :)
If I send some information to USCIS that I am invoking AC 21, they would not allow my employer to revoke I 140?
Leave on good terms with your current employer. If that's not possible and you have a good reason to believe that they'll withdraw I-140, conduct a pre-emptive strike and file AC21 papers with the USCIS (a new employment offer listing job title, duties, salary). That will eliminate or at least minimize a headache associated with I-140 withdrawal. Employer is free to withdraw I-140 at any time and the USCIS cannot prohibit it. However, even if I-140 is withdrawn, your I-485 remains valid if you have a new employment offer. So no worries, just plan for it and act according to your gut feeling :)
hpandey
11-19 02:44 PM
United we stand - Divided we fall.. if you only want something for people with US Masters just think how far you can go without the support of the rest of the IV community.
2011 justin bieber new 2011 hot.
new_horizon
12-14 10:11 AM
For how long is USCIS issuing the EAD & AP these days?
more...
snathan
06-17 11:09 AM
I have suffered a lot due to this stamping business and I have a thread on IV "STUCK IN MONTREAL" I was there for almost 2 months with 2 of my sons and wife. My oldest one lost his full smester of college, 2nd one was only in 4th grade and got lucky due to his excellent record in school and hence was promoted, due to this stamping business and I was poorer by 30K. I will do whatever needs to be done to get this bill rolling and am ready to share my story with any one..
This was my 3rd stamping with the same employer and 2nd one was also in Toronto in 2005 at that time I had no problems and this time my salary was almost 30% more tan the last one in 2005.
Great effort and Good Luck..
RV
Thanks for your support...Please post the link to that thread or your full story here. It would very helpful...
Thanks.
This was my 3rd stamping with the same employer and 2nd one was also in Toronto in 2005 at that time I had no problems and this time my salary was almost 30% more tan the last one in 2005.
Great effort and Good Luck..
RV
Thanks for your support...Please post the link to that thread or your full story here. It would very helpful...
Thanks.
amitjoey
01-31 12:12 PM
Attorney fees also increase in proportion to the USCIS Fees increase.
If you have noticed, the Attorney fees are relative to the form that they are working on. Historicaly, attorney's have increased the fees everytime there is an USCIS Increase.
If you have noticed, the Attorney fees are relative to the form that they are working on. Historicaly, attorney's have increased the fees everytime there is an USCIS Increase.
more...
bkarnik
04-10 03:26 PM
Friends:
I was just going through the Immigration and Nationality Act as posted on the USCIS webpage. http://uscis.gov/graphics/lawsregs/INA.htm (see Section 274A)
I did not find any reference to the employment authorisation document (EAD card) in the INA. The reference to the EAD occurs in the Title 8 of the CFR (http://uscis.gov/lpBin/lpext.dll/inserts/slb/slb-1/slb-10903/slb-27920?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm#slb-cfrp274a) The CFR is defined on the USCIS website as below (emphasis added by me).
"The general provisions of laws enacted by Congress are interpreted and implemented by regulations issued by various agencies. These regulations apply the law to daily situations. After regulations are published in the Federal Register, they are collected and published in the Code of Federal Regulations, commonly referred to as the CFR. The CFR is arranged by subject title and generally parallels the structure of the United States Code. Thus, Title 8 of the CFR deals with "Aliens and Nationality", as does Title 8 of the U.S. Code."
Unless, I missed something, the Secretary of the DHS has the authority to issue a regulation requiring the agencies to issue the EAD at any stage, similar to the powers the Secretary has to extend the validdity of the EAD beyond a year if he seems fit. Am I correct in my interpretation? I would welcome any person to please point out the applicable law (not regulation) which mentions that EAD can only be given after appling for adjustment of status and not before.
If I am way off base on this, then brickbats are also welcome.
I was just going through the Immigration and Nationality Act as posted on the USCIS webpage. http://uscis.gov/graphics/lawsregs/INA.htm (see Section 274A)
I did not find any reference to the employment authorisation document (EAD card) in the INA. The reference to the EAD occurs in the Title 8 of the CFR (http://uscis.gov/lpBin/lpext.dll/inserts/slb/slb-1/slb-10903/slb-27920?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm#slb-cfrp274a) The CFR is defined on the USCIS website as below (emphasis added by me).
"The general provisions of laws enacted by Congress are interpreted and implemented by regulations issued by various agencies. These regulations apply the law to daily situations. After regulations are published in the Federal Register, they are collected and published in the Code of Federal Regulations, commonly referred to as the CFR. The CFR is arranged by subject title and generally parallels the structure of the United States Code. Thus, Title 8 of the CFR deals with "Aliens and Nationality", as does Title 8 of the U.S. Code."
Unless, I missed something, the Secretary of the DHS has the authority to issue a regulation requiring the agencies to issue the EAD at any stage, similar to the powers the Secretary has to extend the validdity of the EAD beyond a year if he seems fit. Am I correct in my interpretation? I would welcome any person to please point out the applicable law (not regulation) which mentions that EAD can only be given after appling for adjustment of status and not before.
If I am way off base on this, then brickbats are also welcome.
2010 justin bieber new haircut
icecolor
02-12 07:42 AM
You need to file form 4852. That is super easy and I have filed it once.
There are no problems with that whatsoever.
You employer cannot pull a single hairstring from your head. So do not worry about the legal notice. That is all bull. He is probably worrying day and night about the DOL complaint you made.
What you need to, further, is go to the local IRS office and talk to one of the employee about not getting your W-2. Not providing a W-2 is serious issue.
There are no problems with that whatsoever.
You employer cannot pull a single hairstring from your head. So do not worry about the legal notice. That is all bull. He is probably worrying day and night about the DOL complaint you made.
What you need to, further, is go to the local IRS office and talk to one of the employee about not getting your W-2. Not providing a W-2 is serious issue.
more...
grupak
06-12 04:35 PM
I just finished calling those 6 Reps - o how fun!
Anyways, so guys - does this Krikorian guy need some education or flowers? Let us provide him with what he needs and get this thing going further.
Can we call him like we are calling the Reps?
Lets go through the logic of Mr. Krikorian carefully and use it for our benefit.
Anyways, so guys - does this Krikorian guy need some education or flowers? Let us provide him with what he needs and get this thing going further.
Can we call him like we are calling the Reps?
Lets go through the logic of Mr. Krikorian carefully and use it for our benefit.
hair 22 March 2011. Justin Bieber#39;s
qvadis
12-29 04:03 PM
No one analysed the statue of the language used in 202 5 a.
If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5).
You might have to define what the word "is" is ;-)
Anyway, that paragraph also states: "If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) [...] exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise issued such visas,." but then continues on with: "the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation"
One could interpret this distinction such that the actual number of visas available is not necessarily the same number of visas made available, which is fixed to 28.6% + spill-over. It might, as well, comprise only those unused visas that haven't been passed down to a lower category. 203 (b) (2) / (3) and 202(5) seem to compete over the unused numbers. Not sure which one has preference.
This is the very direct, simple interpretation of 202 5 A.
Therefore one cannot (EB3-ROW) interpret, for their convenience.
Well, that's according to your interpretation. You seem to suggest that USCIS disagrees with your interpretation. We probably have to wait for the next immigration statistics to see what rule USCIS has been following.
Thats why I suggest the IV to discuss with experinced attorney and make a enquiry with law makers or DOS, if required. Otherwise (if it is wrong it is a big blow to India and China). We will get only 2800 per year.
I'd hope IV would focus on increasing the number of GCs available to all of us, instead of fighting for allocation. ACT-21 increased the number of H1B visas without increasing the number of GCs.
If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5).
You might have to define what the word "is" is ;-)
Anyway, that paragraph also states: "If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) [...] exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise issued such visas,." but then continues on with: "the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation"
One could interpret this distinction such that the actual number of visas available is not necessarily the same number of visas made available, which is fixed to 28.6% + spill-over. It might, as well, comprise only those unused visas that haven't been passed down to a lower category. 203 (b) (2) / (3) and 202(5) seem to compete over the unused numbers. Not sure which one has preference.
This is the very direct, simple interpretation of 202 5 A.
Therefore one cannot (EB3-ROW) interpret, for their convenience.
Well, that's according to your interpretation. You seem to suggest that USCIS disagrees with your interpretation. We probably have to wait for the next immigration statistics to see what rule USCIS has been following.
Thats why I suggest the IV to discuss with experinced attorney and make a enquiry with law makers or DOS, if required. Otherwise (if it is wrong it is a big blow to India and China). We will get only 2800 per year.
I'd hope IV would focus on increasing the number of GCs available to all of us, instead of fighting for allocation. ACT-21 increased the number of H1B visas without increasing the number of GCs.
more...
kumar1
08-19 09:02 PM
I can give you my example. 10 years in the US and got greened yesterday. Background -
B. Tech. from IIT - 1999. Always believed in hard work and dedication.
2000/2001 - Came to the US
2003 - Filed labor - RIR - EB3
2004 - job loss
2004 - Joined so called fortune 500 company with 15000 + employees and presence in 50 countries. They promised but never filed GC.
2005 - Filed Canada PR.
2005 - Quit and joined Desi company. Started GC process on day-1.
2005- Filed under Perm EB-3 (lawyer screwed). Got approved in 3 months.
2006 - Filed I-140 got approved in 3 weeks.
2007 - July Fiasco and filed I-485. Got AP, EAD. Wife started to work.
2008 - EB-3 sucked so talked to employer to file in EB-2. Desi company did not care as long as I paid for it.
2009 - Filed labor, got approved in 6 months.
2009 - Filed EB2 I-140 and requested to re-capture the PD of first labor.
2009 - I-140 approved, same day saw an LUD on pending I-485. Also, approved I-140 came with A# and EB-3 labor PD.
2009 - Bought a home.
2010 - July, dates became current.
Opened SR, got a response that my case is still in EB3. NSC sucks.
Asked lawyer to send letter to USCIS. He did, nothing happened.
Contacted senator and they opened up a congressional request with USCIS.
Within 2 days, USCIS issued RFE about incomplete medical. It was total BS.
Contacted doctor and got chest X-Ray and replied RFE.
Took several Inforpass appointments.
EAD expired, did everything but could not get renewed on time.
Did not tell anything to HR about expired EAD, both kept mum and kept working.
Had fights at DMV to get DL extended.
Aug-17th, GC got approved.
Is this all worth it? I do not know. Only reason I joined desi company with 2 employees is that desi company was ready to file GC on day-1. I have seen so called Fortune-xx companies. They lied to me.
Overall - I am a happy person. Would continue with Desi employer for some more time.
Now that we have GC, I would like to -
1. Spend more time with family and not worry about LIN-XXXX numbers.
2. Think about doing MBA.
3. Move to a warmer place like CA.
Good Luck. I would suggest - Talk to your employer and explain your situation. You have nothing to lose.
B. Tech. from IIT - 1999. Always believed in hard work and dedication.
2000/2001 - Came to the US
2003 - Filed labor - RIR - EB3
2004 - job loss
2004 - Joined so called fortune 500 company with 15000 + employees and presence in 50 countries. They promised but never filed GC.
2005 - Filed Canada PR.
2005 - Quit and joined Desi company. Started GC process on day-1.
2005- Filed under Perm EB-3 (lawyer screwed). Got approved in 3 months.
2006 - Filed I-140 got approved in 3 weeks.
2007 - July Fiasco and filed I-485. Got AP, EAD. Wife started to work.
2008 - EB-3 sucked so talked to employer to file in EB-2. Desi company did not care as long as I paid for it.
2009 - Filed labor, got approved in 6 months.
2009 - Filed EB2 I-140 and requested to re-capture the PD of first labor.
2009 - I-140 approved, same day saw an LUD on pending I-485. Also, approved I-140 came with A# and EB-3 labor PD.
2009 - Bought a home.
2010 - July, dates became current.
Opened SR, got a response that my case is still in EB3. NSC sucks.
Asked lawyer to send letter to USCIS. He did, nothing happened.
Contacted senator and they opened up a congressional request with USCIS.
Within 2 days, USCIS issued RFE about incomplete medical. It was total BS.
Contacted doctor and got chest X-Ray and replied RFE.
Took several Inforpass appointments.
EAD expired, did everything but could not get renewed on time.
Did not tell anything to HR about expired EAD, both kept mum and kept working.
Had fights at DMV to get DL extended.
Aug-17th, GC got approved.
Is this all worth it? I do not know. Only reason I joined desi company with 2 employees is that desi company was ready to file GC on day-1. I have seen so called Fortune-xx companies. They lied to me.
Overall - I am a happy person. Would continue with Desi employer for some more time.
Now that we have GC, I would like to -
1. Spend more time with family and not worry about LIN-XXXX numbers.
2. Think about doing MBA.
3. Move to a warmer place like CA.
Good Luck. I would suggest - Talk to your employer and explain your situation. You have nothing to lose.
hot justin bieber pics new 2011.
shree772000
05-17 12:16 PM
First of all make a complaint about the employer to the INS that he is not paying... and make decision, US is not your entire life. If you have confidence you can do anything anywhere in this small world.
We have skills and ability to make many more countries like US.... We have to beleive it....
We have skills and ability to make many more countries like US.... We have to beleive it....
more...
house JUSTIN BIEBER NEW HAIRCUT 2011
plassey
08-16 09:43 AM
I think the "someone" you mentioned was me. Feel free to use my name. Glad I could be of help ;)
Folks,
I am going to share with you what I have done regarding refilling and why I have done that.
Call me a paranoid or something else but the fact of the matter is that time period between July 2nd and Aug 17th is a golden opportunity that may not present itself for several years now.
Though the chances of my application getting rejected due to mail room error is less but in the game of probability everyone of us stand equal chances of getting hit by a thunder bolt.
Just a side note - They install lightning rod on buildings to protect from lightening even though chances are 1 in 700,000. Well, my odds are much worse than that. Hence, I need to protect myself.
Regarding filling multiple 485 applications, Rajeev Khanna has categorically stated in one of his meetings that he is doing it. And we all know he is a person of good reputation.
There are two scenarios I can think about:
a) My July 2nd is accepted: In such cases either my later filled application is automatically rejected or they will send me a letter asking me to choose one.
Someone on one of his/her post had mentioned about stop payment idea. He may have a point. Call USCIS and you will find out that only thing they will do is reject your application, which is what you want if your earlier application is already in process.
Somebody also stated just like what they did in H-1B cases on 04/02/07, they may reject both applications, well; H-1B case was different due to lottery system.
b) My July 2nd application is rejected: Well, I just protected myself from a thunder bolt.
Having suffered in Green Card race for so long, my risk taking capacity has greatly been reduced. I am not advising or urging anyone to take any action. I am just sharing what I did.
Folks,
I am going to share with you what I have done regarding refilling and why I have done that.
Call me a paranoid or something else but the fact of the matter is that time period between July 2nd and Aug 17th is a golden opportunity that may not present itself for several years now.
Though the chances of my application getting rejected due to mail room error is less but in the game of probability everyone of us stand equal chances of getting hit by a thunder bolt.
Just a side note - They install lightning rod on buildings to protect from lightening even though chances are 1 in 700,000. Well, my odds are much worse than that. Hence, I need to protect myself.
Regarding filling multiple 485 applications, Rajeev Khanna has categorically stated in one of his meetings that he is doing it. And we all know he is a person of good reputation.
There are two scenarios I can think about:
a) My July 2nd is accepted: In such cases either my later filled application is automatically rejected or they will send me a letter asking me to choose one.
Someone on one of his/her post had mentioned about stop payment idea. He may have a point. Call USCIS and you will find out that only thing they will do is reject your application, which is what you want if your earlier application is already in process.
Somebody also stated just like what they did in H-1B cases on 04/02/07, they may reject both applications, well; H-1B case was different due to lottery system.
b) My July 2nd application is rejected: Well, I just protected myself from a thunder bolt.
Having suffered in Green Card race for so long, my risk taking capacity has greatly been reduced. I am not advising or urging anyone to take any action. I am just sharing what I did.
tattoo justin bieber new haircut 2011
flipflop
08-23 04:09 PM
I still don't get it. There are around 300k AOS applications now pending. Given that there are only 10k EB based green cards for India, and I am sure there are more applications than 10k for FY2008 and still Visa bulletin for Oct indicates a date of Apr 2004. Should it not be "U" for the entire FY2008?
more...
pictures justin bieber icons 2011.
[Legoman]
02-10 10:00 AM
I went with kax's kastle. damned fine.
dresses justin bieber launch fragrance
gsc999
07-06 07:57 PM
[QUOTE=logiclife]EDIT: According to Dr. Bahrainwala,this has been bumped to 7/7/07..
Same time 5.30 pm central NBC weekend news.
Check your local tv listings by going to http://www.tvguide.com/listings/setup/localize.aspx
--
The telecast has been postphoned till tomorrow.
Saturday(07/07) is even better, more coverage.
Same time 5.30 pm central NBC weekend news.
Check your local tv listings by going to http://www.tvguide.com/listings/setup/localize.aspx
--
The telecast has been postphoned till tomorrow.
Saturday(07/07) is even better, more coverage.
more...
makeup 2010 justin bieber new haircut
pasupuleti
02-28 07:49 PM
We have a meeting with Zoe Lofgren Staff on March 8th @ 2:30 PM
You could find her san jose office address @
http://zoelofgren.house.gov/ . Let me know if anyone wants to attend this meeting.
This meeting in silliconvalley which is the home for most h1bs. Please come forward to attend this meeting.
You could find her san jose office address @
http://zoelofgren.house.gov/ . Let me know if anyone wants to attend this meeting.
This meeting in silliconvalley which is the home for most h1bs. Please come forward to attend this meeting.
girlfriend new justin bieber 2011
kumar1
06-02 01:01 PM
Person, if in USA, has 30 days to start working for H1 employer after CoS approval date. One more thing, one can start working after applying for SSN without waiting for getting actual SSN.
It seems that she was out of status.
______________________
Not a legal advice.
Desi - Could you please guide us to any official site where this information is listed? I haven't been able to find this info on any official site (exp USCIS, DOS etc). Thanks
It seems that she was out of status.
______________________
Not a legal advice.
Desi - Could you please guide us to any official site where this information is listed? I haven't been able to find this info on any official site (exp USCIS, DOS etc). Thanks
hairstyles showedview justin had to ellen on thefeb Justin+ieber+new+haircut+2011
sundeep14
08-21 09:20 AM
Friend,
I firmly believe that you should not let go this company who screwed u....first and foremost hire a good immigration lawyer (i know it will cost some $$$)....but its important...and discuss with him your case...then sue that bastard company and let him have sleepless nights for couple of months....
Its fraud for the company to accept money for filin 140/labor....they will be screwed more for that...u can mention that the company told u that each employee pays his own costs....and hence u gave him money
I firmly believe that you should not let go this company who screwed u....first and foremost hire a good immigration lawyer (i know it will cost some $$$)....but its important...and discuss with him your case...then sue that bastard company and let him have sleepless nights for couple of months....
Its fraud for the company to accept money for filin 140/labor....they will be screwed more for that...u can mention that the company told u that each employee pays his own costs....and hence u gave him money
Lisap
08-23 04:19 PM
Here comes one more preacher. Most people on this forum are no saint, they not even a man (or woman) enough to stand up for themselves.
We are a Union and thats how a union works that is actively supporting the cause of its members.
If one is stupid enough not to understand that we are trying to help everyone and thus this "one help" need to be demanded then god help that person.
Understood, we all may have problems but those could be solved with whatever our share of work we can do to support this cause.
If someone says that they don't know what IV policies and activites are and blames that nobody explained to them. Well... thats a lame excuse. It is very much on the front page of IV
Number is the bargaining power and we are here to bargain. Period.
Yes, u got that right. I am one angry man and regret that what I am doing goes against the spirit of IV.
Now my direct question to you is : are in or are u out?
With people like you on here- I am out too!
We are a Union and thats how a union works that is actively supporting the cause of its members.
If one is stupid enough not to understand that we are trying to help everyone and thus this "one help" need to be demanded then god help that person.
Understood, we all may have problems but those could be solved with whatever our share of work we can do to support this cause.
If someone says that they don't know what IV policies and activites are and blames that nobody explained to them. Well... thats a lame excuse. It is very much on the front page of IV
Number is the bargaining power and we are here to bargain. Period.
Yes, u got that right. I am one angry man and regret that what I am doing goes against the spirit of IV.
Now my direct question to you is : are in or are u out?
With people like you on here- I am out too!
longq
12-20 03:41 PM
Hello IV and its core members,
I am one of the members of the forum and suffering due to the severe retrogression of EB visas. I highly appreciate IV�s effort to bring some legislative relief to address the severe backlogs in EB visas. I too participated in all IVs campaign in urging the law makers to bring some relief for this crisis. However, I have some concern here; about the method followed U.S DOS in allocating EB visas particularly in EB2 category for India and China. I am worried whether U.S DOS is violating the INA 202 (a), by suspending AC21 provision that eliminates country quota in EB categories. If they are violating by mistake, it is our responsibility to notify/clarify with them or we need to understand the law clearly. This is very important. Because, even if 110th congress passes SKIL bill, if DOS violates the AC21 law then it will not help applicants from oversubscribed countries (India and China). Here is my analysis based on following facts.
The cutoff date for EB2 India has moved just 7 days since last 9 months. However EB2 �Row has been current. EB2- ROW has never retrogressed before. EB3 ROW has seen considerable movement in last 9 months.
There may be four possible separate or combination of following reasons for the freeze of cutoff dates for India in EB2 at Jan 2003.
1. The backlog elimination effort of DOL pumped massive approved labor certificates from BEC. There may be tons of EB2 applicants from India and China with PD in the year 2001 and 2002 might have applied 485s based on recent approvals from BEC. However I doubt that. Because, in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003, EB3 India and China were �current�. No body cared about filing EB2 labor certification till the later part of 2004. Most lawyers preferred to file EB3 as it was easy, and there were no difference between EB3 and EB2 at that time. First ever indication for EB3 retrogression was issued by DOS only in later part of 2004. I doubt so many people have filed EB2-labor till 2003, keeping in mind that EB3 will retrogress in 2004 or future. Traditionally EB2 has been less demanding compare to EB1 and EB3.
2. Perhaps, there may be a huge demand by ROW (Due to PERM) to consume all the 86% of visa numbers in EB2 category in every month that prompts DOS to allocate only 7% to India and China. I doubt this too, because India and China itself consume about 60% of EB2 visas.
3. There may be lot of EB3 Indians and Chinese with PD 2001 and 2002 porting their PD from EB3 to EB2 by filing new LC and EB2-I-140. This may escalate the demand. However, how many will do this? How many employers will to do this �favor� for their employees? A real US employer/big corporations will not do double time work for an employee. Only consulting/staffing companies will do this. I think this may be a small group (or may not be?).
4. There may be another possible reason. There may be something wrong with U.S.DOS in allocating visa numbers in EB2 category, as per section 202 (a) of current INA. They may be issuing only 2800 (7% of 40,000) visas to India and China in EB2 and redirecting unused EB2 numbers to EB3 category. They may be imposing hard country cap in EB2 (Suspending AC21 law as per their VB Nov 2005). There is a large room for this speculation, due to the pattern of cutoff date movement in EB2 category. This is just a speculation. This argument/speculation is valid if DOS has issued less than 40,000 EB2 visas in FY 2006 as mandated by the law, and issued those numbers (40,000 minus actually issued) to EB3-ROW. In my view, it violates section 203 (b) (2) of the INA. One has to wait till they release statistics for FY 2006, to see how many EB2 visas are issued in that FY.
Here is some detailed analysis that says why it violates the law.
Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 203 a and b of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets numbers for each preference categories with in FB and EB.
Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320. This section also explains how to handle unused numbers with respect to country quota.
Even before AC21 rule enacted in 2000, there was no �hard� country cap as per INA then. Here is the section of INA before year 2000, describes how to allocate unused visas, if overall/total demand for FB an EB visas are less than supply*.
INA 202 (a) (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-Family category) and (b-Employment category) 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�.
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
After 2000 (After AC21) the following law was added to INA in the section 202.
INA 202 (a) (5) (A)
EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
As per my simple interpretation of above AC21 rule, DOS should allocate unused visas by ROW �EB2 (ROW- countries other than India and China in EB2 category) for the first two months of any calendar quarter to over-subscribed countries (India & China) at the third month of that calendar quarter. They should not allocate to lower Preference category (EB3), if demand is more in higher preference category (EB2) to consume all the visa numbers in that preference category. They should allocate visas to all the documentarily qualified applicants in that (EB2) preference category, irrespective of country of birth. If they followed this rule/law, there may be a considerable movement in cut-off dates for India and China in Dec 2005, Mar, June and Sep of 2006 in EB2 (last month of each calendar quarter in a fiscal year). We have not witnessed such movement in last 1.5 years. No one knows how DOS is allocating numbers. They may be allocating only 7% visas to India and China in EB2 category very strictly, every month, and allocating unused numbers to EB3 category, by suspending AC21 law as indicated in their Nov 2005 Visa Bulletin. If they do so, it is against the law, at least in my interpretation of AC21 rule that eliminates country quota in EB categories.
DOS can not interpret above AC21 rule that eliminates per country limit applies �totally� to all EB categories put together, not by individual preference categories. I.e. If they say they will issue more than 2,800 visas to EB2- India per year (more than 7% of 40,000), provided overall demand for EB visas are less than 140,000. If they interpret the law like this, then there is no need for section 202(a) (5) (A) due to AC21 law. The law before AC21 {i.e. section 202 (a) (3)} itself address the elimination of country quota in both FB and EB category*. Then, section 202(a) (5) (A) is a duplicate wording of section 202(a) (3). So, this section of AC21 law becomes a redundant/duplicate law. Then, there is no meaning of employment �preference� category if they interpret �totally or overall worldwide demand�. In other words, a non-Indian/Chinese restaurant cook (EB3) is more preferred than a NIW PhDs (EB2) from India or China. Is it the intend of the congress when enacting AC21 law in removing per country limitation in EB category? Is it the American Competitiveness in 21st century? I highly doubt that.
Now it is the time to ask US DOS, how they are allocating visa number in EB2 category. If DOS interpreting the law differently, then we need to ask the law makers (Congress) what is their original intension behind the section 202(a)(5)(A) when they drafted the AC21 law in 2000 and how it is differ from 202 (a) (3).
Perhaps Core IV team can initiate to discuss/consult this issue with an immigration lawyer and place an enquiry with DOS or Law makers, if needed.
(*Note: DOS do not mix FB and EB categories for visa number allocation/calculation to meet the per country limit. They keep both in separate track to meet separately the 7% limit)
I am one of the members of the forum and suffering due to the severe retrogression of EB visas. I highly appreciate IV�s effort to bring some legislative relief to address the severe backlogs in EB visas. I too participated in all IVs campaign in urging the law makers to bring some relief for this crisis. However, I have some concern here; about the method followed U.S DOS in allocating EB visas particularly in EB2 category for India and China. I am worried whether U.S DOS is violating the INA 202 (a), by suspending AC21 provision that eliminates country quota in EB categories. If they are violating by mistake, it is our responsibility to notify/clarify with them or we need to understand the law clearly. This is very important. Because, even if 110th congress passes SKIL bill, if DOS violates the AC21 law then it will not help applicants from oversubscribed countries (India and China). Here is my analysis based on following facts.
The cutoff date for EB2 India has moved just 7 days since last 9 months. However EB2 �Row has been current. EB2- ROW has never retrogressed before. EB3 ROW has seen considerable movement in last 9 months.
There may be four possible separate or combination of following reasons for the freeze of cutoff dates for India in EB2 at Jan 2003.
1. The backlog elimination effort of DOL pumped massive approved labor certificates from BEC. There may be tons of EB2 applicants from India and China with PD in the year 2001 and 2002 might have applied 485s based on recent approvals from BEC. However I doubt that. Because, in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003, EB3 India and China were �current�. No body cared about filing EB2 labor certification till the later part of 2004. Most lawyers preferred to file EB3 as it was easy, and there were no difference between EB3 and EB2 at that time. First ever indication for EB3 retrogression was issued by DOS only in later part of 2004. I doubt so many people have filed EB2-labor till 2003, keeping in mind that EB3 will retrogress in 2004 or future. Traditionally EB2 has been less demanding compare to EB1 and EB3.
2. Perhaps, there may be a huge demand by ROW (Due to PERM) to consume all the 86% of visa numbers in EB2 category in every month that prompts DOS to allocate only 7% to India and China. I doubt this too, because India and China itself consume about 60% of EB2 visas.
3. There may be lot of EB3 Indians and Chinese with PD 2001 and 2002 porting their PD from EB3 to EB2 by filing new LC and EB2-I-140. This may escalate the demand. However, how many will do this? How many employers will to do this �favor� for their employees? A real US employer/big corporations will not do double time work for an employee. Only consulting/staffing companies will do this. I think this may be a small group (or may not be?).
4. There may be another possible reason. There may be something wrong with U.S.DOS in allocating visa numbers in EB2 category, as per section 202 (a) of current INA. They may be issuing only 2800 (7% of 40,000) visas to India and China in EB2 and redirecting unused EB2 numbers to EB3 category. They may be imposing hard country cap in EB2 (Suspending AC21 law as per their VB Nov 2005). There is a large room for this speculation, due to the pattern of cutoff date movement in EB2 category. This is just a speculation. This argument/speculation is valid if DOS has issued less than 40,000 EB2 visas in FY 2006 as mandated by the law, and issued those numbers (40,000 minus actually issued) to EB3-ROW. In my view, it violates section 203 (b) (2) of the INA. One has to wait till they release statistics for FY 2006, to see how many EB2 visas are issued in that FY.
Here is some detailed analysis that says why it violates the law.
Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 203 a and b of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets numbers for each preference categories with in FB and EB.
Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320. This section also explains how to handle unused numbers with respect to country quota.
Even before AC21 rule enacted in 2000, there was no �hard� country cap as per INA then. Here is the section of INA before year 2000, describes how to allocate unused visas, if overall/total demand for FB an EB visas are less than supply*.
INA 202 (a) (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-Family category) and (b-Employment category) 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�.
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
After 2000 (After AC21) the following law was added to INA in the section 202.
INA 202 (a) (5) (A)
EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
As per my simple interpretation of above AC21 rule, DOS should allocate unused visas by ROW �EB2 (ROW- countries other than India and China in EB2 category) for the first two months of any calendar quarter to over-subscribed countries (India & China) at the third month of that calendar quarter. They should not allocate to lower Preference category (EB3), if demand is more in higher preference category (EB2) to consume all the visa numbers in that preference category. They should allocate visas to all the documentarily qualified applicants in that (EB2) preference category, irrespective of country of birth. If they followed this rule/law, there may be a considerable movement in cut-off dates for India and China in Dec 2005, Mar, June and Sep of 2006 in EB2 (last month of each calendar quarter in a fiscal year). We have not witnessed such movement in last 1.5 years. No one knows how DOS is allocating numbers. They may be allocating only 7% visas to India and China in EB2 category very strictly, every month, and allocating unused numbers to EB3 category, by suspending AC21 law as indicated in their Nov 2005 Visa Bulletin. If they do so, it is against the law, at least in my interpretation of AC21 rule that eliminates country quota in EB categories.
DOS can not interpret above AC21 rule that eliminates per country limit applies �totally� to all EB categories put together, not by individual preference categories. I.e. If they say they will issue more than 2,800 visas to EB2- India per year (more than 7% of 40,000), provided overall demand for EB visas are less than 140,000. If they interpret the law like this, then there is no need for section 202(a) (5) (A) due to AC21 law. The law before AC21 {i.e. section 202 (a) (3)} itself address the elimination of country quota in both FB and EB category*. Then, section 202(a) (5) (A) is a duplicate wording of section 202(a) (3). So, this section of AC21 law becomes a redundant/duplicate law. Then, there is no meaning of employment �preference� category if they interpret �totally or overall worldwide demand�. In other words, a non-Indian/Chinese restaurant cook (EB3) is more preferred than a NIW PhDs (EB2) from India or China. Is it the intend of the congress when enacting AC21 law in removing per country limitation in EB category? Is it the American Competitiveness in 21st century? I highly doubt that.
Now it is the time to ask US DOS, how they are allocating visa number in EB2 category. If DOS interpreting the law differently, then we need to ask the law makers (Congress) what is their original intension behind the section 202(a)(5)(A) when they drafted the AC21 law in 2000 and how it is differ from 202 (a) (3).
Perhaps Core IV team can initiate to discuss/consult this issue with an immigration lawyer and place an enquiry with DOS or Law makers, if needed.
(*Note: DOS do not mix FB and EB categories for visa number allocation/calculation to meet the per country limit. They keep both in separate track to meet separately the 7% limit)
No comments:
Post a Comment