grupak
08-28 05:38 PM
Maybe you can file DHS form 7001 to the Ombudsman, and point out the self-contradiction.
Good luck!
Good luck!
wallpaper 1964 Lincoln Continental.
wandmaker
08-26 02:27 PM
The Receipt date is the date when they actually receive our case in a Service Center. Notice date is when it got entered into the system. I-485 Notice shows both the RD and ND. RD should be August 17 for most of us, whose cases were transferred to various Service Centers. Online status shows the ND. The only confusion here is what do they go by(may be USCIS it self not sure how to prioritize - whether on ND or RD).
Strictly speaking, if they go by ND and if the ND is after Aug-17 we may not be eligible for GC, as our(July/Aug 07 batch) cut-off dates is august-17-2007. This is what I was told by DAO when I attended the interview at the local USCIS office.
As mentioned earlier, USCIS suppose to process by the RD (ie. the date they received in the service center mail room) - but the fact is, they are going by the ND (i.e. the date they entered the case into the system).
Strictly speaking, if they go by ND and if the ND is after Aug-17 we may not be eligible for GC, as our(July/Aug 07 batch) cut-off dates is august-17-2007. This is what I was told by DAO when I attended the interview at the local USCIS office.
As mentioned earlier, USCIS suppose to process by the RD (ie. the date they received in the service center mail room) - but the fact is, they are going by the ND (i.e. the date they entered the case into the system).
texanguy
08-21 05:18 PM
one more thing...
How come a DOS memo lands on a USCIS officer's desk. It has to be a USCIS memo.
This is totally fake...
How come a DOS memo lands on a USCIS officer's desk. It has to be a USCIS memo.
This is totally fake...
2011 Tony#39;s Lincoln Continental
bsbawa10
02-25 11:52 AM
Very good idea. Actually I have sent this suggestion as part of the mail to ombudsman .
[url]http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=23280[/url
'realizeit' has used very good terminology.
Thank you.
I will do the same right now. Many thanks "realizeit".
Also to one of the comments in this thread "It makes too much sense...". I fully agree with what you say about USCIS's loosing money. However, this suggestion will put them on the spot. At least they have to answer about why they are not willing to do so in case they say "no" (Obviously, they will not be able to say , they loose money).
[url]http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=23280[/url
'realizeit' has used very good terminology.
Thank you.
I will do the same right now. Many thanks "realizeit".
Also to one of the comments in this thread "It makes too much sense...". I fully agree with what you say about USCIS's loosing money. However, this suggestion will put them on the spot. At least they have to answer about why they are not willing to do so in case they say "no" (Obviously, they will not be able to say , they loose money).
more...
unitednations
02-04 12:36 PM
From the November 2005 visa bulletin
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_2712.html
HOW IS THE EMPLOYMENT-BASED PER-COUNTRY LIMIT CALCULATED?
Section 201 of the INA sets an annual minimum Family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000, while the worldwide annual level for Employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 202 sets the per-country limit for preference immigrants at 7% of the total annual Family-sponsored and Employment-based preference limits, i.e. a minimum of 25,620.
The annual per-country limitation of 7% is a cap, meaning visa issuances to any single country may not exceed this figure. This limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled, however. The per-country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the visa numbers by applicants from only a few countries.
The AC21 removed the per-country limit in any calendar quarter in which overall applicant demand for Employment-based visa numbers is less than the total of such numbers available.
In recent years, the application of the rules outlined in AC21 has allowed countries such as China � mainland born, India, and the Philippines to utilize large amounts of employment numbers which would have otherwise gone unused.
During FY due to anticipated heavy demand, the AC21 provisions are not expected to apply, and the amount of Employment numbers available to any single country will be subject to the 7% cap. It is anticipated that the addition of unused FY-2005 Family numbers and the remaining AC21 numbers to the 140,000 annual minimum will result in an FY-2006 annual Employment limit of 152,000. This will mean an Employment per-country limit for FY-2006 of approximately 10,650.
To illustrate the effect of the reduced per-county limitation during FY-2006 on the oversubscribed countries, it should be noted that during FY-2005 India used approximately 47,175 Employment numbers.
-----------------------------------------------
relevant excerpts from above. 7% cap for any one country that is it., Even unused visas in eb1 and eb2 will not go to the retrogressed countries such as china, india. It will flow downwards.
--------
and the amount of Employment numbers available to any single country will be subject to the 7% cap. It is anticipated that the addition of unused FY-2005 Family numbers and the remaining AC21 numbers to the 140,000 annual minimum will result in an FY-2006 annual Employment limit of 152,000. This will mean an Employment per-country limit for FY-2006 of approximately 10,650.
-------------------
This is a big lie. EB3 went totally unavailable in July to September 2005. When eb3 went unavailable that means no country should have gone over their 7% limit. However, statistics show that certain countries did go over the 7% limit. This is where USCIS/department of state broke the law by giving visas to certain countries that they shouldn't have.
----
In recent years, the application of the rules outlined in AC21 has allowed countries such as China � mainland born, India, and the Philippines to utilize large amounts of employment numbers which would have otherwise gone unused.
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_2712.html
HOW IS THE EMPLOYMENT-BASED PER-COUNTRY LIMIT CALCULATED?
Section 201 of the INA sets an annual minimum Family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000, while the worldwide annual level for Employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 202 sets the per-country limit for preference immigrants at 7% of the total annual Family-sponsored and Employment-based preference limits, i.e. a minimum of 25,620.
The annual per-country limitation of 7% is a cap, meaning visa issuances to any single country may not exceed this figure. This limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled, however. The per-country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the visa numbers by applicants from only a few countries.
The AC21 removed the per-country limit in any calendar quarter in which overall applicant demand for Employment-based visa numbers is less than the total of such numbers available.
In recent years, the application of the rules outlined in AC21 has allowed countries such as China � mainland born, India, and the Philippines to utilize large amounts of employment numbers which would have otherwise gone unused.
During FY due to anticipated heavy demand, the AC21 provisions are not expected to apply, and the amount of Employment numbers available to any single country will be subject to the 7% cap. It is anticipated that the addition of unused FY-2005 Family numbers and the remaining AC21 numbers to the 140,000 annual minimum will result in an FY-2006 annual Employment limit of 152,000. This will mean an Employment per-country limit for FY-2006 of approximately 10,650.
To illustrate the effect of the reduced per-county limitation during FY-2006 on the oversubscribed countries, it should be noted that during FY-2005 India used approximately 47,175 Employment numbers.
-----------------------------------------------
relevant excerpts from above. 7% cap for any one country that is it., Even unused visas in eb1 and eb2 will not go to the retrogressed countries such as china, india. It will flow downwards.
--------
and the amount of Employment numbers available to any single country will be subject to the 7% cap. It is anticipated that the addition of unused FY-2005 Family numbers and the remaining AC21 numbers to the 140,000 annual minimum will result in an FY-2006 annual Employment limit of 152,000. This will mean an Employment per-country limit for FY-2006 of approximately 10,650.
-------------------
This is a big lie. EB3 went totally unavailable in July to September 2005. When eb3 went unavailable that means no country should have gone over their 7% limit. However, statistics show that certain countries did go over the 7% limit. This is where USCIS/department of state broke the law by giving visas to certain countries that they shouldn't have.
----
In recent years, the application of the rules outlined in AC21 has allowed countries such as China � mainland born, India, and the Philippines to utilize large amounts of employment numbers which would have otherwise gone unused.
jonty_11
07-05 04:28 PM
Err... that was about "no work day"... Our agenda is to support one of IVs agendas.. attract media attention. So even if IV does not endorse the method... we are still supporting what IV is attempting to do!
I guess only IV can clear this
pappu...can u confirm ?
I guess only IV can clear this
pappu...can u confirm ?
more...
reedandbamboo
09-13 01:29 AM
I incorporated the points you made and the revisions are in fuchsia. Also make sure to change the designation as you make your way down the list of recipients (listed on page 6 of this thread):
The Ombudsman
USCIS
September 10. 2008
Sir/Madam,
On behalf of the employment-based legal immigrant community in the United States of America, I am writing to highlight the ongoing egregious inefficiencies in the immigration “services” provided by the USCIS and the DOS. There have been numerous occasions when there have been erratic movements in the DOS published visa bulletin dates. This, as we understand it, is owing to USCIS under- or over-estimating the number of applicants available for adjustment of status. And in the rare instances when the date finally moves forward by a substantial window, USCIS tends to approve the more recent applications as opposed to the ones that were filed earlier. Let me explain with an example: in the July 2008 visa bulletin, the cut-off date for the India EB2 category was 01 April 2004. A month later, the cut-off date for Indian EB2 applicants abruptly moved forward two years and was set at 01 June 2006. Instead of approving applicants who applied in 2004 and 2005, USCIS approved applicants from 2006. Where is the justice in that??? Why bother publishing the cut-off date if approvals are to be randomly allocated???
We understand we have to stand in line and wait our turn. Each applicant is assigned a priority date which chronologically determines his/her turn for approval. To further complicate matters, once the I-485 is filed, a crop of other dates are issued by the USCIS – a receipt date, a notice date and a processing date. USCIS then takes the liberty to throw random rules at us – “Case adjudication is based on receipt date” “No, we process applications based on notice date”, “Actually, it’s the processing date that determines which applications are adjusted.” !!!
Please take a moment to consider how these conflicting statements and arbitrary decisions wreak havoc on our morale and psyches? No one, NOT even the USCIS, has a clue as to what exactly is happening in their processing centers. The USCIS has never been able to clearly state the exact number of applications languishing, excuse us, we meant pending, in their “service” centers! We, employment-based immigrants, are tax-paying, law-abiding, educated individuals contributing to America’s knowledge economy - yet we have been subjected to the worst aspects of the US employment-based immigration system. These include:
1) Extended wait times at each step of the immigration process.
2) Lack of transparency on the part of USCIS (re: priority date, receipt date, notice date).
3) Lack of USCIS customer service – once applications are submitted to USCIS they disappear into a black hole. Barring a website where one can nominally check one’s case status (but which in reality remains static for months, even years!) there is no concept of updating an applicant on where his case stands. And this is despite the applicant paying immigration fees that often run into thousands of dollars over the years. We are simply expected to wait in a complete void of information, for however long it may take, until approval.
4) Lost opportunities owing to the lack of job portability during the process (a time period spanning an average of five years, whereas an applicant from any country besides India gets his/her PR card in under two years).
Another inconsistency, surfacing in August 2008, begs redressal – while I-485 applicants (albeit those from 2006 instead instead of earlier years) at the TSC were being approved in a steady stream, the NSC was almost completely inactive resulting in only a very few cases being approved prior to August 20th. After this date, the NSC appeared to completely hold off on all I-485 approvals while approvals continued at the TSC. Could somebody please account for this preferential treatment for I-485 applicants at the TSC versus those at the NSC? Furthermore, when complaint faxes were sent in to the NSC in protest, instead of issuing a formal statement to explain their approach, the NSC retaliated by issuing a bunch of RFEs. Is the USCIS trying to intimidate us so that we remain quiescent??
While we are grateful for the opportunity to partake in the American dream, it is ironic that we arrive in America and find that our freedom is shackled – we are bound to our sponsoring employer from the start to the end of an extremely lengthy process. Although legal immigration reform is our ongoing aim, for now, we sincerely request you to investigate the process whereby the monthly visa bulletin is set and to ensure FIFO (first in, first out) adjustment so that those of us who have been waiting longer receive attention prior to those who have applied later. We want USCIS to be accountable to us, its paying customers.
We request you to lend us your ear and address these issues so that we are not subjected to them in the future. Kindly note that there remain roughly 15 days until the October 2008 visa bulletin goes into affect. Once October arrives, the dates for Indian EB2 candidates retrogress to 2003. We believe you have the power to help a few more of us who have been waiting, seemingly endlessly, to get out of this immigration limbo.
Thanking you,
The Ombudsman
USCIS
September 10. 2008
Sir/Madam,
On behalf of the employment-based legal immigrant community in the United States of America, I am writing to highlight the ongoing egregious inefficiencies in the immigration “services” provided by the USCIS and the DOS. There have been numerous occasions when there have been erratic movements in the DOS published visa bulletin dates. This, as we understand it, is owing to USCIS under- or over-estimating the number of applicants available for adjustment of status. And in the rare instances when the date finally moves forward by a substantial window, USCIS tends to approve the more recent applications as opposed to the ones that were filed earlier. Let me explain with an example: in the July 2008 visa bulletin, the cut-off date for the India EB2 category was 01 April 2004. A month later, the cut-off date for Indian EB2 applicants abruptly moved forward two years and was set at 01 June 2006. Instead of approving applicants who applied in 2004 and 2005, USCIS approved applicants from 2006. Where is the justice in that??? Why bother publishing the cut-off date if approvals are to be randomly allocated???
We understand we have to stand in line and wait our turn. Each applicant is assigned a priority date which chronologically determines his/her turn for approval. To further complicate matters, once the I-485 is filed, a crop of other dates are issued by the USCIS – a receipt date, a notice date and a processing date. USCIS then takes the liberty to throw random rules at us – “Case adjudication is based on receipt date” “No, we process applications based on notice date”, “Actually, it’s the processing date that determines which applications are adjusted.” !!!
Please take a moment to consider how these conflicting statements and arbitrary decisions wreak havoc on our morale and psyches? No one, NOT even the USCIS, has a clue as to what exactly is happening in their processing centers. The USCIS has never been able to clearly state the exact number of applications languishing, excuse us, we meant pending, in their “service” centers! We, employment-based immigrants, are tax-paying, law-abiding, educated individuals contributing to America’s knowledge economy - yet we have been subjected to the worst aspects of the US employment-based immigration system. These include:
1) Extended wait times at each step of the immigration process.
2) Lack of transparency on the part of USCIS (re: priority date, receipt date, notice date).
3) Lack of USCIS customer service – once applications are submitted to USCIS they disappear into a black hole. Barring a website where one can nominally check one’s case status (but which in reality remains static for months, even years!) there is no concept of updating an applicant on where his case stands. And this is despite the applicant paying immigration fees that often run into thousands of dollars over the years. We are simply expected to wait in a complete void of information, for however long it may take, until approval.
4) Lost opportunities owing to the lack of job portability during the process (a time period spanning an average of five years, whereas an applicant from any country besides India gets his/her PR card in under two years).
Another inconsistency, surfacing in August 2008, begs redressal – while I-485 applicants (albeit those from 2006 instead instead of earlier years) at the TSC were being approved in a steady stream, the NSC was almost completely inactive resulting in only a very few cases being approved prior to August 20th. After this date, the NSC appeared to completely hold off on all I-485 approvals while approvals continued at the TSC. Could somebody please account for this preferential treatment for I-485 applicants at the TSC versus those at the NSC? Furthermore, when complaint faxes were sent in to the NSC in protest, instead of issuing a formal statement to explain their approach, the NSC retaliated by issuing a bunch of RFEs. Is the USCIS trying to intimidate us so that we remain quiescent??
While we are grateful for the opportunity to partake in the American dream, it is ironic that we arrive in America and find that our freedom is shackled – we are bound to our sponsoring employer from the start to the end of an extremely lengthy process. Although legal immigration reform is our ongoing aim, for now, we sincerely request you to investigate the process whereby the monthly visa bulletin is set and to ensure FIFO (first in, first out) adjustment so that those of us who have been waiting longer receive attention prior to those who have applied later. We want USCIS to be accountable to us, its paying customers.
We request you to lend us your ear and address these issues so that we are not subjected to them in the future. Kindly note that there remain roughly 15 days until the October 2008 visa bulletin goes into affect. Once October arrives, the dates for Indian EB2 candidates retrogress to 2003. We believe you have the power to help a few more of us who have been waiting, seemingly endlessly, to get out of this immigration limbo.
Thanking you,
2010 1964 Lincoln Continental
akhilmahajan
06-18 07:17 AM
I have the same name issue. Will it be a problem at all?
Please advise what should I do.
Bumping up the tread.................. if someone can advice that will be great...............
Please advise what should I do.
Bumping up the tread.................. if someone can advice that will be great...............
more...
kvrr1116
03-07 09:14 PM
Sent $100,00 for FOIA using Paypal.
Transaction ID: 9VX874651W167245C
Transaction ID: 9VX874651W167245C
hair 1964 Lincoln Continental#39;s
new2gc
04-14 01:47 PM
Are we not human beings? May be we are labelled "aliens" but we are certainly not from Mars! Please consider to clear the long waiting backlogs of the greencard process.
no way.. we are NOT humans...
To the corporates, we are high-skilled slaves with no certainity on the status...easy to say..why bother..go back to your country...:o but the reality is different for each person.
To the govt, we are the funding means...(recent H1B/L1 fees ).
To CIS -- our fees is the main source of income to run the shop..
To Illegals -- we (backlogged EB) are hostages to get their wish fulfilled if any...
To Politicians - we are the their subjects in their arguments...
So you think they will listen to you to cut all these cords?? You kidding right.
take it easy....
no way.. we are NOT humans...
To the corporates, we are high-skilled slaves with no certainity on the status...easy to say..why bother..go back to your country...:o but the reality is different for each person.
To the govt, we are the funding means...(recent H1B/L1 fees ).
To CIS -- our fees is the main source of income to run the shop..
To Illegals -- we (backlogged EB) are hostages to get their wish fulfilled if any...
To Politicians - we are the their subjects in their arguments...
So you think they will listen to you to cut all these cords?? You kidding right.
take it easy....
more...
GCNirvana007
08-17 11:03 PM
jsb,
Now I think some major clarifications are needed here. The Receipt Date (RD) that is printed on the I-485 receipt is the date whenever queuing according to RD is needed. This is THE date wherever a FIFO is required and is as assigned as soon as the envelope containing the I-485 is received.
The ND only represents the date data-entry is made. This is the date which is mentioned erroneously as "received date" on the USCIS online system. Now this thing has been mentioned at USCIS liaison meetings by center directors and thro' AILA several times (I will post the reference as soon as I find it).
That said whenever I talked to NSC officers (not the National Customer SC non-officers or regional call center IIO's or Infopass ignoramuses) ..officers who personally were aware of the going on's at the service center they said the Notice date does not carry any value for case adjudication priorities and the CLAIMS 3 systems only sequences (or sweeps as they call it) as per the PD and RD (when needed).
Further, since I see all the notes made for my approved I-485 (thro' FOIA) including the worksheet completed by contractors. I clearly do not see any notations mentioned with reference to the ND on it...
That said, for the OP, since your RD is very close to the "official" processing date there are all chances that your application might have already gone under the eyes of a CAO (Center Adjudication Officer). Call NSC directly and ask since you are so close and especially since your date is going current next month....you want to make sure that your file is either pre-adjudicated OR assigned to an officer.
RD - August 16th 2007 - TSC processing - August 30th 2007
PD - Dec 2004 EB2
Hopefully 3rd time lucky eh
Now I think some major clarifications are needed here. The Receipt Date (RD) that is printed on the I-485 receipt is the date whenever queuing according to RD is needed. This is THE date wherever a FIFO is required and is as assigned as soon as the envelope containing the I-485 is received.
The ND only represents the date data-entry is made. This is the date which is mentioned erroneously as "received date" on the USCIS online system. Now this thing has been mentioned at USCIS liaison meetings by center directors and thro' AILA several times (I will post the reference as soon as I find it).
That said whenever I talked to NSC officers (not the National Customer SC non-officers or regional call center IIO's or Infopass ignoramuses) ..officers who personally were aware of the going on's at the service center they said the Notice date does not carry any value for case adjudication priorities and the CLAIMS 3 systems only sequences (or sweeps as they call it) as per the PD and RD (when needed).
Further, since I see all the notes made for my approved I-485 (thro' FOIA) including the worksheet completed by contractors. I clearly do not see any notations mentioned with reference to the ND on it...
That said, for the OP, since your RD is very close to the "official" processing date there are all chances that your application might have already gone under the eyes of a CAO (Center Adjudication Officer). Call NSC directly and ask since you are so close and especially since your date is going current next month....you want to make sure that your file is either pre-adjudicated OR assigned to an officer.
RD - August 16th 2007 - TSC processing - August 30th 2007
PD - Dec 2004 EB2
Hopefully 3rd time lucky eh
hot Lincoln Continental 1964. 1964 Lincoln Continental with
msp1976
02-04 01:34 PM
Of course he is very informative, however he is very biased and having wrong openion that EB3 India has stolen EB3_ROW number in previous years as he belongs to ROW. He wrongly assumes that till EB3-ROW becomes current EB2 & EB3-India will not see any movement. He thinks no one knows the rules, laws ect..and he is only one knows everything. The actual fact is most peoples have been doing research on retrogression like him last two years and not having enough time to reply his post. To fuel his openion DOS is violating the section 202 of INA and no one cares about this including IV core team.
If you want to know true color of Unitednation visit this site.
http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=225197&page=3&pp=15&highlight=outlook
If you want to know how unused visanumbers suppose to work as per the law, visit this site.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2659&highlight=century
Dear longq....
You should consider gathering a few more EB2 India guys and have a crack at suing USCIS for violating the law...Unfortunately I am EB3 India and this suing does not help me...
You can ask for GCs for all members of your law suits...But USCIS would fight you hard for sure...
IV is collective organization...IV's solution would be to get numbers increased for everyone...Otherwise we would again have a fight bet EB2 and EB3 link the one we had between guys who want the 485 without PD and those who oppose it...
If you want to know true color of Unitednation visit this site.
http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=225197&page=3&pp=15&highlight=outlook
If you want to know how unused visanumbers suppose to work as per the law, visit this site.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2659&highlight=century
Dear longq....
You should consider gathering a few more EB2 India guys and have a crack at suing USCIS for violating the law...Unfortunately I am EB3 India and this suing does not help me...
You can ask for GCs for all members of your law suits...But USCIS would fight you hard for sure...
IV is collective organization...IV's solution would be to get numbers increased for everyone...Otherwise we would again have a fight bet EB2 and EB3 link the one we had between guys who want the 485 without PD and those who oppose it...
more...
house 1964 lincoln continental.
chanduv23
09-18 11:31 AM
Why dont you PM your cell, i will call you.
You still did not accept your mistakes. You accused me of rude posts and i am yet to see and you called me and madhuVJ same, no proof yet. You make this site look a joke.
I am here to fight the USCIS. Unfortunately you being a thorn.
Lawsuits and fighting is against IVs core principles. IV is a support network for us who want to positively work for a cause by lobbbying, awareness, bringing people together so that our voices are collectively heard.
If you do not want to do what IV does, you can open your own website and do what you want - you can gather people who think like you and you can proceed with your agenda
You still did not accept your mistakes. You accused me of rude posts and i am yet to see and you called me and madhuVJ same, no proof yet. You make this site look a joke.
I am here to fight the USCIS. Unfortunately you being a thorn.
Lawsuits and fighting is against IVs core principles. IV is a support network for us who want to positively work for a cause by lobbbying, awareness, bringing people together so that our voices are collectively heard.
If you do not want to do what IV does, you can open your own website and do what you want - you can gather people who think like you and you can proceed with your agenda
tattoo 1964 LINCOLN CONTINENTAL MODEL
santb1975
11-30 01:18 PM
^^^
more...
pictures 1964 lincoln continental
bijalrs
12-19 11:19 AM
khodalmd - New Member BijalRs Just Contributed $50
One down 4 more to go.
khodalmd, good show...join the Gang !! Let's see if this forum has any fire left after the Session phone jamming campaign....:D :D
One down 4 more to go.
khodalmd, good show...join the Gang !! Let's see if this forum has any fire left after the Session phone jamming campaign....:D :D
dresses BigFancyCar#39;s 1964 Lincoln
jsb
08-21 01:29 PM
Are these RFE's genuine RFE's? I mean, some doc missed, improper or bad copy, etc? Or, if you changed job, or city where you live? Or, just to re-confirm your job offer? Just want a sampling of RFE where they appear to be non-genuine, for my education.
more...
makeup 1964 lincoln continental.
qvadis
02-04 11:26 PM
Hi longq,
Not sure why you are still fighting this. I am sure law-makers are aware of the way USCIS implements the law and they don't seem to have any objections.
From the 2006 "CRS Report for Congress" on "U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions"
Prior to FY2001, employment-based preference immigrants were also held to percountry ceilings. The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-313) enabled the per-country ceilings for employment-based immigrants to be surpassed for individual countries that are oversubscribed as long as visas are available within the worldwide limit for employment-based preferences.
It might actually be counterproductive as you might inflect negative sentiments against increasing overall EB-immigration level demanding improportional increase for 'top immigrant-sending countries'.
As the State Department describes, the per-country level �is not an entitlement but a barrier against monopolization.�
Please try to read law carefully. The law will not have simple terms as you think. They have to draft the law in the language of the act. Any way the meaning is same.
The law explicitly say that the 7% country limit does not apply to the EB1, EB2, EB3, EB4, EB5 catagories, if excess visas available in those catagories.
Exactly, but because EB3 is oversubscribed, no 'excess visas' are available for oversubscribed countries. (But we had this discussion before, though).
Not sure why you are still fighting this. I am sure law-makers are aware of the way USCIS implements the law and they don't seem to have any objections.
From the 2006 "CRS Report for Congress" on "U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions"
Prior to FY2001, employment-based preference immigrants were also held to percountry ceilings. The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-313) enabled the per-country ceilings for employment-based immigrants to be surpassed for individual countries that are oversubscribed as long as visas are available within the worldwide limit for employment-based preferences.
It might actually be counterproductive as you might inflect negative sentiments against increasing overall EB-immigration level demanding improportional increase for 'top immigrant-sending countries'.
As the State Department describes, the per-country level �is not an entitlement but a barrier against monopolization.�
Please try to read law carefully. The law will not have simple terms as you think. They have to draft the law in the language of the act. Any way the meaning is same.
The law explicitly say that the 7% country limit does not apply to the EB1, EB2, EB3, EB4, EB5 catagories, if excess visas available in those catagories.
Exactly, but because EB3 is oversubscribed, no 'excess visas' are available for oversubscribed countries. (But we had this discussion before, though).
girlfriend L002, 1964 LINCOLN CONTINENTAL
GCWORRIES
04-26 07:38 AM
I think you should consider accepting stories of those you have yet to start their GC process. This gives another perspective, to tell people that even those who are highly qualified and experienced are in two minds whether to file for GC or not. Why this thought? this is because the delays and long wait acts as a deterent. End of the day, if these people are already frustrated at the onset, then they may decide to leave US and seek opportunities elsewhere, leading to loss of such valuable talent to the US. This was explicitly highlighted in yesterday's Judiciary Committee presentations by the four Economists.
While accepting stories from those waiting for GC, please also accept stories from those who are apprehensive of filing due to the delays, hence conveying a reason that US risks losing highly skilled workers should these circumstances continue.
These are my thoughts!
While accepting stories from those waiting for GC, please also accept stories from those who are apprehensive of filing due to the delays, hence conveying a reason that US risks losing highly skilled workers should these circumstances continue.
These are my thoughts!
hairstyles Lincoln Continental Executive
abhijitp
11-19 01:46 PM
In my opinion keeping donation options from $25/- upwards to whatever max value within One time and recurring categories would be inclusive startegy.
Currently we are turning away the members who want to donate but who can not afford and/or do not want to donate $ 100/- and upwards.
My personal theory is that who is really willing to donate $ 100/- and upwards and can afford is going to donate that handsome amount even if we keep $ 25/- option.
Now Ball is in court of core.
I beg to differ. IV is not turning away anyone. What stops someone from contributing $100 once every 10 months?
The issue is something else.
In order to contribute even $10, you need to:
1) be convinced about the cause of IV
2) be convinced this organization means business!
3) give up the "penny wise pound foolish" attitude
(1) This should be easy for those who were unable to file their AOS applications in July/August 2007, because one of IV's primary goals (abolish retrogression) should then be your goal.
This is also easy for those who filed their AOS, if only they realize that "working on AC21/EAD" is not as much fun as it seems, you really need the Green Card to live and work the way you want!
(2) is a proven fact, and most of us are already enjoying the benefits of this!
(3) Finally, people feel overwhelmed by the thought of donating $50 or $100 to IV but they are happy to spend much more on gasoline, phone-calls, and drinks. You make no difference to your quality of life when you spend $50 on gas and $100 on food when you go sight seeing on a weekend. But when you donate that money to IV, you are supporting the one and only grass roots organization that means business when it comes to fighting for your own quality of life!
It's like investing in a "credit score" monitoring product for a year before you actually apply for a loan!
If that analogy makes sense, please please realize you need a similar strategy for your green card, and contribute to IV.
Preferably, sign up for recurring contributions, as this is the one thing that will help IV in forecasting and planning.
If nothing else, write to a core team member and let them know you will pay $N1 over N2 number of months.
Thanks!
Currently we are turning away the members who want to donate but who can not afford and/or do not want to donate $ 100/- and upwards.
My personal theory is that who is really willing to donate $ 100/- and upwards and can afford is going to donate that handsome amount even if we keep $ 25/- option.
Now Ball is in court of core.
I beg to differ. IV is not turning away anyone. What stops someone from contributing $100 once every 10 months?
The issue is something else.
In order to contribute even $10, you need to:
1) be convinced about the cause of IV
2) be convinced this organization means business!
3) give up the "penny wise pound foolish" attitude
(1) This should be easy for those who were unable to file their AOS applications in July/August 2007, because one of IV's primary goals (abolish retrogression) should then be your goal.
This is also easy for those who filed their AOS, if only they realize that "working on AC21/EAD" is not as much fun as it seems, you really need the Green Card to live and work the way you want!
(2) is a proven fact, and most of us are already enjoying the benefits of this!
(3) Finally, people feel overwhelmed by the thought of donating $50 or $100 to IV but they are happy to spend much more on gasoline, phone-calls, and drinks. You make no difference to your quality of life when you spend $50 on gas and $100 on food when you go sight seeing on a weekend. But when you donate that money to IV, you are supporting the one and only grass roots organization that means business when it comes to fighting for your own quality of life!
It's like investing in a "credit score" monitoring product for a year before you actually apply for a loan!
If that analogy makes sense, please please realize you need a similar strategy for your green card, and contribute to IV.
Preferably, sign up for recurring contributions, as this is the one thing that will help IV in forecasting and planning.
If nothing else, write to a core team member and let them know you will pay $N1 over N2 number of months.
Thanks!
pappu
09-14 12:44 AM
Even one year after July 07 bulletin, the State Department is saying that USCIS is not estimating accurately. Where is the question of estimates, they should look at ACTUAL data.
And where is IV management? Yes, people should work with their state chapters.....but now is the time for the core IV group to wake up and take up the fight with the higher ups in the goverment. Show them how the State Department + USCIS is treating immigrants because of their lethargy and laziness.
I think state department has made a mistake by writing that USCIS can not estimate (in the latest bulletin) and we should take full advantage of it. Complain-Complain-Complain, make them look bad, and in this election year they may act on it...........
Please stop taking out the frustrations on IV. It is very easy to do. All you need to do is write a post. But doing some real action is the challenge.
We are all like you and in this together. We try to create action items and guide and try to lobby within our limited time, energy and means. Everything else is dependent on members. If members contribute funds we lobby hard. If members are not even willing to contribute $5, and we can only get less than 5K in more than 2 months, how can we accuse core? If members write letters to administration or USCIS, call lawmakers, meet lawmakers etc that directly helps everyone. Members need to involve their big employers and have them contact administration and local lawmakers. We all need to contact media and raise awareness. We all need to create publicity of this effort so that more people can join it and make it successful. We will help you all the way in this effort. Come and travel to DC with all your state chapter members and meet officials. Try taking part in conference calls, answer emails and calls from all kinds of members and non-members, media outreach and mundane official work of IV yourself during office hours and you will see how difficult it is to manage this for IV team.Take days off from your work spend your own money on travel and hotel and visit offices and talk to lawmakers in DC. We will help you with the meetings. IV core has been doing that and we get such brickbats through such posts.
Just accusing IV, writing posts about ideas or action, and asking IV to wake up will not solve anything. This is a community effort and each IV member is responsible for the failure or success. IV leaders already devote lot of time from their professional and personal life on this effort. Individual members need to step up if they want more and take it upon themselves to get active.
And where is IV management? Yes, people should work with their state chapters.....but now is the time for the core IV group to wake up and take up the fight with the higher ups in the goverment. Show them how the State Department + USCIS is treating immigrants because of their lethargy and laziness.
I think state department has made a mistake by writing that USCIS can not estimate (in the latest bulletin) and we should take full advantage of it. Complain-Complain-Complain, make them look bad, and in this election year they may act on it...........
Please stop taking out the frustrations on IV. It is very easy to do. All you need to do is write a post. But doing some real action is the challenge.
We are all like you and in this together. We try to create action items and guide and try to lobby within our limited time, energy and means. Everything else is dependent on members. If members contribute funds we lobby hard. If members are not even willing to contribute $5, and we can only get less than 5K in more than 2 months, how can we accuse core? If members write letters to administration or USCIS, call lawmakers, meet lawmakers etc that directly helps everyone. Members need to involve their big employers and have them contact administration and local lawmakers. We all need to contact media and raise awareness. We all need to create publicity of this effort so that more people can join it and make it successful. We will help you all the way in this effort. Come and travel to DC with all your state chapter members and meet officials. Try taking part in conference calls, answer emails and calls from all kinds of members and non-members, media outreach and mundane official work of IV yourself during office hours and you will see how difficult it is to manage this for IV team.Take days off from your work spend your own money on travel and hotel and visit offices and talk to lawmakers in DC. We will help you with the meetings. IV core has been doing that and we get such brickbats through such posts.
Just accusing IV, writing posts about ideas or action, and asking IV to wake up will not solve anything. This is a community effort and each IV member is responsible for the failure or success. IV leaders already devote lot of time from their professional and personal life on this effort. Individual members need to step up if they want more and take it upon themselves to get active.
nat23
12-19 08:10 AM
I THINK I made a contribution of $20. The reason I say "think" is because I used my CC to make the payment and the CC I used is not linked to the Paypal acc.
I'm confused because the message said that I'll see it in my Paypal statment.
I hope it went through without any hassles.
Cheers
Nat
I'm confused because the message said that I'll see it in my Paypal statment.
I hope it went through without any hassles.
Cheers
Nat
No comments:
Post a Comment