Janisaris
09-13 12:00 PM
Seems that very few people have recieved anything who have filed between 4th and 16th aug.
Looks like all the applications received till the Friday July 20th got transfered to either Texas or California. Good news is that checks are getting cleared this week. We should be getting receipt soon. Hang in there.
Looks like all the applications received till the Friday July 20th got transfered to either Texas or California. Good news is that checks are getting cleared this week. We should be getting receipt soon. Hang in there.
wallpaper VANS Sk8 Hi Deconstruct
kdprasad
08-13 08:01 PM
DId your checks get cashed and receipts issued.
I heard from a friend,he got a receipt but checks not cashed yet.
Same with me!!!
I heard from a friend,he got a receipt but checks not cashed yet.
Same with me!!!
Ramba
07-28 12:08 PM
I dont think he 'threatened' EB2. He challenged. But if you were frightened, it is not his problem. who should go where?!
Sorry to read blaming debates between eb3 and eb2. Insted of blaming, it is better to take some action. Based on current practice by DOS, EB3-I will be like this for ever, unless more number opens up by any legislative changes. As per law, each EB catagories are allowed to have 40K visas. As demand for EB2 is more, (paricularly by In,Ch) one can not expect any flow from EB2 to EB3 . This is law one can not change it.
Now I am coming to important point to take some action by EB3-I. The law says, 7% country quota will be applied in each prefrence catagory if worldwide demand for visas is more than supply in that catagory. But the law does not set any time frame. Therefore, the real threat for EB3-I is EB3-ROW. As per current practice, untill EB3-ROW become "current" EB3-I will get only 3000 visas per year. What happen if EB3-ROW never become "current" for next 50 years? EB3-I will be stuck in 2001 or 2002 for ever. To add my point, let us imagine a hypothetical case. Lets say in 2010 about 1 million ROW guys neend EB3 visa number. All has PD 2010. EB3-In will be stuck in 2001 till one million EB-ROW with PD 2010 recives GC. In nut shell, a EB3-ROW with latest PD will be given more preference than EB3-In with PD 2001. As current practice does not set any time limit, new flow of applications keeps retrogressed countries stuck for ever. This point has to be conveyed to DOS and USCIS to change the practice. Applications receviced in one fiscal year has to be cleared (grant GC) to process the application from next year. This way new applications from ROW will not stuck the retrogreesd countries for ever.
Sorry to read blaming debates between eb3 and eb2. Insted of blaming, it is better to take some action. Based on current practice by DOS, EB3-I will be like this for ever, unless more number opens up by any legislative changes. As per law, each EB catagories are allowed to have 40K visas. As demand for EB2 is more, (paricularly by In,Ch) one can not expect any flow from EB2 to EB3 . This is law one can not change it.
Now I am coming to important point to take some action by EB3-I. The law says, 7% country quota will be applied in each prefrence catagory if worldwide demand for visas is more than supply in that catagory. But the law does not set any time frame. Therefore, the real threat for EB3-I is EB3-ROW. As per current practice, untill EB3-ROW become "current" EB3-I will get only 3000 visas per year. What happen if EB3-ROW never become "current" for next 50 years? EB3-I will be stuck in 2001 or 2002 for ever. To add my point, let us imagine a hypothetical case. Lets say in 2010 about 1 million ROW guys neend EB3 visa number. All has PD 2010. EB3-In will be stuck in 2001 till one million EB-ROW with PD 2010 recives GC. In nut shell, a EB3-ROW with latest PD will be given more preference than EB3-In with PD 2001. As current practice does not set any time limit, new flow of applications keeps retrogressed countries stuck for ever. This point has to be conveyed to DOS and USCIS to change the practice. Applications receviced in one fiscal year has to be cleared (grant GC) to process the application from next year. This way new applications from ROW will not stuck the retrogreesd countries for ever.
2011 Vans Womens Gisele Wedge Shoes
ram_nara303
11-17 03:44 PM
Done for VA
Senator Mark R. Warner (D-VA)
Senator Jim Webb (D-VA)
Representative Frank R. Wolf (R-VA 10th)
Senator Mark R. Warner (D-VA)
Senator Jim Webb (D-VA)
Representative Frank R. Wolf (R-VA 10th)
more...
desiguy22042
09-23 06:54 AM
Hi mnq1979,
The application was filed with CSC as all nos., which I have seen, are WAC nos. EAD was issued from CSC on (and I am guessing here) 18th, left from KY (40701) on 20th Sept (according to post mark) and reached my house on the 22nd Sept. If it was India and if the post man had delivered this to me, I would definitely have given him something for "mithaai" :D
It was only 3 days ago I had got the transfer notice from CSC saying that they had move our cases to TX.
I got the cards directly as my lawyer had not sent me the application no. yet. There were no notices for EADs.
More than me, my wife is happy that she wouldn't have to sit around feeling like a "dependent" ;).
I belive my situation is the same as urs....i received mine and my wife I-485 receipts in mail but nothing related to EAD. My case is also transferred to TSC from California on Sep. 17 as my I140 is approved from TSC.
I want to ask u that how long did it take u to get ur EAD card after u received ur I485 receipt and from where ur EAD was issued, is it from CSC or TSC.
Did u received any receipt of EAD or u jst got the EAD directly.
Pls. advise. thanx
The application was filed with CSC as all nos., which I have seen, are WAC nos. EAD was issued from CSC on (and I am guessing here) 18th, left from KY (40701) on 20th Sept (according to post mark) and reached my house on the 22nd Sept. If it was India and if the post man had delivered this to me, I would definitely have given him something for "mithaai" :D
It was only 3 days ago I had got the transfer notice from CSC saying that they had move our cases to TX.
I got the cards directly as my lawyer had not sent me the application no. yet. There were no notices for EADs.
More than me, my wife is happy that she wouldn't have to sit around feeling like a "dependent" ;).
I belive my situation is the same as urs....i received mine and my wife I-485 receipts in mail but nothing related to EAD. My case is also transferred to TSC from California on Sep. 17 as my I140 is approved from TSC.
I want to ask u that how long did it take u to get ur EAD card after u received ur I485 receipt and from where ur EAD was issued, is it from CSC or TSC.
Did u received any receipt of EAD or u jst got the EAD directly.
Pls. advise. thanx
hindu_king
03-06 04:38 PM
You are seeing it from a complete 180 degrees than I see it. It's not us who's discriminating, it is the laws which are discriminating. I am asking them to treat us all equal, I entered the country on an H1B which was an employement based application it did not hav any country quota, then why should green cards for EB have country quota. Why should a person from India wait for 10 year and a person from Romania get it in 1 year....I think your ROW friends shold understand our position.
We are not asking for discriminating ROW. All we are asking is to end discriminating Indians.
We are not asking for discriminating ROW. All we are asking is to end discriminating Indians.
more...
belmontboy
02-14 02:14 PM
Mr. belmontboy...you are the only one Smart@#$ we got here.
MC
Thank you dumba$$
MC
Thank you dumba$$
2010 Crooks amp; Castles x Vans Pack
danila
07-08 08:15 PM
AFAIK when you file the A number is allocated. That is the "visa number", and it comes from the country/EB quotas.
once that is exhausted for a country/EB, you have to wait.
it is not the CIS being mean. That is the way the Congress wrote the law. CIS is just enforcing it.
'A' number is not the visa number, it's the alien registration number assigned by USCIS. Visa number is allocated only when the AOS application has been approved.
once that is exhausted for a country/EB, you have to wait.
it is not the CIS being mean. That is the way the Congress wrote the law. CIS is just enforcing it.
'A' number is not the visa number, it's the alien registration number assigned by USCIS. Visa number is allocated only when the AOS application has been approved.
more...
TheOmbudsman
10-25 04:19 PM
Hi Ahimsa and other poster who questioned this:
Why SKULL bill ? As a high level manager I have learned after years of experience that you need to use good sense of humor, satirize when confronted with insanities and very stressful situations. In my life such a twaddle this immigration process has been that I need to come up to this forum and sometimes make some of us laugh a little bit from this situation. Calling it SKULL bill is a way to apply my sense of humor to this process. Please do not take this as an offense.
Please, please. Folks, didn't you see immigration-law.com and AILA.org - a reliable pro immigration sources - outlining that that anti CIR calls outnumbered the pro CIR calls 400:1 ? Go to AILA.org and research the info there by yourself if you don't trust me.
One more indication for you, which doesn't rely on biased polls:
In spite of massive lobby and muscles leveraged by the corporate sector, why do you think immigration bills - both pro legal and pro illegal - have been unsuccessful in the last two years ? Come on guys, by now you should not be questioning whether the public is against amnesty or even legal immigration. It is evident that the majority of citizens do not benefit from more immigration. Do you have an idea how much lobbying $ got involved on this without much success so far ? I am surprised that you are even raising this question. Why Americans should want more foreigners to compete with them when the real wages have declined ? That would defy logic.
Here, a fresh related evidence. Those who have an open mind should be able to understand this:
http://diversity.monster.com/articles/coming_to_america/?WT.mc_n=MNL000283
Does the Workplace Welcome Differ?
Are Americans more welcoming to Asian immigrants than to Hispanics/Latinos? C.N. Le, who directs the Asian American Studies Program at the University of Massachusetts, calls it "a complicated issue." She thinks that "Americans in general are becoming slightly less welcoming to immigrants in general. Part of it has to do with illegal immigration, but it spills over and affects legal immigrants too. There is always workplace tension between those who gets jobs, and those who get left out."
Talk about this article and get advice on the Diversity at Work message board.
Here is a fresh poll for you, since you asked:
source:numbersusa.com (the poll was not conducted by numbersusa.com though).
QUESTION A: If immigration continues at its current level for the next 50 years, experts estimate that it will add approximately 100 million people to the United States population, which currently is 300 million. Knowing this, would you say the country needs to:
% SAYING
NOTE: Typically, poll results for categories are released to the public in rounded numbers that will tend not to add up precisely to 100%.
REDUCE number of immigrants INCREASE number of immigrants Keep number the same Not sure
ALL VOTERS 64 3 26 6
Male 64 3 26 6
Female 65 2 26 6
PARTY
Democrat 59 2 32 6
Independent 59 4 31 4
Republican
1. Why do you keep mentioning SKIL bill clearly as SKULL bill in all your posts?
2. Did people clearly indicate they did not want reliefs for EB immigrants - did they accept Lou Dobbs' lies on H-1B such as "H-1Bs do not pay taxes, are cheap labor, are stealing american jobs"?
Why SKULL bill ? As a high level manager I have learned after years of experience that you need to use good sense of humor, satirize when confronted with insanities and very stressful situations. In my life such a twaddle this immigration process has been that I need to come up to this forum and sometimes make some of us laugh a little bit from this situation. Calling it SKULL bill is a way to apply my sense of humor to this process. Please do not take this as an offense.
Please, please. Folks, didn't you see immigration-law.com and AILA.org - a reliable pro immigration sources - outlining that that anti CIR calls outnumbered the pro CIR calls 400:1 ? Go to AILA.org and research the info there by yourself if you don't trust me.
One more indication for you, which doesn't rely on biased polls:
In spite of massive lobby and muscles leveraged by the corporate sector, why do you think immigration bills - both pro legal and pro illegal - have been unsuccessful in the last two years ? Come on guys, by now you should not be questioning whether the public is against amnesty or even legal immigration. It is evident that the majority of citizens do not benefit from more immigration. Do you have an idea how much lobbying $ got involved on this without much success so far ? I am surprised that you are even raising this question. Why Americans should want more foreigners to compete with them when the real wages have declined ? That would defy logic.
Here, a fresh related evidence. Those who have an open mind should be able to understand this:
http://diversity.monster.com/articles/coming_to_america/?WT.mc_n=MNL000283
Does the Workplace Welcome Differ?
Are Americans more welcoming to Asian immigrants than to Hispanics/Latinos? C.N. Le, who directs the Asian American Studies Program at the University of Massachusetts, calls it "a complicated issue." She thinks that "Americans in general are becoming slightly less welcoming to immigrants in general. Part of it has to do with illegal immigration, but it spills over and affects legal immigrants too. There is always workplace tension between those who gets jobs, and those who get left out."
Talk about this article and get advice on the Diversity at Work message board.
Here is a fresh poll for you, since you asked:
source:numbersusa.com (the poll was not conducted by numbersusa.com though).
QUESTION A: If immigration continues at its current level for the next 50 years, experts estimate that it will add approximately 100 million people to the United States population, which currently is 300 million. Knowing this, would you say the country needs to:
% SAYING
NOTE: Typically, poll results for categories are released to the public in rounded numbers that will tend not to add up precisely to 100%.
REDUCE number of immigrants INCREASE number of immigrants Keep number the same Not sure
ALL VOTERS 64 3 26 6
Male 64 3 26 6
Female 65 2 26 6
PARTY
Democrat 59 2 32 6
Independent 59 4 31 4
Republican
1. Why do you keep mentioning SKIL bill clearly as SKULL bill in all your posts?
2. Did people clearly indicate they did not want reliefs for EB immigrants - did they accept Lou Dobbs' lies on H-1B such as "H-1Bs do not pay taxes, are cheap labor, are stealing american jobs"?
hair laces and white midsoles.
cbpds
02-09 12:17 PM
Guys,
why are u arguing whether to go back to India or not, just go if u want to or else stay and keep quiet..
There is no need to wash India's dirty linen in public here.every country has their own issues, that includes US as well.
Admin, can we please DELETE this thread and be done with this.
Moreover why cannot a person going back to india just go back quietly instead of posting it here unless he has issues been stopped as the Immigration counter in India.
why are u arguing whether to go back to India or not, just go if u want to or else stay and keep quiet..
There is no need to wash India's dirty linen in public here.every country has their own issues, that includes US as well.
Admin, can we please DELETE this thread and be done with this.
Moreover why cannot a person going back to india just go back quietly instead of posting it here unless he has issues been stopped as the Immigration counter in India.
more...
csvinay
10-27 05:34 PM
Ok. My bad. I was using lame duck as an example. I'm not hoping anything on the lame duck session.
My question is/was, how long it takes for a bill(passed) to be effective. Is there a timeline within which President has to sign it? Once he signs it how long does it take become effective?
PS: I was guessing, I'm not sure of the 90 days time period.
My question is/was, how long it takes for a bill(passed) to be effective. Is there a timeline within which President has to sign it? Once he signs it how long does it take become effective?
PS: I was guessing, I'm not sure of the 90 days time period.
hot Vans Vault Era Wingtip LX
eb3_nepa
12-11 07:29 PM
Totally agreed that quota increase is controversial and an alternative approach must be agreed upon - 1932, CIR and now SKIL has taught us that bitter lesson. I am not by any means questioning the wisdom of going after the low-hanging fruits like 485 filing etc. All I am saying is - we cannot assume everything else remains the same. Things like 485 filing etc are our niche goals - no corporate interest is served by that and in a brutally capitalistic country thats a huge disadvantage.The fact is ANY relief, whether it includes quota increase or not, still takes a lot of lobbying and money to introduce all on its own strength.Yours and mine promotion/career prospects are the least of the lawmakers' worries, however non-controversial it may be and however deserving we may be. The need of the hour is to increase our membership base and contributions - lets face it, 200k in funds is not going to get us too far on our own steam. If 6000 of us could achieve so much in an year, imagine what 100k will do. That way we will be a credible enough force to be heard and respected. It still beats me how we have only 6000 odd members despite the dire situation that the majority of EB applicants find themselves in since 2001.
Dixie, I am not denying that lobbying takes effort time and money. So far however we HAVE convinced the lawmakers about our plight. All I am saying is, we should ask for provisions that our anti-immigrant friends will possibly not object strongly to. It is not simply a matter of promotions and career advancement anymore. It is the fact that our lives are tied to one job and that God forbid should something happen to that job we are outta here. The IV core team already has points about the same and have been meeting lawmakers regularly. My point here is that maybe it is time to take a little step back and realize that at this stage just having yearly EADs is SO MUCH of a blessing for both the individual AND the spouse (if applicable). Like someone on here mentioned, IV was formed because of Retrogression NOT because of GC delays.
Dixie, I am not denying that lobbying takes effort time and money. So far however we HAVE convinced the lawmakers about our plight. All I am saying is, we should ask for provisions that our anti-immigrant friends will possibly not object strongly to. It is not simply a matter of promotions and career advancement anymore. It is the fact that our lives are tied to one job and that God forbid should something happen to that job we are outta here. The IV core team already has points about the same and have been meeting lawmakers regularly. My point here is that maybe it is time to take a little step back and realize that at this stage just having yearly EADs is SO MUCH of a blessing for both the individual AND the spouse (if applicable). Like someone on here mentioned, IV was formed because of Retrogression NOT because of GC delays.
more...
house Both a lack/white and
Lisap
09-03 01:28 PM
It is possible that check depositing staff also has there own back log. Once, application and checks are accepted, EAD can be issued, but check depositing staff may be slow in their work.
I hope that is the case. I just checked my account and still the checks have not been cashed..... I will keep you posted if there is any change
I hope that is the case. I just checked my account and still the checks have not been cashed..... I will keep you posted if there is any change
tattoo Vans Sk8 Hi Black/White
neelu
12-12 12:49 AM
Good question.
Also, I just learnt (through this forum) about 'hold'. Senator Sessions had put a 'hold' (a non-written tradition needing consent to raise in the senate) on the Cornyn bill.
Is that only for the lameduck session? Or is it true in general? Can senators put a 'hold' on a matter in any senate session? If that is true, then Senator Sessions can never even let this matter come up in senate in 2007 (and after.)
No I think it was only for the Lame Duck session. If it were to be for all sessions, no law would ever be able to pass, because in a democracy, it is an almost impossible feat to obtain unanimous vote!
Also, I just learnt (through this forum) about 'hold'. Senator Sessions had put a 'hold' (a non-written tradition needing consent to raise in the senate) on the Cornyn bill.
Is that only for the lameduck session? Or is it true in general? Can senators put a 'hold' on a matter in any senate session? If that is true, then Senator Sessions can never even let this matter come up in senate in 2007 (and after.)
No I think it was only for the Lame Duck session. If it were to be for all sessions, no law would ever be able to pass, because in a democracy, it is an almost impossible feat to obtain unanimous vote!
more...
pictures The shoe was given a lack and
simple1
05-01 11:45 AM
number30,
Please don�t take it out of context. This is not an argument.
While, I agree with you **we need to work for** a future better solution of not counting EB dependents in any quota.
My question is more of what the **law currently says**?.
According to INA EB dependents must be counted under family quota.
Please don�t take it out of context. This is not an argument.
While, I agree with you **we need to work for** a future better solution of not counting EB dependents in any quota.
My question is more of what the **law currently says**?.
According to INA EB dependents must be counted under family quota.
dresses vans-2009-ss-plaid-pack-1
andycool
08-24 05:58 PM
Got the CPO email at 11 PST today (8/24) !!!
Priority Date: Feb 12, 2006
EB2 India, NSC
I opened an SR on 8/9 but I haven't received any response to it. I didn't do anything else.
A huge Thanks to IV and everyone here - you kept the hopes up.
I'll contribute more as soon as I get my head out of the clouds :)
Thanks and Good luck!
Got CPO today..
Priority Date: Feb 21, 2006
EB2 India, NSC
Thanks every one
Priority Date: Feb 12, 2006
EB2 India, NSC
I opened an SR on 8/9 but I haven't received any response to it. I didn't do anything else.
A huge Thanks to IV and everyone here - you kept the hopes up.
I'll contribute more as soon as I get my head out of the clouds :)
Thanks and Good luck!
Got CPO today..
Priority Date: Feb 21, 2006
EB2 India, NSC
Thanks every one
more...
makeup white Vans shoes - lack
gcspace
10-03 10:04 AM
It was reached on July 16, 09:00 AM Lincoln,Nebraska,no RN yet :(
My wife's package is also at 9am July 16th, R Pitcher
My wife's package is also at 9am July 16th, R Pitcher
girlfriend Vans Snakeskin Zapatos Del
imconfused
07-08 11:22 AM
no it will not be voilation of the law at all. consider this scenario thats been going on for the last 30+ years. For example July 2006 visa bulletin for EB2 india was jan 2003 and the August 2006 visa bulletin for EB2 india was unavailable. EB2 india visa numbers might have already been used up when the August 2006 visa bulletin was released but they still accepted the AOS petitions filed until the end of July 2006, they did not issue an updated visa bulletin or a revised visa bulletin saying eb2 india numbers are used up and they will not accept eb2 india aos applications, they continued accpeting AOS applications until the end of july 2006.
If you have the patience you can go through the visa bulletin archieves and find many such examples. The point is for the last 30+ years USCIS\DOS accepted applications according to the visa bulletin even when visa numbers were used up, they could have just followed the same precedent that they themselves set for the last 30+ years and accepted the applications this time as well without issuing a revised visa bulletin. I am no legal expert but that is how i see it.
i agree.. thats being professional and ethical..
If you have the patience you can go through the visa bulletin archieves and find many such examples. The point is for the last 30+ years USCIS\DOS accepted applications according to the visa bulletin even when visa numbers were used up, they could have just followed the same precedent that they themselves set for the last 30+ years and accepted the applications this time as well without issuing a revised visa bulletin. I am no legal expert but that is how i see it.
i agree.. thats being professional and ethical..
hairstyles Color: Black/White Chckrbrd
designflaw
09-14 04:46 PM
I am aware that I was lucky (BTW, March 07 labor was my second labor. First one rotted in the BEC. And I have been here since '99). However, that doesn't change the fact that there is likely to be a 10+ year wait time for EB3 ROW. Thats my gut-feeling.
I also think that these 10+ year wait times are meaningless. In a few years, there will be some sort of CIR, and a points-based system will be instituted. At that point, there will be no distinction between those who have filed their 485s, and those who haven't.
All that we July07 EB-3 filers (India or ROW), and even EB-2 I/C, have is an EAD card until the CIR happens. If it happens next year, we are all in the same boat. If it happens in 2015, then the July 07 filers have EAD cards until then.
The thing what I don't understand is, after July 2007, the priority dates for EB3-ROW were available. As a matter of fact, look at the this document (http://www.techjargons.com/USCIS_priority_dates.pdf), the priority dates went all the way up to March 2006. So, if there were no more visa's then right after July 2007, how can USCIS continue to make priority dates available?
I also think that these 10+ year wait times are meaningless. In a few years, there will be some sort of CIR, and a points-based system will be instituted. At that point, there will be no distinction between those who have filed their 485s, and those who haven't.
All that we July07 EB-3 filers (India or ROW), and even EB-2 I/C, have is an EAD card until the CIR happens. If it happens next year, we are all in the same boat. If it happens in 2015, then the July 07 filers have EAD cards until then.
The thing what I don't understand is, after July 2007, the priority dates for EB3-ROW were available. As a matter of fact, look at the this document (http://www.techjargons.com/USCIS_priority_dates.pdf), the priority dates went all the way up to March 2006. So, if there were no more visa's then right after July 2007, how can USCIS continue to make priority dates available?
unitednations
08-26 02:05 PM
I wish they go after the fake companies that acts as GC boutique and also those who "bought" GC from them. (I mean not really bought, but who got GC from a company who originally never intended to work for them or never did). And of course use those numbers for LEGITIMATE cases (I hate to see those numbers go waste).
That is always the problem; what people define as legitimate?
A lot of people think their cases are legitimate and others aren't
That is always the problem; what people define as legitimate?
A lot of people think their cases are legitimate and others aren't
gch
05-28 12:27 PM
emailed the house representative as well
No comments:
Post a Comment