MunnaBhai
03-09 01:32 PM
Contributed $100.00. Paypal Transaction ID: 43812248RK287712T
wallpaper images 2011 Ford Mondeo Wagon
belmontboy
04-15 10:35 AM
Whether i am a minority and whether i am a majority does not make any difference.
If you want legal speak then ...
Giving GC to STEM graduates is not the right way. If US needs to keep these educated people in US then US needs to make sure these educated people get an H1B without any issues and then they are on the path to GC like everyone else because H1B is a dual intenet visa. Jumping from a F1 visa to a GC visa is not correct as F1 visa is not a immigration intenet visa
If you want plain speak then ...
Why should STEM graduates have it easy when a H1B has to struggle and wait in liner to get a GC.
I would agree to this only is the requirement is made so that only PHD and scientist who have atleats acouple of research papers published be given GC and not every Tom, Dick and harry who completes 4 years engg degree in india from a 2 bit university and whose parents have money and uses this money to pay for 2 years MS.
People who are going to benefit by this will support this. Others oppose.
I believe you belong to latter.
One thing to remember is this provision helps STEM grads irrespective of their EB-class.
legal speak: right now law does exist. F1 to GC would be illegal. This provision is to make the conversion legal
plain speak: look beyond your own situation. Since you are not going to benefit directly, does not mean you stand against it.
Lastly, everybody's parents don't have so much money like you think. People do get 13% student loans in India to fund their studies.
If you want legal speak then ...
Giving GC to STEM graduates is not the right way. If US needs to keep these educated people in US then US needs to make sure these educated people get an H1B without any issues and then they are on the path to GC like everyone else because H1B is a dual intenet visa. Jumping from a F1 visa to a GC visa is not correct as F1 visa is not a immigration intenet visa
If you want plain speak then ...
Why should STEM graduates have it easy when a H1B has to struggle and wait in liner to get a GC.
I would agree to this only is the requirement is made so that only PHD and scientist who have atleats acouple of research papers published be given GC and not every Tom, Dick and harry who completes 4 years engg degree in india from a 2 bit university and whose parents have money and uses this money to pay for 2 years MS.
People who are going to benefit by this will support this. Others oppose.
I believe you belong to latter.
One thing to remember is this provision helps STEM grads irrespective of their EB-class.
legal speak: right now law does exist. F1 to GC would be illegal. This provision is to make the conversion legal
plain speak: look beyond your own situation. Since you are not going to benefit directly, does not mean you stand against it.
Lastly, everybody's parents don't have so much money like you think. People do get 13% student loans in India to fund their studies.
bach007
09-08 01:47 PM
...that this thread is an act of an inside man (within IV) to spark enthu among members. Whatever it is...itz working !!! :)
BINGO!!! :D
From the very first post I felt that (including the title of the thread ;) )
No wonder the guy's not getting banned inspite of his attacks on the core effort right now - THE RALLY.
Anyway, its working. :)
BINGO!!! :D
From the very first post I felt that (including the title of the thread ;) )
No wonder the guy's not getting banned inspite of his attacks on the core effort right now - THE RALLY.
Anyway, its working. :)
2011 2011 2011 Ford Mondeo Wagon
supernova
04-12 11:48 AM
I've seen dozens of people exploiting sub-labor and got their gc's. There are thousand's of them jumped the queue for last time in July '07. I do agree with the person who started this thread.
There isn't anything we can do about it now. Let's concentrate on what we can do.
There isn't anything we can do about it now. Let's concentrate on what we can do.
more...
bottlemani
12-18 08:02 PM
Just sent mine.
nogc_noproblem
08-22 01:26 PM
08/22/2008: Wild Forest Fire Sweeping Chinese and Indian Websites
The USCIS has been delaying release of the August 15, 2008 USCIS processing time reports and so-called certain government agency processing tracking sites have been reporting slow-down of the EB-2 I-485 applications for the Indians and Chinese. Triggered in part by these evidence, the Indian and Chinese EB-2 I-485 waiters are literally consuming their emotions through the Indian and Chinese websites. However, we are still in August and have yet to reach the September 2008 Visa Bulletin which was released by the State Department assumedly after consulting with the USCIS, and there is absolutely no evidence at this point that the FY 2008 EB-2 visa numbers have already been exhausted. People should calm down, keep patience, and wait for the agencies' announcements, if any.
The USCIS has been delaying release of the August 15, 2008 USCIS processing time reports and so-called certain government agency processing tracking sites have been reporting slow-down of the EB-2 I-485 applications for the Indians and Chinese. Triggered in part by these evidence, the Indian and Chinese EB-2 I-485 waiters are literally consuming their emotions through the Indian and Chinese websites. However, we are still in August and have yet to reach the September 2008 Visa Bulletin which was released by the State Department assumedly after consulting with the USCIS, and there is absolutely no evidence at this point that the FY 2008 EB-2 visa numbers have already been exhausted. People should calm down, keep patience, and wait for the agencies' announcements, if any.
more...
desi485
11-12 12:51 AM
Guys,
I saw there are 50 replied to this post. Looks like people are more interested in others problems than their own.
Its pity that MOST CRITICAL issue we are facing at present - AC21 Denial issue, is having only 77 mails but everyone is jumping gossipping. Come out of this and show a unity to real problems.
Grow up and don't escape from real problems. Its our problem and we need to fight to resolve it.
Well said ItIsNotFunny. Nothing wrong ppl spend time on this thread, but they should send IV AC21 letters first. Its not even 2$ expense as some one else specified on other thread.
I saw there are 50 replied to this post. Looks like people are more interested in others problems than their own.
Its pity that MOST CRITICAL issue we are facing at present - AC21 Denial issue, is having only 77 mails but everyone is jumping gossipping. Come out of this and show a unity to real problems.
Grow up and don't escape from real problems. Its our problem and we need to fight to resolve it.
Well said ItIsNotFunny. Nothing wrong ppl spend time on this thread, but they should send IV AC21 letters first. Its not even 2$ expense as some one else specified on other thread.
2010 Ford Mondeo Tuning Rieger
zazona.com
09-08 12:10 AM
Could do our jobs why would the employers be willing to sponsor our GREEN CARDS and spend '000s of dollars to keep us :confused:
:D:D:D:D:D
look at the filth that is bestowed upon you from everyone -
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=13125
ur employer treats u like shit, people here don't want u here, government don't want to listen to u. disgusting. why do u even exist?
:D:D:D:D:D
look at the filth that is bestowed upon you from everyone -
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=13125
ur employer treats u like shit, people here don't want u here, government don't want to listen to u. disgusting. why do u even exist?
more...
senthil1
08-12 08:06 PM
That is the way green card processing works if they follow rules. The perm process is to test any candidates are available for the position. If they find a qualified person then that position will not be available. But still the company can process GC for another position if they are willing. Most companies used try to reject all the candidates to get a green card for a H1b person. But recession made the things worse. To change the situation either economy need to improve or Change the green card process. One of the option is change to point system with increase of Annual cap. That will take away the control from employers and chance of explotation is less. But point system got a negative response from Lawyers and employers.
Hydeboy is right.
My american employer rejected to file PERM after ads are posted. They were supposed to befiling in EB3 and they said they found candidates so they are not going to file green card...I am totally depressed..This is the true picture in almost all american companies. BEWARE of green card.
Hydeboy is right.
My american employer rejected to file PERM after ads are posted. They were supposed to befiling in EB3 and they said they found candidates so they are not going to file green card...I am totally depressed..This is the true picture in almost all american companies. BEWARE of green card.
hair FORD Mondeo Wagon
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.
more...
PlainSpeak
04-14 04:26 PM
Its already there. 20000 for masters and phd students.
Giving GC to stem is to bypass them from EB based line, which means they won't consume numbers from 140k. Isn't this good?
Nope it is not good
Why do STEM graduates have to have it the easy way while we have it hard. The least the STEM graduate can do is wait for 2 years for visa
Giving GC to stem is to bypass them from EB based line, which means they won't consume numbers from 140k. Isn't this good?
Nope it is not good
Why do STEM graduates have to have it the easy way while we have it hard. The least the STEM graduate can do is wait for 2 years for visa
hot 2011 Ford Mondeo Wagon 240 PS
sodesperate
04-14 07:02 PM
Hi all,
I was wondering if anyone got the receipt number for either premium or non-premium.
Thank you.
I was wondering if anyone got the receipt number for either premium or non-premium.
Thank you.
more...
house Ford Mondeo Sedan, 5-Door and
sanju_dba
06-09 01:03 PM
Hi Guys
I want to bring up one point very clearly. Guys there is no one in Washington DC offices talking about the difficulties we are facing other than IV organization members . We need to lobby the lawmakers
3. Donate what ever we can ( 10 , 20 , 30$ etc..) to our cause in IV .
Thanks Redds777!
For this event we did fund raising and that helped the cause. for the Lobby efforts is there any number that IV want to publish and members will get inspired again!
I want to bring up one point very clearly. Guys there is no one in Washington DC offices talking about the difficulties we are facing other than IV organization members . We need to lobby the lawmakers
3. Donate what ever we can ( 10 , 20 , 30$ etc..) to our cause in IV .
Thanks Redds777!
For this event we did fund raising and that helped the cause. for the Lobby efforts is there any number that IV want to publish and members will get inspired again!
tattoo 2007 Ford Mondeo Wagon.
srkamath
07-09 11:04 PM
According to DHS statistics there are around 50,000 EB2 lndia Labors in 2004 and 2005 each. So ppl with 2005, 2006 priority dates you can wait around 6-7 years for ur priority dates to be current with annual limit of around 5000 for EB2 India.
The lawsuit can be filed by your American Civil Liberties Union Member or ur aunt or uncle or mistress who is a US citizen. U guys and gals with 485's will not be there in the lawsuit but will benefit if the lawsuit wins.
I looked at the links you have provided and I'm still not sure where your "50,000 EB2 India Labors...." came from. These numbers do not seem trustworthy or reliable.
Here's data directly from the DOL ETA website.....
3/28/2005 to 10/28/2005 there were a total of 15973 Labor certifications approved - that includes EB1, 2, 3, 4 for all countries, and 3734 cases for Indian nationals in EB1, 2, 3, 4. Of course a part of EB1 and all of EB5 don't need labor certs.
If you download the database from the DOL website, apply filters for India, approved cases, then filter out all Level I in all non-managerial occupations, followed by non EB2 job descriptions - you end up with ~ 8 - 9% approvals for EB2-IN which is approx 1300 - 1400 primary applicants.
In my estimates, i removed most computer programmer level occupations as the USCIS has been very reluctant to approve EB2 for these cases - i could be wrong here.
As you see, it is IMPOSSIBLE for EB2 IN cases between 3/28/2005 to 10/28/2005 to be much more than 3800 (that is approx 3800 x 2 visas incl dep).
A total of nearly 50000 EB2 IN applicants (including dep) for 2004 and 2005 may be possible.
The massive retrogressions we are seeing is mainly because of the fact that only 15439 EB2 visas were issued in 2003, and 32532 i 2004 thanks to DOL backlogs and mis-interpretations of the law by DOS !!!! compare that with an average of 43,000 in most other years since the 1990s.
I'm pretty confident that your numbers are incorrect
The lawsuit can be filed by your American Civil Liberties Union Member or ur aunt or uncle or mistress who is a US citizen. U guys and gals with 485's will not be there in the lawsuit but will benefit if the lawsuit wins.
I looked at the links you have provided and I'm still not sure where your "50,000 EB2 India Labors...." came from. These numbers do not seem trustworthy or reliable.
Here's data directly from the DOL ETA website.....
3/28/2005 to 10/28/2005 there were a total of 15973 Labor certifications approved - that includes EB1, 2, 3, 4 for all countries, and 3734 cases for Indian nationals in EB1, 2, 3, 4. Of course a part of EB1 and all of EB5 don't need labor certs.
If you download the database from the DOL website, apply filters for India, approved cases, then filter out all Level I in all non-managerial occupations, followed by non EB2 job descriptions - you end up with ~ 8 - 9% approvals for EB2-IN which is approx 1300 - 1400 primary applicants.
In my estimates, i removed most computer programmer level occupations as the USCIS has been very reluctant to approve EB2 for these cases - i could be wrong here.
As you see, it is IMPOSSIBLE for EB2 IN cases between 3/28/2005 to 10/28/2005 to be much more than 3800 (that is approx 3800 x 2 visas incl dep).
A total of nearly 50000 EB2 IN applicants (including dep) for 2004 and 2005 may be possible.
The massive retrogressions we are seeing is mainly because of the fact that only 15439 EB2 visas were issued in 2003, and 32532 i 2004 thanks to DOL backlogs and mis-interpretations of the law by DOS !!!! compare that with an average of 43,000 in most other years since the 1990s.
I'm pretty confident that your numbers are incorrect
more...
pictures 2010 2007 Ford Mondeo Wagon
kinvin
08-14 02:10 PM
Enquequed. Was it at TSC?
dresses 2011 Ford Mondeo Wagon
amitjoey
06-16 12:44 PM
I was one of the guys from MI that redds777 hosted. I must say I can't thank enough for the hospitality he and his family had shown us.
Also I know a couple of other DC members who hosted outside folks. Thanks to them also.
Ajay and his family hosted us. Thanks a lot to him and his family.
Also I know a couple of other DC members who hosted outside folks. Thanks to them also.
Ajay and his family hosted us. Thanks a lot to him and his family.
more...
makeup 2007 Ford Mondeo interior.
H1B-GC
12-20 06:47 PM
Add $20 from me. Total Contribution till now : $150.00
girlfriend FordMondeo center image
deecha
07-21 08:09 PM
First, deecha, and VZLAN you are brave men..hope you get through. When the immigration system is so arcane, you cannot blame yourselves
===============
next, I am in a similar 'somewhat out of status' position myself. i am filing for i-140/i485
I have been with the same employer since Jan 2004, and have every pay stub since then. However during some time in 2006, the company was in deep trouble, management takeover etc. and we were only paid for time spent on a major project (which was the cash cow). Because i was not directly involved in it, I was paid at about 50%, but every week, which lead my final W2 for 2006 to be around 76% of the total on the LCA. I looked at my paystubs and the total weeks at less than 100% is 5 months.
For 2004, 2005 and 2007 (on course) I am on course for my full salary. Also I got a bonus and stock options as the project took off and we are all in a better shape and my 2007 W2 should be higher.
Before 2004, I was a student on a F1 (MS degree) with one h1 in the bad days of 2002. However, my change of status was on the dot.. i.e. i got laid off on a friday and i filed my change of status to f1 the same day. My h1 visa was stamped in 2004 in India. My H1 was extended in early 2007
I am filing a self-sponsored I140. So, my question is:
1) Should I wait for 2008/whenever to file my i485 and hopefully show one year w2 and try to see if that goes through?
2) Try to convince my employer to pay me the back wages for 2006 (they may agree) in lieu of some future pay cut or paid out vacation or trade my stock options. File an amended return with a new 2006 W2 (what are the risks of an audit??)
3) Try to wait till 2008, stamp my visa extension and then file for i-485 showing only 2007 w2.
-=====-=-=-====-
Please send me your perspectives.
Please see one of the replies I have above in response to another post. You employer could not pay you, but it is not your fault. If a RFE comes up, you can file affidavits to that effect. You have to consult a good lawyer.
If you are not going to be leaving the US, you shouldn't have to worry about the H1 stamp because you should be getting a new I-94 with your H1 extension approval notice.
HTH
===============
next, I am in a similar 'somewhat out of status' position myself. i am filing for i-140/i485
I have been with the same employer since Jan 2004, and have every pay stub since then. However during some time in 2006, the company was in deep trouble, management takeover etc. and we were only paid for time spent on a major project (which was the cash cow). Because i was not directly involved in it, I was paid at about 50%, but every week, which lead my final W2 for 2006 to be around 76% of the total on the LCA. I looked at my paystubs and the total weeks at less than 100% is 5 months.
For 2004, 2005 and 2007 (on course) I am on course for my full salary. Also I got a bonus and stock options as the project took off and we are all in a better shape and my 2007 W2 should be higher.
Before 2004, I was a student on a F1 (MS degree) with one h1 in the bad days of 2002. However, my change of status was on the dot.. i.e. i got laid off on a friday and i filed my change of status to f1 the same day. My h1 visa was stamped in 2004 in India. My H1 was extended in early 2007
I am filing a self-sponsored I140. So, my question is:
1) Should I wait for 2008/whenever to file my i485 and hopefully show one year w2 and try to see if that goes through?
2) Try to convince my employer to pay me the back wages for 2006 (they may agree) in lieu of some future pay cut or paid out vacation or trade my stock options. File an amended return with a new 2006 W2 (what are the risks of an audit??)
3) Try to wait till 2008, stamp my visa extension and then file for i-485 showing only 2007 w2.
-=====-=-=-====-
Please send me your perspectives.
Please see one of the replies I have above in response to another post. You employer could not pay you, but it is not your fault. If a RFE comes up, you can file affidavits to that effect. You have to consult a good lawyer.
If you are not going to be leaving the US, you shouldn't have to worry about the H1 stamp because you should be getting a new I-94 with your H1 extension approval notice.
HTH
hairstyles 2012 ford mondeo sedan
realizeit
02-25 03:21 PM
vijay226: The following is just my opinion and it is in no way a personal attack. Please come up with similar ideas like the one you just posted below. Useful or not, all ideas count as long as it is pointed towards solving the issue in a constructive manner.
Reply to your message: We should not propose a fee for this kind of administrative change. There are few reasons for that. 1) This is just a workflow change and an internal procedural change for the USCIS. 2) There is no need for any additional incentive for the government as this is in effect not taking anything extra from the US soil in terms of opportunity etc. 3) Any addition of fee requires administration to get it approved through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and it will make this a legislative affair. That means the whole assumption of getting it through admin fix becomes invalid. 4) In any case, if administration wants to make some extra money from us, they will come up with that proposal.
Once again thanks for your great point and contribution. Please continue to do so.
i think we are also need to provide some incentive to the government also for doing this,say some nominal fees around 600$ and any one contribute more than that will be tax free which goes into financial bailout package. At the end everyone wins and everyone is happy
Reply to your message: We should not propose a fee for this kind of administrative change. There are few reasons for that. 1) This is just a workflow change and an internal procedural change for the USCIS. 2) There is no need for any additional incentive for the government as this is in effect not taking anything extra from the US soil in terms of opportunity etc. 3) Any addition of fee requires administration to get it approved through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and it will make this a legislative affair. That means the whole assumption of getting it through admin fix becomes invalid. 4) In any case, if administration wants to make some extra money from us, they will come up with that proposal.
Once again thanks for your great point and contribution. Please continue to do so.
i think we are also need to provide some incentive to the government also for doing this,say some nominal fees around 600$ and any one contribute more than that will be tax free which goes into financial bailout package. At the end everyone wins and everyone is happy
pappu
12-20 11:59 AM
Thank you all for contributing. pls. contribute generously. Till now a little over 100 have contributed out of 7650 members. In the past few days about 3000 members visited this site. you can do the math.
vparam
09-08 11:21 AM
Got few clarifications on this thread... Thanks for the same... Really good to know that my apprehensions were proved false....
