longq
12-20 03:41 PM
Hello IV and its core members,
I am one of the members of the forum and suffering due to the severe retrogression of EB visas. I highly appreciate IV�s effort to bring some legislative relief to address the severe backlogs in EB visas. I too participated in all IVs campaign in urging the law makers to bring some relief for this crisis. However, I have some concern here; about the method followed U.S DOS in allocating EB visas particularly in EB2 category for India and China. I am worried whether U.S DOS is violating the INA 202 (a), by suspending AC21 provision that eliminates country quota in EB categories. If they are violating by mistake, it is our responsibility to notify/clarify with them or we need to understand the law clearly. This is very important. Because, even if 110th congress passes SKIL bill, if DOS violates the AC21 law then it will not help applicants from oversubscribed countries (India and China). Here is my analysis based on following facts.
The cutoff date for EB2 India has moved just 7 days since last 9 months. However EB2 �Row has been current. EB2- ROW has never retrogressed before. EB3 ROW has seen considerable movement in last 9 months.
There may be four possible separate or combination of following reasons for the freeze of cutoff dates for India in EB2 at Jan 2003.
1. The backlog elimination effort of DOL pumped massive approved labor certificates from BEC. There may be tons of EB2 applicants from India and China with PD in the year 2001 and 2002 might have applied 485s based on recent approvals from BEC. However I doubt that. Because, in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003, EB3 India and China were �current�. No body cared about filing EB2 labor certification till the later part of 2004. Most lawyers preferred to file EB3 as it was easy, and there were no difference between EB3 and EB2 at that time. First ever indication for EB3 retrogression was issued by DOS only in later part of 2004. I doubt so many people have filed EB2-labor till 2003, keeping in mind that EB3 will retrogress in 2004 or future. Traditionally EB2 has been less demanding compare to EB1 and EB3.
2. Perhaps, there may be a huge demand by ROW (Due to PERM) to consume all the 86% of visa numbers in EB2 category in every month that prompts DOS to allocate only 7% to India and China. I doubt this too, because India and China itself consume about 60% of EB2 visas.
3. There may be lot of EB3 Indians and Chinese with PD 2001 and 2002 porting their PD from EB3 to EB2 by filing new LC and EB2-I-140. This may escalate the demand. However, how many will do this? How many employers will to do this �favor� for their employees? A real US employer/big corporations will not do double time work for an employee. Only consulting/staffing companies will do this. I think this may be a small group (or may not be?).
4. There may be another possible reason. There may be something wrong with U.S.DOS in allocating visa numbers in EB2 category, as per section 202 (a) of current INA. They may be issuing only 2800 (7% of 40,000) visas to India and China in EB2 and redirecting unused EB2 numbers to EB3 category. They may be imposing hard country cap in EB2 (Suspending AC21 law as per their VB Nov 2005). There is a large room for this speculation, due to the pattern of cutoff date movement in EB2 category. This is just a speculation. This argument/speculation is valid if DOS has issued less than 40,000 EB2 visas in FY 2006 as mandated by the law, and issued those numbers (40,000 minus actually issued) to EB3-ROW. In my view, it violates section 203 (b) (2) of the INA. One has to wait till they release statistics for FY 2006, to see how many EB2 visas are issued in that FY.
Here is some detailed analysis that says why it violates the law.
Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 203 a and b of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets numbers for each preference categories with in FB and EB.
Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320. This section also explains how to handle unused numbers with respect to country quota.
Even before AC21 rule enacted in 2000, there was no �hard� country cap as per INA then. Here is the section of INA before year 2000, describes how to allocate unused visas, if overall/total demand for FB an EB visas are less than supply*.
INA 202 (a) (3)
�Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a-Family category) and (b-Employment category) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter�.
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
After 2000 (After AC21) the following law was added to INA in the section 202.
INA 202 (a) (5) (A)
EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
As per my simple interpretation of above AC21 rule, DOS should allocate unused visas by ROW �EB2 (ROW- countries other than India and China in EB2 category) for the first two months of any calendar quarter to over-subscribed countries (India & China) at the third month of that calendar quarter. They should not allocate to lower Preference category (EB3), if demand is more in higher preference category (EB2) to consume all the visa numbers in that preference category. They should allocate visas to all the documentarily qualified applicants in that (EB2) preference category, irrespective of country of birth. If they followed this rule/law, there may be a considerable movement in cut-off dates for India and China in Dec 2005, Mar, June and Sep of 2006 in EB2 (last month of each calendar quarter in a fiscal year). We have not witnessed such movement in last 1.5 years. No one knows how DOS is allocating numbers. They may be allocating only 7% visas to India and China in EB2 category very strictly, every month, and allocating unused numbers to EB3 category, by suspending AC21 law as indicated in their Nov 2005 Visa Bulletin. If they do so, it is against the law, at least in my interpretation of AC21 rule that eliminates country quota in EB categories.
DOS can not interpret above AC21 rule that eliminates per country limit applies �totally� to all EB categories put together, not by individual preference categories. I.e. If they say they will issue more than 2,800 visas to EB2- India per year (more than 7% of 40,000), provided overall demand for EB visas are less than 140,000. If they interpret the law like this, then there is no need for section 202(a) (5) (A) due to AC21 law. The law before AC21 {i.e. section 202 (a) (3)} itself address the elimination of country quota in both FB and EB category*. Then, section 202(a) (5) (A) is a duplicate wording of section 202(a) (3). So, this section of AC21 law becomes a redundant/duplicate law. Then, there is no meaning of employment �preference� category if they interpret �totally or overall worldwide demand�. In other words, a non-Indian/Chinese restaurant cook (EB3) is more preferred than a NIW PhDs (EB2) from India or China. Is it the intend of the congress when enacting AC21 law in removing per country limitation in EB category? Is it the American Competitiveness in 21st century? I highly doubt that.
Now it is the time to ask US DOS, how they are allocating visa number in EB2 category. If DOS interpreting the law differently, then we need to ask the law makers (Congress) what is their original intension behind the section 202(a)(5)(A) when they drafted the AC21 law in 2000 and how it is differ from 202 (a) (3).
Perhaps Core IV team can initiate to discuss/consult this issue with an immigration lawyer and place an enquiry with DOS or Law makers, if needed.
(*Note: DOS do not mix FB and EB categories for visa number allocation/calculation to meet the per country limit. They keep both in separate track to meet separately the 7% limit)
I am one of the members of the forum and suffering due to the severe retrogression of EB visas. I highly appreciate IV�s effort to bring some legislative relief to address the severe backlogs in EB visas. I too participated in all IVs campaign in urging the law makers to bring some relief for this crisis. However, I have some concern here; about the method followed U.S DOS in allocating EB visas particularly in EB2 category for India and China. I am worried whether U.S DOS is violating the INA 202 (a), by suspending AC21 provision that eliminates country quota in EB categories. If they are violating by mistake, it is our responsibility to notify/clarify with them or we need to understand the law clearly. This is very important. Because, even if 110th congress passes SKIL bill, if DOS violates the AC21 law then it will not help applicants from oversubscribed countries (India and China). Here is my analysis based on following facts.
The cutoff date for EB2 India has moved just 7 days since last 9 months. However EB2 �Row has been current. EB2- ROW has never retrogressed before. EB3 ROW has seen considerable movement in last 9 months.
There may be four possible separate or combination of following reasons for the freeze of cutoff dates for India in EB2 at Jan 2003.
1. The backlog elimination effort of DOL pumped massive approved labor certificates from BEC. There may be tons of EB2 applicants from India and China with PD in the year 2001 and 2002 might have applied 485s based on recent approvals from BEC. However I doubt that. Because, in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003, EB3 India and China were �current�. No body cared about filing EB2 labor certification till the later part of 2004. Most lawyers preferred to file EB3 as it was easy, and there were no difference between EB3 and EB2 at that time. First ever indication for EB3 retrogression was issued by DOS only in later part of 2004. I doubt so many people have filed EB2-labor till 2003, keeping in mind that EB3 will retrogress in 2004 or future. Traditionally EB2 has been less demanding compare to EB1 and EB3.
2. Perhaps, there may be a huge demand by ROW (Due to PERM) to consume all the 86% of visa numbers in EB2 category in every month that prompts DOS to allocate only 7% to India and China. I doubt this too, because India and China itself consume about 60% of EB2 visas.
3. There may be lot of EB3 Indians and Chinese with PD 2001 and 2002 porting their PD from EB3 to EB2 by filing new LC and EB2-I-140. This may escalate the demand. However, how many will do this? How many employers will to do this �favor� for their employees? A real US employer/big corporations will not do double time work for an employee. Only consulting/staffing companies will do this. I think this may be a small group (or may not be?).
4. There may be another possible reason. There may be something wrong with U.S.DOS in allocating visa numbers in EB2 category, as per section 202 (a) of current INA. They may be issuing only 2800 (7% of 40,000) visas to India and China in EB2 and redirecting unused EB2 numbers to EB3 category. They may be imposing hard country cap in EB2 (Suspending AC21 law as per their VB Nov 2005). There is a large room for this speculation, due to the pattern of cutoff date movement in EB2 category. This is just a speculation. This argument/speculation is valid if DOS has issued less than 40,000 EB2 visas in FY 2006 as mandated by the law, and issued those numbers (40,000 minus actually issued) to EB3-ROW. In my view, it violates section 203 (b) (2) of the INA. One has to wait till they release statistics for FY 2006, to see how many EB2 visas are issued in that FY.
Here is some detailed analysis that says why it violates the law.
Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 203 a and b of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets numbers for each preference categories with in FB and EB.
Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320. This section also explains how to handle unused numbers with respect to country quota.
Even before AC21 rule enacted in 2000, there was no �hard� country cap as per INA then. Here is the section of INA before year 2000, describes how to allocate unused visas, if overall/total demand for FB an EB visas are less than supply*.
INA 202 (a) (3)
�Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a-Family category) and (b-Employment category) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter�.
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
After 2000 (After AC21) the following law was added to INA in the section 202.
INA 202 (a) (5) (A)
EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
As per my simple interpretation of above AC21 rule, DOS should allocate unused visas by ROW �EB2 (ROW- countries other than India and China in EB2 category) for the first two months of any calendar quarter to over-subscribed countries (India & China) at the third month of that calendar quarter. They should not allocate to lower Preference category (EB3), if demand is more in higher preference category (EB2) to consume all the visa numbers in that preference category. They should allocate visas to all the documentarily qualified applicants in that (EB2) preference category, irrespective of country of birth. If they followed this rule/law, there may be a considerable movement in cut-off dates for India and China in Dec 2005, Mar, June and Sep of 2006 in EB2 (last month of each calendar quarter in a fiscal year). We have not witnessed such movement in last 1.5 years. No one knows how DOS is allocating numbers. They may be allocating only 7% visas to India and China in EB2 category very strictly, every month, and allocating unused numbers to EB3 category, by suspending AC21 law as indicated in their Nov 2005 Visa Bulletin. If they do so, it is against the law, at least in my interpretation of AC21 rule that eliminates country quota in EB categories.
DOS can not interpret above AC21 rule that eliminates per country limit applies �totally� to all EB categories put together, not by individual preference categories. I.e. If they say they will issue more than 2,800 visas to EB2- India per year (more than 7% of 40,000), provided overall demand for EB visas are less than 140,000. If they interpret the law like this, then there is no need for section 202(a) (5) (A) due to AC21 law. The law before AC21 {i.e. section 202 (a) (3)} itself address the elimination of country quota in both FB and EB category*. Then, section 202(a) (5) (A) is a duplicate wording of section 202(a) (3). So, this section of AC21 law becomes a redundant/duplicate law. Then, there is no meaning of employment �preference� category if they interpret �totally or overall worldwide demand�. In other words, a non-Indian/Chinese restaurant cook (EB3) is more preferred than a NIW PhDs (EB2) from India or China. Is it the intend of the congress when enacting AC21 law in removing per country limitation in EB category? Is it the American Competitiveness in 21st century? I highly doubt that.
Now it is the time to ask US DOS, how they are allocating visa number in EB2 category. If DOS interpreting the law differently, then we need to ask the law makers (Congress) what is their original intension behind the section 202(a)(5)(A) when they drafted the AC21 law in 2000 and how it is differ from 202 (a) (3).
Perhaps Core IV team can initiate to discuss/consult this issue with an immigration lawyer and place an enquiry with DOS or Law makers, if needed.
(*Note: DOS do not mix FB and EB categories for visa number allocation/calculation to meet the per country limit. They keep both in separate track to meet separately the 7% limit)
wallpaper Fitment Factory Nissan GT-R
kumar1
07-19 02:53 PM
I have already replied to him/her.
BTW, Are you his/her agent? Your post indicates what kind of person you are.
Good Luck.
______________________________
Green Card holder since May 2002
No I am not his agent. We were expecting this information from some credible source. I did not know your wife runs and maintains a web site when she get time off from her AmWay/QuickStar business. I am referring to ---- http://www.assureconsulting.com/faqs/h1b_transfer.shtml
Thanks but in future please lead us to govt/fed web sites. Now from here onwards, I am not going to reply to your notes, you simply do not deserve it!
BTW, Are you his/her agent? Your post indicates what kind of person you are.
Good Luck.
______________________________
Green Card holder since May 2002
No I am not his agent. We were expecting this information from some credible source. I did not know your wife runs and maintains a web site when she get time off from her AmWay/QuickStar business. I am referring to ---- http://www.assureconsulting.com/faqs/h1b_transfer.shtml
Thanks but in future please lead us to govt/fed web sites. Now from here onwards, I am not going to reply to your notes, you simply do not deserve it!
bluekayal
02-03 12:00 PM
Hi folks in California,
So far we've had meetings with the staff of 3 lawmakers. They were all pretty interesting meetings. There's much to do and so few of us to do it.
Its great being part of a small foused group...that is walking the talk.
Even if you've never done it before, please sign up here, and join our regular conference calls.
So far we've had meetings with the staff of 3 lawmakers. They were all pretty interesting meetings. There's much to do and so few of us to do it.
Its great being part of a small foused group...that is walking the talk.
Even if you've never done it before, please sign up here, and join our regular conference calls.
2011 Nissan GTR Wallpaper
fcres
07-19 02:33 PM
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/RFEFactSheet041207.pdf
(Have updated my original post with this link. Thanks for pointing out.)
Thanks, but seems like this is not what i was looking for. I was looking for the Jun 16/17th memo about initial evidence. Do you have that one?
(Have updated my original post with this link. Thanks for pointing out.)
Thanks, but seems like this is not what i was looking for. I was looking for the Jun 16/17th memo about initial evidence. Do you have that one?
more...
amitjoey
11-25 01:42 PM
Thanks a lot, core, pappu, members who worked on this.
LostInGCProcess
12-21 05:25 PM
I think Meera Shankar needs to be fired. Its bloody 2010 and this is the kind of customer service the indian consulates provide - they dont pick up calls - it takes them a month to issue new passports - Always feel ashamed to be an indian any time I have to deal with these useless consulates.
The Houston consulate does not even have their address properly listed on their website.
This is what they have listed
1990, Post Oak Boulevard,
# 600, 3 Post Oak Central,
Houston TX 77056
So what is the correct address ?? Is it 1990 Post Oak Blvd or 3 Post Oak Central ?? Bunch of freaking idiots is what we have in all these US consulates.
You are absolutely right. I dealt with the Embassy of India, washington DC to get my daughters PIO card. Back then we were asked to send stamped return envelope. And guess what, they would call you and scold you for not sending the envelope and ask you to mail another MO for $20.00. That's soooo cheap and totally unethical and I felt ashamed that our Government employees are doing this on a foreign soil.
I dont understand from where they hire these goons to work at the consulates. Usually the ladies are very rough when they talk on the phone (well!! it may just be a coincidence).
I dont know why you have all the RED, eventhough you have spoken the truth.
Anyways, I gave you a GREEN !!!
Please post our Ambassador email if you get it.
The Houston consulate does not even have their address properly listed on their website.
This is what they have listed
1990, Post Oak Boulevard,
# 600, 3 Post Oak Central,
Houston TX 77056
So what is the correct address ?? Is it 1990 Post Oak Blvd or 3 Post Oak Central ?? Bunch of freaking idiots is what we have in all these US consulates.
You are absolutely right. I dealt with the Embassy of India, washington DC to get my daughters PIO card. Back then we were asked to send stamped return envelope. And guess what, they would call you and scold you for not sending the envelope and ask you to mail another MO for $20.00. That's soooo cheap and totally unethical and I felt ashamed that our Government employees are doing this on a foreign soil.
I dont understand from where they hire these goons to work at the consulates. Usually the ladies are very rough when they talk on the phone (well!! it may just be a coincidence).
I dont know why you have all the RED, eventhough you have spoken the truth.
Anyways, I gave you a GREEN !!!
Please post our Ambassador email if you get it.
more...
sriramkalyan
10-12 10:32 AM
My Priority Date Sep 2002 EB3
According to LC, my labor got approved on Aug 9th, but we received actual paper on Sep 9th .. So lost the chance to FILE 485
DOL took more than a month TO send papers ..
There is no point in blaming IV . They are the BEST ..
It is US Govt agencies who are lazy and ineptitude.
US did not get Civil Rights in one year .. it took decades of fight ...
IV is fighting for every one ..
According to LC, my labor got approved on Aug 9th, but we received actual paper on Sep 9th .. So lost the chance to FILE 485
DOL took more than a month TO send papers ..
There is no point in blaming IV . They are the BEST ..
It is US Govt agencies who are lazy and ineptitude.
US did not get Civil Rights in one year .. it took decades of fight ...
IV is fighting for every one ..
2010 Nissan GTR
ramus
06-27 08:53 AM
Could you please assign date time for every single member that they should file their application on?
Thanks a lot.
I don't have the necessity to postpone I have filed mine long time back. Iam glasd Atleast 40% agrees to my idea who care about others .. i just need 20% more to get the majority :cool: I would appreciate if we can all focus on the real problem rather than individuals.
Thanks a lot.
I don't have the necessity to postpone I have filed mine long time back. Iam glasd Atleast 40% agrees to my idea who care about others .. i just need 20% more to get the majority :cool: I would appreciate if we can all focus on the real problem rather than individuals.
more...
sam_hoosier
07-19 02:22 PM
Be on the safe side man... Get her here atleast one full week in advance and have her medicals done here. Dont take a risk for few $$$$:)
I am with you on that one :) No point taking a risk for a few dollars.
I am with you on that one :) No point taking a risk for a few dollars.
hair 2008 Nissan GT-R Wallpaper
perm
07-02 03:43 PM
Lawyers Fee : 2000
Birth Certificate, printing etc: 200
Fedex : 50
Medical : 700
Photographs : 60
Approxi : - $3000
Birth Certificate, printing etc: 200
Fedex : 50
Medical : 700
Photographs : 60
Approxi : - $3000
more...
gc_maine2
05-15 01:00 PM
I agree too, it was inspiring story. good post snathan....
I believe Mbhai did a dis-service by negating good advice. What is the guarantee that the 2nd women that this guy marries will not ask for divorce? The best thing he can do is find a way to reconcile, unless there is marital infidility.
I believe "snathan" story was inspiring and addressed the true problem of that individual and every indivudual's life. Trust me, when you all get your GC's ...it will be these things that will matter to all of you, rather than anything else.
I believe Mbhai did a dis-service by negating good advice. What is the guarantee that the 2nd women that this guy marries will not ask for divorce? The best thing he can do is find a way to reconcile, unless there is marital infidility.
I believe "snathan" story was inspiring and addressed the true problem of that individual and every indivudual's life. Trust me, when you all get your GC's ...it will be these things that will matter to all of you, rather than anything else.
hot nissan gtr spec v badge
desijackass
01-04 10:39 AM
well..if he converts to a Mormon and moves to Iowa..he can have many wifes:D
I think you mean UTAH.
Is it legal to have more than one wife in India?
I think you mean UTAH.
Is it legal to have more than one wife in India?
more...
house wallpaper nissan gtr r35 black
plassey
08-23 12:11 PM
Yes sir, I do. I am suffering for 8 years now because of all these stupid USCIS rules. They think that by changing name from INS to USCIS things will change. Well, got a news for all, it is in worst shape than ever.
So far as you are concerned sir, are planning on joining us or not.
I don't think you get a sense of his problem, even though you claim you do...you are in fact beating a dead horse...I got your point regarding IV's efforts, and am not disputing that one bit, but at the same time when someone posts a valid concern/issue that they have, it doesn't hurt to have some empathy....I'm sure you wouldn't be too happy if you were in their place....
So far as you are concerned sir, are planning on joining us or not.
I don't think you get a sense of his problem, even though you claim you do...you are in fact beating a dead horse...I got your point regarding IV's efforts, and am not disputing that one bit, but at the same time when someone posts a valid concern/issue that they have, it doesn't hurt to have some empathy....I'm sure you wouldn't be too happy if you were in their place....
tattoo Nissan GT-R sport car
jsb
08-15 02:22 PM
Some peoples think that they are the smartest world has ever Produced.
When you go for Fedex/USPS Express they takes your Name, Current Address in a page which has Pointer to the TRACKING NO. 1 copy comes to you , 1 copy goes out with Package and 1 Copy gets saved with FEDEX/USPS.
The 3rd copy above is sufficient to straightout any "Potential Liars" :mad:
Fedex Receipt shows Sender And Addressee, name, address etc. It does not tell whose application (and what else) is inside. In reality, having Fedex receipt only proves that some package has been been delivered at USCIS, but what is inside, there is no guarantee or proof.
When you go for Fedex/USPS Express they takes your Name, Current Address in a page which has Pointer to the TRACKING NO. 1 copy comes to you , 1 copy goes out with Package and 1 Copy gets saved with FEDEX/USPS.
The 3rd copy above is sufficient to straightout any "Potential Liars" :mad:
Fedex Receipt shows Sender And Addressee, name, address etc. It does not tell whose application (and what else) is inside. In reality, having Fedex receipt only proves that some package has been been delivered at USCIS, but what is inside, there is no guarantee or proof.
more...
pictures Nissan GTR iPhone Wallpapers
BharatPremi
05-05 04:25 PM
Gurus,
Since EB2-India is current, I am exploring the possibility of interfiling.
Goal: Interfile in such a way that my new application under EB2 (New case
category) get attached with old case (EB3) priority date (07/2003) and
thus enable me to take advantage of EB2 current PD as declared in
April 2008 bulletin.
GC Application/s history:
-----------------------
OLD APPLICATION
Employer: xyz
Category: EB3-RIR Conversion-India
Priority Date: 07/2003
Labor approved
I-140 approved
I-140 approval date: 06/2007
AP and EAD approved
485 receipt date: 07/1*/2007
NEW APPLICATION
Employer: ZAB
Category: EB2-India
Priority Date: 06/2006
PERM LABOR approved
I-140 approved
I-140 approval date:08/2006
No AP/EAD/485 applied under this application
Notes: (1) Currently working for company CDE on EAD.
(2) "A" number on both I-140 are similar and different from "A" number
on 485 file.
(3) Occupation codes for both category are "Close" and matches the
job profile with current employment on EAD
Question: Is my goal achievable? If yes, then what to do and how to
proceed?
Thanks in advance for any help to sort this out.
- BharatPremi
Update: My lawyer just got back to me on this. Since I wanted the interfiling in such a way that I can maintain old PD ( July 2003 based - EB3 filing - 485 filed under this) with new application category EB2 (new application - June 2006 PD), lawyer told me that it is not possible. Once I interfile my new application, end effect will be having my 485 based on EB2- with new priority date (June 2006). So at this moment I have 2 choices...
1) Wait out till July 2003 under EB3-India become current
2) If EB3-India is not moving at all or July 2003 does not become current for EB3 but meanwhile if EB2-India cutoff date crosses June 2006 then file interfiling.
Since EB2-India is current, I am exploring the possibility of interfiling.
Goal: Interfile in such a way that my new application under EB2 (New case
category) get attached with old case (EB3) priority date (07/2003) and
thus enable me to take advantage of EB2 current PD as declared in
April 2008 bulletin.
GC Application/s history:
-----------------------
OLD APPLICATION
Employer: xyz
Category: EB3-RIR Conversion-India
Priority Date: 07/2003
Labor approved
I-140 approved
I-140 approval date: 06/2007
AP and EAD approved
485 receipt date: 07/1*/2007
NEW APPLICATION
Employer: ZAB
Category: EB2-India
Priority Date: 06/2006
PERM LABOR approved
I-140 approved
I-140 approval date:08/2006
No AP/EAD/485 applied under this application
Notes: (1) Currently working for company CDE on EAD.
(2) "A" number on both I-140 are similar and different from "A" number
on 485 file.
(3) Occupation codes for both category are "Close" and matches the
job profile with current employment on EAD
Question: Is my goal achievable? If yes, then what to do and how to
proceed?
Thanks in advance for any help to sort this out.
- BharatPremi
Update: My lawyer just got back to me on this. Since I wanted the interfiling in such a way that I can maintain old PD ( July 2003 based - EB3 filing - 485 filed under this) with new application category EB2 (new application - June 2006 PD), lawyer told me that it is not possible. Once I interfile my new application, end effect will be having my 485 based on EB2- with new priority date (June 2006). So at this moment I have 2 choices...
1) Wait out till July 2003 under EB3-India become current
2) If EB3-India is not moving at all or July 2003 does not become current for EB3 but meanwhile if EB2-India cutoff date crosses June 2006 then file interfiling.
dresses 2010 NISSAN GT-R SpecV
somegchuh
11-26 05:14 PM
Financially, most economoists are predicting that east bay market is bound to fall further. (I would not discount the opinion of CNN Money easily).
That having been said, I agree that living in a house is definitely more about feeling than about finances.
How does someone know when is the right time to buy a home? Anytime is a good time to buy a home, as long as you can afford it. I thought the last few months were good time for buyers because of the inventory situation (more choices or otherwise you bid usually in CA) - I dont think anyone can predict the market situation in 5 years and no one makes money in 2 years in a good market condition as well. I bought it 2 months ago in East bay and I am planning to hold it for another five years atleast and both spouse and I work - it is certainly not an investment for us, rather a place that we live - it is a rare feeling one gets after living in exile (apartments)
That having been said, I agree that living in a house is definitely more about feeling than about finances.
How does someone know when is the right time to buy a home? Anytime is a good time to buy a home, as long as you can afford it. I thought the last few months were good time for buyers because of the inventory situation (more choices or otherwise you bid usually in CA) - I dont think anyone can predict the market situation in 5 years and no one makes money in 2 years in a good market condition as well. I bought it 2 months ago in East bay and I am planning to hold it for another five years atleast and both spouse and I work - it is certainly not an investment for us, rather a place that we live - it is a rare feeling one gets after living in exile (apartments)
more...
makeup Konigseder Nissan GTR
gvenkat
10-31 05:37 PM
Applied online, Mailed my 485 receipt, The cover page that was generated. 2 photos, reason why I need AP.:)
girlfriend DXB GTR
gc28262
02-22 04:08 PM
Hi,
Can you please provide me with the information about the questions your friend faced? In my case the client side project was completed. I would appreciate your response.
I am not sure whether your case and my colleague's case is similar.
This happened in 2007. USCIS conducts random audits on companies to verify their authenticity.
USCIS conducted an audit on his company. They fixed an appointment with him in his office. They asked all the tax returns, W2, Paystubs etc. They also talked to his client manager and verified his duties.
After that everything went fine. He works for the same employer now.
Hope this helps.
Can you please provide me with the information about the questions your friend faced? In my case the client side project was completed. I would appreciate your response.
I am not sure whether your case and my colleague's case is similar.
This happened in 2007. USCIS conducts random audits on companies to verify their authenticity.
USCIS conducted an audit on his company. They fixed an appointment with him in his office. They asked all the tax returns, W2, Paystubs etc. They also talked to his client manager and verified his duties.
After that everything went fine. He works for the same employer now.
Hope this helps.
hairstyles wallpaper Nissan Skyline GTR
kak1978
06-01 11:29 AM
Done. Bump.
anandrajesh
12-13 03:11 PM
Hi,
I have got a job offer & this employer has few pre-approved labors which he offered me if I join him.
I am on H1B visa since 3.5+ years & I am looking for the company to get my GC as soon as possible. I have BS + 10 years of IT experience in India/ USA/ UK, as Software Engineer/ Solution Architect / Project Lead/ Project Manager / Sr. PM etc.
I want to know :
1. Is it possible to use this pre-approved labor for me... if I have all matching skills & experiences to show in my resume (experiences/skills gained before that approval date of that labor)...? This approved labor shows the name of their previous consultant.
2. Is it necessary to file the labor substitution by the employer...if I want to use that approved labor...?
3. Is it possible for this employer to directly file my I-140 against this approved labor...?
4. What are the info/proofs to verify that this employer is really filling my I-140 against this labor... ? (This employer has their attorney & I could not have better communication with their attorney)
5. This employer is a consulting company...(desi) & they asked me to sign a financial agreement to repay their expenses on labor substitution/I-140/I-485...if I will leave them early. ...Is it legal to ask for such kind of agreement...?
Please let me know as much as info/ guidance you can provide to me.
Great thanks in advance for all of your help.
-------------------------------------------
Another one to add fuel to our burning fire. :(
It is not ethical to use Labor substitutions, but an effective way to bypass the long queue ahead of you.
all i want to say to you is, Beware of Desi Companies. Good Luck.
I have got a job offer & this employer has few pre-approved labors which he offered me if I join him.
I am on H1B visa since 3.5+ years & I am looking for the company to get my GC as soon as possible. I have BS + 10 years of IT experience in India/ USA/ UK, as Software Engineer/ Solution Architect / Project Lead/ Project Manager / Sr. PM etc.
I want to know :
1. Is it possible to use this pre-approved labor for me... if I have all matching skills & experiences to show in my resume (experiences/skills gained before that approval date of that labor)...? This approved labor shows the name of their previous consultant.
2. Is it necessary to file the labor substitution by the employer...if I want to use that approved labor...?
3. Is it possible for this employer to directly file my I-140 against this approved labor...?
4. What are the info/proofs to verify that this employer is really filling my I-140 against this labor... ? (This employer has their attorney & I could not have better communication with their attorney)
5. This employer is a consulting company...(desi) & they asked me to sign a financial agreement to repay their expenses on labor substitution/I-140/I-485...if I will leave them early. ...Is it legal to ask for such kind of agreement...?
Please let me know as much as info/ guidance you can provide to me.
Great thanks in advance for all of your help.
-------------------------------------------
Another one to add fuel to our burning fire. :(
It is not ethical to use Labor substitutions, but an effective way to bypass the long queue ahead of you.
all i want to say to you is, Beware of Desi Companies. Good Luck.
cool_desi_gc
07-26 01:33 PM
Do we also need to include te fees for Biometrics if this is for AP renewal ? I have a valid AP till Nov 28th.I need to apply for renewal.
No comments:
Post a Comment