feedfront
10-13 01:57 PM
feedfront, the receipt date on my I-485 receipt notice is October 5, 2007.
My attorney had inquired with USCIS but hasn't received any response. As I mentioned earlier neither a SR, senator/congressman inquiry has helped!
I'd also send an email to NSC but got an generic message.
How can I write to USCIS director?
thank you!
thecipher5
Here is the link to a post by 'mchatrvd ' to contact director..
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum5-all-other-green-card-issues/1599351-august-2010-approvals-tracker-58.html#post1982324
My attorney had inquired with USCIS but hasn't received any response. As I mentioned earlier neither a SR, senator/congressman inquiry has helped!
I'd also send an email to NSC but got an generic message.
How can I write to USCIS director?
thank you!
thecipher5
Here is the link to a post by 'mchatrvd ' to contact director..
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum5-all-other-green-card-issues/1599351-august-2010-approvals-tracker-58.html#post1982324
wallpaper Juri south korea wallpaper by
sammas
07-12 04:01 PM
F. DETERMINATION OF THE NUMERICAL LIMITS ON IMMIGRANTS REQUIRED UNDER THE TERMS OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT (INA)
The State Department is required to make a determination of the worldwide numerical limitations, as outlined in Section 201(c) and (d) of the INA, on an annual basis. These calculations are based in part on data provided by U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (CIS) regarding the number of immediate relative adjustments in the preceding year and the number of aliens paroled into the United States under Section 212(d)(5) in the second preceding year. Without this information, it is impossible to make an official determination of the annual limits. To avoid delays in processing while waiting for the CIS data, the Visa Office (VO) bases allocations on the minimum annual limits outlined in Section 201 of the INA. On July 7th, CIS provided the required data to VO.
The Department of State has determined the Family and Employment preference numerical limits for FY-2010 in accordance with the terms of Section 201 of the INA. These numerical limitations for FY-2010 are as follows:
Worldwide Family-Sponsored preference limit: 226,000
Worldwide Employment-Based preference limit: 150,667
Under INA Section 202(A), the per-country limit is fixed at 7% of the family and employment annual limits. For FY-2010 the per-country limit is 26,367. The dependent area annual limit is 2%, or 7,533.
The State Department is required to make a determination of the worldwide numerical limitations, as outlined in Section 201(c) and (d) of the INA, on an annual basis. These calculations are based in part on data provided by U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (CIS) regarding the number of immediate relative adjustments in the preceding year and the number of aliens paroled into the United States under Section 212(d)(5) in the second preceding year. Without this information, it is impossible to make an official determination of the annual limits. To avoid delays in processing while waiting for the CIS data, the Visa Office (VO) bases allocations on the minimum annual limits outlined in Section 201 of the INA. On July 7th, CIS provided the required data to VO.
The Department of State has determined the Family and Employment preference numerical limits for FY-2010 in accordance with the terms of Section 201 of the INA. These numerical limitations for FY-2010 are as follows:
Worldwide Family-Sponsored preference limit: 226,000
Worldwide Employment-Based preference limit: 150,667
Under INA Section 202(A), the per-country limit is fixed at 7% of the family and employment annual limits. For FY-2010 the per-country limit is 26,367. The dependent area annual limit is 2%, or 7,533.
GotGC??
04-20 02:23 PM
[SIZE=3]Attn: California Members � Please participate in this event to support STRIVE ACT.
Will be there ! Go IV !!
Will be there ! Go IV !!
2011 Korea - Korea Wallpaper
pointlesswait
11-17 03:49 PM
why cant they spell out the damn rule.. instead of leaving it out for speculations...
insane!
insane!
more...
vgayalu
10-05 01:38 PM
Hi Guys,
My attorney sent the response last week and it was delivered to the Dallas, TX. I am little concerned that my attorney actually sent the response to a courier address rather than the PO Box for TSC that they ask you to send. So far I have not seen any updates on my case.
Vgayalu: After how many days did you see an update after you sent the response to the RFE.
My Attoney also mentioned that he is sending in Fedex to mailing address.
Literally I grabbed from him and sent in usps express mail costs $18-70
This one saved me when i compare my situation with yours.
My attorney sent the response last week and it was delivered to the Dallas, TX. I am little concerned that my attorney actually sent the response to a courier address rather than the PO Box for TSC that they ask you to send. So far I have not seen any updates on my case.
Vgayalu: After how many days did you see an update after you sent the response to the RFE.
My Attoney also mentioned that he is sending in Fedex to mailing address.
Literally I grabbed from him and sent in usps express mail costs $18-70
This one saved me when i compare my situation with yours.
sanju
02-18 07:17 PM
How to convert from Legal to Illegal?;)
How about if I tell USCIS I am born here and never applied for Birth Certificate?
that's why you name is champu.
.
How about if I tell USCIS I am born here and never applied for Birth Certificate?
that's why you name is champu.
.
more...
BharatPremi
03-12 12:02 PM
I am worried about this financial reports. I am not sure many consulting companies will give those to employee who is leaving
Yes, I believe, most companies (new employers - mid level) would not even ask and if requested and you can not provide then generally they may not make a big deal but underlying result for asking is to check if financial strength is "Good" and I-140 is approved then no problem hiring an EAD holder.
Yes, I believe, most companies (new employers - mid level) would not even ask and if requested and you can not provide then generally they may not make a big deal but underlying result for asking is to check if financial strength is "Good" and I-140 is approved then no problem hiring an EAD holder.
2010 very sex korea girl wallpaper.
sid3699
09-16 10:16 PM
My H1B visa stamp has expired, but I have the approval papers extending my H1B until Jan 2011. My company filed for bankruptcy. Another company bought parts of my company (not the entire company) in which I work. So I got absorbed by the buyer.
What happens to my visa? Does the new company have to file for an amended petition? If so, how long does that take?
I have to travel to India in two months. If they file the petition and I travel out of the country before I get the approval, will that be safe?
Thanks very much.
What happens to my visa? Does the new company have to file for an amended petition? If so, how long does that take?
I have to travel to India in two months. If they file the petition and I travel out of the country before I get the approval, will that be safe?
Thanks very much.
more...
prioritydate
06-29 05:06 PM
I am really happy for all those people who got their GC :)
hair Korea Style Wallpaper
alisa
01-27 09:25 AM
I am glad you posted this.
I will put the numbers in the excel spreadsheet and see what comes out.
But these might give more sensible results than the preposterous wait times that we were getting.
If the average depletion rate for India is 34K per annum, then the wait times would look a lot better I think.
I am assuming that these numbers include the dependents. So, if 34K adjustment of status were awareded, then, roughly speaking, there were 17K primary applicants, and 17K dependents? Am I correct?
Also, for the accumulation rate, when we say that 65K H-1 visas are given out annually, I am assuming that does not include the dependents. Am I right??
FISCAL ------ Employment ------- EB3
YEAR ----- Total ---- INDIA | Total --- India
2000 ----- 111,024 | 15888 | 51,711 | -5567 :IV FY 2000 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2000%20table%20V.pdf)
2001 ----- 186,536 | 41720 | 90,274 | 16405 :IV FY 2001 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2001%20table%20V.pdf)
2002 ----- 171,583 | 41919 | 87,574 | 17428 :IV FY 2002 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2002%20table%20V.pdf)
2003 ----- -83,020 | 20818 | 47,354 | 10680 :IV FY 2003 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2003%20table%20V.pdf)
2004 ----- 157,107 | 39496 | 88,114 | 19962 :IV FY 2004 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY04tableV.pdf)
2005 ----- 242,335 | 47160 |122,130 | 23399 :IV FY 2005 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY05tableV.pdf)
6 yr total - 951,605| 207001| 487,157| 93441
Annual Avg --------- 34500 | -------- 15574
If this trend would have continued. There should not be any MAJOR retrogression problem, but if you remember from the Nov 05 VB. The warning was very clear:
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.
If you plug this number into your analysis the result might be a couple of years of advance for your predictions.
andy
I will put the numbers in the excel spreadsheet and see what comes out.
But these might give more sensible results than the preposterous wait times that we were getting.
If the average depletion rate for India is 34K per annum, then the wait times would look a lot better I think.
I am assuming that these numbers include the dependents. So, if 34K adjustment of status were awareded, then, roughly speaking, there were 17K primary applicants, and 17K dependents? Am I correct?
Also, for the accumulation rate, when we say that 65K H-1 visas are given out annually, I am assuming that does not include the dependents. Am I right??
FISCAL ------ Employment ------- EB3
YEAR ----- Total ---- INDIA | Total --- India
2000 ----- 111,024 | 15888 | 51,711 | -5567 :IV FY 2000 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2000%20table%20V.pdf)
2001 ----- 186,536 | 41720 | 90,274 | 16405 :IV FY 2001 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2001%20table%20V.pdf)
2002 ----- 171,583 | 41919 | 87,574 | 17428 :IV FY 2002 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2002%20table%20V.pdf)
2003 ----- -83,020 | 20818 | 47,354 | 10680 :IV FY 2003 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2003%20table%20V.pdf)
2004 ----- 157,107 | 39496 | 88,114 | 19962 :IV FY 2004 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY04tableV.pdf)
2005 ----- 242,335 | 47160 |122,130 | 23399 :IV FY 2005 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY05tableV.pdf)
6 yr total - 951,605| 207001| 487,157| 93441
Annual Avg --------- 34500 | -------- 15574
If this trend would have continued. There should not be any MAJOR retrogression problem, but if you remember from the Nov 05 VB. The warning was very clear:
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.
If you plug this number into your analysis the result might be a couple of years of advance for your predictions.
andy
more...
slowwin
06-16 01:06 PM
what happened with this amdt. Did it fail or pass ?:confused:
hot South Korea Wallpaper #3
realizeit
10-17 03:25 PM
This is a very important effort, I guess.
I believe, this will help all of us to understand where we all stand. I will try to send this request as soon as possible.
I believe, this will help all of us to understand where we all stand. I will try to send this request as soon as possible.
more...
house South Korea Wallpapers
coopheal
04-11 05:11 AM
EB3-I won't retrogress back to 2001 again. It will keep moving forward at slow but steady pace.
And you inferred this from EB3 Mexico becoming Unavailable in month of May.
And you inferred this from EB3 Mexico becoming Unavailable in month of May.
tattoo tattoo korea wallpaper. korean
pdakwala
04-22 04:11 PM
First we would like to thank you everyone who took some time off on Saturday evening and attended the event in San Jose. We also thanks Jay who came to San Jose to attend this event from Reno. The event took approximatly one and half to two hour. Majority of the People from our community left after 45 to 60 minutes. Very few people had stayed for the entire event.
There are some members who were upset and had made statements on this forum saying that the entire event was for illegal immigrants and they don't know why they went. Please note that the STRIVE ACT does not have only our provisions. The STRIVE ACT is 700+ page bill and there are several provision for other immigrant community. It will be unfair if we expect every senator and congressman to mention legal immigration whenever they are giving a speech. If the senator or congressman does not say anything about the legal immigration in their speech, that does not mean that they does not support us. Immigration Voice core group is requesting everyone to be polite and have patience.
After the event was over (as per the plan) myself and Jay got an opportunity to speak with Congressman Gutierrez. Congressman and his Deputy Chief of Staff have asked us to convey to everyone that they appretiate the effort that all our members took by making themselves available for this event. Congressman have told us that he fully support legal immigration and his bill will solve the issues that we are facing.
There are some members who were upset and had made statements on this forum saying that the entire event was for illegal immigrants and they don't know why they went. Please note that the STRIVE ACT does not have only our provisions. The STRIVE ACT is 700+ page bill and there are several provision for other immigrant community. It will be unfair if we expect every senator and congressman to mention legal immigration whenever they are giving a speech. If the senator or congressman does not say anything about the legal immigration in their speech, that does not mean that they does not support us. Immigration Voice core group is requesting everyone to be polite and have patience.
After the event was over (as per the plan) myself and Jay got an opportunity to speak with Congressman Gutierrez. Congressman and his Deputy Chief of Staff have asked us to convey to everyone that they appretiate the effort that all our members took by making themselves available for this event. Congressman have told us that he fully support legal immigration and his bill will solve the issues that we are facing.
more...
pictures missions in North Korea
vandanaverdia
09-10 03:08 PM
You are sick of extending your visa/ EAD every year!!!
For those who are on visas, need to extend their visas every year after the first 3 years have passed. Those who are on EAD, need to extend their permits & AP every year!
For those who are on visas, need to extend their visas every year after the first 3 years have passed. Those who are on EAD, need to extend their permits & AP every year!
dresses South-korea-mobile-wallpaper
eilsoe
03-07 05:32 PM
well I've realized now that I can't get this thing done in time, so here's my not-so-final-but-as-final-as-it-gets images... :)
(as seen through a surv. camera)
http://www.avalon-rev.dk/junk/station2F.jpg
(as rendered through Max)
http://www.avalon-rev.dk/junk/station2FS.jpg
I really wanted to add more to 'em... :(
oh, well, consider them my finals :)
wireframe: www.avalon-rev.dk/junk/wireframe.gif
(as seen through a surv. camera)
http://www.avalon-rev.dk/junk/station2F.jpg
(as rendered through Max)
http://www.avalon-rev.dk/junk/station2FS.jpg
I really wanted to add more to 'em... :(
oh, well, consider them my finals :)
wireframe: www.avalon-rev.dk/junk/wireframe.gif
more...
makeup wallpaper korea. wallpaper
chanduv23
07-01 11:58 AM
fyi
http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/Oppenheim070606.pdf
Testimony of Charles Oppenheim, Chief, Immigrant Control and Reporting Division, Visa Services Office, U.S. Department of State, June 6, 2007.
Any indepth on what is the bigger picture here? Something is happening in the background on the immigration side.
Looks like lot of politics and blame game among agencies.
I think immigration lawyers or AILA etc.. may also not have any say here though they all put up on their website that we will file lawsuit etc.....
http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/Oppenheim070606.pdf
Testimony of Charles Oppenheim, Chief, Immigrant Control and Reporting Division, Visa Services Office, U.S. Department of State, June 6, 2007.
Any indepth on what is the bigger picture here? Something is happening in the background on the immigration side.
Looks like lot of politics and blame game among agencies.
I think immigration lawyers or AILA etc.. may also not have any say here though they all put up on their website that we will file lawsuit etc.....
girlfriend korea wallpaper. desktop
unitednations
12-22 02:42 PM
I know many of my friends who were not paid in bench. All of them received green card without any problem. But only difference is they were in unpaid bench anywhere between 2 to 6 months. I do not know anyone who was in unpaid bench for 1 year or more. Most INS officiers are sympathic towards many violations. Recently one of my friend's wife forgot to renew H4 and she was Visa overstay for about 8 months. She applied change of status explainig the situation her H4 was extended with validity date from original expiry date.
I do know a decent number of people who were on bench for a year or more.
the problem is that people put in too much information when they file their cases. If you have small w2's or very little paystubs and you put it as part of your filing (either 140 or 485) then you are giving uscis a chance to examine them and raise a query because of it.
usually uscis does want to examine whether a person maintained status. However; if the recent entry into usa was shortly before filing 485 then they very rarely bother asking for w2's. If it has come to their attention that you may have left the 140 employer (h1 transfer, sending in ac21 letter) or it has been a long time then they will ask for these things to assess your intention.
Sometimes when people have very agregious cases/situations they are usually being protected in other ways such as 245k without knowing about it and their case gets approved.
I do know a decent number of people who were on bench for a year or more.
the problem is that people put in too much information when they file their cases. If you have small w2's or very little paystubs and you put it as part of your filing (either 140 or 485) then you are giving uscis a chance to examine them and raise a query because of it.
usually uscis does want to examine whether a person maintained status. However; if the recent entry into usa was shortly before filing 485 then they very rarely bother asking for w2's. If it has come to their attention that you may have left the 140 employer (h1 transfer, sending in ac21 letter) or it has been a long time then they will ask for these things to assess your intention.
Sometimes when people have very agregious cases/situations they are usually being protected in other ways such as 245k without knowing about it and their case gets approved.
hairstyles Korea-mobile-wallpaper
dhesha
03-16 03:06 PM
The biggest problem is interfiling from EB3 to EB2. USCIS must not allow anyone to change categories and retain old priority dates. This is nothing short of cheating ! What about the people who have been standing in line. You can't just change the rules when they suit you and get into the middle of the line. Pathetic !
Similarly - LC SUB guys are getting into the middle of the line even though they came to US years after many of us who are already in pipe-line. This is even more pathetic.
Similarly - LC SUB guys are getting into the middle of the line even though they came to US years after many of us who are already in pipe-line. This is even more pathetic.
Googler
02-20 02:54 PM
I'd posted elsewhere about my Feb 13, 2008 conversation with the DOS official who sets cutoff dates:
And then there this piece of info from Ron Gotcher posted on Feb 14, 2008
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4285
"Last night, at a meeting of the American Immigration Lawyer's Assocation Southern California chapter, Charles Oppenheim spoke. Mr. Oppenheim is the officer within the Visa Office tasked with calculating visa bulletin cutoff dates each month. He offered the following thoughts as to cutoff date movement in the upcoming months:
In April, India and China EB2 will be set at 12/01/2003
EB3 for India and China will slow down for the rest of the fiscal year."
I am riveted by this because I spoke to Oppenheim just the day before this meeting (he referred to it). This was the conversation in which he told me that at present EB-2 India would only get numbers leftover from EB-1 India -- the problem is he doesn't know either exactly how many EB-2 India adjudicated applications there are in any specific PD range -- so every month he makes wild guesses, with the intent of using up visas. So I guess at least as of 2/14/08 he thought moving the date to 12/1/03 would more than mop up whatever was leftover from EB-1 India. Given the end of the FBI boondoggle (the effects of which have not been quantified by Oppenheim or USCIS) I'd predict that even a date in early 2002 would be good enough to mop up. Let us see if he changes his mind by mid March.
But his statement at the AILA meeting has been bothering me so I talked to him again today. Here is what he said -- that he is considering not only the EB-1 India excess, but the entire EB-1 worldwide excess being given to oversubscribed EB-2! I asked him about his earlier statement and he said that he had had a chance to look at the numbers and determine that unlike recent years EB-1 worldwide is not using numbers up at a rate that would max out EB-1 usage. BUT. He is waiting for USCIS to give him an estimate of the number of EB-2 India applications that would become eligible if he moves the cutoff dates up to 12/1/03, he will set the date ONLY after he gets that data and determines that there won't be too many within that cutoff date.
I also asked him to confirm that he was relying on his interpretation of Section 202(a)(5) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558 dbe) of the INA in order to proceed with this spillover. This is his current interpretation of that section -- spillover from EB-1 to EB-2 IF there appears to be a worldwide excess in EB-1, when there is no worldwide excess in EB-1 then country specific spillover for example, from EB-1 India to EB-2 India only etc. In past years like FY06, EB-1 ROW was looking maxed out, so barely any spillover from EB-1 to oversubscribed EB-2.
And then there this piece of info from Ron Gotcher posted on Feb 14, 2008
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4285
"Last night, at a meeting of the American Immigration Lawyer's Assocation Southern California chapter, Charles Oppenheim spoke. Mr. Oppenheim is the officer within the Visa Office tasked with calculating visa bulletin cutoff dates each month. He offered the following thoughts as to cutoff date movement in the upcoming months:
In April, India and China EB2 will be set at 12/01/2003
EB3 for India and China will slow down for the rest of the fiscal year."
I am riveted by this because I spoke to Oppenheim just the day before this meeting (he referred to it). This was the conversation in which he told me that at present EB-2 India would only get numbers leftover from EB-1 India -- the problem is he doesn't know either exactly how many EB-2 India adjudicated applications there are in any specific PD range -- so every month he makes wild guesses, with the intent of using up visas. So I guess at least as of 2/14/08 he thought moving the date to 12/1/03 would more than mop up whatever was leftover from EB-1 India. Given the end of the FBI boondoggle (the effects of which have not been quantified by Oppenheim or USCIS) I'd predict that even a date in early 2002 would be good enough to mop up. Let us see if he changes his mind by mid March.
But his statement at the AILA meeting has been bothering me so I talked to him again today. Here is what he said -- that he is considering not only the EB-1 India excess, but the entire EB-1 worldwide excess being given to oversubscribed EB-2! I asked him about his earlier statement and he said that he had had a chance to look at the numbers and determine that unlike recent years EB-1 worldwide is not using numbers up at a rate that would max out EB-1 usage. BUT. He is waiting for USCIS to give him an estimate of the number of EB-2 India applications that would become eligible if he moves the cutoff dates up to 12/1/03, he will set the date ONLY after he gets that data and determines that there won't be too many within that cutoff date.
I also asked him to confirm that he was relying on his interpretation of Section 202(a)(5) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558 dbe) of the INA in order to proceed with this spillover. This is his current interpretation of that section -- spillover from EB-1 to EB-2 IF there appears to be a worldwide excess in EB-1, when there is no worldwide excess in EB-1 then country specific spillover for example, from EB-1 India to EB-2 India only etc. In past years like FY06, EB-1 ROW was looking maxed out, so barely any spillover from EB-1 to oversubscribed EB-2.
BharatPremi
03-17 12:14 PM
If we assume this poll is a mirror of actual application load at USCIS then 70% applications were filed before January 2005 (529/750). Out of 529, 223 were filed during June 2003 or before (42% load). Now during last May-June 2007 EB3-I's current PD reached to June 2003. So assuming current stuck ones were product of either PBEC/DBEC labor approval delay and /or Name check delay, they will be virtually ready to go, I mean get a GC rightaway. People with PD having DEC 2003 and before will have fair chance as well.