paskal
07-11 12:10 AM
since that is important i have replied to you in pm. i wish that everyone could read once and for all but i will hold myself to not posting the reply on this thread.
i believe you still do not understand the system. please read your pm.
paskal, you are making up things here that that priorities are Eb1->Eb2->Eb3
Eb1->Eb2->Eb3 is correct only from education and experience for the Job point of view but not true from Quota point of view all get 33.33per year.
�The argument that Eb1 is preferred/priority above Eb2 and BE2 is preferred/priority over EB3 is absurd.
The regular yearly BE quota is distributed equally among all three categories that means equal priority for all groups. So then why they should not follow the same distribution for the overflow numbers also?
Said that all BE3 applicants who are eligible should port there PD to EB2, simple. When you know how the system works try to adapt to it.�
We filed our CGs when we don�t know the system, we just trusted out attorneys. If we have to do this CG stuff again most of us will do it differently.
"look, i am not trying to pull down EB3 folks in any way form or manner." I will take your work on this. But the message I got from reading your postings is different, hope that is not your intent. I am just letting you know, I am not accusing you, just giving my feedback.
Please dont close this thread because of my post.
i believe you still do not understand the system. please read your pm.
paskal, you are making up things here that that priorities are Eb1->Eb2->Eb3
Eb1->Eb2->Eb3 is correct only from education and experience for the Job point of view but not true from Quota point of view all get 33.33per year.
�The argument that Eb1 is preferred/priority above Eb2 and BE2 is preferred/priority over EB3 is absurd.
The regular yearly BE quota is distributed equally among all three categories that means equal priority for all groups. So then why they should not follow the same distribution for the overflow numbers also?
Said that all BE3 applicants who are eligible should port there PD to EB2, simple. When you know how the system works try to adapt to it.�
We filed our CGs when we don�t know the system, we just trusted out attorneys. If we have to do this CG stuff again most of us will do it differently.
"look, i am not trying to pull down EB3 folks in any way form or manner." I will take your work on this. But the message I got from reading your postings is different, hope that is not your intent. I am just letting you know, I am not accusing you, just giving my feedback.
Please dont close this thread because of my post.
wallpaper Lady Gaga Born This Way album
realizeit
02-25 11:04 AM
First of all let me thank all of you who responded to this thread positively or negatively. I have a humble request. Please make sure that the comments that you post in this thread are not finger pointers to anyone else in the community. Please provide your positive or negative comments about this idea. Also make sure that your comments are not cynical ones which will just put this idea into the dust bin. If you can't motivate, please do not discourage others from getting some motivation and giving motivation. Without positive energy and a conducive environment, we will not achieve anything. If you have high cynical opinion, please hold that with you - as it will help you as well - because by doing that, you are helping this community to work on an issue with positive energy. If there is some positive outcome of the effort by this community, you too can enjoy the fruit. So, my point is, your biggest help would be keeping quiet. Let�s have a constructive and productive brain storming.
Even after this brain-storming, if our conclusion is negative, we should not give up. We should continue to work on this and if this requires a legislative change, still this may be an easy one as it won�t add any new GC numbers to the existing quota. This just removes the UNCERTAINITY surrounds our life. What I meant was, there won�t be much ammunition that the protectionists and anti-immigrants can gather against this effort.
I can completely understand the user Ganguteli�s frustration. He has a very valid point too, with respect to applying for I-485 when dates are not current. As I quoted earlier �A journey of a thousand miles begins with a small step.�. So, we should continue this effort in small steps instead of a big bang method. In this current economic environment, if our proposal is too big, it could get ignored within no time. Administration will say that, we will do this along with Comprehensive Immigration reform or something like that. We may add a reasonable addition to this proposal to fix the problems of folks like Ganguteli. Something like, if your 140 is approved and 1 year has passed, the person must be able to apply for 485 irrespective of whether his country is retrogressed or not. I am not sure about the legality of all these. That�s where the importance of this community emerges. If we can work together, we can solve all our problems in small steps.
If IV and our community take this as a priority item to work on, I will provide $500.00 as an initial aid to this effort. I could offer more on the way.
An interesting idea to say the least. Out of box suggestion.
However, there are few things, from legal point of view, it needs to overcome. I will post my detailed comments this afternoon.
Once again, this is a great idea!
______________________
Not a legal advice
US citizen of Indian origin
Even after this brain-storming, if our conclusion is negative, we should not give up. We should continue to work on this and if this requires a legislative change, still this may be an easy one as it won�t add any new GC numbers to the existing quota. This just removes the UNCERTAINITY surrounds our life. What I meant was, there won�t be much ammunition that the protectionists and anti-immigrants can gather against this effort.
I can completely understand the user Ganguteli�s frustration. He has a very valid point too, with respect to applying for I-485 when dates are not current. As I quoted earlier �A journey of a thousand miles begins with a small step.�. So, we should continue this effort in small steps instead of a big bang method. In this current economic environment, if our proposal is too big, it could get ignored within no time. Administration will say that, we will do this along with Comprehensive Immigration reform or something like that. We may add a reasonable addition to this proposal to fix the problems of folks like Ganguteli. Something like, if your 140 is approved and 1 year has passed, the person must be able to apply for 485 irrespective of whether his country is retrogressed or not. I am not sure about the legality of all these. That�s where the importance of this community emerges. If we can work together, we can solve all our problems in small steps.
If IV and our community take this as a priority item to work on, I will provide $500.00 as an initial aid to this effort. I could offer more on the way.
An interesting idea to say the least. Out of box suggestion.
However, there are few things, from legal point of view, it needs to overcome. I will post my detailed comments this afternoon.
Once again, this is a great idea!
______________________
Not a legal advice
US citizen of Indian origin
Macaca
02-04 12:56 PM
Hey UN
Are you aware of State Deptt URLs that explain current immigration rules (similar to IRS rules) as following.
Someone posted a URL that requires a good choice of search words. Such a process may not get all info specially for a novice like me. Thanks.
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.
Are you aware of State Deptt URLs that explain current immigration rules (similar to IRS rules) as following.
Someone posted a URL that requires a good choice of search words. Such a process may not get all info specially for a novice like me. Thanks.
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.
2011 cover art. lady gaga born
amitjoey
07-05 03:00 PM
People are talking about the flowers to USCIS Campaign.
http://me2rai.blogspot.com/
http://me2rai.blogspot.com/
more...
meg_z
04-20 01:53 PM
I apologize for any miscommunication on my part.
Let me be very clear about what we are looking for
Your story about how you are affected by retrogression/back log etc. It could be as simple as 'I have a BS in Engineering and am stuck in back log for 2 years and cannot fulfil my dreams professionally' to 'I have a PhD in Nuclear Science and US needs me coz there are only a handful of us!' Anything and everything works.
I have literally recieved stories of stay at home moms (because of H4 they cannot work) to folks who have been interviewed by MIT! The whole spectrum helps.....please please send us your stories...we need all the weapons when we go face the senators on behalf of IV
As another fellow IV member who just sent me his story clearly mentioned, and I quote him
'Hope my story adds another spoke in the wheel. The thought of having to wait 2-3 or even more years just to be able to file the I-485 is damning. It's time to quit whining and do something about it. Want y'all to know that I'm available to help out in any way I can.'
Thanks.
Let me be very clear about what we are looking for
Your story about how you are affected by retrogression/back log etc. It could be as simple as 'I have a BS in Engineering and am stuck in back log for 2 years and cannot fulfil my dreams professionally' to 'I have a PhD in Nuclear Science and US needs me coz there are only a handful of us!' Anything and everything works.
I have literally recieved stories of stay at home moms (because of H4 they cannot work) to folks who have been interviewed by MIT! The whole spectrum helps.....please please send us your stories...we need all the weapons when we go face the senators on behalf of IV
As another fellow IV member who just sent me his story clearly mentioned, and I quote him
'Hope my story adds another spoke in the wheel. The thought of having to wait 2-3 or even more years just to be able to file the I-485 is damning. It's time to quit whining and do something about it. Want y'all to know that I'm available to help out in any way I can.'
Thanks.
chanduy9
07-05 01:16 PM
Are you guys sure that Emilio Gonzalez is not on vacation or taking a day off that day ??
The main moto is to get the media and public atten. Do you think if he is there, he will change the VB asap because of your flowers......:D
Common guys...this is on way telling them our feelings and how much pain we have taken....
Think +ve.
Just my idea.
The main moto is to get the media and public atten. Do you think if he is there, he will change the VB asap because of your flowers......:D
Common guys...this is on way telling them our feelings and how much pain we have taken....
Think +ve.
Just my idea.
more...
sugaur
12-04 05:39 PM
Lets see, she
1. was here illegally
2. was convicted of shoplifting.
3. Drove without a license.
4. Had unpaid driving fines. (Bet she didnt have driving insurance either).
She had her delivery in a hospital which automatically assures adequate care for the child (paid for by the good citizens of Maricopa county, i should add).
As long as the pregnancy is uncomplicated, a woman is perfectly capable of delivering with a leg shackled. In no way does that put her at risk of complications.
Yes it would have been humiliating, but whose fault is that?
Articles like this are published primarily to sway public opinion in favor of illegal aliens and amnesty. Judging by the responses I am impressed who effective they are.
1. was here illegally
2. was convicted of shoplifting.
3. Drove without a license.
4. Had unpaid driving fines. (Bet she didnt have driving insurance either).
She had her delivery in a hospital which automatically assures adequate care for the child (paid for by the good citizens of Maricopa county, i should add).
As long as the pregnancy is uncomplicated, a woman is perfectly capable of delivering with a leg shackled. In no way does that put her at risk of complications.
Yes it would have been humiliating, but whose fault is that?
Articles like this are published primarily to sway public opinion in favor of illegal aliens and amnesty. Judging by the responses I am impressed who effective they are.
2010 lady gaga born this way cover
coolie123
07-24 02:38 PM
having less no. of hours in monthly payslip counted towards out of status?
(or)
without payslip is counted towards out of status?
(or)
without payslip is counted towards out of status?
more...
newbie2020
02-27 12:40 PM
Sure,
We can setup a Conference call next week Wednesday 3/4/09 8:30PM EST
Here is the bridge info for folks interested in joining
Bridge number: +1 218 339 2626
Passcode: 245906
Bridge can accomodate upto 150 people.
Great! are you willing to lead?
We can setup a Conference call next week Wednesday 3/4/09 8:30PM EST
Here is the bridge info for folks interested in joining
Bridge number: +1 218 339 2626
Passcode: 245906
Bridge can accomodate upto 150 people.
Great! are you willing to lead?
hair The cover art from the “Born
ItIsNotFunny
03-06 02:14 PM
For everyone's information:
Following people have pledged for $50:
amits, ArkBird, lc1978, ThinkTwice
Following people have pledged for $25:
aadimanav, ajay, ajm, amaruns, amitga, amslonewolf, ashatara78, bestofall, bharani, bkarnik, chanduv23, dallasdude, django.stone, dummgelauft, Eb3Pro, eb3_2004, fundo14, gc28262, gcformeornot, h1techSlave, ItIsNotFunny, jayleno, KKtexas, lvgc, maxy, minimalist, mirage, mohan.ada, n2b, nandakumar, nandini, Naveen, nc14, needhelp!, newuser, oliTwist, optimizer, qasleuth, rajeshalex, rameshavula, reddymjm, roseball, sammyb, sanju, shantham, sledge_hammer, snvlgopal, sparklinks, sundevil, The7zen, vbkris77, veereddy, WaitingForMyGC, Winner
Following people have pledged for $50:
amits, ArkBird, lc1978, ThinkTwice
Following people have pledged for $25:
aadimanav, ajay, ajm, amaruns, amitga, amslonewolf, ashatara78, bestofall, bharani, bkarnik, chanduv23, dallasdude, django.stone, dummgelauft, Eb3Pro, eb3_2004, fundo14, gc28262, gcformeornot, h1techSlave, ItIsNotFunny, jayleno, KKtexas, lvgc, maxy, minimalist, mirage, mohan.ada, n2b, nandakumar, nandini, Naveen, nc14, needhelp!, newuser, oliTwist, optimizer, qasleuth, rajeshalex, rameshavula, reddymjm, roseball, sammyb, sanju, shantham, sledge_hammer, snvlgopal, sparklinks, sundevil, The7zen, vbkris77, veereddy, WaitingForMyGC, Winner
more...
Be_Pragmatic
07-17 07:19 PM
Thanks to IV team and to everyone. You all have gained some Karma!!!
hot 2011 house lady gaga born this
bigboy007
05-10 11:18 PM
When did you come to US my friend ? did you ever were in the posts and discussions that went through all the years reg SUBS ? Atleast search on internet you will see whether is idea is BRAND new or old enough ?
How can you think of USCIS going back to something that doesnt exist any more (Fraud is diff story) , Admin Fix is for something that is existing, and in hands of USCIS. per law ppl ported dates and it is valid at that time.. Per law ppl can still port dates from EB3 to EB2 or earlier dates in the same category. Admin Fix cant back date the LAW. Simple common sense. You can keep clogging ... Instead we can work on the same energy for Recap.
Are you going to followup with USCIS that It shouldnt let ppl port from EB3 to EB2? L1,L2 Getting quickly ? I dont want to waste my time on EB3 Vs EB2 Vs EB1 Vs L1 Vs L2.. Lets aim at one thing that helps all and its a jackpot that is achievable for us...
I am reviving this old thread because it was created by me, and it is highly relevant now. I predicted last month that EB2-I will become "U" soon, and it has happened (almost).
The quick way out of this mess is to ask CIS to move subst labor folks back in the queue. That will ensure that both EB3-I and EB2-I will move forward to July 07. Most of the labor substitution took place in that month itself.
This is an admin fix and does not require any new legislature. This is an idea whose time has come.
How can you think of USCIS going back to something that doesnt exist any more (Fraud is diff story) , Admin Fix is for something that is existing, and in hands of USCIS. per law ppl ported dates and it is valid at that time.. Per law ppl can still port dates from EB3 to EB2 or earlier dates in the same category. Admin Fix cant back date the LAW. Simple common sense. You can keep clogging ... Instead we can work on the same energy for Recap.
Are you going to followup with USCIS that It shouldnt let ppl port from EB3 to EB2? L1,L2 Getting quickly ? I dont want to waste my time on EB3 Vs EB2 Vs EB1 Vs L1 Vs L2.. Lets aim at one thing that helps all and its a jackpot that is achievable for us...
I am reviving this old thread because it was created by me, and it is highly relevant now. I predicted last month that EB2-I will become "U" soon, and it has happened (almost).
The quick way out of this mess is to ask CIS to move subst labor folks back in the queue. That will ensure that both EB3-I and EB2-I will move forward to July 07. Most of the labor substitution took place in that month itself.
This is an admin fix and does not require any new legislature. This is an idea whose time has come.
more...
house Lady Gaga Born This Way Album
deecha
08-09 08:44 AM
I googled to find any cases similar to the one I have now, by no luck.
My wife was out of status for more than 6 months while she was on H1-b by not working. To put her back on status, my attorney advised to make her go out of the country and come back on H4 visa. Her status now is H4 and has maintained it since the last entry to US. I have maintained my H1-B status since 3 years and got paid for every day.
Is it possible, my I-485 is approved (primary applicant) and her I-485 denied (dependent) due to her prior out-of-status on H1-B? Her current status as mentioned in the I-485 forms is H4.
Please advice.
Thanks.
Yes, there is a possibility of I-485 denial for dependent as it is at the discretion of the adjudicating/immigration officer. Having said this, any denial can be appealed using a MTR. It can also be referred to the board of immigration appeals.
My wife was out of status for more than 6 months while she was on H1-b by not working. To put her back on status, my attorney advised to make her go out of the country and come back on H4 visa. Her status now is H4 and has maintained it since the last entry to US. I have maintained my H1-B status since 3 years and got paid for every day.
Is it possible, my I-485 is approved (primary applicant) and her I-485 denied (dependent) due to her prior out-of-status on H1-B? Her current status as mentioned in the I-485 forms is H4.
Please advice.
Thanks.
Yes, there is a possibility of I-485 denial for dependent as it is at the discretion of the adjudicating/immigration officer. Having said this, any denial can be appealed using a MTR. It can also be referred to the board of immigration appeals.
tattoo Lady Gaga#39;s #39;Born This Way#39;
ericx
07-17 10:30 PM
Contribution today through Paypal:
Transaction ID: 1HJ08461WE0053721
Item Price: $100.00 USD
Total: $100.00 USD
Order Description: Contributions
Item/Product Number: Contributions
Transaction ID: 1HJ08461WE0053721
Item Price: $100.00 USD
Total: $100.00 USD
Order Description: Contributions
Item/Product Number: Contributions
more...
pictures Artist: Lady Gaga
chanduv23
02-04 11:15 AM
While, I have not made any analysis on this or do not have any basis, I just reiterated what unitednations and others have written before.
From my perspective (once again, this is just my thoughts), it looks like a slowdown or apply hard country limite for highly subscribed countries maybe a result of a lot of factors like, job market slowing down (2001,2002), complaints that immigrants are taking local jobs, consulting companies selling labors, falsifying resumes to INS or DOL (java programmer actually working in restaurant), people not getting paid prevailing wage, benching etc..... While a comprehensive reform is a good solution to retrogression and all h1bs are taken as serious immigrants, underlying issues need to be fixed before a comprehensive reform to retrogression is there. A lot of loopholes being closed and strigent rules being enacted, change is some laws that don't make sense, understanding the industry needs, issues with wage and tax issues, are things that can be happening behind the scenes (this is just what I think), in addition to backlog elimination and overflow of applicants in an overburdened system.
Once again, it is just my thoughts, which I think explains the patterns to why unused numbers are not flowing to over subscribed countries. Please correct me if I am wrong.
While job market seem to have picked up and demanding, there seems to be a need for flow if talent and that is not happening due to the problems that need to be fixed.
From my perspective (once again, this is just my thoughts), it looks like a slowdown or apply hard country limite for highly subscribed countries maybe a result of a lot of factors like, job market slowing down (2001,2002), complaints that immigrants are taking local jobs, consulting companies selling labors, falsifying resumes to INS or DOL (java programmer actually working in restaurant), people not getting paid prevailing wage, benching etc..... While a comprehensive reform is a good solution to retrogression and all h1bs are taken as serious immigrants, underlying issues need to be fixed before a comprehensive reform to retrogression is there. A lot of loopholes being closed and strigent rules being enacted, change is some laws that don't make sense, understanding the industry needs, issues with wage and tax issues, are things that can be happening behind the scenes (this is just what I think), in addition to backlog elimination and overflow of applicants in an overburdened system.
Once again, it is just my thoughts, which I think explains the patterns to why unused numbers are not flowing to over subscribed countries. Please correct me if I am wrong.
While job market seem to have picked up and demanding, there seems to be a need for flow if talent and that is not happening due to the problems that need to be fixed.
dresses Lady Gaga#39;s #39;Born This Way#39;
bsbawa10
09-14 03:17 PM
Leadership can't be demanded/begged from other people. Either you lead or if not ... then just pray that others will.
I think it can be demanded or requested. The people who have the role of the admin or have control over the forum can post such appeals on the front page. Not everybody on this forum can do that.
I think it can be demanded or requested. The people who have the role of the admin or have control over the forum can post such appeals on the front page. Not everybody on this forum can do that.
more...
makeup makeup lady gaga born this way
arc
08-14 01:43 PM
Hi
I have a profile made my LUD hasn't changed, I do not know where my I140 was approved from... HOW can I find that?
Thanks!
I have a profile made my LUD hasn't changed, I do not know where my I140 was approved from... HOW can I find that?
Thanks!
girlfriend lady-gaga-orn-this-way-cover-
paskal
12-20 11:22 AM
not 700
this campaign is stuck at 103 currently
we recognise that not everyone can donate $100 right away
if everyone does what they can $20 onwards...
that would still make >300K!!!
this campaign is stuck at 103 currently
we recognise that not everyone can donate $100 right away
if everyone does what they can $20 onwards...
that would still make >300K!!!
hairstyles Lady Gaga Releases Cover for
bsbawa10
09-11 08:02 AM
Sir/Madam,
On behalf of the Indian legal immigrant community in the United States of America, I am
writing to highlight the ongoing egregious inefficiencies in the immigration �services�
provided by the USCIS and the DOS. There have been numerous times when there have been erratic movements in the published visa bulletin dates. As a result the DOS either under- or over-estimates the number of applicants available for adjustment of status. When the date moves forward by too large a window, USCIS tends to approve the more recent applications as opposed to the ones that were filed earlier. Let me explain with an example: in the July 2008 visa bulletin, the cut-off date for the India EB2 category was 01 April 2004. A month later, the cut-off date for Indian EB2 applicants abruptly moved forward two years and was set at 01 June 2006. Instead of approving applicants who applied in 2004 and 2005, USCIS approved applicants from 2006. Where is the justice in that???
Indian employment-based immigrants are tax-paying, law-abiding, educated individuals contributing to America�s knowledge economy - yet we have been subjected to the worst aspects of the US employment-based immigration system. These include:
1) Extended wait times at each step of the immigration process.
2) Lack of transparency on the part of USCIS. Customer Service is of no help at all. It tells the customer whatever is on the website. What use is the customer service then ? We are paying our hard earned money for the process to USCIS, but what do we get back ?
3) Lost opportunities owing to the lack of job portability during the process (a time period spanning an average of five years, whereas an applicant from any country besides India gets his/her PR card in under two years).
While we are grateful for the opportunity to partake in the American dream, it is ironic that we arrive in America and find that our freedom is shackled � we are bound to our sponsoring employer from the start to the end of this extremely lengthy process. Although legal immigration reform is our ongoing aim, for now, we sincerely request you to investigate the process whereby the monthly visa bulletin is set and to ensure FIFO (first in, first out) adjustment so that those of us who have been waiting longer receive attention prior to those who have applied later.
Thanking you,[/QUOTE]
I just added a couple of lines on step 3. Otherwise, I like the letter very much.
On behalf of the Indian legal immigrant community in the United States of America, I am
writing to highlight the ongoing egregious inefficiencies in the immigration �services�
provided by the USCIS and the DOS. There have been numerous times when there have been erratic movements in the published visa bulletin dates. As a result the DOS either under- or over-estimates the number of applicants available for adjustment of status. When the date moves forward by too large a window, USCIS tends to approve the more recent applications as opposed to the ones that were filed earlier. Let me explain with an example: in the July 2008 visa bulletin, the cut-off date for the India EB2 category was 01 April 2004. A month later, the cut-off date for Indian EB2 applicants abruptly moved forward two years and was set at 01 June 2006. Instead of approving applicants who applied in 2004 and 2005, USCIS approved applicants from 2006. Where is the justice in that???
Indian employment-based immigrants are tax-paying, law-abiding, educated individuals contributing to America�s knowledge economy - yet we have been subjected to the worst aspects of the US employment-based immigration system. These include:
1) Extended wait times at each step of the immigration process.
2) Lack of transparency on the part of USCIS. Customer Service is of no help at all. It tells the customer whatever is on the website. What use is the customer service then ? We are paying our hard earned money for the process to USCIS, but what do we get back ?
3) Lost opportunities owing to the lack of job portability during the process (a time period spanning an average of five years, whereas an applicant from any country besides India gets his/her PR card in under two years).
While we are grateful for the opportunity to partake in the American dream, it is ironic that we arrive in America and find that our freedom is shackled � we are bound to our sponsoring employer from the start to the end of this extremely lengthy process. Although legal immigration reform is our ongoing aim, for now, we sincerely request you to investigate the process whereby the monthly visa bulletin is set and to ensure FIFO (first in, first out) adjustment so that those of us who have been waiting longer receive attention prior to those who have applied later.
Thanking you,[/QUOTE]
I just added a couple of lines on step 3. Otherwise, I like the letter very much.
PlainSpeak
04-15 09:17 PM
Sorry if you misunderstood.
I have no sympathy for you
No actually i understood very clearly what you are. You have no sympathy because i disagree with you. Dont know if i should feel sorry or sad for you
I have no sympathy for you
No actually i understood very clearly what you are. You have no sympathy because i disagree with you. Dont know if i should feel sorry or sad for you
Milind123
09-07 10:46 PM
Numbers are the only thing that matter................wrong again.
alterego - Good counter point on the numbers thing.
Sheman - Think Rosa Parks (only one person). It the bus was empty that day, we certainly would be in a different world.
alterego - Good counter point on the numbers thing.
Sheman - Think Rosa Parks (only one person). It the bus was empty that day, we certainly would be in a different world.
No comments:
Post a Comment