sGC
08-16 09:36 AM
I Have opened an SR on Aug 6th and then sent an email to TSC followup . I got a response from them on friday " We are currently researching this situation and will contact you with an update." HAs anybody this kind of response?
Thank you
Thank you
wallpaper Kristen Stewart and Robert
slowwin
08-07 02:20 PM
I think IF we stress for FIFO principle then jumping lines , ships will be taken care of by themselves. let RD be used and PD recaPture request date on the letter be RD.
sanjay
01-14 03:46 PM
Just sent my letter to WH and also IV. Also, my three friends had sent this letter to both WH and IV.
2011 Robert Pattinson in Remember
EB2IndianGC
09-28 08:38 AM
Also, does anyone remember where the I-485 was mailed? NSC or TSC? From what I remember it was based on what state you lived in when I-485 was filed.
It was NSC for New York residents... Can someone confirm that please.
Yes, it was based on the State you lived. One other thing, you may want to check with Customer Service, since when are you have been actually considered a PR. If they have considered you as a PR since 2008, it is good for you, you will be able to apply for Citizenship sooner
It was NSC for New York residents... Can someone confirm that please.
Yes, it was based on the State you lived. One other thing, you may want to check with Customer Service, since when are you have been actually considered a PR. If they have considered you as a PR since 2008, it is good for you, you will be able to apply for Citizenship sooner
more...
luckylavs
09-19 11:08 AM
yes i have i have been following with the TSC via email and there is no update from past 1 month. No reply. I also took an info pass appointment and the officer told the finger prints are old and needs to be taken again.Also my case is assigned to officer and no updates from TSC after that.
ashshef
09-24 04:15 PM
"7% country speciific limit for primary applicants" and "2% country specific dependent limit" is mentioned in every bulletin published so far and so actually it is 9% limit - country specific together.
But question is " what is the meaning of it?" and "How to read it?"
Now the tables what are published in bulletin and we smash our heads daily on them are meant for "Visa number availability" not for "Physical Green card orderering".
So numbers (28.6% divided by 5 per each preference-country) are meant for USCIS to process and assign visa numbers till that limit reached.
"7% + 2%" country specific limit is meant for "Sending Greencard /Ordering Greencard".
In simplest form, EB-I will have 8008 X 3 (Without spilied over) = 24024 applications assigned Visa number this year and out of that ( 9% X 140000 = 12600) lucky ones will get their physical green cards THIS YEAR. The rest will get their physical green cards next year though their files have been assigned numbers (Pre-adjudicated.) this year.
Above mentioned explanation is the real meaning of this bullshit.
calculating and interpreting 0.07 x 0.286 for particular country is a wrong concept and I know millions of us follow that in their analysis and arguments but that is completely wrong.
I don't get how you are getting the 8008 figure. Based on the 9%, you are right about the cap for any country being 12,600 for all EB categories combined.
Pre-adjudication has nothing to do with country quota. And 'assigning a number' is still based on country quota. With all the pre-adjudication, it is likely that 'assigned numbers' = GC approvals. The 'assigned numbers' concept was a lot more relevant till last year, when they had numbers, but still had to 'process' the applications. Now most applications seem to have been 'pre-processed'(pre-adjudicated)
I do appreciate your work. Just trying to help achieve a more accurate figure.
But question is " what is the meaning of it?" and "How to read it?"
Now the tables what are published in bulletin and we smash our heads daily on them are meant for "Visa number availability" not for "Physical Green card orderering".
So numbers (28.6% divided by 5 per each preference-country) are meant for USCIS to process and assign visa numbers till that limit reached.
"7% + 2%" country specific limit is meant for "Sending Greencard /Ordering Greencard".
In simplest form, EB-I will have 8008 X 3 (Without spilied over) = 24024 applications assigned Visa number this year and out of that ( 9% X 140000 = 12600) lucky ones will get their physical green cards THIS YEAR. The rest will get their physical green cards next year though their files have been assigned numbers (Pre-adjudicated.) this year.
Above mentioned explanation is the real meaning of this bullshit.
calculating and interpreting 0.07 x 0.286 for particular country is a wrong concept and I know millions of us follow that in their analysis and arguments but that is completely wrong.
I don't get how you are getting the 8008 figure. Based on the 9%, you are right about the cap for any country being 12,600 for all EB categories combined.
Pre-adjudication has nothing to do with country quota. And 'assigning a number' is still based on country quota. With all the pre-adjudication, it is likely that 'assigned numbers' = GC approvals. The 'assigned numbers' concept was a lot more relevant till last year, when they had numbers, but still had to 'process' the applications. Now most applications seem to have been 'pre-processed'(pre-adjudicated)
I do appreciate your work. Just trying to help achieve a more accurate figure.
more...
veerufs
10-13 07:59 PM
My checks got cleared on Oct 10th. Mine is delivered to NSC and recieved by
J BARRET July 2nd 10:28AM. Reciepts from Texas.
J BARRET July 2nd 10:28AM. Reciepts from Texas.
2010 Robert Pattinson and Kristen
jasmin45
07-13 07:24 AM
The whole controversy involving Lou Dobbs and leprosy started with a “60 Minutes” segment a few weeks ago.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/30/business/30leonside.html
Robert Caplin for The New York Times
Lou Dobbs was at the anchor desk for CNN’s 2006 election coverage.
Related Articles
Immigrants and Prison (May 30, 2007)
Bush Takes On Conservatives Over Immigration (May 30, 2007)
Reader Responses (May 30, 2007)
Episodes of "Lou Dobbs Tonight"
"60 Minutes" of May 6, 2007 Leprosy Statistics The segment was a profile of Mr. Dobbs, and while doing background research for it, a “60 Minutes” producer came across a 2005 news report from Mr. Dobbs’s CNN program on contagious diseases. In the report, one of Mr. Dobbs’s correspondents said there had been 7,000 cases of leprosy in this country over the previous three years, far more than in the past.
When Lesley Stahl of “60 Minutes” sat down to interview Mr. Dobbs on camera, she mentioned the report and told him that there didn’t seem to be much evidence for it.
“Well, I can tell you this,” he replied. “If we reported it, it’s a fact.”
With that Orwellian chestnut, Mr. Dobbs escalated the leprosy dispute into a full-scale media brouhaha. The next night, back on his own program, the same CNN correspondent who had done the earlier report, Christine Romans, repeated the 7,000 number, and Mr. Dobbs added that, if anything, it was probably an underestimate. A week later, the Southern Poverty Law Center — the civil rights group that has long been critical of Mr. Dobbs — took out advertisements in The New York Times and USA Today demanding that CNN run a correction.
Finally, Mr. Dobbs played host to two top officials from the law center on his program, “Lou Dobbs Tonight,” where he called their accusations outrageous and they called him wrong, unfair and “one of the most popular people on the white supremacist Web sites.”
We’ll get to the merits of the charges and countercharges shortly, but first it’s worth considering why, beyond entertainment value, all this matters. Over the last few years, Lou Dobbs has transformed himself into arguably this country’s foremost populist. It’s an odd role, given that he spent the 1980s and ’90s buttering up chief executives on CNN, but he’s now playing it very successfully. He has become a voice for the real economic anxiety felt by many Americans.
The audience for his program has grown 72 percent since 2003, and CBS — yes, the same network that broadcasts “60 Minutes” — just hired him as a commentator on “The Early Show.” Many elites, as Mr. Dobbs likes to call them, despise him, but others see him as a hero. His latest book, “War on the Middle Class,” was a best seller and received a sympathetic review in this newspaper. Mario Cuomo has said Mr. Dobbs is “addicted to economic truth.”
Mr. Dobbs argues that the middle class has many enemies: corporate lobbyists, greedy executives, wimpy journalists, corrupt politicians. But none play a bigger role than illegal immigrants. As he sees it, they are stealing our jobs, depressing our wages and even endangering our lives.
That’s where leprosy comes in.
“The invasion of illegal aliens is threatening the health of many Americans,” Mr. Dobbs said on his April 14, 2005, program. From there, he introduced his original report that mentioned leprosy, the flesh-destroying disease — technically known as Hansen’s disease — that has inspired fear for centuries.
According to a woman CNN identified as a medical lawyer named Dr. Madeleine Cosman, leprosy was on the march. As Ms. Romans, the CNN correspondent, relayed: “There were about 900 cases of leprosy for 40 years. There have been 7,000 in the past three years.”
“Incredible,” Mr. Dobbs replied.
Mr. Dobbs and Ms. Romans engaged in a nearly identical conversation a few weeks ago, when he was defending himself the night after the “60 Minutes” segment. “Suddenly, in the past three years, America has more than 7,000 cases of leprosy,” she said, again attributing the number to Ms. Cosman.
To sort through all this, I called James L. Krahenbuhl, the director of the National Hansen’s Disease Program, an arm of the federal government. Leprosy in the United States is indeed largely a disease of immigrants who have come from Asia and Latin America. And the official leprosy statistics do show about 7,000 diagnosed cases — but that’s over the last 30 years, not the last three.
The peak year was 1983, when there were 456 cases. After that, reported cases dropped steadily, falling to just 76 in 2000. Last year, there were 137.
“It is not a public health problem — that’s the bottom line,” Mr. Krahenbuhl told me. “You’ve got a country of 300 million people. This is not something for the public to get alarmed about.” Much about the disease remains unknown, but researchers think people get it through prolonged close contact with someone who already has it.
What about the increase over the last six years, to 137 cases from 76? Is that significant?
“No,” Mr. Krahenbuhl said. It could be a statistical fluctuation, or it could be a result of better data collection in recent years. In any event, the 137 reported cases last year were fewer than in any year from 1975 to 1996.
So Mr. Dobbs was flat-out wrong. And when I spoke to him yesterday, he admitted as much, sort of. I read him Ms. Romans’s comment — the one with the word “suddenly” in it — and he replied, “I think that is wrong.” He then went on to say that as far as he was concerned, he had corrected the mistake by later broadcasting another report, on the same night as his on-air confrontation with the Southern Poverty Law Center officials. This report mentioned that leprosy had peaked in 1983.
Of course, he has never acknowledged on the air that his program presented false information twice. Instead, he lambasted the officials from the law center for saying he had. Even yesterday, he spent much of our conversation emphasizing that there really were 7,000 cases in the leprosy registry, the government’s 30-year database. Mr. Dobbs is trying to have it both ways.
I have been somewhat taken aback about how shameless he has been during the whole dispute, so I spent some time reading transcripts from old episodes of “Lou Dobbs Tonight.” The way he handled leprosy, it turns out, is not all that unusual.
For one thing, Mr. Dobbs has a somewhat flexible relationship with reality. He has said, for example, that one-third of the inmates in the federal prison system are illegal immigrants. That’s wrong, too. According to the Justice Department, 6 percent of prisoners in this country are noncitizens (compared with 7 percent of the population). For a variety of reasons, the crime rate is actually lower among immigrants than natives.
Second, Mr. Dobbs really does give airtime to white supremacy sympathizers. Ms. Cosman, who is now deceased, was a lawyer and Renaissance studies scholar, never a medical doctor or a leprosy expert. She gave speeches in which she said that Mexican immigrants had a habit of molesting children. Back in their home villages, she would explain, rape was not as serious a crime as cow stealing. The Southern Poverty Law Center keeps a list of other such guests from “Lou Dobbs Tonight.”
Finally, Mr. Dobbs is fond of darkly hinting that this country is under attack. He suggested last week that the new immigration bill in Congress could be the first step toward a new nation — a “North American union” — that combines the United States, Canada and Mexico. On other occasions, his program has described a supposed Mexican plot to reclaim the Southwest. In one such report, one of his correspondents referred to a Utah visit by Vicente Fox, then Mexico’s president, as a “Mexican military incursion.”
When I asked Mr. Dobbs about this yesterday, he said, “You’ve raised this to a level that frankly I find offensive.”
The most common complaint about him, at least from other journalists, is that his program combines factual reporting with editorializing. But I think this misses the point. Americans, as a rule, are smart enough to handle a program that mixes opinion and facts. The problem with Mr. Dobbs is that he mixes opinion and untruths. He is the heir to the nativist tradition that has long used fiction and conspiracy theories as a weapon against the Irish, the Italians, the Chinese, the Jews and, now, the Mexicans.
There is no denying that this country’s immigration system is broken. But it defies belief — and a whole lot of economic research — to suggest that the problems of the middle class stem from illegal immigrants. Those immigrants, remember, are largely non-English speakers without a high school diploma. They have probably hurt the wages of native-born high school dropouts and made everyone else better off.
More to the point, if Mr. Dobbs’s arguments were really so good, don’t you think he would be able to stick to the facts? And if CNN were serious about being “the most trusted name in news,” as it claims to be, don’t you think it would be big enough to issue an actual correction?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/30/business/30leonside.html
Robert Caplin for The New York Times
Lou Dobbs was at the anchor desk for CNN’s 2006 election coverage.
Related Articles
Immigrants and Prison (May 30, 2007)
Bush Takes On Conservatives Over Immigration (May 30, 2007)
Reader Responses (May 30, 2007)
Episodes of "Lou Dobbs Tonight"
"60 Minutes" of May 6, 2007 Leprosy Statistics The segment was a profile of Mr. Dobbs, and while doing background research for it, a “60 Minutes” producer came across a 2005 news report from Mr. Dobbs’s CNN program on contagious diseases. In the report, one of Mr. Dobbs’s correspondents said there had been 7,000 cases of leprosy in this country over the previous three years, far more than in the past.
When Lesley Stahl of “60 Minutes” sat down to interview Mr. Dobbs on camera, she mentioned the report and told him that there didn’t seem to be much evidence for it.
“Well, I can tell you this,” he replied. “If we reported it, it’s a fact.”
With that Orwellian chestnut, Mr. Dobbs escalated the leprosy dispute into a full-scale media brouhaha. The next night, back on his own program, the same CNN correspondent who had done the earlier report, Christine Romans, repeated the 7,000 number, and Mr. Dobbs added that, if anything, it was probably an underestimate. A week later, the Southern Poverty Law Center — the civil rights group that has long been critical of Mr. Dobbs — took out advertisements in The New York Times and USA Today demanding that CNN run a correction.
Finally, Mr. Dobbs played host to two top officials from the law center on his program, “Lou Dobbs Tonight,” where he called their accusations outrageous and they called him wrong, unfair and “one of the most popular people on the white supremacist Web sites.”
We’ll get to the merits of the charges and countercharges shortly, but first it’s worth considering why, beyond entertainment value, all this matters. Over the last few years, Lou Dobbs has transformed himself into arguably this country’s foremost populist. It’s an odd role, given that he spent the 1980s and ’90s buttering up chief executives on CNN, but he’s now playing it very successfully. He has become a voice for the real economic anxiety felt by many Americans.
The audience for his program has grown 72 percent since 2003, and CBS — yes, the same network that broadcasts “60 Minutes” — just hired him as a commentator on “The Early Show.” Many elites, as Mr. Dobbs likes to call them, despise him, but others see him as a hero. His latest book, “War on the Middle Class,” was a best seller and received a sympathetic review in this newspaper. Mario Cuomo has said Mr. Dobbs is “addicted to economic truth.”
Mr. Dobbs argues that the middle class has many enemies: corporate lobbyists, greedy executives, wimpy journalists, corrupt politicians. But none play a bigger role than illegal immigrants. As he sees it, they are stealing our jobs, depressing our wages and even endangering our lives.
That’s where leprosy comes in.
“The invasion of illegal aliens is threatening the health of many Americans,” Mr. Dobbs said on his April 14, 2005, program. From there, he introduced his original report that mentioned leprosy, the flesh-destroying disease — technically known as Hansen’s disease — that has inspired fear for centuries.
According to a woman CNN identified as a medical lawyer named Dr. Madeleine Cosman, leprosy was on the march. As Ms. Romans, the CNN correspondent, relayed: “There were about 900 cases of leprosy for 40 years. There have been 7,000 in the past three years.”
“Incredible,” Mr. Dobbs replied.
Mr. Dobbs and Ms. Romans engaged in a nearly identical conversation a few weeks ago, when he was defending himself the night after the “60 Minutes” segment. “Suddenly, in the past three years, America has more than 7,000 cases of leprosy,” she said, again attributing the number to Ms. Cosman.
To sort through all this, I called James L. Krahenbuhl, the director of the National Hansen’s Disease Program, an arm of the federal government. Leprosy in the United States is indeed largely a disease of immigrants who have come from Asia and Latin America. And the official leprosy statistics do show about 7,000 diagnosed cases — but that’s over the last 30 years, not the last three.
The peak year was 1983, when there were 456 cases. After that, reported cases dropped steadily, falling to just 76 in 2000. Last year, there were 137.
“It is not a public health problem — that’s the bottom line,” Mr. Krahenbuhl told me. “You’ve got a country of 300 million people. This is not something for the public to get alarmed about.” Much about the disease remains unknown, but researchers think people get it through prolonged close contact with someone who already has it.
What about the increase over the last six years, to 137 cases from 76? Is that significant?
“No,” Mr. Krahenbuhl said. It could be a statistical fluctuation, or it could be a result of better data collection in recent years. In any event, the 137 reported cases last year were fewer than in any year from 1975 to 1996.
So Mr. Dobbs was flat-out wrong. And when I spoke to him yesterday, he admitted as much, sort of. I read him Ms. Romans’s comment — the one with the word “suddenly” in it — and he replied, “I think that is wrong.” He then went on to say that as far as he was concerned, he had corrected the mistake by later broadcasting another report, on the same night as his on-air confrontation with the Southern Poverty Law Center officials. This report mentioned that leprosy had peaked in 1983.
Of course, he has never acknowledged on the air that his program presented false information twice. Instead, he lambasted the officials from the law center for saying he had. Even yesterday, he spent much of our conversation emphasizing that there really were 7,000 cases in the leprosy registry, the government’s 30-year database. Mr. Dobbs is trying to have it both ways.
I have been somewhat taken aback about how shameless he has been during the whole dispute, so I spent some time reading transcripts from old episodes of “Lou Dobbs Tonight.” The way he handled leprosy, it turns out, is not all that unusual.
For one thing, Mr. Dobbs has a somewhat flexible relationship with reality. He has said, for example, that one-third of the inmates in the federal prison system are illegal immigrants. That’s wrong, too. According to the Justice Department, 6 percent of prisoners in this country are noncitizens (compared with 7 percent of the population). For a variety of reasons, the crime rate is actually lower among immigrants than natives.
Second, Mr. Dobbs really does give airtime to white supremacy sympathizers. Ms. Cosman, who is now deceased, was a lawyer and Renaissance studies scholar, never a medical doctor or a leprosy expert. She gave speeches in which she said that Mexican immigrants had a habit of molesting children. Back in their home villages, she would explain, rape was not as serious a crime as cow stealing. The Southern Poverty Law Center keeps a list of other such guests from “Lou Dobbs Tonight.”
Finally, Mr. Dobbs is fond of darkly hinting that this country is under attack. He suggested last week that the new immigration bill in Congress could be the first step toward a new nation — a “North American union” — that combines the United States, Canada and Mexico. On other occasions, his program has described a supposed Mexican plot to reclaim the Southwest. In one such report, one of his correspondents referred to a Utah visit by Vicente Fox, then Mexico’s president, as a “Mexican military incursion.”
When I asked Mr. Dobbs about this yesterday, he said, “You’ve raised this to a level that frankly I find offensive.”
The most common complaint about him, at least from other journalists, is that his program combines factual reporting with editorializing. But I think this misses the point. Americans, as a rule, are smart enough to handle a program that mixes opinion and facts. The problem with Mr. Dobbs is that he mixes opinion and untruths. He is the heir to the nativist tradition that has long used fiction and conspiracy theories as a weapon against the Irish, the Italians, the Chinese, the Jews and, now, the Mexicans.
There is no denying that this country’s immigration system is broken. But it defies belief — and a whole lot of economic research — to suggest that the problems of the middle class stem from illegal immigrants. Those immigrants, remember, are largely non-English speakers without a high school diploma. They have probably hurt the wages of native-born high school dropouts and made everyone else better off.
More to the point, if Mr. Dobbs’s arguments were really so good, don’t you think he would be able to stick to the facts? And if CNN were serious about being “the most trusted name in news,” as it claims to be, don’t you think it would be big enough to issue an actual correction?
more...
mhathi
09-09 12:00 PM
Add Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)202- 225-3072 in NOT TO CALL LIST
Thanks, I edited my OP
Thanks, I edited my OP
hair makeup Robert Pattinson and
illinois_alum
09-25 12:09 PM
I saw this link Murthy's email too. The total pre-adjudicated cases in the chart is matching with the total in the document. Well now there are more un-answered questions:
1. Does all other pending 485 include employment based ? If yes what % are employment based ? Obviously we do not have any country specific data on these.
2. Is there any way to know whether individual case is pre-adjudicated or not ?
USCIS has fooled us again. No good statistical analysis can be done on incomplete/inaccurate data. I am going from hopeful to hopeless again. I am EB2-I Feb 2006.
Thanks a lot for staying on top of this and posting your analysis.
I dont get this - the PDF clearly mentions that the table is for ALL PENDING EMPLOYMENT-BASED 485s. So that means: -
1. It does not include any Family-based 485s.
2. This is not a count of just pre-adjudicated cases - this is a count of ALL PENDING CASES.
3. And since this is a count of ALL PENDING CASES, it also means that ALL DEPENDENT CASES are also included in this count - all DEPENDENTS HAVE TO FILE THEIR OWN 485s!
Sometimes I just wonder, if most people here on this board have an illness or over-analyzing everything. It is so simple if you just read what is stated and take it at the face!
1. Does all other pending 485 include employment based ? If yes what % are employment based ? Obviously we do not have any country specific data on these.
2. Is there any way to know whether individual case is pre-adjudicated or not ?
USCIS has fooled us again. No good statistical analysis can be done on incomplete/inaccurate data. I am going from hopeful to hopeless again. I am EB2-I Feb 2006.
Thanks a lot for staying on top of this and posting your analysis.
I dont get this - the PDF clearly mentions that the table is for ALL PENDING EMPLOYMENT-BASED 485s. So that means: -
1. It does not include any Family-based 485s.
2. This is not a count of just pre-adjudicated cases - this is a count of ALL PENDING CASES.
3. And since this is a count of ALL PENDING CASES, it also means that ALL DEPENDENT CASES are also included in this count - all DEPENDENTS HAVE TO FILE THEIR OWN 485s!
Sometimes I just wonder, if most people here on this board have an illness or over-analyzing everything. It is so simple if you just read what is stated and take it at the face!
more...
priderock
06-29 03:53 PM
I think Matthew Oh should closed his site to do some actual work.
Why kill the messenger ?? Yesterday when the possibility of mid month retrogression was brought up every one said it is nonsense. Now every one seems to be accepting and reconciling to the fact that there is a possibility that mid month retrogression might happen.
Give it a day and see as it unfolds. Although I hope this is NOT TRUE , I will not be surprised if this is TRUE. It is better we know about it in advance, how depressing this might be, than caught by surprise.
Why kill the messenger ?? Yesterday when the possibility of mid month retrogression was brought up every one said it is nonsense. Now every one seems to be accepting and reconciling to the fact that there is a possibility that mid month retrogression might happen.
Give it a day and see as it unfolds. Although I hope this is NOT TRUE , I will not be surprised if this is TRUE. It is better we know about it in advance, how depressing this might be, than caught by surprise.
hot Robert Pattinson#39;s new movie
desi3933
06-16 11:54 AM
.... Why should they even extend H1 beyond 6 years?. If they do not extend H1, always new guys can keep coming on L1/H1 and the cost to employers will be much less. .....
>> Why should they even extend H1 beyond 6 years?
This is a very good question. When I was on H-1B visa, at that time, it can not be extended beyond 6 years. At that time, people will move to home country/Canada for 1 one year, plan to move to O visa if qualified, will try to regain time for out of US time etc. The argument was gaining strength that person should get green card before her/his 6 years are up. To make matter worse, H1 and H4 time was counted together.
Now, rather than providing the long term solution of increasing the quota for green cards per year, EB based applicants were offered band-aid solution of extending H1 indefinitely beyond 6 years if labor is pending > 365 calendar days or I-140 is pending/approved. This was further sugar coated that if I-485 is not approved in standard processing time of 6 months, applicant can change GC job for same/similar classification. People were very happy with AC-21 and many thought (and they still think) that getting EAD is like a provisonal green card, as they can change job easily and employer can no longer "control" them.
Now, since H1 can be extended beyond 6 years, the arguement for faster green card has become weaker. Reason is simple, since applicant can work for "green card sposoring" employer for infinite time, even if I-485 is not filed.
In my opionion, ac-21 was a band-aid solution. Strangely enough, perople are still looking for more band-aid solutions.
Well, as they say, history repeats itelf.
_________________________
US citizen of Indian origin
>> Why should they even extend H1 beyond 6 years?
This is a very good question. When I was on H-1B visa, at that time, it can not be extended beyond 6 years. At that time, people will move to home country/Canada for 1 one year, plan to move to O visa if qualified, will try to regain time for out of US time etc. The argument was gaining strength that person should get green card before her/his 6 years are up. To make matter worse, H1 and H4 time was counted together.
Now, rather than providing the long term solution of increasing the quota for green cards per year, EB based applicants were offered band-aid solution of extending H1 indefinitely beyond 6 years if labor is pending > 365 calendar days or I-140 is pending/approved. This was further sugar coated that if I-485 is not approved in standard processing time of 6 months, applicant can change GC job for same/similar classification. People were very happy with AC-21 and many thought (and they still think) that getting EAD is like a provisonal green card, as they can change job easily and employer can no longer "control" them.
Now, since H1 can be extended beyond 6 years, the arguement for faster green card has become weaker. Reason is simple, since applicant can work for "green card sposoring" employer for infinite time, even if I-485 is not filed.
In my opionion, ac-21 was a band-aid solution. Strangely enough, perople are still looking for more band-aid solutions.
Well, as they say, history repeats itelf.
_________________________
US citizen of Indian origin
more...
house Did Robert Pattinson cause
singhv_1980
01-30 03:17 PM
I read in another forum that US consulate in Canada is actually asking to fill out some PIMS form available on their website. Also you need to fax your documents 1 week prior to your appointment.
Can anyone confirm this? Man, I wish this could be the case in India also. :confused:
Can anyone confirm this? Man, I wish this could be the case in India also. :confused:
tattoo Kristen Stewart and Robert
vgayalu
10-05 12:53 PM
For me and my spouse got Magic mails as ordered for cards one hour back.
Still waiting for my Daughter.
This is my 11 th year in USA.
Good luck for all. Thanks for IV and IVians support.
Still waiting for my Daughter.
This is my 11 th year in USA.
Good luck for all. Thanks for IV and IVians support.
more...
pictures hot Kristen Stewart looks like
Gowtham Nalluri
05-16 02:43 PM
I talked to my immigration about this today. My wife is on h4 and her h1-b is not selected in this year lottery process. I wanted her to go a school which issues CPT in less than one year so that she can start work. But my lawyer strongly recommended not to change her status from H4 to F1. My PD is 24 March 2005 EB2. Lawyer told me that it might cause a problem for my wife to get the GC on her I-485 application. Lawyer said some of her clients got through without a problem and some of her clients have problem regarding status change from h4 to f1. Fianlly i decided not to take that risk. I'm still waiting to file I-485.
dresses +kristen+stewart+smoking+
sunny
02-12 04:10 PM
Thats the right way. Probably I should not have told him that I have AP in my hands. This is what my attorney said. But now I have no idea if my h1 will be extended or not once I have used the AP.
I got my H1 extension...though I entered on AP. You should get it too.
Sunny
I got my H1 extension...though I entered on AP. You should get it too.
Sunny
more...
makeup Kristen Stewart and Robert
nkavjs
09-20 03:15 PM
I just email senator Evan Bayh, Congressmen Dan burton and USCIS complaint dept.
Thanks for all your help
Thanks for all your help
girlfriend US actor Kristen Stewart (R)
vikki76
10-16 03:26 PM
Vow!!!..u got ur GC within 5 yrs of landing in US..congratulations. That was the fastest GC i ever heard.
hairstyles Swimmin#39; trunks SMOKE!
simple1
06-10 05:05 PM
If the post is true and from real world person, then the OP and his sponsor are in violation of the Law. The L1B are not supposed to be based/hosted in client location unless specifically stated in the approved petition. Defiantly not supposed to do in case of blanket L1B.
-or-
This could be a fake post from the loser's guild -or- lou doggs fan. I personally believe this is a fake post.
-or-
This could be a fake post from the loser's guild -or- lou doggs fan. I personally believe this is a fake post.
chanduv23
01-13 09:21 PM
wGpSCdeEkB4
Posted on http://iv-tristate.blogspot.com/
Posted on http://iv-tristate.blogspot.com/
anura
04-03 07:49 AM
Thanks.
Can somebody please give us the link of the document that shows how many applied , yearwise.
Getting any sort of data out of any of the immigration agencies is often frustrating. Especially something like how many eb2 I-140 did they accept, approve, deny... However, they do randomly throw number out and we can scavenge through them for `clues'. Here is one such link.
USCIS: National Processing Volumes and Trends (http://dashboard.uscis.gov/index.cfm?formtype=7&office=5&charttype=1)
Can somebody please give us the link of the document that shows how many applied , yearwise.
Getting any sort of data out of any of the immigration agencies is often frustrating. Especially something like how many eb2 I-140 did they accept, approve, deny... However, they do randomly throw number out and we can scavenge through them for `clues'. Here is one such link.
USCIS: National Processing Volumes and Trends (http://dashboard.uscis.gov/index.cfm?formtype=7&office=5&charttype=1)
No comments:
Post a Comment