prioritydate
08-05 07:42 PM
I am trying to keep track of 2004 cases. I think USCIS is not doing fair justice by not giving preference to 2004 cases. Please post your priority date, I-140 approval dates(if approved), I-485 received dates, Name check cleared date(if cleared), finger print cleared date(if you gave finger prints and they got cleared)
My Details :
PD : 12/23/2004
I-140 Approval Date :05/03/2007
I-485 Received Date : 07/26/2007
Name Check Cleared.
Gave Finger Prints.
I think mine is straight forward case. :confused:
My Details :
PD : 12/23/2004
I-140 Approval Date :05/03/2007
I-485 Received Date : 07/26/2007
Name Check Cleared.
Gave Finger Prints.
I think mine is straight forward case. :confused:
wallpaper Even on casual days, updos can
chrisj
01-28 02:02 PM
Seems like most of you guys have grudge against Andhrites (GULTIs that you call us with love). Agreed that most ppl who come to this univeristy are from AP. There are about 900 students in this university, but there are thousands of students from AP that are studying in other reputed university. I'm one of them.
I'm not sympathetic towards the ppl who are facing deportation. But i strongly condemn the way they are treated. Tying the tracking devices to their legs and treating them like terrorists is totally inhuman and insane
I'm not sympathetic towards the ppl who are facing deportation. But i strongly condemn the way they are treated. Tying the tracking devices to their legs and treating them like terrorists is totally inhuman and insane
looneytunezez
03-03 03:50 PM
it looks like it was a "hoax" or mistake on their part.
my exp. has been that they are usually don't go for a "NO SHOW".
my exp. has been that they are usually don't go for a "NO SHOW".
2011 ridesmaid updo hairstyles
Kitiara
02-10 09:21 AM
Oooo, this is going to be <i>close</i>! ;)
more...
longq
12-20 03:41 PM
Hello IV and its core members,
I am one of the members of the forum and suffering due to the severe retrogression of EB visas. I highly appreciate IV�s effort to bring some legislative relief to address the severe backlogs in EB visas. I too participated in all IVs campaign in urging the law makers to bring some relief for this crisis. However, I have some concern here; about the method followed U.S DOS in allocating EB visas particularly in EB2 category for India and China. I am worried whether U.S DOS is violating the INA 202 (a), by suspending AC21 provision that eliminates country quota in EB categories. If they are violating by mistake, it is our responsibility to notify/clarify with them or we need to understand the law clearly. This is very important. Because, even if 110th congress passes SKIL bill, if DOS violates the AC21 law then it will not help applicants from oversubscribed countries (India and China). Here is my analysis based on following facts.
The cutoff date for EB2 India has moved just 7 days since last 9 months. However EB2 �Row has been current. EB2- ROW has never retrogressed before. EB3 ROW has seen considerable movement in last 9 months.
There may be four possible separate or combination of following reasons for the freeze of cutoff dates for India in EB2 at Jan 2003.
1. The backlog elimination effort of DOL pumped massive approved labor certificates from BEC. There may be tons of EB2 applicants from India and China with PD in the year 2001 and 2002 might have applied 485s based on recent approvals from BEC. However I doubt that. Because, in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003, EB3 India and China were �current�. No body cared about filing EB2 labor certification till the later part of 2004. Most lawyers preferred to file EB3 as it was easy, and there were no difference between EB3 and EB2 at that time. First ever indication for EB3 retrogression was issued by DOS only in later part of 2004. I doubt so many people have filed EB2-labor till 2003, keeping in mind that EB3 will retrogress in 2004 or future. Traditionally EB2 has been less demanding compare to EB1 and EB3.
2. Perhaps, there may be a huge demand by ROW (Due to PERM) to consume all the 86% of visa numbers in EB2 category in every month that prompts DOS to allocate only 7% to India and China. I doubt this too, because India and China itself consume about 60% of EB2 visas.
3. There may be lot of EB3 Indians and Chinese with PD 2001 and 2002 porting their PD from EB3 to EB2 by filing new LC and EB2-I-140. This may escalate the demand. However, how many will do this? How many employers will to do this �favor� for their employees? A real US employer/big corporations will not do double time work for an employee. Only consulting/staffing companies will do this. I think this may be a small group (or may not be?).
4. There may be another possible reason. There may be something wrong with U.S.DOS in allocating visa numbers in EB2 category, as per section 202 (a) of current INA. They may be issuing only 2800 (7% of 40,000) visas to India and China in EB2 and redirecting unused EB2 numbers to EB3 category. They may be imposing hard country cap in EB2 (Suspending AC21 law as per their VB Nov 2005). There is a large room for this speculation, due to the pattern of cutoff date movement in EB2 category. This is just a speculation. This argument/speculation is valid if DOS has issued less than 40,000 EB2 visas in FY 2006 as mandated by the law, and issued those numbers (40,000 minus actually issued) to EB3-ROW. In my view, it violates section 203 (b) (2) of the INA. One has to wait till they release statistics for FY 2006, to see how many EB2 visas are issued in that FY.
Here is some detailed analysis that says why it violates the law.
Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 203 a and b of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets numbers for each preference categories with in FB and EB.
Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320. This section also explains how to handle unused numbers with respect to country quota.
Even before AC21 rule enacted in 2000, there was no �hard� country cap as per INA then. Here is the section of INA before year 2000, describes how to allocate unused visas, if overall/total demand for FB an EB visas are less than supply*.
INA 202 (a) (3)
�Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a-Family category) and (b-Employment category) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter�.
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
After 2000 (After AC21) the following law was added to INA in the section 202.
INA 202 (a) (5) (A)
EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
As per my simple interpretation of above AC21 rule, DOS should allocate unused visas by ROW �EB2 (ROW- countries other than India and China in EB2 category) for the first two months of any calendar quarter to over-subscribed countries (India & China) at the third month of that calendar quarter. They should not allocate to lower Preference category (EB3), if demand is more in higher preference category (EB2) to consume all the visa numbers in that preference category. They should allocate visas to all the documentarily qualified applicants in that (EB2) preference category, irrespective of country of birth. If they followed this rule/law, there may be a considerable movement in cut-off dates for India and China in Dec 2005, Mar, June and Sep of 2006 in EB2 (last month of each calendar quarter in a fiscal year). We have not witnessed such movement in last 1.5 years. No one knows how DOS is allocating numbers. They may be allocating only 7% visas to India and China in EB2 category very strictly, every month, and allocating unused numbers to EB3 category, by suspending AC21 law as indicated in their Nov 2005 Visa Bulletin. If they do so, it is against the law, at least in my interpretation of AC21 rule that eliminates country quota in EB categories.
DOS can not interpret above AC21 rule that eliminates per country limit applies �totally� to all EB categories put together, not by individual preference categories. I.e. If they say they will issue more than 2,800 visas to EB2- India per year (more than 7% of 40,000), provided overall demand for EB visas are less than 140,000. If they interpret the law like this, then there is no need for section 202(a) (5) (A) due to AC21 law. The law before AC21 {i.e. section 202 (a) (3)} itself address the elimination of country quota in both FB and EB category*. Then, section 202(a) (5) (A) is a duplicate wording of section 202(a) (3). So, this section of AC21 law becomes a redundant/duplicate law. Then, there is no meaning of employment �preference� category if they interpret �totally or overall worldwide demand�. In other words, a non-Indian/Chinese restaurant cook (EB3) is more preferred than a NIW PhDs (EB2) from India or China. Is it the intend of the congress when enacting AC21 law in removing per country limitation in EB category? Is it the American Competitiveness in 21st century? I highly doubt that.
Now it is the time to ask US DOS, how they are allocating visa number in EB2 category. If DOS interpreting the law differently, then we need to ask the law makers (Congress) what is their original intension behind the section 202(a)(5)(A) when they drafted the AC21 law in 2000 and how it is differ from 202 (a) (3).
Perhaps Core IV team can initiate to discuss/consult this issue with an immigration lawyer and place an enquiry with DOS or Law makers, if needed.
(*Note: DOS do not mix FB and EB categories for visa number allocation/calculation to meet the per country limit. They keep both in separate track to meet separately the 7% limit)
I am one of the members of the forum and suffering due to the severe retrogression of EB visas. I highly appreciate IV�s effort to bring some legislative relief to address the severe backlogs in EB visas. I too participated in all IVs campaign in urging the law makers to bring some relief for this crisis. However, I have some concern here; about the method followed U.S DOS in allocating EB visas particularly in EB2 category for India and China. I am worried whether U.S DOS is violating the INA 202 (a), by suspending AC21 provision that eliminates country quota in EB categories. If they are violating by mistake, it is our responsibility to notify/clarify with them or we need to understand the law clearly. This is very important. Because, even if 110th congress passes SKIL bill, if DOS violates the AC21 law then it will not help applicants from oversubscribed countries (India and China). Here is my analysis based on following facts.
The cutoff date for EB2 India has moved just 7 days since last 9 months. However EB2 �Row has been current. EB2- ROW has never retrogressed before. EB3 ROW has seen considerable movement in last 9 months.
There may be four possible separate or combination of following reasons for the freeze of cutoff dates for India in EB2 at Jan 2003.
1. The backlog elimination effort of DOL pumped massive approved labor certificates from BEC. There may be tons of EB2 applicants from India and China with PD in the year 2001 and 2002 might have applied 485s based on recent approvals from BEC. However I doubt that. Because, in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003, EB3 India and China were �current�. No body cared about filing EB2 labor certification till the later part of 2004. Most lawyers preferred to file EB3 as it was easy, and there were no difference between EB3 and EB2 at that time. First ever indication for EB3 retrogression was issued by DOS only in later part of 2004. I doubt so many people have filed EB2-labor till 2003, keeping in mind that EB3 will retrogress in 2004 or future. Traditionally EB2 has been less demanding compare to EB1 and EB3.
2. Perhaps, there may be a huge demand by ROW (Due to PERM) to consume all the 86% of visa numbers in EB2 category in every month that prompts DOS to allocate only 7% to India and China. I doubt this too, because India and China itself consume about 60% of EB2 visas.
3. There may be lot of EB3 Indians and Chinese with PD 2001 and 2002 porting their PD from EB3 to EB2 by filing new LC and EB2-I-140. This may escalate the demand. However, how many will do this? How many employers will to do this �favor� for their employees? A real US employer/big corporations will not do double time work for an employee. Only consulting/staffing companies will do this. I think this may be a small group (or may not be?).
4. There may be another possible reason. There may be something wrong with U.S.DOS in allocating visa numbers in EB2 category, as per section 202 (a) of current INA. They may be issuing only 2800 (7% of 40,000) visas to India and China in EB2 and redirecting unused EB2 numbers to EB3 category. They may be imposing hard country cap in EB2 (Suspending AC21 law as per their VB Nov 2005). There is a large room for this speculation, due to the pattern of cutoff date movement in EB2 category. This is just a speculation. This argument/speculation is valid if DOS has issued less than 40,000 EB2 visas in FY 2006 as mandated by the law, and issued those numbers (40,000 minus actually issued) to EB3-ROW. In my view, it violates section 203 (b) (2) of the INA. One has to wait till they release statistics for FY 2006, to see how many EB2 visas are issued in that FY.
Here is some detailed analysis that says why it violates the law.
Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 203 a and b of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets numbers for each preference categories with in FB and EB.
Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320. This section also explains how to handle unused numbers with respect to country quota.
Even before AC21 rule enacted in 2000, there was no �hard� country cap as per INA then. Here is the section of INA before year 2000, describes how to allocate unused visas, if overall/total demand for FB an EB visas are less than supply*.
INA 202 (a) (3)
�Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a-Family category) and (b-Employment category) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter�.
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
After 2000 (After AC21) the following law was added to INA in the section 202.
INA 202 (a) (5) (A)
EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
As per my simple interpretation of above AC21 rule, DOS should allocate unused visas by ROW �EB2 (ROW- countries other than India and China in EB2 category) for the first two months of any calendar quarter to over-subscribed countries (India & China) at the third month of that calendar quarter. They should not allocate to lower Preference category (EB3), if demand is more in higher preference category (EB2) to consume all the visa numbers in that preference category. They should allocate visas to all the documentarily qualified applicants in that (EB2) preference category, irrespective of country of birth. If they followed this rule/law, there may be a considerable movement in cut-off dates for India and China in Dec 2005, Mar, June and Sep of 2006 in EB2 (last month of each calendar quarter in a fiscal year). We have not witnessed such movement in last 1.5 years. No one knows how DOS is allocating numbers. They may be allocating only 7% visas to India and China in EB2 category very strictly, every month, and allocating unused numbers to EB3 category, by suspending AC21 law as indicated in their Nov 2005 Visa Bulletin. If they do so, it is against the law, at least in my interpretation of AC21 rule that eliminates country quota in EB categories.
DOS can not interpret above AC21 rule that eliminates per country limit applies �totally� to all EB categories put together, not by individual preference categories. I.e. If they say they will issue more than 2,800 visas to EB2- India per year (more than 7% of 40,000), provided overall demand for EB visas are less than 140,000. If they interpret the law like this, then there is no need for section 202(a) (5) (A) due to AC21 law. The law before AC21 {i.e. section 202 (a) (3)} itself address the elimination of country quota in both FB and EB category*. Then, section 202(a) (5) (A) is a duplicate wording of section 202(a) (3). So, this section of AC21 law becomes a redundant/duplicate law. Then, there is no meaning of employment �preference� category if they interpret �totally or overall worldwide demand�. In other words, a non-Indian/Chinese restaurant cook (EB3) is more preferred than a NIW PhDs (EB2) from India or China. Is it the intend of the congress when enacting AC21 law in removing per country limitation in EB category? Is it the American Competitiveness in 21st century? I highly doubt that.
Now it is the time to ask US DOS, how they are allocating visa number in EB2 category. If DOS interpreting the law differently, then we need to ask the law makers (Congress) what is their original intension behind the section 202(a)(5)(A) when they drafted the AC21 law in 2000 and how it is differ from 202 (a) (3).
Perhaps Core IV team can initiate to discuss/consult this issue with an immigration lawyer and place an enquiry with DOS or Law makers, if needed.
(*Note: DOS do not mix FB and EB categories for visa number allocation/calculation to meet the per country limit. They keep both in separate track to meet separately the 7% limit)
repy_ram
06-24 01:25 PM
Got the following email from USCIS.
Application Type: I485 , APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
Current Status: Card production ordered.
On June 22, 2007, we ordered production of your new card. Please allow 30 days for your card to be mailed to you. If we need something from you we will contact you. If you move before you receive the card, call customer service. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow the link below to register.
If you have questions or concerns about your application or the case status results listed above, or if you have not received a decision from USCIS within the current processing time listed*, please contact USCIS Customer Service at (800) 375-5283.
At last after waiting for 5 long years got my GC approved on 22 Jun07!!
Don't want anybody to be stuck in the process for 5-10 years. Will be supporting this team till we reach our goals. And I really hope we do..
Thanks to IV & all my friends over here, for keeping me sane during this time :)
Application Type: I485 , APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
Current Status: Card production ordered.
On June 22, 2007, we ordered production of your new card. Please allow 30 days for your card to be mailed to you. If we need something from you we will contact you. If you move before you receive the card, call customer service. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow the link below to register.
If you have questions or concerns about your application or the case status results listed above, or if you have not received a decision from USCIS within the current processing time listed*, please contact USCIS Customer Service at (800) 375-5283.
At last after waiting for 5 long years got my GC approved on 22 Jun07!!
Don't want anybody to be stuck in the process for 5-10 years. Will be supporting this team till we reach our goals. And I really hope we do..
Thanks to IV & all my friends over here, for keeping me sane during this time :)
more...
user1205
02-20 05:27 PM
I have the same feeling. With the move to Jan 2005 and the new rule about namechecks I think the numbers will get used fast for ROW.
The only people that will not be able to take advantage of this are the ones with old PDs from BEC that filed 485 and 140 in the June-August madness and are waiting for the 140 to be approved.
I presume that ROW would be significantly impacted by this as India & China would not benefit a lot from it now because of PDs being badly retrogressed. I'm afraid that this has the potential of exhausting EB3-ROW row numbers for the rest of the year. Am I wrong to assume this?
The only people that will not be able to take advantage of this are the ones with old PDs from BEC that filed 485 and 140 in the June-August madness and are waiting for the 140 to be approved.
I presume that ROW would be significantly impacted by this as India & China would not benefit a lot from it now because of PDs being badly retrogressed. I'm afraid that this has the potential of exhausting EB3-ROW row numbers for the rest of the year. Am I wrong to assume this?
2010 Bridesmaid updos pictures
jonty_11
10-02 04:16 PM
Mesquite means TEXAS SERVICE CENTER. Enter is exactly as I have here. If you look in the drop down list, there are multiple field offices for Texas but one TEXAS SERVICE CENTER
Thx so much I got it..
For the "Class of ADmission" - if I have entered US on AP, do I enter "Parolee"
Thx so much I got it..
For the "Class of ADmission" - if I have entered US on AP, do I enter "Parolee"
more...
walking_dude
01-14 11:36 AM
This is the simplest Action Item ever, no travel, no holding placards, no visits to lawmakers, no real world activity. All that's needed is pen, paper, envelope and a stamp.I can't imagine anyone here who cannot afford any of these items.
Most members here will benefit here by 3 year EAD/APs, job flexibility and promotions. Members who missed the July VB boat, and new applicants, will get to apply 485 and get into the line. There was a hue and cry sometime back about restarting I-40 PP. Even that group stands to benefit as their demands are included too.
Hence the current low-level of participation is surprising. If we cannot collectively write even a letter for our cause, we might as well pack up or stop waiting/discussing VBs. They will be bleak for at least 4-5 years more. Come on folks, we can do better than this. We will write those letters and we'll succeed.
Write those letters and update the tracker. Your kids will thank you for it when they growup (all the money saved from 10 years EAD/AP can be turned into savings for them)
Most members here will benefit here by 3 year EAD/APs, job flexibility and promotions. Members who missed the July VB boat, and new applicants, will get to apply 485 and get into the line. There was a hue and cry sometime back about restarting I-40 PP. Even that group stands to benefit as their demands are included too.
Hence the current low-level of participation is surprising. If we cannot collectively write even a letter for our cause, we might as well pack up or stop waiting/discussing VBs. They will be bleak for at least 4-5 years more. Come on folks, we can do better than this. We will write those letters and we'll succeed.
Write those letters and update the tracker. Your kids will thank you for it when they growup (all the money saved from 10 years EAD/AP can be turned into savings for them)
hair curly updos hairstyles.
shree772000
10-26 08:15 PM
Maybe your I140 was withdrawn by the company A.
more...
kumar1
08-24 10:35 AM
Yes you may.
Gurus...
I am in a similar situation and have a very simple question. Can I port from EB3 to EB2, while on EAD? I do not have a valid H1. AFAIK porting needs re-filing a labor application, hence the confusion.
Thanks!
Gurus...
I am in a similar situation and have a very simple question. Can I port from EB3 to EB2, while on EAD? I do not have a valid H1. AFAIK porting needs re-filing a labor application, hence the confusion.
Thanks!
hot updo-ridesmaid-hairstyles
PG75
09-30 12:43 PM
hi Guys,
Anyone can shed some light on this one ?
Thanks
Hi folks,
Need some help.
During e-filing of AP, certify page has a TITLE field. Any ideas what needs to be filled in it ?
I am filing I-131 for myself and spouse.
Thanks
Anyone can shed some light on this one ?
Thanks
Hi folks,
Need some help.
During e-filing of AP, certify page has a TITLE field. Any ideas what needs to be filled in it ?
I am filing I-131 for myself and spouse.
Thanks
more...
house Bridesmaid updos is
immilaw
09-14 04:28 PM
You have 2 H1s, can you do that. Are you working full time on both H1b visas. Please eloborate on that.
Thanks!
Two H-1B's are possible if you can do two jobs. Most of the ppl file a concurrent H-1B for a part time job so you have one H-1B for full time job and the other for a part time job. The US CIS will approve a concurent H-1B for part time job for as little as 15 hours a week. Now if you want to file the second H-1B too for a full time job and have the physical ability to work for 80 hours a weeks then US CIS won't have any problems with that.
Thanks!
Two H-1B's are possible if you can do two jobs. Most of the ppl file a concurrent H-1B for a part time job so you have one H-1B for full time job and the other for a part time job. The US CIS will approve a concurent H-1B for part time job for as little as 15 hours a week. Now if you want to file the second H-1B too for a full time job and have the physical ability to work for 80 hours a weeks then US CIS won't have any problems with that.
tattoo black updo hairstyles.jpg
walking_dude
11-21 03:15 PM
You have some very valid points about community (non)participation in your post.
I understand your point about having another rally. Make no mistake - IV core has no problems with planning and conducting another rally. So it's not a big issue to get them to agree. I can push IV core, and get another rally. Bigger issue is how many are going to turn up? If it's just 100-200 of us same-old folks, there is no point.
Last year when we were bouyed by the success of July VB reversal, it was estimated that at least 10,000 would turn up. But, only 2000 did. I don't know how many will, if we hold another few months from now?
IV can sponsor more ACTION (items). But what's point, if there is not enough participation? First step is the community needs to step up and make existing action items such as FOIA requests for backlog numbers, AC21 action items successful. This will motivate IV to launch more action items. No organization would want to be seen running too many campaigns with liitle or no community participation.
We need the IV core team and the administrator to guide some big rally's. Guys nothing will happen until we are bold about our intentions.
I noticed everyone comes up with their different ideas, but no one works to implement it. We need to stand together and do something big, when was the last time we had a big rally?
And how many people actually showed up? Desi's wants everything fast and free, the problem is lately IV thinks too much and has less of ACTION
I understand your point about having another rally. Make no mistake - IV core has no problems with planning and conducting another rally. So it's not a big issue to get them to agree. I can push IV core, and get another rally. Bigger issue is how many are going to turn up? If it's just 100-200 of us same-old folks, there is no point.
Last year when we were bouyed by the success of July VB reversal, it was estimated that at least 10,000 would turn up. But, only 2000 did. I don't know how many will, if we hold another few months from now?
IV can sponsor more ACTION (items). But what's point, if there is not enough participation? First step is the community needs to step up and make existing action items such as FOIA requests for backlog numbers, AC21 action items successful. This will motivate IV to launch more action items. No organization would want to be seen running too many campaigns with liitle or no community participation.
We need the IV core team and the administrator to guide some big rally's. Guys nothing will happen until we are bold about our intentions.
I noticed everyone comes up with their different ideas, but no one works to implement it. We need to stand together and do something big, when was the last time we had a big rally?
And how many people actually showed up? Desi's wants everything fast and free, the problem is lately IV thinks too much and has less of ACTION
more...
pictures Image bank of UPDO HAIRSTYLES
Better_Days
04-29 01:36 PM
I was wondering if someone will mention F-22.
First of all, F-22 is not for sale. Period. There is no such thing as a close ally as far as F-22 is concerned. Even the Israelis got a curt NO when they wanted to buy it.
Second, IAF does not want the F-22. It is US$ 150 Million a piece which makes it almost twice as expensive as any of the planes being considered. Also, if you look at the IAF's area of operation: F-22 is an overkill. None of the neighboring countries and this includes China has capabilities that will necessitate something like F-22 to deal with.
First of all, F-22 is not for sale. Period. There is no such thing as a close ally as far as F-22 is concerned. Even the Israelis got a curt NO when they wanted to buy it.
Second, IAF does not want the F-22. It is US$ 150 Million a piece which makes it almost twice as expensive as any of the planes being considered. Also, if you look at the IAF's area of operation: F-22 is an overkill. None of the neighboring countries and this includes China has capabilities that will necessitate something like F-22 to deal with.
dresses ridesmaids hairstyles
sunny1000
11-12 04:35 PM
This is their projection for coming months:
---------------------------------------------------
Employment-based: At this time it is unlikely that there will be any cut-off dates in the Employment First preference during the coming months. It also appears unlikely that it will be necessary to establish a cut-off date other than those already in effect for the Second preference category. Cut-off dates continue to apply to the China and India Second preference categories due to heavy demand.
Based on current indications of demand, the best case scenarios for cut-off date movement each month during the coming months are as follows:
Employment Second:
China: none to two weeks
India: no movement
Employment Third:
Worldwide: three to six weeks
China: one to three weeks
India: none to two weeks
Mexico: although continued forward movement is expected, no specific projections are possible at this time.
Philippines: three to six weeks
---------------------------------------------------
Employment-based: At this time it is unlikely that there will be any cut-off dates in the Employment First preference during the coming months. It also appears unlikely that it will be necessary to establish a cut-off date other than those already in effect for the Second preference category. Cut-off dates continue to apply to the China and India Second preference categories due to heavy demand.
Based on current indications of demand, the best case scenarios for cut-off date movement each month during the coming months are as follows:
Employment Second:
China: none to two weeks
India: no movement
Employment Third:
Worldwide: three to six weeks
China: one to three weeks
India: none to two weeks
Mexico: although continued forward movement is expected, no specific projections are possible at this time.
Philippines: three to six weeks
more...
makeup updos hairstyles gallery. this
pom
02-10 03:09 PM
:beam: :love:
girlfriend Wedding Hairstyle Gallery
Hello_Hello
10-29 02:36 PM
your id rightly tells your attitude...we are talking about USCIS delays and you are talking about something else...Join twitter to tweet nonsense, but don't kill a valid topic here.If you are replaceable then you have false claimed in your application that no American is available for your job. It defeats your H1B and Green card application. America invites H1Bs and gives them greencards not because they are paying taxes but because employers prove no american is available for our job and we have unique skills for job. 'Best and Brightest' is we are and USA needs us. Without us the economy will be more bad.
hairstyles hairstyles Curly Updo
angelfire76
05-29 09:34 PM
Yes.
dpp
07-19 02:56 PM
It means, if at all they have any doubts, they may issue RFE, but if you have a good relationship in responding to those RFEs using company letters etc, there is no problem. Good relation means, employer has to suppprt you always in case of any RFE, thats it. He needs stand on your side. Then there is no problem. But if he won't stand on your side, then it is a problem. So, thats why relation with employer is very important when on H1 or EB.
Thanks for finding the link. I remember reading it some time in the past, but couldn't find it.
dpp, Please read through my wifes case above and in your 'opinion', will there be a problem?
Thanks for finding the link. I remember reading it some time in the past, but couldn't find it.
dpp, Please read through my wifes case above and in your 'opinion', will there be a problem?
mmj
04-19 04:21 PM
Why not to use that very same ID you have been using for 2 years to post this one also? That way others will know you have been a member and also contributed in the past. No confusion and peace.
Man - U guys love to quibble about stupid things rather than focus on the big picture. All my thread says is - I'm doing X .... Please consider doing it as well if you think it is worth your while ... Thats it - Nothing more - nothing less. And here we're having a discussion about how long I've been a member of IV and yada yada yada ...
Man - U guys love to quibble about stupid things rather than focus on the big picture. All my thread says is - I'm doing X .... Please consider doing it as well if you think it is worth your while ... Thats it - Nothing more - nothing less. And here we're having a discussion about how long I've been a member of IV and yada yada yada ...
