eager_immi
07-11 02:11 PM
sorry to disappoint you but maybe someone else signed it under his name. I have done that for other family members when they get a fedex.LOL :D :D :D
wallpaper %IMG_DESC_1%
gc_on_demand
03-31 09:13 AM
I think you have wrong info... Last year, EB2 I&C did receive spill over from EB2 ROW, EB1 (~3K), EB5.. Also from reading other posts it is my understanding that in fact there was NO spill over from Family Based.
I could be wrong though!!
May be I am wrong. I want to be wrong since I would like to File for I 485 , but this is from DOS site, can you share your source ?
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY10AnnualReport-TableV.pdf
Table V (Part 2)
You will see total at the bottom of this page.
E1 = 41,026
E2 = 53,872
E3 = 42,431
E4 = 11,048
E5 = 1,885 [Table V (Part 3)]
If allocation for 2010 was like below then EB1 gave us 1 k ,
E1 = 42.5
E2 = 42.5
E3 = 42.5
E4 = 11.5
E5 = 11
Then Eb1 gave only 1k. E2 ROW didn't give any. Eb2 India / China got from Eb1 and EB2 row is because of overflow from family based.
We are lacking those number this year. I would say if we didn't have those 10k family visas spill over would be only 10k for 2010.
I could be wrong though!!
May be I am wrong. I want to be wrong since I would like to File for I 485 , but this is from DOS site, can you share your source ?
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY10AnnualReport-TableV.pdf
Table V (Part 2)
You will see total at the bottom of this page.
E1 = 41,026
E2 = 53,872
E3 = 42,431
E4 = 11,048
E5 = 1,885 [Table V (Part 3)]
If allocation for 2010 was like below then EB1 gave us 1 k ,
E1 = 42.5
E2 = 42.5
E3 = 42.5
E4 = 11.5
E5 = 11
Then Eb1 gave only 1k. E2 ROW didn't give any. Eb2 India / China got from Eb1 and EB2 row is because of overflow from family based.
We are lacking those number this year. I would say if we didn't have those 10k family visas spill over would be only 10k for 2010.
gst76
02-25 02:02 PM
Veeru123,
What number did you call DOS at? I am also going to India and want to make sure my info is there in PIMS database.
Thanks in advance.
What number did you call DOS at? I am also going to India and want to make sure my info is there in PIMS database.
Thanks in advance.
2011 %IMG_DESC_2%
chanduv23
03-25 10:07 AM
I got this from a reqruiter
I am looking for a Project Manager in a Tri-state area, who is extremely Hands-on with CRM and ERP Technologies. At least 3 years of experience with CRM & ERPs. Has to be able to communicate well, excellent verbal & written skills.
Knowledge of Infopath and Sharepoint is a HUGE PLUS!!! As well as any Accounting experience.
Must have a valid American Passport or American Green card!
( unfortunately on this position we cannot work with H1B or Third parties, or any other visa-status )
I responded to her that I have EAD and she never got back
I am looking for a Project Manager in a Tri-state area, who is extremely Hands-on with CRM and ERP Technologies. At least 3 years of experience with CRM & ERPs. Has to be able to communicate well, excellent verbal & written skills.
Knowledge of Infopath and Sharepoint is a HUGE PLUS!!! As well as any Accounting experience.
Must have a valid American Passport or American Green card!
( unfortunately on this position we cannot work with H1B or Third parties, or any other visa-status )
I responded to her that I have EAD and she never got back
more...
nivasch
01-27 09:52 AM
I don't know is it right Thread or not.
But i found this information in Rajiv's website.
The Mesg says:-
New Volunteer Organization Formed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some members of this portal and others have come together to form a new organization supporting legal mmigration with special focus on issues faced by employment-based applicants. Please visit:
www.immigrationvoice.org
DISCLAIMER: The Law Offices of Rajiv S. Khanna, PC cannot endorse or verify the activities of any organization. Please use your own judgment.
==================================
If we really not get his Endorsement, then we should remove that Information from our website.
Think about it
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/announcement.php?f=235&announcementid=84
But i found this information in Rajiv's website.
The Mesg says:-
New Volunteer Organization Formed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some members of this portal and others have come together to form a new organization supporting legal mmigration with special focus on issues faced by employment-based applicants. Please visit:
www.immigrationvoice.org
DISCLAIMER: The Law Offices of Rajiv S. Khanna, PC cannot endorse or verify the activities of any organization. Please use your own judgment.
==================================
If we really not get his Endorsement, then we should remove that Information from our website.
Think about it
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/announcement.php?f=235&announcementid=84
nish
06-16 10:09 AM
Thanks for your reply.
what is the meaning of staff augmentation case? He work at client place and client is administered project.The s/w tool is copyright by client.The reason for asking him to come back is that prior to this company he worked for another company for two years. He left his old company before 5 year. when he joined his current company he has provided all the document mentioned in checklist such as offer letter, exp and releiving letter and last two month pay stub and they did BG for same document.During 5 years career he worked for diff client and everytime they did BG for him before putting him in project and there was no problem happen in his BG. recently his current employer find something wrong about his prior company and they asked him to provide more evidance for prior company.now he don't have any contact of his prior employer and he does not have any more evidnace for showing their company.
Because of this reason they are asking him to come back home country from last two week.He told his company that he tryed to connect his prior employer but he can not make out and he don't have anything more to show the company.
Please suggest what he can do in this situation.
If anyone come across in this situation then please reply to my question.
Appericiate your help in advacne
what is the meaning of staff augmentation case? He work at client place and client is administered project.The s/w tool is copyright by client.The reason for asking him to come back is that prior to this company he worked for another company for two years. He left his old company before 5 year. when he joined his current company he has provided all the document mentioned in checklist such as offer letter, exp and releiving letter and last two month pay stub and they did BG for same document.During 5 years career he worked for diff client and everytime they did BG for him before putting him in project and there was no problem happen in his BG. recently his current employer find something wrong about his prior company and they asked him to provide more evidance for prior company.now he don't have any contact of his prior employer and he does not have any more evidnace for showing their company.
Because of this reason they are asking him to come back home country from last two week.He told his company that he tryed to connect his prior employer but he can not make out and he don't have anything more to show the company.
Please suggest what he can do in this situation.
If anyone come across in this situation then please reply to my question.
Appericiate your help in advacne
more...
glus
06-29 07:24 PM
WEDNESDAY - Suspended I-140 PPS anticipating huge demand from people
for whom the visa numbers would be available - FACT!!
FRIDAY - Allowed doctors from "any area" - FACT!!
MONDAY - We won't accept any applications?????? ----RUMOUR
they don't add up
That's true. the 3rd must be rumor!!!!!
for whom the visa numbers would be available - FACT!!
FRIDAY - Allowed doctors from "any area" - FACT!!
MONDAY - We won't accept any applications?????? ----RUMOUR
they don't add up
That's true. the 3rd must be rumor!!!!!
2010 %IMG_DESC_3%
skynet2500
06-28 10:02 PM
My lawyer said he will mail it tomorrow. He told me that it would reach on 2'nd. He is using FedEx
more...
anda007
07-10 08:41 PM
This one needs membership etc. to read the article. But you can see the headline and be happy that we have been covered
http://uspolitics.einnews.com/news/uscis
http://uspolitics.einnews.com/news/uscis
hair %IMG_DESC_4%
indianindian2006
10-12 05:04 PM
Is today a holiday for NSC / TSC?
Is that the reason why we cannot reach IO's?
I hope that is the reason...
Yes today Monday, 10/12/2009, is the Columbus Day, a Federal Holiday
Is that the reason why we cannot reach IO's?
I hope that is the reason...
Yes today Monday, 10/12/2009, is the Columbus Day, a Federal Holiday
more...
ssa
08-21 12:56 PM
Yes, the same law can be interpreted like this:
EB1-ROW unused visa will go to EB2-ROW
EB2-ROW unused visa will go to EB3-ROW
Same for each country.
But its not happening. What actually is happening that they are giving unused visa from EB1-ROW to EB2-ROW to EB2-I/C. WHY?
So EB3-ROW is retrogressed bcoz it doesn't get any spillover and hence it affect EB3-I.
So where is the correct interpretation? Does any body know?
Don't take me wrong here. I don't favor EB3-ROW or any particular category. I am EB3-I with PD Nov 2002.
I remember reading statement from USCIS head (if I remember correct on Ron Gotcher's forum as well as in some immigration newsletter) that they consulted congress and other legal resources on how to interpret the unused visa overflow provisions and based upon the consultation decided to change overflow allocation from "vertical" to "horizontal".
So yes, they did change the way they used to handle the overflow but it does not seem like it was done on their own whims and fancies. It does not matter how we interpret the sections of the law among ourselves, if they got the current interpretation after consulting with congress etc. IMHO it will be very hard to make them change it back to the old way. As a government agency they can not do frequent flip-flops on policy matters - now efficiency is whole another story ;)
If I can find the links to the articles I mentioned above I'll post them on this thread.
EB1-ROW unused visa will go to EB2-ROW
EB2-ROW unused visa will go to EB3-ROW
Same for each country.
But its not happening. What actually is happening that they are giving unused visa from EB1-ROW to EB2-ROW to EB2-I/C. WHY?
So EB3-ROW is retrogressed bcoz it doesn't get any spillover and hence it affect EB3-I.
So where is the correct interpretation? Does any body know?
Don't take me wrong here. I don't favor EB3-ROW or any particular category. I am EB3-I with PD Nov 2002.
I remember reading statement from USCIS head (if I remember correct on Ron Gotcher's forum as well as in some immigration newsletter) that they consulted congress and other legal resources on how to interpret the unused visa overflow provisions and based upon the consultation decided to change overflow allocation from "vertical" to "horizontal".
So yes, they did change the way they used to handle the overflow but it does not seem like it was done on their own whims and fancies. It does not matter how we interpret the sections of the law among ourselves, if they got the current interpretation after consulting with congress etc. IMHO it will be very hard to make them change it back to the old way. As a government agency they can not do frequent flip-flops on policy matters - now efficiency is whole another story ;)
If I can find the links to the articles I mentioned above I'll post them on this thread.
hot %IMG_DESC_5%
Libra
07-09 08:03 PM
He want to forward flowers to injured soldier, we are more than happy, but would he care to answer our frustration.......
more...
house %IMG_DESC_17%
sledge_hammer
11-22 07:57 PM
Real mature! You make shitty decisions of buying expensive homes, you don't own up your mistakes, you don't keep up your commitment of paying back the loan you have taken, you screw up people who ARE paying their mortgages, then blame the banks ALONE for the mess you are in!
What banks did was "predatory" lending. Now I would sympathize with if someone with no education to fall into such a mess and balme it on the lender. You and others like you who balme the banks all consider yourselves "higly educated" and "higly skilled". Hell you are even demanding congress to hand you a green card claiming to be one. But now that you have gotten yourself into a financial mess you blame the banks for all of your problems?
punjabi77 has claimed that his loss would be in the 20K ballpark. So he's not even in such a financial mess that he has to foreclose. He is merely looking for better opportunities in other cities. Then how is his decision to foreclose a "smart" thing to do? Last time I checked what he is trying to do is absolutely unethical! Nothing "wise" there!
Didn't your parents ever tell you what it means to be an adult? You ARE responsible for your actions and decisions. I guess they didn't instill any moral or ethics in you now did they?
I support kumar1 openion.
Buddy sledge_hammer this is the mess mortgage companies created, they need to face it.fanie's and fadie's caused this mess and they to need face it ? Do you think the individual should sit in that home and hit on their head with the 'sledgehammer' when they are in this mess? I would say get the f**k out of that house and lead peaceful life.
Sledge_hammer, use the thing in your screen name on your head to make your thoughts work correctly. Hey don't get me started.
What banks did was "predatory" lending. Now I would sympathize with if someone with no education to fall into such a mess and balme it on the lender. You and others like you who balme the banks all consider yourselves "higly educated" and "higly skilled". Hell you are even demanding congress to hand you a green card claiming to be one. But now that you have gotten yourself into a financial mess you blame the banks for all of your problems?
punjabi77 has claimed that his loss would be in the 20K ballpark. So he's not even in such a financial mess that he has to foreclose. He is merely looking for better opportunities in other cities. Then how is his decision to foreclose a "smart" thing to do? Last time I checked what he is trying to do is absolutely unethical! Nothing "wise" there!
Didn't your parents ever tell you what it means to be an adult? You ARE responsible for your actions and decisions. I guess they didn't instill any moral or ethics in you now did they?
I support kumar1 openion.
Buddy sledge_hammer this is the mess mortgage companies created, they need to face it.fanie's and fadie's caused this mess and they to need face it ? Do you think the individual should sit in that home and hit on their head with the 'sledgehammer' when they are in this mess? I would say get the f**k out of that house and lead peaceful life.
Sledge_hammer, use the thing in your screen name on your head to make your thoughts work correctly. Hey don't get me started.
tattoo %IMG_DESC_6%
pappu
08-04 06:10 PM
more info
http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress03/garrity071003.htm
Compare the times with the latest ombudsman report.
==========
FBI name checks blamed for immigration benefits delays
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0607/062207e1.htm
By Elizabeth Newell enewell@nationaljournal.com June 22, 2007
The ombudsman for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, in a report released last week, cited the untimely completion of FBI name checks as a primary cause of delays in granting immigration benefits to applicants.
"FBI name checks, one of the security screening tools used by USCIS, continue to significantly delay adjudication of immigration benefits for many customers, hinder backlog reduction efforts and may not achieve their intended national security objectives," USCIS ombudsman Prakash said in his annual report, presented to the House and Senate Judiciary committees on June 11.
According to the report, 64 percent of the 329,160 FBI name check cases pending from USCIS have been waiting more than 90 days, and 32 percent are more than one year old. There are more than 31,000 cases that have been pending longer than 33 months.
In his report, said the name check delays are caused by the fact that some require manual review by the FBI and the agency does not have the resources to complete these reviews quickly.
In an e-mail to Government Executive, FBI spokesman Paul Bresson said the National Name Check Program is doing a number of things to improve the process, including scanning documents to build an electronic records system and testing textual analysis software to reduce the need for manual review.
The FBI also is working to develop a Central Records Complex to house paperwork and files.
"Currently, paper files [and] information must be retrieved from over 265 locations throughout the FBI," Bresson said. "The CRC will expedite access to information contained in billions of documents that are currently manually accessed in locations around the U.S. and world."
To decrease the FBI workload, recommended that USCIS adopt a risk-based approach to name checks, allowing the FBI to focus its limited resources on applicants posing the greatest threat. Currently, all immigration and naturalization applicants go through the name-check process.
"Name checks do not differentiate whether the individual has been in the United States for many years or a few days, is from and/or has traveled frequently to a country designated as a state sponsor of terrorism, or is a member of the U.S. military," said in his report.
He said in an interview that while the safety of U.S. citizens is the primary concern of the Homeland Security Department, of which USCIS is a part, it is crucial to use a risk management model to ensure that resources are allocated logically.
"That has to be used as the filtration system to really look at any of our protective measures," said. "There are times when protection can come at such a cost that it's just not worth spending that much money in that area, that it's better to spend it where we can have more effect."
The process of applying for immigrant benefits includes a number of other background checks, and 's report questioned whether the FBI name checks are useful in their current form, especially given the delay they cause.
He said he agrees with USCIS case workers and field office supervisors that "the FBI name check process has limited value to public safety or national security, especially because in almost every case the applicant is in the United States during the name check process, living or working without restriction."
This is the fourth annual report from the ombudsman, whose position was established under the 2002 Homeland Security Act. The act requires the ombudsman to submit annual reports to Congress identifying serious and pervasive problems within USCIS and making recommendations to fix them. The agency is obligated to respond formally to the annual report within three months.
While says he received last year's response more than eight months late, USCIS acknowledged receipt of the report and an agency spokesperson said officials are in the process of reviewing the recommendations.
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0607/062207e1.htm
==============
http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress03/garrity071003.htm
Compare the times with the latest ombudsman report.
==========
FBI name checks blamed for immigration benefits delays
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0607/062207e1.htm
By Elizabeth Newell enewell@nationaljournal.com June 22, 2007
The ombudsman for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, in a report released last week, cited the untimely completion of FBI name checks as a primary cause of delays in granting immigration benefits to applicants.
"FBI name checks, one of the security screening tools used by USCIS, continue to significantly delay adjudication of immigration benefits for many customers, hinder backlog reduction efforts and may not achieve their intended national security objectives," USCIS ombudsman Prakash said in his annual report, presented to the House and Senate Judiciary committees on June 11.
According to the report, 64 percent of the 329,160 FBI name check cases pending from USCIS have been waiting more than 90 days, and 32 percent are more than one year old. There are more than 31,000 cases that have been pending longer than 33 months.
In his report, said the name check delays are caused by the fact that some require manual review by the FBI and the agency does not have the resources to complete these reviews quickly.
In an e-mail to Government Executive, FBI spokesman Paul Bresson said the National Name Check Program is doing a number of things to improve the process, including scanning documents to build an electronic records system and testing textual analysis software to reduce the need for manual review.
The FBI also is working to develop a Central Records Complex to house paperwork and files.
"Currently, paper files [and] information must be retrieved from over 265 locations throughout the FBI," Bresson said. "The CRC will expedite access to information contained in billions of documents that are currently manually accessed in locations around the U.S. and world."
To decrease the FBI workload, recommended that USCIS adopt a risk-based approach to name checks, allowing the FBI to focus its limited resources on applicants posing the greatest threat. Currently, all immigration and naturalization applicants go through the name-check process.
"Name checks do not differentiate whether the individual has been in the United States for many years or a few days, is from and/or has traveled frequently to a country designated as a state sponsor of terrorism, or is a member of the U.S. military," said in his report.
He said in an interview that while the safety of U.S. citizens is the primary concern of the Homeland Security Department, of which USCIS is a part, it is crucial to use a risk management model to ensure that resources are allocated logically.
"That has to be used as the filtration system to really look at any of our protective measures," said. "There are times when protection can come at such a cost that it's just not worth spending that much money in that area, that it's better to spend it where we can have more effect."
The process of applying for immigrant benefits includes a number of other background checks, and 's report questioned whether the FBI name checks are useful in their current form, especially given the delay they cause.
He said he agrees with USCIS case workers and field office supervisors that "the FBI name check process has limited value to public safety or national security, especially because in almost every case the applicant is in the United States during the name check process, living or working without restriction."
This is the fourth annual report from the ombudsman, whose position was established under the 2002 Homeland Security Act. The act requires the ombudsman to submit annual reports to Congress identifying serious and pervasive problems within USCIS and making recommendations to fix them. The agency is obligated to respond formally to the annual report within three months.
While says he received last year's response more than eight months late, USCIS acknowledged receipt of the report and an agency spokesperson said officials are in the process of reviewing the recommendations.
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0607/062207e1.htm
==============
more...
pictures %IMG_DESC_7%
nkavjs
09-19 11:04 PM
I sent following fax to senator, congressmen, etc.
If any one knows the fax# of any senior executive @ NSC. Please post here.
Bottomline, everyone has to fight his/her battle. Help yourself.
Date: Sept 19th 2007
To,
The Honorable Senator Dianne Feinstein
United States Senate
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Phone: (202) 224-3841
Fax: (202) 228-3954
Sub: Inquiry/status for I-485 AOS application sent to USCIS, Nebraska Service Center on July 2nd 2007 [USPS Tracking No. XXXXXXXUS]
Dear Honorable Ms. Feinstein,
My Adjustment Application [type, e.g. I-485] was delivered to INS Express, Nebraska Service Center, Lincoln, NE on July 2nd 2007. I didn�t get any information for said application. USCIS Customer Service are very unhelpful and don�t provide any information.
USCIS website says NSC are working with August 2007 received AOS applications. So USCIS is either not following the First in First out (FIFO) process for sure or misleading the public.
I need help of your good office to track my AOS application delivered to NSC on July 2nd 2007. Please feel free to contact me for any additional information.
Details as provided below:
...
...
...
Sincerely yours,
-----------
I was thinking of doing things on same line, but thru local congressmen. I dont have any info regarding any top-notch person in NSC :(
pls. keep us posted. Thanks
If any one knows the fax# of any senior executive @ NSC. Please post here.
Bottomline, everyone has to fight his/her battle. Help yourself.
Date: Sept 19th 2007
To,
The Honorable Senator Dianne Feinstein
United States Senate
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Phone: (202) 224-3841
Fax: (202) 228-3954
Sub: Inquiry/status for I-485 AOS application sent to USCIS, Nebraska Service Center on July 2nd 2007 [USPS Tracking No. XXXXXXXUS]
Dear Honorable Ms. Feinstein,
My Adjustment Application [type, e.g. I-485] was delivered to INS Express, Nebraska Service Center, Lincoln, NE on July 2nd 2007. I didn�t get any information for said application. USCIS Customer Service are very unhelpful and don�t provide any information.
USCIS website says NSC are working with August 2007 received AOS applications. So USCIS is either not following the First in First out (FIFO) process for sure or misleading the public.
I need help of your good office to track my AOS application delivered to NSC on July 2nd 2007. Please feel free to contact me for any additional information.
Details as provided below:
...
...
...
Sincerely yours,
-----------
I was thinking of doing things on same line, but thru local congressmen. I dont have any info regarding any top-notch person in NSC :(
pls. keep us posted. Thanks
dresses %IMG_DESC_12%
baburob2
01-07 04:46 PM
Here is a summary of the bills, their bill numbers and the Sections:
Sen. Chuck Hagel's Bill (Section 202 of S. 1918)
-High-tech workers who have worked in the U.S. for 3 years would be allowed to adjust to permanent resident status without regard to the annual employment-based immigrant visa cap of 140,000.
-The spouses and children of immigrant workers would also be allowed to adjust status without regard to this cap.
McCain/Kennedy Bill (Sections 601 and 602 of S. 1033)
-Increases quota on EB immigrants to 290,000 to alleviate retrogression
-Recapture unused visas between 2001 and 2005
-Increase the per country limit from 7% to 10%
Cornyn/Kyle Bill (Sections 1001 and 1002 of S. 1438)
-Recapture of the unused visas between 2001 through 2005
-Removal of diversity visa and reallocation of these. Since this is mentioned under EB, the implication seems to be reallocation to EB but am not sure.
-Increase of the country limit from 7% to 10%
It is understood that there would be a merging of these to make the final comprehensive immigration bill
Added to the above Senator Arlen Specter's bill is a good bill:
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) Introduces Largest Immigration Increase in U.S. History
Printer-Friendly Version
Send this article to a friend!
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) needed the assistance of the White House in early 2005 to overcome opposition within his own party to his chairmanship. In late November, Specter repaid the Bush Administration by unveiling draft legislation that would bring about a massive increase in government- mandated immigration to the U.S.
President Bush, in his immigration address on November 28, pledged to work for an increase in the number of green cards issued each year and stated his intent to work with Sen. Specter to bring it about. Specter�s draft legislation would send government mandated immigration levels into the 2 million-a-year range.
Under Specter�s draft legislation, the cap on family-preference immigration would be increased by 254,000 visas annually and hundreds of thousands of additional relatives would be exempted from annual limits. In addition, Specter proposes raising the cap on employment-based immigration by 150,000 a year, and allocating any unused visas to other preference categories.
If enacted, Specter�s legislation would mandate the largest increase in immigration in this nation�s history. Moreover, according to FAIR�s analysis, such legislation would fuel the demand for still higher levels of immigration as more extended family members line up to follow an ever-growing number of immigrants streaming into our country.
1/06
Sen. Chuck Hagel's Bill (Section 202 of S. 1918)
-High-tech workers who have worked in the U.S. for 3 years would be allowed to adjust to permanent resident status without regard to the annual employment-based immigrant visa cap of 140,000.
-The spouses and children of immigrant workers would also be allowed to adjust status without regard to this cap.
McCain/Kennedy Bill (Sections 601 and 602 of S. 1033)
-Increases quota on EB immigrants to 290,000 to alleviate retrogression
-Recapture unused visas between 2001 and 2005
-Increase the per country limit from 7% to 10%
Cornyn/Kyle Bill (Sections 1001 and 1002 of S. 1438)
-Recapture of the unused visas between 2001 through 2005
-Removal of diversity visa and reallocation of these. Since this is mentioned under EB, the implication seems to be reallocation to EB but am not sure.
-Increase of the country limit from 7% to 10%
It is understood that there would be a merging of these to make the final comprehensive immigration bill
Added to the above Senator Arlen Specter's bill is a good bill:
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) Introduces Largest Immigration Increase in U.S. History
Printer-Friendly Version
Send this article to a friend!
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) needed the assistance of the White House in early 2005 to overcome opposition within his own party to his chairmanship. In late November, Specter repaid the Bush Administration by unveiling draft legislation that would bring about a massive increase in government- mandated immigration to the U.S.
President Bush, in his immigration address on November 28, pledged to work for an increase in the number of green cards issued each year and stated his intent to work with Sen. Specter to bring it about. Specter�s draft legislation would send government mandated immigration levels into the 2 million-a-year range.
Under Specter�s draft legislation, the cap on family-preference immigration would be increased by 254,000 visas annually and hundreds of thousands of additional relatives would be exempted from annual limits. In addition, Specter proposes raising the cap on employment-based immigration by 150,000 a year, and allocating any unused visas to other preference categories.
If enacted, Specter�s legislation would mandate the largest increase in immigration in this nation�s history. Moreover, according to FAIR�s analysis, such legislation would fuel the demand for still higher levels of immigration as more extended family members line up to follow an ever-growing number of immigrants streaming into our country.
1/06
more...
makeup %IMG_DESC_9%
pappu
01-07 01:03 PM
Counting time after I140 approval towards citizenship proposal is already on our table for things to consider as a campaign. For Campaigns like this, we will need massive support than what we currently have. Even recent greencard holders can benefit from it.
So the first step before we undertake any big project is to get more membership base.
So let us first figure out ways in which we can get more people involved on IV. Without massive participation no campaign, letter/lobby/phonecall etc will work. We need to really go out of our way and spread the word around so that everyone that is stuck in this immigration mess can join this movement.
So the first step before we undertake any big project is to get more membership base.
So let us first figure out ways in which we can get more people involved on IV. Without massive participation no campaign, letter/lobby/phonecall etc will work. We need to really go out of our way and spread the word around so that everyone that is stuck in this immigration mess can join this movement.
girlfriend %IMG_DESC_14%
nkavjs
09-21 10:54 AM
JSB ! You are just one very optimistic one.. aren't you ? :)
hairstyles %IMG_DESC_11%
immigrationmatters30
09-23 07:24 PM
All we need is just 233,816(page 2) visas(forget about country limit, EB category etc). In that case in 2 years we will have 280,000(140,000 * 2) visas. So should we all get GC in two years with that logic.
nisha23
01-15 01:45 AM
Hi,
I also interviewed in Mumbai on Jan 4 for an F1->H1-B status change. I was told to wait for an email from the consulate and have not heard anything as of today (Jan.15). Is there anyone who has heard from the consulate and interviewed around that time? Also, could someone please tell me what this kentucky number is which you can call?
Thanks
Nisha.
I also interviewed in Mumbai on Jan 4 for an F1->H1-B status change. I was told to wait for an email from the consulate and have not heard anything as of today (Jan.15). Is there anyone who has heard from the consulate and interviewed around that time? Also, could someone please tell me what this kentucky number is which you can call?
Thanks
Nisha.
abuddyz
01-03 09:33 AM
hi NSABAVALA and KAMDARD,
thank you for posting your information.. I am also planning to schedule appointment in february but looking at this I also feel it might be better to come back on Advance parole...
please post more details when you receive some information from US consulate.. I will really appreciate it..
did they keep your possport with them? If yes, you can't even come back on Advance parole?
whether you had submitted your documents before 3 to 4 days of interview date to VFS center?
.. thanks a lot in advance..
thank you for posting your information.. I am also planning to schedule appointment in february but looking at this I also feel it might be better to come back on Advance parole...
please post more details when you receive some information from US consulate.. I will really appreciate it..
did they keep your possport with them? If yes, you can't even come back on Advance parole?
whether you had submitted your documents before 3 to 4 days of interview date to VFS center?
.. thanks a lot in advance..
No comments:
Post a Comment