mallu
04-24 09:34 PM
Hi
After long haul of almost 5 years , today I got the approval email for my 485 filed in June - 2007.I guess my wife's case should be approved soon.Last when spoke to TCS IO , I was told that biometrics is needed in my case but still they can approve & later send me the notice. I guess only after that I might get the physical card.
Had anyone experienced this scenario ?
Anyways I want to thank everyone on this forum,immigration portals, folks & every other support that I have got in this long process.
I will always be there for everyone on this forum or in any other way I can help to every legal immigrant who is waiting for the Green Card.
Thanks a lot
Priority date - 05/2003
140 approved - 10/2006 from TSC
485,131,765 RD-6/04/2007 at TSC, notices received - 06/07/2007
CA, EB2
Wife's case returned due to some error,send it again & received on 06/17/2007 as per Fedex
Wife's case RD- 7/10/2007
I131,I765 approved for both -Nov 2007
I485 approval mail - 04/24/08 - Myself
Waiting for spouse approval, physical Cards
Congrats ! Good to know that TSC is picking up India EB2 cases for approval ( whatever be the random order they have ).
After long haul of almost 5 years , today I got the approval email for my 485 filed in June - 2007.I guess my wife's case should be approved soon.Last when spoke to TCS IO , I was told that biometrics is needed in my case but still they can approve & later send me the notice. I guess only after that I might get the physical card.
Had anyone experienced this scenario ?
Anyways I want to thank everyone on this forum,immigration portals, folks & every other support that I have got in this long process.
I will always be there for everyone on this forum or in any other way I can help to every legal immigrant who is waiting for the Green Card.
Thanks a lot
Priority date - 05/2003
140 approved - 10/2006 from TSC
485,131,765 RD-6/04/2007 at TSC, notices received - 06/07/2007
CA, EB2
Wife's case returned due to some error,send it again & received on 06/17/2007 as per Fedex
Wife's case RD- 7/10/2007
I131,I765 approved for both -Nov 2007
I485 approval mail - 04/24/08 - Myself
Waiting for spouse approval, physical Cards
Congrats ! Good to know that TSC is picking up India EB2 cases for approval ( whatever be the random order they have ).
wallpaper Awais Ahmad Khan Leghari
ksvreg
04-09 11:32 AM
That is the reason I mentioned before that we have to give heads up to employer's HR department about these scenarios and let them come up with correct wording for POEs questions. This could be new virus breakout and we need to find a cure or prevent it someway tactically until the strategy in place. Not sure I make much sense here. In a nutshell, we need to contact our HR and request them to anwer (HR has to answer like this: It is possible to hire citizen but can not be done immediately. Its a process and takes a while to do that and no guarantee that citizen can be found. Until that time business will be impacted badly.) POE officer in case if there are any such questions. Generic answer from HR misleads and misued at POE.
kate123
02-04 11:28 AM
well said.
Some questions to those who are supporting country cap.
Why not put a country cap on foreign students’ visas since many of them get into the green card line eventually?
Why not put a country cap on H1B visas since many of them get into the green card line eventually?
Why not put a country cap on labor certifications?
Why not put a country cap on I-140s?
Why not impose a country cap at the port of entry?
Why not put a country cap on visitors’ visas?
Why not put a country cap on business visas?
Why not put a country cap on US trade with other countries?
Why not put a country cap on amount of US $ reserves that each country can have?
Why not put a country cap on children that foreigners in the US can bear?
Why not put a country cap on the foreigners’ earnings in the US?
.
.
.
And the list can go on.
Putting country cap on greens cards serves a hidden racist agenda of not letting the people of one particular ethnic group grow in number and become strong.
Some questions to those who are supporting country cap.
Why not put a country cap on foreign students’ visas since many of them get into the green card line eventually?
Why not put a country cap on H1B visas since many of them get into the green card line eventually?
Why not put a country cap on labor certifications?
Why not put a country cap on I-140s?
Why not impose a country cap at the port of entry?
Why not put a country cap on visitors’ visas?
Why not put a country cap on business visas?
Why not put a country cap on US trade with other countries?
Why not put a country cap on amount of US $ reserves that each country can have?
Why not put a country cap on children that foreigners in the US can bear?
Why not put a country cap on the foreigners’ earnings in the US?
.
.
.
And the list can go on.
Putting country cap on greens cards serves a hidden racist agenda of not letting the people of one particular ethnic group grow in number and become strong.
2011 Ansari, Ansar Allah, Ahmed
pappu
04-09 08:43 PM
Old wine tastes good. Does this VB tastes good to you?
:)
:)
more...
smuggymba
06-11 08:57 AM
sent to TX senators.
Legal
07-22 04:37 PM
so there should be 40-50k EB visas left over in this year...?
and these numbers have to be used up before Sep 30th. If they are not used they'll spill over into family based immigration category.
and these numbers have to be used up before Sep 30th. If they are not used they'll spill over into family based immigration category.
more...
k3GC
11-10 10:06 PM
IV has people on the national advisory board that include the previous USCIS ombudsman, what is their take on this? I have not seen any thoughts from such experts that support this organization on this issue of quarterly spillover
2010 RaziurRehman Ansari,Shahid
nat23
06-11 12:05 PM
Sent
more...
gc_chahiye
08-21 02:15 AM
Thanks for your response. ;)
So will AOD processing for EB-2 be a lot faster than EB-3 as long as I capture the PD of 12/04?
yes, EB2 dates have been better than EB3 for all countries, but in your case this would be especially big. All this while that EB3-ROW has been retrogressed back so much, EB2-ROW has been current. If you are from ROW (Rest-Of-World, ie not from India/China/Mexico/Philippines) and get a chance to go from EB3 to EB2, JUMP AT THAT CHANCE!
As someone pointed out earlier you need your EB3 I-140 to be approved, then when you file the new I-140 (for EB2) include a copy of the previous I-140 approval notice requesting that the PD be ported over. They will port it.
Once that I-140 is approved, send that approval notice to USCIS with your I-485 receipt, asking them to replace the current I-140 (the EB3 one) with the new (EB2) one (google "interfiling")
This might make a difference of a couple of years in your approval if the dates move like they did in the past!
So will AOD processing for EB-2 be a lot faster than EB-3 as long as I capture the PD of 12/04?
yes, EB2 dates have been better than EB3 for all countries, but in your case this would be especially big. All this while that EB3-ROW has been retrogressed back so much, EB2-ROW has been current. If you are from ROW (Rest-Of-World, ie not from India/China/Mexico/Philippines) and get a chance to go from EB3 to EB2, JUMP AT THAT CHANCE!
As someone pointed out earlier you need your EB3 I-140 to be approved, then when you file the new I-140 (for EB2) include a copy of the previous I-140 approval notice requesting that the PD be ported over. They will port it.
Once that I-140 is approved, send that approval notice to USCIS with your I-485 receipt, asking them to replace the current I-140 (the EB3 one) with the new (EB2) one (google "interfiling")
This might make a difference of a couple of years in your approval if the dates move like they did in the past!
hair Zeeshan, Malik, Ansari
Macaca
01-28 12:06 PM
In the new year, I have not seen any posts expalining how IV is "working" on resolving our issues. All that is posted now is requests for money. I know more money is needed and would be glad to contribute, if only the senior members show that some serious efforts are being made in the background. Yes IV did do very good work last year, but that is history now; but what work is going on now, nobody knows. Don't need details, but even broad details will help. Is something being done for appropriation bills, no one knows or tells.
For example, after the elections no attempts virtually no attempts have been done to do webfax campaign tragetted towards pro-immigration inclined politicians. No lists have been made of such politicians. Just by waking up few days before the bills are discussed is not going to help.
Once again, like many other posts that pop up at the rate of 1/day, very reasonable remarks. For a change they are civil. I have thought about all of them.
The only difference is that I have some more time these days to think of the big picture. I concluded that the absence of these issues (and numerous others) is really not effecting any progress, and I can ignore these issues and contribute to progress.
As a concrete example, I have thought of webfaxes/lobbying. Based on my analysis (which is completely independent of IV) of the current state of our bill, nothing significant is happening about it right now and it not posible to gauge the future. Thus, it is not an effective point for webfaxes/lobbying. With this conclusion, there is nothing to say.
Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion as long as we move ahead.
For example, after the elections no attempts virtually no attempts have been done to do webfax campaign tragetted towards pro-immigration inclined politicians. No lists have been made of such politicians. Just by waking up few days before the bills are discussed is not going to help.
Once again, like many other posts that pop up at the rate of 1/day, very reasonable remarks. For a change they are civil. I have thought about all of them.
The only difference is that I have some more time these days to think of the big picture. I concluded that the absence of these issues (and numerous others) is really not effecting any progress, and I can ignore these issues and contribute to progress.
As a concrete example, I have thought of webfaxes/lobbying. Based on my analysis (which is completely independent of IV) of the current state of our bill, nothing significant is happening about it right now and it not posible to gauge the future. Thus, it is not an effective point for webfaxes/lobbying. With this conclusion, there is nothing to say.
Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion as long as we move ahead.
more...
feedfront
11-02 12:43 PM
RFE : Sep 10 2010,
Did you receive physical card?
Did you receive physical card?
hot Shahbaz Ali, Ali Ahmed,
vandanaverdia
09-11 12:45 PM
This aint my fight... This aint your fight..
THIS IS OUR FIGHT!!!
We need to come together & let our voices be heard!!!
Come to DC...
There is very little time & lots to achieve...
There are miles to go before I sleep.....
THIS IS OUR FIGHT!!!
We need to come together & let our voices be heard!!!
Come to DC...
There is very little time & lots to achieve...
There are miles to go before I sleep.....
more...
house Project Head: Iqbal Ansari
ita
09-10 11:09 AM
I'm not able to figure out how to post a mssg in chat..is it 'coz I'm restricted or something? At the bottom of the page I see my name as logged in members though..I've over 150 posts and 4 dots..not enough for access to chat or is it that I'm not able to figure out how to post mssgs? Appreciate it if someone can explain it to me.
Thank you.
Thank you.
tattoo Farooq Alam Ansari
memyselfandus
09-20 11:07 AM
I have the domain...ready to transfer: if IV core needs it...
I was just checking the domain name availability. legalimmigrationvoice.com and .org got taken yesterday. Hopefully its the core or someone supporting member of IV.
I was just checking the domain name availability. legalimmigrationvoice.com and .org got taken yesterday. Hopefully its the core or someone supporting member of IV.
more...
pictures Saba Ansari
McLuvin
03-12 01:55 PM
finally the bulletin has been posted in the DOS website...
Visa Bulletin for April 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4747.html)
They have given a brief description about "BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS"
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, a significant amount of demand is received each month for applicants who have priority dates which are significantly earlier than the applicable cut-off dates. In addition, fluctuations in demand can cause cut-off date movement to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7% is a cap which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed. Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled, however.
Applicability of Section 202(a)(5): INA Section 202(a)(5), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, removed the per-country limit on Employment-based immigrants in any calendar quarter in which applicant demand for numbers in one or more Employment-based preferences is less than the total of such numbers available. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5) has allowed countries such as China � mainland born and India to utilize large amounts of Employment First and Second preference numbers which would have otherwise gone unused. Such numbers are provided strictly in priority date order without regard to the foreign state chargeability, and the same cut-off date applies to any country benefiting from this provision.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by documentarily qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation, that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may require the establishment of an earlier cut-off date than that which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
Furthermore, Section 202(a)(2) reads, �2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed seven percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or two percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.� The seven percent per-country limit specified in INA 202(a)(2) is considered to be for both Family-sponsored and Employment-based numbers combined.
Allocation of visa numbers under Section 202(e) is accomplished as follows:
If based on historical patterns or current demand it appears that during a fiscal year number use by aliens chargeable to a particular country will exceed the per-country numerical limit for both the Family and Employment preferences combined, that country would be considered oversubscribed. Both the Family and Employment preferences would be subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1).
Sometimes during a fiscal year it may become apparent that because of a lack of demand in the Family preferences, number use by aliens chargeable to an oversubscribed country will be well within the per-country numerical limit. In such case the excess Family numbers would be made available to the Employment preferences subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1). Each of the first three Employment categories would receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and each of the Fourth and Fifth preference categories 7.1%. (Fall-across would likewise apply if an oversubscribed country lacked sufficient demand in the Employment preferences but had excess demand in the Family preferences.)
If a foreign state other than an oversubscribed country has little Family preference demand but considerable Employment preference demand, the otherwise unused Family numbers fall across to Employment (and vice versa) for purposes of that foreign state�s annual numerical limit. For example, in FY-2009 South Korea used a grand total of 15,899 Family and Employment preference numbers, of which 1,688 were Family numbers and 14,211 were Employment numbers. This grand total was well within the FY-2009 per-country numerical limit of 25,620 Family and Employment numbers combined, so South Korea was not oversubscribed. The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.
Visa Bulletin for April 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4747.html)
They have given a brief description about "BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS"
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, a significant amount of demand is received each month for applicants who have priority dates which are significantly earlier than the applicable cut-off dates. In addition, fluctuations in demand can cause cut-off date movement to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7% is a cap which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed. Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled, however.
Applicability of Section 202(a)(5): INA Section 202(a)(5), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, removed the per-country limit on Employment-based immigrants in any calendar quarter in which applicant demand for numbers in one or more Employment-based preferences is less than the total of such numbers available. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5) has allowed countries such as China � mainland born and India to utilize large amounts of Employment First and Second preference numbers which would have otherwise gone unused. Such numbers are provided strictly in priority date order without regard to the foreign state chargeability, and the same cut-off date applies to any country benefiting from this provision.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by documentarily qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation, that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may require the establishment of an earlier cut-off date than that which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
Furthermore, Section 202(a)(2) reads, �2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed seven percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or two percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.� The seven percent per-country limit specified in INA 202(a)(2) is considered to be for both Family-sponsored and Employment-based numbers combined.
Allocation of visa numbers under Section 202(e) is accomplished as follows:
If based on historical patterns or current demand it appears that during a fiscal year number use by aliens chargeable to a particular country will exceed the per-country numerical limit for both the Family and Employment preferences combined, that country would be considered oversubscribed. Both the Family and Employment preferences would be subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1).
Sometimes during a fiscal year it may become apparent that because of a lack of demand in the Family preferences, number use by aliens chargeable to an oversubscribed country will be well within the per-country numerical limit. In such case the excess Family numbers would be made available to the Employment preferences subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1). Each of the first three Employment categories would receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and each of the Fourth and Fifth preference categories 7.1%. (Fall-across would likewise apply if an oversubscribed country lacked sufficient demand in the Employment preferences but had excess demand in the Family preferences.)
If a foreign state other than an oversubscribed country has little Family preference demand but considerable Employment preference demand, the otherwise unused Family numbers fall across to Employment (and vice versa) for purposes of that foreign state�s annual numerical limit. For example, in FY-2009 South Korea used a grand total of 15,899 Family and Employment preference numbers, of which 1,688 were Family numbers and 14,211 were Employment numbers. This grand total was well within the FY-2009 per-country numerical limit of 25,620 Family and Employment numbers combined, so South Korea was not oversubscribed. The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.
dresses Fahad Ansari, Ahmed Ali,
Googler
02-21 05:15 PM
I-485: EB2 India with PD June 2003
I was wondering why I am I getting a LUD in Feb 08? (since EB2 India is 'U').
Now I know why :) it seems USCIS is getting ready for the deluge in April 08' :D
Lord almighty people are getting really carried away. :) This cutoff setting guy hadn't even made up his mind as of Feb 13. Also read my entire post, he won't set the date till he sees the estimate from USCIS.
Btw, my PD is Jan 03 and my LUD is still back in November 07 (when my attorney changed).
I was wondering why I am I getting a LUD in Feb 08? (since EB2 India is 'U').
Now I know why :) it seems USCIS is getting ready for the deluge in April 08' :D
Lord almighty people are getting really carried away. :) This cutoff setting guy hadn't even made up his mind as of Feb 13. Also read my entire post, he won't set the date till he sees the estimate from USCIS.
Btw, my PD is Jan 03 and my LUD is still back in November 07 (when my attorney changed).
more...
makeup Turning Point with Zaid Ansari
my2cents
03-01 12:13 PM
good analysis
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7813
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7813
girlfriend Jarjees ansari, Khaleel ur
vivekm1309
07-17 03:28 PM
let us keep fighting /exposing these liars.
Great ..the tax related point has been removed. I did write to them that my lawyers will be contacting them with proof my tax returns.
Let us attack more points ...finally they will shorten this fax message to one point ...:)
Great ..the tax related point has been removed. I did write to them that my lawyers will be contacting them with proof my tax returns.
Let us attack more points ...finally they will shorten this fax message to one point ...:)
hairstyles Payam Ansari
qesehmk
02-11 03:03 PM
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV.pdf
Family based visa used for FY2009 = 215,343
Family based immigrant visa numbers = 226,000
Unused visa = 10,567
available for employment based visa numbers for FY2010.
*********
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY08-AR-TableV.pdf
Family based visa used for FY2008 = 226,105
Family based immigrant visa numbers = 226,000
Unused visa = ZERO
available for employment based visa numbers for FY2009.
Always go by the facts.
___________________
Not a legal advice.
I agree. I tried to see if there is a way FB category in 2009 might have received a spillover from EB. But thats almost impossible given EB is severely backlogged.
Another way to verify unused 13K in 2009 EB would be to check 2010 FB limit. If there were unused visas from EB in 2009 then they go back to FB in 2010.
Finally, per Ron unused is not same as wasted. Unused is unassigned. Wasted is .... assigned but action is not taken to close the case. If that is the case then wasted visas won't be available .... neither inside or outside category. It is frightening to think that with so many preadjudicated cases USCIS might be wasting visas! I don't believe this .... but if true ... it is outrageous.
Family based visa used for FY2009 = 215,343
Family based immigrant visa numbers = 226,000
Unused visa = 10,567
available for employment based visa numbers for FY2010.
*********
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY08-AR-TableV.pdf
Family based visa used for FY2008 = 226,105
Family based immigrant visa numbers = 226,000
Unused visa = ZERO
available for employment based visa numbers for FY2009.
Always go by the facts.
___________________
Not a legal advice.
I agree. I tried to see if there is a way FB category in 2009 might have received a spillover from EB. But thats almost impossible given EB is severely backlogged.
Another way to verify unused 13K in 2009 EB would be to check 2010 FB limit. If there were unused visas from EB in 2009 then they go back to FB in 2010.
Finally, per Ron unused is not same as wasted. Unused is unassigned. Wasted is .... assigned but action is not taken to close the case. If that is the case then wasted visas won't be available .... neither inside or outside category. It is frightening to think that with so many preadjudicated cases USCIS might be wasting visas! I don't believe this .... but if true ... it is outrageous.
Jaime
09-10 04:13 PM
thx for catching that.. i m sending it now to my school
Great! Let's all do the same!!!
Great! Let's all do the same!!!
lahiribaba
03-10 11:44 AM
You are partly right, but the problem does not end there. Lot of it has to do with the disorderly way the applications were/are being picked up. All the old applications were pushed to BECs and newer perm applications were picked up for processing. The dates were abruptly moved forward which allowed USCIS to approve newer 485 applications before the dates were pushed back. I am a victim of both these cases� Also, there has been a lot of wastage of visa numbers. If none of these happened I am sure the EB3 dates would have move forward without getting stagnated in 2001.
well you got to re plumb once in a while dont you?
the water and drainage system that worked 100 years ago does not work now ... or does it?
well you got to re plumb once in a while dont you?
the water and drainage system that worked 100 years ago does not work now ... or does it?
No comments:
Post a Comment