singhsa3
02-21 02:41 PM
Assuming you are right then,
average visa issued for EB1 ROW+Non ROW over the last 5 years have been 26K,
Now assuming this year the demand would be close to average then. It leaves 14K for EB2
Implying 12/2003 dates movement is very likely as 14k>5k (your number)
I can share some estimates for EB2 India through Dec03. I wish had the cases as a database, Then we could query for all dates.
Column 1: PD
Column 2: Nbr. Of EB2 India pending from
Column 3: Estimated Universe of EB2 India Pending ( to Universe ratio of 6.75%)
Column 4: Cumulative EB2 India pending
2000-01 0 - -
2000-03 0 - -
2000-04 1 15 15
2000-06 1 15 30
2000-08 0 - 30
2000-11 1 15 44
2000-12 0 - 44
2001-01 0 - 44
2001-03 1 15 59
2001-04 3 44 104
2001-05 2 30 133
2001-06 6 89 222
2001-07 3 44 267
2001-08 1 15 281
2001-09 1 15 296
2001-10 6 89 385
2001-11 2 30 415
2001-12 2 30 444
2002-01 5 74 519
2002-02 4 59 578
2002-03 1 15 593
2002-04 3 44 637
2002-05 11 163 800
2002-06 7 104 904
2002-07 5 74 978
2002-08 5 74 1,052
2002-09 5 74 1,126
2002-10 14 207 1,333
2002-11 16 237 1,570
2002-12 11 163 1,733
2003-01 13 193 1,926
2003-02 12 178 2,104
2003-03 20 296 2,400
2003-04 13 193 2,593
2003-05 16 237 2,830
2003-06 17 252 3,081
2003-07 22 326 3,407
2003-08 18 267 3,674
2003-09 18 267 3,941
2003-10 29 430 4,370
2003-11 17 252 4,622
2003-12 18 267 4,889
Total 330 4,889
average visa issued for EB1 ROW+Non ROW over the last 5 years have been 26K,
Now assuming this year the demand would be close to average then. It leaves 14K for EB2
Implying 12/2003 dates movement is very likely as 14k>5k (your number)
I can share some estimates for EB2 India through Dec03. I wish had the cases as a database, Then we could query for all dates.
Column 1: PD
Column 2: Nbr. Of EB2 India pending from
Column 3: Estimated Universe of EB2 India Pending ( to Universe ratio of 6.75%)
Column 4: Cumulative EB2 India pending
2000-01 0 - -
2000-03 0 - -
2000-04 1 15 15
2000-06 1 15 30
2000-08 0 - 30
2000-11 1 15 44
2000-12 0 - 44
2001-01 0 - 44
2001-03 1 15 59
2001-04 3 44 104
2001-05 2 30 133
2001-06 6 89 222
2001-07 3 44 267
2001-08 1 15 281
2001-09 1 15 296
2001-10 6 89 385
2001-11 2 30 415
2001-12 2 30 444
2002-01 5 74 519
2002-02 4 59 578
2002-03 1 15 593
2002-04 3 44 637
2002-05 11 163 800
2002-06 7 104 904
2002-07 5 74 978
2002-08 5 74 1,052
2002-09 5 74 1,126
2002-10 14 207 1,333
2002-11 16 237 1,570
2002-12 11 163 1,733
2003-01 13 193 1,926
2003-02 12 178 2,104
2003-03 20 296 2,400
2003-04 13 193 2,593
2003-05 16 237 2,830
2003-06 17 252 3,081
2003-07 22 326 3,407
2003-08 18 267 3,674
2003-09 18 267 3,941
2003-10 29 430 4,370
2003-11 17 252 4,622
2003-12 18 267 4,889
Total 330 4,889
wallpaper royal wedding ring replica.
webm
09-26 10:12 AM
I sent a message to editor!!!
chanduv23
09-10 11:56 AM
Are you guys in jail or something?
Many are : they jailed themsleves inside their closets
Many are : they jailed themsleves inside their closets
2011 royal wedding ring replica.
va_labor2002
07-24 12:38 PM
Hi rpatel,
I agree with your points.You are totally right. We should atleast try this channel. I think IV should address this issue to USCIS.
I concur with the fact that manner in which the law is written/interpreted currently, its going to be an uphill task to convince the USCIS of letting us file I485 without a visa number available. Did the core group make any effort in this direction or is it their foregone conclusion that its non starter at all?
I believe we should try to make an effort in this direction however small the chance of success may be. My reasons are following:
1. Even if the USCIS director might not have an authority to change the procedure without congressional intervention first, the effort required to convince a congress man/ congressional committe on this issue will be smaller compared to pushing them to take up SKIL immediately.
2. I dont know if Dept of Homeland Security might have any say in this but again we can try getting an audience with Negroponte to appraise him of the situation.
3. Thirdly since CIR/SKIL are currently in dormant stage, coregroup/volunteers might be more open to pursuing low potential/high yield effort like this one is.
I agree with your points.You are totally right. We should atleast try this channel. I think IV should address this issue to USCIS.
I concur with the fact that manner in which the law is written/interpreted currently, its going to be an uphill task to convince the USCIS of letting us file I485 without a visa number available. Did the core group make any effort in this direction or is it their foregone conclusion that its non starter at all?
I believe we should try to make an effort in this direction however small the chance of success may be. My reasons are following:
1. Even if the USCIS director might not have an authority to change the procedure without congressional intervention first, the effort required to convince a congress man/ congressional committe on this issue will be smaller compared to pushing them to take up SKIL immediately.
2. I dont know if Dept of Homeland Security might have any say in this but again we can try getting an audience with Negroponte to appraise him of the situation.
3. Thirdly since CIR/SKIL are currently in dormant stage, coregroup/volunteers might be more open to pursuing low potential/high yield effort like this one is.
more...
satishku_2000
08-15 04:30 PM
What do EB cutoff dates in Sept VB mean? All eligible for filing AOS did in July/Aug. Does it mean that USCIS will be giving visa (approving GC) to those within the new cutoff dates?
Some people from BEC are still waiting for their labor approvals , Some of those people should be able to file for 140/485 if their PDs fall in the cut off dates . Hope USCIS will exhaust the numbers in this year by approving 485s for eligible people .
Some people from BEC are still waiting for their labor approvals , Some of those people should be able to file for 140/485 if their PDs fall in the cut off dates . Hope USCIS will exhaust the numbers in this year by approving 485s for eligible people .
newbie2020
02-10 06:48 AM
I have some Delta Skymiles (3729miles), Not sure how to donate. If anyone needs them let me know.
more...
Legal
07-20 10:38 PM
I'm having less and less faith in the claims made by members that USCIS is inefficient and clueless. ok, they have been and continue to be in many areas:):). However, they have a game plan this time. In retrospect, we know they had a game plan in June 07 also.
There are several unknown variables (repeatedly and extensively discussed here)which make accurate prediction impossible for us. However, USCIS has the numbers of RIPE CASES. And they moved the dates based on the availability of remaining GC numbers for this fiscal AND the ripe cases.
They could have moved it to just Dec 2005, instead they moved it all the way to June 2006.
Best\ optimistic scenario- Most EB-2-I cases upto June 2006 will be adjudicated before Oct 1st.
Conservative scenario-Upto at least Dec 2005 PD all cases will be adjudicated , and a few CP cases into early 2006 will be adjudicated. With spillovers happening in each quarter, the PD should continue to move.
There are several unknown variables (repeatedly and extensively discussed here)which make accurate prediction impossible for us. However, USCIS has the numbers of RIPE CASES. And they moved the dates based on the availability of remaining GC numbers for this fiscal AND the ripe cases.
They could have moved it to just Dec 2005, instead they moved it all the way to June 2006.
Best\ optimistic scenario- Most EB-2-I cases upto June 2006 will be adjudicated before Oct 1st.
Conservative scenario-Upto at least Dec 2005 PD all cases will be adjudicated , and a few CP cases into early 2006 will be adjudicated. With spillovers happening in each quarter, the PD should continue to move.
2010 A Royal Wedding!
rimzhim
04-04 03:43 PM
if this bill is signed into law...most desi consultant companies with one h4 aunty doing the accounting work + recruiting + administrative work will have to shut down
:D
:D
more...
jamesbond007
09-11 12:41 PM
Wow those guys/gals are fed with so many lies - numbers usa and programmers guild is projecting this bill as if creation of "new" half a million visas and propagating that so many new "foreigners" will take up jobs. Do they understand the word "recapture" and also these are unused 'greencard' recapture - many of beneficiaries are in us for way too long and they are not going to change the job market a bit.
Does IV already have a propaganda group of their own to thwart such baseless silly accusations?
If not, this group ought to be formed; made up of people who are patient, have very good communication skills (both verbal and written) and be well aware of the current immigration process in the US.
I am afraid that the clueless media might see these lies on Dice (which is one the top job search sites), and assume that what is posted there is accurate. If they run with it as a story without doing proper investigation, it will get unnecessary negative publicity. It needs a proper counter argument, supported by the facts. eg: the legislation that limits the current EB level at 140K per year; and the legislation that does not allow spillover of the unused visas from one year to the next.
There are a lot of ignorant people around. Some knowledge transfer to them will help us all. (There will be some people who are not receptive to knowledge. No one can help them.)
Thanks
Does IV already have a propaganda group of their own to thwart such baseless silly accusations?
If not, this group ought to be formed; made up of people who are patient, have very good communication skills (both verbal and written) and be well aware of the current immigration process in the US.
I am afraid that the clueless media might see these lies on Dice (which is one the top job search sites), and assume that what is posted there is accurate. If they run with it as a story without doing proper investigation, it will get unnecessary negative publicity. It needs a proper counter argument, supported by the facts. eg: the legislation that limits the current EB level at 140K per year; and the legislation that does not allow spillover of the unused visas from one year to the next.
There are a lot of ignorant people around. Some knowledge transfer to them will help us all. (There will be some people who are not receptive to knowledge. No one can help them.)
Thanks
hair CGUK - Royal Wedding Princess
saatiish
07-13 10:40 AM
Mar 1 2006 - Mar 7 2006 --> will be processed when cutoff date is Mar 08 2006.
yikes !!! so looks like I have to wait then... anyways I was happy for a few moments till I saw this message :)
yikes !!! so looks like I have to wait then... anyways I was happy for a few moments till I saw this message :)
more...
rakesh_one
03-07 11:47 AM
Guys....like everyone else I have been doing exhaustive research on this subject for last month or so.....I have resigned this week from my job and have decided to use AC21...... following are answers to some of your questions...
New Employer support - There is no need for the new employer to support the GC process.....After you file 485, the process is yours as an individual and not of any employer....All you are saying is that my I-140 was once approved with some employer and USCIS took forever (read more than 180 days) to give me my green card......so as long as your job is in the same profession (read occupational classification) you are okay....so NO, the new employer does not need to support the process....all they have to say in the employement verification letter is that we intend to hire this person on permenant basis after getting his Green Card...... Please read Yates Memo of 2005 and it will tell you all there is to know about AC21.....
Lawyer Support and Expenses------- I can imagine lawyers trying to make whatever case for asking whatever ammount of money for AC21 as that is a new business area for them?----- I do not think you need a lawyer for this.....there are plenty of letters on the net that show the template....also, if you are sure your employer is not going to revoke the I-140 then you are not even required to send the letter untill if and when USCIS asks for employement verification letter.....
As per charges from RK and Murthy...
Rajiv Khanna - $3000 for primary +$1000 per dependent
Murthy - $2000....
I have done some exhaustive research on this AC21 crap and have decided to change the employment......
You are wrong. New Employer has to support GC.
Since GC is for future employment, there should be an employer willing to hire you on the day 1 you got your GC. AC 21 helps you to transfer the burdon from one employer to other. In most cases, by providing an employement letter for a permanent job in the same or similar job, it is kind of implied that the new employer has assumed that burdon without themselves knowing it. It would help your case, if the new employer explicitly say that they acknowledge your pending 485 and would assure USCIS that they have a job up on approval 485.
New Employer support - There is no need for the new employer to support the GC process.....After you file 485, the process is yours as an individual and not of any employer....All you are saying is that my I-140 was once approved with some employer and USCIS took forever (read more than 180 days) to give me my green card......so as long as your job is in the same profession (read occupational classification) you are okay....so NO, the new employer does not need to support the process....all they have to say in the employement verification letter is that we intend to hire this person on permenant basis after getting his Green Card...... Please read Yates Memo of 2005 and it will tell you all there is to know about AC21.....
Lawyer Support and Expenses------- I can imagine lawyers trying to make whatever case for asking whatever ammount of money for AC21 as that is a new business area for them?----- I do not think you need a lawyer for this.....there are plenty of letters on the net that show the template....also, if you are sure your employer is not going to revoke the I-140 then you are not even required to send the letter untill if and when USCIS asks for employement verification letter.....
As per charges from RK and Murthy...
Rajiv Khanna - $3000 for primary +$1000 per dependent
Murthy - $2000....
I have done some exhaustive research on this AC21 crap and have decided to change the employment......
You are wrong. New Employer has to support GC.
Since GC is for future employment, there should be an employer willing to hire you on the day 1 you got your GC. AC 21 helps you to transfer the burdon from one employer to other. In most cases, by providing an employement letter for a permanent job in the same or similar job, it is kind of implied that the new employer has assumed that burdon without themselves knowing it. It would help your case, if the new employer explicitly say that they acknowledge your pending 485 and would assure USCIS that they have a job up on approval 485.
hot Two royal marriages, two rings
Kodi
04-01 06:24 PM
Thank you so much.
So is it correct if I take the annual salary and divide by 52 and then by 40 to get the hourly basis?
So is it correct if I take the annual salary and divide by 52 and then by 40 to get the hourly basis?
more...
house Diana#39;s engagement ring.
Canuck
02-14 08:10 PM
This is the exact reason why USCIS has a country quota system ensuring ROW folks do not have to compete with OVERSUBSCRIBED countries.
What WILL NOT happen? - Removal of per country quota for EB Visas!!
Why are you in favour of per country quotas, having been born in an oversubscribed country? Are you a glutton for punishment? Do you enjoy waiting 6 years more than an equally qualified counterpart from another country who moves onto bigger and better jobs while you rot in the same position and pay grade for years?
Per country rationing is discriminatory for EB migration. The best jobs should go to the best people, regardless of national origin, race, or religion - this basic principle is enshrined in employment law, but when it comes to EB migration, it is disregarded! It is not about "giving everyone an equal chance" - this is not a charity, this is a business, and in business, only the best and the brightest get those jobs.
What WILL NOT happen? - Removal of per country quota for EB Visas!!
Why are you in favour of per country quotas, having been born in an oversubscribed country? Are you a glutton for punishment? Do you enjoy waiting 6 years more than an equally qualified counterpart from another country who moves onto bigger and better jobs while you rot in the same position and pay grade for years?
Per country rationing is discriminatory for EB migration. The best jobs should go to the best people, regardless of national origin, race, or religion - this basic principle is enshrined in employment law, but when it comes to EB migration, it is disregarded! It is not about "giving everyone an equal chance" - this is not a charity, this is a business, and in business, only the best and the brightest get those jobs.
tattoo emitations-princess-diana-ring
andy garcia
01-26 09:40 AM
I had trouble sifting through all that data and figuring out what that was all about.
Could you give the specific report that you used for these numbers. And, if possible, any hints on how you arrived at the data below. I would appreciate that.
Thanks....
FISCAL ------ Employment ------- EB3
YEAR ----- Total ---- INDIA | Total --- India
2000 ----- 111,024 | 15888 | 51,711 | -5567 :IV FY 2000 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2000%20table%20V.pdf)
2001 ----- 186,536 | 41720 | 90,274 | 16405 :IV FY 2001 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2001%20table%20V.pdf)
2002 ----- 171,583 | 41919 | 87,574 | 17428 :IV FY 2002 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2002%20table%20V.pdf)
2003 ----- -83,020 | 20818 | 47,354 | 10680 :IV FY 2003 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2003%20table%20V.pdf)
2004 ----- 157,107 | 39496 | 88,114 | 19962 :IV FY 2004 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY04tableV.pdf)
2005 ----- 242,335 | 47160 |122,130 | 23399 :IV FY 2005 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY05tableV.pdf)
6 yr total - 951,605| 207001| 487,157| 93441
Annual Avg --------- 34500 | -------- 15574
If this trend would have continued. There should not be any MAJOR retrogression problem, but if you remember from the Nov 05 VB. The warning was very clear:
During FY due to anticipated heavy demand, the AC21 provisions are not expected to apply, and the amount of Employment numbers available to any single country will be subject to the 7% cap. It is anticipated that the addition of unused FY-2005 Family numbers and the remaining AC21 numbers to the 140,000 annual minimum will result in an FY-2006 annual Employment limit of 152,000. This will mean an Employment per-country limit for FY-2006 of approximately 10,650.
To illustrate the effect of the reduced per-county limitation during FY-2006 on the oversubscribed countries, it should be noted that during FY-2005 India used approximately 47,175 Employment numbers.
If you plug this number into your analysis the result might be a couple of years of advance for your predictions.
andy
Could you give the specific report that you used for these numbers. And, if possible, any hints on how you arrived at the data below. I would appreciate that.
Thanks....
FISCAL ------ Employment ------- EB3
YEAR ----- Total ---- INDIA | Total --- India
2000 ----- 111,024 | 15888 | 51,711 | -5567 :IV FY 2000 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2000%20table%20V.pdf)
2001 ----- 186,536 | 41720 | 90,274 | 16405 :IV FY 2001 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2001%20table%20V.pdf)
2002 ----- 171,583 | 41919 | 87,574 | 17428 :IV FY 2002 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2002%20table%20V.pdf)
2003 ----- -83,020 | 20818 | 47,354 | 10680 :IV FY 2003 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2003%20table%20V.pdf)
2004 ----- 157,107 | 39496 | 88,114 | 19962 :IV FY 2004 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY04tableV.pdf)
2005 ----- 242,335 | 47160 |122,130 | 23399 :IV FY 2005 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY05tableV.pdf)
6 yr total - 951,605| 207001| 487,157| 93441
Annual Avg --------- 34500 | -------- 15574
If this trend would have continued. There should not be any MAJOR retrogression problem, but if you remember from the Nov 05 VB. The warning was very clear:
During FY due to anticipated heavy demand, the AC21 provisions are not expected to apply, and the amount of Employment numbers available to any single country will be subject to the 7% cap. It is anticipated that the addition of unused FY-2005 Family numbers and the remaining AC21 numbers to the 140,000 annual minimum will result in an FY-2006 annual Employment limit of 152,000. This will mean an Employment per-country limit for FY-2006 of approximately 10,650.
To illustrate the effect of the reduced per-county limitation during FY-2006 on the oversubscribed countries, it should be noted that during FY-2005 India used approximately 47,175 Employment numbers.
If you plug this number into your analysis the result might be a couple of years of advance for your predictions.
andy
more...
pictures Here#39;s the link to my new ring
uma001
03-21 12:21 PM
I still dont see labor approvals after March1. I dont know where you r looking at,, Can you tell me which page your looking at?
dresses royal wedding ring replica.
gcnirvana
04-23 12:41 PM
Great to hear that the event was a success. I was one of the volunteers who had the oppurtunity to call CA members and I just have one suggestion. Please update your profiles with your latest email and phone numbers. Of the 25 people I called, atleast 5 or 6 had incorrect phone numbers. One even went to a fax number. The intent for IV is to reach you quickly in such case but looks like the intent for such members is 'do-not-disturb'.
more...
makeup Royal Wedding Ring to Inspire
bharani
11-04 11:31 AM
Nrc2008064195
girlfriend royal wedding ring replica.
logiclife
04-20 02:22 PM
I will be coming with my other friend. We are commuting from Tracy / Stockton area. Anybody bringing the banners / hand signs to support STRIVE ACT?
Maybe no banners or signs because this is a town-hall style meeting and not a rally. I'll let you know if its ok to do that.
But surely, it would be good if you bring a sign/banner saying "www.immigrationvoice.org" which would help us get more coverage is its caught by the media.
Maybe no banners or signs because this is a town-hall style meeting and not a rally. I'll let you know if its ok to do that.
But surely, it would be good if you bring a sign/banner saying "www.immigrationvoice.org" which would help us get more coverage is its caught by the media.
hairstyles royal wedding ring replica.
same_old_guy
07-09 04:38 PM
newbee7 is right.
Either the security clearance/FBI name check was COMPLETE or NOT. There is nothing as "would-be-done-shortly-for-sure" !
Bottom-line, if it can be proved in a court of law that USCIS approved cases without security clearance, there is a solid ground for the suit. It's against the law and it undermines the national security concerns.
Second, USCIS working in bad faith when they rushed to allocate all the quota just to avoid new I-485 applications. It clearly has "intentional" written all over it.
Third, I saw somewhere an excerpt from INA law that there is a limit on how many visa number can be allocated in a month. As per that clause, USCIS broke the law.
Fourth, there is a solid ground to sue USCIS for the expense to say the least. People has to pay a whole lot of things including lawyer, medical, photo etc. Time and effort spent on that is no less.
Either the security clearance/FBI name check was COMPLETE or NOT. There is nothing as "would-be-done-shortly-for-sure" !
Bottom-line, if it can be proved in a court of law that USCIS approved cases without security clearance, there is a solid ground for the suit. It's against the law and it undermines the national security concerns.
Second, USCIS working in bad faith when they rushed to allocate all the quota just to avoid new I-485 applications. It clearly has "intentional" written all over it.
Third, I saw somewhere an excerpt from INA law that there is a limit on how many visa number can be allocated in a month. As per that clause, USCIS broke the law.
Fourth, there is a solid ground to sue USCIS for the expense to say the least. People has to pay a whole lot of things including lawyer, medical, photo etc. Time and effort spent on that is no less.
GCBy3000
01-16 11:55 AM
pls update your profile so that we can confirm.
Update your signature also with your pledge. This will help a lot when others see these kind of signatures. It is all psychological factor to make members feel confident about IV and to make them realize they are not the only one who contributes often.
Every member has the potential to contribute. It is not a million dollar per month. But how to make them to realize the importance and to make them feel comfortable with IV to contribute matters the most. Adding up your pledge in the signature is a most important for this one.
Update your signature also with your pledge. This will help a lot when others see these kind of signatures. It is all psychological factor to make members feel confident about IV and to make them realize they are not the only one who contributes often.
Every member has the potential to contribute. It is not a million dollar per month. But how to make them to realize the importance and to make them feel comfortable with IV to contribute matters the most. Adding up your pledge in the signature is a most important for this one.
LondonTown
09-01 08:05 AM
I am doing my online MBA right now , if you need more info Private message me.
Are you doing from Aspen?
Are you doing from Aspen?
No comments:
Post a Comment