yabadaba
06-29 02:55 PM
macaca it does make sense. This si what they are doing...opening up the flood gates and allow for a flood. from this flood they will be able to easily approve 40k cases.
once that is done they will shut the flood gates so that the level starts moving towards equilibirium...with labor substitution ending on july 16th ...the 70k backlog elimination labor aps will be done quick enough.. since many will have redone their LC in PERM..and uscis will have an accurate headcount of people in line from this floodgate opening process.
i dont think we ll see retrogression back to 99... but maybe more mangeable levels
once that is done they will shut the flood gates so that the level starts moving towards equilibirium...with labor substitution ending on july 16th ...the 70k backlog elimination labor aps will be done quick enough.. since many will have redone their LC in PERM..and uscis will have an accurate headcount of people in line from this floodgate opening process.
i dont think we ll see retrogression back to 99... but maybe more mangeable levels
wallpaper Abstract Flowers 5 Drawing
franklin
06-13 11:39 PM
Years we have been told priority date establishes your place in the queue.
We have spurned job offers and declined the new PERM process to hold on to the priority dates.
Many are still awaiting labor certifications from the backlog elimination centers. Out comes USCIS and says everyone with a LC can file I140 & I485.
People still waiting for LC with priority dates in 2003-2004 are seeing applicants who have priority dates as late as 2007 but with approved LCs through PERM walk through to I485.
Net result, USCIS is going to be flooded with applicants enough to retrogress the priority dates 3-4 years back as early as september. (Everybody with a LC will be able to file for I485 in July). So applicants with priority dates of 2007 are going to get EAD and GC, while LC backlogged 2003 applicants to have to wait for another 3-4 years before they can even file I485.
Aint fair. Aint fair at all. How can this be. How can rules be changed in the middle of the game.
I totally feel for you right now. A lot of people are celebrating the unexpected news, and those that have applied for labor possibly MUCH earlier are still stuck.
Let's hope that the BEC keep to their new revised deadline and the Visa Bulletins remain rosy for you
We have spurned job offers and declined the new PERM process to hold on to the priority dates.
Many are still awaiting labor certifications from the backlog elimination centers. Out comes USCIS and says everyone with a LC can file I140 & I485.
People still waiting for LC with priority dates in 2003-2004 are seeing applicants who have priority dates as late as 2007 but with approved LCs through PERM walk through to I485.
Net result, USCIS is going to be flooded with applicants enough to retrogress the priority dates 3-4 years back as early as september. (Everybody with a LC will be able to file for I485 in July). So applicants with priority dates of 2007 are going to get EAD and GC, while LC backlogged 2003 applicants to have to wait for another 3-4 years before they can even file I485.
Aint fair. Aint fair at all. How can this be. How can rules be changed in the middle of the game.
I totally feel for you right now. A lot of people are celebrating the unexpected news, and those that have applied for labor possibly MUCH earlier are still stuck.
Let's hope that the BEC keep to their new revised deadline and the Visa Bulletins remain rosy for you
Kodi
05-08 09:06 AM
Are we restricted to where we can apply? I'm in New York.
2011 set of flowers drawings
texcan
07-11 06:55 PM
We should thank Ms. Lofgren, Congresswomen for action taken to ask USCIS about visa bulletion fiasco.
Atleast someone with authority cares to do things right.
Thankyou Mr. Lofgren.
Atleast someone with authority cares to do things right.
Thankyou Mr. Lofgren.
more...
gc_dream2009
01-13 02:28 PM
1) I have read some of your earlier posts on this thread and what you have primarily done is merely re-iterated what the issue is. Without any contribution or suggestion as to how to actually resolve it. And since the situation has continued to stay the same for several years due to Congressional indifference, you seem to have decided to pick on IV for all the faults with EB3 backlogs and the lack of effort therein to resolve the same. For a minute, please understand that we all know the facts and realize what plagues EB3 backlogs.
2)Yes I have been on every EB3 prediction thread and know the numbers are too bad to be resolved by anything other than CIR (dead) or standalone bills. I do not know why you are stuck on insisting that we all think EB2 becoming current is the only solace for EB3 (associated spillovers etc etc.). IF Eb2 I gets current - well and good - Eb3 will still need some legislative relief (here I go again with EB2 vs EB3 - something I hate to do). But then one of your original gripes seemed to be blaming IV for not considering EB3 provisions in this Diversity Visa Bill which, at this early stage, is completely befuddling!
3) Your entire approach of going after EB2 applicants and blaming them for your dreamt up failure of IV is insane. Diluting the discussion with vitriol and then blaming everyone around you for not participating makes you a bigger "bigot" (sorry - just paraphrasing one of your used words) than what you blame others to be.
4) You do not represent my opinions. So please stop advocating yourself as an EB3 representative (which you are doing whether you believe it or not). With the points you have raised and the negative vibes you have created between EB2 vs EB3, you have shown that you are concerned and frustrated only about your own personal GC situation and are trying to use the EB3 tag to shove it down my throat. Which I completely detest.
5)I think IV should remove the EB classification that shows up with people's profiles. I do not wish to be "branded" even before joining in a discussion.Mr gc_dream2009
You can decide that i am wrong and you have the right to do that and that is the beauty of a discussion.
For my benefit can you point out the views and statements of mine which were divisive and dangerous.
2)Yes I have been on every EB3 prediction thread and know the numbers are too bad to be resolved by anything other than CIR (dead) or standalone bills. I do not know why you are stuck on insisting that we all think EB2 becoming current is the only solace for EB3 (associated spillovers etc etc.). IF Eb2 I gets current - well and good - Eb3 will still need some legislative relief (here I go again with EB2 vs EB3 - something I hate to do). But then one of your original gripes seemed to be blaming IV for not considering EB3 provisions in this Diversity Visa Bill which, at this early stage, is completely befuddling!
3) Your entire approach of going after EB2 applicants and blaming them for your dreamt up failure of IV is insane. Diluting the discussion with vitriol and then blaming everyone around you for not participating makes you a bigger "bigot" (sorry - just paraphrasing one of your used words) than what you blame others to be.
4) You do not represent my opinions. So please stop advocating yourself as an EB3 representative (which you are doing whether you believe it or not). With the points you have raised and the negative vibes you have created between EB2 vs EB3, you have shown that you are concerned and frustrated only about your own personal GC situation and are trying to use the EB3 tag to shove it down my throat. Which I completely detest.
5)I think IV should remove the EB classification that shows up with people's profiles. I do not wish to be "branded" even before joining in a discussion.Mr gc_dream2009
You can decide that i am wrong and you have the right to do that and that is the beauty of a discussion.
For my benefit can you point out the views and statements of mine which were divisive and dangerous.
santb1975
04-07 12:06 AM
NolaIndian32
santb1975
gsc999
We need 147 more....Is the Goal challenging enough for us?
santb1975
gsc999
We need 147 more....Is the Goal challenging enough for us?
more...
Hassan11
05-01 10:21 AM
I am also stuck on PERM appeal. I applied for appeal in Sep 2006 and still haven't heard anything from Atlanta
Perm was applied for Senior Financial Analyst (EB2)
Thanks hellomms for starting this thread and for your effort
Perm applied 08/07/2006 (EB2 Senior Financial Analyst)
Perm denied 08/11/2006
Appeal filed on 09/07/2006
still waiting to hear from Atlanta
hellomms Could you gather all such people who are facing this issue and want to join the effort to fix it, at a single place on an IV thread. Once we have a sizable number of people to take initiative this effort can be successful. It is difficult to divert attention and resources for a single person. Each immigration issue that our community faces is important to the person suffering from it. IV is a place where people can get together and do something about fixing it.
Perm was applied for Senior Financial Analyst (EB2)
Thanks hellomms for starting this thread and for your effort
Perm applied 08/07/2006 (EB2 Senior Financial Analyst)
Perm denied 08/11/2006
Appeal filed on 09/07/2006
still waiting to hear from Atlanta
hellomms Could you gather all such people who are facing this issue and want to join the effort to fix it, at a single place on an IV thread. Once we have a sizable number of people to take initiative this effort can be successful. It is difficult to divert attention and resources for a single person. Each immigration issue that our community faces is important to the person suffering from it. IV is a place where people can get together and do something about fixing it.
2010 of drawing and coloring.
eeezzz
04-11 02:17 PM
I have a question here. Since TSC processing time is 04/30/2007 and NSC is 06/08/2007. Does that mean even EB-1 will have to wait until the processing time to their RD ?
eg, If you are EB-1 just file your 485 this month, but the processign center time not get to 04/2008 for another 2 years, then even you are EB-1 which is always current(for right now), you still not able to get your GC in two years ?
eg, If you are EB-1 just file your 485 this month, but the processign center time not get to 04/2008 for another 2 years, then even you are EB-1 which is always current(for right now), you still not able to get your GC in two years ?
more...
BharatPremi
10-15 12:24 PM
Gonna be a long long long wait for people with PDs of 2007 (EB3) who got their labor certified after July.
Yep. It would be good for EB3/2 - India-PD 2007 filer considering canadian immigration simultaneously...ofcourse do not rush now for filing Canadian PR - As Canada generally gives you PR witin 2 years and by that time 2007 filers may not have passed FBI check for their 485 here..If the way things are going I see at least 5 years wait for 2007 (India)filers.
Yep. It would be good for EB3/2 - India-PD 2007 filer considering canadian immigration simultaneously...ofcourse do not rush now for filing Canadian PR - As Canada generally gives you PR witin 2 years and by that time 2007 filers may not have passed FBI check for their 485 here..If the way things are going I see at least 5 years wait for 2007 (India)filers.
hair Drawings Of Hibiscus Flowers
veda
08-11 03:17 PM
Any one on the same situation?.
Has anyone tried expedite requests .
1)If so , did the expedite requests via fax help?
2)The NCSC do not give us any fax number?
3)What would be the reason we can specify for expedite requests?
Has anyone tried expedite requests .
1)If so , did the expedite requests via fax help?
2)The NCSC do not give us any fax number?
3)What would be the reason we can specify for expedite requests?
more...
willgetgc2005
03-01 12:41 PM
IS there a link to check PERM case status ?
A quick reponse is greatly appreciated.
Thank You
A quick reponse is greatly appreciated.
Thank You
hot Intrigue Drawing - Brian
Laasya05
05-21 10:32 PM
Guys!
please advice.
please advice.
more...
house can pin drawings or photos
spatial
01-19 02:39 PM
Don’t blame non-contributing members too much. They are also frustrated with the retrogression and wish for a relief. $20/mon is not a big deal for most high skilled professionals. But what if someone didn’t get the message? What if someone doesn’t have a paypal account? There should be some other ways for people to pledge the money and make sure it will be used wisely. I guess the right strategy is how to reach more people with the correct information. Honestly speaking, I don’t know how many of 8400 really got this message.
If there are 200 online users and IV already got 128 contributing members, the percentage looks pretty amazing to me. There will be more, of course, when they get to know this and come to the website, read and understand that they have a chance and also a responsibility to help themselves by doing this.
If there are 200 online users and IV already got 128 contributing members, the percentage looks pretty amazing to me. There will be more, of course, when they get to know this and come to the website, read and understand that they have a chance and also a responsibility to help themselves by doing this.
tattoo 29 October Some flowers,
roseball
08-09 10:27 PM
PERM approved in EB2 today after 4.5 months...now I'm officially EB2 and in the long wait line. Glad that my PERM got approved.
Congrats on your approval. My EB-2 PD is Mar 30th 2010, still waiting...What were the minimum requirements on your PERM.
Congrats on your approval. My EB-2 PD is Mar 30th 2010, still waiting...What were the minimum requirements on your PERM.
more...
pictures Color Drawings amp; Paintings
bostonqa
05-15 12:31 PM
For Indians we had vaccination in India at our childhood. Due to this some will get positive results in the skin test. Then doctor is going to recommends for chest x-ray. Some of the doctor's are going to overlook this. Because the medical report is a sealed cover we don�t know what number he written in the medical examination form. You can ask the doctor.
And one more thing is for skin test we have wait couple of days.
From my experience I recommend others to go for x-ray. In my case my immigration doctor, he written 5mm as reaction for skin test. USCIS sent RFE on this to go for x-ray.
I gone for x-ray and answered the RFE immediately.
A chest x-ray is required only if the reaction to the TB skin test is 5mm or greater.
http://www.usabal.com/permres/surgeons/index.html
Thanks for all the information,
how long after the first medical test do you get the results?
say for example I go for medical exam on May 18th and then re-visit for skin test results on May 21st. when would I get the medical results (sealed in envelope etc)?
also if they suggest some vaccination, do we have to get those vaccination and then re-take medical exams etc?
And one more thing is for skin test we have wait couple of days.
From my experience I recommend others to go for x-ray. In my case my immigration doctor, he written 5mm as reaction for skin test. USCIS sent RFE on this to go for x-ray.
I gone for x-ray and answered the RFE immediately.
A chest x-ray is required only if the reaction to the TB skin test is 5mm or greater.
http://www.usabal.com/permres/surgeons/index.html
Thanks for all the information,
how long after the first medical test do you get the results?
say for example I go for medical exam on May 18th and then re-visit for skin test results on May 21st. when would I get the medical results (sealed in envelope etc)?
also if they suggest some vaccination, do we have to get those vaccination and then re-take medical exams etc?
dresses white flowers drawings.
bishwas123
02-19 03:30 PM
Thank you all for your timely insight, it was really helpful and i really appreciate it.
One more thing along the same lines, what will happen if my friend gets his H-1B through non-profit organization and will want to move to a profit organization? Will he have to again wait untill the regular quotas kick in? In other words can he simply transfer his H-1B to a profit organization at any time of the year regardless of the availability H-1B visas in the numbered-cap/quota system? Thanking in advance,
regards
One more thing along the same lines, what will happen if my friend gets his H-1B through non-profit organization and will want to move to a profit organization? Will he have to again wait untill the regular quotas kick in? In other words can he simply transfer his H-1B to a profit organization at any time of the year regardless of the availability H-1B visas in the numbered-cap/quota system? Thanking in advance,
regards
more...
makeup Pencil or pen and ink drawings
Hassan11
04-01 02:11 PM
New Poll for RD is here: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=18287
Please vote. Thanks
Can someone please create a poll for ROW RDs. It should be monthly banded
between May to Aug 2007.
I don't find an option for me to create a poll.
Please vote. Thanks
Can someone please create a poll for ROW RDs. It should be monthly banded
between May to Aug 2007.
I don't find an option for me to create a poll.
girlfriend a cluster of tiny flowers
jun172004
09-04 02:38 AM
Finally got approval for me and my wife too today :)
hairstyles Botanical Art Drawing - Orchid
nyte_crawler
06-08 06:15 PM
Now that the House and Senate have adopted different versions of immigration legislation, textbook explanations of lawmaking suggest the bill's fate rests in the hands of a conference committee. Congress uses these temporary bicameral panels � which some call the "Third House" of Congress � to resolve differences in competing versions of legislation.
But lawmakers often find exceptions to textbook explanations and immigration reform provides a case in point. True, most predict contentious House-Senate negotiations on the issue. But "where" and "when" are key questions. Creation of a conference committee will be more an indication that a deal is done than a forum to find one. In other words, lawmakers may not even officially create a bicameral negotiating panel until they have found a clear path toward a workable compromise � a process that may take weeks of private, informal discussions before conferees ever formally meet.
Conference committees are not mandatory. They offer one way to resolve differences between chambers, but there is no requirement that lawmakers even use this procedure. According to Walter Oleszek at the CongressionalResearch Service, only 15 to 25 percent of all laws passed by Congress ever reach the conference-committee stage. Lawmakers normally resolve differences either by one house adopting the other's version or by "ping-ponging" measures back and forth until substantive disagreements are ironed out. Conference committees are never formed in either of those cases.
However, Mr. Oleszek also notes that most controversial bills that become law do go through the House-Senate conference process. Immigration definitely clears the divisiveness threshold. But sending a politically charged bill to a formal conference immediately and hoping differences get resolved there is not a tactic preferred by the GOP leadership.
When lawmakers do decide to form a formal conference committee, its procedures are exercised in congressional discretion with only a few set rules and precedents. The House and Senate each choose members drawn heavily from the committees that authored the legislation. In the Senate, the presiding officer appoints from a list developed by the chair and ranking member of the committee that passed the bill. In the House, the speaker appoints all conferees and sometimes draws in members of the leadership. Each house has one vote on issues under consideration in the conference; therefore there is a "House position" and a "Senate position" on any provision in disagreement. Each chamber develops positions based on a majority vote of conferees from that body.
Neither chamber is under any obligation to respond to a request for a conference. And sometimes the bulk of negotiations occur in a pre-conference informal setting. House leaders are averse to sending major legislation to a formal conference with the prospects of long, drawn-out deliberations. For one thing, after a bill goes to conference and there is no resolution in 20 calendar and 10 legislative days, any member of the House can offer non-binding motions on a daily basis, which often subjects the body to tedious, sometimes politically embarrassing votes that eat up valuable time.
Democrat obstructionism in the Senate may also stall efforts to convene a conference. Since losing the majority after the 2002 election, Democrats have made the historically routine process of going to conference (which is normally done through unanimous consent) a procedural jungle. On the immigration measure, Democrats insisted on the unusual step of a pre-agreed ratio of conferees (26 senators total � 14 Republicans and 12 Democrats) before entering into a unanimous consent agreement to finish the bill. Also, because the Senate bill contains a revenue provision, it is subject to a so-called "blue slip," which means it could be automatically rejected by the House. (The Origination Clause of the Constitution requires all revenue measures to begin in the House. A Senate bill containing revenue provisions is sent back with a resolution printed on blue paper, hence the name.) Democrats then objected earlier this week to efforts to attach the Senate immigration bill to a House-passed revenue bill, which would have fixed the problem.
And when it comes to national issues like immigration, the White House also becomes a big investor in this legislative real estate. Thus, the real "conference committee" on immigration reform will take place informally between the White House and a handful of congressional leaders. If these lawmakers see a compromise that can garner strong support among Republicans in the House and Senate, a formal conference will be appointed.
If this path can't be found, it's unlikely lawmakers will ever formally set foot into a conference committee to orchestrate a compromise � in public or private.
But lawmakers often find exceptions to textbook explanations and immigration reform provides a case in point. True, most predict contentious House-Senate negotiations on the issue. But "where" and "when" are key questions. Creation of a conference committee will be more an indication that a deal is done than a forum to find one. In other words, lawmakers may not even officially create a bicameral negotiating panel until they have found a clear path toward a workable compromise � a process that may take weeks of private, informal discussions before conferees ever formally meet.
Conference committees are not mandatory. They offer one way to resolve differences between chambers, but there is no requirement that lawmakers even use this procedure. According to Walter Oleszek at the CongressionalResearch Service, only 15 to 25 percent of all laws passed by Congress ever reach the conference-committee stage. Lawmakers normally resolve differences either by one house adopting the other's version or by "ping-ponging" measures back and forth until substantive disagreements are ironed out. Conference committees are never formed in either of those cases.
However, Mr. Oleszek also notes that most controversial bills that become law do go through the House-Senate conference process. Immigration definitely clears the divisiveness threshold. But sending a politically charged bill to a formal conference immediately and hoping differences get resolved there is not a tactic preferred by the GOP leadership.
When lawmakers do decide to form a formal conference committee, its procedures are exercised in congressional discretion with only a few set rules and precedents. The House and Senate each choose members drawn heavily from the committees that authored the legislation. In the Senate, the presiding officer appoints from a list developed by the chair and ranking member of the committee that passed the bill. In the House, the speaker appoints all conferees and sometimes draws in members of the leadership. Each house has one vote on issues under consideration in the conference; therefore there is a "House position" and a "Senate position" on any provision in disagreement. Each chamber develops positions based on a majority vote of conferees from that body.
Neither chamber is under any obligation to respond to a request for a conference. And sometimes the bulk of negotiations occur in a pre-conference informal setting. House leaders are averse to sending major legislation to a formal conference with the prospects of long, drawn-out deliberations. For one thing, after a bill goes to conference and there is no resolution in 20 calendar and 10 legislative days, any member of the House can offer non-binding motions on a daily basis, which often subjects the body to tedious, sometimes politically embarrassing votes that eat up valuable time.
Democrat obstructionism in the Senate may also stall efforts to convene a conference. Since losing the majority after the 2002 election, Democrats have made the historically routine process of going to conference (which is normally done through unanimous consent) a procedural jungle. On the immigration measure, Democrats insisted on the unusual step of a pre-agreed ratio of conferees (26 senators total � 14 Republicans and 12 Democrats) before entering into a unanimous consent agreement to finish the bill. Also, because the Senate bill contains a revenue provision, it is subject to a so-called "blue slip," which means it could be automatically rejected by the House. (The Origination Clause of the Constitution requires all revenue measures to begin in the House. A Senate bill containing revenue provisions is sent back with a resolution printed on blue paper, hence the name.) Democrats then objected earlier this week to efforts to attach the Senate immigration bill to a House-passed revenue bill, which would have fixed the problem.
And when it comes to national issues like immigration, the White House also becomes a big investor in this legislative real estate. Thus, the real "conference committee" on immigration reform will take place informally between the White House and a handful of congressional leaders. If these lawmakers see a compromise that can garner strong support among Republicans in the House and Senate, a formal conference will be appointed.
If this path can't be found, it's unlikely lawmakers will ever formally set foot into a conference committee to orchestrate a compromise � in public or private.
dhesha
08-05 08:03 PM
I am also eagerly waiting for it.
All of my friends with PD2006 (jan-Mar) got their GCs and I am still here waiting.
2nd FP on July 29th, Raised a SR on Aug 2nd. So far nothing moved, no LUDs.
Tried congressman's inquiry no response yet.
I dont know if I get GC atleast this time or not :mad:
I can fully understand your frustration as I am also going through the same situation.
How did you contact congressman?
All of my friends with PD2006 (jan-Mar) got their GCs and I am still here waiting.
2nd FP on July 29th, Raised a SR on Aug 2nd. So far nothing moved, no LUDs.
Tried congressman's inquiry no response yet.
I dont know if I get GC atleast this time or not :mad:
I can fully understand your frustration as I am also going through the same situation.
How did you contact congressman?
prolegalimmi
10-15 01:11 PM
right. in the AILA call also they cautioned that retrogression will become worse (dates moving back!) once USCIS starts processing all those July/August filers...
NOT TRUE.
It depends on how many applications were filed that had priority dates before the Retrogressed Date (22 APR 01, 01 AUG 02, Etc).
If there were no big volume of applications before this date, then the USCIS is out of work as it relates to the I-485 applications processing. Thats when they move the date forward to allow more applications with later priority dates come to the processing desk.
My two cents.
NOT TRUE.
It depends on how many applications were filed that had priority dates before the Retrogressed Date (22 APR 01, 01 AUG 02, Etc).
If there were no big volume of applications before this date, then the USCIS is out of work as it relates to the I-485 applications processing. Thats when they move the date forward to allow more applications with later priority dates come to the processing desk.
My two cents.
No comments:
Post a Comment