Pineapple
01-17 03:04 PM
I believe it was not just IV, but also "public demand" which triggered the monthly contributions thing.
Plus, there are practical benifits: People contribute more over the year if they are paying small amounts monthly (This is the very reason for existence of loans and credit :) )
Plus, it evens out the cash flow for IV and makes it more predictable.
Good job IV.. I have signed up for $ 20.. will up it later (I have serious expenses coming up in the short term :p ) Of course, my pledge to contribute 5 % of my tax returns still stands independent of all this.
Why does IV prefer Recurring contributions..? to one time contributions?
Plus, there are practical benifits: People contribute more over the year if they are paying small amounts monthly (This is the very reason for existence of loans and credit :) )
Plus, it evens out the cash flow for IV and makes it more predictable.
Good job IV.. I have signed up for $ 20.. will up it later (I have serious expenses coming up in the short term :p ) Of course, my pledge to contribute 5 % of my tax returns still stands independent of all this.
Why does IV prefer Recurring contributions..? to one time contributions?
wallpaper la distribución GNU/Linux
muni_k
02-25 03:29 PM
My company filed for PERM in September4,2007.Audited in October.reply was filed first week of November.Still no word on the PERM processing.My H1B visa expires June 30,2008.I have spent app. 7 weeks out of USA in the last six years.if I take a 3 week vacation out of the country can I extend my h1b visa to say September 15,2008(it will be 10 weeks total).And then be eligible for the 365 day rule for H1b extension.please reply.don't see too many options right now.
sroyc
10-13 04:48 AM
That was informative.
The wild cards are still the LC substitutions and EB2 to EB3 conversions. Even if a lot of people had to go back to India, is there any estimate on how many of these LC approvals were later sold by the bodyshoppers? Depending on the extent of LC substitution frauds (from what I hear it was rampant) all the calculations and estimates could get completely thrown off. I agree that we should wait for another 2-3 months for the dust to settle. Even the USCIS/DOS should have a good idea of how many cases there are and that will help them control the flow better and that should reflect in the visa bulletins.
Perfect linear logic. Infact if you think linearly this should have been the case.But, in my opinion you have missed 2 important events. First, when BECs were created, before moving cases to BECs, INS somehow took a stand of rapid labor approval for those who already cleared "State" process and were waiting in Regional. Many of cases were approved during those 3 to 4 months and most of them were of EB2 categories. Those who were stuck in "State" , most were transferred to BECs directly. Second thing happened was many EB2 people also changed jobs as economy started to improve from 2005 and many left for India. Now one can argue, that happened with EB3 as well. I tell you one thing. My file was Eb3 NON-RIR...Stuck in PBEC. I decided to convert into RIR. My final conversion package sent to PBEC, around second week of January 2007. At that moment there were almost 350000 cased were of NON-RIR and 70000 cases were of RIR. EB2 load was of around 30 % only of these total cases. See here the difference lies in volume. EB3 load is considerably high. One more thing to remember is Most of those EB2 filings were of 2002 or pre 2002. In year 2003, generally most filing were done in EB3 NON-RIR only as RIR denial ratio was high and that with particular EB2 category. And adding all this makes my assumption base that 80% of pre 2004 EB2 lot is already out of this black hole. Let's watch next bulletins. It will be clear within 2 to 3 months how USCIS is taking turns.
The wild cards are still the LC substitutions and EB2 to EB3 conversions. Even if a lot of people had to go back to India, is there any estimate on how many of these LC approvals were later sold by the bodyshoppers? Depending on the extent of LC substitution frauds (from what I hear it was rampant) all the calculations and estimates could get completely thrown off. I agree that we should wait for another 2-3 months for the dust to settle. Even the USCIS/DOS should have a good idea of how many cases there are and that will help them control the flow better and that should reflect in the visa bulletins.
Perfect linear logic. Infact if you think linearly this should have been the case.But, in my opinion you have missed 2 important events. First, when BECs were created, before moving cases to BECs, INS somehow took a stand of rapid labor approval for those who already cleared "State" process and were waiting in Regional. Many of cases were approved during those 3 to 4 months and most of them were of EB2 categories. Those who were stuck in "State" , most were transferred to BECs directly. Second thing happened was many EB2 people also changed jobs as economy started to improve from 2005 and many left for India. Now one can argue, that happened with EB3 as well. I tell you one thing. My file was Eb3 NON-RIR...Stuck in PBEC. I decided to convert into RIR. My final conversion package sent to PBEC, around second week of January 2007. At that moment there were almost 350000 cased were of NON-RIR and 70000 cases were of RIR. EB2 load was of around 30 % only of these total cases. See here the difference lies in volume. EB3 load is considerably high. One more thing to remember is Most of those EB2 filings were of 2002 or pre 2002. In year 2003, generally most filing were done in EB3 NON-RIR only as RIR denial ratio was high and that with particular EB2 category. And adding all this makes my assumption base that 80% of pre 2004 EB2 lot is already out of this black hole. Let's watch next bulletins. It will be clear within 2 to 3 months how USCIS is taking turns.
2011 distribuciones de Linux.
buddyinsd
08-05 04:40 PM
Is that rite? 2 wks after the case is assigned to an officer approvals r coming thru? Is that the trend?
Going by the trend...your lucky day may be tomorrow...Aug 6th...2 weeks from the date your case was assigned..
Good luck..
Going by the trend...your lucky day may be tomorrow...Aug 6th...2 weeks from the date your case was assigned..
Good luck..
more...
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.
seekerofpeace
09-01 10:06 AM
This really is height of optimism......it seems that readers think that USCIS IOs were desperately waiting for dates to get current and start approving applications...reality is they don't care and never cared..they may start issuing more RFEs if anything...Again stay rooted to ground and don;t start floating in the clouds....especially with USCIS's fantastic track record.....
SoP
SoP
more...
sanjeev
01-19 04:38 PM
Please check your spam folder if you do not see a email from IV as yet, number of times genuine emails get into this folder when emails are sent through a mass email program. Put IV's email address into your address book and next time it should come directly to your Inbox.
2010 Descargar Kuki Linux.
fumablanc
04-24 01:25 AM
Hi
I have been on H1, but not working for the last few months. Can we file for H1 -> H4 without pay stubs? What happens if they ask for pay stubs? Please advise.
Thanks
Murali
I have been on H1, but not working for the last few months. Can we file for H1 -> H4 without pay stubs? What happens if they ask for pay stubs? Please advise.
Thanks
Murali
more...
braindrain
05-23 07:40 PM
I called the Senetars last week. Left VM for few and was able to speak with assistants on other occasions.But, missed voting on the IV poll.....
Just wanted to let people know, if we are still counting the total number of calls....Count me in...
Just wanted to let people know, if we are still counting the total number of calls....Count me in...
hair distribución Linux
amitjoey
06-28 02:01 PM
For EB3 Folks with PD's in early - 2003- there are close to 8742 applicants in front of you That is a wait of 5 more years.
For EB3 Folks with PD's in mid 2003 and later - There are 14583 applicants in line before you- That is a wait of 10-12 more years.
Now the only way forward will be to lobby with IV for a legislative fix. Apart from that there is just no option, the sooner people realise that and help IV with advocacy, the better results we will get.
For EB3 Folks with PD's in mid 2003 and later - There are 14583 applicants in line before you- That is a wait of 10-12 more years.
Now the only way forward will be to lobby with IV for a legislative fix. Apart from that there is just no option, the sooner people realise that and help IV with advocacy, the better results we will get.
more...
sparky123
05-01 09:28 PM
My details:
Applied: June 2007
Audit received: October 2007
Audit replied: November 2007
Been stuck ever since....am willing to contribute anything I can to get all of us out of this deadlock.
Applied: June 2007
Audit received: October 2007
Audit replied: November 2007
Been stuck ever since....am willing to contribute anything I can to get all of us out of this deadlock.
hot distribuciones Linux
voicerj
05-03 09:40 PM
Feeling good to see so many people getting approved emails. We can hope for some good movement in coming months.
What do you say @teddy @vdlrao and other experts ?
What do you say @teddy @vdlrao and other experts ?
more...
house 38 Distribuciones de Linux
Laasya05
05-22 03:31 PM
but doesn't it depend on which date his H4 status began once approved.
if it began on the first day of that "pending period" then you are good...
The approval has from Feb16th to so and so time. It does not talk anything about the time between spet/04 to feb16/05. So this is called pending status, that's why there is confusion regarding this matter.
Anybody was in similar situation? or recaptured this time to file H1?
if it began on the first day of that "pending period" then you are good...
The approval has from Feb16th to so and so time. It does not talk anything about the time between spet/04 to feb16/05. So this is called pending status, that's why there is confusion regarding this matter.
Anybody was in similar situation? or recaptured this time to file H1?
tattoo las distribuciones Linux
royus77
08-02 05:36 PM
A couple of months was less on the card (my current one is expiring from 08/29/08 and the new one was approved from 07/11/2008) ........I am happy
Hope GC will come by that time ...
PD is 2 July 2006 .
E filed on May 3 went to TSC
First Card Ordered Email 07/11
Second Card Ordered Email 07/29
Hope GC will come by that time ...
PD is 2 July 2006 .
E filed on May 3 went to TSC
First Card Ordered Email 07/11
Second Card Ordered Email 07/29
more...
pictures Etiquetas: distribucion linux
gc_chahiye
10-14 11:03 PM
Has somebody ever wondered if EB limit is 140000 why the heck USCIS is allowed to accept millions of applications at the first place?
Can we sue USCIS for that?
load a big gun, aim at foot, fire.
P.S: Looks like you dont like EAD, AP, AC21 and all these acronyms and would love to have USCIS return 660K 485 applications back to the July 2nd filers.
Can we sue USCIS for that?
load a big gun, aim at foot, fire.
P.S: Looks like you dont like EAD, AP, AC21 and all these acronyms and would love to have USCIS return 660K 485 applications back to the July 2nd filers.
dresses de las distros Linux
bestofall
05-15 03:19 PM
Every one is nice , told me that they will pass the message !
more...
makeup distribuciones GNU/Linux
ras
03-20 01:27 AM
It would be very good have an ability to apply for I485 for spouse or any other dependents for primary applicants whose PD is retrogressed.
Absolutely. Just for this reason there are hundreds of 485 folks not able to utilize EAD/AP and are still hanging on H1 just so that they can bring their spouse and keep the status.
Absolutely. Just for this reason there are hundreds of 485 folks not able to utilize EAD/AP and are still hanging on H1 just so that they can bring their spouse and keep the status.
girlfriend Tres distribuciones Linux para
logiclife
02-06 04:22 PM
I hear contradicting news....hummmm.....
Indian media does not even know that for a proposal to become a law, it has to pass in both houses of congress and then go to conference and then go to both houses again before it goes to the President.
Last year, the Times of India said that Immigration bill passed even tho it has passed only in the Senate.
We have already reported that this amendment co-sponsored by Kerry and Kennedy went nowhere.
Apparently, Times of India group does not believe in doing research on Thomas.loc.gov about various bills.
Indian media does not even know that for a proposal to become a law, it has to pass in both houses of congress and then go to conference and then go to both houses again before it goes to the President.
Last year, the Times of India said that Immigration bill passed even tho it has passed only in the Senate.
We have already reported that this amendment co-sponsored by Kerry and Kennedy went nowhere.
Apparently, Times of India group does not believe in doing research on Thomas.loc.gov about various bills.
hairstyles distribuciones GNU-Linux.
jdsouza
05-13 12:42 PM
My wife and I got our greencards yesterday in the mail:
PD: 21 June 2006
NSC
The odd thing is that the online status has still not be updated from "Initial Review"!!
PD: 21 June 2006
NSC
The odd thing is that the online status has still not be updated from "Initial Review"!!
mhathi
10-22 09:13 AM
I filed my I-140 in July 07, I-485 in August with PD of June 07(EB3 India). Perhaps there may be many more like me with very recent PDs. Given that it is going to be a very long wait for getting GC, what should be a good approach for me? Use EAD after I-140 is approved (AC21 would be in place by that time) to make the most of the waiting time or play it extremely safe and stay with the current employer till GC is received? :confused:
there is a third option. After 140 is approved, you may change employers (assuming 180 days since 485 filing are up) but still maintain H1 status by doing an H1 transfer. AC21 does not require the use of EAD. It is equally possible to invoke AC21 while still maintaining H1 status. Of course, it may be easier to use EAD for employers that do not want to sponsor H1 since you already have an EAD.
there is a third option. After 140 is approved, you may change employers (assuming 180 days since 485 filing are up) but still maintain H1 status by doing an H1 transfer. AC21 does not require the use of EAD. It is equally possible to invoke AC21 while still maintaining H1 status. Of course, it may be easier to use EAD for employers that do not want to sponsor H1 since you already have an EAD.
gccovet
08-13 08:51 AM
What are the other remedies?
Veda,
You should get a letter fromUSCIS in 2-3 days explaining if you expedite SR has been accepted or denied.
GCCovet
Veda,
You should get a letter fromUSCIS in 2-3 days explaining if you expedite SR has been accepted or denied.
GCCovet
No comments:
Post a Comment