vkannan
02-23 01:42 PM
people,
i just returned from an infopass meeting... the guy i talked to said that they recently have a directive from the DHS/USCIS that they want to separate the legal stuff from the illegal stuff and hence they are planning to adjudicate a record number of EB apps in the next quarter or two... does anyone else concur? is this true or were my ears just ringing in that meeting?
--shark
Well, I had a Infopass last week to check on a Soft LUD on my I-140, I heard slightly different story, they did not say adjudicating the EB application, but Process the EB application, which I guess what they were saying is pre-adjudicating the cases, in the last few weeks with lot of cases being transferred (both EB2/EB3) to different offices, pre-adjudicating the cases makes sense....but hey, we are talking about USCIS here, we never know, whatever you heard could be true too......
One piece of information that made me happy reading your comment was "a directive from the DHS/USCIS that they want to separate the legal stuff from the illegal stuff", this is good news.....but wondering what does legal/illegal mean to USCIS anyway......and how does it help us from retrogression point of view??
i just returned from an infopass meeting... the guy i talked to said that they recently have a directive from the DHS/USCIS that they want to separate the legal stuff from the illegal stuff and hence they are planning to adjudicate a record number of EB apps in the next quarter or two... does anyone else concur? is this true or were my ears just ringing in that meeting?
--shark
Well, I had a Infopass last week to check on a Soft LUD on my I-140, I heard slightly different story, they did not say adjudicating the EB application, but Process the EB application, which I guess what they were saying is pre-adjudicating the cases, in the last few weeks with lot of cases being transferred (both EB2/EB3) to different offices, pre-adjudicating the cases makes sense....but hey, we are talking about USCIS here, we never know, whatever you heard could be true too......
One piece of information that made me happy reading your comment was "a directive from the DHS/USCIS that they want to separate the legal stuff from the illegal stuff", this is good news.....but wondering what does legal/illegal mean to USCIS anyway......and how does it help us from retrogression point of view??
wallpaper katie holmes short hair 2011.
ragz4u
03-16 04:03 PM
Here's a link to his website
http://frist.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=2306
I have a feeling it will have some pro-immigrant stuff too....the next 10 days are going to be very interesting
Text of Bill Frist's statement below
March 16th, 2006 - WASHINGTON, D.C. � U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, M.D. (R-TN) today announced his intention to introduce a border security bill before the recess to ensure the Senate has a border security bill ready for debate during the week of March 27:
�Our country needs security at our borders in order to slow the flow of illegal immigration and make America safer from foreign criminals and terrorists. That�s why today I will introduce a border security bill, to guarantee the Senate will have legislation available for consideration the week of March 27.
�This bill will be based on the consensus enforcement, visa reform and immigration litigation reform titles of Chairman Specter�s mark-up of border security legislation and focus on ensuring strict enforcement of our nation�s immigration laws. I look forward to bringing a border security bill to the floor during the week of March 27 and allowing the full Senate to start work on border security and interior law enforcement, as well as comprehensive immigration reform, so that America is more secure and our constituents are safer. It is my hope that the Judiciary Committee will be able to report a bill we can bring to the floor that meets these objectives. As a country of immigrants who respect the rule of law, I expect us to honor those heritages as this debate unfolds.�
http://frist.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=2306
I have a feeling it will have some pro-immigrant stuff too....the next 10 days are going to be very interesting
Text of Bill Frist's statement below
March 16th, 2006 - WASHINGTON, D.C. � U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, M.D. (R-TN) today announced his intention to introduce a border security bill before the recess to ensure the Senate has a border security bill ready for debate during the week of March 27:
�Our country needs security at our borders in order to slow the flow of illegal immigration and make America safer from foreign criminals and terrorists. That�s why today I will introduce a border security bill, to guarantee the Senate will have legislation available for consideration the week of March 27.
�This bill will be based on the consensus enforcement, visa reform and immigration litigation reform titles of Chairman Specter�s mark-up of border security legislation and focus on ensuring strict enforcement of our nation�s immigration laws. I look forward to bringing a border security bill to the floor during the week of March 27 and allowing the full Senate to start work on border security and interior law enforcement, as well as comprehensive immigration reform, so that America is more secure and our constituents are safer. It is my hope that the Judiciary Committee will be able to report a bill we can bring to the floor that meets these objectives. As a country of immigrants who respect the rule of law, I expect us to honor those heritages as this debate unfolds.�
champak3
06-27 07:53 PM
This is a real selfish forum, I will never participate in any phone campaigns here on. To me I see no reason why should I be calling for others if noone can call for our issue too.
I again urge people on this forum to please call / email the DOL asking why such a difference between two processing center.... I mean all those who have approved labor. We still have people at backlog center... I am ready to campaign for them or any other person .... But want check out if this is a real community or just selfish hoax forum ....
I again urge people on this forum to please call / email the DOL asking why such a difference between two processing center.... I mean all those who have approved labor. We still have people at backlog center... I am ready to campaign for them or any other person .... But want check out if this is a real community or just selfish hoax forum ....
2011 katie holmes short hair 2011.
sunny1000
09-30 04:16 PM
USCIS can process recaptured numbers. If 200k numbers are in one year USCIS will plan for 200k numbers in that year.In 2000 they processed more applications after a immigration reform. One way of preventing wastage is plan to process all the applications in 11 months. If any unused numbers can be processed in that one month.
I would like to have whatever you are smoking when you type these things. Seriously man...give us a break, will ya? Is there a point system by which people get GCs if they play the devil's advocate? I would like to sign up for that.
The Ombudsman's report clearly stated how USCIS wasted all these visa #s due to their ineffieciency, very well knowing that these #s cannot be re-used the following year. Why don't you send your below mentioned valuable advice to USCIS and see if you can make them do the right thing instead of "educating" us("One way of preventing wastage is plan to process all the applications in 11 months")
I would like to have whatever you are smoking when you type these things. Seriously man...give us a break, will ya? Is there a point system by which people get GCs if they play the devil's advocate? I would like to sign up for that.
The Ombudsman's report clearly stated how USCIS wasted all these visa #s due to their ineffieciency, very well knowing that these #s cannot be re-used the following year. Why don't you send your below mentioned valuable advice to USCIS and see if you can make them do the right thing instead of "educating" us("One way of preventing wastage is plan to process all the applications in 11 months")
more...
immigrationmatters30
08-12 06:48 PM
It would have been amazing if senator added 10K for each recaptured EB VISA. That would have given 1B dollars for the border security(If only senator wanted to help the so called product developing H1Bs).
texanmom
09-12 01:35 PM
Macaca-
If only wait times were as little as 2 yrs and 7 yrs...I might not even be fighting!!!
"Currently it takes 7+ years (after 2+ years on student visa) to become a resident."
This is not true in most cases. The F1 might be for 2 yrs minimum + 1 year EAD + at least 2 yrs on H1B before the GC process starts. Then its 7+ years...
So overall, we are talking 10+ years to get permanant residency in a majority of cases.
"Skilled immigrants have waited patiently for 2+ years"
Are we just talking about 2 yrs to see if there is going to be some reform?
If you don't want to get into the trouble of debating how many years, just say that it is unreasonable....
If only wait times were as little as 2 yrs and 7 yrs...I might not even be fighting!!!
"Currently it takes 7+ years (after 2+ years on student visa) to become a resident."
This is not true in most cases. The F1 might be for 2 yrs minimum + 1 year EAD + at least 2 yrs on H1B before the GC process starts. Then its 7+ years...
So overall, we are talking 10+ years to get permanant residency in a majority of cases.
"Skilled immigrants have waited patiently for 2+ years"
Are we just talking about 2 yrs to see if there is going to be some reform?
If you don't want to get into the trouble of debating how many years, just say that it is unreasonable....
more...
jungalee43
04-29 03:58 PM
Can there be link for FAX for the guest members? I can get about 100 people to send fax. They are members of Indian community (many are citizens) and may not have time to make phone calls. But with simple provision to send fax at one time to all these senators, I am pretty sure I can get 100 people to send faxes.
Again the provision is required for guest members who are willing to write their address and phone number.
Again the provision is required for guest members who are willing to write their address and phone number.
2010 Katie Holmes Hair 2011
snathan
05-02 12:59 PM
Not everybody on this forum earns 144,000 a year. What world are you living in my friend? Do you not get out that often?
I agree. Not every one is earning big amounts. Not every one's spouse is working. 1200+ is really big moeny to lose.
I agree. Not every one is earning big amounts. Not every one's spouse is working. 1200+ is really big moeny to lose.
more...
tinamatthew
07-20 12:37 PM
What happens if I get my EAD after 180 days of concurrent filing i-140 & i-485, and my employer no longer has a vacancy for me. Can I start at another job or do I have to refile the i-140. (I'm not presently working for the company yet - Schedule A applicant)
hair pictures Katie Holmes Haircut
Humhongekamyab
04-30 02:24 PM
It's live...the webcast.
more...
senk1s
05-02 09:08 AM
thats all the more reason to recapture visa numbers ... forever.
If they hit 90-95% of the target for the current year - the following year the exact number will be known - and that can be allotted
If they hit 90-95% of the target for the current year - the following year the exact number will be known - and that can be allotted
hot katie holmes short hair 2011.
GC_Applicant
07-17 11:02 PM
I am in Orange County. Count Me in.
more...
house katie holmes short hair 2011.
badluck
07-24 02:33 PM
Are you talking about emplyment based or family based.. may be your wife sponsord you.. please clear.
tattoo Katie Holmes short hairstyle:
baburob2
03-15 06:25 PM
Overall no big progress w.r.t our title's though Brownback's comment on immigration numbers is good.
Senate Judiciary Committee Continues Slow Progress in Markup of Immigration Reform Legislation
Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 06031540 (posted Mar. 15, 2006)"
The Senate Judiciary Committee continued its consideration today of draft legislation on comprehensive immigration reform sponsored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter. The Committee officially took up the bill, known as the �Chairman�s Mark,� on March 2 but has made very slow progress to date.
The following is a very brief summary of the amendments that were addressed during today�s session. See our previous update on last week�s markup sessions. We will continue to update you as action on the bill continues.
1. The Committee passed by a voice vote a compromise amendment by Feingold that would preserve some level of judicial review over naturalization applications.
2. A Specter 2nd degree amendment to a Sessions amendment on evading inspection passed.
3. A Leahy amendment on security-related issues passed by voice vote.
4. A Kennedy amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s retroactive provisions was debated and deferred.
5. A Feinstein amendment to modify the provisions of the Mark relating to border security was deferred for future action.
6. A Durbin amendment to strike the Mark�s criminalization of unlawful status was once again deferred for future consideration. Feinstein attempted to offer a 2nd degree amendment that would provide aliens with a 60-day grace period for visa overstays before they are subject to criminal prosecution under INA � 275(a), but Specter would not allow it since Durbin�s underlying amendment was set aside.
7. A Durbin amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s smuggling provision so as not to criminalize humanitarian assistance was once again debated and deferred. Kyl spoke in opposition to the amendment. Cornyn had a second degree that Hatch thought was insufficient. Hatch, Schumer and Biden spoke in opposition to Cornyn�s 2nd degree. Cornyn was not convincing, but Kyl did some damage.
8. A Sessions amendment to affirm the inherent authority of state and local law enforcement personnel to enforce federal civil immigration laws during the normal course of carrying out their duties was discussed. Specter offered a 2nd degree that would limit the inherent authority of states and localities to the enforcement of the criminal provisions of the immigration laws. Sessions would only support the 2nd degree if the provisions of the Mark criminalizing unlawful presence remain intact. Thus, if the Durbin amendment to strike those provisions passes, Sessions wants to revisit the Specter 2nd degree. Specter�s 2nd degree passed by voice vote.
9. A Sessions amendment that would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide information to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) related to aliens who may have violated certain immigration laws passed by a voice vote. The broadly worded amendment would encompass visa overstayers, other civil violators, and even members of vulnerable populations such as asylum-seekers who are improperly documented but seeking relief. Leahy and Kennedy voted against the amendment and Leahy spoke in opposition to overloading the NCIC database with individuals who do not belong in it. A Specter 2nd degree amendment that would provide a procedure for requesting removal from the database and modify the group of individuals included in it passed by voice vote.
10. A Sessions amendment that would require at least one law enforcement agency in each state to enter into a � 287(g) cooperative enforcement agreement to enforce immigration laws against alien smugglers was considered. Sessions accepted a Coburn 2nd degree amendment that would clarify: (1) that such agreements would be purely voluntary, and (2) that the �287(g) enforcement authority would not be limited to alien smuggling. There was no quorum to vote on these, however, and they were set aside.
Part way through the markup, Specter attempted to jump to a debate on the issue of the undocumented population, noting that he has reiterated to Senate Majority Leader Frist that he (Specter) opposes bringing immigration reform to the Senate Floor before the Senate Judiciary Committee had completed its consideration of the Chairman�s Mark. Biden and Kennedy voiced their support of Specter�s desire to complete work in Committee. Kennedy added, �this issue is NOT going away, like some other issues,� and urged deferral of the Title VI discussion until tomorrow (Title VI contains the provisions dealing with the undocumented population). He added that we need to deal with ALL aspects of reform to have real, lasting border security�going forward with any of these components alone will fail.
Durbin said that, to defeat the House bill (H.R. 4437), the Committee needs to pass a strong bipartisan bill with the support of about 12 members. He feels the Committee should do an extra markup session on a day when there is no other Senate business. �We need to watch the House,� noted Durbin, adding: �They have a bill we need to fight at all costs. We need bipartisan support out of this Committee.�
Brownback stated that the Committee has started a process to create broad bipartisan support for good policy, and that this is the most significant legislation of the year. �We have serious problems with immigrant numbers,� he said. �We can�t live with these and need to change them. McCain/Kennedy would deal with this. How do we get the Mark to deal with these numbers? We need a way NOT to end up here again after 10 years. We can�t move too quickly.�
Cornyn described the process as akin to �digging out of a big hole,� noting that with enforcement done first, other issues would get simpler. He believes we need to impose circularity---not permanent immigration.
Coburn said that, like it or not, we have to deal with issue of the undocumented population. He urged the Committee to split the bill in two and do enforcement first, and work to reach consensus on other parts later in the year. �No one in the country trusts us on this issue because we haven�t enforced our existing laws,� he said.
Feinstein stated her concerns about the process, and also spoke out against comprehensive immigration reform and in favor of her more limited agricultural pilot program idea. She said she had met with Senator Craig (the sponsor of AgJobs) yesterday to see if they could work out their differences but there has been no resolution yet. She also expressed much frustration with Frist�s artificial timeline. She indicated her opposition to the House bill, and said that consensus was needed in the Committee (she believes the Committee has come to some consensus on the enforcement pieces but little else). She urged Specter to go back to Frist and ask for more time.
Sessions said we need to focus on enforcement now, and then have a national discussion later on the other elements of immigration reform. He believes Congress needs to focus on enforcement to build credibility with the public. �I�m not prepared to repeat 1986,� he said. �We should slow down.�
Specter repeatedly voiced his concern about �line-jumping,� arguing that the McCain/Kennedy bill would �leap frog� the current undocumented population over individuals who have been waiting in the backlogs. He also said that he�d prefer it if the legislation contained a path to citizenship but, as Chair, was trying to balance both sides.
In other hurdles to the Judiciary Committee�s completion of work on the bill, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Grassley, who is also a member of the Judiciary Committee, argued that the Finance Committee should have jurisdiction over the provisions of the Mark relating to the Social Security Act, adding that the IRS has raised serious concerns about some of these amendments. However, several other senators argued for consideration of these provisions in the Judiciary Committee. It is also possible that Grassley could exercise the Finance Committee�s authority by managing those amendments during floor debate.
The Committee disbanded about noon, due to a number of votes on the Senate Floor and the attendant low probability of maintaining a voting quorum in the Committee.
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=18835
Senate Judiciary Committee Continues Slow Progress in Markup of Immigration Reform Legislation
Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 06031540 (posted Mar. 15, 2006)"
The Senate Judiciary Committee continued its consideration today of draft legislation on comprehensive immigration reform sponsored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter. The Committee officially took up the bill, known as the �Chairman�s Mark,� on March 2 but has made very slow progress to date.
The following is a very brief summary of the amendments that were addressed during today�s session. See our previous update on last week�s markup sessions. We will continue to update you as action on the bill continues.
1. The Committee passed by a voice vote a compromise amendment by Feingold that would preserve some level of judicial review over naturalization applications.
2. A Specter 2nd degree amendment to a Sessions amendment on evading inspection passed.
3. A Leahy amendment on security-related issues passed by voice vote.
4. A Kennedy amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s retroactive provisions was debated and deferred.
5. A Feinstein amendment to modify the provisions of the Mark relating to border security was deferred for future action.
6. A Durbin amendment to strike the Mark�s criminalization of unlawful status was once again deferred for future consideration. Feinstein attempted to offer a 2nd degree amendment that would provide aliens with a 60-day grace period for visa overstays before they are subject to criminal prosecution under INA � 275(a), but Specter would not allow it since Durbin�s underlying amendment was set aside.
7. A Durbin amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s smuggling provision so as not to criminalize humanitarian assistance was once again debated and deferred. Kyl spoke in opposition to the amendment. Cornyn had a second degree that Hatch thought was insufficient. Hatch, Schumer and Biden spoke in opposition to Cornyn�s 2nd degree. Cornyn was not convincing, but Kyl did some damage.
8. A Sessions amendment to affirm the inherent authority of state and local law enforcement personnel to enforce federal civil immigration laws during the normal course of carrying out their duties was discussed. Specter offered a 2nd degree that would limit the inherent authority of states and localities to the enforcement of the criminal provisions of the immigration laws. Sessions would only support the 2nd degree if the provisions of the Mark criminalizing unlawful presence remain intact. Thus, if the Durbin amendment to strike those provisions passes, Sessions wants to revisit the Specter 2nd degree. Specter�s 2nd degree passed by voice vote.
9. A Sessions amendment that would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide information to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) related to aliens who may have violated certain immigration laws passed by a voice vote. The broadly worded amendment would encompass visa overstayers, other civil violators, and even members of vulnerable populations such as asylum-seekers who are improperly documented but seeking relief. Leahy and Kennedy voted against the amendment and Leahy spoke in opposition to overloading the NCIC database with individuals who do not belong in it. A Specter 2nd degree amendment that would provide a procedure for requesting removal from the database and modify the group of individuals included in it passed by voice vote.
10. A Sessions amendment that would require at least one law enforcement agency in each state to enter into a � 287(g) cooperative enforcement agreement to enforce immigration laws against alien smugglers was considered. Sessions accepted a Coburn 2nd degree amendment that would clarify: (1) that such agreements would be purely voluntary, and (2) that the �287(g) enforcement authority would not be limited to alien smuggling. There was no quorum to vote on these, however, and they were set aside.
Part way through the markup, Specter attempted to jump to a debate on the issue of the undocumented population, noting that he has reiterated to Senate Majority Leader Frist that he (Specter) opposes bringing immigration reform to the Senate Floor before the Senate Judiciary Committee had completed its consideration of the Chairman�s Mark. Biden and Kennedy voiced their support of Specter�s desire to complete work in Committee. Kennedy added, �this issue is NOT going away, like some other issues,� and urged deferral of the Title VI discussion until tomorrow (Title VI contains the provisions dealing with the undocumented population). He added that we need to deal with ALL aspects of reform to have real, lasting border security�going forward with any of these components alone will fail.
Durbin said that, to defeat the House bill (H.R. 4437), the Committee needs to pass a strong bipartisan bill with the support of about 12 members. He feels the Committee should do an extra markup session on a day when there is no other Senate business. �We need to watch the House,� noted Durbin, adding: �They have a bill we need to fight at all costs. We need bipartisan support out of this Committee.�
Brownback stated that the Committee has started a process to create broad bipartisan support for good policy, and that this is the most significant legislation of the year. �We have serious problems with immigrant numbers,� he said. �We can�t live with these and need to change them. McCain/Kennedy would deal with this. How do we get the Mark to deal with these numbers? We need a way NOT to end up here again after 10 years. We can�t move too quickly.�
Cornyn described the process as akin to �digging out of a big hole,� noting that with enforcement done first, other issues would get simpler. He believes we need to impose circularity---not permanent immigration.
Coburn said that, like it or not, we have to deal with issue of the undocumented population. He urged the Committee to split the bill in two and do enforcement first, and work to reach consensus on other parts later in the year. �No one in the country trusts us on this issue because we haven�t enforced our existing laws,� he said.
Feinstein stated her concerns about the process, and also spoke out against comprehensive immigration reform and in favor of her more limited agricultural pilot program idea. She said she had met with Senator Craig (the sponsor of AgJobs) yesterday to see if they could work out their differences but there has been no resolution yet. She also expressed much frustration with Frist�s artificial timeline. She indicated her opposition to the House bill, and said that consensus was needed in the Committee (she believes the Committee has come to some consensus on the enforcement pieces but little else). She urged Specter to go back to Frist and ask for more time.
Sessions said we need to focus on enforcement now, and then have a national discussion later on the other elements of immigration reform. He believes Congress needs to focus on enforcement to build credibility with the public. �I�m not prepared to repeat 1986,� he said. �We should slow down.�
Specter repeatedly voiced his concern about �line-jumping,� arguing that the McCain/Kennedy bill would �leap frog� the current undocumented population over individuals who have been waiting in the backlogs. He also said that he�d prefer it if the legislation contained a path to citizenship but, as Chair, was trying to balance both sides.
In other hurdles to the Judiciary Committee�s completion of work on the bill, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Grassley, who is also a member of the Judiciary Committee, argued that the Finance Committee should have jurisdiction over the provisions of the Mark relating to the Social Security Act, adding that the IRS has raised serious concerns about some of these amendments. However, several other senators argued for consideration of these provisions in the Judiciary Committee. It is also possible that Grassley could exercise the Finance Committee�s authority by managing those amendments during floor debate.
The Committee disbanded about noon, due to a number of votes on the Senate Floor and the attendant low probability of maintaining a voting quorum in the Committee.
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=18835
more...
pictures katie holmes short hair
vinabath
07-20 03:02 PM
Best thing would be to apply for EAD/AP about 6 months from now because bulk of the new workload will be concentrated in June, July and August filings and it might take 5-6 months for all of them to get EADs. same thing when time comes for renewals.
If someone applies EAD/AP 6 months from now, chances are he/she will be able to avoid the crowd and get it in 3 months.
It''s like leaving at 5PM and spending 3 hours in traffic
OR
leaving at 8 and spending 30 minutes
makes sense?
It does not make any sense.Very bad analogy.
If someone applies EAD/AP 6 months from now, chances are he/she will be able to avoid the crowd and get it in 3 months.
It''s like leaving at 5PM and spending 3 hours in traffic
OR
leaving at 8 and spending 30 minutes
makes sense?
It does not make any sense.Very bad analogy.
dresses katie holmes short hair 2011.
trd
07-20 10:04 AM
BTW how did Obama vote?????
He did not voted
He did not voted
more...
makeup KATIE HOLMES SHORT HAIR 2011
immm
07-19 01:21 PM
Cases will be processed on RD only. However approval is based on PD.
Due to heavy backlogs, it is automatically assured that the person with an older PD will get his GC first - even if he filed later.
Not necessarily. Here is a hypothetical scenario:
PersonA = PD of May 30th, 2003 and RD of June 15th, 2007.
Assume that an additional 150,000 I-485 applications were filed petween PersonA and PersonB
PersonB = PD of May 15, 2002 and RD of July 15th 2007.
USCIS starts pre-adjudicating cases based on Receipt date. Assume that by October 1, 2007, they have pre-adjudicated PersonA plus 9,000 of the 150,000 applications and haven't reached PersonB's application yet (they go by RD).
Assuming that the visa cutoff date in Oct, 2007 bulletin is June, 2003 making both PersonA and personB current:
PersonA (PD of 2003) will get a visa number and get the case approved while PersonB (PD of 2002) with an older priority date will have to wait a while because his case hasn't been touched by USCIS yet due to the additional 150,000 filings in between that have to be pre-adjudicated first based on RD even if they have 2004/2005/2006/2007 priority dates!!
.
Due to heavy backlogs, it is automatically assured that the person with an older PD will get his GC first - even if he filed later.
Not necessarily. Here is a hypothetical scenario:
PersonA = PD of May 30th, 2003 and RD of June 15th, 2007.
Assume that an additional 150,000 I-485 applications were filed petween PersonA and PersonB
PersonB = PD of May 15, 2002 and RD of July 15th 2007.
USCIS starts pre-adjudicating cases based on Receipt date. Assume that by October 1, 2007, they have pre-adjudicated PersonA plus 9,000 of the 150,000 applications and haven't reached PersonB's application yet (they go by RD).
Assuming that the visa cutoff date in Oct, 2007 bulletin is June, 2003 making both PersonA and personB current:
PersonA (PD of 2003) will get a visa number and get the case approved while PersonB (PD of 2002) with an older priority date will have to wait a while because his case hasn't been touched by USCIS yet due to the additional 150,000 filings in between that have to be pre-adjudicated first based on RD even if they have 2004/2005/2006/2007 priority dates!!
.
girlfriend Katie Holmes 2010 Short Hair
qualified_trash
01-03 03:58 PM
I think it is the perspective that has changed. Until 2 years back we were ready to die to live in this country, we thought our country was crowded, polluted etc. etc. Things haven't changed much there. It's still same, criminals are still the most powerful, power, food & Shelter is still scarce, poor count hasn't decreased. It's just we are not seeing now 'the dark side of the moon'. There's no doubt our American dream is screwed up big time. We have ruined the best times in our lives. Out of these 1 million Visa holders, 1000's would have been entrepreneurs, artists, etc. etc. but this green card chase has beaten us down to H1B Visa holder forever.
my contention is that if you had stayed back, you would not even have what you have today.
assuming that 1000's would have done something better is a VERY big assumption.
my contention is that if you had stayed back, you would not even have what you have today.
assuming that 1000's would have done something better is a VERY big assumption.
hairstyles Trendy short hairstyle from
GCBy3000
06-03 02:38 PM
Yes every member has their own issues. We cannot solve individual issue one by one. That is why you have to contribute to IV and join hands with IV to solve our issue.
Also, if this May 15th date is true, then why the hell in world the backlog center is still open and working on dead cases. The cases will be dead only if the law is passed. May be they are also confused as we are.
I received good news on June 1, 2007 that my I-140 is approved. It was received by USCIS on May 22, 2007. Then later that day I saw the new immigration bill. If this very unreasonable bill (EB backlog) will be passed the wasting of all the money, time, stress, anxiety and hope towards the GC procedure will make the whole thing look like a bitter joke. This is beyong my wildest imagination on how bad things can go since we are all hard-working and law-abiding legal immigrants. Is it a punishment for being a good member of society?
I'm praying that it will not be given any consideration by those who have powers.
Also, if this May 15th date is true, then why the hell in world the backlog center is still open and working on dead cases. The cases will be dead only if the law is passed. May be they are also confused as we are.
I received good news on June 1, 2007 that my I-140 is approved. It was received by USCIS on May 22, 2007. Then later that day I saw the new immigration bill. If this very unreasonable bill (EB backlog) will be passed the wasting of all the money, time, stress, anxiety and hope towards the GC procedure will make the whole thing look like a bitter joke. This is beyong my wildest imagination on how bad things can go since we are all hard-working and law-abiding legal immigrants. Is it a punishment for being a good member of society?
I'm praying that it will not be given any consideration by those who have powers.
unseenguy
02-11 01:24 AM
yes, my previous reply to your post was a bit sarcastic. Didnt mean to offend anyone!
Using your same token, can we say "there are many idiots here who don't know what parenting is and use their parents to get a life for themselves and then ditch them?"
Dude, straitjacketing doesn't work and as you said, it is totally based on circumstances. :)
Yeah right . You dont mean to offend by being sarcastic. Why are you in US? Go take care of your old parents in India? More than your money they need your physical presence there.
Oh wait, you probably have a brother who did not study much or maybe a sister in India who is taking care of them and you only provide monetory support.
And yes, I dont care if this offends you.
Using your same token, can we say "there are many idiots here who don't know what parenting is and use their parents to get a life for themselves and then ditch them?"
Dude, straitjacketing doesn't work and as you said, it is totally based on circumstances. :)
Yeah right . You dont mean to offend by being sarcastic. Why are you in US? Go take care of your old parents in India? More than your money they need your physical presence there.
Oh wait, you probably have a brother who did not study much or maybe a sister in India who is taking care of them and you only provide monetory support.
And yes, I dont care if this offends you.
gcbikari
07-15 01:30 PM
Done for $5.00 thru DCU online '7YF4N-J8Q4S'. It asked for phone # which I found in Contact Us information of IV. Will definitely do many times in future.
No comments:
Post a Comment