ski_dude12
09-13 06:41 AM
Still waiting... even after dates being current for 2 1/2 months now.
Where is your case now? Any update?
Where is your case now? Any update?
wallpaper Selena Gomez Opens Up About Parents Traumatic Divo
joydiptac
01-07 10:57 PM
Just a thought, should we instead all request humbly and earnestly instead of urging the President of the United States to do something without delay? :D
rodnyb
04-01 10:31 PM
If in Vegas, I will bet this total usage for EB2 I/C this year
EB1 20K (50% reduction from 40K)
EB2 ROW 10K (last year 9K, this year, some reduction)
EB5 8K (same as last year)
EB2 I/C 6K (5800 exact, regular supply)
Total 44K
Eb3 Porting 6K
New filing 2K (ppl who missed 07/2007 w/ PD before 07/2007, dependent)
Total usage 8K
EB2I/C demand before 07/31/2007
DOS, for having some buffer to counter (denial, RFEs, assuming little as most pre-adjudicated) will move PD for EB2/I
May 2011 12/2006
June 2011 2/2007
July 2011 6/2007
August 2011 8/2007
Remember, CIS can take in new applicants in August 2011 but don't have to approve it.
It will end between 06/2007 to 09/2007 almost 100%
Can we try and consolidate the predictions by Teddy, Rodnyb, GCwait2007 and others who did some major number crunching (not armchair predictors like me).
Teddy, based on what we know now especially the past few days, can you give your average, best, and worst case estimate for September 2011. Same for rodnyb and GCwait2007. Thanks!
Also importantly, if you could comment on the PD for EB3-I/C and EB-2 I/C in October 2011 once this year is over. Will we see it retrogress or current and what's your average case for the dates then.
EB1 20K (50% reduction from 40K)
EB2 ROW 10K (last year 9K, this year, some reduction)
EB5 8K (same as last year)
EB2 I/C 6K (5800 exact, regular supply)
Total 44K
Eb3 Porting 6K
New filing 2K (ppl who missed 07/2007 w/ PD before 07/2007, dependent)
Total usage 8K
EB2I/C demand before 07/31/2007
DOS, for having some buffer to counter (denial, RFEs, assuming little as most pre-adjudicated) will move PD for EB2/I
May 2011 12/2006
June 2011 2/2007
July 2011 6/2007
August 2011 8/2007
Remember, CIS can take in new applicants in August 2011 but don't have to approve it.
It will end between 06/2007 to 09/2007 almost 100%
Can we try and consolidate the predictions by Teddy, Rodnyb, GCwait2007 and others who did some major number crunching (not armchair predictors like me).
Teddy, based on what we know now especially the past few days, can you give your average, best, and worst case estimate for September 2011. Same for rodnyb and GCwait2007. Thanks!
Also importantly, if you could comment on the PD for EB3-I/C and EB-2 I/C in October 2011 once this year is over. Will we see it retrogress or current and what's your average case for the dates then.
2011 hairstyles 2011 Selena Gomez
gc_buddy
11-12 02:55 PM
Guys,
Please don't be afraid to share your denial info. At this time, OMB is asking to remove all personally identifiable information from reciept notices. So, we don't have to worry. We will get much attention only with specific evidances. Please do not hesitate..
I have recieved Omb response since I partificipated in the campaign. But, I have not used AC21 yet. Will be contacting PD_Recap for further direction.
Please don't be afraid to share your denial info. At this time, OMB is asking to remove all personally identifiable information from reciept notices. So, we don't have to worry. We will get much attention only with specific evidances. Please do not hesitate..
I have recieved Omb response since I partificipated in the campaign. But, I have not used AC21 yet. Will be contacting PD_Recap for further direction.
more...
funny
08-07 12:25 PM
Good for you..
People yet another case who is going to crossover to the EB2 line...
I am reading both of these stupid threads, I just couldn't stop replying to both of them.
I have also applied for PD Porting myself, I have sent the letetr to TSC requesting the Porting on my approved I140's, My EB3 PD is Oct 2003.
I seriously hope that your PD is older than Oct 2003, Otherwise I am going to Jump in front of you and will cut the line. do you know how many years it have been since oct 2003, Its 5 YEARS and you think that changing lanes is unfair here, all the people who are trying to port the PD's must have been waiting for atleat 4-5 years, You think that experience is not worth anything in their next job and they don't qualify for EB2 or are less smart than any of your "supporting friends".
People yet another case who is going to crossover to the EB2 line...
I am reading both of these stupid threads, I just couldn't stop replying to both of them.
I have also applied for PD Porting myself, I have sent the letetr to TSC requesting the Porting on my approved I140's, My EB3 PD is Oct 2003.
I seriously hope that your PD is older than Oct 2003, Otherwise I am going to Jump in front of you and will cut the line. do you know how many years it have been since oct 2003, Its 5 YEARS and you think that changing lanes is unfair here, all the people who are trying to port the PD's must have been waiting for atleat 4-5 years, You think that experience is not worth anything in their next job and they don't qualify for EB2 or are less smart than any of your "supporting friends".
pappu
08-04 07:46 PM
I am researching this topic and will post more as I find answers
================
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/privacy/privacy_pia_uscis_bcs.pdf
http://immigrationvoice.org/media/forums/iv/others/FBI_NNCP_part1.pdf
================
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/privacy/privacy_pia_uscis_bcs.pdf
http://immigrationvoice.org/media/forums/iv/others/FBI_NNCP_part1.pdf
more...
gccovet
11-21 10:44 AM
Hey PD_Recapturing,
Any updates on submitting cases to ombudsman office?
Thanks a lot for all the hardwork.
GCCovet.
Any updates on submitting cases to ombudsman office?
Thanks a lot for all the hardwork.
GCCovet.
2010 pictures Selena Gomez and
summerof98
09-11 04:34 PM
How do you know when the process begins and how do you find out if your name clears or is stuck like so many others?
Call (in the morning) 1-800-375-5283 and follow this sequence: 1,2,2,6,1,1,1,3,4.
If the Immigration Officer is kind enough you can ask if the Name Check is cleared. If he/she says No, you can ask him/her the date it was sent to the FBI.
Call (in the morning) 1-800-375-5283 and follow this sequence: 1,2,2,6,1,1,1,3,4.
If the Immigration Officer is kind enough you can ask if the Name Check is cleared. If he/she says No, you can ask him/her the date it was sent to the FBI.
more...
brb2
09-12 09:26 AM
Finger print will only bring up those names who have a "rap sheet". That is people who were arrested, booked and then charged. A name check will bring out those who are under an investigation directly (main file) or associated with those being investigated. Thus a name check is essential from the national security point of view.
USCIS is supposed to respond to USCIS OMBUDSMAN report on Sep 11. USCIS has not mentioned about the value it is deriving out of the NAMECHECK process!
I do not know why USCIS is wasting money and resources in the questionable "NAME CHECK" process while they already have the faster "FINGER PRINT" process!!
USCIS is supposed to respond to USCIS OMBUDSMAN report on Sep 11. USCIS has not mentioned about the value it is deriving out of the NAMECHECK process!
I do not know why USCIS is wasting money and resources in the questionable "NAME CHECK" process while they already have the faster "FINGER PRINT" process!!
hair Selena Gomez Wallpaper Selena Gomez - Selena Gomez Wallpaper (8941643)
mallu
10-13 01:27 AM
FBI laments it doesn't have resources to quickly conduct the namecheck process . What congress is doing in the post-911 world ? Shame on them.
more...
SunnySurya
08-07 02:56 PM
PD porting is another labor sub in making. I hope I have presented my case logically to show who all are the people who are in position to be benefitted by this rule. Of course there will be some genuine cases too but on other hand think about the people in Eb2 line that will be severely affected.
See, that's the reason I think the lawsuit idea has issues. I suspect the lawsuit may end up making life difficult for a lot of genuine cases without actually achieving what you set out to achieve.
But I have no data one way or the other.
See, that's the reason I think the lawsuit idea has issues. I suspect the lawsuit may end up making life difficult for a lot of genuine cases without actually achieving what you set out to achieve.
But I have no data one way or the other.
hot Selena Gomez photo
delhirocks
06-29 08:37 PM
Damn this sucking life man, no social life, no career life, no nothing life. Even animals must be living a better and meaningful life. It sucks big time, did it ever happen in history that uscis revised a visa bulletin on the day it is supposed to go into effect ....
We must fill their mailbox guys, let tham know this cannot be accepted.
uscis.webmaster@dhs.gov
National Customer Service Center (NCSC) at 1-800-375-5283 (TTY 1-800-767-1833)
I don't intent to sound rude, but why would this make your life "Suck", "no social life" , "no career life", "no nothing life".
Iam in the same position as everybody else, and am deeply dissapointed with the news (hence Iam here), but I just spend 2 hours in a nice pub, drinking nice micro brews, came home had a nice talk with my wife (H4), we are planning on going out for dinner and maybe watch Knocked up afterwards (heard its nice).
If this were to be true, it would delay our GC by another 2-3 years, but we are in this country on our own free will, making good money. Be dissapointed, but this is not the end of the world..Mantain the perspective...
We must fill their mailbox guys, let tham know this cannot be accepted.
uscis.webmaster@dhs.gov
National Customer Service Center (NCSC) at 1-800-375-5283 (TTY 1-800-767-1833)
I don't intent to sound rude, but why would this make your life "Suck", "no social life" , "no career life", "no nothing life".
Iam in the same position as everybody else, and am deeply dissapointed with the news (hence Iam here), but I just spend 2 hours in a nice pub, drinking nice micro brews, came home had a nice talk with my wife (H4), we are planning on going out for dinner and maybe watch Knocked up afterwards (heard its nice).
If this were to be true, it would delay our GC by another 2-3 years, but we are in this country on our own free will, making good money. Be dissapointed, but this is not the end of the world..Mantain the perspective...
more...
house Selena Gomez will be chatting live today at 4 pm Pacific Time (7 pm for East
lotsofspace
01-26 08:51 PM
Its not true, plenty of non-white countries do not require a visa unlike India which has the worst visa policies in the world. Obviously most countries require a visa from Indians because India does the same needlessly. Its time the Indian govt revisited these primitive and ill conceived rules.
Do you think Russia and Japan have liberal visa requirements ?
Do you think Russia and Japan have liberal visa requirements ?
tattoo 2011 Selena Gomez and Justin
grupak
08-21 11:02 AM
Guys,
EB2 guys( those who do not want to support EB3)::
What will you do, in EB3 shoes, if the numbers are not moving in 2-3 months. You got it. MOst of them will change to EB2, right. I will too. I am sure you can imagine the scene then. I know 8 of my 15 friends have already jumped to EB2. And I am sure they have much higher priority date than most of EB2s there. So you know what to expect. Lets ALL support for the common cause.
Sri.
I understand the frustration. Until two months back my PD was retro. Now, I already have my GC on my EB2-NIW I-140 and also had an approved EB1-OR I-140 recently. I am not here to suggest anyone shouldn't do what they think is best for them.
My own understanding of the law is that EB1 gets the left over EB5, EB2 gets the unused numbers from EB1 and the EB5 that went into EB1 but unused. EB3 gets the unused numbers from EB2 and those from EB1+EB5 unused by EB2. This maintains the preference categories (USCIS's definition, I am not saying EB2 is better than EB3).
No matter how the numbers are distributed, there is more demand than supply. It is unlikely all the unused EB1 and EB2 ROW numbers would fall to EB3 ROW and then to EB3-C/I. Some would surely go to EB2-C/I. Right now everyone is retro except EB1 and EB2 ROW. So, redistribution doesn't fix the problem just redistributes the retrogression.
If we can get the recapture and elimination of country ceiling then everybody benefits. The fact that we have an immigration bill is in itself quite something.
No matter how USCIS or DOS allocates the numbers, there will be backlog and its in everyone's interest whether C/I or ROW to think about pushing for the immigration reform bills.
EB2 guys( those who do not want to support EB3)::
What will you do, in EB3 shoes, if the numbers are not moving in 2-3 months. You got it. MOst of them will change to EB2, right. I will too. I am sure you can imagine the scene then. I know 8 of my 15 friends have already jumped to EB2. And I am sure they have much higher priority date than most of EB2s there. So you know what to expect. Lets ALL support for the common cause.
Sri.
I understand the frustration. Until two months back my PD was retro. Now, I already have my GC on my EB2-NIW I-140 and also had an approved EB1-OR I-140 recently. I am not here to suggest anyone shouldn't do what they think is best for them.
My own understanding of the law is that EB1 gets the left over EB5, EB2 gets the unused numbers from EB1 and the EB5 that went into EB1 but unused. EB3 gets the unused numbers from EB2 and those from EB1+EB5 unused by EB2. This maintains the preference categories (USCIS's definition, I am not saying EB2 is better than EB3).
No matter how the numbers are distributed, there is more demand than supply. It is unlikely all the unused EB1 and EB2 ROW numbers would fall to EB3 ROW and then to EB3-C/I. Some would surely go to EB2-C/I. Right now everyone is retro except EB1 and EB2 ROW. So, redistribution doesn't fix the problem just redistributes the retrogression.
If we can get the recapture and elimination of country ceiling then everybody benefits. The fact that we have an immigration bill is in itself quite something.
No matter how USCIS or DOS allocates the numbers, there will be backlog and its in everyone's interest whether C/I or ROW to think about pushing for the immigration reform bills.
more...
pictures File:Selena Gomez 2 crop.jpg - Wikimedia Commons Selena Gomez Previews #39;Who
contactkpatel@yahoo.com
08-13 02:34 PM
I noticed a soft LUD today on my wife's case but no update on mine. Does this mean anything...
PD - Oct 2005 - still waitin.........
PD - Oct 2005 - still waitin.........
dresses selena gomez 2011
EB2IndianGC
09-28 08:38 AM
Also, does anyone remember where the I-485 was mailed? NSC or TSC? From what I remember it was based on what state you lived in when I-485 was filed.
It was NSC for New York residents... Can someone confirm that please.
Yes, it was based on the State you lived. One other thing, you may want to check with Customer Service, since when are you have been actually considered a PR. If they have considered you as a PR since 2008, it is good for you, you will be able to apply for Citizenship sooner
It was NSC for New York residents... Can someone confirm that please.
Yes, it was based on the State you lived. One other thing, you may want to check with Customer Service, since when are you have been actually considered a PR. If they have considered you as a PR since 2008, it is good for you, you will be able to apply for Citizenship sooner
more...
makeup 2011 gomez Selena gomez
adusumilli
09-24 11:48 AM
28.6%/5 = 5.72% for EB3-India + Spillover from EB2 and EB1, not more than 10,000 of which to "Other Workers".
28.6%/5 = 5.72% for EB2-India + spillover from EB1
28.6%/5 = 5.72% for EB1-India + spillover from EB4 and EB5
Each category is 28.6% WW Quota.
WW Quota consists of 5 country specific sub-quotas 1)India 2)China 3) Mexico 4) Philipines 5)ROW.
Based on page 1, I do math as under for Philippines categories.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota for EB4 -->7% x 140000/5=1960, Pending: 70 Quota to be spilled over to EB1= 1890
2) Quota for EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 0 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1960
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 1890 + EB5 spillover 1960 = 11858 - pending 74 = Total
11784 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 11784 =19792, Pending: 510, So total 19282 VISA numbers will be spilled
over to EB3.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 19282 spill over =27290 - 11563 Pending = 15727 VISA extra.
6) �Other Workers� � Pending: 264 TOTAL UNUSED VISAS = 15727-264 = 15463 UNUSED VISAS will go to the quota
of other countries.
Based on page 3, I do math as under for ROW categories.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota for EB4 -->7% x 140000/5=1960, Pending: 1378 Quota to be spilled over to EB1= 582
2) Quota for EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 40 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1920
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 582 + EB5 spillover 1920 = 10510 - pending 2477 = Total
8033 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 8033 =16031, Pending: 7150, So total 8881 VISA numbers will be spilled
over to EB3.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 8881 spill over =16889. Pending: 62840 -16889 = 45951 applications will
still be pending and pushed to year 2011.
Based on page 4, I do math as under for China categories.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota For EB4 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 384 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1576
2) Quota For EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 13 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1947
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 1576 + EB5 spillover 1947 = 11531 - pending 607 =
Total 10924 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 10924 =18932, Pending: 19333, So total 401 applications will be pushed to
year 2011 with pending approval.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + no spillover = 8008 � 6343 Pending = 1665 visas Extra.
6) �Other Workers� � Pending: 30 TOTAL UNUSED VISAS = 1665-30 = 1635 UNUSED VISAS will go to the quota
of other countries.
Based on page 5, I do math as under for India categories.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota for EB4 -->7% x 140000/5=1960, Pending: 123 Quota to be spilled over to EB1= 1960-123 = 1837
2) Quota for EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 13 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1960-13 = 1947
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 1837 + EB5 spillover 1947 = 11792 - pending 418 = Total
11374 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 11374 =19382, Pending: 47728, So total 28346 applications will still be
pending for year 2011.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008, no spill over. Pending: 62607 -8008 = 54599 applications will still be pending
and pushed to year 2011.
Based on page 6, I do math as under for Mexico categories.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota For EB4 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 62 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1960-62=1898
2) Quota For EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 0 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1960
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 1898 + EB5 spillover 1960 = 11866 - pending 174 =
Total 11692 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 11692 =19700, Pending: 211, So total 19489 applications will spill over to
EB3 category.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 19489 spillover = 27497 � 7878 Pending = 19619 visas Extra.
6) �Other Workers� � Pending: 8415 TOTAL UNUSED VISAS = 19619-8415 = 11204 UNUSED VISAS will go to the quota
of other countries.
TOTAL UNUSED VISAS = 15463 + 1635 + 11204 = 28302.
Assuming these unused visas from Philippines, China and Mexico will be used for India, ROW equally India will benefit additional 14151 VISAS this year. Assuming all of these go to EB2 India Pushed down figure for EB2-India for the year 2011 will be 28346 � 14151 = 14195 pending EB2-I applications ready to go to year 2011.
How did you come up with dividing by 5 that is like 20% per country. isn't the cap 7% per country?
28.6%/5 = 5.72% for EB2-India + spillover from EB1
28.6%/5 = 5.72% for EB1-India + spillover from EB4 and EB5
Each category is 28.6% WW Quota.
WW Quota consists of 5 country specific sub-quotas 1)India 2)China 3) Mexico 4) Philipines 5)ROW.
Based on page 1, I do math as under for Philippines categories.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota for EB4 -->7% x 140000/5=1960, Pending: 70 Quota to be spilled over to EB1= 1890
2) Quota for EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 0 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1960
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 1890 + EB5 spillover 1960 = 11858 - pending 74 = Total
11784 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 11784 =19792, Pending: 510, So total 19282 VISA numbers will be spilled
over to EB3.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 19282 spill over =27290 - 11563 Pending = 15727 VISA extra.
6) �Other Workers� � Pending: 264 TOTAL UNUSED VISAS = 15727-264 = 15463 UNUSED VISAS will go to the quota
of other countries.
Based on page 3, I do math as under for ROW categories.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota for EB4 -->7% x 140000/5=1960, Pending: 1378 Quota to be spilled over to EB1= 582
2) Quota for EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 40 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1920
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 582 + EB5 spillover 1920 = 10510 - pending 2477 = Total
8033 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 8033 =16031, Pending: 7150, So total 8881 VISA numbers will be spilled
over to EB3.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 8881 spill over =16889. Pending: 62840 -16889 = 45951 applications will
still be pending and pushed to year 2011.
Based on page 4, I do math as under for China categories.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota For EB4 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 384 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1576
2) Quota For EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 13 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1947
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 1576 + EB5 spillover 1947 = 11531 - pending 607 =
Total 10924 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 10924 =18932, Pending: 19333, So total 401 applications will be pushed to
year 2011 with pending approval.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + no spillover = 8008 � 6343 Pending = 1665 visas Extra.
6) �Other Workers� � Pending: 30 TOTAL UNUSED VISAS = 1665-30 = 1635 UNUSED VISAS will go to the quota
of other countries.
Based on page 5, I do math as under for India categories.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota for EB4 -->7% x 140000/5=1960, Pending: 123 Quota to be spilled over to EB1= 1960-123 = 1837
2) Quota for EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 13 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1960-13 = 1947
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 1837 + EB5 spillover 1947 = 11792 - pending 418 = Total
11374 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 11374 =19382, Pending: 47728, So total 28346 applications will still be
pending for year 2011.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008, no spill over. Pending: 62607 -8008 = 54599 applications will still be pending
and pushed to year 2011.
Based on page 6, I do math as under for Mexico categories.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Quota For EB4 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 62 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1960-62=1898
2) Quota For EB5 --> 7% x 140000 / 5 = 1960, Pending: 0 Quota to be spilled over to EB1 = 1960
3) Quota for EB1 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + EB4 spillover 1898 + EB5 spillover 1960 = 11866 - pending 174 =
Total 11692 will go to EB2
4) Quota for EB2 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 11692 =19700, Pending: 211, So total 19489 applications will spill over to
EB3 category.
5) Quota for EB3 --> 5.72% x 140000 = 8008 + 19489 spillover = 27497 � 7878 Pending = 19619 visas Extra.
6) �Other Workers� � Pending: 8415 TOTAL UNUSED VISAS = 19619-8415 = 11204 UNUSED VISAS will go to the quota
of other countries.
TOTAL UNUSED VISAS = 15463 + 1635 + 11204 = 28302.
Assuming these unused visas from Philippines, China and Mexico will be used for India, ROW equally India will benefit additional 14151 VISAS this year. Assuming all of these go to EB2 India Pushed down figure for EB2-India for the year 2011 will be 28346 � 14151 = 14195 pending EB2-I applications ready to go to year 2011.
How did you come up with dividing by 5 that is like 20% per country. isn't the cap 7% per country?
girlfriend Selena Gomez#39; exclusive Dream
DallasBlue
08-12 02:44 PM
http://www.ailf.org/lac/clearinghouse_mandamus.shtml
Plaintiffs' Arguments
Plaintiffs have responded to USCIS with legal arguments summarized below. The case citations provide recent examples of cases where the courts have agreed with plaintiffs' arguments. For further discussion of the elements of a successful mandamus complaint, see AILF's Practice Advisory, "Mandamus Actions: Avoiding Dismissal and Proving the Case."
1) Plaintiffs have a clear right to have their adjustment applications and visa petitions adjudicated in a timely manner.
Plaintiffs maintain that the right to adjudication is derived from USCIS's mandatory duty to process the applications and the fact that plaintiffs are the intended beneficiaries of the applications. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (providing that the "applicant shall be notified of the decision of the director and, if the application is denied, the reasons for the denial"); Haidari v. Frazier, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177, *10 (D. Minn. 2006) (holding that 8 C.F.R. � 209.2 creates a nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate adjustment applications).
The plaintiffs' right to a timely adjudication, though not explicit in the regulation, is present in section 555(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires that "with due regard for the convenience and necessity of the parties or their representatives and within a reasonable time, each agency shall proceed to conclude a matter presented to it." See Haidari, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *11. To determine if a delay is unreasonable, courts examine the reasons for delay. For example, they look to whether USCIS asked for the FBI name check in a timely manner and whether USCIS failed to timely process the applications before requesting the name check and after receiving the information from the FBI. See Haidari, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *16-17; Singh v. Still, No. 06-2458, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16334, *13-14 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (reasoning that respondents failed to explain why it took two-and-a-half years to initiate a security check with the FBI, why no action was taken to follow up with the FBI until the mandamus suit was filed, and why it took so long to process plaintiff's initial fingerprints); Aboushaban v. Mueller, No. 06-1280, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81076, *14 (N.D. Cal. 2006) ("[t]he FBI's delay in processing plaintiff's name check remains largely unexplained, and the remainder of defendants' arguments do not adequately excuse the delays plaintiff encountered.").
2) USCIS has a nondiscretionary duty to process applications and petitions.
USCIS has the discretion to grant or deny the application, but this does not bear on the nondiscretionary duty to make a decision on the application or petition. See Razaq v. Poulos, No. 06-2461, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 770, *9-10 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (reasoning that the fact that there is no specific deadline in the statute or regulation does not change the ministerial duty to process the application). In addition, INA � 242(a)(2)(B)(ii), 8 U.S.C. �1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), does not strip the court of jurisdiction to hear mandamus actions because no "decision or action" has taken place within the meaning of the statutory language. See Haidari, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *13-14 (D. Minn. 2006) (reasoning that because plaintiffs have neither been denied nor granted relief, � 242(a)(2)(B) does not bar jurisdiction); Li Duan v. Zamberry, No. 06-1351, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12697, *6-7 (W.D. Pa. 2007) (finding that INA � 242(a)(2)(B) does not apply because the pace of the adjudication of applications is not the type of discretionary "action" contemplated by the statute). For more information and earlier case law addressing discretionary decisions after the REAL ID Act please see AILF Practice Advisory, "Federal Court Jurisdiction Over Discretionary Decisions After REAL ID: Mandamus, Other Affirmative Suits and Petitions for Review."
3) There is no other remedy available to plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs also have argued that waiting for security checks to be completed is not an adequate remedy. The fact that plaintiffs are waiting is the exact harm plaintiffs are seeking to remedy. See Singh, No. 06-2458, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16334 at *23-24 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ("waiting for an agency to act cannot logically be an adequate alternative to an order compelling the agency to act. . .") (citations omitted); Haidari, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *15 (D. Minn. 2006) (reasoning that waiting is not an adequate remedy because the question is whether plaintiffs have an adequate alternative remedy to the waiting itself).
Plaintiffs' Arguments
Plaintiffs have responded to USCIS with legal arguments summarized below. The case citations provide recent examples of cases where the courts have agreed with plaintiffs' arguments. For further discussion of the elements of a successful mandamus complaint, see AILF's Practice Advisory, "Mandamus Actions: Avoiding Dismissal and Proving the Case."
1) Plaintiffs have a clear right to have their adjustment applications and visa petitions adjudicated in a timely manner.
Plaintiffs maintain that the right to adjudication is derived from USCIS's mandatory duty to process the applications and the fact that plaintiffs are the intended beneficiaries of the applications. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (providing that the "applicant shall be notified of the decision of the director and, if the application is denied, the reasons for the denial"); Haidari v. Frazier, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177, *10 (D. Minn. 2006) (holding that 8 C.F.R. � 209.2 creates a nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate adjustment applications).
The plaintiffs' right to a timely adjudication, though not explicit in the regulation, is present in section 555(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires that "with due regard for the convenience and necessity of the parties or their representatives and within a reasonable time, each agency shall proceed to conclude a matter presented to it." See Haidari, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *11. To determine if a delay is unreasonable, courts examine the reasons for delay. For example, they look to whether USCIS asked for the FBI name check in a timely manner and whether USCIS failed to timely process the applications before requesting the name check and after receiving the information from the FBI. See Haidari, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *16-17; Singh v. Still, No. 06-2458, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16334, *13-14 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (reasoning that respondents failed to explain why it took two-and-a-half years to initiate a security check with the FBI, why no action was taken to follow up with the FBI until the mandamus suit was filed, and why it took so long to process plaintiff's initial fingerprints); Aboushaban v. Mueller, No. 06-1280, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81076, *14 (N.D. Cal. 2006) ("[t]he FBI's delay in processing plaintiff's name check remains largely unexplained, and the remainder of defendants' arguments do not adequately excuse the delays plaintiff encountered.").
2) USCIS has a nondiscretionary duty to process applications and petitions.
USCIS has the discretion to grant or deny the application, but this does not bear on the nondiscretionary duty to make a decision on the application or petition. See Razaq v. Poulos, No. 06-2461, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 770, *9-10 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (reasoning that the fact that there is no specific deadline in the statute or regulation does not change the ministerial duty to process the application). In addition, INA � 242(a)(2)(B)(ii), 8 U.S.C. �1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), does not strip the court of jurisdiction to hear mandamus actions because no "decision or action" has taken place within the meaning of the statutory language. See Haidari, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *13-14 (D. Minn. 2006) (reasoning that because plaintiffs have neither been denied nor granted relief, � 242(a)(2)(B) does not bar jurisdiction); Li Duan v. Zamberry, No. 06-1351, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12697, *6-7 (W.D. Pa. 2007) (finding that INA � 242(a)(2)(B) does not apply because the pace of the adjudication of applications is not the type of discretionary "action" contemplated by the statute). For more information and earlier case law addressing discretionary decisions after the REAL ID Act please see AILF Practice Advisory, "Federal Court Jurisdiction Over Discretionary Decisions After REAL ID: Mandamus, Other Affirmative Suits and Petitions for Review."
3) There is no other remedy available to plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs also have argued that waiting for security checks to be completed is not an adequate remedy. The fact that plaintiffs are waiting is the exact harm plaintiffs are seeking to remedy. See Singh, No. 06-2458, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16334 at *23-24 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ("waiting for an agency to act cannot logically be an adequate alternative to an order compelling the agency to act. . .") (citations omitted); Haidari, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *15 (D. Minn. 2006) (reasoning that waiting is not an adequate remedy because the question is whether plaintiffs have an adequate alternative remedy to the waiting itself).
hairstyles Selena Gomez - Round And Round
ivar
08-21 10:45 AM
Is this correct ....
We did further research and found out that, Vonage considers more than 5,000 minutes per line per month for unlimited residential calling and more than 10,000 minutes per line per month for unlimited small business calling is not to be considered normal use. That means the moment you run over 5000 minutes (Vonage World Plan is residential plan), Vonage will cut you off.
Lets do some calculations for calling India. You pay $25 a month and you will get 5000 minutes per month of calling. $25/5000 minutes means 0.5 cents per minutes which is really cheap.
Free VOIP Solution Free calls Worldwide (http://voipguides.blogspot.com/)
Along with free india callling you also have the basic feature of calling unlimited in US for 24.99. Which looks pretty good to me. I already have a vonage service for 24.99 and it was a free upgrade to this new plan(after i called the customer service rep) and still i am paying the same 24.99 which is good.
We did further research and found out that, Vonage considers more than 5,000 minutes per line per month for unlimited residential calling and more than 10,000 minutes per line per month for unlimited small business calling is not to be considered normal use. That means the moment you run over 5000 minutes (Vonage World Plan is residential plan), Vonage will cut you off.
Lets do some calculations for calling India. You pay $25 a month and you will get 5000 minutes per month of calling. $25/5000 minutes means 0.5 cents per minutes which is really cheap.
Free VOIP Solution Free calls Worldwide (http://voipguides.blogspot.com/)
Along with free india callling you also have the basic feature of calling unlimited in US for 24.99. Which looks pretty good to me. I already have a vonage service for 24.99 and it was a free upgrade to this new plan(after i called the customer service rep) and still i am paying the same 24.99 which is good.
gc_on_demand
03-31 09:13 AM
I think you have wrong info... Last year, EB2 I&C did receive spill over from EB2 ROW, EB1 (~3K), EB5.. Also from reading other posts it is my understanding that in fact there was NO spill over from Family Based.
I could be wrong though!!
May be I am wrong. I want to be wrong since I would like to File for I 485 , but this is from DOS site, can you share your source ?
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY10AnnualReport-TableV.pdf
Table V (Part 2)
You will see total at the bottom of this page.
E1 = 41,026
E2 = 53,872
E3 = 42,431
E4 = 11,048
E5 = 1,885 [Table V (Part 3)]
If allocation for 2010 was like below then EB1 gave us 1 k ,
E1 = 42.5
E2 = 42.5
E3 = 42.5
E4 = 11.5
E5 = 11
Then Eb1 gave only 1k. E2 ROW didn't give any. Eb2 India / China got from Eb1 and EB2 row is because of overflow from family based.
We are lacking those number this year. I would say if we didn't have those 10k family visas spill over would be only 10k for 2010.
I could be wrong though!!
May be I am wrong. I want to be wrong since I would like to File for I 485 , but this is from DOS site, can you share your source ?
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY10AnnualReport-TableV.pdf
Table V (Part 2)
You will see total at the bottom of this page.
E1 = 41,026
E2 = 53,872
E3 = 42,431
E4 = 11,048
E5 = 1,885 [Table V (Part 3)]
If allocation for 2010 was like below then EB1 gave us 1 k ,
E1 = 42.5
E2 = 42.5
E3 = 42.5
E4 = 11.5
E5 = 11
Then Eb1 gave only 1k. E2 ROW didn't give any. Eb2 India / China got from Eb1 and EB2 row is because of overflow from family based.
We are lacking those number this year. I would say if we didn't have those 10k family visas spill over would be only 10k for 2010.
kiran24
06-29 06:23 PM
I can't believe this is happening to me. My priority date became current as of June1. My attorney has sent my wife's petition to Chicago instead of NSC. He got the petition returned this afternoon. I got my I485 approved on June 25. My wife is currently out of status. If the rumor is true, I'll be totally screwed. After 10 years in this country, a dumb mistake pretty much ruined my life.
Why did your attorney send the package to Chicago instead of NSC??
Who is your attorney??
Why did your attorney send the package to Chicago instead of NSC??
Who is your attorney??
No comments:
Post a Comment