WeldonSprings
08-27 12:20 PM
Also, don't you think that 20000 CP numbers would be included in the monthly numbers or are the monthly numbers just AOS numbers?
There are few issues
You have missed 20k annual CP cases
The acceptance rate of I-485 application (big unknow) would change the number a lot.
July was a slow month but August was big mover so 11k visa is just too low for this period.
There are few issues
You have missed 20k annual CP cases
The acceptance rate of I-485 application (big unknow) would change the number a lot.
July was a slow month but August was big mover so 11k visa is just too low for this period.
wallpaper This Art Nouveau advertising
veerug
07-04 12:31 AM
I have great respect for some of the core members i know. They have done lot of work to make this forum successful. But i always think that you can increase participation if you make things more clear and take comments in a positive way.
I am sure many guest members or other frequent visitors to IV website get the impression that there is always a fund drive for something or the other on the IV Website homepage and there is always a target amount which never seems to be met.
I understand that there are expenses to maintain the website etc, but here we are talking about fund drive for lawsuit. Sometimes I wonder what will happen if you can not collect $5000 so will you wait to file a lawsuit until you collect $5000? May it will be too late then. What if you collect only say $4000? How do you decide these arbitrary numbers?
Are you planning for a separate litigation from that of AILF? How will you complement the effort by AILF with money?
Hey, who am I to ask these questions! These are some of the questions on behalf of hundreds of members who need to know more to actively participate to make it a success. There is no reason you should take it in a negative way.
Veeru
I will sleep less stupid tonight!!
I am sure many guest members or other frequent visitors to IV website get the impression that there is always a fund drive for something or the other on the IV Website homepage and there is always a target amount which never seems to be met.
I understand that there are expenses to maintain the website etc, but here we are talking about fund drive for lawsuit. Sometimes I wonder what will happen if you can not collect $5000 so will you wait to file a lawsuit until you collect $5000? May it will be too late then. What if you collect only say $4000? How do you decide these arbitrary numbers?
Are you planning for a separate litigation from that of AILF? How will you complement the effort by AILF with money?
Hey, who am I to ask these questions! These are some of the questions on behalf of hundreds of members who need to know more to actively participate to make it a success. There is no reason you should take it in a negative way.
Veeru
I will sleep less stupid tonight!!
shukla77
09-26 10:14 AM
Wrote to editor to correct the mistake.
2011 the decorative Art Nouveau
ramus
07-04 08:20 AM
Veerug,
I understand your concern. But $5000 was just number put by me as target.. I am sure we need more then that.. I feel if we put some target then people contribute and try to achieve it. But core member never said we just need $5000. So please don't stick with that number.. That number was just target that I thought we could meet. If you ask core members they going to say that we need more then that. As you know everything needs money.. Core is putting their time and mmoney and doing this all for everybody.. At least we can do is act on their action items.
Hope this makes little sense.
Thanks.
I have great respect for some of the core members i know. They have done lot of work to make this forum successful. But i always think that you can increase participation if you make things more clear and take comments in a positive way.
I am sure many guest members or other frequent visitors to IV website get the impression that there is always a fund drive for something or the other on the IV Website homepage and there is always a target amount which never seems to be met.
I understand that there are expenses to maintain the website etc, but here we are talking about fund drive for lawsuit. Sometimes I wonder what will happen if you can not collect $5000 so will you wait to file a lawsuit until you collect $5000? May it will be too late then. What if you collect only say $4000? How do you decide these arbitrary numbers?
Are you planning for a separate litigation from that of AILF? How will you complement the effort by AILF with money?
Hey, who am I to ask these questions! These are some of the questions on behalf of hundreds of members who need to know more to actively participate to make it a success. There is no reason you should take it in a negative way.
Veeru
I will sleep less stupid tonight!!
I understand your concern. But $5000 was just number put by me as target.. I am sure we need more then that.. I feel if we put some target then people contribute and try to achieve it. But core member never said we just need $5000. So please don't stick with that number.. That number was just target that I thought we could meet. If you ask core members they going to say that we need more then that. As you know everything needs money.. Core is putting their time and mmoney and doing this all for everybody.. At least we can do is act on their action items.
Hope this makes little sense.
Thanks.
I have great respect for some of the core members i know. They have done lot of work to make this forum successful. But i always think that you can increase participation if you make things more clear and take comments in a positive way.
I am sure many guest members or other frequent visitors to IV website get the impression that there is always a fund drive for something or the other on the IV Website homepage and there is always a target amount which never seems to be met.
I understand that there are expenses to maintain the website etc, but here we are talking about fund drive for lawsuit. Sometimes I wonder what will happen if you can not collect $5000 so will you wait to file a lawsuit until you collect $5000? May it will be too late then. What if you collect only say $4000? How do you decide these arbitrary numbers?
Are you planning for a separate litigation from that of AILF? How will you complement the effort by AILF with money?
Hey, who am I to ask these questions! These are some of the questions on behalf of hundreds of members who need to know more to actively participate to make it a success. There is no reason you should take it in a negative way.
Veeru
I will sleep less stupid tonight!!
more...
kishdam
02-20 03:28 PM
Thats a slight good news (in the current bad news or no news era regarding legal immigration) - hopefully there are are enough EB1 spillover visas to move EB2 by a few months each quarter.
perm2gc
01-17 01:34 PM
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/immigrationforum/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/immigration-usa/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/immigration-usa/
more...
masaternyc
03-16 05:55 PM
Infinite_Patience_GC,
Most of these labor substitutes are sold/bought by these so called software consultancies(illegal dhanda) to so called software professionals and should be investigated and prosecuted to the full extent of law.
Most of these labor substitutes are sold/bought by these so called software consultancies(illegal dhanda) to so called software professionals and should be investigated and prosecuted to the full extent of law.
2010 ART NOUVEAU artist .
mihird
07-09 03:58 PM
I dont think legally you can sue someone, because they have worked harder.
I posted this link , so that everybody may know the legal reasons, which we can present in a court of law.
If this lawsuit is accepted by the court , then the USCIS lawyers would tell what exactly happened.
I till now personally believe , that the USCIS/DOS hasnt broken any law.
They may have however changed a pettern,process , but no law has been broken.
It took them 6 months to consume 66K visas and then another 15 days to process another 66K.
It is reasonably safe to assume, either correct procedures were not followed in the past or were not followed in the last 2 weeks. Only a judge can order USCIS to elobarte on what processes were followed in the last 2 weeks (FBI name checks and security clearances skipped...etc. etc.)
They made people expend (or rather waste) millions of dollars in preparing the paperwork...and then changed the process abruptly on July 2nd..with no advance notice...they could have published a guidance in the July bulletin itself of this possibly happening, if not published a guidance sometime later...
There is no doubt, that the entire chain of events were premeditated...and the communication mix-up as claimed by Condoleezza Rice on TV was a deliberate one..
I doubt if this will all fly in court...they certainly owe the millions of wasted dollars and thousands of wasted hours in preparing the paperwork, back to the applicants/attornies...at the least...
Keep in mind, the AILF rarely files a law suit against the government, and most of their law suits have had favorable outcomes..
I posted this link , so that everybody may know the legal reasons, which we can present in a court of law.
If this lawsuit is accepted by the court , then the USCIS lawyers would tell what exactly happened.
I till now personally believe , that the USCIS/DOS hasnt broken any law.
They may have however changed a pettern,process , but no law has been broken.
It took them 6 months to consume 66K visas and then another 15 days to process another 66K.
It is reasonably safe to assume, either correct procedures were not followed in the past or were not followed in the last 2 weeks. Only a judge can order USCIS to elobarte on what processes were followed in the last 2 weeks (FBI name checks and security clearances skipped...etc. etc.)
They made people expend (or rather waste) millions of dollars in preparing the paperwork...and then changed the process abruptly on July 2nd..with no advance notice...they could have published a guidance in the July bulletin itself of this possibly happening, if not published a guidance sometime later...
There is no doubt, that the entire chain of events were premeditated...and the communication mix-up as claimed by Condoleezza Rice on TV was a deliberate one..
I doubt if this will all fly in court...they certainly owe the millions of wasted dollars and thousands of wasted hours in preparing the paperwork, back to the applicants/attornies...at the least...
Keep in mind, the AILF rarely files a law suit against the government, and most of their law suits have had favorable outcomes..
more...
BharatPremi
09-26 07:23 PM
[QUOTE=BharatPremi;173398]Hermione,
How confident are you to call them "Ignorant".... It could be very planned and calculative agenda. Writer writes in CNN. Never ever be ignorant about their tactful agenda, capacity and wilful application of the polity.[QUOTE]
Yeah, and everyone is out there to get you.
Honestly, I think it is a waste of time to try to educate Americans what is what in immigration system. We need to push for our issues by proving why it is a good thing for the country, and not get caught up in this vs that. OK, so you convince the editor that the rally was not about H1Bs. All he will do is wack the sentence about the rally out of the article, because now it does not refer to the topic of the article, which is about H1 visas. Would that be an achievement? Hardly.
I agree with you partially. It may not be achievement but at least readers will not be misinformed and become aware about our real agenda.
How confident are you to call them "Ignorant".... It could be very planned and calculative agenda. Writer writes in CNN. Never ever be ignorant about their tactful agenda, capacity and wilful application of the polity.[QUOTE]
Yeah, and everyone is out there to get you.
Honestly, I think it is a waste of time to try to educate Americans what is what in immigration system. We need to push for our issues by proving why it is a good thing for the country, and not get caught up in this vs that. OK, so you convince the editor that the rally was not about H1Bs. All he will do is wack the sentence about the rally out of the article, because now it does not refer to the topic of the article, which is about H1 visas. Would that be an achievement? Hardly.
I agree with you partially. It may not be achievement but at least readers will not be misinformed and become aware about our real agenda.
hair Art Nouveau artists stressed
tikka
07-02 08:20 PM
I put in $100 today to fight for our cause
for your contribution:)
for your contribution:)
more...
willIWill
11-11 06:01 PM
Questions about Quarterly Spill Over with respect to Yearly Country Limit.
Since we are on this Topic, Do any IV Users know or can point links to articles/statute for the following questions to gain a better understanding ?
- Is the ‘Yearly per Country Quota’ broken down and established for every Quarter? I.e. 1/4th of the 7% yearly limit
- So if assuming the quarterly Country quota holds and the USCIS does the spillover to the over subscribed countries in one quarter.
Then for the next quarter what numbers will they assess for the quota count? Is it just the standard quarterly limit or the ‘quarterly limit + the spill over that they did the previous quarter’? And what if that exceeds the 7% yearly limit and how will they proceed forward from there.
Thanks.
Since we are on this Topic, Do any IV Users know or can point links to articles/statute for the following questions to gain a better understanding ?
- Is the ‘Yearly per Country Quota’ broken down and established for every Quarter? I.e. 1/4th of the 7% yearly limit
- So if assuming the quarterly Country quota holds and the USCIS does the spillover to the over subscribed countries in one quarter.
Then for the next quarter what numbers will they assess for the quota count? Is it just the standard quarterly limit or the ‘quarterly limit + the spill over that they did the previous quarter’? And what if that exceeds the 7% yearly limit and how will they proceed forward from there.
Thanks.
hot Art Nouveau domino pendant and
pappu
09-10 09:38 AM
EB1 - all current
|
|
\/
EB2 Applications with old Priority Dates (Mostly EB2 - India / China)
|
|
\/
|
| ( When above EB2 India/China gets current 2-3years? )
\/
EB3 Applications with old Priority Dates (Mostly EB3 - India / China/ Mexico)
.
Thank you for putting a link to my long post in your signature. I had forgotten about it. I tried to sum up my thoughts and tried to answer some EB3 I folks who fail to see the problems and solutions. They only see things from their narrow lens and have no idea of the realities. Some of them refuse to listen to us. But if a lawyer on some website tell them the same thing, they would not only listen to that lawyer but also praise the lawyer. I came across one member who even put a picture on his website because he may have felt that this lawyer is his savior to lobby congress for his green card dream. :) But he refused to listen to us and see reason. This only shows our community fails to believe in themselves and what they can do together. We will continue to live a life of suffering, waiting and tracking greencard, predicting visa bulletins and writing posts on the forums. This is the sad reality. I hope others who whine on the forums read that post and it prods them to wake up and do something about their 'depression'. Once you wake up and decide to do something, then contact IV. We will help you.
|
|
\/
EB2 Applications with old Priority Dates (Mostly EB2 - India / China)
|
|
\/
|
| ( When above EB2 India/China gets current 2-3years? )
\/
EB3 Applications with old Priority Dates (Mostly EB3 - India / China/ Mexico)
.
Thank you for putting a link to my long post in your signature. I had forgotten about it. I tried to sum up my thoughts and tried to answer some EB3 I folks who fail to see the problems and solutions. They only see things from their narrow lens and have no idea of the realities. Some of them refuse to listen to us. But if a lawyer on some website tell them the same thing, they would not only listen to that lawyer but also praise the lawyer. I came across one member who even put a picture on his website because he may have felt that this lawyer is his savior to lobby congress for his green card dream. :) But he refused to listen to us and see reason. This only shows our community fails to believe in themselves and what they can do together. We will continue to live a life of suffering, waiting and tracking greencard, predicting visa bulletins and writing posts on the forums. This is the sad reality. I hope others who whine on the forums read that post and it prods them to wake up and do something about their 'depression'. Once you wake up and decide to do something, then contact IV. We will help you.
more...
house Art Nouveau Advertising Poster
bayarea07
09-10 02:20 PM
I dont think its the Right Link the link that you sent has lot of action going on but
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/calendar.html
has people moving all over the place and no action
I found another link. Not sure if its the right one ?
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN_wm.aspx
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/calendar.html
has people moving all over the place and no action
I found another link. Not sure if its the right one ?
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN_wm.aspx
tattoo epitomizes Art Nouveau.
coolmanasip
03-10 10:27 AM
Guys.....if you want to change representation to self in your 485 case, you do not need to file a form G-28......G-28 is for lawyers seeking permission to represent you. You do not need a permission for yourself............all you have to do is send USCIS a letter saying all future correspondence should be done with you and you are representing yourself on this case hereon....follow up after a month after sending the letter to ensure they have changed you as the point of contact on the case........If you are substituting your current lawyer by another one, then you need a new G-28
more...
pictures Art Nouveau | Daily Art Fixx
vin
06-12 03:02 PM
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-immig13jun13,1,432583.story?coll=la-headlines-nation
There are splits within the Republican and Democratic parties over the issue, but both sides say they think they can muster 60 votes -- the number needed to overcome a filibuster -- if they can resolve their procedural issues.
McConnell said he thought it was unlikely the president's visit would sway many Republicans. "I think most senators have pretty well made up their minds where they are on this, and I think there are a reasonable number of Republicans who in the end are likely to help get us get it through," McConnell said in a conference call with reporters.
There are splits within the Republican and Democratic parties over the issue, but both sides say they think they can muster 60 votes -- the number needed to overcome a filibuster -- if they can resolve their procedural issues.
McConnell said he thought it was unlikely the president's visit would sway many Republicans. "I think most senators have pretty well made up their minds where they are on this, and I think there are a reasonable number of Republicans who in the end are likely to help get us get it through," McConnell said in a conference call with reporters.
dresses as Art Nouveau together
485InDreams
09-26 09:33 AM
I jus send the mail to editor...
I've also send the link to businessweek and Nytimes..where they have written it correctly...
I've also send the link to businessweek and Nytimes..where they have written it correctly...
more...
makeup Art Nouveau Ivy Portrait by
ajay
07-01 04:59 PM
I completely support this idea.
girlfriend 1900 by Art Nouveau artist
transpass
04-10 12:07 PM
Here are the details for last year and years before:
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
Thanks Kondur. That was a very good presentation of the numbers. I very much appreciate it.
Now,
1. Why did EB1 last year needed spillover visas, although it was current all the time? If a category is current, isn't that it has less demand than allocated numbers?
2. As per May bulletin, EB4 might need a cut off. So we cannot expect any spillover from EB4. So that is clear. Now the spillover chances are from EB5, EB2 ROW and EB1(?). I am including EB1 because, given the current economy over the past year, should there be a better possibility of more spillover from EB2 ROW and EB1 compared to last year?
3. Also why are the total EB numbers different in different fiscal years (e.g., 141020 in FY2009, 162949 in FY 2008 and 154497 in FY2007)? In FYs 2007 and 2008 did the extra visas come from Family based while it did not for FY 2009? If so, why is it so?
4. Based on Pending 485 data of March 2010, I barely see few hundred EB4s. And hardly considerable number of EB1s. What's going on? If we go by this data, we should be getting good chunk of spillover numbers...
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Green%20Card/Green%20Card%20Through%20a%20Job/Employment%20Based%20I-485%20Pending%20Inventory-Total%203-8-2010.pdf
Thanks,
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
Thanks Kondur. That was a very good presentation of the numbers. I very much appreciate it.
Now,
1. Why did EB1 last year needed spillover visas, although it was current all the time? If a category is current, isn't that it has less demand than allocated numbers?
2. As per May bulletin, EB4 might need a cut off. So we cannot expect any spillover from EB4. So that is clear. Now the spillover chances are from EB5, EB2 ROW and EB1(?). I am including EB1 because, given the current economy over the past year, should there be a better possibility of more spillover from EB2 ROW and EB1 compared to last year?
3. Also why are the total EB numbers different in different fiscal years (e.g., 141020 in FY2009, 162949 in FY 2008 and 154497 in FY2007)? In FYs 2007 and 2008 did the extra visas come from Family based while it did not for FY 2009? If so, why is it so?
4. Based on Pending 485 data of March 2010, I barely see few hundred EB4s. And hardly considerable number of EB1s. What's going on? If we go by this data, we should be getting good chunk of spillover numbers...
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Green%20Card/Green%20Card%20Through%20a%20Job/Employment%20Based%20I-485%20Pending%20Inventory-Total%203-8-2010.pdf
Thanks,
hairstyles art oct artnouveaumucha
Guest007
12-11 02:51 PM
In the worst case may be we can try to find out if filling 485 is hinderence, they can split the process of Filiing EAD and AP seperately from 485
NKR
02-20 03:17 PM
Thanks Googler. This wait for GC has made me forget the definition of patience :)
greyhair
02-11 12:40 PM
The visa numbers reported as used for FY 2009 is 141,020 from http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09...ort_TableV.pdf
This was the response i got from Ron Gotcher.
"The employment based category is entitled to use the "unused" family based numbers from the previous year. Last year, the quota for EB was the base of 140,000, plus another 13,000 shifted over from FB. Unfortunately, the CIS failed once again to approve enough cases to use up the entire available quota."
If this is true, we have lost a lot of visas last year.
Now with aprox. 10,000 visas shifted from FB, we should hope they use about 150,000 (140,000 + 10,000) this year.
Is there a way to confirm this? We got to do something to resolve this problem
There is a huge backlog in FB category. How come there are 13,000 unused visas in FB. If any immigration business shop is so confident about their assertion, why do they not file a lawsuit on CIS. Why are they posting these messages on different forums? Do they just want to gain visibility? It seems that its better business practice is to write random statements like 'CIS failed again' without having the willingness to do something about CIS failure. Aren't there clients with pending 485 of this immigration shop. As their lawyer and with fiduciary duty towards his clients, if he is so confident of CIS failure, why is he not filing a lawsuit on CIS to guard the interest of his clients.
This was the response i got from Ron Gotcher.
"The employment based category is entitled to use the "unused" family based numbers from the previous year. Last year, the quota for EB was the base of 140,000, plus another 13,000 shifted over from FB. Unfortunately, the CIS failed once again to approve enough cases to use up the entire available quota."
If this is true, we have lost a lot of visas last year.
Now with aprox. 10,000 visas shifted from FB, we should hope they use about 150,000 (140,000 + 10,000) this year.
Is there a way to confirm this? We got to do something to resolve this problem
There is a huge backlog in FB category. How come there are 13,000 unused visas in FB. If any immigration business shop is so confident about their assertion, why do they not file a lawsuit on CIS. Why are they posting these messages on different forums? Do they just want to gain visibility? It seems that its better business practice is to write random statements like 'CIS failed again' without having the willingness to do something about CIS failure. Aren't there clients with pending 485 of this immigration shop. As their lawyer and with fiduciary duty towards his clients, if he is so confident of CIS failure, why is he not filing a lawsuit on CIS to guard the interest of his clients.
No comments:
Post a Comment