satishku_2000
01-02 08:04 PM
For me its about the higher prize...thats citizenship...
I want to be here for good unless asked to leave. But at times it frustrates me to think that I will be well over age of 40 when I get my green card (Assuming that nothing will happen to alleviate the retrogression issue)...
And I keep asking myself whether its worth the wait (Waiting for 10 or 15 years and working for same employer and same position) ... I think its a valid question.
I want to be here for good unless asked to leave. But at times it frustrates me to think that I will be well over age of 40 when I get my green card (Assuming that nothing will happen to alleviate the retrogression issue)...
And I keep asking myself whether its worth the wait (Waiting for 10 or 15 years and working for same employer and same position) ... I think its a valid question.
wallpaper Wizards of Waverly Place”
vicky007
04-11 02:57 PM
Gurus, my I-140 petition is pending due to Retrogression.Any idea what would be the scenario when the Pending cases at the Philadelphia Backlog Elimination Centre come through? what i am trying to find here is how many of these cases would be Pre June 2002 ?As per my research,majority of Cases at the Philadelphia centre are post June 2002.
Regards
Regards
gonecrazyonh4
04-25 11:04 AM
My husband has been working on H1B with a leading company in USA since early 2000. Our Labor was filed in March 2005 and is stuck at BEC. I am on H4 and am not able to work or contribute.
One of our friends starting working in USA through a consultant in late 2004. Filed his I-140 directly with a substitute PD in June 2005. They received their EAD same year in October 2005 and received his physical Green card on February 2006 . He used a priority date of 1999 due to his substitute PD. Now he is a free bird and can move jobs, his wife can work and they receive all the benefits of green card.
How fair can this be?
We are unable to move, take up a better job, receive a promotion or take up fulltime studies even after getting admission in best Universities due to our Visa situation.
Sweeping changes are necessary in immigration rules and the date the person starts to work on H1B should be considered as the priority date. It will eliminate lot of corruption and reward those who truly contribute to the economy.
One of our friends starting working in USA through a consultant in late 2004. Filed his I-140 directly with a substitute PD in June 2005. They received their EAD same year in October 2005 and received his physical Green card on February 2006 . He used a priority date of 1999 due to his substitute PD. Now he is a free bird and can move jobs, his wife can work and they receive all the benefits of green card.
How fair can this be?
We are unable to move, take up a better job, receive a promotion or take up fulltime studies even after getting admission in best Universities due to our Visa situation.
Sweeping changes are necessary in immigration rules and the date the person starts to work on H1B should be considered as the priority date. It will eliminate lot of corruption and reward those who truly contribute to the economy.
2011 Wizards of Waverly Place cast.
singhsa3
07-20 01:27 PM
Brother, the whole point of making them accept our application was to get interim benefits. If those get delayed then obviously we all should be concerned.
It makes me laugh. Everyone screams and jumps up and down that they can't be part of a 750,000 person flood to USCIS.
And then they get that right.
And then they get all mad that they have to wait for their EADs.
I don't see how USCIS could ever make anyone happy!
It makes me laugh. Everyone screams and jumps up and down that they can't be part of a 750,000 person flood to USCIS.
And then they get that right.
And then they get all mad that they have to wait for their EADs.
I don't see how USCIS could ever make anyone happy!
more...
pappu
08-12 10:55 AM
Senate Passage of Border Security Legislation
August 12, 2010
Today, I come to the floor to seek unanimous consent to pass a smart, tough, and effective $600 million bill that will significantly enhance the security and integrity of our nation’s southern border—which currently lacks the resources needed to fully combat the drug smugglers, gun-runners, human-traffickers, money launderers and other organized criminals that seek to do harm to innocent Americans along our border….
The best part of this border package, Mr. President, is that it is fully paid for and does not increase the deficit by a single penny. In actuality, the Congressional Budget Office has determined that this bill will yield a direct savings to taxpayers of $50 million….
The emergency border funds we are passing today are fully paid for by assessing fees on certain types of companies who hire foreign workers using certain types of visas in a way that Congress did not intend. I want to take a moment to explain exactly what we are doing in this bill a little further because I want everyone to clearly understand how these offsets are designed.
In 1990, Congress realized that the world was changing rapidly and that technological innovations like the internet were creating a high demand in the United States for high-tech workers to create new technologies and products. Consequently, Congress created the H-1B visa program to allow U.S. employers to hire foreign tech workers in special circumstances when they could not find an American citizen who was qualified for the job.
Many of the companies that use this program today are using the program in the exact way Congress intended. That is, these companies (like Microsoft, IBM, and Intel) are hiring bright foreign students educated in our American universities to work in the U.S. for 6 or 7 years to invent new product lines and technologies so that Microsoft, IBM, and Intel can sell more products to the American public. Then—at the expiration of the H-1B visa period—these companies apply for these talented workers to earn green cards and stay with the company.
When the H-1B visa program is used in this manner, it is a good program for everyone involved. It is good for the company. It is good for the worker. And it is good for the American people who benefit from the products and jobs created by the innovation of the H-1B visa holder.
Every day, companies like Oracle, Cisco, Apple and others use the H-1B visa program in the exact way I have just described—and their use of the program has greatly benefitted this country.
But recently, some companies have decided to exploit an unintended loophole in the H-1B visa program to use the program in a manner that many in Congress, including myself, do not believe is consistent with the program’s intent.
Rather than being a company that makes something, and simply needs to bring in a talented foreign worker to help innovate and create new products and technologies—these other companies are essentially creating “multinational temp agencies” that were never contemplated when the H-1B program was created.
The business model of these newer companies is not to make any new products or technologies like Microsoft or Apple does. Instead, their business model is to bring foreign tech workers into the United States who are willing to accept less pay than their American counterparts, place these workers into other companies in exchange for a “consulting fee,” and transfer these workers from company to company in order to maximize profits from placement fees. In other words, these companies are petitioning for foreign workers simply to then turn around and provide these same workers to other companies who need cheap labor for various short term projects.
Don’t take my word for it. If you look at the marketing materials of some of the companies that fall within the scope covered by today’s legislation, their materials boast about their “outsourcing expertise” and say that their advantage is their ability to conduct what they call “labor arbitrage” which is—in their own words—“transferring work functions to a lower cost environment for increased savings.”
The business model used by these companies within the United States is creating three major negative side effects. First, it is ruining the reputation of the H-1B program, which is overwhelmingly used by good actors for beneficial purposes. Second, according to the Economic Policy institute, it is lowering the wages for American tech workers already in the marketplace. Third, it is also discouraging many of our smartest students from entering the technology industry in the first place. Students can see that paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for advanced schooling is not worth the cost when the market is being flooded with foreign temporary workers willing to do tech-work for far less pay because their foreign education was much cheaper and they intend to move back home when their visa expires to a country where the cost of living is far less expensive.
This type of use of the H-1B visa program will be addressed as part of comprehensive immigration reform and will likely be dramatically restricted. We will be reforming the legal immigration system to encourage the world’s best and brightest individuals to come to the United States and create the new technologies and businesses that will employ countless American workers, but will discourage businesses from using our immigration laws as a means to obtain temporary and less-expensive foreign labor to replace capable American workers.
Nevertheless, I do wish to clarify a previous mischaracterization of these firms, where I labeled them as “chop shops.” That statement was incorrect, and I wish to acknowledge that. In the tech industry, these firms are sometimes known as “body shops” and that’s what I should have said.
While I strongly oppose the manner in which these firms are using the H-1B visa to accomplish objectives that Congress never intended, it would be unfortunate if anyone concluded from my remarks that these firms are engaging in illegal behavior.
But I also want to make clear that the purpose of this fee is not to target businesses from any particular country. Many news articles have reported that the only companies that will be affected by this fee are companies based in India and that, ipso facto, the purpose of this legislation must be to target Indian IT companies.
Well, it is simply untrue that the purpose of this legislation is to target Indian companies. We are simply raising fees for businesses who use the H-1B visa to do things that are contrary to the program’s original intent.
Visa fees will only increase for companies with more than 50 workers who continue to employ more than 50 percent of their employees through the H-1B program. Congress does not want the H-1B visa program to be a vehicle for creating multinational temp agencies where workers do not know what projects they will be working on—or what cities they will be working in—when they enter the country.
The fee is based solely upon the business model of the company, not the location of the company.
If you are using the H-1B visa to innovate new products and technologies for your own company to sell, that is a good thing regardless of whether the company was originally founded in India, Ireland, or Indiana.
But if you are using the H-1B visa to run a glorified international temp agency for tech workers in contravention of the spirit of the program, I and my colleagues believe that you should have to pay a higher fee to ensure that American workers are not losing their jobs because of unintended uses of the visa program that were never contemplated when the program was created.
This belief is consistent regardless of whether the company using these staffing practices was founded in Bangalore, Beijing, or Boston.
Raising the fees for companies hiring more than 50 percent of their workforce through foreign visas will accomplish two important goals. First, it will provide the necessary funds to secure our border without raising taxes or adding to the deficit. Second, it will level the playing field for American workers so that they do not lose out on good jobs here in America because it is cheaper to bring in a foreign worker rather than hire an American worker.
Let me tell you what objective folks around the world are saying about the impact of this fee increase. In an August 6, 2010, Wall Street Journal article, Avinash Vashistha—the CEO of a Bangalore based off-shoring advisory consulting firm—told the Journal that the new fee in this bill “would accelerate Indian firms’ plans to hire more American-born workers in the U.S.” What’s wrong with that? In an August 7, 2010 Economic Times Article, Jeya Kumar, a CEO of a top IT company, said that this bill would “erode cost arbitrage and cause a change in the operational model of Indian offshore providers.”
The leaders of this business model are agreeing that our bill will make it more expensive to bring in foreign tech workers to compete with American tech workers for jobs here in America. That means these companies are going to start having to hire U.S. tech workers again.
So Mr. President, this bill is not only a responsible border security bill, it has the dual advantage of creating more high-paying American jobs.
Finally, Mr. President, I want to be clear about one other thing. Even though passing this bill will secure our border, I again say that the only way to fully restore the rule of law to our entire immigration system is by passing comprehensive immigration reform….
The urgency for immigration reform cannot be overstated because it is so overdue. The time for excuses is now over, it is now time to get to work.
August 12, 2010
Today, I come to the floor to seek unanimous consent to pass a smart, tough, and effective $600 million bill that will significantly enhance the security and integrity of our nation’s southern border—which currently lacks the resources needed to fully combat the drug smugglers, gun-runners, human-traffickers, money launderers and other organized criminals that seek to do harm to innocent Americans along our border….
The best part of this border package, Mr. President, is that it is fully paid for and does not increase the deficit by a single penny. In actuality, the Congressional Budget Office has determined that this bill will yield a direct savings to taxpayers of $50 million….
The emergency border funds we are passing today are fully paid for by assessing fees on certain types of companies who hire foreign workers using certain types of visas in a way that Congress did not intend. I want to take a moment to explain exactly what we are doing in this bill a little further because I want everyone to clearly understand how these offsets are designed.
In 1990, Congress realized that the world was changing rapidly and that technological innovations like the internet were creating a high demand in the United States for high-tech workers to create new technologies and products. Consequently, Congress created the H-1B visa program to allow U.S. employers to hire foreign tech workers in special circumstances when they could not find an American citizen who was qualified for the job.
Many of the companies that use this program today are using the program in the exact way Congress intended. That is, these companies (like Microsoft, IBM, and Intel) are hiring bright foreign students educated in our American universities to work in the U.S. for 6 or 7 years to invent new product lines and technologies so that Microsoft, IBM, and Intel can sell more products to the American public. Then—at the expiration of the H-1B visa period—these companies apply for these talented workers to earn green cards and stay with the company.
When the H-1B visa program is used in this manner, it is a good program for everyone involved. It is good for the company. It is good for the worker. And it is good for the American people who benefit from the products and jobs created by the innovation of the H-1B visa holder.
Every day, companies like Oracle, Cisco, Apple and others use the H-1B visa program in the exact way I have just described—and their use of the program has greatly benefitted this country.
But recently, some companies have decided to exploit an unintended loophole in the H-1B visa program to use the program in a manner that many in Congress, including myself, do not believe is consistent with the program’s intent.
Rather than being a company that makes something, and simply needs to bring in a talented foreign worker to help innovate and create new products and technologies—these other companies are essentially creating “multinational temp agencies” that were never contemplated when the H-1B program was created.
The business model of these newer companies is not to make any new products or technologies like Microsoft or Apple does. Instead, their business model is to bring foreign tech workers into the United States who are willing to accept less pay than their American counterparts, place these workers into other companies in exchange for a “consulting fee,” and transfer these workers from company to company in order to maximize profits from placement fees. In other words, these companies are petitioning for foreign workers simply to then turn around and provide these same workers to other companies who need cheap labor for various short term projects.
Don’t take my word for it. If you look at the marketing materials of some of the companies that fall within the scope covered by today’s legislation, their materials boast about their “outsourcing expertise” and say that their advantage is their ability to conduct what they call “labor arbitrage” which is—in their own words—“transferring work functions to a lower cost environment for increased savings.”
The business model used by these companies within the United States is creating three major negative side effects. First, it is ruining the reputation of the H-1B program, which is overwhelmingly used by good actors for beneficial purposes. Second, according to the Economic Policy institute, it is lowering the wages for American tech workers already in the marketplace. Third, it is also discouraging many of our smartest students from entering the technology industry in the first place. Students can see that paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for advanced schooling is not worth the cost when the market is being flooded with foreign temporary workers willing to do tech-work for far less pay because their foreign education was much cheaper and they intend to move back home when their visa expires to a country where the cost of living is far less expensive.
This type of use of the H-1B visa program will be addressed as part of comprehensive immigration reform and will likely be dramatically restricted. We will be reforming the legal immigration system to encourage the world’s best and brightest individuals to come to the United States and create the new technologies and businesses that will employ countless American workers, but will discourage businesses from using our immigration laws as a means to obtain temporary and less-expensive foreign labor to replace capable American workers.
Nevertheless, I do wish to clarify a previous mischaracterization of these firms, where I labeled them as “chop shops.” That statement was incorrect, and I wish to acknowledge that. In the tech industry, these firms are sometimes known as “body shops” and that’s what I should have said.
While I strongly oppose the manner in which these firms are using the H-1B visa to accomplish objectives that Congress never intended, it would be unfortunate if anyone concluded from my remarks that these firms are engaging in illegal behavior.
But I also want to make clear that the purpose of this fee is not to target businesses from any particular country. Many news articles have reported that the only companies that will be affected by this fee are companies based in India and that, ipso facto, the purpose of this legislation must be to target Indian IT companies.
Well, it is simply untrue that the purpose of this legislation is to target Indian companies. We are simply raising fees for businesses who use the H-1B visa to do things that are contrary to the program’s original intent.
Visa fees will only increase for companies with more than 50 workers who continue to employ more than 50 percent of their employees through the H-1B program. Congress does not want the H-1B visa program to be a vehicle for creating multinational temp agencies where workers do not know what projects they will be working on—or what cities they will be working in—when they enter the country.
The fee is based solely upon the business model of the company, not the location of the company.
If you are using the H-1B visa to innovate new products and technologies for your own company to sell, that is a good thing regardless of whether the company was originally founded in India, Ireland, or Indiana.
But if you are using the H-1B visa to run a glorified international temp agency for tech workers in contravention of the spirit of the program, I and my colleagues believe that you should have to pay a higher fee to ensure that American workers are not losing their jobs because of unintended uses of the visa program that were never contemplated when the program was created.
This belief is consistent regardless of whether the company using these staffing practices was founded in Bangalore, Beijing, or Boston.
Raising the fees for companies hiring more than 50 percent of their workforce through foreign visas will accomplish two important goals. First, it will provide the necessary funds to secure our border without raising taxes or adding to the deficit. Second, it will level the playing field for American workers so that they do not lose out on good jobs here in America because it is cheaper to bring in a foreign worker rather than hire an American worker.
Let me tell you what objective folks around the world are saying about the impact of this fee increase. In an August 6, 2010, Wall Street Journal article, Avinash Vashistha—the CEO of a Bangalore based off-shoring advisory consulting firm—told the Journal that the new fee in this bill “would accelerate Indian firms’ plans to hire more American-born workers in the U.S.” What’s wrong with that? In an August 7, 2010 Economic Times Article, Jeya Kumar, a CEO of a top IT company, said that this bill would “erode cost arbitrage and cause a change in the operational model of Indian offshore providers.”
The leaders of this business model are agreeing that our bill will make it more expensive to bring in foreign tech workers to compete with American tech workers for jobs here in America. That means these companies are going to start having to hire U.S. tech workers again.
So Mr. President, this bill is not only a responsible border security bill, it has the dual advantage of creating more high-paying American jobs.
Finally, Mr. President, I want to be clear about one other thing. Even though passing this bill will secure our border, I again say that the only way to fully restore the rule of law to our entire immigration system is by passing comprehensive immigration reform….
The urgency for immigration reform cannot be overstated because it is so overdue. The time for excuses is now over, it is now time to get to work.
addsf345
11-24 03:36 PM
Here is the link to USCIS AC21 memo from 5/30/2008:
http://www.visalawyerblog.com/AC21%20MEMO%20JUNE%202008.pdf
it does say that H1B ext beyond 6 years can not be granted if there is not underlying pending process for GC (LC, 140 or 485).
However it does not talk about 'what happens if an ext is already granted'? so it still remains gray area. did I understand correctly?
http://www.visalawyerblog.com/AC21%20MEMO%20JUNE%202008.pdf
it does say that H1B ext beyond 6 years can not be granted if there is not underlying pending process for GC (LC, 140 or 485).
However it does not talk about 'what happens if an ext is already granted'? so it still remains gray area. did I understand correctly?
more...
ItIsNotFunny
03-12 03:44 PM
So now I am a traitor and a secret agent and a US citizen, just bcos I dont concur with the DONOR based thread idea?
All, lets not waste energy in negative direction. Not going to help us anyways. Reddog, why don't you contribute for obvious cause of FOIA?
All, lets not waste energy in negative direction. Not going to help us anyways. Reddog, why don't you contribute for obvious cause of FOIA?
2010 of Waverly Place cast is
chi_shark
02-23 12:51 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
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
more...
ramreddy
12-26 02:36 PM
I am on H1 w/ valid EAD . Got my labor and 140 in 05 and recently renewed by EAD.
There are 2 situations, to my case , though I am not sure how unique or otherwise they are :
-- My Immigration Labor petition promised me some $20K more than what I had made 05-09 period.
Far as I can see, GC Is prospective. This was for a Managerial level position to which I was planning to advance and will probably do so. So the position I am working in now and the prospective GC position as indicated in the labor are different.
- I left my sponsoring company briefly since my US client placed me in UK , where the payroll had to run directly and not through my company .So for 07 there was no W2 and income. 08 there is just income for last 5 months and it was lower that all prev years
-now I want to go back to India in 2010 Jan . and work from there for sometime. There will be no US income .
Right now EB2 is stagnating and never moved up since last 3 months .
I want to know given the above history
-- is there serious possibility of GC reject based on your wise exp
--- can I stay in India and when my category becomes current the gc is mailed back to me in India ?>
PL let me know what my options are .....and the best path
Wish you happy new year
Best
Ram
There are 2 situations, to my case , though I am not sure how unique or otherwise they are :
-- My Immigration Labor petition promised me some $20K more than what I had made 05-09 period.
Far as I can see, GC Is prospective. This was for a Managerial level position to which I was planning to advance and will probably do so. So the position I am working in now and the prospective GC position as indicated in the labor are different.
- I left my sponsoring company briefly since my US client placed me in UK , where the payroll had to run directly and not through my company .So for 07 there was no W2 and income. 08 there is just income for last 5 months and it was lower that all prev years
-now I want to go back to India in 2010 Jan . and work from there for sometime. There will be no US income .
Right now EB2 is stagnating and never moved up since last 3 months .
I want to know given the above history
-- is there serious possibility of GC reject based on your wise exp
--- can I stay in India and when my category becomes current the gc is mailed back to me in India ?>
PL let me know what my options are .....and the best path
Wish you happy new year
Best
Ram
hair Wizards Of Waverly Place
BECsufferer
03-04 12:55 PM
Not sure if anyone else has faced this so wanted to put this out: I own a home and have a loan on it since 2003 (I was on H1 when i took the loan), now that the ARM is about to adjust i am in the market for refinance.
There is however a question on all the loans underwritten by freddy/fanny asking for immigration status and if the answer is EAD the loan is denied. They even sent me an explanation of denial.....:confused:
A loan application can be denied for any reason and as amatter of fact due to current financial mess, lenders are very wary. So don't be surprised by denial. Try another place.
I secured loan after 2.5 months of constant battle. My lender tried all possible means to discourage me and only after I fired-back with technical arguments did they clear my loan. But than I was also asking for 5% down, which nowdays is no more entertained by lenders.
Try different sources and atleast you have the house in possesion. You will get a new lender, don't worry!
There is however a question on all the loans underwritten by freddy/fanny asking for immigration status and if the answer is EAD the loan is denied. They even sent me an explanation of denial.....:confused:
A loan application can be denied for any reason and as amatter of fact due to current financial mess, lenders are very wary. So don't be surprised by denial. Try another place.
I secured loan after 2.5 months of constant battle. My lender tried all possible means to discourage me and only after I fired-back with technical arguments did they clear my loan. But than I was also asking for 5% down, which nowdays is no more entertained by lenders.
Try different sources and atleast you have the house in possesion. You will get a new lender, don't worry!
more...
pani_6
07-24 07:40 PM
EB-3 I wake up and send the letter out..we need to make relevant authorities aware of our situation. Uncertanity and doom stares us come on EB-3 I lets see some action!
hot Wizards Of Waverly Place Cast
natrajs
07-18 09:23 PM
Contributed $ 100 Yesterday , and Will do Again
Thank Q You All
Thank Q You All
more...
house more.
sandiboy
07-18 04:03 PM
Assuming that the PD cut off date for a specific stream is 2004 Aug and there are still visa nos available but there are not enough application (can this ever happen for real) what are they going to do? They move the PD further up and whenever the pool is depleting they move it back again?
Assuming they move back the PD to 2000 after they ran out of the nos they start accepting AOS apps for that PD but they donot look at them (for adjudication) until the queue before is cleared based on the receipt date.
In such a case the PD lost all it's significance once the adjustment of status if filed?
If receipt date is the only significant date after AOS is filed then retrogressing to a specified date does not make sense as there is no need to accept new applications if they are not going to work on them and particularly when they know the current size of the queue.
Or May be I am missing something......
Consider I-485 Processing as a 2 Door Room. Front Door is for people who's PD has been current for the given month and can apply & Back Door is for Adjudicating People who are already applied & still current for that month.
The size of the room depends on what date they retrogress it to. If Cutoff date is say 2002, there are few people in that room who would be ready for adjudication. Instead if cutoff date is say 2006, there will be a huge number of people in the room.
As long as you stay in that room for more month (be current), the more chance you have of getting adjudicated fast, but also depends on how many people are ahead of you per RD.
Assuming they move back the PD to 2000 after they ran out of the nos they start accepting AOS apps for that PD but they donot look at them (for adjudication) until the queue before is cleared based on the receipt date.
In such a case the PD lost all it's significance once the adjustment of status if filed?
If receipt date is the only significant date after AOS is filed then retrogressing to a specified date does not make sense as there is no need to accept new applications if they are not going to work on them and particularly when they know the current size of the queue.
Or May be I am missing something......
Consider I-485 Processing as a 2 Door Room. Front Door is for people who's PD has been current for the given month and can apply & Back Door is for Adjudicating People who are already applied & still current for that month.
The size of the room depends on what date they retrogress it to. If Cutoff date is say 2002, there are few people in that room who would be ready for adjudication. Instead if cutoff date is say 2006, there will be a huge number of people in the room.
As long as you stay in that room for more month (be current), the more chance you have of getting adjudicated fast, but also depends on how many people are ahead of you per RD.
tattoo wizards of waverly place cast-away part 1. Author: mayiepablo
satishku_2000
07-05 03:25 PM
BharatPremin you in CA?
more...
pictures wizards waverly emmy cake 03
tikka
07-18 04:28 PM
Just made my first $100 contribution! Thanks so much for the effort in the last two weeks! IV rocks!
we need more members like you to come forward and contribute..
we need more members like you to come forward and contribute..
dresses Wizards of Waverly Place
gctoget
07-13 04:05 PM
Finalize the meeting schedules (like weekly meeting/monthly meeting)
Make it a regular event so that postings / thoughts can culminate into actions.
Yes, we need directions ASAP... we should meet once in 15 days atleast.
Also now we with rsamudrala ,satishbsk and SDdesi having joined the SOCal chapter we are 39 member strong team!!!
Hoping that we will get 1 more person with us for meetings we will atleast have about 70 members in a meeting.
Make it a regular event so that postings / thoughts can culminate into actions.
Yes, we need directions ASAP... we should meet once in 15 days atleast.
Also now we with rsamudrala ,satishbsk and SDdesi having joined the SOCal chapter we are 39 member strong team!!!
Hoping that we will get 1 more person with us for meetings we will atleast have about 70 members in a meeting.
more...
makeup Wizards Waverly Place The
anantc
09-03 10:56 AM
Arrived in the US in Sep 1999
Started the GC process in Apr 2003.
Labor filed in Oct 2003
Waiting... :D
Started the GC process in Apr 2003.
Labor filed in Oct 2003
Waiting... :D
girlfriend “Wizards Of Waverly Place”
nixstor
07-11 12:32 PM
eb2 china was at jan2006 for a while. this will be the first time that they will be moving beyond jan 2006.
The movement EB-2 china gets some times is solely because of the visa number that category gets. This typically happens in the first Q. EB2-I and EB2-C will have different PD's . Some time in 2nd Q or mid 2nd Q, both I and C will have used up their quota and they will continue to have the same PD until the end of the fiscal year as PD is the only thing that matters.
The movement EB-2 china gets some times is solely because of the visa number that category gets. This typically happens in the first Q. EB2-I and EB2-C will have different PD's . Some time in 2nd Q or mid 2nd Q, both I and C will have used up their quota and they will continue to have the same PD until the end of the fiscal year as PD is the only thing that matters.
hairstyles Wizards of Waverly Place
delax
07-20 01:32 PM
Guys,
The calculations below is not to scare anyone but it may very well a reality. Based on the assumptions below, some people may have to wait up to 20 months to get a EAD card: Ouch!
A Total I-485 Applicants: 750000 Applicants
B Each EAD processing time: 5 Minutes
C Total processing hrs: 62500 Hours
(Calculations: AxB/60)
D Daily productive Hours: 5 Hours
(It is a government body!)
E Total Man Days (Business Days): 12500 Man Days
(Calculations: C/D)
F EAD Workforce: 30 People
G Total Business Days: 417 Days
(Calculations: E/F)
H Average Business Days in a month: 21 Days
I Total Clearing Time : 20 Months
(Calculations: G/I)
Here's my estimate regarding the expected I-485 filings for July 2007 based on the approved LC petition data provided by DOL. See link below (Thanks ! DreamGC)
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pPp-1fPOWrpRSbOSVaat9ew
LC Approvals (Expected 485 filings in July 2007)
2007: 50000(50000) Estimated since data unavailabe
2006: 79782 (79782)
2005: 6133 (6133)
2004: 43582 (34866) 80% will file in July, 20% filed earlier
2003: 62912 (31456) 50% will file in July. The rest filed earlier.
2002: 79784 (Nil) Since more than 95% would have filed 485 earlier.
I am ignoring anything before 2002.
If you add up the numbers in parentheses the total is 202,236 - primary applicants. Assuming an average family size of 2 gives us 404,472 give or take 10%
I would say 80% of the 400k people may apply for EAD - that still makes it 320k EADs - the others may not want EAD right away or could be kids less than 14 years old.
The calculations below is not to scare anyone but it may very well a reality. Based on the assumptions below, some people may have to wait up to 20 months to get a EAD card: Ouch!
A Total I-485 Applicants: 750000 Applicants
B Each EAD processing time: 5 Minutes
C Total processing hrs: 62500 Hours
(Calculations: AxB/60)
D Daily productive Hours: 5 Hours
(It is a government body!)
E Total Man Days (Business Days): 12500 Man Days
(Calculations: C/D)
F EAD Workforce: 30 People
G Total Business Days: 417 Days
(Calculations: E/F)
H Average Business Days in a month: 21 Days
I Total Clearing Time : 20 Months
(Calculations: G/I)
Here's my estimate regarding the expected I-485 filings for July 2007 based on the approved LC petition data provided by DOL. See link below (Thanks ! DreamGC)
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pPp-1fPOWrpRSbOSVaat9ew
LC Approvals (Expected 485 filings in July 2007)
2007: 50000(50000) Estimated since data unavailabe
2006: 79782 (79782)
2005: 6133 (6133)
2004: 43582 (34866) 80% will file in July, 20% filed earlier
2003: 62912 (31456) 50% will file in July. The rest filed earlier.
2002: 79784 (Nil) Since more than 95% would have filed 485 earlier.
I am ignoring anything before 2002.
If you add up the numbers in parentheses the total is 202,236 - primary applicants. Assuming an average family size of 2 gives us 404,472 give or take 10%
I would say 80% of the 400k people may apply for EAD - that still makes it 320k EADs - the others may not want EAD right away or could be kids less than 14 years old.
skd
04-14 10:53 AM
That is why I wanted to know
newbee7
07-05 11:23 PM
Don't have her email. But she can be reached by the sending her a msg via:
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/julia_preston/index.html?inline=nyt-per
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/julia_preston/index.html?inline=nyt-per
No comments:
Post a Comment