vivid_bharti
09-04 11:20 AM
If you and other who have problems with this thread, don't like this discussion than why do you guys bother to come on this thread, just ignore it....This is not contributing to anything. I dont think oposing parties in this discussion will ever come to an agreement so what is the purpose of carrying on. Please close this and lets concentrate on something else.
wallpaper wallpaper Transformers 3: Dark
GCisLottery
10-23 05:05 PM
Thanks for the reply Amoljak,
Now if you can please remove all the sarcasm and explain this in more detail in laymen's terms, it would really help me. I mean how is it that atleast 10 members on this site have mentioned people selling and buying LCs LEGALLY! Were they bluffing or are we reading into the law wrongly?
Thanks
I don't know the business of this, but it is just fraud and that's precisely why USCIS wants to get rid of it. It is a genuinely OK route for companies that can't hold onto people and has to substitute.
My assumption is they are "buying" those LCs and join those money making companies, stay there as long as they legally have to stay and get out.
Now some mod please close this thread.
Now if you can please remove all the sarcasm and explain this in more detail in laymen's terms, it would really help me. I mean how is it that atleast 10 members on this site have mentioned people selling and buying LCs LEGALLY! Were they bluffing or are we reading into the law wrongly?
Thanks
I don't know the business of this, but it is just fraud and that's precisely why USCIS wants to get rid of it. It is a genuinely OK route for companies that can't hold onto people and has to substitute.
My assumption is they are "buying" those LCs and join those money making companies, stay there as long as they legally have to stay and get out.
Now some mod please close this thread.
grupak
02-12 05:37 PM
To fix the problem for everybody need both (1) increase in visa numbers and (2) remove/increase country quota, IMHO.
2011 Fantasy Girls Wallpapers #3
vdlrao
07-21 05:08 PM
For 2007 we had an availability of 226,000 Family Based Visas. But the issued visas in 2007 in Family Based are 194,900 visas. That means there are 226,000 MINUS 194,900 = 31100. These 31,100
unused Family Based Visas have been made available for 2008 Employment Based Visas of 140,000. And USCIS has 28,795 unused VISAS of American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act of 2000 (AC21).
American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act of 2000 (AC21) had recaptured 130,107 visas.
Out of that 94,000 were used in 2005.
7,312 were used in 2007.
So dont know when the available 28,795 unused VISAS of AC21 will be used again.
The unused family based visas of 2007 are 31,100 , which are going to be added for Employement Based Visas of 2008. So the total Employment based visas for 2008 are 140,000 + 31,100 = 171,100.
Theses 171,100 EB Visas of 2008 will be split like, asuming USCIS is not using the availble 28,795 unused VISAS of AC21 below.
(If USCIS decides to use some or all of 28,795 unused VISAS of AC21, then the available Employment Based VISAS of 2008 increases accordingly. )
28.6 percent each EB1, EB2 and EB3. 48934 VISAS for Each Category.
And 7.1 percent each EB4 and EB5. 12148 VISAS for the last two EB categories.
So in 2008 the total Visas for EB1 and EB2 are 48934 + 48934 = 97868 plus unused EB4 and EB5 visas of 2008.
The total EB5 Visas usage never crossed 824 in the past 10 years(Average Usage is 376/year).
So there would be 11148 visas available for EB1 from EB5 (assuming 1,000 visas are used in EB5 which is highly impossible)
The unused EB4 Visas may be couple of thousand or null, based on the past 10 years EB4 usage (7,223 is the average usage)
Assume there are only 2,000 EB4 VISAS unused in 2008 (defenitely it would be more unused).
So IN THE WORST CASE the total EB1 and EB2 Visas for 2008 are
48934 + 48934 + 11,148 + 2,000 = 111,016
IN THE BEST CASE, ASSUMING USCIS USES ALL 28,795 unused VISAS of AC21 FOR 2008 AND THERE WOULD BE 5,000 UNUSED EB4 VISAS, THE TOTAL EB1 AND EB2 VISAS FOR 2008 ARE GOING TO BE 111,016 +3,000(EB4)+ 2*(28,795/3) = 111,016 +3,000+19196 = 133,212
unused Family Based Visas have been made available for 2008 Employment Based Visas of 140,000. And USCIS has 28,795 unused VISAS of American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act of 2000 (AC21).
American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act of 2000 (AC21) had recaptured 130,107 visas.
Out of that 94,000 were used in 2005.
7,312 were used in 2007.
So dont know when the available 28,795 unused VISAS of AC21 will be used again.
The unused family based visas of 2007 are 31,100 , which are going to be added for Employement Based Visas of 2008. So the total Employment based visas for 2008 are 140,000 + 31,100 = 171,100.
Theses 171,100 EB Visas of 2008 will be split like, asuming USCIS is not using the availble 28,795 unused VISAS of AC21 below.
(If USCIS decides to use some or all of 28,795 unused VISAS of AC21, then the available Employment Based VISAS of 2008 increases accordingly. )
28.6 percent each EB1, EB2 and EB3. 48934 VISAS for Each Category.
And 7.1 percent each EB4 and EB5. 12148 VISAS for the last two EB categories.
So in 2008 the total Visas for EB1 and EB2 are 48934 + 48934 = 97868 plus unused EB4 and EB5 visas of 2008.
The total EB5 Visas usage never crossed 824 in the past 10 years(Average Usage is 376/year).
So there would be 11148 visas available for EB1 from EB5 (assuming 1,000 visas are used in EB5 which is highly impossible)
The unused EB4 Visas may be couple of thousand or null, based on the past 10 years EB4 usage (7,223 is the average usage)
Assume there are only 2,000 EB4 VISAS unused in 2008 (defenitely it would be more unused).
So IN THE WORST CASE the total EB1 and EB2 Visas for 2008 are
48934 + 48934 + 11,148 + 2,000 = 111,016
IN THE BEST CASE, ASSUMING USCIS USES ALL 28,795 unused VISAS of AC21 FOR 2008 AND THERE WOULD BE 5,000 UNUSED EB4 VISAS, THE TOTAL EB1 AND EB2 VISAS FOR 2008 ARE GOING TO BE 111,016 +3,000(EB4)+ 2*(28,795/3) = 111,016 +3,000+19196 = 133,212
more...
ujjwal_p
05-11 07:51 PM
I saying it again, in this country even burning of the national flag is considered a form of protest.
Dude, you are seriously delusional. The day you try that stunt with the stars and stripes you'll be on Limbaugh, OReilly, Hannity, Glenn Beck, you name it. I don't agree with them but will still love to watch that unfold on TV.
Dude, you are seriously delusional. The day you try that stunt with the stars and stripes you'll be on Limbaugh, OReilly, Hannity, Glenn Beck, you name it. I don't agree with them but will still love to watch that unfold on TV.
ramus
07-03 04:06 PM
Anybody have any contact with NPR.. Can we just 10 mins somewhere..
more...
Legal
07-21 10:55 PM
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/LPR_FR_2007.pdf
(AC21). This Act resulted in the recapture of 130,107 unused employment-based visa numbers from 1999 and 2000 to be made available to first, second, and third preference employment-based immigrants once the annual limit had been reached. Approximately 94,000 of those recaptured visa numbers were used in 2005, none were used in 2006, and 7,312 were used in 2007
(AC21). This Act resulted in the recapture of 130,107 unused employment-based visa numbers from 1999 and 2000 to be made available to first, second, and third preference employment-based immigrants once the annual limit had been reached. Approximately 94,000 of those recaptured visa numbers were used in 2005, none were used in 2006, and 7,312 were used in 2007
2010 TRANSFORMERS 3 HD PHOTOS
poorslumdog
05-03 01:50 AM
Did you ever heard about a frog in well story!:rolleyes:
JaiHind
Yes...you singala racist.
JaiHind
Yes...you singala racist.
more...
johnggberg
07-10 07:29 PM
but wish you all the best of luck in canada.
hair girlfriend Movie Transformers
newuser
09-23 09:15 PM
E-mailed everyone on the list. Only one bounced ID.
more...
grupak
02-13 01:34 PM
Finally you hit the nail on its head. That’s why the per country limit is there so no one country with larger population can monopolize any agenda the way you are trying to do with IV.
I don't understand this logic. We are talking about employment based GC.
Lets be clear that we are talking about people who are employed in the US and their employers have sponsored their green cards (except the EB2-NIW, EB1_EA). These people are employed because of their skill at jobs not their national origin.
Are you suggesting that somehow people of some countries have monopolized the foreign worker pool by born in the same country and NOT because of their skill.
Since we are talking about a privilege and benefit that comes from being employed in the US, you are actually suggesting that US employers should consider country of birth and not just skill in the employment.
Tell me how did the Chinese, Indian, Mexican and Filipino workers unfairly monopolized the foreign worker pool. As far as I am aware, these countries have large populations and a lot of Science and Engineering graduates happen to be from these countries.
The country cap makes sense in family based immigration system when extended beyond the immediate family members. IV is not for FB GC issues.
Again, employment in the US is based on skill not country of birth. The foreign workers are here because they are needed, and US will benefit by keeping these skilled workers long term. What IV is doing benefits all employment based GC.
I don't understand this logic. We are talking about employment based GC.
Lets be clear that we are talking about people who are employed in the US and their employers have sponsored their green cards (except the EB2-NIW, EB1_EA). These people are employed because of their skill at jobs not their national origin.
Are you suggesting that somehow people of some countries have monopolized the foreign worker pool by born in the same country and NOT because of their skill.
Since we are talking about a privilege and benefit that comes from being employed in the US, you are actually suggesting that US employers should consider country of birth and not just skill in the employment.
Tell me how did the Chinese, Indian, Mexican and Filipino workers unfairly monopolized the foreign worker pool. As far as I am aware, these countries have large populations and a lot of Science and Engineering graduates happen to be from these countries.
The country cap makes sense in family based immigration system when extended beyond the immediate family members. IV is not for FB GC issues.
Again, employment in the US is based on skill not country of birth. The foreign workers are here because they are needed, and US will benefit by keeping these skilled workers long term. What IV is doing benefits all employment based GC.
hot 3:Super Girls wallpapers »
samay
07-14 06:08 AM
[QUOTE=AllVNeedGcPc;259781]I am a software engineer (15-xxx series):
- my LC got approved with 17-xxx code (Mechanical Engineer) (BECs fault, our forms OK), in 2006
- applied for LC amendment and returned original LC to BEC, right then
- No word from BEC, waited for a year, assumed 140 lost and then applied 140 with 17-xxx code and a copy of returned LC, in April 2007
- Applied EAD and AP, on July 2nd 2007
- meanwhile (after 140 application) LC got amended with new 15-xxx code, in August 2007 (Just before BECs shutdown)
- 140 that was applied in April 2007 is still pending
- Atty says that we will send the amended LC once we get an RFE
Should we wait for an RFE or should we inform USCIS about the amended code?
In my opinion you should have filed a copy of amended LC with the USCIS when you received it.
- my LC got approved with 17-xxx code (Mechanical Engineer) (BECs fault, our forms OK), in 2006
- applied for LC amendment and returned original LC to BEC, right then
- No word from BEC, waited for a year, assumed 140 lost and then applied 140 with 17-xxx code and a copy of returned LC, in April 2007
- Applied EAD and AP, on July 2nd 2007
- meanwhile (after 140 application) LC got amended with new 15-xxx code, in August 2007 (Just before BECs shutdown)
- 140 that was applied in April 2007 is still pending
- Atty says that we will send the amended LC once we get an RFE
Should we wait for an RFE or should we inform USCIS about the amended code?
In my opinion you should have filed a copy of amended LC with the USCIS when you received it.
more...
house transformers 3 wallpaper
JA1HIND
02-13 05:01 PM
No one would learn to walk if their parents were afraid they would fall.
The young grad has more fire in him than a seasoned vetran. I think we need more fire in this case than just experience.
now are going to have a poll on this one too?? LOL!! :D
The young grad has more fire in him than a seasoned vetran. I think we need more fire in this case than just experience.
now are going to have a poll on this one too?? LOL!! :D
tattoo pictures Christmas girls.
.jpg "naked girls wallpapers.")
gcny2006
05-28 11:58 PM
Can someone tell me if this is right?
- Total number of EB-2 visas = 40,000
- 7% of 40,000 are allocated for India = 2,800
- Number of EB-2 I I-485 apps pending = 30,000
So if there is no spillover from other categories it will take north of 10 years for all the people who applied for I-485 in the July 2007 fiasco to get Green Cards. The only caveat to this would be attrition or legislation.
WRONG
Mr. Oppenheim has set the cutoff date for EB2 India at January 1, 2000. According to current estimates, out of the approximately 200,000 I-485 applications currently pending with USCIS, 120,000 of them are chargeable to India, with the cases divided evenly between EB2 and EB3. This means that EB2 and EB3 India applicants count for 60 percent of the I-485 cases currently pending with the USCIS.
- Number of EB-2 I I-485 apps pending = 60,000
so with no trickle it will be 20+ years
- Total number of EB-2 visas = 40,000
- 7% of 40,000 are allocated for India = 2,800
- Number of EB-2 I I-485 apps pending = 30,000
So if there is no spillover from other categories it will take north of 10 years for all the people who applied for I-485 in the July 2007 fiasco to get Green Cards. The only caveat to this would be attrition or legislation.
WRONG
Mr. Oppenheim has set the cutoff date for EB2 India at January 1, 2000. According to current estimates, out of the approximately 200,000 I-485 applications currently pending with USCIS, 120,000 of them are chargeable to India, with the cases divided evenly between EB2 and EB3. This means that EB2 and EB3 India applicants count for 60 percent of the I-485 cases currently pending with the USCIS.
- Number of EB-2 I I-485 apps pending = 60,000
so with no trickle it will be 20+ years
more...
pictures 2011 in the new Transformers 3
breddy2000
07-26 04:41 PM
right point to note.
Also out of the 65K H1 visas that were available since 2003, most of the Visas were consumed by the Big Indian companies.
Remember when Congress sent letters to the Big Indian companies, there was data related to how many companies applied for how many Visas.
AFAIK it was in the range of 25k-35k per year combined by all these companies that filed H1s .
One thing to note is, they do not sponsor GCs for all the applicants.They do them very rarely for the people who are in their 5th to 6th year of H1.Could be in the range of Hundereds and not thousands comapred to the people count they have in US.
Also out of the 65K H1 visas that were available since 2003, most of the Visas were consumed by the Big Indian companies.
Remember when Congress sent letters to the Big Indian companies, there was data related to how many companies applied for how many Visas.
AFAIK it was in the range of 25k-35k per year combined by all these companies that filed H1s .
One thing to note is, they do not sponsor GCs for all the applicants.They do them very rarely for the people who are in their 5th to 6th year of H1.Could be in the range of Hundereds and not thousands comapred to the people count they have in US.
dresses wallpaper Transformers
cps060
03-19 05:31 PM
I also have my canadian PR. I know that I have to physically stay in CA for 2 years out of 5 to keep it alive. My question is if I enter just before my fourth year and live only for one year in CA .... what would happen ? At the end of fifth year when my PR card expires, will I have to leave CA ? Or is there any other visa on which I can move to or is there a way to re-apply for PR in the last year itself ?
Basically bcuz of the retregression I want to go to CA but I have seen so many -ve posts about job scene that I am apprehensive. Hence was wondering if I can wait till the fourth year and still this GC mess is not solved would it be possible somehow to stay in CA beyond the fifth year.
Basically bcuz of the retregression I want to go to CA but I have seen so many -ve posts about job scene that I am apprehensive. Hence was wondering if I can wait till the fourth year and still this GC mess is not solved would it be possible somehow to stay in CA beyond the fifth year.
more...
makeup transformers 3 girl rosie
samay
07-21 08:09 PM
Dear Lawyer,
I have applied for my renewal of EAD. Please let me know if I have answered the following correct and if there is anything I can do to rectify if you think these are not the right answers. Thanks in advance for your help,
For question 14, Manner of last entry: " Paroled (AOS) " because that is what will be stamped in my passport and I94 after my entry into US.
For question 15, Current Immigration status: " H1B Worker " because my H1B is valid till 2010 and I never used my EAD or received my green card.
This question says how you entered the US the last time and not how you intend to in the future. My understanding is that you last traveled on your H-1 B therefore, it should say H-1B (please confirm the same with your I-94.)
I have applied for my renewal of EAD. Please let me know if I have answered the following correct and if there is anything I can do to rectify if you think these are not the right answers. Thanks in advance for your help,
For question 14, Manner of last entry: " Paroled (AOS) " because that is what will be stamped in my passport and I94 after my entry into US.
For question 15, Current Immigration status: " H1B Worker " because my H1B is valid till 2010 and I never used my EAD or received my green card.
This question says how you entered the US the last time and not how you intend to in the future. My understanding is that you last traveled on your H-1 B therefore, it should say H-1B (please confirm the same with your I-94.)
girlfriend naked girls wallpapers.
Macaca
02-18 11:49 AM
http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/sep2006/sb20060913_157784.htm?chan=search[/url]
An Indian has glorified Indians. How do you use this glorification to explain the behavior of 80+% IV Indian members and 60+% Indians in EB retrogression who have no interest in joining IV?
The best looking answer looks like there is no correlation between the two. Indians remain glorified.
An Indian has glorified Indians. How do you use this glorification to explain the behavior of 80+% IV Indian members and 60+% Indians in EB retrogression who have no interest in joining IV?
The best looking answer looks like there is no correlation between the two. Indians remain glorified.
hairstyles hot Transformers 3 Dark Of
Googler
02-12 01:38 PM
I have the same question. State dept moves the date just so that the visa numbers are used for that category. If a category is retrogressed, then it can't really be "undersubscribed".
This was listed at the bottom of the page in the March VB in state dept's website:
The cut-off date movement for March in several Employment categories has been greater than those experienced in recent months. Advancement of the cut-off dates at this time should prevent a situation later in the fiscal year where there are large amounts of numbers available but not enough time to use them. If the expected increase in CIS number use materializes, future cut-off date movements could slow or stop.
Mods should merge two identical threads. See my post in the other thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=222365&postcount=12
This was listed at the bottom of the page in the March VB in state dept's website:
The cut-off date movement for March in several Employment categories has been greater than those experienced in recent months. Advancement of the cut-off dates at this time should prevent a situation later in the fiscal year where there are large amounts of numbers available but not enough time to use them. If the expected increase in CIS number use materializes, future cut-off date movements could slow or stop.
Mods should merge two identical threads. See my post in the other thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=222365&postcount=12
krishmunn
06-12 04:40 PM
Dilip,
First, the rant on low wages does not hold water. The employer need to pay prevailing wage which is mandated in the LCA. If some employer does not pay that, employee can (and should) complain to DOL
Second, you mentioned that you were employed for 2 days enabling you to file 485/EAD and thus you should not be termed out of status/illegal. If a company hired you for 2 days just to allow you to file 485 with no intent to have a job ready for you in future, the company and you commited immigration fraud --- a bigger problem. Also, you cannot invoke AC21 to switch employer before 180 days after you file 485. So, it still remains a mystery how you moved out just after filing 485.
Your favor towards Grassleys bill shows you just want to close the door. Grassleys bill, if implemented will make it very difficult for even legit employers to get H1 employee. It is a kin to almost closing H1 program out of which you benefitted.
Also, did you ever floated such ideas when you were on H1 ?
First, the rant on low wages does not hold water. The employer need to pay prevailing wage which is mandated in the LCA. If some employer does not pay that, employee can (and should) complain to DOL
Second, you mentioned that you were employed for 2 days enabling you to file 485/EAD and thus you should not be termed out of status/illegal. If a company hired you for 2 days just to allow you to file 485 with no intent to have a job ready for you in future, the company and you commited immigration fraud --- a bigger problem. Also, you cannot invoke AC21 to switch employer before 180 days after you file 485. So, it still remains a mystery how you moved out just after filing 485.
Your favor towards Grassleys bill shows you just want to close the door. Grassleys bill, if implemented will make it very difficult for even legit employers to get H1 employee. It is a kin to almost closing H1 program out of which you benefitted.
Also, did you ever floated such ideas when you were on H1 ?
Rohan99
08-03 01:13 AM
After reading all these post I checked their website...what a BS products,:mad: I have never heard of it, looks like directly from some factory in China
Giving such a products to kids can be harmful. When we buy stuff from proper store atleast we know that quality is met or someone is watching/monitoring it (like Mcdonalds recent recall)
One of the things that I've observed about these 'IBO's is that most often they are underachievers in general. Mostly staying home over the weekends, hardly any communication skills, no good friends (no your IBO partners are not your friends), low confidence and plain arrogance. They are asked not to take NO for an answer. So anything that you say against them annoys the hell outta them. I know I should not be using such derogatory language against any person but I seriously feel this corporation is plaguing our society big time.
I have a co-worker who downs at least 5-6 cans of their flagship product 'XS Energy Drink' everyday. He hardly moves from his desk all day so why in the world would he need an energy drink for? One day, the rest of the team confronted him and asked him if he even knew what was in the energy drink. He quickly got angry and snapped back "VITAMINS!!!". We were like WTF? Since when did energy drinks started to have vitamins in them? Finally, I showed him the contents of the drink: #1 Taurine, #2 Caffeine. So it's nothing but fukking Red Bull. And we all know 'Red Bull gives you wings!'. Wish it gave you brains too.
Another co-worker asked him if it'd be OK to give that drink to his 5 yo when he thought that it was alright for him to gulp gallons of it. He snapped again saying "OF COURSE! In fact she drinks small quantities of it everyday." A 5 year old kid drinking Red Bull. Can you beat that? Just coz this idiot wants to earn more points. That is when I got seriously pissed!
Giving such a products to kids can be harmful. When we buy stuff from proper store atleast we know that quality is met or someone is watching/monitoring it (like Mcdonalds recent recall)
One of the things that I've observed about these 'IBO's is that most often they are underachievers in general. Mostly staying home over the weekends, hardly any communication skills, no good friends (no your IBO partners are not your friends), low confidence and plain arrogance. They are asked not to take NO for an answer. So anything that you say against them annoys the hell outta them. I know I should not be using such derogatory language against any person but I seriously feel this corporation is plaguing our society big time.
I have a co-worker who downs at least 5-6 cans of their flagship product 'XS Energy Drink' everyday. He hardly moves from his desk all day so why in the world would he need an energy drink for? One day, the rest of the team confronted him and asked him if he even knew what was in the energy drink. He quickly got angry and snapped back "VITAMINS!!!". We were like WTF? Since when did energy drinks started to have vitamins in them? Finally, I showed him the contents of the drink: #1 Taurine, #2 Caffeine. So it's nothing but fukking Red Bull. And we all know 'Red Bull gives you wings!'. Wish it gave you brains too.
Another co-worker asked him if it'd be OK to give that drink to his 5 yo when he thought that it was alright for him to gulp gallons of it. He snapped again saying "OF COURSE! In fact she drinks small quantities of it everyday." A 5 year old kid drinking Red Bull. Can you beat that? Just coz this idiot wants to earn more points. That is when I got seriously pissed!