radhay
06-20 11:07 AM
I am in the same boat (completing a decade of career in US). Can they hire you as a consulting PM so you can still stay with your current employer?
wallpaper lambert album kerosene. hulugu
abhijitp
01-26 09:32 PM
^^
mchundi
02-16 05:04 PM
I did some research on murthy.com and found that AC21 did abolish 'per country of birth quota' on recycled numbers. I am posting a link to this murthy.com article of Oct 6, 2000 which clarifies the issue.
http://www.murthy.com/news/UDh1det.html
If the link fails I am reporducing the paragraph here: -
Major highlights of ACTA are listed below :
Per Country Quotas for Immigrant Visas
"Under Section 104, with respect to immigrant visas, the per country quota, which has been adversely affecting those from China and India and which the U.S. State Department had stated could possibly affect those from the Philippines in the near future, may have been resolved with this Bill. It has always been the case that not all of the available immigrant visas were issued, since most countries did not have enough applicants to use the total available. ACTA provides that if the INS or the U.S. State Department does not issue all of the immigrant visas that should be issued in that FY, the unused immigrant visa numbers should be made available to all countries without the per country quota limit applying."
Retrogression started as the recycled numbers are no longer available and with that country quota showed its horrible effect. It is clear guys we have to concentrate our energy and our thoughts on this quota. Quota on the basis of "country of birth" on talent or skill needed is really hard to explain and we can have good logical arguments to support its abolition.
Good work jungalee32,
It is also part of our resource data base that sandeep compiled, where all these issues are clearly explained. That is why once we have the unused numbers it is like increasing the per country quota. It will bring the priority date to current for a couple of years(even if there are more cases than unused numbers with them. Just because they cannot process that faster)
--MC
http://www.murthy.com/news/UDh1det.html
If the link fails I am reporducing the paragraph here: -
Major highlights of ACTA are listed below :
Per Country Quotas for Immigrant Visas
"Under Section 104, with respect to immigrant visas, the per country quota, which has been adversely affecting those from China and India and which the U.S. State Department had stated could possibly affect those from the Philippines in the near future, may have been resolved with this Bill. It has always been the case that not all of the available immigrant visas were issued, since most countries did not have enough applicants to use the total available. ACTA provides that if the INS or the U.S. State Department does not issue all of the immigrant visas that should be issued in that FY, the unused immigrant visa numbers should be made available to all countries without the per country quota limit applying."
Retrogression started as the recycled numbers are no longer available and with that country quota showed its horrible effect. It is clear guys we have to concentrate our energy and our thoughts on this quota. Quota on the basis of "country of birth" on talent or skill needed is really hard to explain and we can have good logical arguments to support its abolition.
Good work jungalee32,
It is also part of our resource data base that sandeep compiled, where all these issues are clearly explained. That is why once we have the unused numbers it is like increasing the per country quota. It will bring the priority date to current for a couple of years(even if there are more cases than unused numbers with them. Just because they cannot process that faster)
--MC
2011 Miranda Lambert Profile Photo
hopefulgc
05-12 02:45 PM
We need to raise a million $. Anything less is seeming to just not cut it.
Look where we are now with our half-hearted efforts.
DOS says that EB3 would be retrogressed for the remaining part of the year. There was a time I used to believe that come year 2008, there is no way EB3 would be at 2001. I was wrong.
Today I think, there is no way the dates would be at 2002 come 2011.... but guess what.. its a definite possibility.
We need to do something substantial. We must equip IV with huge funds .. funds that will get us in bed with the right people.
--- here is what follows from an earlier post
Even though we have a very honest agenda at heart which at its very core aims to help America be more competitive in the global scene, apparently, we need to have the financial clout to be able to turn heads and thus have our voices heard.
Here is an idea: say we have roughly 500 members out of this vast array of 35000+ members who have the heart and the will to contribute. we get $2000 from each and place it in an escrow trust account that does not release money for expenditure unless we reach $1 mln
why? because the first 10 or 50 contributers are the most elemental in getting such a campaign off the ground and we need to give them a guarantee that its an ALL or NOTHING DEAL. If for some reason we stop at $10k because only 5 members contributed and no more are ready to contribute (unlikely), those 5 members can get their money back.
now is $2000 a huge amount?.. absolutely... but maybe we could tweak this amount or do some payback if we have more people stepping forward in excess of 500. and the amount of payback depends on how early your contributed to the campaign. The first 50 guys could even get a substantial part of their contribution back.
People, we gotta swing for the fences, the next time we go to play.
It has taken us some time to understand how the lobbying game is played.. but this time "Lets play to win"
We need to be a big fish.. a million $+ whale to be taken seriously.
Lastly, i'm just presenting an idea .. its not endorsed by IV core.. and I maybe overlooking some finer points of non-profit corporate taxation and finance.
funding drive is here: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=18790
Brethren.... rise!
Look where we are now with our half-hearted efforts.
DOS says that EB3 would be retrogressed for the remaining part of the year. There was a time I used to believe that come year 2008, there is no way EB3 would be at 2001. I was wrong.
Today I think, there is no way the dates would be at 2002 come 2011.... but guess what.. its a definite possibility.
We need to do something substantial. We must equip IV with huge funds .. funds that will get us in bed with the right people.
--- here is what follows from an earlier post
Even though we have a very honest agenda at heart which at its very core aims to help America be more competitive in the global scene, apparently, we need to have the financial clout to be able to turn heads and thus have our voices heard.
Here is an idea: say we have roughly 500 members out of this vast array of 35000+ members who have the heart and the will to contribute. we get $2000 from each and place it in an escrow trust account that does not release money for expenditure unless we reach $1 mln
why? because the first 10 or 50 contributers are the most elemental in getting such a campaign off the ground and we need to give them a guarantee that its an ALL or NOTHING DEAL. If for some reason we stop at $10k because only 5 members contributed and no more are ready to contribute (unlikely), those 5 members can get their money back.
now is $2000 a huge amount?.. absolutely... but maybe we could tweak this amount or do some payback if we have more people stepping forward in excess of 500. and the amount of payback depends on how early your contributed to the campaign. The first 50 guys could even get a substantial part of their contribution back.
People, we gotta swing for the fences, the next time we go to play.
It has taken us some time to understand how the lobbying game is played.. but this time "Lets play to win"
We need to be a big fish.. a million $+ whale to be taken seriously.
Lastly, i'm just presenting an idea .. its not endorsed by IV core.. and I maybe overlooking some finer points of non-profit corporate taxation and finance.
funding drive is here: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=18790
Brethren.... rise!
more...
jonty_11
01-15 12:07 PM
Problem is it will be another $500 expense (Test plus air Tickets) as the test center is not in my state/city.
I do have a Masters from US and 6 plus years expirience in US.
I had written a detailed letter explaining all that....I am going to try to take it withing 120 days as stipulated in the letter...
I do have a Masters from US and 6 plus years expirience in US.
I had written a detailed letter explaining all that....I am going to try to take it withing 120 days as stipulated in the letter...
insbaby
07-14 12:43 PM
I called uscis and they have asked me to refile I-765. They said they will issue new EAD with extended dates. Not sure how long will it take. And i dont believe issuing 3 month EAD was intentional. They probbaly wont have any idea when the 485 would be adjudicated when they approve EAD.
You have PD as Nov 2005, EB2.
Now the VB is on 2006.
They must have known atleast a month back.
They issued just 3 months extension
All matching perfectly and result will be good one for you....
You have PD as Nov 2005, EB2.
Now the VB is on 2006.
They must have known atleast a month back.
They issued just 3 months extension
All matching perfectly and result will be good one for you....
more...
Jen2010
12-06 04:55 PM
Dear BimmerFan,
Thank you very much for sharing your experience !!
I am in F-1 Visa and finishing my PhD and I have recently received a job offer to start next June.
The J1 waiver process is related to two visas J-1 that I had before I applied to the PhD program: I came to US in 2006 as exchange visitor scholar to do a research project for six months at X University with a J-1 visa, after this I came back to my country for 1 month and applied to another J-1 visa from August'06 through Dec'06 because I was invited again to continue doing research at this university (while applying to the PhD); after this I went my country and changed my visa to F-1 to start my PhD studies. I was aware that all J-1 visas have a restriction called two-year rule "INA 212(e)" but I did not have any problem to issue my F-1 visa in 12/2006.
Recently, I have found out that I need to issue a waiver for the two-year rule in order to be able to apply to a visa H-1B that my employer will sponsor after my OPT. I am preparing to apply now to the waiver, asking a No Objection Statement (NOS) from my embassy, I was planning to send the application next week to so that it doesn't delay my H-1 visa application next year and I don't have money to pay an attorney so I wanted to send it myself.
I am not sure if I should mention or not my offer of employment as one of the reasons of requesting the waiver ? Do you think it could be good or bad ??
Do you think I should pay an attorney ? of it is okay to do it independently ?
I do not have any commitment with my home country and I have not received any sponsorship from my country or US government during these programs. This rule applied to me because my profession is written in the Exchange Visitor Skill List of the US. Department of State.
Please advise,
Thanks !!!
Thank you very much for sharing your experience !!
I am in F-1 Visa and finishing my PhD and I have recently received a job offer to start next June.
The J1 waiver process is related to two visas J-1 that I had before I applied to the PhD program: I came to US in 2006 as exchange visitor scholar to do a research project for six months at X University with a J-1 visa, after this I came back to my country for 1 month and applied to another J-1 visa from August'06 through Dec'06 because I was invited again to continue doing research at this university (while applying to the PhD); after this I went my country and changed my visa to F-1 to start my PhD studies. I was aware that all J-1 visas have a restriction called two-year rule "INA 212(e)" but I did not have any problem to issue my F-1 visa in 12/2006.
Recently, I have found out that I need to issue a waiver for the two-year rule in order to be able to apply to a visa H-1B that my employer will sponsor after my OPT. I am preparing to apply now to the waiver, asking a No Objection Statement (NOS) from my embassy, I was planning to send the application next week to so that it doesn't delay my H-1 visa application next year and I don't have money to pay an attorney so I wanted to send it myself.
I am not sure if I should mention or not my offer of employment as one of the reasons of requesting the waiver ? Do you think it could be good or bad ??
Do you think I should pay an attorney ? of it is okay to do it independently ?
I do not have any commitment with my home country and I have not received any sponsorship from my country or US government during these programs. This rule applied to me because my profession is written in the Exchange Visitor Skill List of the US. Department of State.
Please advise,
Thanks !!!
2010 miranda lambert kerosene album
kirupa
01-06 12:57 PM
"Conflict of Interest" is my middle name...s.
:P
:P
more...
gccovet
09-04 01:42 PM
I beg to disagree on this thought:
I think in the above scenario, they do not invalidate your H1. You can continue till the end-date on the H1, even though it was approved based on pending I-485. I suggest you consult an attorney on this specific scenario.
You can work on h1b - you will get H1b based on existing approved 140 and pending 485.
If 140 is revoked by employer you may get a RFE or NOID or in rare cases erroneous denial but you can continue on h1b while you respond to RFE or NOID oor through MTR to erroneous denial.
Sending AC21 docs does not necessarily mean you may not get NOID - AC21 docs seldom go into your file.
LostInGCProcess, Chanduv23,
Thank you for your replies, I appreciate it.
So, I guess, it is okay to get the H1B "Transferred" and if (god forbid) I-485 gets denied, I can still work till the teneure of H1B and then go home.
Also, if i-140 is revoked , that should trigger NOID or RFE which the lawyer will handle (hopefully successfully).
Once again, Thanks a lot.
Regards.
GCCovet
I think in the above scenario, they do not invalidate your H1. You can continue till the end-date on the H1, even though it was approved based on pending I-485. I suggest you consult an attorney on this specific scenario.
You can work on h1b - you will get H1b based on existing approved 140 and pending 485.
If 140 is revoked by employer you may get a RFE or NOID or in rare cases erroneous denial but you can continue on h1b while you respond to RFE or NOID oor through MTR to erroneous denial.
Sending AC21 docs does not necessarily mean you may not get NOID - AC21 docs seldom go into your file.
LostInGCProcess, Chanduv23,
Thank you for your replies, I appreciate it.
So, I guess, it is okay to get the H1B "Transferred" and if (god forbid) I-485 gets denied, I can still work till the teneure of H1B and then go home.
Also, if i-140 is revoked , that should trigger NOID or RFE which the lawyer will handle (hopefully successfully).
Once again, Thanks a lot.
Regards.
GCCovet
hair miranda lambert kerosene album
YesGC_NoGC
06-20 01:34 PM
Yes I do agree with you to move on without worry!! As I mentioned that I had made up my mind to accept the position and skip informing USCIS as i read at some places , that it is optional to inform.
However The Immigration guys (from the prospective employer) saiid that DOL may not like the word "MANAGER" in my case and this can cause issues at later point of time. And They have policy to send letter to USCIS.
I am looking at looking at options...let's see what is the outcome.
Thanks
Guys: I have invoked my AC21 and am a consultant PM though my LC mentions "Programmer/Analyst". I came to this country because it is a land of opportunity and have been in the US for over 9 years now. I can't let this stupid AC21 provisions of "Same or Similar occupation" scepter of fear stop me from moving forward.
I'm also looking for a Full-time job as a Manager and if I get it I intend on taking it in a heart-beat without worrying about the consequences. Hey, it's not like I'm doing something illegal but merely exercising my due growth in my career. So, I'm moving on and if something bad were to happen like a NOID or a RFE, I'm ready to pack my bags back home with a satisfaction that I was atleast in the driver's seat.
My 2 cents but please do what is right for you.
However The Immigration guys (from the prospective employer) saiid that DOL may not like the word "MANAGER" in my case and this can cause issues at later point of time. And They have policy to send letter to USCIS.
I am looking at looking at options...let's see what is the outcome.
Thanks
Guys: I have invoked my AC21 and am a consultant PM though my LC mentions "Programmer/Analyst". I came to this country because it is a land of opportunity and have been in the US for over 9 years now. I can't let this stupid AC21 provisions of "Same or Similar occupation" scepter of fear stop me from moving forward.
I'm also looking for a Full-time job as a Manager and if I get it I intend on taking it in a heart-beat without worrying about the consequences. Hey, it's not like I'm doing something illegal but merely exercising my due growth in my career. So, I'm moving on and if something bad were to happen like a NOID or a RFE, I'm ready to pack my bags back home with a satisfaction that I was atleast in the driver's seat.
My 2 cents but please do what is right for you.
more...
dontcareaboutGC
03-19 11:24 AM
Ignore this if this is a repost!
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security,
and International Law
Hearing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Government Perspectives
on Immigration Statistics
Testimony of Charles Oppenheim
Chief, Immigrant Control and Reporting Division
Visa Services Office
U.S. Department of State
June 6, 2007
2:00 p.m.
2141 Rayburn House Office Building
Chairman Lofgren, Ranking Member King, and distinguished members of
the Committee, it is a pleasure to be here this afternoon to answer
your questions and provide an overview of our immigrant visa control
and reporting program operated by the U.S. Department of State. The
Department of State is responsible for administering the provisions of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) related to the numerical
limitations on immigrant visa issuances. At the beginning of each
month, the Visa Office (VO) receives a report from each consular post
listing totals of documentarily-qualified immigrant visa applicants in
categories subject to numerical limitation. Cases are grouped in three
different categories: 1) foreign state chargeability, 2) preference,
and 3) priority date.
Foreign state chargeability for visa purposes refers to the fact that
an immigrant is chargeable to the numerical limitation for the foreign
state or dependent area in which the immigrant's place of birth is
located. Exceptions are provided for a child (unmarried and under 21
years of age) or spouse accompanying or following to join a principal
to prevent the separation of family members, as well as for an
applicant born in the United States or in a foreign state of which
neither parent was a native or resident. Alternate chargeability is
desirable when the visa cut-off date for the foreign state of a parent
or spouse is more advantageous than that of the applicant's foreign
state.
As established by the Immigration and Nationality Act, preference is
the visa category that can be assigned based on relationships to U.S.
citizens or legal permanent residents. Family-based immigration falls
under two basic categories: unlimited and limited. Preferences
established by law for the limited category are:
Family First Preference (F1): Unmarried sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their minor children, if any.
Family Second Preference (F2): Spouses, minor children, and unmarried
sons and daughters of lawful permanent residents.
Family Third Preference (F3): Married sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their spouses and minor children.
Family Fourth Preference (F4): Brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens
and their spouses and minor children provided the U.S. citizen is at
least 21 years of age.
The Priority Date is normally the date on which the petition to accord
the applicant immigrant status was filed, generally with U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). VO subdivides the annual
preference and foreign state limitations specified by the INA into
monthly allotments. The totals of documentarily-qualified applicants
which have been reported to VO are compared each month with the
numbers available for the next regular allotment. The determination of
how many numbers are available requires consideration of several
variables, including: past number use; estimates of future number use
and return rates; and estimates of USCIS demand based on cut-off date
movements. Once this consideration is completed, the cutoff dates are
established and numbers are allocated to reported applicants in order
of their priority dates, the oldest dates first.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy
all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is
considered "Current." For example: If the monthly allocation target is
10,000, and we only have 5,000 applicants, the category can be
"Current.� Whenever the total of documentarily-qualified applicants in
a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for
the particular month, the category is considered to be
"oversubscribed" and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
The cut-off date is the priority date of the first
documentarily-qualified applicant who could not be accommodated for a
visa number. For example, if the monthly target is 10,000 and we have
25,000 applicants, then we would need to establish a cut-off date so
that only 10,000 numbers would be allocated. In this case, the cut-off
would be the priority date of the 10,001st applicant.
Only persons with a priority date earlier than a cut-off date are
entitled to allotment of a visa number. The cut-off dates are the 1st,
8th, 15th, and 22nd of a month, since VO groups demand for numbers
under these dates. (Priority dates of the first through seventh of a
month are grouped under the 1st, the eighth through the 14th under the
8th, etc.) VO attempts to establish the cut-off dates for the
following month on or about the 8th of each month. The dates are
immediately transmitted to consular posts abroad and USCIS, and also
published in the Visa Bulletin and online at the website
www.travel.state.gov. Visa allotments for use during that month are
transmitted to consular posts. USCIS requests visa allotments for
adjustment of status cases only when all other case processing has
been completed. I am submitting the latest Visa Bulletin for the
record or you can click on: Visa Bulletin for June 2007.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE SYSTEM AND CLARIFICATION OF SOME
FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS:
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified
at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every
applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date
been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, visa allotments
are made only on the basis of the total applicants reported
�documentarily qualified� (or, theoretically ready for interview) each
month. Demand for visa numbers can fluctuate from one month to
another, with the inevitable impact on cut-off dates.
If an applicant is reported documentarily qualified but allocation of
a visa number is not possible because of a visa availability cut-off
date, the demand is recorded at VO and an allocation is made as soon
as the applicable cut-off date advances beyond the applicant's
priority date. There is no need for such applicant to be reported a
second time.
Visa numbers are always allotted for all documentarily-qualified
applicants with a priority date before the relevant cut-off date, as
long as the case had been reported to VO in time to be included in the
monthly calculation of visa availability. Failure of visa number
receipt by the overseas processing office could mean that the request
was not dispatched in time to reach VO for the monthly allocation
cycle, or that information on the request was incomplete or inaccurate
(e.g., incorrect priority date).
Allocations to Foreign Service posts outside the regular monthly cycle
are possible in emergency or exceptional cases, but only at the
request of the office processing the case. Note that, should
retrogression of a cut-off date be announced, VO can honor
extraordinary requests for additional numbers only if the applicant's
priority date is earlier than the retrogressed cut-off date. Not all
numbers allocated are actually used for visa issuance; some are
returned to VO and are reincorporated into the pool of numbers
available for later allocation during the fiscal year. The rate of
return of unused numbers may fluctuate from month to month, just as
demand may fluctuate. Lower returns mean fewer numbers available for
subsequent reallocation. Fluctuations can cause cut-off date movement
to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly
possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches
the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7 percent is a
cap, which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed.
Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The
country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the
annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This
limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled,
however. A portion of the numbers provided to the Family Second
preference category is exempt from this per-country cap. The American
Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (AC21) removed the
per-country limit in any calendar quarter in which overall applicant
demand for Employment-based visa numbers is less than the total of
such numbers available.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by
documentarily-qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds
the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation,
that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may
require the establishment of a cut-off date which is earlier than that
which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The
prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same
percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual
limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off
dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off
dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
The committee submitted several questions that fell outside of VO�s
area of work, therefore, I have provided in my written testimony today
the answers only to those questions that the Department of State can
answer. Thank you for this opportunity.
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security,
and International Law
Hearing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Government Perspectives
on Immigration Statistics
Testimony of Charles Oppenheim
Chief, Immigrant Control and Reporting Division
Visa Services Office
U.S. Department of State
June 6, 2007
2:00 p.m.
2141 Rayburn House Office Building
Chairman Lofgren, Ranking Member King, and distinguished members of
the Committee, it is a pleasure to be here this afternoon to answer
your questions and provide an overview of our immigrant visa control
and reporting program operated by the U.S. Department of State. The
Department of State is responsible for administering the provisions of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) related to the numerical
limitations on immigrant visa issuances. At the beginning of each
month, the Visa Office (VO) receives a report from each consular post
listing totals of documentarily-qualified immigrant visa applicants in
categories subject to numerical limitation. Cases are grouped in three
different categories: 1) foreign state chargeability, 2) preference,
and 3) priority date.
Foreign state chargeability for visa purposes refers to the fact that
an immigrant is chargeable to the numerical limitation for the foreign
state or dependent area in which the immigrant's place of birth is
located. Exceptions are provided for a child (unmarried and under 21
years of age) or spouse accompanying or following to join a principal
to prevent the separation of family members, as well as for an
applicant born in the United States or in a foreign state of which
neither parent was a native or resident. Alternate chargeability is
desirable when the visa cut-off date for the foreign state of a parent
or spouse is more advantageous than that of the applicant's foreign
state.
As established by the Immigration and Nationality Act, preference is
the visa category that can be assigned based on relationships to U.S.
citizens or legal permanent residents. Family-based immigration falls
under two basic categories: unlimited and limited. Preferences
established by law for the limited category are:
Family First Preference (F1): Unmarried sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their minor children, if any.
Family Second Preference (F2): Spouses, minor children, and unmarried
sons and daughters of lawful permanent residents.
Family Third Preference (F3): Married sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their spouses and minor children.
Family Fourth Preference (F4): Brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens
and their spouses and minor children provided the U.S. citizen is at
least 21 years of age.
The Priority Date is normally the date on which the petition to accord
the applicant immigrant status was filed, generally with U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). VO subdivides the annual
preference and foreign state limitations specified by the INA into
monthly allotments. The totals of documentarily-qualified applicants
which have been reported to VO are compared each month with the
numbers available for the next regular allotment. The determination of
how many numbers are available requires consideration of several
variables, including: past number use; estimates of future number use
and return rates; and estimates of USCIS demand based on cut-off date
movements. Once this consideration is completed, the cutoff dates are
established and numbers are allocated to reported applicants in order
of their priority dates, the oldest dates first.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy
all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is
considered "Current." For example: If the monthly allocation target is
10,000, and we only have 5,000 applicants, the category can be
"Current.� Whenever the total of documentarily-qualified applicants in
a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for
the particular month, the category is considered to be
"oversubscribed" and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
The cut-off date is the priority date of the first
documentarily-qualified applicant who could not be accommodated for a
visa number. For example, if the monthly target is 10,000 and we have
25,000 applicants, then we would need to establish a cut-off date so
that only 10,000 numbers would be allocated. In this case, the cut-off
would be the priority date of the 10,001st applicant.
Only persons with a priority date earlier than a cut-off date are
entitled to allotment of a visa number. The cut-off dates are the 1st,
8th, 15th, and 22nd of a month, since VO groups demand for numbers
under these dates. (Priority dates of the first through seventh of a
month are grouped under the 1st, the eighth through the 14th under the
8th, etc.) VO attempts to establish the cut-off dates for the
following month on or about the 8th of each month. The dates are
immediately transmitted to consular posts abroad and USCIS, and also
published in the Visa Bulletin and online at the website
www.travel.state.gov. Visa allotments for use during that month are
transmitted to consular posts. USCIS requests visa allotments for
adjustment of status cases only when all other case processing has
been completed. I am submitting the latest Visa Bulletin for the
record or you can click on: Visa Bulletin for June 2007.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE SYSTEM AND CLARIFICATION OF SOME
FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS:
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified
at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every
applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date
been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, visa allotments
are made only on the basis of the total applicants reported
�documentarily qualified� (or, theoretically ready for interview) each
month. Demand for visa numbers can fluctuate from one month to
another, with the inevitable impact on cut-off dates.
If an applicant is reported documentarily qualified but allocation of
a visa number is not possible because of a visa availability cut-off
date, the demand is recorded at VO and an allocation is made as soon
as the applicable cut-off date advances beyond the applicant's
priority date. There is no need for such applicant to be reported a
second time.
Visa numbers are always allotted for all documentarily-qualified
applicants with a priority date before the relevant cut-off date, as
long as the case had been reported to VO in time to be included in the
monthly calculation of visa availability. Failure of visa number
receipt by the overseas processing office could mean that the request
was not dispatched in time to reach VO for the monthly allocation
cycle, or that information on the request was incomplete or inaccurate
(e.g., incorrect priority date).
Allocations to Foreign Service posts outside the regular monthly cycle
are possible in emergency or exceptional cases, but only at the
request of the office processing the case. Note that, should
retrogression of a cut-off date be announced, VO can honor
extraordinary requests for additional numbers only if the applicant's
priority date is earlier than the retrogressed cut-off date. Not all
numbers allocated are actually used for visa issuance; some are
returned to VO and are reincorporated into the pool of numbers
available for later allocation during the fiscal year. The rate of
return of unused numbers may fluctuate from month to month, just as
demand may fluctuate. Lower returns mean fewer numbers available for
subsequent reallocation. Fluctuations can cause cut-off date movement
to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly
possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches
the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7 percent is a
cap, which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed.
Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The
country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the
annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This
limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled,
however. A portion of the numbers provided to the Family Second
preference category is exempt from this per-country cap. The American
Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (AC21) removed the
per-country limit in any calendar quarter in which overall applicant
demand for Employment-based visa numbers is less than the total of
such numbers available.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by
documentarily-qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds
the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation,
that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may
require the establishment of a cut-off date which is earlier than that
which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The
prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same
percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual
limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off
dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off
dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
The committee submitted several questions that fell outside of VO�s
area of work, therefore, I have provided in my written testimony today
the answers only to those questions that the Department of State can
answer. Thank you for this opportunity.
hot miranda lambert album
saileshdude
07-21 06:41 PM
In rare cases RFE has been issued. My doc also wrote that I need to follow-up with my PCP for INH treatment on my medical form. I visited my PCP and they sent me to a Infectious Disease specialist. The ID specialist said that there is no urgency for treatment although it is recommended to have the treatment. But said I can my take my own time to think if I need to go through the treatment.
Asked what if USCIS sends an RFE, the ID said that they usually do not ask for it for younger people but for someone over 50 , they may ask. In any case he said if I received any RFE he was willing to provide me a letter that INH treatment is not urgently needed.
Asked what if USCIS sends an RFE, the ID said that they usually do not ask for it for younger people but for someone over 50 , they may ask. In any case he said if I received any RFE he was willing to provide me a letter that INH treatment is not urgently needed.
more...
house miranda lambert kerosene album
pune_guy
11-13 07:50 PM
The status of our AP applications is also "Document mailed". I hope it means approval is mailed and not some RFE.
tattoo miranda lambert kerosene album
ujjvalkoul
01-17 03:11 PM
Hi
I received my EAD card but the expiry date is 01/08/08....it was approved on 01/11/2008.....
So they goofed up as usual.....I called them and they are asking to file another 765 with
Orig EAD card and copy of approval notice...
Is the approval notice the letter that comes with your EAD card?
Has anyone faced this..any pointers would help..........
They also asked me to book an infopass appt to see if they can issue an interim EAD...or something...This really sucks...
I received my EAD card but the expiry date is 01/08/08....it was approved on 01/11/2008.....
So they goofed up as usual.....I called them and they are asking to file another 765 with
Orig EAD card and copy of approval notice...
Is the approval notice the letter that comes with your EAD card?
Has anyone faced this..any pointers would help..........
They also asked me to book an infopass appt to see if they can issue an interim EAD...or something...This really sucks...
more...
pictures Miranda lambert kerosene
garyzero
06-06 03:26 PM
Never heard of this contest?? Looks like a few good one's there.
I love the Monkey from Family Guy!!!
I love the Monkey from Family Guy!!!
dresses miranda lambert album cover.
GCwaitforever
07-14 06:37 AM
This is great news. :) This increases the chances of letting the bill fly through all the obstacles the House.
more...
makeup miranda lambert album kerosene
immi_seeker
07-12 08:31 PM
Our Current EAD is expiring on 10/01/2008. So we had applied for extension in june. On july 7th our application was approved and today we recieved our EAD cards. I was expecting a one year extension , which is until 10/01/2009. But USCIS send us ead cards that will expire on 01/01/2009.
What should be the course of action here. Do i need to reapply or just contact USCIS and will they be able to fix it? Any body on similiar situation.?
Service center is nebraska
What should be the course of action here. Do i need to reapply or just contact USCIS and will they be able to fix it? Any body on similiar situation.?
Service center is nebraska
girlfriend album miranda lambert
jase21
11-23 04:26 AM
seems like flower by flocke button is lacking symmetry, or is it a design in its own sense.. But its beautiful.
Its hard to vote for just one!
Its hard to vote for just one!
hairstyles miranda lambert album
drona
08-31 12:47 AM
Am I missing something here. Isn't it via country of birth and not country of citizenship. There might be better ways to get around the system. EB2 Indians should marry EB3 ROW folk and apply cross-chargeability! I have yet to think of a way out for EB3 India!
mbartosik
11-09 05:42 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7087846.stm
Actually there were two issues.
1) UK gov changed qualifying period for "indefinite leave to stay" from 4 years to 5 years. Without a grand father clause. UK gov won this.
2) NHS (state heath system) discriminated against those with UK work visa without "indefinite leave to say". That is called a Highly Skilled Migrant Programme.
For comparison with US system
indefinite leave to say == green card. Much easier to get in UK, wait time fixed at 5 years (up from 4).
Highly Skilled Migrant Programme == H1B H4 and L1 L2 but I think like having an EAD also.
I wonder given this ruling if those affected can now sue the NHS (National Health Service) over this for compensatory damages.
Actually there were two issues.
1) UK gov changed qualifying period for "indefinite leave to stay" from 4 years to 5 years. Without a grand father clause. UK gov won this.
2) NHS (state heath system) discriminated against those with UK work visa without "indefinite leave to say". That is called a Highly Skilled Migrant Programme.
For comparison with US system
indefinite leave to say == green card. Much easier to get in UK, wait time fixed at 5 years (up from 4).
Highly Skilled Migrant Programme == H1B H4 and L1 L2 but I think like having an EAD also.
I wonder given this ruling if those affected can now sue the NHS (National Health Service) over this for compensatory damages.
mallu
02-17 03:40 AM
There's nothing new in that website. EB-2 India for entire FY is GONE.. FINIS.. KHATAM... KHALLAS.
....
That forum posting by Attorney says " ...Charles Oppenheim spoke. Mr. Oppenheim is the officer within the Visa Office tasked with calculating visa bulletin cutoff dates each month. He offered the following thoughts as to cutoff date movement in the upcoming months:
In April, India and China EB2 will be set at 12/01/2003
...
So ?
....
That forum posting by Attorney says " ...Charles Oppenheim spoke. Mr. Oppenheim is the officer within the Visa Office tasked with calculating visa bulletin cutoff dates each month. He offered the following thoughts as to cutoff date movement in the upcoming months:
In April, India and China EB2 will be set at 12/01/2003
...
So ?
No comments:
Post a Comment