conchshell
07-29 05:39 PM
By now its almost evident that the CR's for retrogression, per country limit. and STEM related degrees are actually are not going anywhere. Understandably it was CHC (Congressional Hispanic Caucus) and republican leadership that blocked the road to legal immigration relief.
Its almost beyond my analytical power to find out why CHC blocked our way? CHC treated us as hostages to get their demands. They were successful with their threat that either it will be amnesty to illegals or absolutely nothing.
So this though struck my mind: what is our stand as far as illegal immigration is concerned. Even though we may not support/recommend further illegal immigration, what is our stand on granting amnesty to illegals already living in this country.
So do we:
1. Completely oppose amnesty to illegals immigrants currently living in USA
2. Support amnesty to illegals immigrants currently living in USA
3. Support amnesty to illegals immigrants currently living in USA, as long as they do not stand ahead of legal immigrants in the queue.
4. Support amnesty to illegals immigrants currently living in USA, if CHC and other similar organizations support us for our much sought immigration reforms.
5. Only support Guest Worker Program type of thing, which allows people to enter on work visas and further backlog the employment based GC queues.
Is it going to help us if we shake hands with CHC and other similar organizations, if they support us? I mean if we can't defeat them why don't we join forces with them to get what we want. Please remember that legal immigration reform bills always try to piggy back on CIR (Comprehensive Immigration Reforms) type of bills where illegal immigration/amnesty is focal point of discussion, rather than other way around.
Its almost beyond my analytical power to find out why CHC blocked our way? CHC treated us as hostages to get their demands. They were successful with their threat that either it will be amnesty to illegals or absolutely nothing.
So this though struck my mind: what is our stand as far as illegal immigration is concerned. Even though we may not support/recommend further illegal immigration, what is our stand on granting amnesty to illegals already living in this country.
So do we:
1. Completely oppose amnesty to illegals immigrants currently living in USA
2. Support amnesty to illegals immigrants currently living in USA
3. Support amnesty to illegals immigrants currently living in USA, as long as they do not stand ahead of legal immigrants in the queue.
4. Support amnesty to illegals immigrants currently living in USA, if CHC and other similar organizations support us for our much sought immigration reforms.
5. Only support Guest Worker Program type of thing, which allows people to enter on work visas and further backlog the employment based GC queues.
Is it going to help us if we shake hands with CHC and other similar organizations, if they support us? I mean if we can't defeat them why don't we join forces with them to get what we want. Please remember that legal immigration reform bills always try to piggy back on CIR (Comprehensive Immigration Reforms) type of bills where illegal immigration/amnesty is focal point of discussion, rather than other way around.
wallpaper President Obama to deliver eulogy at Kennedy#39;s funeral
eager_immi
01-31 01:47 PM
i don't get it how can he help?
he is extremely knowledgable person in terms of immigration, he has 5000+ posts on immigration forums and has helped countless people with immigration issues. His name seems to be Nadeem and is a Canadian immigrant and is a CPA and his EB3 petition is in retrogression.
In recent times he started stereotyping immigrants and make every immigrant feel that they are breaking laws in some way or the other and became unpopular.
He was not in support of IV and was under a strong feeling that a bunch of immigrants are wasting precious time and money. But now he seems to change his stance and has stepped into IV and has become a member. He is very helpful in terms of his skills and willingness to share his knowledge and help people.
He does audit to a lot of h1b dependent employers and has direct influence and can strongly recommend them to contribute for this cause. Most of his analysis about patterns of visa distribution comee out as expected but in recent times there were instances where his analysis went wrong too.
Overall he is definitely of great help if he wishes to dedicate some time of his to this cause and help in all ways possible.
he is extremely knowledgable person in terms of immigration, he has 5000+ posts on immigration forums and has helped countless people with immigration issues. His name seems to be Nadeem and is a Canadian immigrant and is a CPA and his EB3 petition is in retrogression.
In recent times he started stereotyping immigrants and make every immigrant feel that they are breaking laws in some way or the other and became unpopular.
He was not in support of IV and was under a strong feeling that a bunch of immigrants are wasting precious time and money. But now he seems to change his stance and has stepped into IV and has become a member. He is very helpful in terms of his skills and willingness to share his knowledge and help people.
He does audit to a lot of h1b dependent employers and has direct influence and can strongly recommend them to contribute for this cause. Most of his analysis about patterns of visa distribution comee out as expected but in recent times there were instances where his analysis went wrong too.
Overall he is definitely of great help if he wishes to dedicate some time of his to this cause and help in all ways possible.
GooblyWoobly
07-18 06:25 PM
Wrong! Yes, you will be the new fee but then you will pay the same fee each year you renew your EAD. No fee payment only applies if you file your I-485 with the new fee structure.
If you are not planning on using EAD and she won't either then she needs to change status to H4.
Can someone else confirm this too? For Q2, I think you are wrong. Take this case....
Primary is on H1, derivative on H4, both apply for AOS, primary goes on EAD (thus invalidating H1, and in turn spouse's H4). So, the spouse just has AOS receipt number, and no H4. Is she out of status? Of course not. This is a very common scenario.
Also, for Q1, I765 is a completely different entity in the pay schedule http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/FinalUSCISFeeSchedule052907.pdf
So, why wouldn't I get the benefit of the higher fee if I pay that? Any source of information for you to say I will have to pay each year?
If you are not planning on using EAD and she won't either then she needs to change status to H4.
Can someone else confirm this too? For Q2, I think you are wrong. Take this case....
Primary is on H1, derivative on H4, both apply for AOS, primary goes on EAD (thus invalidating H1, and in turn spouse's H4). So, the spouse just has AOS receipt number, and no H4. Is she out of status? Of course not. This is a very common scenario.
Also, for Q1, I765 is a completely different entity in the pay schedule http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/FinalUSCISFeeSchedule052907.pdf
So, why wouldn't I get the benefit of the higher fee if I pay that? Any source of information for you to say I will have to pay each year?
2011 President Johnson receives
brb2
11-08 06:31 PM
remember the bulk of the pending AOS are from retrogressed countries. So even those from ROW who have not yet filed (and may do so next few years) need to be added to the "pending AOS" in order to obtain the 'real' que size of pending AOS applications.
more...
InTheMoment
02-21 05:24 PM
Does anyone have an idea whether new H1-B adjustment of status (quota exempt categories) are processed in Vermont itself or sent to California. Also, are they are taking the same time as extensions/transfers ? @90 days.
I read somewhere that only extensions are being transferred to CA.
Will be great to know from people who went thro' a similar quota exempt new H1-B approval process recently.
thanks !
I read somewhere that only extensions are being transferred to CA.
Will be great to know from people who went thro' a similar quota exempt new H1-B approval process recently.
thanks !
dan19
10-18 12:22 PM
One of my friends got a similar one. In that case the DOL pointed to one another candidate(say Mr.A's) who applied for the same job, and was more qualified than my friend in terms of years of experience. The DOL asked why Mr.A wasn't hired.
My friend's company sent a new letter to Mr.A asking whether he was still available. Mr.A did not reply back.
Since Mr.A did not reply back, the company understood that Mr.A is no longer interested in the job.
The company then sent back the rebuttal stating the new efforts made.
The DOL then approved:) the case.
I received a letter from BEC and it says
This Notice of Findings is the Department’s statement of its intent to deny the application.
The following reasons were attached in the document:
1. - The job opportunity has been and is clearly open to any qualified U.S worker.
The case file indicates that telephone calls were placed made to U.S. applicants but the calls failed to reach the following applicants: A,B,C (name of the applicants)
Although telephone calls were unsuccessfully places to the three U.S. applicants, no certified mailing or other attempts were made to contact the applicants. An employer must prove that its overall recruitment efforts were in good faith.
The employer may rebut this finding by:
Providing documentation that certified mail was sent to the four applicants which demonstrates the employer made the minimally acceptable effort to recruit U.S. applicants.
2. The department of labor requires that when submitting an Application for Alien Employment Certification the case file must contain two sets of original ETA 750’s Parts A and B. your case file contains only one set of original ETA750’s. The other set of 750’s in the case file are photocopies. ETA 750’s with photocopied signatures are not acceptable for processing. In order to continue processing the Application for Alien Employment Certification you must send an additional set of original ETA 750’s.
A copy of the Form ETA 750, parts A and B, have been returned in the event that any changes are necessary. The amended copies must be returned with your resubmission. Any amendments made to the ETA 750, Part A, must be initialed and dated by the employer: and any amendments made to the ETA 750, Part B, must be initialed by the alien, as appropriate.
It is the employer’s responsibility to submit the rebuttal in a timely manner directly to the certifying officer.
I got already my 7th year extension and it valid till Nov 2007. I spoke with my attorney and he seems to be positive, but he could only able to find two of the three candidates email correspondence.
Please let me know if you have faced similar situation or any suggestions. What is the possibility of my case gets approved?
My friend's company sent a new letter to Mr.A asking whether he was still available. Mr.A did not reply back.
Since Mr.A did not reply back, the company understood that Mr.A is no longer interested in the job.
The company then sent back the rebuttal stating the new efforts made.
The DOL then approved:) the case.
I received a letter from BEC and it says
This Notice of Findings is the Department’s statement of its intent to deny the application.
The following reasons were attached in the document:
1. - The job opportunity has been and is clearly open to any qualified U.S worker.
The case file indicates that telephone calls were placed made to U.S. applicants but the calls failed to reach the following applicants: A,B,C (name of the applicants)
Although telephone calls were unsuccessfully places to the three U.S. applicants, no certified mailing or other attempts were made to contact the applicants. An employer must prove that its overall recruitment efforts were in good faith.
The employer may rebut this finding by:
Providing documentation that certified mail was sent to the four applicants which demonstrates the employer made the minimally acceptable effort to recruit U.S. applicants.
2. The department of labor requires that when submitting an Application for Alien Employment Certification the case file must contain two sets of original ETA 750’s Parts A and B. your case file contains only one set of original ETA750’s. The other set of 750’s in the case file are photocopies. ETA 750’s with photocopied signatures are not acceptable for processing. In order to continue processing the Application for Alien Employment Certification you must send an additional set of original ETA 750’s.
A copy of the Form ETA 750, parts A and B, have been returned in the event that any changes are necessary. The amended copies must be returned with your resubmission. Any amendments made to the ETA 750, Part A, must be initialed and dated by the employer: and any amendments made to the ETA 750, Part B, must be initialed by the alien, as appropriate.
It is the employer’s responsibility to submit the rebuttal in a timely manner directly to the certifying officer.
I got already my 7th year extension and it valid till Nov 2007. I spoke with my attorney and he seems to be positive, but he could only able to find two of the three candidates email correspondence.
Please let me know if you have faced similar situation or any suggestions. What is the possibility of my case gets approved?
more...
haifromsk@yahoo.com
09-06 02:50 PM
MS+0 is totally fine as long as the requirement is masters. It has least complications. When ppl with no masters apply no probs. When ppl with masters and exp apply, I am sure they will ask for more wage than labour cert. On those grounds u can deny those resumes. Its not worth to change employer just for that reason. There are many other big things that ur employer should back u in. So stay with someone who will back u well with apper work and with whome u have a rappo or will have a rappo.
2010 JFK Funeral
yawl
05-11 10:50 AM
It is just a TOOL to write to senators! No one force you to use their template, and you can and SHOULD write you letter!
more...
krishnam70
02-22 09:40 PM
Hi Kris,
Can you please give the source from where you heard about this info? There are a lot of rumors being spread without any reason behind them. So this is important to find the source of the info before we get panic or make decision.
Thanks.
Amulchandra
I can assure you this is not a rumor and has happened recently in my colleague's team. I agree that this might cause lot of doubts in people's minds but I just wanted to share the info so that people don't get in to trouble. It is quite possible that this is a one off incident. People should share such information if it come's to their attention. This guy was told to return from POE
Regarding the rights of the IO at POE. I am not sure if it is within the right of the IO to decide in this case but I have read somewhere that the IO has the power to decide whom to allow or not according to the interpretation of law. I am not sure what law was used to interpret the situation here by the IO
If this post has caused unnecessary concerns I urge you to ignore it. If people who are back from visiting other countries or trips back home can post their experiences at the POE or any contradicting information then this one could just be a one off case..
good luck
kris
Can you please give the source from where you heard about this info? There are a lot of rumors being spread without any reason behind them. So this is important to find the source of the info before we get panic or make decision.
Thanks.
Amulchandra
I can assure you this is not a rumor and has happened recently in my colleague's team. I agree that this might cause lot of doubts in people's minds but I just wanted to share the info so that people don't get in to trouble. It is quite possible that this is a one off incident. People should share such information if it come's to their attention. This guy was told to return from POE
Regarding the rights of the IO at POE. I am not sure if it is within the right of the IO to decide in this case but I have read somewhere that the IO has the power to decide whom to allow or not according to the interpretation of law. I am not sure what law was used to interpret the situation here by the IO
If this post has caused unnecessary concerns I urge you to ignore it. If people who are back from visiting other countries or trips back home can post their experiences at the POE or any contradicting information then this one could just be a one off case..
good luck
kris
hair Kennedy Funeral: 25 November
makemygc
09-19 07:21 PM
Hi Joozz,
I've faced a similar situation. My H1B was issues in Nov 2000 and I also changed employer 2 times and joined by current company in Mar 2005. As a part of H1 transfer, my visa got extended until Mar 2008, whereas my 6 year expires in Nov 2006. In April 2006, since we knew that actualy visa expiration date is Nov 2006, my employer's attorney's filed for H1 extension based on my pending labor with my current company and also clearly stating in the application that my H1 extension for 8 years is a mistake from USCIS part.
Though USCIS has not responded admitting their mistake, but I've got 1 year H1 exntesion until Nov 2007. So even though I've lost 1 year added advantage but I got my piece of mind. My company will file for 3 years extension, once we get I-140 approved.
Hope this helps,
MakeMyGC
Hi guys,
Is there anyway somebody can give me an advice what to do?
My first H1B was issued in December 2000, then I changed employer 2 times and joined my current company in January of 2005. My current employer got my visa transferred and new visa was issued till April 2006. In March my employer sent another petition for H1B extension and this petition was approved in June 2006 and it says its valid till October 2008. It means totally I can stay on H1B almost 8 years? It seems to me its some sort of clerical mistake and I am not sure that I do not violate any immigration law staying here.
Here is another thing that confuses me even more. My current employer started my GC on EB3 though. In January 2006 the employer filed I140 that has been approved May 15 2006. Even though, we did not file any additional requests (I heard I can extend H1B for 3 years with approved 140) I am wondering if USCIS figured it by themselves when they were approving my H1B petition.
Recently I have got decent job offer from another employer that willing to transfer my H1B and start my GC from the beginning. Will it be a huge risk to accept this job offer?
I am sorry for asking it here. We do not have a layer for GC procedure. I was trying to find one that can clarify my situation but layers who I found did not want to give me a legal advice even I was ready to pay for it. They were demanding $1000 retainer prior any work done.
Thanks in advance.
I've faced a similar situation. My H1B was issues in Nov 2000 and I also changed employer 2 times and joined by current company in Mar 2005. As a part of H1 transfer, my visa got extended until Mar 2008, whereas my 6 year expires in Nov 2006. In April 2006, since we knew that actualy visa expiration date is Nov 2006, my employer's attorney's filed for H1 extension based on my pending labor with my current company and also clearly stating in the application that my H1 extension for 8 years is a mistake from USCIS part.
Though USCIS has not responded admitting their mistake, but I've got 1 year H1 exntesion until Nov 2007. So even though I've lost 1 year added advantage but I got my piece of mind. My company will file for 3 years extension, once we get I-140 approved.
Hope this helps,
MakeMyGC
Hi guys,
Is there anyway somebody can give me an advice what to do?
My first H1B was issued in December 2000, then I changed employer 2 times and joined my current company in January of 2005. My current employer got my visa transferred and new visa was issued till April 2006. In March my employer sent another petition for H1B extension and this petition was approved in June 2006 and it says its valid till October 2008. It means totally I can stay on H1B almost 8 years? It seems to me its some sort of clerical mistake and I am not sure that I do not violate any immigration law staying here.
Here is another thing that confuses me even more. My current employer started my GC on EB3 though. In January 2006 the employer filed I140 that has been approved May 15 2006. Even though, we did not file any additional requests (I heard I can extend H1B for 3 years with approved 140) I am wondering if USCIS figured it by themselves when they were approving my H1B petition.
Recently I have got decent job offer from another employer that willing to transfer my H1B and start my GC from the beginning. Will it be a huge risk to accept this job offer?
I am sorry for asking it here. We do not have a layer for GC procedure. I was trying to find one that can clarify my situation but layers who I found did not want to give me a legal advice even I was ready to pay for it. They were demanding $1000 retainer prior any work done.
Thanks in advance.
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 JFK Funeral Procession
gccube
04-21 03:19 PM
Congratulations on getting your GC !!!
I need to ask you a question as I don't see on LUD after FP in 485. However LUD changed on my approved I-140.
Was there any LUD on I-140 case after your FP?
Regards
last summer. The only two LUDs I have noticed on my I-485 are
1. 8/22/2007 :: This is after my FP
2. 04/21/2008 (Today) :: This is after my I-485 is approved.
I have not noticed an LUD even late last night.
Interestingly, the TSC processing dates have moved to June 29 2007 in the newly released processing times and my RD (06/21/2007) fall with in this period. So my approval could be a result of the progressed processing dates for this month.
I need to ask you a question as I don't see on LUD after FP in 485. However LUD changed on my approved I-140.
Was there any LUD on I-140 case after your FP?
Regards
last summer. The only two LUDs I have noticed on my I-485 are
1. 8/22/2007 :: This is after my FP
2. 04/21/2008 (Today) :: This is after my I-485 is approved.
I have not noticed an LUD even late last night.
Interestingly, the TSC processing dates have moved to June 29 2007 in the newly released processing times and my RD (06/21/2007) fall with in this period. So my approval could be a result of the progressed processing dates for this month.
more...
house JFK#39;s Funeral at Arlington
Sri_
02-27 02:31 PM
Hello,
I have not seen the 485 receipt notice come through and its been over 6 months since I applied. Down the line after a few months we will have to start preparing for EAD and AP renewal and I take it we will need a copy of the 485 receipt notice to file? Any thoughts.
FYI. I am also in similar situation. Applied on 07/02. I haven't received 485, EAD & AP receipts until now, though I have received FP Notice, EAD & AP Approval. I have called USCIS and made them create Service Request for which I didnot receive response even after 120 days. I took infopass appointment and the officer said that they have sent the receipt notice's in Sep' 07 and were not delivered back. But, me or my attorney haven't received receipts until now.
Sri_
I have not seen the 485 receipt notice come through and its been over 6 months since I applied. Down the line after a few months we will have to start preparing for EAD and AP renewal and I take it we will need a copy of the 485 receipt notice to file? Any thoughts.
FYI. I am also in similar situation. Applied on 07/02. I haven't received 485, EAD & AP receipts until now, though I have received FP Notice, EAD & AP Approval. I have called USCIS and made them create Service Request for which I didnot receive response even after 120 days. I took infopass appointment and the officer said that they have sent the receipt notice's in Sep' 07 and were not delivered back. But, me or my attorney haven't received receipts until now.
Sri_
tattoo which President Kennedy
anilsal
08-06 12:45 AM
First they need to cope with the scores of petetions, USCIS and FBI.
For how long will they work overtime to resolve this mess? such bouts as the one we saw in the last two weeks of june are short and few. If they are smart they will flush out the approvable cases early without going thru the EAD cycles year after year.
This is exactly opposite to what they have been doing. If there were 60k approvable cases, i wonder what they were doing all this time. Approving those cases earlier wud have allowed others to get in the system earlier.
Additional VISA numbers may not help anybody, if they don't use them properly
Hopefully things will get better from now onwards?? ;) Maybe the july VB being current was a sign that things in the future will be bright. We can just hope, be positive and support IV in its efforts. :)
Now that IV is 22K members strong. Just imagine how much of a difference we all can make. :) Great journey within 2 years.
For how long will they work overtime to resolve this mess? such bouts as the one we saw in the last two weeks of june are short and few. If they are smart they will flush out the approvable cases early without going thru the EAD cycles year after year.
This is exactly opposite to what they have been doing. If there were 60k approvable cases, i wonder what they were doing all this time. Approving those cases earlier wud have allowed others to get in the system earlier.
Additional VISA numbers may not help anybody, if they don't use them properly
Hopefully things will get better from now onwards?? ;) Maybe the july VB being current was a sign that things in the future will be bright. We can just hope, be positive and support IV in its efforts. :)
Now that IV is 22K members strong. Just imagine how much of a difference we all can make. :) Great journey within 2 years.
more...
pictures Edward M. Kennedy, died
Googler
02-20 03:04 PM
More on this at here (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=17450).
dresses 45th Anniversary of JFK
jonty_11
01-15 02:25 PM
els.edu guys are very slow is responding....
Anyone appeared for IELTS test from els.edu location apart from those mentioned on this link for USA.
http://www.ielts.org/searchresults/default.aspx?TestCentreSearchSubRegion=4a489b2a-083a-45de-a65e-6514bc133cb4
Anyone appeared for IELTS test from els.edu location apart from those mentioned on this link for USA.
http://www.ielts.org/searchresults/default.aspx?TestCentreSearchSubRegion=4a489b2a-083a-45de-a65e-6514bc133cb4
more...
makeup Kennedy funeral set for
eb_retrogession
01-06 09:32 AM
This is a good effort towards solving the retrogression issue. Like many silent readers, I do have concern about contributing to a new organization.
Is there a way to know more details about this effort? Please send me a personal email so I can understand more and contribute with confidence.
Thanks!
Pls check your private message
Is there a way to know more details about this effort? Please send me a personal email so I can understand more and contribute with confidence.
Thanks!
Pls check your private message
girlfriend From left, Former President
rmutyala
07-14 07:39 PM
Houston
hairstyles de gaulle Jfk+urial+site
GCcomesoon
08-01 12:31 PM
Hi
I have read the thread for FP & biometrics.In my case 485 was approved in April this year & later in May I got the biometrics done. Due to which my physical card delivery got delayed. Till date I haven't received it but the passport is stamped for travel & employment purposes.
I had recent LUD of card mailed yesterday , so hopefully in next few days I should get it. My point is if you haven't received your FP/Bio then call USCIS , talk to IO, take info pass & get it scheduled & see to it that the data is correctly uploaded to your case by calling up again.
This would reduce all the possible delay.
Thanks
GCcomesoon
I have read the thread for FP & biometrics.In my case 485 was approved in April this year & later in May I got the biometrics done. Due to which my physical card delivery got delayed. Till date I haven't received it but the passport is stamped for travel & employment purposes.
I had recent LUD of card mailed yesterday , so hopefully in next few days I should get it. My point is if you haven't received your FP/Bio then call USCIS , talk to IO, take info pass & get it scheduled & see to it that the data is correctly uploaded to your case by calling up again.
This would reduce all the possible delay.
Thanks
GCcomesoon
ChainReaction
02-21 12:06 PM
Satish,
Did you see these updated today (2/21) ?
Where did you see that ??
Thanks
I am also looking for the update, can someone post the url for the site.
Did you see these updated today (2/21) ?
Where did you see that ??
Thanks
I am also looking for the update, can someone post the url for the site.
jungalee43
06-30 07:39 AM
Thanks neverbefore.
Buddy, it does seem you are being pre-adjudicated, as the other guys are saying. We had an interview last December for exactly this purpose and the reason was two consecutive failures of clear biometrics on our part. It was for the better though because now our case is just waiting for a visa number unless something changes rather drastically. However, we did not encounter the term "initial interview".
Do indeed take all your documents. I am pasting here the list of docs our attorney asked us to take. These are rough notes I took over the phone so you might find some incoherence. Some of these docs were significant to our case and may not be applicable for you. I would always prefer to go for an overkill in immigration matters, so if anything seems remotely significant, take it along. If you like, you may want to read the account (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/all-other-green-card-issues/21138-my-aos-interview-experience-5.html#post304806) I posted here at IV immediately after our interview. I remember a lot of people advising me to take my attorney along. I didn't because they were asking for a lot of money. You might want to take a call on that.
And just chillax! You have done everything right, so why should anything adverse happen.
What will happen: Oath->Demand for driver's license->Demand for passport
Medical does not expire once filed
Officer will review the file along with us
We need to post a sticky note on file saying we are a family of 3 so we are seen together
Docs:
Appointment notice demands
Paystubs
Employment verification letter from employers
Mortgage papers
Education transcripts and degree
Tax returns
Marriage certificate
Birth certificates
Will be asked to get a police clearance certificate after the interview, so take it beforehand from the cities you have lived in previously
They might give us an I-792, send a copy to attorney. Always get the officer's name!
A copy of July 2007 visa bulletin
Arrival/departure record to/from US
Pictures (passport) and marriage and family
Driver's licenses
H4 and H1B Notices of Action
Buddy, it does seem you are being pre-adjudicated, as the other guys are saying. We had an interview last December for exactly this purpose and the reason was two consecutive failures of clear biometrics on our part. It was for the better though because now our case is just waiting for a visa number unless something changes rather drastically. However, we did not encounter the term "initial interview".
Do indeed take all your documents. I am pasting here the list of docs our attorney asked us to take. These are rough notes I took over the phone so you might find some incoherence. Some of these docs were significant to our case and may not be applicable for you. I would always prefer to go for an overkill in immigration matters, so if anything seems remotely significant, take it along. If you like, you may want to read the account (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/all-other-green-card-issues/21138-my-aos-interview-experience-5.html#post304806) I posted here at IV immediately after our interview. I remember a lot of people advising me to take my attorney along. I didn't because they were asking for a lot of money. You might want to take a call on that.
And just chillax! You have done everything right, so why should anything adverse happen.
What will happen: Oath->Demand for driver's license->Demand for passport
Medical does not expire once filed
Officer will review the file along with us
We need to post a sticky note on file saying we are a family of 3 so we are seen together
Docs:
Appointment notice demands
Paystubs
Employment verification letter from employers
Mortgage papers
Education transcripts and degree
Tax returns
Marriage certificate
Birth certificates
Will be asked to get a police clearance certificate after the interview, so take it beforehand from the cities you have lived in previously
They might give us an I-792, send a copy to attorney. Always get the officer's name!
A copy of July 2007 visa bulletin
Arrival/departure record to/from US
Pictures (passport) and marriage and family
Driver's licenses
H4 and H1B Notices of Action
No comments:
Post a Comment