wellwisher02
04-01 09:26 AM
Wow, so you're telling me be happy as somebody else is in pain now ???
Their problems doesn't make me smile here. I want solutions to my problems.
If you need solutions to your problems, you need to act as professionally as possible. Please stop throwing tantrums and also mind your P's and Q's when you utter expletives against the USCIS. Would you be brave enough, if not foolhardy enough, to reproduce whatever you've said in your threads here in a separate letter and send it out to the USCIS? Trust me, you'll not, since you'll act politely and courteously to make out your case. Decorous behaviour is called for when dealing with pertinent issues in the IV forum.
Their problems doesn't make me smile here. I want solutions to my problems.
If you need solutions to your problems, you need to act as professionally as possible. Please stop throwing tantrums and also mind your P's and Q's when you utter expletives against the USCIS. Would you be brave enough, if not foolhardy enough, to reproduce whatever you've said in your threads here in a separate letter and send it out to the USCIS? Trust me, you'll not, since you'll act politely and courteously to make out your case. Decorous behaviour is called for when dealing with pertinent issues in the IV forum.
wallpaper Existe un único amor?
geofu54
07-18 08:32 PM
Thank you for all the great work. I'm a new poster, but a long-time lurker/reader/supporter of this site. My spouse and I supported IV about the bulletin fiasco thing (we wrote letters to congresspersons and media... no way let the agencies set a precedent of getting away with murder about the legal immigration issue). We just now made donation for IV's next action.
My own case was approved early this year (and I do consider myself as a "lucky" one), but my spouse's case is still pending. Her security checks all got cleared within a month after we filed I-485, so we have no idea exactly what holds her. And now looks like we are engulfed by retrogression... legals' fight is far from over.
We will make another donation... and will spread the words to our July filer friends. keep up the great work guys!
My own case was approved early this year (and I do consider myself as a "lucky" one), but my spouse's case is still pending. Her security checks all got cleared within a month after we filed I-485, so we have no idea exactly what holds her. And now looks like we are engulfed by retrogression... legals' fight is far from over.
We will make another donation... and will spread the words to our July filer friends. keep up the great work guys!
kevinkris
06-02 07:19 PM
Goto TOP
2011 Para: MI UNICO AMOR I GRANDE
willwin
07-11 11:18 AM
Nothing against EB2 or other, at least let them enjoy the freedom.
It is really frustrating, because of the mistake by the attorney or stupid company policy etc, people like us with pd 2001 etc waiting on EB3. In my case I had PG with 7 yrs exp when filing, but for the stupid lawyer and company policy. putting aside the original classification of categories, given the present scenario, Not sure what way EB2 is better than EB3
Paskal is watching you! EB3 deserves this. I am EB3 India 2005, in for a looooong wait for another decade? May be.
And, BTW is somebody hijacking this thread?!?! Not me, Paskal!
It is really frustrating, because of the mistake by the attorney or stupid company policy etc, people like us with pd 2001 etc waiting on EB3. In my case I had PG with 7 yrs exp when filing, but for the stupid lawyer and company policy. putting aside the original classification of categories, given the present scenario, Not sure what way EB2 is better than EB3
Paskal is watching you! EB3 deserves this. I am EB3 India 2005, in for a looooong wait for another decade? May be.
And, BTW is somebody hijacking this thread?!?! Not me, Paskal!
more...
Kodi
06-22 10:41 AM
Nothing so far. I keep checking the status of my application every day but its still "In Process"
gclabor07
09-01 08:56 AM
Arrived in US in August 1999.
Labor started with employer A in 2002.
Changed job with Employer B in 2006.
Attorney screwed up with new labor in October 2006.
Refiled new labor in July 2007.
Missed the July 2007.
Labor started with employer A in 2002.
Changed job with Employer B in 2006.
Attorney screwed up with new labor in October 2006.
Refiled new labor in July 2007.
Missed the July 2007.
more...
chiku_singhal
09-11 09:37 PM
enrolled in recurring 50$ as first contribution..
great job guys...thanks for your sincere efforts
i dont browse much..so may not be looking until rally day.
i might not come as its too short notice for me to plan .
great job guys...thanks for your sincere efforts
i dont browse much..so may not be looking until rally day.
i might not come as its too short notice for me to plan .
2010 laliter un amor unico ♥
pappu
08-12 10:55 AM
Senate Passage of Border Security Legislation
August 12, 2010
Today, I come to the floor to seek unanimous consent to pass a smart, tough, and effective $600 million bill that will significantly enhance the security and integrity of our nation’s southern border—which currently lacks the resources needed to fully combat the drug smugglers, gun-runners, human-traffickers, money launderers and other organized criminals that seek to do harm to innocent Americans along our border….
The best part of this border package, Mr. President, is that it is fully paid for and does not increase the deficit by a single penny. In actuality, the Congressional Budget Office has determined that this bill will yield a direct savings to taxpayers of $50 million….
The emergency border funds we are passing today are fully paid for by assessing fees on certain types of companies who hire foreign workers using certain types of visas in a way that Congress did not intend. I want to take a moment to explain exactly what we are doing in this bill a little further because I want everyone to clearly understand how these offsets are designed.
In 1990, Congress realized that the world was changing rapidly and that technological innovations like the internet were creating a high demand in the United States for high-tech workers to create new technologies and products. Consequently, Congress created the H-1B visa program to allow U.S. employers to hire foreign tech workers in special circumstances when they could not find an American citizen who was qualified for the job.
Many of the companies that use this program today are using the program in the exact way Congress intended. That is, these companies (like Microsoft, IBM, and Intel) are hiring bright foreign students educated in our American universities to work in the U.S. for 6 or 7 years to invent new product lines and technologies so that Microsoft, IBM, and Intel can sell more products to the American public. Then—at the expiration of the H-1B visa period—these companies apply for these talented workers to earn green cards and stay with the company.
When the H-1B visa program is used in this manner, it is a good program for everyone involved. It is good for the company. It is good for the worker. And it is good for the American people who benefit from the products and jobs created by the innovation of the H-1B visa holder.
Every day, companies like Oracle, Cisco, Apple and others use the H-1B visa program in the exact way I have just described—and their use of the program has greatly benefitted this country.
But recently, some companies have decided to exploit an unintended loophole in the H-1B visa program to use the program in a manner that many in Congress, including myself, do not believe is consistent with the program’s intent.
Rather than being a company that makes something, and simply needs to bring in a talented foreign worker to help innovate and create new products and technologies—these other companies are essentially creating “multinational temp agencies” that were never contemplated when the H-1B program was created.
The business model of these newer companies is not to make any new products or technologies like Microsoft or Apple does. Instead, their business model is to bring foreign tech workers into the United States who are willing to accept less pay than their American counterparts, place these workers into other companies in exchange for a “consulting fee,” and transfer these workers from company to company in order to maximize profits from placement fees. In other words, these companies are petitioning for foreign workers simply to then turn around and provide these same workers to other companies who need cheap labor for various short term projects.
Don’t take my word for it. If you look at the marketing materials of some of the companies that fall within the scope covered by today’s legislation, their materials boast about their “outsourcing expertise” and say that their advantage is their ability to conduct what they call “labor arbitrage” which is—in their own words—“transferring work functions to a lower cost environment for increased savings.”
The business model used by these companies within the United States is creating three major negative side effects. First, it is ruining the reputation of the H-1B program, which is overwhelmingly used by good actors for beneficial purposes. Second, according to the Economic Policy institute, it is lowering the wages for American tech workers already in the marketplace. Third, it is also discouraging many of our smartest students from entering the technology industry in the first place. Students can see that paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for advanced schooling is not worth the cost when the market is being flooded with foreign temporary workers willing to do tech-work for far less pay because their foreign education was much cheaper and they intend to move back home when their visa expires to a country where the cost of living is far less expensive.
This type of use of the H-1B visa program will be addressed as part of comprehensive immigration reform and will likely be dramatically restricted. We will be reforming the legal immigration system to encourage the world’s best and brightest individuals to come to the United States and create the new technologies and businesses that will employ countless American workers, but will discourage businesses from using our immigration laws as a means to obtain temporary and less-expensive foreign labor to replace capable American workers.
Nevertheless, I do wish to clarify a previous mischaracterization of these firms, where I labeled them as “chop shops.” That statement was incorrect, and I wish to acknowledge that. In the tech industry, these firms are sometimes known as “body shops” and that’s what I should have said.
While I strongly oppose the manner in which these firms are using the H-1B visa to accomplish objectives that Congress never intended, it would be unfortunate if anyone concluded from my remarks that these firms are engaging in illegal behavior.
But I also want to make clear that the purpose of this fee is not to target businesses from any particular country. Many news articles have reported that the only companies that will be affected by this fee are companies based in India and that, ipso facto, the purpose of this legislation must be to target Indian IT companies.
Well, it is simply untrue that the purpose of this legislation is to target Indian companies. We are simply raising fees for businesses who use the H-1B visa to do things that are contrary to the program’s original intent.
Visa fees will only increase for companies with more than 50 workers who continue to employ more than 50 percent of their employees through the H-1B program. Congress does not want the H-1B visa program to be a vehicle for creating multinational temp agencies where workers do not know what projects they will be working on—or what cities they will be working in—when they enter the country.
The fee is based solely upon the business model of the company, not the location of the company.
If you are using the H-1B visa to innovate new products and technologies for your own company to sell, that is a good thing regardless of whether the company was originally founded in India, Ireland, or Indiana.
But if you are using the H-1B visa to run a glorified international temp agency for tech workers in contravention of the spirit of the program, I and my colleagues believe that you should have to pay a higher fee to ensure that American workers are not losing their jobs because of unintended uses of the visa program that were never contemplated when the program was created.
This belief is consistent regardless of whether the company using these staffing practices was founded in Bangalore, Beijing, or Boston.
Raising the fees for companies hiring more than 50 percent of their workforce through foreign visas will accomplish two important goals. First, it will provide the necessary funds to secure our border without raising taxes or adding to the deficit. Second, it will level the playing field for American workers so that they do not lose out on good jobs here in America because it is cheaper to bring in a foreign worker rather than hire an American worker.
Let me tell you what objective folks around the world are saying about the impact of this fee increase. In an August 6, 2010, Wall Street Journal article, Avinash Vashistha—the CEO of a Bangalore based off-shoring advisory consulting firm—told the Journal that the new fee in this bill “would accelerate Indian firms’ plans to hire more American-born workers in the U.S.” What’s wrong with that? In an August 7, 2010 Economic Times Article, Jeya Kumar, a CEO of a top IT company, said that this bill would “erode cost arbitrage and cause a change in the operational model of Indian offshore providers.”
The leaders of this business model are agreeing that our bill will make it more expensive to bring in foreign tech workers to compete with American tech workers for jobs here in America. That means these companies are going to start having to hire U.S. tech workers again.
So Mr. President, this bill is not only a responsible border security bill, it has the dual advantage of creating more high-paying American jobs.
Finally, Mr. President, I want to be clear about one other thing. Even though passing this bill will secure our border, I again say that the only way to fully restore the rule of law to our entire immigration system is by passing comprehensive immigration reform….
The urgency for immigration reform cannot be overstated because it is so overdue. The time for excuses is now over, it is now time to get to work.
August 12, 2010
Today, I come to the floor to seek unanimous consent to pass a smart, tough, and effective $600 million bill that will significantly enhance the security and integrity of our nation’s southern border—which currently lacks the resources needed to fully combat the drug smugglers, gun-runners, human-traffickers, money launderers and other organized criminals that seek to do harm to innocent Americans along our border….
The best part of this border package, Mr. President, is that it is fully paid for and does not increase the deficit by a single penny. In actuality, the Congressional Budget Office has determined that this bill will yield a direct savings to taxpayers of $50 million….
The emergency border funds we are passing today are fully paid for by assessing fees on certain types of companies who hire foreign workers using certain types of visas in a way that Congress did not intend. I want to take a moment to explain exactly what we are doing in this bill a little further because I want everyone to clearly understand how these offsets are designed.
In 1990, Congress realized that the world was changing rapidly and that technological innovations like the internet were creating a high demand in the United States for high-tech workers to create new technologies and products. Consequently, Congress created the H-1B visa program to allow U.S. employers to hire foreign tech workers in special circumstances when they could not find an American citizen who was qualified for the job.
Many of the companies that use this program today are using the program in the exact way Congress intended. That is, these companies (like Microsoft, IBM, and Intel) are hiring bright foreign students educated in our American universities to work in the U.S. for 6 or 7 years to invent new product lines and technologies so that Microsoft, IBM, and Intel can sell more products to the American public. Then—at the expiration of the H-1B visa period—these companies apply for these talented workers to earn green cards and stay with the company.
When the H-1B visa program is used in this manner, it is a good program for everyone involved. It is good for the company. It is good for the worker. And it is good for the American people who benefit from the products and jobs created by the innovation of the H-1B visa holder.
Every day, companies like Oracle, Cisco, Apple and others use the H-1B visa program in the exact way I have just described—and their use of the program has greatly benefitted this country.
But recently, some companies have decided to exploit an unintended loophole in the H-1B visa program to use the program in a manner that many in Congress, including myself, do not believe is consistent with the program’s intent.
Rather than being a company that makes something, and simply needs to bring in a talented foreign worker to help innovate and create new products and technologies—these other companies are essentially creating “multinational temp agencies” that were never contemplated when the H-1B program was created.
The business model of these newer companies is not to make any new products or technologies like Microsoft or Apple does. Instead, their business model is to bring foreign tech workers into the United States who are willing to accept less pay than their American counterparts, place these workers into other companies in exchange for a “consulting fee,” and transfer these workers from company to company in order to maximize profits from placement fees. In other words, these companies are petitioning for foreign workers simply to then turn around and provide these same workers to other companies who need cheap labor for various short term projects.
Don’t take my word for it. If you look at the marketing materials of some of the companies that fall within the scope covered by today’s legislation, their materials boast about their “outsourcing expertise” and say that their advantage is their ability to conduct what they call “labor arbitrage” which is—in their own words—“transferring work functions to a lower cost environment for increased savings.”
The business model used by these companies within the United States is creating three major negative side effects. First, it is ruining the reputation of the H-1B program, which is overwhelmingly used by good actors for beneficial purposes. Second, according to the Economic Policy institute, it is lowering the wages for American tech workers already in the marketplace. Third, it is also discouraging many of our smartest students from entering the technology industry in the first place. Students can see that paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for advanced schooling is not worth the cost when the market is being flooded with foreign temporary workers willing to do tech-work for far less pay because their foreign education was much cheaper and they intend to move back home when their visa expires to a country where the cost of living is far less expensive.
This type of use of the H-1B visa program will be addressed as part of comprehensive immigration reform and will likely be dramatically restricted. We will be reforming the legal immigration system to encourage the world’s best and brightest individuals to come to the United States and create the new technologies and businesses that will employ countless American workers, but will discourage businesses from using our immigration laws as a means to obtain temporary and less-expensive foreign labor to replace capable American workers.
Nevertheless, I do wish to clarify a previous mischaracterization of these firms, where I labeled them as “chop shops.” That statement was incorrect, and I wish to acknowledge that. In the tech industry, these firms are sometimes known as “body shops” and that’s what I should have said.
While I strongly oppose the manner in which these firms are using the H-1B visa to accomplish objectives that Congress never intended, it would be unfortunate if anyone concluded from my remarks that these firms are engaging in illegal behavior.
But I also want to make clear that the purpose of this fee is not to target businesses from any particular country. Many news articles have reported that the only companies that will be affected by this fee are companies based in India and that, ipso facto, the purpose of this legislation must be to target Indian IT companies.
Well, it is simply untrue that the purpose of this legislation is to target Indian companies. We are simply raising fees for businesses who use the H-1B visa to do things that are contrary to the program’s original intent.
Visa fees will only increase for companies with more than 50 workers who continue to employ more than 50 percent of their employees through the H-1B program. Congress does not want the H-1B visa program to be a vehicle for creating multinational temp agencies where workers do not know what projects they will be working on—or what cities they will be working in—when they enter the country.
The fee is based solely upon the business model of the company, not the location of the company.
If you are using the H-1B visa to innovate new products and technologies for your own company to sell, that is a good thing regardless of whether the company was originally founded in India, Ireland, or Indiana.
But if you are using the H-1B visa to run a glorified international temp agency for tech workers in contravention of the spirit of the program, I and my colleagues believe that you should have to pay a higher fee to ensure that American workers are not losing their jobs because of unintended uses of the visa program that were never contemplated when the program was created.
This belief is consistent regardless of whether the company using these staffing practices was founded in Bangalore, Beijing, or Boston.
Raising the fees for companies hiring more than 50 percent of their workforce through foreign visas will accomplish two important goals. First, it will provide the necessary funds to secure our border without raising taxes or adding to the deficit. Second, it will level the playing field for American workers so that they do not lose out on good jobs here in America because it is cheaper to bring in a foreign worker rather than hire an American worker.
Let me tell you what objective folks around the world are saying about the impact of this fee increase. In an August 6, 2010, Wall Street Journal article, Avinash Vashistha—the CEO of a Bangalore based off-shoring advisory consulting firm—told the Journal that the new fee in this bill “would accelerate Indian firms’ plans to hire more American-born workers in the U.S.” What’s wrong with that? In an August 7, 2010 Economic Times Article, Jeya Kumar, a CEO of a top IT company, said that this bill would “erode cost arbitrage and cause a change in the operational model of Indian offshore providers.”
The leaders of this business model are agreeing that our bill will make it more expensive to bring in foreign tech workers to compete with American tech workers for jobs here in America. That means these companies are going to start having to hire U.S. tech workers again.
So Mr. President, this bill is not only a responsible border security bill, it has the dual advantage of creating more high-paying American jobs.
Finally, Mr. President, I want to be clear about one other thing. Even though passing this bill will secure our border, I again say that the only way to fully restore the rule of law to our entire immigration system is by passing comprehensive immigration reform….
The urgency for immigration reform cannot be overstated because it is so overdue. The time for excuses is now over, it is now time to get to work.
more...
diptam
07-06 02:42 PM
Ooh - you are right !!! It took me more time to write the above than it took 25 USCIS workers to approve 25,000 I-485's... (48 hrs X 60 mins X 25) / 25000 = 3 mins.
They are thinking us dumb fools because we are immigrants and we have to accept whatever they say !!
I doubt if anyone was denied. They have to approve anyone and everyone to meet the numbers.
They are thinking us dumb fools because we are immigrants and we have to accept whatever they say !!
I doubt if anyone was denied. They have to approve anyone and everyone to meet the numbers.
hair La manga larga del amor único
jgh_res
10-01 06:14 AM
First in First out is always the best option. Unfortunately that is not happening. In this scenario you should be happy that lot of people are getting green cards as the number of people in the line before you gets reduced and the visa numbers are not wasted. As some body said "Life is not fair".
The sad part is that some applicants who missed the boat called BEC with PD of around June 2004 on EB3/India got approved in June end/July time frame. I did see this on some forums external to IV.
I think there may be candidates from 2001/2002/2003 who may have applied in June/July 07. But if the rumors of NSC processing RD wise (as seen on some forum posts outside IV), then it is unfair to these people, because there may be others who missed the BEC boat and are ahead of these folks coming out of BEC.
The sad part is that some applicants who missed the boat called BEC with PD of around June 2004 on EB3/India got approved in June end/July time frame. I did see this on some forums external to IV.
I think there may be candidates from 2001/2002/2003 who may have applied in June/July 07. But if the rumors of NSC processing RD wise (as seen on some forum posts outside IV), then it is unfair to these people, because there may be others who missed the BEC boat and are ahead of these folks coming out of BEC.
more...
JunRN
08-19 07:47 PM
Unfortunately, there isn't a fast lane for nurses. If your PD is April 31, 2007, my advise to you is to monitor the monthly Visa Bulletin and once your PD becomes current, you will know that it is just a few months ahead. For now, with the current turn of events, without the fast lane for nurses, you are looking at two years of waiting.
hot Amor, único y eterno en mí
insbaby
08-13 04:45 PM
EB-3 won't need help when everyone else is done because the only people left to allocate visas would be EB-3 only . I guess we are just in for a long long wait.
That situation never occur. EB2 is going to be always filled up. No one is going to apply in EB3 in future and all in EB2, so all will go to EB1,EB2.
That situation never occur. EB2 is going to be always filled up. No one is going to apply in EB3 in future and all in EB2, so all will go to EB1,EB2.
more...
house Adeus amor único e
Humhongekamyab
04-30 02:35 PM
We have the sound now.
tattoo Amor único | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
bsbawa10
09-11 08:48 PM
Dear Freinds,
USCIS has proven again that they cannot calculate or count. Don't you think they should be presented with this calculator to help them calculate.
http://www.amazon.com/REALLY-CALCULATOR-AUTO-OFF-RUBBER-KEYPAD/dp/B000QOJYWA/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=office-products&qid=1221162014&sr=8-1
Also DOS has a knack for turning back the clock, don't you think they are in need of this clock.
http://www.amazon.com/American-Science-Surplus-BACKWARDS-RUNNING/dp/B000KDYQFM
What is your opinion?
My opinion is that USCIS does not deserve flowers or calculators. I am in a big favour of sending letters to them and to congress men with some information about what USCIS has been doing. I am also in favour of sending some pamphlets. I have already prepared some. Please see.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=288175&postcount=33
USCIS has proven again that they cannot calculate or count. Don't you think they should be presented with this calculator to help them calculate.
http://www.amazon.com/REALLY-CALCULATOR-AUTO-OFF-RUBBER-KEYPAD/dp/B000QOJYWA/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=office-products&qid=1221162014&sr=8-1
Also DOS has a knack for turning back the clock, don't you think they are in need of this clock.
http://www.amazon.com/American-Science-Surplus-BACKWARDS-RUNNING/dp/B000KDYQFM
What is your opinion?
My opinion is that USCIS does not deserve flowers or calculators. I am in a big favour of sending letters to them and to congress men with some information about what USCIS has been doing. I am also in favour of sending some pamphlets. I have already prepared some. Please see.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=288175&postcount=33
more...
pictures y unico amor te amo vida!
h14life
03-18 01:00 AM
Follow the link below and enter the questionnaire to see if you qualify or not:
http://www.irs.gov/app/espc/
FROM IRS SITE:
The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, which authorized the pre-payment of this one-time credit, stipulates that the payment is not to be made to any of the following:
* Individuals who can be claimed as a dependent on someone else's tax return;
* Nonresident aliens; or
* Anyone who does not have a valid Social Security Number.
If you become eligible during 2008, you may be able to claim the credit on your Tax Year 2008 return, but you will not receive the advance payment this year, since that is based on your 2007 return.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Having said that, since we are non-resident aliens (i.e the ones without green card or US citizenship) will not get a stimulus package?
http://www.irs.gov/app/espc/
FROM IRS SITE:
The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, which authorized the pre-payment of this one-time credit, stipulates that the payment is not to be made to any of the following:
* Individuals who can be claimed as a dependent on someone else's tax return;
* Nonresident aliens; or
* Anyone who does not have a valid Social Security Number.
If you become eligible during 2008, you may be able to claim the credit on your Tax Year 2008 return, but you will not receive the advance payment this year, since that is based on your 2007 return.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Having said that, since we are non-resident aliens (i.e the ones without green card or US citizenship) will not get a stimulus package?
dresses Vivendo este amor único mágico
.jpg "Unico Amor.")
deba
09-09 12:50 PM
Contributed $300 for rally. Go IV!
Deb
Contrib $600 so far + $300 for rally
EB2 India PD 03/05
I140 09/07
I485 07/07
Deb
Contrib $600 so far + $300 for rally
EB2 India PD 03/05
I140 09/07
I485 07/07
more...
makeup grande es el amor de Dios
november
09-10 07:04 AM
Data available in Mumbai consulate website
http://mumbai.usconsulate.gov/cut_off_dates.html
Category India Most Other Countries
F1 15 April 2002 15 April 2002
FX 1 May 2001 1 May 2001
F2A 1 January 2004 1 January 2004
F2B 15 December 1999 15 December 1999
F3 22 June 2000 22 June 2000
F4 22 May 1997 22 October 1997
E1 Current Current
E2 1 April 2003 Current
E3 1 July 2001 1 January 2005
EW 1 Janurary 2003 1 Janurary 2003
E4 Current Current
E4-Religious Current Current
http://mumbai.usconsulate.gov/cut_off_dates.html
Category India Most Other Countries
F1 15 April 2002 15 April 2002
FX 1 May 2001 1 May 2001
F2A 1 January 2004 1 January 2004
F2B 15 December 1999 15 December 1999
F3 22 June 2000 22 June 2000
F4 22 May 1997 22 October 1997
E1 Current Current
E2 1 April 2003 Current
E3 1 July 2001 1 January 2005
EW 1 Janurary 2003 1 Janurary 2003
E4 Current Current
E4-Religious Current Current
girlfriend amigo é meu único amor.
Green.Tech
06-02 02:00 PM
Contributed $100 for June
Receipt ID: 47W850****
Thanks, coopheal!
Receipt ID: 47W850****
Thanks, coopheal!
hairstyles Mi Unico Amor Bilingual
nirenjoshi
03-09 06:14 PM
Added info about April VB to past VBs table.
http://immigrationvoice.org/wiki/index.php/Past_Visa_Bulletin_Data
The way dates are moved doesn't seem to have any fact based intelligent logic.
Pardon my ignorance, but where does the data on the last 2 columns - the one for I-485s - come from? And does that includes Family+EB?
http://immigrationvoice.org/wiki/index.php/Past_Visa_Bulletin_Data
The way dates are moved doesn't seem to have any fact based intelligent logic.
Pardon my ignorance, but where does the data on the last 2 columns - the one for I-485s - come from? And does that includes Family+EB?
rockstart
06-25 08:25 AM
This is what I think America loses due to delay in green card process. I can say this from my own experience. People with advanced degrees in Science and Technology have to keep doing same job to maintain status for 8 - 10 years since changing job / company reset's their GC process. When a guy comes to US for education the average age is around 23 - 24 years. MS completed by 25. Most guys at that time have burning desire to do something new and innovative (either in job or starting own business). But the most fortune 100 companies do not sponsor H1B or GC (Example Raytheon, Toyota, Lexmark .... based on my personal experience as electrical engineer) so you end up compromising with career to maintain status and work for companies that sponsor H1B ( future career prospects take a backseat). Then after 8 - 10 years when you get GC you already are married and possibly kids to look after you are already burnt out and want to keep working in the same desk/ clerical job that you have been doing for so many years. So its a lose lose situation to all neither government gains from the GC (by which they hope to make US a more innovative place) nor the immigrants since by then all they can think is a full time job, home and 401K.
glus
08-12 09:51 AM
I'm asking this question again. Can someone please respond?
Uscis will mark it received on the 3rd. Anyway, what's the difference?
Uscis will mark it received on the 3rd. Anyway, what's the difference?
No comments:
Post a Comment