rolrblade
07-20 01:26 PM
I sent in form G-325 for both me and my wife along with my I-485 instead of the G-325A as required on I-485 instructions by oversight. What do you guys recommend I do? Should I send in a new application or just send in the G-325A form with a letter stating the issue? Please help.
When did you file? How long has it been?
if you just recently filed, I would recommend that you wait for the Receipt notice of the 485 (at this stage they have not worked on your case yet) and then send the letter along with the correct form.
Atleast that way they can track it and put it where it is supposed to go. Right now, if you send it where are they going to find your form in 700K+ applications comming n and and you not even being in the system.
Consult with your attorney thugh.
Just my 2 cents.
When did you file? How long has it been?
if you just recently filed, I would recommend that you wait for the Receipt notice of the 485 (at this stage they have not worked on your case yet) and then send the letter along with the correct form.
Atleast that way they can track it and put it where it is supposed to go. Right now, if you send it where are they going to find your form in 700K+ applications comming n and and you not even being in the system.
Consult with your attorney thugh.
Just my 2 cents.
wallpaper Nice comeback, D-Wade.
asanghi
10-16 01:38 AM
Well your argument sounds one sided. It is true neither China nor India's currency is fully convertible. But what country does not like to have competitive edge when it can afford to.
Even US provides subsidies to its farmers to make its agricultural products artifically competitive. Another example, US banned Indian steel companies from doing business in US, because Indian steel companies were providing better steel for cheaper price.
I am not saying that India and China are great. Just wanted to bring the other side of your argument to fore.
I do not think USA is losing ground. If China and India thinks that they are Really improving economy Why can't they make their currencies free Trade? Why are they artifically Keeping exchange rates. The reason is if really a country is stronger then currency should go up and US dollar should become weaker. But India and Cannot sustain as the export business will go down for India and China if their currency becomes too strong. So India and China are looking for US and europe Market. So inter dependence is always there. There is lot of speculation that India will exceed US in 2020. But it is far from true. For stronger Indian economy India needs US Consumption. For that USA needs to be stronger. May be lot of human resources are there in india. But that will be also resolved in another 20 Years because still Inflow is more than return to india. 80% of H1s are Indians apart from lot of L1 people.
Even US provides subsidies to its farmers to make its agricultural products artifically competitive. Another example, US banned Indian steel companies from doing business in US, because Indian steel companies were providing better steel for cheaper price.
I am not saying that India and China are great. Just wanted to bring the other side of your argument to fore.
I do not think USA is losing ground. If China and India thinks that they are Really improving economy Why can't they make their currencies free Trade? Why are they artifically Keeping exchange rates. The reason is if really a country is stronger then currency should go up and US dollar should become weaker. But India and Cannot sustain as the export business will go down for India and China if their currency becomes too strong. So India and China are looking for US and europe Market. So inter dependence is always there. There is lot of speculation that India will exceed US in 2020. But it is far from true. For stronger Indian economy India needs US Consumption. For that USA needs to be stronger. May be lot of human resources are there in india. But that will be also resolved in another 20 Years because still Inflow is more than return to india. 80% of H1s are Indians apart from lot of L1 people.
jung.lee
03-03 11:56 AM
Hello forum gurus
I am planning on moving from Company A to Company B. I have an approved I-140 from Company A which was approved in Sept 2007 and also applied for 485 on July 2nd 2007. It has been almost 1.5 yrs since I applied for 485 and I-140 approval.
Planning to move from Company A to Company B. Company A will not revoke my I-140 that is for sure. I am moving to a good company with 1000+ workforce and in an upcoming industry. It is not a consulting firm. It is a product based company. My wife is currently on EAD and is relying on it to work.
What are the odds that my AC21 may be wrongfully denied. I am having a hard time sleeping while thinking about this. I am on my H1. Can she still use her EAD while we file a petition for Motion to Reopen in the event that the 485 is wrongfully denied or does she have to change to H4 immediatly.
Can some one share your thoughts.
thanks in advance
See the below linked forum post for a relevant discussion:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=320990&postcount=4
Also, see this document I posted on Scribd:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/12822387/485vsH1b
I am planning on moving from Company A to Company B. I have an approved I-140 from Company A which was approved in Sept 2007 and also applied for 485 on July 2nd 2007. It has been almost 1.5 yrs since I applied for 485 and I-140 approval.
Planning to move from Company A to Company B. Company A will not revoke my I-140 that is for sure. I am moving to a good company with 1000+ workforce and in an upcoming industry. It is not a consulting firm. It is a product based company. My wife is currently on EAD and is relying on it to work.
What are the odds that my AC21 may be wrongfully denied. I am having a hard time sleeping while thinking about this. I am on my H1. Can she still use her EAD while we file a petition for Motion to Reopen in the event that the 485 is wrongfully denied or does she have to change to H4 immediatly.
Can some one share your thoughts.
thanks in advance
See the below linked forum post for a relevant discussion:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=320990&postcount=4
Also, see this document I posted on Scribd:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/12822387/485vsH1b
2011 wade getting dunked on.
USDream2Dust
07-21 07:37 AM
Thanks for the responses. I think I will call USCIS and inquire and just to be on the safe side will send in a G325A separately with a letter. Ofcourse, will try getting a response from my attorney's office too. Thanks again.
Also please the let us know what you find out after calling USCIS.
Also please the let us know what you find out after calling USCIS.
more...
abhijitp
01-27 11:47 AM
^^
ExoVoid
06-13 03:53 PM
I worked that much out, but it shouldn't throw the percentage calculations.
more...
GCard_Dream
04-27 05:15 PM
I am not sure. May be it is. Details are still not out yet and I don't see the text of the bill on thomas. Hopefully more detail will emerge in next day or so and then we will know for sure.
http://www.swnebr.net/newspaper/cgi-bin/articles/articlearchiver.pl?160478
http://www.swnebr.net/newspaper/cgi-bin/articles/articlearchiver.pl?160478
2010 I guess Dwayne Wade was
small2006
07-21 10:27 AM
See my post here under the subject "FP Notice received..finally!"
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20288
Hope this helps.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20288
Hope this helps.
more...
ash27
07-17 02:55 PM
Guys,
We need to ignore postings from Rockford. He is just trying to spread unnecessary rumors to gain attention. What a shame
we really have to be morons to take anynonymous comments at face-value.
or did you post the comments yourself and like the attention?
We need to ignore postings from Rockford. He is just trying to spread unnecessary rumors to gain attention. What a shame
we really have to be morons to take anynonymous comments at face-value.
or did you post the comments yourself and like the attention?
hair Dwyane Wade Gets Dunked On
sakuhito
07-24 02:33 AM
I think if you tell us what field you are in, perhaps someone can refer you to a company and tell you what company you might be able to work for which is non-profit.
more...
mhathi
04-15 04:35 PM
Heartiest Congratulations!
hot 2011 NBA Finals: Dwyane Wade Alley-Oop Dunk Over Brian Cardinal (Game 4)
bala50
08-09 09:38 PM
Department of Homeland security doesn't conduct background checks for Adjustment of Status cases. These are done by FBI which is a part of Department of Justice. This news will not be of any value to us.
DHS asks and pays FBI to do the checks. They can do a lot , to improve the situation.
DHS asks and pays FBI to do the checks. They can do a lot , to improve the situation.
more...
house last time I get dunked on.
msp1976
02-15 11:33 AM
How about requesting a $1donation when a non-contributing member ask a question, or $5 dollars for ten posts.It is not much but will definitely bring some revenue.
We can have a forum like member only access...where the question can only be posted by payed members or by people who pay a small donation? The idea is that the amount requested is not much ,which anyone can afford, but the number of questions people ask on our forum will definitely generate some revenue.
We can start a volunteer thread as a pilot program to see what kind of response we get...what do Core and rest of the member think of it?
Some of us have a fair study of the immigration laws....Our knowledge is anecdotal.....but still we are not lawyers and we donot want to get into a situation in which we get sued for providing potentially incorrect info....No one wants to mislead anyone but accepting money for service makes us step into an unknown territory....
We want to educate members as much as possible but this is not core business...
All advice we provide is with a caveat that users should check with their lawyesr for feasibility....
We can have a forum like member only access...where the question can only be posted by payed members or by people who pay a small donation? The idea is that the amount requested is not much ,which anyone can afford, but the number of questions people ask on our forum will definitely generate some revenue.
We can start a volunteer thread as a pilot program to see what kind of response we get...what do Core and rest of the member think of it?
Some of us have a fair study of the immigration laws....Our knowledge is anecdotal.....but still we are not lawyers and we donot want to get into a situation in which we get sued for providing potentially incorrect info....No one wants to mislead anyone but accepting money for service makes us step into an unknown territory....
We want to educate members as much as possible but this is not core business...
All advice we provide is with a caveat that users should check with their lawyesr for feasibility....
tattoo On a Chicago note,
hemasar
05-05 08:29 AM
Hi,
What is the e-Mail address for PBEC to apply for screenshot of proof of pending LC? What are the details I have to send them?
What is the e-Mail address for PBEC to apply for screenshot of proof of pending LC? What are the details I have to send them?
more...
pictures Dwyane Wade doesn#39;t get dunked
eager_immi
07-18 11:11 AM
Can you IM a core and ask them to put a link on main page...
we lost a golden oportunity to do a fund drive. Historically during good news period a lot of members participated in the fund drive, but because the IV website is broken and the threads are displayed irratically and not in the latest order the funding drive threads are hidden and irrelevant one post threads are showing up. We might have lost out on a 10 to 20k worth of funding because of this mistake. I request the core team to please fix this immediately. A lot of new members have joined IV and they might not particiapate in the funding drive because of this thread mistake.
we lost a golden oportunity to do a fund drive. Historically during good news period a lot of members participated in the fund drive, but because the IV website is broken and the threads are displayed irratically and not in the latest order the funding drive threads are hidden and irrelevant one post threads are showing up. We might have lost out on a 10 to 20k worth of funding because of this mistake. I request the core team to please fix this immediately. A lot of new members have joined IV and they might not particiapate in the funding drive because of this thread mistake.
dresses D-Wade throwin#39; down in
sina
04-16 08:47 AM
I am also planning on changing location from one state to another but the job is still with the same company (just moving to a different branch). My lawyer said it will not affect my GC but I have to get a new LCA for my H1. I still do not understand how this will not affect my GC (I have a approved 140 and waiting to file 485). Is there a way this is possible like if the labor is filed from the corporate office and has nothing do with branch locations?
I just want to make sure it is safe before I move.
Any help is appreciated.
I just want to make sure it is safe before I move.
Any help is appreciated.
more...
makeup D-Wade with the ridiculous
mbartosik
11-16 04:13 PM
To answer Munna Bhai's question:
Visa bulletin:
This determines which priority dates USCIS may accept applications for (I485). It is also used to determine which applications by priority date USCIS may issue GC for.
Processing times:
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/ptimes.jsp
Shows when you can expect that USCIS gets round to processing an application once they have received it. This is meant to be based on receipt date for that application. They may randomly process it sooner. They many complete processing later if there is a problem. Most applications with receipt dates stated in the processing times page should have completed most processing.
To get GC, visa bulletin date must be current, AND USCIS must have processed paperwork, AND there be no problems or outstanding RFE.
Oh, I nearly forgot, AND pigs must fly!
Visa bulletin:
This determines which priority dates USCIS may accept applications for (I485). It is also used to determine which applications by priority date USCIS may issue GC for.
Processing times:
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/ptimes.jsp
Shows when you can expect that USCIS gets round to processing an application once they have received it. This is meant to be based on receipt date for that application. They may randomly process it sooner. They many complete processing later if there is a problem. Most applications with receipt dates stated in the processing times page should have completed most processing.
To get GC, visa bulletin date must be current, AND USCIS must have processed paperwork, AND there be no problems or outstanding RFE.
Oh, I nearly forgot, AND pigs must fly!
girlfriend 2010 dwyane wade getting
EdenMN
04-17 04:57 PM
seems like it's against H1s and not pro immigration policies.
If so please delete this thread people may by mistake sign it for this petion
If so please delete this thread people may by mistake sign it for this petion
hairstyles dwyane wade dunking on
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.
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
Tshelar
01-02 02:11 PM
The consulate usually do need more info if you work for Pharmaceucatical or Biotech company. I work for a Pharmaecutical company and when I had gone for my Visa interview they were very specific to ask me if my work deals in any kind of research in chemicals etc. Since I work in the IT department and has nothing to do with reasearch they did not ask for any more info.
I think your wife should be fine if she furnishes the info that they need.
I think your wife should be fine if she furnishes the info that they need.
No comments:
Post a Comment