kshitijnt
06-26 12:15 AM
.
BTW I’ve got a Home Theater at my apartment and my current status is H1B with pending I-140 + I-485 :)
So did you buy home theatre after filing 485 or before? Btw, I dont believe there is any relationship to income wrt visa status.
BTW I’ve got a Home Theater at my apartment and my current status is H1B with pending I-140 + I-485 :)
So did you buy home theatre after filing 485 or before? Btw, I dont believe there is any relationship to income wrt visa status.
wallpaper 2006 Mitsubishi Eclipse GT
brav
07-19 09:42 AM
Just contributed $100
I think IV has done a lot in just 19 months and with the core team, who understands every issue (BEC, retrogression, namecheck, etc) and working diligently to bring a practical solution, should bring a sense of comfort to all of us that our prayers are answered in the form of IV.
Google Order #831603791059224
I think IV has done a lot in just 19 months and with the core team, who understands every issue (BEC, retrogression, namecheck, etc) and working diligently to bring a practical solution, should bring a sense of comfort to all of us that our prayers are answered in the form of IV.
Google Order #831603791059224
tnite
07-11 07:18 AM
I couldn't believe this. Wonderful news. Thanks
But the downside to this is that most EB2 July filers have (or will be) been renewing their EAD's in August/Sepetember and this bulleting will not let USCIS give out 2 yr EAD's and instead hand out 1 yr ones.
Just because your PD is current dosnt mean that USCIS will process your apps right away. There are folks whose PD was current under July bulletin and their apps haven't been touched based on some anecdotal evidence here..
But the Eb3 news is not good.
just my 2 cents
But the downside to this is that most EB2 July filers have (or will be) been renewing their EAD's in August/Sepetember and this bulleting will not let USCIS give out 2 yr EAD's and instead hand out 1 yr ones.
Just because your PD is current dosnt mean that USCIS will process your apps right away. There are folks whose PD was current under July bulletin and their apps haven't been touched based on some anecdotal evidence here..
But the Eb3 news is not good.
just my 2 cents
2011 2006 Mitsubishi Eclipse GT 6
jr8rdt
01-07 03:50 PM
looks like many people in this thread are planning to travel using AP. Just curious: are you all currently using EAD? I heard that once you enter using AP your H1 is no longer valid and you must use EAD though you are still working for the same company.
little bit off topic....
little bit off topic....
more...
ramus
07-06 01:29 PM
Why USCIS suddenly did this press release? Something fishy?
Nebraska Service Center
USCIS expects to provide in time-compliance for receipting of form types listed below:
Data Entry:
Compliant BY
I-131 EB 8/1/2007
I-140 EB 8/1/2007
I-485 8/1/2007
N-400 8/1/2007
All other forms are currently in time-compliance.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/ReceiptingTimes06Jul07.pdf.
So, if they accept our applications for July, we can expect the receipt numbers on Aug 1st.
Nebraska Service Center
USCIS expects to provide in time-compliance for receipting of form types listed below:
Data Entry:
Compliant BY
I-131 EB 8/1/2007
I-140 EB 8/1/2007
I-485 8/1/2007
N-400 8/1/2007
All other forms are currently in time-compliance.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/ReceiptingTimes06Jul07.pdf.
So, if they accept our applications for July, we can expect the receipt numbers on Aug 1st.
snthampi
09-02 01:09 PM
Landed here in November 2000. Started the GC process in 2004. Could've filed on EB2, but didn't care much when the employer insisted on filing under EB3 for whatever stupid reason. My PD is May 2004 (EB3). It wasn't making much difference then. But, now things are different and EB3 is totally screwed up.
Actually, I am not worried about the GC much, because I am not sure about my future plans. If I make a firm decision to stay, I might reapply in EB2. Life is worth a billion billion times more than the GC. So, let it take its own sweet time. Concentrate on your life and career, and SURELY HAVE A LOT OF FUN BECAUSE LIFE IS SHORT AND YOU LIVE ONLY ONCE.
Actually, I am not worried about the GC much, because I am not sure about my future plans. If I make a firm decision to stay, I might reapply in EB2. Life is worth a billion billion times more than the GC. So, let it take its own sweet time. Concentrate on your life and career, and SURELY HAVE A LOT OF FUN BECAUSE LIFE IS SHORT AND YOU LIVE ONLY ONCE.
more...
Green.Tech
06-17 02:56 PM
...to get us to $20k.
Are you one of them?
Are you one of them?
2010 2006 Mitsubishi Eclipse GT
inthehole
05-20 12:03 AM
First of all congratulations to ind_game.
Today I received NOID for not submitting AC21. My I-140 is not revoked. I received an RFE last month for birth certificate & updated g-325a form. In the g-325a form I mentioned my current employer which would have triggered NOID for AC21.
I left the GC sponsored employer after 9 years on May 2008 well after 180 days and joined an insurance company. The company got hammered by financial crises. So I left that company and joined other stable company on Dec 2009 as a full time employee.
My current job description is similar to the one mentioned on ETA but not same. I am not sure if changing 2 jobs will be a problem.
If anyone had submitted any documents for AC21 please share. I will really appreciate it.
Today I received NOID for not submitting AC21. My I-140 is not revoked. I received an RFE last month for birth certificate & updated g-325a form. In the g-325a form I mentioned my current employer which would have triggered NOID for AC21.
I left the GC sponsored employer after 9 years on May 2008 well after 180 days and joined an insurance company. The company got hammered by financial crises. So I left that company and joined other stable company on Dec 2009 as a full time employee.
My current job description is similar to the one mentioned on ETA but not same. I am not sure if changing 2 jobs will be a problem.
If anyone had submitted any documents for AC21 please share. I will really appreciate it.
more...
santb1975
05-29 09:42 PM
^^^
hair 2006 Mitsubishi Eclipse GT
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...
eb3_nepa
07-14 03:24 PM
Good job members. Keep the momentum going.
Calling out to the IV core. pappu, paskal et al. Please put this campaign on IV's homepage.
Calling out to the IV core. pappu, paskal et al. Please put this campaign on IV's homepage.
hot 2006 Mitsubishi Eclipse GT
apahilaj
05-01 10:28 AM
Any takers?
So, where is the bill going next? Sorry guys, haven't heard the recording but just going by the thread it seems like this hearing didn't go as expected...
Is the bill going to die prematurely or is it going any where?
So, where is the bill going next? Sorry guys, haven't heard the recording but just going by the thread it seems like this hearing didn't go as expected...
Is the bill going to die prematurely or is it going any where?
more...
house 2006 Mitsubishi Eclipse GT
GC_sufferer
07-06 08:53 AM
Looks like she changed the Article title in NYT.
The initial one is "Agency Mix-Up Denies Applicants Green Cards", and now "Suit Planned Over Visas for the Highly Skilled".
The initial one is "Agency Mix-Up Denies Applicants Green Cards", and now "Suit Planned Over Visas for the Highly Skilled".
tattoo Mitsubishi Eclipse Gt 2006
ashutrip
06-19 03:56 PM
IV Core, please help members like us whose applications are pending at the Atlanta PERM Processing Center. In spite of officials informing that they will reassign their staff to process PERM applications a month back, there seems to be no progress so far. Please help us get out of this mess as our applications have been pending at this center for few months now. We would like to take this opportunity to apply for the next two stages while PD are current. By the way, I had an old case at BEC and got an approval. I just changed my job and reapplied through PERM, and then all of a sudden PD became current. I have been in this mess for 5 years now. It was just an unfortunate timing of my job change that screwed me up.
People from Chicago center have been getting quick approvals and are able to submit their I-140 & I-485 documents right away. But just because we live & work in the East coast, we are getting screwed. I don't think this is fair on part of DOL to penalize us because of our location. IV Core, please, help us.
What help can IV provide us with?
They have nothing to do with this mess in Atlanta Center
People from Chicago center have been getting quick approvals and are able to submit their I-140 & I-485 documents right away. But just because we live & work in the East coast, we are getting screwed. I don't think this is fair on part of DOL to penalize us because of our location. IV Core, please, help us.
What help can IV provide us with?
They have nothing to do with this mess in Atlanta Center
more...
pictures 2003 Mitsubishi Eclipse GT
Libra
09-11 10:45 PM
So far 15000 contributions as per count on this thread. we reached half way in 4 days. 15k more to go in 4 more days. com' on guys we can do it.
thank you all whoever contributed so far.
thank you all whoever contributed so far.
dresses mitsubishi eclipse ralliart
vaccine
09-11 09:13 AM
Count me in for $ 100 and I am coming to rally as well. See you all in DC
more...
makeup Mitsubishi : Eclipse 2006
amitjoey
03-02 07:01 PM
Yes, if we do not do anything, then yes, we will only get our GC's as per the calculator- which is 2024 and beyond. If we want it earlier, we need to educate: Get vocal: Vocal about reforming employment based immigration laws. Lobby the government: (which means we need to contribute money to IV to make a war-chest- to pay the lobbyist.), Get noticed: Which means we have to meet our lawmakers.
girlfriend 2006 MITSUBISHI ECLIPSE GT
hopefullegalimmigrant
01-09 02:33 PM
The status of AP seems to be changing practically everyday. The message (document mailed) first appeared on Jan 7, Then changed to Jan 8 with same message and today I see a date change in my portfolio (last updated section). Not sure when the document will actually get mailed...
hairstyles 2006 Mitsubishi Eclipse GT
shadowboxer
09-27 09:16 PM
You are only waiting for 7 years. Wait time is calculated from Priority date not the date you enter the country.
Don't talk like a lawyer to her. For all intents and purposes, wait time starts when somebody sets foot in this country with the intention of becoming a permanent resident someday.
Don't talk like a lawyer to her. For all intents and purposes, wait time starts when somebody sets foot in this country with the intention of becoming a permanent resident someday.
rongha_2000
04-30 04:03 PM
They are bullsxxting themselves and everyone else. I am amazed..!! These committee members dont have a clue of what they are hearing about. Mixing GCs with H1-B. This issue is always a killer and more inportantly not even related to issue at hand..!!
I am losing hopes.. I might find solace in Alberta, I hope.
I don't understand how removing the country limit may have resorce implications, as how I understand is, instead of adjucation an EB-2(2008) from Mali you'll be adjucating an EB-2(2004) from India, what difference it is for them ???
I am losing hopes.. I might find solace in Alberta, I hope.
I don't understand how removing the country limit may have resorce implications, as how I understand is, instead of adjucation an EB-2(2008) from Mali you'll be adjucating an EB-2(2004) from India, what difference it is for them ???
instantinstinct
09-11 11:13 PM
This might be just a way from DOS to USCIS to say bring their house in order... do not advance dates until you know the what the accurate demand is.....
just my thoughts...
-----------
Item E of the May 2008 Visa Bulletin (number 118, volume VIII) indicated that many Employment cut-off dates had been advancing very rapidly, based on indications that the Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) would need to review a significantly larger pool of applicants than there were numbers available in order to maximize number use under the FY-2008 annual limits. That item also indicated that if the CIS projections proved to be incorrect, it would be necessary to adjust the cut-off dates during the final quarter of FY-2008. The CIS estimates have proven to be very high resulting in: 1) the �unavailability� of all Employment Third preference categories beginning in July, 2) the �unavailability� of numbers for China and India Employment Second preference adjustment of status cases during September, and 3) the establishment of many October Employment cut-off dates which are earlier than those which applied during FY-2008.
Little if any forward movement of the cut-off dates in most Employment categories is likely until the extent of the CIS backlog of old priority dates can be determined.
-----------
just my thoughts...
-----------
Item E of the May 2008 Visa Bulletin (number 118, volume VIII) indicated that many Employment cut-off dates had been advancing very rapidly, based on indications that the Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) would need to review a significantly larger pool of applicants than there were numbers available in order to maximize number use under the FY-2008 annual limits. That item also indicated that if the CIS projections proved to be incorrect, it would be necessary to adjust the cut-off dates during the final quarter of FY-2008. The CIS estimates have proven to be very high resulting in: 1) the �unavailability� of all Employment Third preference categories beginning in July, 2) the �unavailability� of numbers for China and India Employment Second preference adjustment of status cases during September, and 3) the establishment of many October Employment cut-off dates which are earlier than those which applied during FY-2008.
Little if any forward movement of the cut-off dates in most Employment categories is likely until the extent of the CIS backlog of old priority dates can be determined.
-----------
No comments:
Post a Comment