Blessing&Lifeisbeautiful
10-23 12:34 AM
They are proposing to recapture 61,000 unused visa for Schedule A. Keep praying everyone!
wallpaper nicole scherzinger wallpapers
vinabath
07-20 12:59 PM
Not trying to be pessimitic her but any new hires will need to be trained, and infrastructure need to be set up. All these things do not happen overnight.
Also, there are dependancies. I-485 information needs to be entered in the system and A # on I-140 need to be crosschecked. If one is not available already then it needs to be generated.
All these add to the time.
You are not pessimistic. I know how federal contracting happens. If I am the federal contractor to USCIS and I have a contract with them. Lets say contract 's scope of work to process 485, 140, 765, 131 apps. USCIS can always add money to existing contract and ask for more man hours for the contract year. Most of the time Federal Installations have extra space to accomodate new temp resources.
So in 2-3 months they can add more resources to take care of this shit. But I can say for sure that dont expect EAD or AP in 3 months.
Also, there are dependancies. I-485 information needs to be entered in the system and A # on I-140 need to be crosschecked. If one is not available already then it needs to be generated.
All these add to the time.
You are not pessimistic. I know how federal contracting happens. If I am the federal contractor to USCIS and I have a contract with them. Lets say contract 's scope of work to process 485, 140, 765, 131 apps. USCIS can always add money to existing contract and ask for more man hours for the contract year. Most of the time Federal Installations have extra space to accomodate new temp resources.
So in 2-3 months they can add more resources to take care of this shit. But I can say for sure that dont expect EAD or AP in 3 months.
ItIsNotFunny
10-21 11:06 AM
Issue/Background:
It seems USCIS is not following AC21 regulations in some cases � especially when underlying I140 is revoked by previous employer � and are incorrectly denying I485 applications. As we know, AC21 regulations and related guidelines, provide some relief and allow job changes without affecting the I485 application. As per these rules if the employee changes employment after 180 days of submitting I485 application, there is no need to redo I140 even-if old employer revokes the old I140.
In recent days USCIS seems to be denying lot of I485 applications � ignoring their own AC21 regulations. A few of IV volunteers (pd_recapturing, gc4me, chanduv et al) have started an effort to address this. You can get more info on this, at this thread: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21716.
This issue can affect a lot of us and it negates all the flexibility/relief that we acquired by getting EAD�s and advantages we got thru recent admin reform.
What needs to be done:
After some initial discussions and planning (thanks to pd-capturing, chandu, et al) it is decided to write letters to Ombudsman and service center heads to point out this and request them to correct it ASAP. Please participate and send letters. To succeed we need to send it in thousands.
Pasting the letter and the addresses below.
More info: (thanks to gc4me for addresses and letter template):
======================
Everyone please send the letter/email to 3 persons.
1. Ombudsman
2. Director, NSC
3. Director, TSC
======================
Ombudsman:
cisombudsman@dhs.gov
Mailing Address:
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
ATTN: Recommendations
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
=======================
Nebraska Service Center
Director: Gerard Heinauer
General Correspondence (Inquiries) (Sending applications or petitions to this address will delay their processing)
USCIS NSC
P.O. Box 82521
Lincoln, NE 68501-2521
NOTE: If using overnight delivery by any private service provider, send your package to:
USCIS
Nebraska Service Center
850 S Street
P.O. Box (Insert Correct P.O. Box Number)
Lincoln, NE 68508
Be sure to include the appropriate P.O. Box number on the shipping label.
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Suite 7000
Washington, DC 20529
or email: USCIS-COMPLAINT@DHS.GOV
=====================
Director: David Roark
General
Correspondence:
USCIS TSC
PO Box 851488
Mesquite, TX 75185-1488
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Ste 7000, Washington, DC 20529
============================
Letter
============================
Date: Today()
To
Mr. Michael Timothy Dougherty
The Ombudsman
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Re: Issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines
Dear Sir,
This is to bring your attention to the issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines.
The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) allows for a change of employer on any I-485 Adjustment of Status Application that has been pending for 180 days or more, without the need to file a new I-140 petition, provided the applicant�s new employment is in a similar/same occupation.
According to the Memo released by William R Yates on August 4th 2003, the original I-140 is valid if it is approvable and form I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days. (Attached for your reference is the memo dated August 4th 2003 from William R Yates and the follow-up memo dated May 12th 2005 with relevant sections highlighted).
Due to unreasonable delays caused by retrogression, many candidates have lawfully changed employers in accordance with the AC21 statute. Even though there is no requirement that USCIS be notified after a job change, some applicants have done so to prove that they are in compliance with this regulation. If the previous employer has withdrawn the previously approved I-140, AC21 guidelines state that if the applicant has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the applicant be sent an NOID (Notice of Intent to Deny) to deny the I-485 application or a RFE (Request for Evidence) . If the response to the NOID/RFE is timely and indicates that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, USCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485.
Over the past few months, a disturbing pattern has emerged with cases where the applicant has changed employers. USCIS has started to deny I-485applications where the underlying I-140 has been withdrawn by the previous employer without issuing an NOID or RFE. Even those applicants who have notified USCIS of change in employers have had their I-485 denied.
After the denial of I-485, the applicant has to file a MTR (Motion to reconsider) with USCIS to re-open the case. In addition to the financial burden of filing and legal fees, the applicant has to stop working because of the denial of the I-485 until the case is re-opened. This could be anywhere from a month to a few months. Needless to say, employers are unwilling to keep the job position open for such a long period and the applicant in most cases is looking at potential loss of employment. The applicant who has followed the law to the fullest extent is unfairly punished on account of USCIS not following the AC21 provisions.
This is a request for you to intervene to ensure that the AC21 regulations are followed when adjudicating an I-485 application. If the applicant notifies USCIS of a change in employment under AC21, this should be added the applicant�s physical file and electronic records. If there is no such notification and the previous employer withdraws the I-140, the applicant should be issued a NOID/RFE instead of denying the I-485 application.
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact.
Thank you in advance for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Thanks,
Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone Number
Guys,
This is one of the most serious issue we are facing in current time. Lay offs are happening left and right and on top of that employers learned that AC21 is giving troubles, they started squeezing more (I myself is partially victim of that).
We need sincere efforts sending emails to ombudsman. This will not take more than 5 minutes as NK2006 put efforts on even giving you the email template.
I sincerely urge everyone to send emails to addresses NK2006 mentioned above and even request your collegues, spouse to do so. We need volume to show our presence.
One more request, please take one more minute and make sure that you post here that you sent emails. This will give us real picture and give others motivation too!
I sent my emails (actually twice ;)).
It seems USCIS is not following AC21 regulations in some cases � especially when underlying I140 is revoked by previous employer � and are incorrectly denying I485 applications. As we know, AC21 regulations and related guidelines, provide some relief and allow job changes without affecting the I485 application. As per these rules if the employee changes employment after 180 days of submitting I485 application, there is no need to redo I140 even-if old employer revokes the old I140.
In recent days USCIS seems to be denying lot of I485 applications � ignoring their own AC21 regulations. A few of IV volunteers (pd_recapturing, gc4me, chanduv et al) have started an effort to address this. You can get more info on this, at this thread: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21716.
This issue can affect a lot of us and it negates all the flexibility/relief that we acquired by getting EAD�s and advantages we got thru recent admin reform.
What needs to be done:
After some initial discussions and planning (thanks to pd-capturing, chandu, et al) it is decided to write letters to Ombudsman and service center heads to point out this and request them to correct it ASAP. Please participate and send letters. To succeed we need to send it in thousands.
Pasting the letter and the addresses below.
More info: (thanks to gc4me for addresses and letter template):
======================
Everyone please send the letter/email to 3 persons.
1. Ombudsman
2. Director, NSC
3. Director, TSC
======================
Ombudsman:
cisombudsman@dhs.gov
Mailing Address:
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
ATTN: Recommendations
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
=======================
Nebraska Service Center
Director: Gerard Heinauer
General Correspondence (Inquiries) (Sending applications or petitions to this address will delay their processing)
USCIS NSC
P.O. Box 82521
Lincoln, NE 68501-2521
NOTE: If using overnight delivery by any private service provider, send your package to:
USCIS
Nebraska Service Center
850 S Street
P.O. Box (Insert Correct P.O. Box Number)
Lincoln, NE 68508
Be sure to include the appropriate P.O. Box number on the shipping label.
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Suite 7000
Washington, DC 20529
or email: USCIS-COMPLAINT@DHS.GOV
=====================
Director: David Roark
General
Correspondence:
USCIS TSC
PO Box 851488
Mesquite, TX 75185-1488
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Ste 7000, Washington, DC 20529
============================
Letter
============================
Date: Today()
To
Mr. Michael Timothy Dougherty
The Ombudsman
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Re: Issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines
Dear Sir,
This is to bring your attention to the issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines.
The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) allows for a change of employer on any I-485 Adjustment of Status Application that has been pending for 180 days or more, without the need to file a new I-140 petition, provided the applicant�s new employment is in a similar/same occupation.
According to the Memo released by William R Yates on August 4th 2003, the original I-140 is valid if it is approvable and form I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days. (Attached for your reference is the memo dated August 4th 2003 from William R Yates and the follow-up memo dated May 12th 2005 with relevant sections highlighted).
Due to unreasonable delays caused by retrogression, many candidates have lawfully changed employers in accordance with the AC21 statute. Even though there is no requirement that USCIS be notified after a job change, some applicants have done so to prove that they are in compliance with this regulation. If the previous employer has withdrawn the previously approved I-140, AC21 guidelines state that if the applicant has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the applicant be sent an NOID (Notice of Intent to Deny) to deny the I-485 application or a RFE (Request for Evidence) . If the response to the NOID/RFE is timely and indicates that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, USCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485.
Over the past few months, a disturbing pattern has emerged with cases where the applicant has changed employers. USCIS has started to deny I-485applications where the underlying I-140 has been withdrawn by the previous employer without issuing an NOID or RFE. Even those applicants who have notified USCIS of change in employers have had their I-485 denied.
After the denial of I-485, the applicant has to file a MTR (Motion to reconsider) with USCIS to re-open the case. In addition to the financial burden of filing and legal fees, the applicant has to stop working because of the denial of the I-485 until the case is re-opened. This could be anywhere from a month to a few months. Needless to say, employers are unwilling to keep the job position open for such a long period and the applicant in most cases is looking at potential loss of employment. The applicant who has followed the law to the fullest extent is unfairly punished on account of USCIS not following the AC21 provisions.
This is a request for you to intervene to ensure that the AC21 regulations are followed when adjudicating an I-485 application. If the applicant notifies USCIS of a change in employment under AC21, this should be added the applicant�s physical file and electronic records. If there is no such notification and the previous employer withdraws the I-140, the applicant should be issued a NOID/RFE instead of denying the I-485 application.
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact.
Thank you in advance for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Thanks,
Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone Number
Guys,
This is one of the most serious issue we are facing in current time. Lay offs are happening left and right and on top of that employers learned that AC21 is giving troubles, they started squeezing more (I myself is partially victim of that).
We need sincere efforts sending emails to ombudsman. This will not take more than 5 minutes as NK2006 put efforts on even giving you the email template.
I sincerely urge everyone to send emails to addresses NK2006 mentioned above and even request your collegues, spouse to do so. We need volume to show our presence.
One more request, please take one more minute and make sure that you post here that you sent emails. This will give us real picture and give others motivation too!
I sent my emails (actually twice ;)).
2011 Nicole Scherzinger
ashutrip
06-22 11:34 AM
If PD means the date you filed your LC then its May 8th, still not over 90 days.
its the day ur LC was filed!!
its the day ur LC was filed!!
more...
gcnotfiledyet
06-11 08:42 PM
I just did the math.
I am sure most of you have assets worth of at least $150,000. So if 300,000 are stuck in the backlog. This would mean if these guys leave this country, then that would be $45 trillion loss for USA.
Guys is there a way to get some media publicity of the possible loss of $45 trillion for USA due to US Immigration mess??
CORRECTED => Just corrrected...it should be $45 billion, not trillion......hey still it is a lot of money
For every dollar deposited with banks, they lend $9. Don't know if you factored that in your calculations. It could be loss of $9x$45billion = 405billion. To add the circulating effect of $405billion in economy. For every dollar that is lend, it generates nearly $3-4 into GDP. That will mean nearly loss of $1.6trillion. This is close to 10% of GDP.
I am sure most of you have assets worth of at least $150,000. So if 300,000 are stuck in the backlog. This would mean if these guys leave this country, then that would be $45 trillion loss for USA.
Guys is there a way to get some media publicity of the possible loss of $45 trillion for USA due to US Immigration mess??
CORRECTED => Just corrrected...it should be $45 billion, not trillion......hey still it is a lot of money
For every dollar deposited with banks, they lend $9. Don't know if you factored that in your calculations. It could be loss of $9x$45billion = 405billion. To add the circulating effect of $405billion in economy. For every dollar that is lend, it generates nearly $3-4 into GDP. That will mean nearly loss of $1.6trillion. This is close to 10% of GDP.
gcny2006
07-17 11:32 PM
http://www.imminfo.com/resources/cissop.html
more...
Green.Tech
06-11 12:11 PM
Let's see who the first HERO will be to break the pattern of 2 days of zero contributions...
Bump...waiting for a HERO.
Bump...waiting for a HERO.
2010 Nicole scherzinger
ItIsNotFunny
03-04 05:14 PM
After reading all these, got curious and checked status of my cases online after a year. I got a soft lud on my, my wife & son's case on 02/25. Something is definitely happening.
more...
bkam
04-25 08:35 PM
Learning01 has stollen the idea ! :-)
I have already expressed my intention to sue the US government for the money I have put for so many years in the SS and Medicare funds when I leave the country. There will be always a greedy American lawyer (only one ?! :-) ready to get this done for one third of the prey. And I will still get back two thirds of my money. Much better than nothing.
And imagine that a bunch of "mirage chasers" like me unite and make it a class-suit, and everybody around the world who has been legally here and paid his taxes hears that and asks for his/her money back... The tick-skin-fat-ass politicians and government officials will suddenly become very nice, considered and cooperative (now they are just nice), the PBEC would miraculously clear the backlog within 6 months, the retrogression will disappear etc, etc.
Well, most probably all this will never happen but you never know, the snowball may start rolling... They are too many frustrated people in this mess...
I have already expressed my intention to sue the US government for the money I have put for so many years in the SS and Medicare funds when I leave the country. There will be always a greedy American lawyer (only one ?! :-) ready to get this done for one third of the prey. And I will still get back two thirds of my money. Much better than nothing.
And imagine that a bunch of "mirage chasers" like me unite and make it a class-suit, and everybody around the world who has been legally here and paid his taxes hears that and asks for his/her money back... The tick-skin-fat-ass politicians and government officials will suddenly become very nice, considered and cooperative (now they are just nice), the PBEC would miraculously clear the backlog within 6 months, the retrogression will disappear etc, etc.
Well, most probably all this will never happen but you never know, the snowball may start rolling... They are too many frustrated people in this mess...
hair Nicole Scherzinger Wallpapers
digital2k
05-13 02:34 PM
Don't wait any longer
Everyone must call
Thank You for helping Yourslef
Everyone must call
Thank You for helping Yourslef
more...
gctest
09-15 11:30 AM
keep supporting EB3 porting .. you wil then get your GC in 7 years
If somebody is eligible to jump from Eb3 -> EB2, then he should be allowed to jump.
I am EB2. I had to change my job as my previous employer didnot allow me to file in EB2 as I didnot have prior experience even though i have MS from USA.
I changed my job and now I am in EB2. My PD is Feb 2008. Sucks that I missed the bus in July 2007.
Nobody should go through what I went through. If somebody is eligible to jump, then he should jump from EB3->EB2.
Considering the current delays in labour and I140 approvals, I think the entire process of filing for new labor, then I140 and the PD porting will take around 2yrs if there are no Queries. :p
Unless somebody's PD is mid 2006 or 2007 above in EB3, I dont think this EB3->EB2 jump will be helpful. :rolleyes:
YOu never know what rules will change in future. :confused:
If somebody is eligible to jump from Eb3 -> EB2, then he should be allowed to jump.
I am EB2. I had to change my job as my previous employer didnot allow me to file in EB2 as I didnot have prior experience even though i have MS from USA.
I changed my job and now I am in EB2. My PD is Feb 2008. Sucks that I missed the bus in July 2007.
Nobody should go through what I went through. If somebody is eligible to jump, then he should jump from EB3->EB2.
Considering the current delays in labour and I140 approvals, I think the entire process of filing for new labor, then I140 and the PD porting will take around 2yrs if there are no Queries. :p
Unless somebody's PD is mid 2006 or 2007 above in EB3, I dont think this EB3->EB2 jump will be helpful. :rolleyes:
YOu never know what rules will change in future. :confused:
hot Nicole Scherzinger Wallpapers
GC_Optimist
09-29 11:59 AM
By not utilizing all the visa numbers USCIS is creating artificial scarcity
leading to huge Backlog. I think this needs to be highligted to the
lawmakers. or Administration.
leading to huge Backlog. I think this needs to be highligted to the
lawmakers. or Administration.
more...
house Nicole Scherzinger
Marphad
07-07 09:45 AM
Actually i think you guys have misconstrued Teli's comment, he didn't make that quote himself, he just quoted what one of the ugliest Anti Indian said to us on his blog today
Life of an I.T. Grunt (http://itgrunt.com/)
BTW TunnelRats blog was pulled off from the servers for his shit langauge against Indians;)
He is now using an offshored server!
This site I T Gru.. has all non-sense. Most of the hatred it has, are not associated to real facts and statistics.
Life of an I.T. Grunt (http://itgrunt.com/)
BTW TunnelRats blog was pulled off from the servers for his shit langauge against Indians;)
He is now using an offshored server!
This site I T Gru.. has all non-sense. Most of the hatred it has, are not associated to real facts and statistics.
tattoo New 2011 Nicole Scherzinger X
Buran
10-13 11:25 AM
For FY2006 (Oct 1st, 2005 - Sep 30, 2006) a total of 30,512 Schedule "A" visas were used.
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2006/table07d.xls
Schedule "A" was current from June 1, 2005 till October 31, 2006
According to DHS statistics 5,125 schedule "A" visas were used in FY2005 (June 1st, 2005 - Sep 30, 2006).
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2005/table07.xls
So, from June 1, 2005 till September 30, 2006 only 36,367 Schedule "A" visas were used.
Now if 50,000 were available under schedule "A" what happen to 50,000-36,367=14,363 visas? I doubt very much that so many petitions were filed in October 2006 - the last month when this category was current and for new applicants the only option was AOS, even considering the fact that consulates conducted interviews in October, 2006 and November, 2006 they could not use 14,363 visas! Especially considering the fact that not all applications got approved (because of the Visacreen, etc).
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2006/table07d.xls
Schedule "A" was current from June 1, 2005 till October 31, 2006
According to DHS statistics 5,125 schedule "A" visas were used in FY2005 (June 1st, 2005 - Sep 30, 2006).
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2005/table07.xls
So, from June 1, 2005 till September 30, 2006 only 36,367 Schedule "A" visas were used.
Now if 50,000 were available under schedule "A" what happen to 50,000-36,367=14,363 visas? I doubt very much that so many petitions were filed in October 2006 - the last month when this category was current and for new applicants the only option was AOS, even considering the fact that consulates conducted interviews in October, 2006 and November, 2006 they could not use 14,363 visas! Especially considering the fact that not all applications got approved (because of the Visacreen, etc).
more...
pictures Nicole Scherzinger Wallpaper
ags123
03-07 02:08 AM
bump
dresses Bikini Nicole for Nokia 5130
gc_wow
02-23 06:43 PM
What about TSC processing dates,is that wrong too.
more...
makeup Tags: Nicole Scherzinger
immm
07-19 02:07 PM
Since both A and B were current at the time of AOS approval. Person with earlier RD will take precedence. however if the cut off date were April 2003, person B will get the visa.
Not necessarily. Here is a hypothetical scenario:
PersonA = PD of May 30th, 2003 and RD of June 15th, 2007.
Assume that an additional 150,000 I-485 applications were filed petween PersonA and PersonB
PersonB = PD of May 15, 2002 and RD of July 15th 2007.
USCIS starts pre-adjudicating cases based on Receipt date. Assume that by October 1, 2007, they have pre-adjudicated PersonA plus 9,000 of the 150,000 applications and haven't reached PersonB's application yet (they go by RD).
Assuming that the visa cutoff date in Oct, 2007 bulletin is June, 2003 making both PersonA and personB current:
PersonA (PD of 2003) will get a visa number and get the case approved while PersonB (PD of 2002) with an older priority date will have to wait a while because his case hasn't been touched by USCIS yet due to the additional 150,000 filings in between that have to be pre-adjudicated first based on RD even if they have 2004/2005/2006/2007 priority dates!!
You forgot that there were another 150,000 applications in this example with RD prior to PersonB and it is very likely that many of them could have the PD of April, 2003. Therefore, PersonB will still not get it even though he/she has an older Priority date!!
I think that after this stampede of application filings in June/July/August, USCIS needs to sort them by PD first otherwise people with older priority dates will suffer simply due to the volume of applications filed!!
Not necessarily. Here is a hypothetical scenario:
PersonA = PD of May 30th, 2003 and RD of June 15th, 2007.
Assume that an additional 150,000 I-485 applications were filed petween PersonA and PersonB
PersonB = PD of May 15, 2002 and RD of July 15th 2007.
USCIS starts pre-adjudicating cases based on Receipt date. Assume that by October 1, 2007, they have pre-adjudicated PersonA plus 9,000 of the 150,000 applications and haven't reached PersonB's application yet (they go by RD).
Assuming that the visa cutoff date in Oct, 2007 bulletin is June, 2003 making both PersonA and personB current:
PersonA (PD of 2003) will get a visa number and get the case approved while PersonB (PD of 2002) with an older priority date will have to wait a while because his case hasn't been touched by USCIS yet due to the additional 150,000 filings in between that have to be pre-adjudicated first based on RD even if they have 2004/2005/2006/2007 priority dates!!
You forgot that there were another 150,000 applications in this example with RD prior to PersonB and it is very likely that many of them could have the PD of April, 2003. Therefore, PersonB will still not get it even though he/she has an older Priority date!!
I think that after this stampede of application filings in June/July/August, USCIS needs to sort them by PD first otherwise people with older priority dates will suffer simply due to the volume of applications filed!!
girlfriend Bikini Nicole for HTC HD2
HV000
07-21 09:04 AM
Is there a chance that this Amendment can be introduced thru a different bill later this year???
Important thing to Note here is that Sen.Durbin argued for safeguards for H1B Abuse. If Cornyn and Durbin can make some compromises, then this amendment might pass in the future!![/B]
Important thing to Note here is that Sen.Durbin argued for safeguards for H1B Abuse. If Cornyn and Durbin can make some compromises, then this amendment might pass in the future!![/B]
hairstyles nicole scherzinger wallpapers.
Lisap
10-03 04:20 PM
Last year they "wasted" about 10K visa numbers. It is absolutely up to them. However congress has authorized 140k a year and there are huge backlogs for AOS and CP. So when you put that together, leaving about 10K unapproved is clearly not enforcing congressional mandates. The ombudsman blasted them for this in his report, then we had the VB fiasco. None of this sounds like great management of the benefits. There clearly is room for improvement.
We (us and our employers) as the recipients of the benefits are complaining about this, and it is perfectly legitimate.
If any visa numbers are left unused, I definitely think we ought to take up this issue with congressional leaders like Zoe Lofgren. Even just a visa recapture legislation alone would help us tremendously until 2009(about the earliest they might get back to this issue more fully).
Please forgive me for asking this..... but can someone please explain to me what you mean by wasted visa numbers? How is it even possible with all the backlogs and the caps on categories for uscis not to be able to use all of the visa numbers? I would love for someone to explain this to me! Thank you in advance.
We (us and our employers) as the recipients of the benefits are complaining about this, and it is perfectly legitimate.
If any visa numbers are left unused, I definitely think we ought to take up this issue with congressional leaders like Zoe Lofgren. Even just a visa recapture legislation alone would help us tremendously until 2009(about the earliest they might get back to this issue more fully).
Please forgive me for asking this..... but can someone please explain to me what you mean by wasted visa numbers? How is it even possible with all the backlogs and the caps on categories for uscis not to be able to use all of the visa numbers? I would love for someone to explain this to me! Thank you in advance.
black_logs
03-09 11:29 AM
So they'll probably take out schedule A workers(Nurses etc.) from EB3 category
Milind123
09-14 12:13 PM
bump
Thanks Libra for bumping. Please allow me to do it. I think we still need one shot to go.
Thanks Libra for bumping. Please allow me to do it. I think we still need one shot to go.
No comments:
Post a Comment