ash123
02-12 04:04 PM
We have to wake-up before same continue while EAD/AP renewal
wallpaper jolie wanted hand tattoo.
chanduv23
09-27 10:12 AM
A common card that can be used for different countries - gives excellent mobility - improves standards - induces competition - this concept looks good and promising.
Please share some more info if available. Lest discuss pros and cons
Please share some more info if available. Lest discuss pros and cons
sammas
07-12 04:01 PM
F. DETERMINATION OF THE NUMERICAL LIMITS ON IMMIGRANTS REQUIRED UNDER THE TERMS OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT (INA)
The State Department is required to make a determination of the worldwide numerical limitations, as outlined in Section 201(c) and (d) of the INA, on an annual basis. These calculations are based in part on data provided by U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (CIS) regarding the number of immediate relative adjustments in the preceding year and the number of aliens paroled into the United States under Section 212(d)(5) in the second preceding year. Without this information, it is impossible to make an official determination of the annual limits. To avoid delays in processing while waiting for the CIS data, the Visa Office (VO) bases allocations on the minimum annual limits outlined in Section 201 of the INA. On July 7th, CIS provided the required data to VO.
The Department of State has determined the Family and Employment preference numerical limits for FY-2010 in accordance with the terms of Section 201 of the INA. These numerical limitations for FY-2010 are as follows:
Worldwide Family-Sponsored preference limit: 226,000
Worldwide Employment-Based preference limit: 150,667
Under INA Section 202(A), the per-country limit is fixed at 7% of the family and employment annual limits. For FY-2010 the per-country limit is 26,367. The dependent area annual limit is 2%, or 7,533.
The State Department is required to make a determination of the worldwide numerical limitations, as outlined in Section 201(c) and (d) of the INA, on an annual basis. These calculations are based in part on data provided by U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (CIS) regarding the number of immediate relative adjustments in the preceding year and the number of aliens paroled into the United States under Section 212(d)(5) in the second preceding year. Without this information, it is impossible to make an official determination of the annual limits. To avoid delays in processing while waiting for the CIS data, the Visa Office (VO) bases allocations on the minimum annual limits outlined in Section 201 of the INA. On July 7th, CIS provided the required data to VO.
The Department of State has determined the Family and Employment preference numerical limits for FY-2010 in accordance with the terms of Section 201 of the INA. These numerical limitations for FY-2010 are as follows:
Worldwide Family-Sponsored preference limit: 226,000
Worldwide Employment-Based preference limit: 150,667
Under INA Section 202(A), the per-country limit is fixed at 7% of the family and employment annual limits. For FY-2010 the per-country limit is 26,367. The dependent area annual limit is 2%, or 7,533.
2011 man tattoos. tattoo ideas
Dhundhun
07-13 11:48 PM
I read somewhere that now all the applications - 485/EAD/AP, for one particular applicant, are adjudicated by the same officer. This is a new process change to improve efficiency. I think the article I read indicated that it was already working that way at TSC.
Unfortunately, i don't have the link, but I will post it if i come across it.
My case (I485) is with NSC. The e-filed EAD renewal also got LIN number, but (may be due to load distribution) it is being handled by MSC.
Does this imply everything will be handled by MSC instead of TSC? I think source article is needed to analyze, what is happening.
Unfortunately, i don't have the link, but I will post it if i come across it.
My case (I485) is with NSC. The e-filed EAD renewal also got LIN number, but (may be due to load distribution) it is being handled by MSC.
Does this imply everything will be handled by MSC instead of TSC? I think source article is needed to analyze, what is happening.
more...
greenguru
12-10 02:16 PM
He got his GC.. i will not expect him here.. we need one more VLDrao
NKR
03-10 10:09 AM
I have been lurking on this forum to understand the plight of EB immigrants and the posts the last few weeks have confirmed my belief that the problem exist because a lot of people came to the US from 1999-2006 and want to stay here permanently. The EB immigration system was fine before then; thus, the problem is supply/demand, not the immigration policies.
You are partly right, but the problem does not end there. Lot of it has to do with the disorderly way the applications were/are being picked up. All the old applications were pushed to BECs and newer perm applications were picked up for processing. The dates were abruptly moved forward which allowed USCIS to approve newer 485 applications before the dates were pushed back. I am a victim of both these cases… Also, there has been a lot of wastage of visa numbers. If none of these happened I am sure the EB3 dates would have move forward without getting stagnated in 2001.
You are partly right, but the problem does not end there. Lot of it has to do with the disorderly way the applications were/are being picked up. All the old applications were pushed to BECs and newer perm applications were picked up for processing. The dates were abruptly moved forward which allowed USCIS to approve newer 485 applications before the dates were pushed back. I am a victim of both these cases… Also, there has been a lot of wastage of visa numbers. If none of these happened I am sure the EB3 dates would have move forward without getting stagnated in 2001.
more...
engineer
06-12 11:57 AM
CIR needs to die for the simple reason that the processing workload for the illegals on the USCIS will add another 3 years of wait for everybody. Simple fact of the matter is that the system has not finished recovering from the last 245(i) amnesty that ended in 2001. That was when the DOL received 6 years of applications in one week and everybody ended up waiting 3 years or more.
I agree. IV must think of a strategy where they can lobby to get just provisions for legal and highly skilled immigrants approved as seperate bill.
If we couple this with illegals then no body is going to pay attention.
I agree. IV must think of a strategy where they can lobby to get just provisions for legal and highly skilled immigrants approved as seperate bill.
If we couple this with illegals then no body is going to pay attention.
2010 tattoo. soccer ball
msyedy
06-13 01:23 PM
Senthil1, Pineapple
Please let us not sound harsh and have a bipartisan :D discussion. It is just my statement I do not disagree with neither of you.
Rule 2
You mean Microsoft and Google and other companies want to stop outsourcing. They would not have build a huge team in india if they wanted to do this. The point that you are missing is that they need H1-Bs here because no american born is availabe here to fill those positions.
Read my statement thoroughly.
Big consulting companies(Bearing point....my list will go on) that are plenty in the US who hire and fire H1-B and american born if they cannot find another client for them after few days.
What will happen to these companies .. they have to shut down
Rule 2 will be a disaster for all these companies.
These companies do not go to india to get H1-B's they get them when they come here brought by india Desi companies.
It will be a mess. You might be talking about one company that will never displace and american and will garauntee an employee that he will never be fired once hired : Give me a break.
What exactly is your point Senthil?
If by reiterating (over and over) the "evilness" of "desi" companies insofar as impacting American workers is concerned and justifying absurdly and obviously restrictionist bills on the fond hope that it would have minimal impact on the "good" American companies who hire H1s in the exception, you wish to make it clear that you are an employee of the latter set of companies, you have certainly made your point, and do not need 364 posts to hammer it it.
Ladies and gentlemen, Senthil is a genuine, bona fide high skilled person working for an honest American company which has high ethical standards, and is not, repeat, NOT displacing any son of the soil American.
There - you can relax now.
Please let us not sound harsh and have a bipartisan :D discussion. It is just my statement I do not disagree with neither of you.
Rule 2
You mean Microsoft and Google and other companies want to stop outsourcing. They would not have build a huge team in india if they wanted to do this. The point that you are missing is that they need H1-Bs here because no american born is availabe here to fill those positions.
Read my statement thoroughly.
Big consulting companies(Bearing point....my list will go on) that are plenty in the US who hire and fire H1-B and american born if they cannot find another client for them after few days.
What will happen to these companies .. they have to shut down
Rule 2 will be a disaster for all these companies.
These companies do not go to india to get H1-B's they get them when they come here brought by india Desi companies.
It will be a mess. You might be talking about one company that will never displace and american and will garauntee an employee that he will never be fired once hired : Give me a break.
What exactly is your point Senthil?
If by reiterating (over and over) the "evilness" of "desi" companies insofar as impacting American workers is concerned and justifying absurdly and obviously restrictionist bills on the fond hope that it would have minimal impact on the "good" American companies who hire H1s in the exception, you wish to make it clear that you are an employee of the latter set of companies, you have certainly made your point, and do not need 364 posts to hammer it it.
Ladies and gentlemen, Senthil is a genuine, bona fide high skilled person working for an honest American company which has high ethical standards, and is not, repeat, NOT displacing any son of the soil American.
There - you can relax now.
more...
sneha.shah
04-24 01:31 PM
Hi,
I am currently on L1B visa since Mar09, another employer is offering for my h1b visa. I have below queries for l1 to h1 conversion process :
1) How much time I can stay on H1 if I apply H1b now ? My total stay in US on L1 is 1 year 7 months, not a continuous one !!!
2) What are the good options/approach to file for H1 considering the fact that I want work with current employer on L1B for current project ?
3) Can I apply for H1 now and later do COS any time after October ?If yes, what is the max time before I need to do COS after H1 approval ?
4) How about if my current project completes before oct 1st and I have already applied for h1 ?
Kindly help me for above questions, would appreciate your help.
Thanks in advance.
I am currently on L1B visa since Mar09, another employer is offering for my h1b visa. I have below queries for l1 to h1 conversion process :
1) How much time I can stay on H1 if I apply H1b now ? My total stay in US on L1 is 1 year 7 months, not a continuous one !!!
2) What are the good options/approach to file for H1 considering the fact that I want work with current employer on L1B for current project ?
3) Can I apply for H1 now and later do COS any time after October ?If yes, what is the max time before I need to do COS after H1 approval ?
4) How about if my current project completes before oct 1st and I have already applied for h1 ?
Kindly help me for above questions, would appreciate your help.
Thanks in advance.
hair Neck tattoos were originally
prioritydate
12-20 08:42 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, but you've had unexpired H1B while you were out of work. This is not considered unlawful presence. On top of that, violation of status determination can be done only by the USCIS (IO). If they did not inform you that you violated status, you are good to go.
Well, I moved a lot since 2001 and I don't know if the IO sent any documents to my previous address. Yes, I have unexpired H1B visa till Oct 2002(I-94 valid until Oct, 2002). In Apr, 2005, I went to Canada for stamping of my new H1B. I again made an appointment in Jan, 2008.
Well, I moved a lot since 2001 and I don't know if the IO sent any documents to my previous address. Yes, I have unexpired H1B visa till Oct 2002(I-94 valid until Oct, 2002). In Apr, 2005, I went to Canada for stamping of my new H1B. I again made an appointment in Jan, 2008.
more...
Legal_In_A_Limbo
03-10 01:08 PM
coolmanship, can you please share the format of the letter which we need to send to USCIS asking them of taking the attorney of the case?
I will really appreciate that.
Change of employer does not imply your use of the AC21.....the rule does not require you to notify USCIS....so in many cases, if you do not notify them, it is likely that they will never know and approve your GC. But, if they issue an RFE and if your sponsoring employer gives you the offer for future job you should be okay..........you may only have to work for them for at least a little bit after you got your GC....
I will really appreciate that.
Change of employer does not imply your use of the AC21.....the rule does not require you to notify USCIS....so in many cases, if you do not notify them, it is likely that they will never know and approve your GC. But, if they issue an RFE and if your sponsoring employer gives you the offer for future job you should be okay..........you may only have to work for them for at least a little bit after you got your GC....
hot images cross tattoos design,
cgs
11-22 02:54 PM
I think the salary mentioned in H1B petition could be different the one in LC. Employer is bound to pay the salary mentioned in the H1B while employee is on H1B, the salary mentioned in LC only needs to be honored after obtaining GC.
And how about the job title mentioned in the both petitions, could it be different?
For most of the people GC processing might start after 3 years working on H1B, and this might allow the changes.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
It is my understanding that when applying for a GC, until you have your LC approved (and possibly I-140), you cannot change your title or salary, beyond what was submitted in the LC application. Technically, the DOL is verifying a 'job' (and the salary related to that job), so in theory, that can't change, not because the employer doesn't want to, but because the law doesn't allow it.
Now, an employer may unofficially get around this (by increasing your bonus payout, or giving you stock, or changing the internal level of your job), but these are 'handouts' that you may get if your employer is fair.
With the backlogs that are in effect for pre-PERM LC approvals, employees can go from 1-3 years without a salary or promotion/job title change, and that is the law! Go figure.
And how about the job title mentioned in the both petitions, could it be different?
For most of the people GC processing might start after 3 years working on H1B, and this might allow the changes.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
It is my understanding that when applying for a GC, until you have your LC approved (and possibly I-140), you cannot change your title or salary, beyond what was submitted in the LC application. Technically, the DOL is verifying a 'job' (and the salary related to that job), so in theory, that can't change, not because the employer doesn't want to, but because the law doesn't allow it.
Now, an employer may unofficially get around this (by increasing your bonus payout, or giving you stock, or changing the internal level of your job), but these are 'handouts' that you may get if your employer is fair.
With the backlogs that are in effect for pre-PERM LC approvals, employees can go from 1-3 years without a salary or promotion/job title change, and that is the law! Go figure.
more...
house tattoo Karishma Kapoor with
Aah_GC
12-12 03:01 PM
Great point -- never thought of it this way before.
addsf345, you are attacking people. Grow up and quit doing that. Attack my views if you want to attack. No one has answered my question yet - If we are so "highly skilled", why no one is listening to us in this country. Kavita, I do not know about your field but in my field, IT, I see so many people, wanting to live in this country at any cost. They would work for any salary, they are OK to get relocated 6 times in a year, they would put up with any BS imposed by desi employers, but they would never go back. Now, I do not think they are "required" here. They are fighting to survive here. Again, nothing wrong in fighting to survive but to say that I am "required" here is a bit far from reality. If they (so called required population fighting for green card) leave tomorrow, nothing will change.
America wants us as a temporary worker, with emphasis on the word temporary. America has no incentive to give us Green Cards. You work for 6 years, pay social security and Medicare and then pack up your bag and go back. Thank you very much, we appreciate your business. Don't you see it written on the wall? Especially those who are in EB3-I category? I can see it!
Is country quota in EB category justified? Hell No. But you know what - if you remove that then entire EB system would be high jacked by Indians, just like they have high jacked H1-B and L-1 visa category. So much so that IMHO H1-B visa has lost its sole purpose. It was designed to give American companies the ability to hire talented people from other countries. It wasn't designed for Desi employers to hire desi consultants and then make those desi consultants run coast to coast looking for projects. Infosys and Satyam can open up shops on US soil and can call themselves American companies but you and I both know the fact, how American those companies are! So, being in EB3-I category, and after living here for almost 8 years on temporary visa, I can feel the pain, but in some part we are also responsible for this mess.
Once again, only grown ups are requested to reply. Thank you.
addsf345, you are attacking people. Grow up and quit doing that. Attack my views if you want to attack. No one has answered my question yet - If we are so "highly skilled", why no one is listening to us in this country. Kavita, I do not know about your field but in my field, IT, I see so many people, wanting to live in this country at any cost. They would work for any salary, they are OK to get relocated 6 times in a year, they would put up with any BS imposed by desi employers, but they would never go back. Now, I do not think they are "required" here. They are fighting to survive here. Again, nothing wrong in fighting to survive but to say that I am "required" here is a bit far from reality. If they (so called required population fighting for green card) leave tomorrow, nothing will change.
America wants us as a temporary worker, with emphasis on the word temporary. America has no incentive to give us Green Cards. You work for 6 years, pay social security and Medicare and then pack up your bag and go back. Thank you very much, we appreciate your business. Don't you see it written on the wall? Especially those who are in EB3-I category? I can see it!
Is country quota in EB category justified? Hell No. But you know what - if you remove that then entire EB system would be high jacked by Indians, just like they have high jacked H1-B and L-1 visa category. So much so that IMHO H1-B visa has lost its sole purpose. It was designed to give American companies the ability to hire talented people from other countries. It wasn't designed for Desi employers to hire desi consultants and then make those desi consultants run coast to coast looking for projects. Infosys and Satyam can open up shops on US soil and can call themselves American companies but you and I both know the fact, how American those companies are! So, being in EB3-I category, and after living here for almost 8 years on temporary visa, I can feel the pain, but in some part we are also responsible for this mess.
Once again, only grown ups are requested to reply. Thank you.
tattoo date tattoos. small date
ajaykk
07-11 09:35 PM
My PD is 06/27/06..should I feel happy or fingers x'd or just lucky....
more...
pictures ob marley quotes tattoos.
smartboy75
07-11 12:47 PM
source: www.immigration-law.com
07/11/2008: Indian EB-2 Visa Number in Visa Bulletin August 2008 and Anticipated Expedited Adjudication of Their I-485 Applications to Prevent EB 2008 Visa Number Waste
The movement of the EB-2 visa numbers for Indians is indeed a very good news in that it sounds that the USCIS intends to take out the visa numbers for them before the end of September 2008 as best as they can and attempt to adjudicate the applications before the new fiscal year starts on October 1, 2008. Obviously, there must be a large number of EB-2 cases which were filed during the July 2007 Visa Bulletin fiasco whose priority date is June 1, 2006 or earlier date. It appears that the USCIS has been working hard to get these cases ready for adjudication while their visa numbers are availalbe so that the agency prevents the visa number for FY 2008 from being wasted. Please stay tuned to this web site for this remarkable turn of the events.
07/11/2008: Indian EB-2 Visa Number in Visa Bulletin August 2008 and Anticipated Expedited Adjudication of Their I-485 Applications to Prevent EB 2008 Visa Number Waste
The movement of the EB-2 visa numbers for Indians is indeed a very good news in that it sounds that the USCIS intends to take out the visa numbers for them before the end of September 2008 as best as they can and attempt to adjudicate the applications before the new fiscal year starts on October 1, 2008. Obviously, there must be a large number of EB-2 cases which were filed during the July 2007 Visa Bulletin fiasco whose priority date is June 1, 2006 or earlier date. It appears that the USCIS has been working hard to get these cases ready for adjudication while their visa numbers are availalbe so that the agency prevents the visa number for FY 2008 from being wasted. Please stay tuned to this web site for this remarkable turn of the events.
dresses house tattoo hayden panettiere
nixstor
07-04 09:25 PM
nixstor,
First, with out name check cleared by FBI, no 485 will be approved. Assiging visa number to a 485 appliction initally, nothing to do with name check. If the applicant is threat to the security of the country, his/her 485 will be denied and they will take back the already assigned number. Both are two different issues.
Another myth: USCIS processed 60,000 485 in June. It is wrong. They processed 60,000 485 over the period of 6 months to 5 years. And they just approved in June, based on earlier processing.
Well, Thats what I have said before as well. Its like setting the order card flag to "yes" on 60K cases with older PD's. I do not know from where Jay Solomon got the tip off about lapse of name checks, unless they are trying to make this a big issue through all possible means. There have been stories flying around that they by passed on security checks, which I thought your original post conveyed. Most of the 485's they approved have been the one's with PD's from 2003 and 2004 initially. If there are a few from the pile that were of later PD's, I don't think its a big issue. The lack of communication and implementation/interpretation at their whims and fancies has resulted in the situation at hand for every one involved in the chain. I am very very positive that the OB's office has nothing do with this and USCIS is not worried about the postmortem conducted by OB.
First, with out name check cleared by FBI, no 485 will be approved. Assiging visa number to a 485 appliction initally, nothing to do with name check. If the applicant is threat to the security of the country, his/her 485 will be denied and they will take back the already assigned number. Both are two different issues.
Another myth: USCIS processed 60,000 485 in June. It is wrong. They processed 60,000 485 over the period of 6 months to 5 years. And they just approved in June, based on earlier processing.
Well, Thats what I have said before as well. Its like setting the order card flag to "yes" on 60K cases with older PD's. I do not know from where Jay Solomon got the tip off about lapse of name checks, unless they are trying to make this a big issue through all possible means. There have been stories flying around that they by passed on security checks, which I thought your original post conveyed. Most of the 485's they approved have been the one's with PD's from 2003 and 2004 initially. If there are a few from the pile that were of later PD's, I don't think its a big issue. The lack of communication and implementation/interpretation at their whims and fancies has resulted in the situation at hand for every one involved in the chain. I am very very positive that the OB's office has nothing do with this and USCIS is not worried about the postmortem conducted by OB.
more...
makeup dresses date tattoos. date
thirdworldman
02-17 10:20 PM
I've never used it, but Blender 3d is free, and from what I've seen, there's a pretty nice set of tools there...blender3d.com
girlfriend tattoo Resume Objective
Rb_newsletter
04-09 06:39 PM
i don't..... becoz i' not in sarah palin brigade of mindless freaks who have to find someone to blame others for the sake of it..... we live in a complicated world..... just becoz we applied with uscis..... & just becoz they've to approve applications..... it doesn't mean
backlogs & delays is uscis fault..... the least amongst us can easily figure out that the problem is with the congress, not with cis.....
y the hell do u blame cis...... r they not allocating 140K per year..... what more do u want from them....... oh well...... for the sarah palin brigade on this forum i'm now an outcast.....
- the problem is with the congress, not with cis
Congress did not ask USCIS/DOS to subtract dependent visa numbers from 140K. If USCIS/DOS excludes dependent numbers from 140k, congress cannot question that because law doesn't mandate to include the dependent numbers in 140K.
-y the hell do u blame cis...... r they not allocating 140K per year
If USCIS/DOS doesn't agree to change their administration policy to exclude dependent visas from 140K after seeing our backlog, then who else do we have to blame.
Yes they are allocating 140K per year. But to who? In my view to the same applicant; one for primary applicant, another for his spouse, another for his kid, ....
Most of us here are 'keyboard ninjas'. Only very few contribute in actions and that contribution is hidden under donor forums. Without awareness of the good things happening, these keyboard-ninjas are not going to contribute in actions.
We all understand that blaming is not going to help anyone. But what else to do.
backlogs & delays is uscis fault..... the least amongst us can easily figure out that the problem is with the congress, not with cis.....
y the hell do u blame cis...... r they not allocating 140K per year..... what more do u want from them....... oh well...... for the sarah palin brigade on this forum i'm now an outcast.....
- the problem is with the congress, not with cis
Congress did not ask USCIS/DOS to subtract dependent visa numbers from 140K. If USCIS/DOS excludes dependent numbers from 140k, congress cannot question that because law doesn't mandate to include the dependent numbers in 140K.
-y the hell do u blame cis...... r they not allocating 140K per year
If USCIS/DOS doesn't agree to change their administration policy to exclude dependent visas from 140K after seeing our backlog, then who else do we have to blame.
Yes they are allocating 140K per year. But to who? In my view to the same applicant; one for primary applicant, another for his spouse, another for his kid, ....
Most of us here are 'keyboard ninjas'. Only very few contribute in actions and that contribution is hidden under donor forums. Without awareness of the good things happening, these keyboard-ninjas are not going to contribute in actions.
We all understand that blaming is not going to help anyone. But what else to do.
hairstyles maori tattoo patterns.
alisa
01-27 09:25 AM
I am glad you posted this.
I will put the numbers in the excel spreadsheet and see what comes out.
But these might give more sensible results than the preposterous wait times that we were getting.
If the average depletion rate for India is 34K per annum, then the wait times would look a lot better I think.
I am assuming that these numbers include the dependents. So, if 34K adjustment of status were awareded, then, roughly speaking, there were 17K primary applicants, and 17K dependents? Am I correct?
Also, for the accumulation rate, when we say that 65K H-1 visas are given out annually, I am assuming that does not include the dependents. Am I right??
FISCAL ------ Employment ------- EB3
YEAR ----- Total ---- INDIA | Total --- India
2000 ----- 111,024 | 15888 | 51,711 | -5567 :IV FY 2000 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2000%20table%20V.pdf)
2001 ----- 186,536 | 41720 | 90,274 | 16405 :IV FY 2001 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2001%20table%20V.pdf)
2002 ----- 171,583 | 41919 | 87,574 | 17428 :IV FY 2002 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2002%20table%20V.pdf)
2003 ----- -83,020 | 20818 | 47,354 | 10680 :IV FY 2003 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2003%20table%20V.pdf)
2004 ----- 157,107 | 39496 | 88,114 | 19962 :IV FY 2004 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY04tableV.pdf)
2005 ----- 242,335 | 47160 |122,130 | 23399 :IV FY 2005 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY05tableV.pdf)
6 yr total - 951,605| 207001| 487,157| 93441
Annual Avg --------- 34500 | -------- 15574
If this trend would have continued. There should not be any MAJOR retrogression problem, but if you remember from the Nov 05 VB. The warning was very clear:
During FY due to anticipated heavy demand, the AC21 provisions are not expected to apply, and the amount of Employment numbers available to any single country will be subject to the 7% cap. It is anticipated that the addition of unused FY-2005 Family numbers and the remaining AC21 numbers to the 140,000 annual minimum will result in an FY-2006 annual Employment limit of 152,000. This will mean an Employment per-country limit for FY-2006 of approximately 10,650.
To illustrate the effect of the reduced per-county limitation during FY-2006 on the oversubscribed countries, it should be noted that during FY-2005 India used approximately 47,175 Employment numbers.
If you plug this number into your analysis the result might be a couple of years of advance for your predictions.
andy
I will put the numbers in the excel spreadsheet and see what comes out.
But these might give more sensible results than the preposterous wait times that we were getting.
If the average depletion rate for India is 34K per annum, then the wait times would look a lot better I think.
I am assuming that these numbers include the dependents. So, if 34K adjustment of status were awareded, then, roughly speaking, there were 17K primary applicants, and 17K dependents? Am I correct?
Also, for the accumulation rate, when we say that 65K H-1 visas are given out annually, I am assuming that does not include the dependents. Am I right??
FISCAL ------ Employment ------- EB3
YEAR ----- Total ---- INDIA | Total --- India
2000 ----- 111,024 | 15888 | 51,711 | -5567 :IV FY 2000 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2000%20table%20V.pdf)
2001 ----- 186,536 | 41720 | 90,274 | 16405 :IV FY 2001 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2001%20table%20V.pdf)
2002 ----- 171,583 | 41919 | 87,574 | 17428 :IV FY 2002 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2002%20table%20V.pdf)
2003 ----- -83,020 | 20818 | 47,354 | 10680 :IV FY 2003 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2003%20table%20V.pdf)
2004 ----- 157,107 | 39496 | 88,114 | 19962 :IV FY 2004 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY04tableV.pdf)
2005 ----- 242,335 | 47160 |122,130 | 23399 :IV FY 2005 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY05tableV.pdf)
6 yr total - 951,605| 207001| 487,157| 93441
Annual Avg --------- 34500 | -------- 15574
If this trend would have continued. There should not be any MAJOR retrogression problem, but if you remember from the Nov 05 VB. The warning was very clear:
During FY due to anticipated heavy demand, the AC21 provisions are not expected to apply, and the amount of Employment numbers available to any single country will be subject to the 7% cap. It is anticipated that the addition of unused FY-2005 Family numbers and the remaining AC21 numbers to the 140,000 annual minimum will result in an FY-2006 annual Employment limit of 152,000. This will mean an Employment per-country limit for FY-2006 of approximately 10,650.
To illustrate the effect of the reduced per-county limitation during FY-2006 on the oversubscribed countries, it should be noted that during FY-2005 India used approximately 47,175 Employment numbers.
If you plug this number into your analysis the result might be a couple of years of advance for your predictions.
andy
thesparky007
02-16 07:11 PM
ohhhhhhhh my goddddddddddddd
tht is cool
man!
i want to do those stuff
i will learn
tell me a good program
tht is cool
man!
i want to do those stuff
i will learn
tell me a good program
gc_kaavaali
12-10 05:33 PM
I am sorry to ask you...i think you need to get SSN inorder to work...if u allowed to work on what bases you pay tax...
Hi friends,
I need your help!!!
I'm here at California with L-2 visa. I can stay legally in US but i can not get a SSN number, i can work too.But For a driver license they ask for SSN. Do i still get the Driver License or no?
Thank you very much...
Hi friends,
I need your help!!!
I'm here at California with L-2 visa. I can stay legally in US but i can not get a SSN number, i can work too.But For a driver license they ask for SSN. Do i still get the Driver License or no?
Thank you very much...