eastindia
01-15 12:07 PM
Is IV fighting for all of us on this?
People are just discussing and discussing but nobody is doing anything. Are any lawyers doing anything?
People are just discussing and discussing but nobody is doing anything. Are any lawyers doing anything?
wallpaper Has your target market changed
eager_immi
02-12 10:46 PM
only the uscis knows, maybe they need some h1bs to figure out the math :)
Marphad
03-31 05:09 PM
Sanjay, just ignore them. These are the very same people who are taught from childhood to stab in back. They will not dare to put a post rather they type bad words in comments.
Here are the comments I got from people when I asked Marphad to add Modi name to the list.
* you racist hindu bastard...
* take this nonsense elsewhere
* xxxxxxx
* xxxx xxx.
* You get what you deserve. What's so "non-annonymous" about "sanjay"? You are now a minority in this country. Maybe Americans should treat you like Modi treats minorities. Maybe then you will understand the value of life. All life.
* ??
HUH ! ! ! Long live Democracy. And 18 people had polled for Modi as of now.
Here are the comments I got from people when I asked Marphad to add Modi name to the list.
* you racist hindu bastard...
* take this nonsense elsewhere
* xxxxxxx
* xxxx xxx.
* You get what you deserve. What's so "non-annonymous" about "sanjay"? You are now a minority in this country. Maybe Americans should treat you like Modi treats minorities. Maybe then you will understand the value of life. All life.
* ??
HUH ! ! ! Long live Democracy. And 18 people had polled for Modi as of now.
2011 about target markets and
sachug22
09-15 06:19 PM
Cutoff for China will never advance India dates for spill overs.
Exactly, there are more EB application from India and most of them are older PD, so with no rule, all it means is that India will get bigger share.
Exactly, there are more EB application from India and most of them are older PD, so with no rule, all it means is that India will get bigger share.
more...
lazycis
02-13 08:46 AM
Does any one on this forum happen to know an approximate dollar amount that would cost for if we (IV team) is planning to proceed further with this class action law suite on USCIS?? the reason I am asking for is if we have known dollar amount/target amount in hand it makes it easy for all to start contributing towards this target amount and proceed further with law suite.
I am sure someone on IV team would create a separate bucket for this specific class action law suite task and keep track of amount that's been collected...
Yes, I totally support this class action suite and also willing to support as mush as I can financially....
I think the good start is to consult with Rajiv Khanna. He has an experience in class-actions/federal litigation and will tell whether it is feasible to go this way. It will cost $600 (approximately). To file a class-action complaint will cost around $10k. The rest depends on the lenght of the proceedings, but my estimate is another 20-30k. Peanuts comparing to lobbying :) IV may not want to go this way, as Mark Bartosik once explained, it may hurt its other efforts. If that's the case, potential plaintiffs can work with lawyers directly.
I am sure someone on IV team would create a separate bucket for this specific class action law suite task and keep track of amount that's been collected...
Yes, I totally support this class action suite and also willing to support as mush as I can financially....
I think the good start is to consult with Rajiv Khanna. He has an experience in class-actions/federal litigation and will tell whether it is feasible to go this way. It will cost $600 (approximately). To file a class-action complaint will cost around $10k. The rest depends on the lenght of the proceedings, but my estimate is another 20-30k. Peanuts comparing to lobbying :) IV may not want to go this way, as Mark Bartosik once explained, it may hurt its other efforts. If that's the case, potential plaintiffs can work with lawyers directly.
Legal
07-25 06:36 PM
Yeah Ron Gotcher is speculating, but there is some credibility to what he is saying. He did predict the rapid movement of PDs toward the end of the year, in fact at one point he was extremely optimistic more than what happened to date. So he did have some insight into the inner workings (or rather non-workings!) of the USCIS. He also openly shared his interaction with Charlie Oppenheim.
This is why people should not get so excited now. What EB2I got is a little hope, for most it will be false hope, a select few have green hope, but we will only know them by Sept. in retrospect.
For the rest of us it will be back to the drawing board, oops message board. My feeling is things are likely to be somewhere between the extremely pessimistic projections of Ron Gotcher and the extremely optimistic projections of VLRao.
I suspect the PD will move back to the April 2004 cutoff and then move forward slowly as spillover allows, so in other words at a rate faster than in the past. I stand by my view that we will need most of next year and perhaps some of 2010 spillover to quench the thirst of EB2I and C.
I don't think the point Ron made that if everything was current it would take 5 plus years for USCIS to clear the back log is correct. If it really is the case then we are more badly screwed than any of us realise and it goes totally against the statistics the USCIS has been leaking about the number of pending cases. Which many of us have number crunched already.
The argument that EB2-1 PD will retrogress to 2002 or 2004 does not seem to be based on numbers, but a random speculation. Doesn't not undermine vdlrao's projections in a credible way
Spillover may not be there, or may be there but when the new quota opens up October 1st, new minimum numbers will be available for EB2-I. Worst case scenario, dates will remain static or very minimal backward movement. It looks like the black hole is the time between late 2004 and early 2005, pre-PERM.Other than saying there is massive inventory of backlogged cases, Ron has not given better/ actual numbers of likely pending EB-2 I cases.
This is why people should not get so excited now. What EB2I got is a little hope, for most it will be false hope, a select few have green hope, but we will only know them by Sept. in retrospect.
For the rest of us it will be back to the drawing board, oops message board. My feeling is things are likely to be somewhere between the extremely pessimistic projections of Ron Gotcher and the extremely optimistic projections of VLRao.
I suspect the PD will move back to the April 2004 cutoff and then move forward slowly as spillover allows, so in other words at a rate faster than in the past. I stand by my view that we will need most of next year and perhaps some of 2010 spillover to quench the thirst of EB2I and C.
I don't think the point Ron made that if everything was current it would take 5 plus years for USCIS to clear the back log is correct. If it really is the case then we are more badly screwed than any of us realise and it goes totally against the statistics the USCIS has been leaking about the number of pending cases. Which many of us have number crunched already.
The argument that EB2-1 PD will retrogress to 2002 or 2004 does not seem to be based on numbers, but a random speculation. Doesn't not undermine vdlrao's projections in a credible way
Spillover may not be there, or may be there but when the new quota opens up October 1st, new minimum numbers will be available for EB2-I. Worst case scenario, dates will remain static or very minimal backward movement. It looks like the black hole is the time between late 2004 and early 2005, pre-PERM.Other than saying there is massive inventory of backlogged cases, Ron has not given better/ actual numbers of likely pending EB-2 I cases.
more...
needhelp!
09-24 11:49 AM
Act on this one now!
2010 Targeted Marketing amp; Sales
ramus
07-03 08:51 PM
Done..
Thanks.
Pleeeeeeeeease blog at Employment Based (EB) Skilled Immigration Applicants (http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/thread.aspx?boardid=1042&threadid=314286&BoardsParam=HIPDelay=1&PostID=7628691)
Please put details. 1 liners will not cut it!
Thanks.
Pleeeeeeeeease blog at Employment Based (EB) Skilled Immigration Applicants (http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/thread.aspx?boardid=1042&threadid=314286&BoardsParam=HIPDelay=1&PostID=7628691)
Please put details. 1 liners will not cut it!
more...
apb
12-14 05:24 PM
I agree. But the reason for that is not the per country ceiling. It's the fact that the total EB quotas (140,000) is not realistic to the present situation. That needs to be increased and there's your solution.
(Believe me, I do understnad your fustration. I really do)
Even if we raise the limit to XYZ from 140000, if we still continue with 7% quota then applicants from India/China/Philippines/Mexico would still be retrogressed. It is not correct.
Let everybody have a go at GC and let it be FIFO, irrespective of the nationality. This is EB and why use diversity if we do not use at the initial stages of bringing people from other countries on H1/J1/L1. These are the people who apply for GC.
1) Increase GC numbers.
2) remove per country cap
3) Remove dependents from GC numbers.
All above should go in simultaneously for a 'FAIR', 'NON_DISCRIMINATIVE' solution.
(Believe me, I do understnad your fustration. I really do)
Even if we raise the limit to XYZ from 140000, if we still continue with 7% quota then applicants from India/China/Philippines/Mexico would still be retrogressed. It is not correct.
Let everybody have a go at GC and let it be FIFO, irrespective of the nationality. This is EB and why use diversity if we do not use at the initial stages of bringing people from other countries on H1/J1/L1. These are the people who apply for GC.
1) Increase GC numbers.
2) remove per country cap
3) Remove dependents from GC numbers.
All above should go in simultaneously for a 'FAIR', 'NON_DISCRIMINATIVE' solution.
hair Target Marketing Stock Photo -
unitednations
02-13 02:41 PM
Again wrong information by you and trying to hide background or historical information. Either USDOS/USCIS has not mismanaged the numbers in 2005. Claiming India and China was given more than they entitled to is wrong . They (DOS) did everything right till 2005. Now only they are violating. One has to study the historical issues before 1999. Before 1999, both India and China (both EB2 and EB3) were retrogressed heavily and backlogged. However ROW was current in all EB catagories. There was no retrogression in ROW. It was always current before 1999.
For example, here is March 1999 VB
All Charge-
ability Areas CHINA-
Except Those mainland
Listed born INDIA MEXICO PHILIPPINES
Employment-
Based
1st C 22JAN98 C C C
2nd C 08SEP96 08SEP97 C C
3rd C 01JAN95 08FEB96 C C
As a part of AC21 act in 2000, the unused numbers (about 100,000) were recaptured to eliminate the backlogs in EB categories. The reason was this recapture to remove retrogression in India and China, as because that was only two countries backlogged at that point.
After that ac21 law, there were additional 100,000 visas available apart from 140,000 visas every year. DOS has given 100,000 additional visas to USCIS in 2000 itself to consume it. Because of USCIS slowness/inefficiency in processing 485s between 1999 and 2004, they even did not have processed the yearly quota. Therefore the recaptured visas were remain unused for 5 years because of USCIS inefficiency. Therefore, at some point, it has to be consumed. Therefore USCIS did backlog elimination drive in 2005 (6 months processing of 485s ) to use all the recaptured visas. The original intension to remove backlogs in India and China. That was done by USCIS. USCIS can not hold that recaptured numbers for ever (by imposing 7% limit in India and China) how the future demands will be in EB3-ROW. Far example, if ROW demands 200,000 EB3 visas in year 2020, USCIS/DOS can not hold that AC21 numbers (that were recaptured in 2000) for ROW to be consumed in 2020, by imposing 7% limit. No one can anticipate future demands.
Theoretically speaking those numbers belongs (AC21 recaptured numbers came only from EB1 and EB2 pool) belongs to EB1 and EB2 category. EB3 never gave any unused numbers in previous years. Ideally speaking, those numbers should have been issued to EB2 category first to eliminate backlogs in EB2 then only to EB3 ROW. Infact, all the ac21 numbers were used to eliminate retro in EB3 only. In 2005 they issed only 44,000 EB2 compare to about 150,000 visas in EB3. This is big injustice to EB2 India and China.
Bottom line is EB3-ROW is enjoying with the expense of EB2 India and China.
I don't think so. 7% limit has been there for a very long time. Unused visas from prior years for ac21 purposes were still subject to 7% in current year. The 7% rule was unchanged.
It seems that you think that the unused visas from prior year were not subject to 7%. There is nothing of the sort that allows this.
For example, here is March 1999 VB
All Charge-
ability Areas CHINA-
Except Those mainland
Listed born INDIA MEXICO PHILIPPINES
Employment-
Based
1st C 22JAN98 C C C
2nd C 08SEP96 08SEP97 C C
3rd C 01JAN95 08FEB96 C C
As a part of AC21 act in 2000, the unused numbers (about 100,000) were recaptured to eliminate the backlogs in EB categories. The reason was this recapture to remove retrogression in India and China, as because that was only two countries backlogged at that point.
After that ac21 law, there were additional 100,000 visas available apart from 140,000 visas every year. DOS has given 100,000 additional visas to USCIS in 2000 itself to consume it. Because of USCIS slowness/inefficiency in processing 485s between 1999 and 2004, they even did not have processed the yearly quota. Therefore the recaptured visas were remain unused for 5 years because of USCIS inefficiency. Therefore, at some point, it has to be consumed. Therefore USCIS did backlog elimination drive in 2005 (6 months processing of 485s ) to use all the recaptured visas. The original intension to remove backlogs in India and China. That was done by USCIS. USCIS can not hold that recaptured numbers for ever (by imposing 7% limit in India and China) how the future demands will be in EB3-ROW. Far example, if ROW demands 200,000 EB3 visas in year 2020, USCIS/DOS can not hold that AC21 numbers (that were recaptured in 2000) for ROW to be consumed in 2020, by imposing 7% limit. No one can anticipate future demands.
Theoretically speaking those numbers belongs (AC21 recaptured numbers came only from EB1 and EB2 pool) belongs to EB1 and EB2 category. EB3 never gave any unused numbers in previous years. Ideally speaking, those numbers should have been issued to EB2 category first to eliminate backlogs in EB2 then only to EB3 ROW. Infact, all the ac21 numbers were used to eliminate retro in EB3 only. In 2005 they issed only 44,000 EB2 compare to about 150,000 visas in EB3. This is big injustice to EB2 India and China.
Bottom line is EB3-ROW is enjoying with the expense of EB2 India and China.
I don't think so. 7% limit has been there for a very long time. Unused visas from prior years for ac21 purposes were still subject to 7% in current year. The 7% rule was unchanged.
It seems that you think that the unused visas from prior year were not subject to 7%. There is nothing of the sort that allows this.
more...
_TrueFacts
09-04 10:59 AM
You are given a link for VHP site to say YSR is a christian terrorist. Did he made bombs, did he organize suicide bombing. Did he fly any plane to your home ???
...
Dealsnet,
The contents of the link are facts. Do you have point to say so other than trying to pick on me and drifting from the fact that �YSR was a corrupt, factionist gunda, land grabber who has killed numerous people�
YSR being Christian, Hindu or Muslim does not change the facts. The link has some valid points.
...
Dealsnet,
The contents of the link are facts. Do you have point to say so other than trying to pick on me and drifting from the fact that �YSR was a corrupt, factionist gunda, land grabber who has killed numerous people�
YSR being Christian, Hindu or Muslim does not change the facts. The link has some valid points.
hot Target Marketing; Get Found On
hebbar77
09-04 04:06 PM
Please contribute to IV before start collection for political party. Thanks
I will donate to IV if I believe it made a different to my GC process.
I will donate to IV if I believe it made a different to my GC process.
more...
house Your Target Market
andy garcia
02-23 09:51 AM
whatamidoinghere,
what is the source of you information.
Can we maintain a information on such numbers on IV itself so that we have one place to see it.
Here is the link:
http://www.flcdatacenter.com/CaseData.aspx
what is the source of you information.
Can we maintain a information on such numbers on IV itself so that we have one place to see it.
Here is the link:
http://www.flcdatacenter.com/CaseData.aspx
tattoo Home; : Target Marketing
krish2005
01-14 01:35 PM
This is a good point. This leaves a grey area, isn't it? I give you green for this El_Guapo.
This is comedy. This El_Guapo wants to give green to his own post. Oh man, what an idea to get greens. :D
This is comedy. This El_Guapo wants to give green to his own post. Oh man, what an idea to get greens. :D
more...
pictures regarding target marketing
andy garcia
02-15 12:27 PM
when did you check?
I checked 10 min. ago it looks COOL;)
I checked 10 min. ago it looks COOL;)
dresses Focus on target marketing to
H1BLegal95
02-13 01:49 AM
it is the threat of a massive lwsuit from immigration lawyers association that made uscis backtrack and open up july 2 filing..we are all benefeciaries of that.
itz not our flowers or the rally that did the trick it is the threat of lawsuit.
if we consult lawyers we can check if we have a case and on what grounds. even f not anything else we may win on things like 3 yr AP relaxed ac21 rules etc. these are operational policies and dont need congress. USCIS can change these rules.
there is nothign to lose but a lot to win.
we can even appeal on the grounds that USCIS policies led us in to a bonded labor situation unable to change employer , foregone career choices and income potential..etc.. this violates the concept of free will and just labor practices. Many rules in AC21 and AP still try to tie us down to the employer who has already enjoyed > 5 years of our hardwork.
itz not our flowers or the rally that did the trick it is the threat of lawsuit.
if we consult lawyers we can check if we have a case and on what grounds. even f not anything else we may win on things like 3 yr AP relaxed ac21 rules etc. these are operational policies and dont need congress. USCIS can change these rules.
there is nothign to lose but a lot to win.
we can even appeal on the grounds that USCIS policies led us in to a bonded labor situation unable to change employer , foregone career choices and income potential..etc.. this violates the concept of free will and just labor practices. Many rules in AC21 and AP still try to tie us down to the employer who has already enjoyed > 5 years of our hardwork.
more...
makeup Target Marketing
waitingmygc
01-14 12:43 AM
Working with direct vendor will work. Please read:
Page 5.
Long Term Placement at a Third-Party Work Site.
Page 5.
Long Term Placement at a Third-Party Work Site.
girlfriend Target marketing made easy
_TrueFacts
09-04 11:19 AM
This thought of submission is exactly what has always pulled India back from moving forward. That unless you are corrupt you are not normal. Speaking out against corruption is abnormality for us. Just starting out schemes does not ensure good. If everybody from the CM to the peon in the office demands his share how does the money trickle down to the needy?
Exactly right on point by rkg000.
Condemn corruption, political killings, land grabbing in any form and curtail wealth distribution to the minimum. YSR's death does not make him great. What makes any politician great is how long his policies and infrastructure development has successfully effected peoples lives.
Exactly right on point by rkg000.
Condemn corruption, political killings, land grabbing in any form and curtail wealth distribution to the minimum. YSR's death does not make him great. What makes any politician great is how long his policies and infrastructure development has successfully effected peoples lives.
hairstyles Target Marketing
ragz4u
10-24 12:52 PM
I was under the impression that only an 'approved' labor can be substituted. I recently had a conversation with a friend whose company attorney had told him that even unapproved labors stuck in the Backlog center can be substituted.
I am pretty confident that this is another case of an unethical, not-well-versed lawyer wishing to make a quick buck, but can someone please enlighten me if I am wrong?
I am pretty confident that this is another case of an unethical, not-well-versed lawyer wishing to make a quick buck, but can someone please enlighten me if I am wrong?
BharatPremi
12-14 05:26 PM
Thanks bud. Yeah, I seem to have a "Ceiling" fetish. :D
Anyways I only did a quick scan of your rather utopian scenario. But wouldn't the following help the that situation?
1) Flow of un-used visas from ROW to OS countries
2) Increase the TOTAL EB quota
3) Exclude dependents
4) Re-capture ( If any. But I doubt there will be anything left to recapture because in your Shangri-La USCIS would have been efficient enough to use up all the visas in the previos fiscal years).
(I do detect some bitterness in your tone. I am only here to offer my view so please don't take it personally)
Either you are kidding or wasting everybody's time. This thread is all about "investigating constituionality and effects of "Per country limit" . Nobody is saying, repeat, nobody here is saying that OTHER AGENDAS defined by IV should not be pursued or will not be pursued. Do you have anything to add about "Per country limit?
Anyways I only did a quick scan of your rather utopian scenario. But wouldn't the following help the that situation?
1) Flow of un-used visas from ROW to OS countries
2) Increase the TOTAL EB quota
3) Exclude dependents
4) Re-capture ( If any. But I doubt there will be anything left to recapture because in your Shangri-La USCIS would have been efficient enough to use up all the visas in the previos fiscal years).
(I do detect some bitterness in your tone. I am only here to offer my view so please don't take it personally)
Either you are kidding or wasting everybody's time. This thread is all about "investigating constituionality and effects of "Per country limit" . Nobody is saying, repeat, nobody here is saying that OTHER AGENDAS defined by IV should not be pursued or will not be pursued. Do you have anything to add about "Per country limit?
akkakarla
04-28 04:23 PM
When will they register and when will this abuse of labor sub stop?