hsm2007
10-11 11:56 AM
Guys,
After responding to the RFE last week, I have been seeing continous LUDs on my 485. They were on 10/8, 10/9 and today on columbus day 10/11. There was also one when they registered my RFE response on 10/6.
And to add to that I received a FP notice for both spouse and myself but the date isn't until after 3 weeks. Can I get the FP done early? I don't want them to sit on my application for another 3 weeks just because they are waiting for my FP.
After responding to the RFE last week, I have been seeing continous LUDs on my 485. They were on 10/8, 10/9 and today on columbus day 10/11. There was also one when they registered my RFE response on 10/6.
And to add to that I received a FP notice for both spouse and myself but the date isn't until after 3 weeks. Can I get the FP done early? I don't want them to sit on my application for another 3 weeks just because they are waiting for my FP.
wallpaper Betty Boop Modern
anukcs
09-26 09:53 AM
I sent a message
mail2me_Ds
09-17 03:03 PM
When they issue RFE, does the case status online shows Card/Document production?. My status changed to Card/Document production 10 days ago and I did not receive any document or card yet. And the level 2 officer said that my application is still pending?. So I am confused with the online status.
2011 etty boop. Submitted by zee.
spicy_guy
08-11 11:46 AM
Are we concluding that we will not have any support from IV for EB3?
Can we draft a letter to USCIS and push it through the founding fathers of IV?
I have an idea, can we connect to a lobbyist who can push the legal immigration. Immigration lawyers, construction companies, banks etc will be the ones benefiting in resolving EB issues. Can they sponsor. Please consider this as me just sharing my thoughts.
Everyone wants to do that. But the question is how?
Can we draft a letter to USCIS and push it through the founding fathers of IV?
I have an idea, can we connect to a lobbyist who can push the legal immigration. Immigration lawyers, construction companies, banks etc will be the ones benefiting in resolving EB issues. Can they sponsor. Please consider this as me just sharing my thoughts.
Everyone wants to do that. But the question is how?
more...
singhsa3
03-03 12:40 PM
MSG TO THE NEWS MEDIA
Please note that this site is visited by approximately 400-500 regular visitors daily. Though the sample size is here small but the idea is compelling and the potential is very real
Some of the statistics can be found at http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/PERM_Data_FY07_Announcement.pdf
Green card process overview:
Stage 1: Labor Certification (or the PERM process) => Government scrutinize that qualified citizens are not available to perfom the "highly skilled" job.
Stage 2: I-140 stage=> Government scrutnize that the person for which immigrant visa is sought is elligible and the company has ability to pay his salary
Stage 3 : I-485 or Adjustment of status : Now the immigrant waits for the visa number to be available and adjust his status to that of a permanent resident.
Most of us are in stage 3.
We are stuck in stage 3 waiting because of very small immigration quota's that were set decades ago which are completely out of line with real supply-demand for the size of todays high-tech workforce. In addition USCIS inefficiency has resulted in them not utilizing even this tiny quota fully, in the past few years.
Getting a mortgage is a lot easier if our immigration status is permanent. In this final stage of immigration most of us have work authorization that needs to be renewed every year, and mortgage/Finance companies dont accept that.
Futher reading on our proposal to the government: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=16506
.
MSG TO THE POLL PARTICIPANTS
Objective of this poll:
a) To assess if the idea has any strength
b) Invite media attention to the issue
c) Develop a task force to float this idea around.
Folks, even if 10% of us ended up buying a house, that is 100,000 more buyers in the market.
Some of us had their mortgage application rejected on the grounds that EAD is valid for only one year, even though their credit history, down payment, income stability are upto the mark.
Please note that this site is visited by approximately 400-500 regular visitors daily. Though the sample size is here small but the idea is compelling and the potential is very real
Some of the statistics can be found at http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/PERM_Data_FY07_Announcement.pdf
Green card process overview:
Stage 1: Labor Certification (or the PERM process) => Government scrutinize that qualified citizens are not available to perfom the "highly skilled" job.
Stage 2: I-140 stage=> Government scrutnize that the person for which immigrant visa is sought is elligible and the company has ability to pay his salary
Stage 3 : I-485 or Adjustment of status : Now the immigrant waits for the visa number to be available and adjust his status to that of a permanent resident.
Most of us are in stage 3.
We are stuck in stage 3 waiting because of very small immigration quota's that were set decades ago which are completely out of line with real supply-demand for the size of todays high-tech workforce. In addition USCIS inefficiency has resulted in them not utilizing even this tiny quota fully, in the past few years.
Getting a mortgage is a lot easier if our immigration status is permanent. In this final stage of immigration most of us have work authorization that needs to be renewed every year, and mortgage/Finance companies dont accept that.
Futher reading on our proposal to the government: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=16506
.
MSG TO THE POLL PARTICIPANTS
Objective of this poll:
a) To assess if the idea has any strength
b) Invite media attention to the issue
c) Develop a task force to float this idea around.
Folks, even if 10% of us ended up buying a house, that is 100,000 more buyers in the market.
Some of us had their mortgage application rejected on the grounds that EAD is valid for only one year, even though their credit history, down payment, income stability are upto the mark.
dish
07-02 09:59 AM
Is Green Card numbers allocated beginning of every quarter. USCIS Fiscal year runs from october 1st to sept 30th.So for July being the start 4th quarter of the FY 07 shouldn't USCIS be allocating visa numbers in JULY. They cannot use up all the visa numbers for the FY 07 before july, Am I right ?
Supposing USCIS retrogresses PDs to 2001 or 2002, why not we push more for grabbing the wasted Green Card numbers in the prior years.
Supposing USCIS retrogresses PDs to 2001 or 2002, why not we push more for grabbing the wasted Green Card numbers in the prior years.
more...
ItIsNotFunny
10-15 02:28 PM
I have a doubt about what can be accomplished by the flower campaign. I am totally for it if it would help but just think - it is not in USCIS hands to assign more visas to EB3 or EB2. The number of visas is limited and the number of people waiting for the visas is huge. That is the whole cause of retrogression . If there were as many visas as the people everything would be current.
This is a simple matter of demand and supply . The thing that can help is visa recapture but that again USCIS can't do and only the Congress . What we need to do is point our efforts in the right direction .
Think how the supply is controlled?
Just as a hypothetical example, if USCIS makes a spill over policy that ROW can not lead any other country by more than 3 years.
If we try we can achieve something, atleast we can see some avenues. If we sit silent - Nope, then we are loosers not fighters.
This is a simple matter of demand and supply . The thing that can help is visa recapture but that again USCIS can't do and only the Congress . What we need to do is point our efforts in the right direction .
Think how the supply is controlled?
Just as a hypothetical example, if USCIS makes a spill over policy that ROW can not lead any other country by more than 3 years.
If we try we can achieve something, atleast we can see some avenues. If we sit silent - Nope, then we are loosers not fighters.
2010 Betty Boop tattoo
feedfront
09-23 12:24 PM
Congrats Dude.. :)
Enjoy the freedom and keep supporting the immigration reform
Enjoy the freedom and keep supporting the immigration reform
more...
mbawa2574
02-28 12:54 PM
What a lovely change. Every time Obama and his press Secy opens their mouth, markets dive into red. In this country Main Street and Wall Street are in bed with each other :-)
Obama with his sense-less economic policies, trying to separate Main Street from Wall street. Government needs to seriously lure the investors to the market , cut capital gains and taxes, take off protectionist hats and recover the economy. Then Obama can go with his socialist/populist agenda but certainly this is not the right time.:D
Obama with his sense-less economic policies, trying to separate Main Street from Wall street. Government needs to seriously lure the investors to the market , cut capital gains and taxes, take off protectionist hats and recover the economy. Then Obama can go with his socialist/populist agenda but certainly this is not the right time.:D
hair Blah Blah Blahs: Betty Boop
Nil
03-10 09:27 PM
How abt showing the US govt - what is in it for them?
If they recapture x number of visas and y % buys a house soon after, it is a win-win situation. They provide solid ground under the feet of LEGALs and the benefactors build on top of that ground.
A key item will be to get a petition from a number of IVeans pledging to buy a house if they get a green card. If that number turns out high, this will be a good blil-board for our cause.
If they recapture x number of visas and y % buys a house soon after, it is a win-win situation. They provide solid ground under the feet of LEGALs and the benefactors build on top of that ground.
A key item will be to get a petition from a number of IVeans pledging to buy a house if they get a green card. If that number turns out high, this will be a good blil-board for our cause.
more...
perm2gc
01-18 06:20 PM
http://www.immigrationforum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=1990
hot Evil Betty Boop Tattoos Betty
sri1309
12-12 06:43 AM
Agreed! But when you call your bank to send you a debit card, they send it in days if not in weeks....that shows a sign of inter-dependability and a sense of need for each other. Sort of...I need you, you need me. You do not have to file MTR if they don't send you a debit card within 10 days.
Compare that with US consulate and DOS VISA bulletin and GC process...
Kumar,
We recently had this experience with our bank. We saw a level of carelessness thrice. You know what, we closed our account with the bank and open it with a new one. Please do not assume somebody is doing a favor on you. You contribute and work hard. You will get benefits. Same applies to the other party also. Please be able to see from both sides, else it will leave a bad taste for you as you seem to assume that you are the taker. Most of us are givers too here. Please respect the contribution IF you make. I have seen this one-sided feeling mostly with people who are just takers and do not contribute atall. If thats the case, then you are absolutely right.
But not in my case. Doesnt look in Kavita's case or many others, as I see.
Compare that with US consulate and DOS VISA bulletin and GC process...
Kumar,
We recently had this experience with our bank. We saw a level of carelessness thrice. You know what, we closed our account with the bank and open it with a new one. Please do not assume somebody is doing a favor on you. You contribute and work hard. You will get benefits. Same applies to the other party also. Please be able to see from both sides, else it will leave a bad taste for you as you seem to assume that you are the taker. Most of us are givers too here. Please respect the contribution IF you make. I have seen this one-sided feeling mostly with people who are just takers and do not contribute atall. If thats the case, then you are absolutely right.
But not in my case. Doesnt look in Kavita's case or many others, as I see.
more...
house Betty Boop amp; Wine Glasses
kumar1
09-26 02:09 PM
^^^^^^^^^^
xx
xx
tattoo etty boop glitter
mugwump
01-18 12:29 PM
2 years ago, I had to go to EWR (newark airport) to give my room mate his passport, he was stopped. eversince then, i always carry my passport even for domestic travel
more...
pictures at tattoo conventions,
mallu
04-24 09:34 PM
Hi
After long haul of almost 5 years , today I got the approval email for my 485 filed in June - 2007.I guess my wife's case should be approved soon.Last when spoke to TCS IO , I was told that biometrics is needed in my case but still they can approve & later send me the notice. I guess only after that I might get the physical card.
Had anyone experienced this scenario ?
Anyways I want to thank everyone on this forum,immigration portals, folks & every other support that I have got in this long process.
I will always be there for everyone on this forum or in any other way I can help to every legal immigrant who is waiting for the Green Card.
Thanks a lot
Priority date - 05/2003
140 approved - 10/2006 from TSC
485,131,765 RD-6/04/2007 at TSC, notices received - 06/07/2007
CA, EB2
Wife's case returned due to some error,send it again & received on 06/17/2007 as per Fedex
Wife's case RD- 7/10/2007
I131,I765 approved for both -Nov 2007
I485 approval mail - 04/24/08 - Myself
Waiting for spouse approval, physical Cards
Congrats ! Good to know that TSC is picking up India EB2 cases for approval ( whatever be the random order they have ).
After long haul of almost 5 years , today I got the approval email for my 485 filed in June - 2007.I guess my wife's case should be approved soon.Last when spoke to TCS IO , I was told that biometrics is needed in my case but still they can approve & later send me the notice. I guess only after that I might get the physical card.
Had anyone experienced this scenario ?
Anyways I want to thank everyone on this forum,immigration portals, folks & every other support that I have got in this long process.
I will always be there for everyone on this forum or in any other way I can help to every legal immigrant who is waiting for the Green Card.
Thanks a lot
Priority date - 05/2003
140 approved - 10/2006 from TSC
485,131,765 RD-6/04/2007 at TSC, notices received - 06/07/2007
CA, EB2
Wife's case returned due to some error,send it again & received on 06/17/2007 as per Fedex
Wife's case RD- 7/10/2007
I131,I765 approved for both -Nov 2007
I485 approval mail - 04/24/08 - Myself
Waiting for spouse approval, physical Cards
Congrats ! Good to know that TSC is picking up India EB2 cases for approval ( whatever be the random order they have ).
dresses etty boop tattoo designs
Googler
02-20 02:54 PM
I'd posted elsewhere about my Feb 13, 2008 conversation with the DOS official who sets cutoff dates:
And then there this piece of info from Ron Gotcher posted on Feb 14, 2008
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4285
"Last night, at a meeting of the American Immigration Lawyer's Assocation Southern California chapter, Charles Oppenheim spoke. Mr. Oppenheim is the officer within the Visa Office tasked with calculating visa bulletin cutoff dates each month. He offered the following thoughts as to cutoff date movement in the upcoming months:
In April, India and China EB2 will be set at 12/01/2003
EB3 for India and China will slow down for the rest of the fiscal year."
I am riveted by this because I spoke to Oppenheim just the day before this meeting (he referred to it). This was the conversation in which he told me that at present EB-2 India would only get numbers leftover from EB-1 India -- the problem is he doesn't know either exactly how many EB-2 India adjudicated applications there are in any specific PD range -- so every month he makes wild guesses, with the intent of using up visas. So I guess at least as of 2/14/08 he thought moving the date to 12/1/03 would more than mop up whatever was leftover from EB-1 India. Given the end of the FBI boondoggle (the effects of which have not been quantified by Oppenheim or USCIS) I'd predict that even a date in early 2002 would be good enough to mop up. Let us see if he changes his mind by mid March.
But his statement at the AILA meeting has been bothering me so I talked to him again today. Here is what he said -- that he is considering not only the EB-1 India excess, but the entire EB-1 worldwide excess being given to oversubscribed EB-2! I asked him about his earlier statement and he said that he had had a chance to look at the numbers and determine that unlike recent years EB-1 worldwide is not using numbers up at a rate that would max out EB-1 usage. BUT. He is waiting for USCIS to give him an estimate of the number of EB-2 India applications that would become eligible if he moves the cutoff dates up to 12/1/03, he will set the date ONLY after he gets that data and determines that there won't be too many within that cutoff date.
I also asked him to confirm that he was relying on his interpretation of Section 202(a)(5) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558 dbe) of the INA in order to proceed with this spillover. This is his current interpretation of that section -- spillover from EB-1 to EB-2 IF there appears to be a worldwide excess in EB-1, when there is no worldwide excess in EB-1 then country specific spillover for example, from EB-1 India to EB-2 India only etc. In past years like FY06, EB-1 ROW was looking maxed out, so barely any spillover from EB-1 to oversubscribed EB-2.
And then there this piece of info from Ron Gotcher posted on Feb 14, 2008
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4285
"Last night, at a meeting of the American Immigration Lawyer's Assocation Southern California chapter, Charles Oppenheim spoke. Mr. Oppenheim is the officer within the Visa Office tasked with calculating visa bulletin cutoff dates each month. He offered the following thoughts as to cutoff date movement in the upcoming months:
In April, India and China EB2 will be set at 12/01/2003
EB3 for India and China will slow down for the rest of the fiscal year."
I am riveted by this because I spoke to Oppenheim just the day before this meeting (he referred to it). This was the conversation in which he told me that at present EB-2 India would only get numbers leftover from EB-1 India -- the problem is he doesn't know either exactly how many EB-2 India adjudicated applications there are in any specific PD range -- so every month he makes wild guesses, with the intent of using up visas. So I guess at least as of 2/14/08 he thought moving the date to 12/1/03 would more than mop up whatever was leftover from EB-1 India. Given the end of the FBI boondoggle (the effects of which have not been quantified by Oppenheim or USCIS) I'd predict that even a date in early 2002 would be good enough to mop up. Let us see if he changes his mind by mid March.
But his statement at the AILA meeting has been bothering me so I talked to him again today. Here is what he said -- that he is considering not only the EB-1 India excess, but the entire EB-1 worldwide excess being given to oversubscribed EB-2! I asked him about his earlier statement and he said that he had had a chance to look at the numbers and determine that unlike recent years EB-1 worldwide is not using numbers up at a rate that would max out EB-1 usage. BUT. He is waiting for USCIS to give him an estimate of the number of EB-2 India applications that would become eligible if he moves the cutoff dates up to 12/1/03, he will set the date ONLY after he gets that data and determines that there won't be too many within that cutoff date.
I also asked him to confirm that he was relying on his interpretation of Section 202(a)(5) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558 dbe) of the INA in order to proceed with this spillover. This is his current interpretation of that section -- spillover from EB-1 to EB-2 IF there appears to be a worldwide excess in EB-1, when there is no worldwide excess in EB-1 then country specific spillover for example, from EB-1 India to EB-2 India only etc. In past years like FY06, EB-1 ROW was looking maxed out, so barely any spillover from EB-1 to oversubscribed EB-2.
more...
makeup Betty Boop Skull Tattoo by
vicsthedude
09-17 03:14 PM
I changed employer and location. So I was asked to clarify the location change if I am still with the sponsoring employer or submit a letter from a current employer stating duties salary etc. Replied to them and they are evaluating the response.
girlfriend etty boop tattoo designs.
EB2_Jun03_dude
02-21 05:11 PM
I-485: EB2 India with PD June 2003
I was wondering why I am I getting a LUD in Feb 08? (since EB2 India is 'U').
Now I know why :) it seems USCIS is getting ready for the deluge in April 08' :D
I was wondering why I am I getting a LUD in Feb 08? (since EB2 India is 'U').
Now I know why :) it seems USCIS is getting ready for the deluge in April 08' :D
hairstyles Betty Boop cami amp; sleep shorts
desi3933
02-24 01:57 PM
If you apply for H1B, you will only whatever left in L1B and not six years.
That is not correct, snathan.
L1B+H1B can not exceed 6 years out of that L1B can not exceed 5 years.
_________________
Not a legal advice.
That is not correct, snathan.
L1B+H1B can not exceed 6 years out of that L1B can not exceed 5 years.
_________________
Not a legal advice.
McLuvin
03-12 01:55 PM
finally the bulletin has been posted in the DOS website...
Visa Bulletin for April 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4747.html)
They have given a brief description about "BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS"
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, a significant amount of demand is received each month for applicants who have priority dates which are significantly earlier than the applicable cut-off dates. In addition, fluctuations in demand can cause cut-off date movement to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7% is a cap which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed. Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled, however.
Applicability of Section 202(a)(5): INA Section 202(a)(5), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, removed the per-country limit on Employment-based immigrants in any calendar quarter in which applicant demand for numbers in one or more Employment-based preferences is less than the total of such numbers available. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5) has allowed countries such as China � mainland born and India to utilize large amounts of Employment First and Second preference numbers which would have otherwise gone unused. Such numbers are provided strictly in priority date order without regard to the foreign state chargeability, and the same cut-off date applies to any country benefiting from this provision.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by documentarily qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation, that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may require the establishment of an earlier cut-off date than that which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
Furthermore, Section 202(a)(2) reads, �2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed seven percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or two percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.� The seven percent per-country limit specified in INA 202(a)(2) is considered to be for both Family-sponsored and Employment-based numbers combined.
Allocation of visa numbers under Section 202(e) is accomplished as follows:
If based on historical patterns or current demand it appears that during a fiscal year number use by aliens chargeable to a particular country will exceed the per-country numerical limit for both the Family and Employment preferences combined, that country would be considered oversubscribed. Both the Family and Employment preferences would be subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1).
Sometimes during a fiscal year it may become apparent that because of a lack of demand in the Family preferences, number use by aliens chargeable to an oversubscribed country will be well within the per-country numerical limit. In such case the excess Family numbers would be made available to the Employment preferences subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1). Each of the first three Employment categories would receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and each of the Fourth and Fifth preference categories 7.1%. (Fall-across would likewise apply if an oversubscribed country lacked sufficient demand in the Employment preferences but had excess demand in the Family preferences.)
If a foreign state other than an oversubscribed country has little Family preference demand but considerable Employment preference demand, the otherwise unused Family numbers fall across to Employment (and vice versa) for purposes of that foreign state�s annual numerical limit. For example, in FY-2009 South Korea used a grand total of 15,899 Family and Employment preference numbers, of which 1,688 were Family numbers and 14,211 were Employment numbers. This grand total was well within the FY-2009 per-country numerical limit of 25,620 Family and Employment numbers combined, so South Korea was not oversubscribed. The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.
Visa Bulletin for April 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4747.html)
They have given a brief description about "BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS"
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, a significant amount of demand is received each month for applicants who have priority dates which are significantly earlier than the applicable cut-off dates. In addition, fluctuations in demand can cause cut-off date movement to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7% is a cap which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed. Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled, however.
Applicability of Section 202(a)(5): INA Section 202(a)(5), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, removed the per-country limit on Employment-based immigrants in any calendar quarter in which applicant demand for numbers in one or more Employment-based preferences is less than the total of such numbers available. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5) has allowed countries such as China � mainland born and India to utilize large amounts of Employment First and Second preference numbers which would have otherwise gone unused. Such numbers are provided strictly in priority date order without regard to the foreign state chargeability, and the same cut-off date applies to any country benefiting from this provision.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by documentarily qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation, that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may require the establishment of an earlier cut-off date than that which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
Furthermore, Section 202(a)(2) reads, �2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed seven percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or two percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.� The seven percent per-country limit specified in INA 202(a)(2) is considered to be for both Family-sponsored and Employment-based numbers combined.
Allocation of visa numbers under Section 202(e) is accomplished as follows:
If based on historical patterns or current demand it appears that during a fiscal year number use by aliens chargeable to a particular country will exceed the per-country numerical limit for both the Family and Employment preferences combined, that country would be considered oversubscribed. Both the Family and Employment preferences would be subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1).
Sometimes during a fiscal year it may become apparent that because of a lack of demand in the Family preferences, number use by aliens chargeable to an oversubscribed country will be well within the per-country numerical limit. In such case the excess Family numbers would be made available to the Employment preferences subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1). Each of the first three Employment categories would receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and each of the Fourth and Fifth preference categories 7.1%. (Fall-across would likewise apply if an oversubscribed country lacked sufficient demand in the Employment preferences but had excess demand in the Family preferences.)
If a foreign state other than an oversubscribed country has little Family preference demand but considerable Employment preference demand, the otherwise unused Family numbers fall across to Employment (and vice versa) for purposes of that foreign state�s annual numerical limit. For example, in FY-2009 South Korea used a grand total of 15,899 Family and Employment preference numbers, of which 1,688 were Family numbers and 14,211 were Employment numbers. This grand total was well within the FY-2009 per-country numerical limit of 25,620 Family and Employment numbers combined, so South Korea was not oversubscribed. The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.
vandanaverdia
09-10 03:45 PM
You have to carry a stack load of papers, documents, etc every time you go for your visa stamping & back....
No comments:
Post a Comment