Macaca
07-17 09:19 AM
Here is an example where they use person on H1b as an example. I'm giving the link as the explanation is long. Just look at example 10
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=129428,00.html
Please post IRS/USCIS/DOS/DOL/... link that requires H1B's to pay ALL taxes. We still have to prove that all H1B's actually pay ALL taxes. Thanks
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=129428,00.html
Please post IRS/USCIS/DOS/DOL/... link that requires H1B's to pay ALL taxes. We still have to prove that all H1B's actually pay ALL taxes. Thanks
wallpaper Winnie-the-Pooh Wallpaper
vin13
02-12 09:11 AM
Would you mind asking source/link for "another 13,000 shifted over"?
As per this link - family based numbers were totally used up for FY2008
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY08-AR-TableV.pdf
Family based visa used for FY2008 = 226,105 against 226,000 available.
I suggest that you follow your own advice and read & understand what is being posted in this thread. What do you think? Is this information or "message" correct?
______________________
Not a legal advice.
How difficult is it for you to understand. I did not advice. I just said this is the info...
I was not judging anyone. I do not claim to know all the numbers. So i just put it out there for someone to look and evaluate. Now many are saying based on the numbers, there was no spillover wasted. That is fine.
As per this link - family based numbers were totally used up for FY2008
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY08-AR-TableV.pdf
Family based visa used for FY2008 = 226,105 against 226,000 available.
I suggest that you follow your own advice and read & understand what is being posted in this thread. What do you think? Is this information or "message" correct?
______________________
Not a legal advice.
How difficult is it for you to understand. I did not advice. I just said this is the info...
I was not judging anyone. I do not claim to know all the numbers. So i just put it out there for someone to look and evaluate. Now many are saying based on the numbers, there was no spillover wasted. That is fine.
paskal
12-27 12:17 AM
it would be useful to all if people who have traveled could let us know their experience transiting through different airports, also we should compile a detailed list of the airports that have some transit visa requirements.
2011 winnie pooh Wallpaper,
EB3_SEP04
06-11 12:49 PM
I wouldn't worry about this.. this bill is in embyonic stage, hundreds of such ridiculous bills are persented each years and they never make it to either house or senate floors for voting. Remember US politicians all the time "propose" or "talk about" such crazy bills to make happy the crazy segment of voters in their constituency and to make a buzz in the media. This is nothing more than Rakhi sawant accusing Mika of kissing. Nothing is going to happen without the full fledge CIR. Anyone believes the country which gives amnesty to illegals every 10-15 years will take such a nasty step and hurt itself ? Just watch in the months ahead what happens to AZ law or rather it's (non)implementation.
more...
reddymjm
09-10 01:38 PM
Here is a brief calculation of EB2 Demand till date (Today's Date)
The total demand till date is ~ 120K which is
Demand up to Aug 2007 = 45K
Sep 2007 to Dec 2008 = 16 * 2.5K Perm Month = 40K
Jan 2009 to Oct 2010 = 22 * 1.5K per month = 33K
New PD porting after Aug 2007 (Current Eb3 Inventory is 60K till Aug 2007) = 10K
Total 45 + 40 + 33 + 10 = 128K. This may be inflated but it is atleast 120K.
By giving these numbers I don�t mean to scare anybody but it�s better to have a tryst with true reality rather than be ignorant. It is better to have an understanding of the backlog rather than feeling bad VB after VB, nothing will change soon because the backlog is so huge.
If you look at the numbers it is very unlikely that EB2 will literally become current any time soon, the end of the pre-adjudicated numbers is just a tipping point and when this happens anything could happen 1) Make dates current (I personally welcome that atleast everybody gets a chance to file for I485) 2) Keep accepting applications in a controlled manner so as to approve in quarter or year. 3) Grant spillover to EB3 ROW (EB3 ROW backlog is so huge like EB2 - I in the same range 100-120K that the spillover will disappear in no time, also note that EB3 ROW incremental demand is much higher than EB2 ROW).
The spillover is a happening of the present time when the economy is bad, the moment this changes everything will disappear and there will be no difference between EB2 and EB3 if you belong to a retrogressed country we will all be at 3K Per annum and EB5 contribution if any will be consumed by PD porting which will increase manifold as EB3-I folks waiting for 10 years is simply unacceptable, currently there a 60K folks here just till 2007. I strongly favor porting waiting for 10 years is unacceptable. Also being without EAD / AP is very hard, great that we have a IV campaign initiated for this the efforts in this direction are laudable. Actually as Pappu, Admin2 and others have been saying EB3-EB2 even though may be relevant now is actually meaningless this is relevant only in this temporary phase of time fighting on these lines will not help to attain any objective rather it will kill chances of EB3 friends with later PD to port. The biggest issue is the per country limits which equate talent pools like India and China and give them the same cap as countries which have 1/1000th population, if they cannot be eliminated atleast should be proportionate to population for larger countries and be at 7% for the smaller ones. PS - I have nothing personal against ROW friends.
If USCIS wants to do another JULY 2007 they never learnt their lession. With the Quarterly/annual quota I dont think USCIS legally can make EB2 current. I hate another JULY 2007 for sure.
The total demand till date is ~ 120K which is
Demand up to Aug 2007 = 45K
Sep 2007 to Dec 2008 = 16 * 2.5K Perm Month = 40K
Jan 2009 to Oct 2010 = 22 * 1.5K per month = 33K
New PD porting after Aug 2007 (Current Eb3 Inventory is 60K till Aug 2007) = 10K
Total 45 + 40 + 33 + 10 = 128K. This may be inflated but it is atleast 120K.
By giving these numbers I don�t mean to scare anybody but it�s better to have a tryst with true reality rather than be ignorant. It is better to have an understanding of the backlog rather than feeling bad VB after VB, nothing will change soon because the backlog is so huge.
If you look at the numbers it is very unlikely that EB2 will literally become current any time soon, the end of the pre-adjudicated numbers is just a tipping point and when this happens anything could happen 1) Make dates current (I personally welcome that atleast everybody gets a chance to file for I485) 2) Keep accepting applications in a controlled manner so as to approve in quarter or year. 3) Grant spillover to EB3 ROW (EB3 ROW backlog is so huge like EB2 - I in the same range 100-120K that the spillover will disappear in no time, also note that EB3 ROW incremental demand is much higher than EB2 ROW).
The spillover is a happening of the present time when the economy is bad, the moment this changes everything will disappear and there will be no difference between EB2 and EB3 if you belong to a retrogressed country we will all be at 3K Per annum and EB5 contribution if any will be consumed by PD porting which will increase manifold as EB3-I folks waiting for 10 years is simply unacceptable, currently there a 60K folks here just till 2007. I strongly favor porting waiting for 10 years is unacceptable. Also being without EAD / AP is very hard, great that we have a IV campaign initiated for this the efforts in this direction are laudable. Actually as Pappu, Admin2 and others have been saying EB3-EB2 even though may be relevant now is actually meaningless this is relevant only in this temporary phase of time fighting on these lines will not help to attain any objective rather it will kill chances of EB3 friends with later PD to port. The biggest issue is the per country limits which equate talent pools like India and China and give them the same cap as countries which have 1/1000th population, if they cannot be eliminated atleast should be proportionate to population for larger countries and be at 7% for the smaller ones. PS - I have nothing personal against ROW friends.
If USCIS wants to do another JULY 2007 they never learnt their lession. With the Quarterly/annual quota I dont think USCIS legally can make EB2 current. I hate another JULY 2007 for sure.
dingdong12
09-09 02:25 PM
American lawmakers have created a law that needs only top talent. By law it go from top to bottom. So they go from EB1, EB2, EB3 and so on. If we disagree, then get the law changed.
EB3 I is screwed big time and they are ignorant about this .EB3 are responsible for their own loss. I see them tracking LUDs and laugh at their ignorance of wasting their time.
They should be doing hunger strikes and do a rally in DC every month.
Else they can forget Green card coming any time soon.
Sadly true. Our hope is STEM exemption and Visa recapture and both of them will get little political help till elections. After the elections, the political arena will definitely be different with some Republicans replacing the Democrats in the House and any immigration related bill will result in a much tougher battle.
EB3 I is screwed big time and they are ignorant about this .EB3 are responsible for their own loss. I see them tracking LUDs and laugh at their ignorance of wasting their time.
They should be doing hunger strikes and do a rally in DC every month.
Else they can forget Green card coming any time soon.
Sadly true. Our hope is STEM exemption and Visa recapture and both of them will get little political help till elections. After the elections, the political arena will definitely be different with some Republicans replacing the Democrats in the House and any immigration related bill will result in a much tougher battle.
more...
roseball
08-02 10:13 PM
Mayhemt,
Please dont talk without knowing the truth.
I joined the company only for green card, I was a consultant for them before I became full time. They told me this 'We will sponsor green card, will you become full time' I said if you do green card I will join. But they did not keep their promise. Thatis give and take. They already gained from their investment, Thats y they dont want to sponsor anymore. They do green card for what we do for 6 years not for sticking with them for 20+ years.
if I was in my company shoes , I would not take the documents, drag for 2.5 years and say 'We found candidates' . I would have either said in 6 months sorry we cant do or file green card.One need to have honesty. If I am that smart likemy employer I would ve started a company already and firing H1 guys left n right
If you only joined the company for a green card, then what were you doing all these years when your employer kept your documents and did not file. Why didn't you quit the job....If not more, you are to be equally blamed for the situation you are currently in....I understand your frustration, take a deep breath and move on.....Good luck....
Please dont talk without knowing the truth.
I joined the company only for green card, I was a consultant for them before I became full time. They told me this 'We will sponsor green card, will you become full time' I said if you do green card I will join. But they did not keep their promise. Thatis give and take. They already gained from their investment, Thats y they dont want to sponsor anymore. They do green card for what we do for 6 years not for sticking with them for 20+ years.
if I was in my company shoes , I would not take the documents, drag for 2.5 years and say 'We found candidates' . I would have either said in 6 months sorry we cant do or file green card.One need to have honesty. If I am that smart likemy employer I would ve started a company already and firing H1 guys left n right
If you only joined the company for a green card, then what were you doing all these years when your employer kept your documents and did not file. Why didn't you quit the job....If not more, you are to be equally blamed for the situation you are currently in....I understand your frustration, take a deep breath and move on.....Good luck....
2010 Your eggs pooh desktop
tinamatthew
07-24 01:52 PM
should such people just wait hoping they will receive an RFE (I don't like this one at all) whenever the case is opened? TINA WROTE: For initial evidence items I believed that it would be automatically rejected if not included, HOWEVER, with the new press release from USCIS on July 23, if i-485s WITHOUT medical reports will be accepted, then what is an employment letter? abhijitp WROTE: I hope that is true. AILA seems to be working on this. I am happy to believe it if USCIS issues a press release to that effect... high hopes:-)
pls find above the answers.
USCIS has released a press release July 23, 2007. Check QUESTION 13
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/EBFAQ1.pdf
pls find above the answers.
USCIS has released a press release July 23, 2007. Check QUESTION 13
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/EBFAQ1.pdf
more...
imneedy
05-06 03:04 PM
They sent me a letter earlier asking for money to do the FOIA and asking for definition of Priority dates. I replied to that letter and recently I got response saying they have received my response and have all the answers for my FOIA request ( I believe they won't do anything unless they get money from me)
hair Desktop Wallpapers on the
thakkarbhav
08-10 02:47 PM
I understand your logic. No fight for EB2 or EB3 - final goal is the same. The logic of this thread is abosolutely correct. EB3 is waiting on 2002 and EB2 Progressing.....There should be balance based on each individual Year. I have other friends who are EB2 and I know they also support so can bring them in once we have anything concrete. I want BIG rally like 9/18 in DC. We never did anything after it so IV should plan for BIG rally to support EB3 and I think EB2 will be taken care automatically.
more...
gc28262
03-11 07:49 AM
For me, I am like everyone else on the forum. I want my GC now :D
The point I am making is we are all enthusiastic members willing to do whatever is needed to achieve our goals. However if our actions cause more hardship for us, I am against it.
We need to pursue our interests at the right time. IV core has counsel to advise them regarding strategy and timing. We should make use of that resources for deciding the right timing.
I believe whoever opposes immigration in this country are racists. This country being made up of immigrants, nobody has the moral right to oppose immigration. unfortunately we have a populist, immature president in the office. Anti-immigrants are taking advantage of that. Mr Change is interested in millions of prospective votes from illegal immigrants only. Despite being Harvard educated, he doesn't have any sympathy for us.
The point I am making is we are all enthusiastic members willing to do whatever is needed to achieve our goals. However if our actions cause more hardship for us, I am against it.
We need to pursue our interests at the right time. IV core has counsel to advise them regarding strategy and timing. We should make use of that resources for deciding the right timing.
I believe whoever opposes immigration in this country are racists. This country being made up of immigrants, nobody has the moral right to oppose immigration. unfortunately we have a populist, immature president in the office. Anti-immigrants are taking advantage of that. Mr Change is interested in millions of prospective votes from illegal immigrants only. Despite being Harvard educated, he doesn't have any sympathy for us.
hot Make Winnie the Pooh and
Googler
02-21 07:49 PM
how about eb 3 priority date for philippines? mine is september 27,2005. any predictions?
Those who are asking about other categories: I just want to say I am not holding back any info, and I don't have any magical powers, so..;)
Those who are asking about other categories: I just want to say I am not holding back any info, and I don't have any magical powers, so..;)
more...
house new years desktop wallpaper
grinch
02-15 09:15 PM
haha dont give up man!
but nice case!
but nice case!
tattoo Winnie the Pooh is a famous
Tito_ortiz
11-19 12:09 PM
Please do not take any precipitated steps that harm yours status ! Calm down. This is still the strongest economy in the world. You don't want to miss this unique opportunity !
more...
pictures Winnie the Pooh Halloween
akhilmahajan
09-26 12:18 PM
Can you put URL for updated article?
http://money.cnn.com/2007/09/25/smbusiness/h1b_cap.fsb/index.htm?postversion=2007092606
http://money.cnn.com/2007/09/25/smbusiness/h1b_cap.fsb/index.htm?postversion=2007092606
dresses winnie Pooh wallpaper
Jaime
09-10 04:23 PM
Let's not waste this opportunity!!! Let's go guys!!!! Getting to DC requires a sacrifice, but you will be SO glad you went once you see how great we can make it!!!! We can only make it great is you come though!!!
more...
makeup Compilation Winnie the Pooh
webm
04-24 01:48 PM
I also got my "Card production ordered" status few days back.
however I also received a mail for biometrics appointment of 05/02?
the biometrics letter date is 4/14 and my "Card production" status change was on 04/21.
why would they send me a biometrics appointment and then approve my 485 and issue me a GC? is this common?
should I still go for the biometrics appointment or just ignore it, I'm assuming that i'd have my physical GC in had before 05/02
---------------------------------------------
PD - JULY 2003 EB2 RIR
Concurrent I-140/I-485: No (I-140 Approved Earlier)
Mailed From State: MA
Mailed to (state NSC/TSC): NSC
Received at (state NSC/TSC): NSC
Transferred to TSC (state Yes/No): Yes
485 Receipt Date : June 14th 2007
485 Notice Date : July 2nd 2007
MY FP Completed : 08/02
485 LUD - 08/02, 08/02
I would say you better get biometrics done....on a safer side..:)
however I also received a mail for biometrics appointment of 05/02?
the biometrics letter date is 4/14 and my "Card production" status change was on 04/21.
why would they send me a biometrics appointment and then approve my 485 and issue me a GC? is this common?
should I still go for the biometrics appointment or just ignore it, I'm assuming that i'd have my physical GC in had before 05/02
---------------------------------------------
PD - JULY 2003 EB2 RIR
Concurrent I-140/I-485: No (I-140 Approved Earlier)
Mailed From State: MA
Mailed to (state NSC/TSC): NSC
Received at (state NSC/TSC): NSC
Transferred to TSC (state Yes/No): Yes
485 Receipt Date : June 14th 2007
485 Notice Date : July 2nd 2007
MY FP Completed : 08/02
485 LUD - 08/02, 08/02
I would say you better get biometrics done....on a safer side..:)
girlfriend Winnie The Pooh bitmap
CSPAvictim
07-09 07:55 PM
I feel that they did not violate any clause. Till June 30 which is end of third quarter, they are authorized to approve (3*27%*140K) 113,400. However they approved only 66,400 till May 31. That yields about 47,000 for June alone(10%+any number not used in previous months). The reamining visas are eligible for Jul 1, which is 13,000. Put together June and July1, it comes 60,000. Therefore they did not violate any law. The remaining number was splitted for Consular porcessing.
my 2 cents...
Well, I didn't think Sunday, JULY 1 counted as a business day for USCIS. Isn't there a law prohibiting government employees from working on weekends? If there isn't any such law and if it really is a working day, maybe people should have hand delivered applications at the service centers on sunday. I read in some other thread that someone had his/her application delivered via USPS on sunday night :confused: No wonder this is all such a horrible mess!
my 2 cents...
Well, I didn't think Sunday, JULY 1 counted as a business day for USCIS. Isn't there a law prohibiting government employees from working on weekends? If there isn't any such law and if it really is a working day, maybe people should have hand delivered applications at the service centers on sunday. I read in some other thread that someone had his/her application delivered via USPS on sunday night :confused: No wonder this is all such a horrible mess!
hairstyles images hair Winnie-the-pooh-wallpaper winnie pooh wallpapers.
kutra
03-06 10:06 AM
btw you are paranoid ..how can someone else do this for you ??
>So long as singhsa3's not pledging that I and my wife will buy our house #2 and house #3 only because USCIS gives us green cards
dude, i was being funny. which part of the smiley didn't you get?
why are you so scared :-D ..what happens if media watches the poll and how is this dirty linen ...it is a valid point ..and the main point is legal people have to wait for years and years to get the stupid card (and in the meanwhile keep on paying the lawyers fees) ..this is not dirty linen ...if you are not convinced then stay out of the way.
really I dont see any other options after the letter campaign ...unless some one else has a better idea !!
I have been resisting to get dragged into this, but I have to post! Not only are you incapable of understanding humor, but you are totally incompetent in understanding plain English.
I never wrote dirty linen is "writing the fact that we have to wait for years and years" or "having the poll" either. singhsa3 is trying his best to make a case that all of us who are "waiting for years and years" have the potential to buy houses, and therefore give us GCs. Dirty linen is when people like me and Pegasus503 offer our contrasting views (and get red-dotted by immature posters who cannot have a civil debate) AND the media thinks these IV folks are not even in agreement on this subject. This to me would be detrimental to singhsa3's efforts and thus I wrote let's not bicker/argue/wash dirty linen about whether we agree with singhsa3's idea or not.
As far as your advice "if you are not convinced then stay out of the way", take a cold shower, dude. I was the first to delete my post and asked others to do the same so this would benefit singhsa3's campaign. If your miniscule brain cannot fathom my posts, ignore them and help singhsa3 out instead. And yes, while you are growing up, do resist the urge to add those red-dots......that's not getting you your green card any faster.
>So long as singhsa3's not pledging that I and my wife will buy our house #2 and house #3 only because USCIS gives us green cards
dude, i was being funny. which part of the smiley didn't you get?
why are you so scared :-D ..what happens if media watches the poll and how is this dirty linen ...it is a valid point ..and the main point is legal people have to wait for years and years to get the stupid card (and in the meanwhile keep on paying the lawyers fees) ..this is not dirty linen ...if you are not convinced then stay out of the way.
really I dont see any other options after the letter campaign ...unless some one else has a better idea !!
I have been resisting to get dragged into this, but I have to post! Not only are you incapable of understanding humor, but you are totally incompetent in understanding plain English.
I never wrote dirty linen is "writing the fact that we have to wait for years and years" or "having the poll" either. singhsa3 is trying his best to make a case that all of us who are "waiting for years and years" have the potential to buy houses, and therefore give us GCs. Dirty linen is when people like me and Pegasus503 offer our contrasting views (and get red-dotted by immature posters who cannot have a civil debate) AND the media thinks these IV folks are not even in agreement on this subject. This to me would be detrimental to singhsa3's efforts and thus I wrote let's not bicker/argue/wash dirty linen about whether we agree with singhsa3's idea or not.
As far as your advice "if you are not convinced then stay out of the way", take a cold shower, dude. I was the first to delete my post and asked others to do the same so this would benefit singhsa3's campaign. If your miniscule brain cannot fathom my posts, ignore them and help singhsa3 out instead. And yes, while you are growing up, do resist the urge to add those red-dots......that's not getting you your green card any faster.
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.
walking_dude
10-28 11:46 PM
I sent mine. Did you send yours?
No comments:
Post a Comment