mikekanna
03-16 03:38 PM
EB1 - MNC Executive clause from the DOS Website
==============================
Certain executives and managers who have been employed
at least one of the three preceding years by the
overseas affiliate, parent, subsidiary, or branch of
the U.S. employer. The applicant must be coming to
work in a managerial or executive capacity. No labor
certification is required for this classification, but
the prospective employer must provide a job offer and
file a petition with the USCIS.
Q1) Can an H1-B visa holder apply under this category if all other conditions are satisfied?
Q2) Can the clause "Atleast 1 of the 3 preceding years" be
interpreted as "Atleast 365 days in the past 3 years" if all other conditions are satisfied?
The statement does not talk about 1 full year or 1 continuous year. Also if a person's job needs him to travel to the US for a week or so every year for business before completion of 1 year in an overseas country for the same orgn/subsidiary, he would never satisfy the criteria of completing 1 year.
Pls. let me know if anyone has responded to such a situation.
Thanks.
==============================
Certain executives and managers who have been employed
at least one of the three preceding years by the
overseas affiliate, parent, subsidiary, or branch of
the U.S. employer. The applicant must be coming to
work in a managerial or executive capacity. No labor
certification is required for this classification, but
the prospective employer must provide a job offer and
file a petition with the USCIS.
Q1) Can an H1-B visa holder apply under this category if all other conditions are satisfied?
Q2) Can the clause "Atleast 1 of the 3 preceding years" be
interpreted as "Atleast 365 days in the past 3 years" if all other conditions are satisfied?
The statement does not talk about 1 full year or 1 continuous year. Also if a person's job needs him to travel to the US for a week or so every year for business before completion of 1 year in an overseas country for the same orgn/subsidiary, he would never satisfy the criteria of completing 1 year.
Pls. let me know if anyone has responded to such a situation.
Thanks.
wallpaper justin bieber shirtless pics
PBECVictim
07-01 04:28 PM
Will CIS Discontinue Intake of I- 485 Applications?
It is possible. Such an action would be illegal, but CIS has already stopped accepting I- 485 applications for another category known as "Other Workers," despite June Visa Bulletin showing that category is current. My advice to all of you is keep filing all through the month of July. For all we know, they may never issue such an illegal policy or they might lose a lawsuit filed against them. So keep filing.
It is possible. Such an action would be illegal, but CIS has already stopped accepting I- 485 applications for another category known as "Other Workers," despite June Visa Bulletin showing that category is current. My advice to all of you is keep filing all through the month of July. For all we know, they may never issue such an illegal policy or they might lose a lawsuit filed against them. So keep filing.
unitednations
12-22 02:34 PM
this is our history...
1.was working with employer B in June 07(when PD was current for EB2/Oct 2003-India)...went to attorney to file 485 with approved 140 thru ex employer A. filled in all the paperwork for 485,but the attorney was asking for a current employment letter from B with exact skills mentioned on labor and the employer B was not ready to give such a letter and hence we planned to find a new employer and file for 485 in July.
2. In June end found this new current employer C and planned to file 485 in July and all the fiasco scene happened...anyway...in August we filed the 485 with a current employer letter from C with all the skills matching the labor..till here fine.
NOW...we got a copy of the bunch of 48 documents sent to INS from the atnys office...I had given the latest 325a form
current employer C : July 07 - current
employer B : Jan 2006 - June 2007
employer A : June 2003 - Dec 2005 (who filed for labor/i140)
the shitty paralegal now submitted the 325a from submitted in June 07 where the current employer B was the latest.... + the current employment letter of C + 485 employment offer letter from A
She had whitened out the date on the 325a form signed on June 07 and changed it to Aug 07 to my utter shock....
when I call back..she says we will handle any RFE's...
quite worried as the 325a form already says something like 'all info disclosed is truthful'... etc and the fine print..
pls post your thoughts and comments..
hope I dint confuse
Pretty confusing situation. Don't know why you even put in an experience letter from a company which doesn't have anything to do with the petition.
I am aware of a couple of cases where uscis did deny on such issues (g-325a not matching up with h-1b approvals, etc.). However, affidavits and such to say it was an honest mistake took care of the issue.
You might be able to appreciate this story:
I worked on an ability to pay case for a company in ohio. Person got approved and was then waiting for 485 approval.
He contacts me many months later and tells me that he got this rfe. The jest of the rfe was:
You claim to have never filed a 485 adjustment of status application. However; our search of records show that you filed a 485 on xxx date in xx office as a marriage base applicant. It appears that you are not eligible for a waiver of the interview requirement for adjustment of status.
Now; i truly believe that his current wife (from india) never knew about this marriage (his family and friends didn't know either). he tried to blame it on his lawyer that they never asked him and they just defaulted that he never filed for a 485. Pretty weak excuse. However; they responded to the 485 that everything was in such a rush to file the 485 that he didn't have a chance to look it all over and it was an honest mistake. He didn't get called for an interview and they approved his case.
Now; if the record of his marriage base application had shown that he was caught in fraudulent marriage; he never got divorced and re-married or there was something that went wrong with his earlier case then it may have been a different story. However; since nothing was wrong with that application; the officer let him off the hook because it was an honest mistake.
1.was working with employer B in June 07(when PD was current for EB2/Oct 2003-India)...went to attorney to file 485 with approved 140 thru ex employer A. filled in all the paperwork for 485,but the attorney was asking for a current employment letter from B with exact skills mentioned on labor and the employer B was not ready to give such a letter and hence we planned to find a new employer and file for 485 in July.
2. In June end found this new current employer C and planned to file 485 in July and all the fiasco scene happened...anyway...in August we filed the 485 with a current employer letter from C with all the skills matching the labor..till here fine.
NOW...we got a copy of the bunch of 48 documents sent to INS from the atnys office...I had given the latest 325a form
current employer C : July 07 - current
employer B : Jan 2006 - June 2007
employer A : June 2003 - Dec 2005 (who filed for labor/i140)
the shitty paralegal now submitted the 325a from submitted in June 07 where the current employer B was the latest.... + the current employment letter of C + 485 employment offer letter from A
She had whitened out the date on the 325a form signed on June 07 and changed it to Aug 07 to my utter shock....
when I call back..she says we will handle any RFE's...
quite worried as the 325a form already says something like 'all info disclosed is truthful'... etc and the fine print..
pls post your thoughts and comments..
hope I dint confuse
Pretty confusing situation. Don't know why you even put in an experience letter from a company which doesn't have anything to do with the petition.
I am aware of a couple of cases where uscis did deny on such issues (g-325a not matching up with h-1b approvals, etc.). However, affidavits and such to say it was an honest mistake took care of the issue.
You might be able to appreciate this story:
I worked on an ability to pay case for a company in ohio. Person got approved and was then waiting for 485 approval.
He contacts me many months later and tells me that he got this rfe. The jest of the rfe was:
You claim to have never filed a 485 adjustment of status application. However; our search of records show that you filed a 485 on xxx date in xx office as a marriage base applicant. It appears that you are not eligible for a waiver of the interview requirement for adjustment of status.
Now; i truly believe that his current wife (from india) never knew about this marriage (his family and friends didn't know either). he tried to blame it on his lawyer that they never asked him and they just defaulted that he never filed for a 485. Pretty weak excuse. However; they responded to the 485 that everything was in such a rush to file the 485 that he didn't have a chance to look it all over and it was an honest mistake. He didn't get called for an interview and they approved his case.
Now; if the record of his marriage base application had shown that he was caught in fraudulent marriage; he never got divorced and re-married or there was something that went wrong with his earlier case then it may have been a different story. However; since nothing was wrong with that application; the officer let him off the hook because it was an honest mistake.
2011 Justin Bieber Shirtless 2011
InTheMoment
07-13 10:56 PM
Wow.. you think people on the 485 production line are the ones who also do EAD's or get pulled out to do EAD work, nice simple thinking ! :p
The ones who adjudicate EAD's are usually rookie IO's recently from training or IIO's lent to the service center for emergencies, like last year when officers were flown in from disctrict offices during the surge to NSC for adjudicating EAD within 90 days...in addition to transferring to EAD apps to CSC.
I-485 CAO's are usually the most experienced adjudicators.
EB2-India folks should also initiate a petition campaign (on lines of the EB3-India folks) to make sure that these 25K visas do get adjudicated before fiscal year ’08 ends.
USCIS may well end up wasting a bulk of these visas, contending that since they are statutorily required to adjudicate all EAD applications within 90 days, and there is a surge in EAD renewals because of (a) July-07 visa bulletin fiasco; and (b) people applying for renewal this month, hoping to get 2 year EAD. Therefore, because of surge in EAD applications, they do not have resources to use up all of this year’s visa numbers.
If this happens even EB3 India will be potential losers also.
The ones who adjudicate EAD's are usually rookie IO's recently from training or IIO's lent to the service center for emergencies, like last year when officers were flown in from disctrict offices during the surge to NSC for adjudicating EAD within 90 days...in addition to transferring to EAD apps to CSC.
I-485 CAO's are usually the most experienced adjudicators.
EB2-India folks should also initiate a petition campaign (on lines of the EB3-India folks) to make sure that these 25K visas do get adjudicated before fiscal year ’08 ends.
USCIS may well end up wasting a bulk of these visas, contending that since they are statutorily required to adjudicate all EAD applications within 90 days, and there is a surge in EAD renewals because of (a) July-07 visa bulletin fiasco; and (b) people applying for renewal this month, hoping to get 2 year EAD. Therefore, because of surge in EAD applications, they do not have resources to use up all of this year’s visa numbers.
If this happens even EB3 India will be potential losers also.
more...
new_gc
12-17 03:34 PM
gurus can you throw light on this please?
transpass
04-10 12:07 PM
Here are the details for last year and years before:
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
Thanks Kondur. That was a very good presentation of the numbers. I very much appreciate it.
Now,
1. Why did EB1 last year needed spillover visas, although it was current all the time? If a category is current, isn't that it has less demand than allocated numbers?
2. As per May bulletin, EB4 might need a cut off. So we cannot expect any spillover from EB4. So that is clear. Now the spillover chances are from EB5, EB2 ROW and EB1(?). I am including EB1 because, given the current economy over the past year, should there be a better possibility of more spillover from EB2 ROW and EB1 compared to last year?
3. Also why are the total EB numbers different in different fiscal years (e.g., 141020 in FY2009, 162949 in FY 2008 and 154497 in FY2007)? In FYs 2007 and 2008 did the extra visas come from Family based while it did not for FY 2009? If so, why is it so?
4. Based on Pending 485 data of March 2010, I barely see few hundred EB4s. And hardly considerable number of EB1s. What's going on? If we go by this data, we should be getting good chunk of spillover numbers...
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Green%20Card/Green%20Card%20Through%20a%20Job/Employment%20Based%20I-485%20Pending%20Inventory-Total%203-8-2010.pdf
Thanks,
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
Thanks Kondur. That was a very good presentation of the numbers. I very much appreciate it.
Now,
1. Why did EB1 last year needed spillover visas, although it was current all the time? If a category is current, isn't that it has less demand than allocated numbers?
2. As per May bulletin, EB4 might need a cut off. So we cannot expect any spillover from EB4. So that is clear. Now the spillover chances are from EB5, EB2 ROW and EB1(?). I am including EB1 because, given the current economy over the past year, should there be a better possibility of more spillover from EB2 ROW and EB1 compared to last year?
3. Also why are the total EB numbers different in different fiscal years (e.g., 141020 in FY2009, 162949 in FY 2008 and 154497 in FY2007)? In FYs 2007 and 2008 did the extra visas come from Family based while it did not for FY 2009? If so, why is it so?
4. Based on Pending 485 data of March 2010, I barely see few hundred EB4s. And hardly considerable number of EB1s. What's going on? If we go by this data, we should be getting good chunk of spillover numbers...
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Green%20Card/Green%20Card%20Through%20a%20Job/Employment%20Based%20I-485%20Pending%20Inventory-Total%203-8-2010.pdf
Thanks,
more...
Sunx_2004
03-12 10:21 AM
I do not believe that one person (Pappu) should be held responsible for whatever going on You should not blame Pappu alone.
However, I agree that donor forum proved to be disastrous and driving people away from IV. Someone in core team should do analysis on how much it helped the IV cause and whether it should exist going forward. Lack of transparency is clearly hurting IV cause.
IV needs to OPEN ITS BOOKS
And show DONORS where their money is going? Where is the sponsors money going? and what is this ORGANIZATION planning to do. IF not, one these days they will find themselves in a audit and public scrutiny.
Any yes people who says open your eyes? Have you got your GC? EAD is only a means and not the destination
PAPU, you need to explain to all IV members and disclose the books and what you are doing as IV head, and dont give me the bull, of we are working, you want our support, we want clarity and real action.
However, I agree that donor forum proved to be disastrous and driving people away from IV. Someone in core team should do analysis on how much it helped the IV cause and whether it should exist going forward. Lack of transparency is clearly hurting IV cause.
IV needs to OPEN ITS BOOKS
And show DONORS where their money is going? Where is the sponsors money going? and what is this ORGANIZATION planning to do. IF not, one these days they will find themselves in a audit and public scrutiny.
Any yes people who says open your eyes? Have you got your GC? EAD is only a means and not the destination
PAPU, you need to explain to all IV members and disclose the books and what you are doing as IV head, and dont give me the bull, of we are working, you want our support, we want clarity and real action.
2010 justin bieber 2011 pictures
rockstart
03-12 11:55 AM
In theory you are right. But practically Very big corporations/companies have recently started a practice not to hire a person on EAD if I-140 is not clearly approved. Why? Lawyers advise them to do so. I have been hired by very prestigious company recently of course on EAD and first thing they wanted to make a check was on whether I have I-140 approved or not. Secondly they ask if I could submit 3 years audit report for "previous employer". That could make sense to me as it was a clear hint that they wanted to check whether I am coming from good financial based company or not... Why? The reason is that if that would not have been the case then there could be the chance of denying I-140 although it was approved. At least in my network of friends I am the third person who experienced this level of scrutiny before hiring on EAD. The reason is simple. They do not want to hire a guy who can not work at some time of the initial period due to I-140 related problems. So bottom line, I-140 approval is must nowadays for working in big corporations with EAD.
I am worried about this financial reports. I am not sure many consulting companies will give those to employee who is leaving
I am worried about this financial reports. I am not sure many consulting companies will give those to employee who is leaving
more...
shreekhand
07-09 06:47 PM
Remember this is internal DoS regulation and not a US Code or Law. They can change at any time and way they want to.
The whole law-suit is essentially about hardship caused to applicants in multiple dimensions with a sprinkling of violation of law (info on which is still quiet hazy )to give some back-bone to the argument in the law-suit!
The whole law-suit is essentially about hardship caused to applicants in multiple dimensions with a sprinkling of violation of law (info on which is still quiet hazy )to give some back-bone to the argument in the law-suit!
hair house Justin+ieber+april+2011+
qesehmk
02-11 07:31 PM
So, according to you, what happens when no action is taken for assigned visa number?
What matters is number of visas used. Have you looked at the numbers?
I actually was saying I agreed w you. Read my post again... I was trying to say a few things over and above...
Aside from that, I have questioned Ron's correctness on this particular issue well before you produced that data.
Also if people somehow do not want to pay attention to facts then so be it.. Why be rude?
What matters is number of visas used. Have you looked at the numbers?
I actually was saying I agreed w you. Read my post again... I was trying to say a few things over and above...
Aside from that, I have questioned Ron's correctness on this particular issue well before you produced that data.
Also if people somehow do not want to pay attention to facts then so be it.. Why be rude?
more...
sgorla
01-16 01:39 PM
Hello folks,
I just signed up for $ 20 a month contribution to IV. I hope this helps to fight for our cause. I did talk to few people that I know who are in the same boat as we are, and hope they join IV and contribute.
I just signed up for $ 20 a month contribution to IV. I hope this helps to fight for our cause. I did talk to few people that I know who are in the same boat as we are, and hope they join IV and contribute.
hot app teen super Pics
rockstart
03-14 11:34 AM
EAD renewal delays will be on of the single issue on which I would defer AC-21 till I can find some one willing for an H1 transfer.
more...
house justin bieber shirtless 2011
thomachan72
11-12 04:40 PM
And the war begins....pretty soon the initial topic would be completely forgotten....
tattoo justin bieber shirtless 2011
jaocanada
06-10 08:29 PM
Sent.
more...
pictures justin bieber pictures 2011
alisa
01-20 02:15 AM
Man....
You guys (from India) are in a really really terrible situation.
First column shows the year. Second one estimates applicants for GC from India. Third (Years to Clear) one divides backlog by 10000 to estimate the number of years needed too clear that backlog, assuming 10000 visa numbers released per year. Fourth (Year cleared) adds that number to the Year column to give the year you can get your GC. Finally, assuming that AC21 added a year's worth of supply of visa numbers, a year is taken out from the final estimate.
Also dependents are not included in the calculations. Send them back.
Here is how I estimated backlogs. Backlogs for 2001 and 2002 are taken from jungalee43 posting.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=1265#post1265
For years 2003 and forward,
a) 65000 applicants for H-1 assumed
b) 40 percent of these assumed to be Indians (26000)
c) 75 % of these 26000 assumed to have applied for and made it past the I-140 stage, i.e. 19500 added annually since 2003.
d) Each year, 10000 visa numbers allotted to Indians. (Assumption: Indians don't have any dependents. If you want to include dependents, 2001 backlog clears in 2023, and 2006 backlog clears in 2055)
Here are the results.
Year Backlog YTC YC AC21
2001 123194 12.3194 2012 2011
2002 160274 16.0274 2016 2015
2003 169774 16.9774 2016 2015
2004 179274 17.9274 2020 2019
2005 188774 18.8774 2020 2019
2006 198274 19.8274 2024 2023
2007 207774 20.7774 2024 2023
2008 217274 21.7274 2028 2027
2009 226774 22.6774 2028 2027
2010 236274 23.6274 2032 2031
Feel free to improve on this.
I had posted this statistics last year on IV. I had done good research to arrive at these figures. I hope the figures will open eyes of people who are bestowed with 'blissful ignorance'.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=1265#post1265
You guys (from India) are in a really really terrible situation.
First column shows the year. Second one estimates applicants for GC from India. Third (Years to Clear) one divides backlog by 10000 to estimate the number of years needed too clear that backlog, assuming 10000 visa numbers released per year. Fourth (Year cleared) adds that number to the Year column to give the year you can get your GC. Finally, assuming that AC21 added a year's worth of supply of visa numbers, a year is taken out from the final estimate.
Also dependents are not included in the calculations. Send them back.
Here is how I estimated backlogs. Backlogs for 2001 and 2002 are taken from jungalee43 posting.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=1265#post1265
For years 2003 and forward,
a) 65000 applicants for H-1 assumed
b) 40 percent of these assumed to be Indians (26000)
c) 75 % of these 26000 assumed to have applied for and made it past the I-140 stage, i.e. 19500 added annually since 2003.
d) Each year, 10000 visa numbers allotted to Indians. (Assumption: Indians don't have any dependents. If you want to include dependents, 2001 backlog clears in 2023, and 2006 backlog clears in 2055)
Here are the results.
Year Backlog YTC YC AC21
2001 123194 12.3194 2012 2011
2002 160274 16.0274 2016 2015
2003 169774 16.9774 2016 2015
2004 179274 17.9274 2020 2019
2005 188774 18.8774 2020 2019
2006 198274 19.8274 2024 2023
2007 207774 20.7774 2024 2023
2008 217274 21.7274 2028 2027
2009 226774 22.6774 2028 2027
2010 236274 23.6274 2032 2031
Feel free to improve on this.
I had posted this statistics last year on IV. I had done good research to arrive at these figures. I hope the figures will open eyes of people who are bestowed with 'blissful ignorance'.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=1265#post1265
dresses Here is Justina Bieber,
ssss
11-14 05:23 PM
There seem to be less EB3 cases filed post PERM. May be due to retrogression every one started filing EB2
more...
makeup justin bieber shirtless hawaii
laborchic
09-19 10:47 AM
The reason there were so many placards was - we were expecting atleast 10000 people to show up and with the kind of poor response we got, we were expecting atleast 5000 and thats why there was 700 banners ordered.
If we had the magic figure 10000, the impact could have been marvellous. The banner count would have been appropriate
With 1500 to 2000 - every individual had a banner or a placard or a flag.
Mark's speech was hillarious - but had very strong messages - THESE ARE THINGS THAT NEED SPECIAL SKILLS - AND MARK PULLED IT THROUGH EXTREMELY WELL. Mark is a pround member of the Tri State Chapter and his contributions towards the cause are amazing
Robert Sun (LIA) - was good. Well he was praising Indians and CHinese. Nothing wrong - but yes can be more comprehensive in nature.
We had people from all nationalities - and a lot of people seem to be silent supporters of IV - very passionate about this organization.
Jay was at his best - He took on Lou Dobbs - Which was the best part.
The only lesson I would say that we must learn is - low numbers - YES. The turnout should have been atleast 10000 - though 2000 is good. Just proves how selfish those free riders are who can let down your own community who are helping you.
I was part of the rally... I am proud of IV and everyone who attended it..WHAT tri-state chapter are you talking about ?? How many people are enrolled in it and how many showed up for the rally???
If we had the magic figure 10000, the impact could have been marvellous. The banner count would have been appropriate
With 1500 to 2000 - every individual had a banner or a placard or a flag.
Mark's speech was hillarious - but had very strong messages - THESE ARE THINGS THAT NEED SPECIAL SKILLS - AND MARK PULLED IT THROUGH EXTREMELY WELL. Mark is a pround member of the Tri State Chapter and his contributions towards the cause are amazing
Robert Sun (LIA) - was good. Well he was praising Indians and CHinese. Nothing wrong - but yes can be more comprehensive in nature.
We had people from all nationalities - and a lot of people seem to be silent supporters of IV - very passionate about this organization.
Jay was at his best - He took on Lou Dobbs - Which was the best part.
The only lesson I would say that we must learn is - low numbers - YES. The turnout should have been atleast 10000 - though 2000 is good. Just proves how selfish those free riders are who can let down your own community who are helping you.
I was part of the rally... I am proud of IV and everyone who attended it..WHAT tri-state chapter are you talking about ?? How many people are enrolled in it and how many showed up for the rally???
girlfriend Shirtless Justin Bieber Shows
belmontboy
01-16 03:56 PM
Thanks to Slumdog. Sad but very true.
hairstyles justin bieber photoshoot 2011
Berkeleybee
02-14 01:17 PM
Retrohatao,
Also want to tell you that as the CA team meets lawmakers we give them an informational packet that includes:
(1) Our presentation
(2) CIS Ombudsman's Report:
http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/CIS_AnnualReport_2005.pdf
(3) GAO Report on Backlogs at USCIS
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0620.pdf
(4) Exec Summary of NAS Rising Above a Gathering Storm
http://fermat.nap.edu/catalog/11463.html
(5) How Visa Date Cutoffs Are Established from July 2000 Bulletin
http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/visa_bulletin/2000-07bulletin.html
Number (3), the GAO report describes the security check problem in tremendous detail. We give this report to lawmakers to remind them of the farcical nature of the security check problem. Note also that the CIS Ombudsman's report also includes critical commentary on the security check problem.
To reiterate, we are committed to removing ALL the hurdles in the process, not pick and choose between them.
best,
Berkeleybee
Also want to tell you that as the CA team meets lawmakers we give them an informational packet that includes:
(1) Our presentation
(2) CIS Ombudsman's Report:
http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/CIS_AnnualReport_2005.pdf
(3) GAO Report on Backlogs at USCIS
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0620.pdf
(4) Exec Summary of NAS Rising Above a Gathering Storm
http://fermat.nap.edu/catalog/11463.html
(5) How Visa Date Cutoffs Are Established from July 2000 Bulletin
http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/visa_bulletin/2000-07bulletin.html
Number (3), the GAO report describes the security check problem in tremendous detail. We give this report to lawmakers to remind them of the farcical nature of the security check problem. Note also that the CIS Ombudsman's report also includes critical commentary on the security check problem.
To reiterate, we are committed to removing ALL the hurdles in the process, not pick and choose between them.
best,
Berkeleybee
msp1976
12-13 10:07 AM
Hi
I am Mukund From Edison NJ...
msp1976@yahoo.com
I am Mukund From Edison NJ...
msp1976@yahoo.com
insbaby
05-26 05:11 PM
I was so pissed off by this experience, clearly they are doing this to harrase immigrants. theoratically even if I am going for a walk i am supposed to carry immigration papers because a border patrol officer, in theory, could asks me for my papers ?
Yes sir. You have to carry atlest a copy of your papers, H1/L1 approval notice, copy of passport, visa page, I-94 while travelling.
Just keep a copy of those papers in your office bag or in car's dashboard.
Don't take it in the wrong sense. It is WORTH.
I have decided that if anyone ask me such a stupid question again inside the US and i am just going to remain silent even if that means they detain me for some time.
An officer's duty is to ask for papers. And for just few questions you are upset.
Just think about in the other way.
What if the officer gets upset when you remain silent....
You don't have to post such experience as everybody knows what would happen.
Yes sir. You have to carry atlest a copy of your papers, H1/L1 approval notice, copy of passport, visa page, I-94 while travelling.
Just keep a copy of those papers in your office bag or in car's dashboard.
Don't take it in the wrong sense. It is WORTH.
I have decided that if anyone ask me such a stupid question again inside the US and i am just going to remain silent even if that means they detain me for some time.
An officer's duty is to ask for papers. And for just few questions you are upset.
Just think about in the other way.
What if the officer gets upset when you remain silent....
You don't have to post such experience as everybody knows what would happen.
No comments:
Post a Comment