va_labor2002
07-24 08:47 AM
To the core group/Senior Members,
If I understand it right, the ability to concurrently file I40/I485 was introduced by the legacy INS through a memo in July of 2002 and it went effective almost immediately on July 31st 2002. I've tried to search for news archives on different law websites and to best of my knowledge it was purely an executive decision taken by INS governing body and no congressional or judicial intervention was needed to allow concurrent filing. In a very similar fashion, the new USCIS has indicated that it wants to discontinue concurrent filing in near future...an executive decision again.
Is it a possibility to get an audience with the USCIS director/start a letter campaign with the goal of getting them issue a memo allowing filing of I485/EAD even if the visa number is not available? The adjucation of the case would obviously happen only after visa number becomes available but as we all know this will be a big relief for all those who want to use AC21 provisions.
Passage of CIR/SKIL is very important in the longer run to reduce the overall greencard processing time and alleviate heavy backlogs but if we get this small relief right now it would help a lot of individuals from retrogressed countries waiting to file I485...and the good thing is, it looks like USCIS might have the ability to effect this change without a lengthy legislative process.
Any thoughts ??
I totally agree with you. USCIS can take a decision without any BILL from the congress. I already sent a letter to USCIS director. I think IV should contact USCIS director and ask help regarding retrogression. We ,5000 members, can send letters to USCIS director and WHitehouse. They will listen to us.
Good luck..
If I understand it right, the ability to concurrently file I40/I485 was introduced by the legacy INS through a memo in July of 2002 and it went effective almost immediately on July 31st 2002. I've tried to search for news archives on different law websites and to best of my knowledge it was purely an executive decision taken by INS governing body and no congressional or judicial intervention was needed to allow concurrent filing. In a very similar fashion, the new USCIS has indicated that it wants to discontinue concurrent filing in near future...an executive decision again.
Is it a possibility to get an audience with the USCIS director/start a letter campaign with the goal of getting them issue a memo allowing filing of I485/EAD even if the visa number is not available? The adjucation of the case would obviously happen only after visa number becomes available but as we all know this will be a big relief for all those who want to use AC21 provisions.
Passage of CIR/SKIL is very important in the longer run to reduce the overall greencard processing time and alleviate heavy backlogs but if we get this small relief right now it would help a lot of individuals from retrogressed countries waiting to file I485...and the good thing is, it looks like USCIS might have the ability to effect this change without a lengthy legislative process.
Any thoughts ??
I totally agree with you. USCIS can take a decision without any BILL from the congress. I already sent a letter to USCIS director. I think IV should contact USCIS director and ask help regarding retrogression. We ,5000 members, can send letters to USCIS director and WHitehouse. They will listen to us.
Good luck..
wallpaper of a “My Little Pony” cake
immig4me
02-11 08:57 AM
/\/\/\/\/\/\
NKR
03-17 10:50 AM
Before retrogression started in "October 2005 Bulletin, Nov 2005 effective", there are quite a few people who applied for I-485 and had PD upto sept 2004. Those cases are approved. I know couple of cases myself.
I think I was current then and I missed out on that date since I was stuck in backlog elimination centre. you could be right.
I think I was current then and I missed out on that date since I was stuck in backlog elimination centre. you could be right.
2011 My Little Pony - for my
Googler
02-20 03:21 PM
Do you belive this guy?. His name is Ron Gotcher. All he will say is GOTCHA!!!!:D
But seriously, Any chance of Eb3 advancing this year?.
Dude. I am *so* not Ron Gotcher. :)
He was rushing and didn't give me any specifics for EB-3 India.
But seriously, Any chance of Eb3 advancing this year?.
Dude. I am *so* not Ron Gotcher. :)
He was rushing and didn't give me any specifics for EB-3 India.
more...
gauravster
02-18 06:08 PM
I am not sure if I am missing something, but going through the document, it looks like the bill is for legals and illegals alike. It does not mention that you have to be illegal to qualify for permanent residence, just that you should have been in the US for 5 years. This allows for casual/innocent absence, not sure what that means though.
The only loophole I see in the statment is that it says that DHS may change status to legal resident, meaning that it could be restricted by the DHS in any way they like.
The only loophole I see in the statment is that it says that DHS may change status to legal resident, meaning that it could be restricted by the DHS in any way they like.
ppt.b
06-11 11:49 AM
...
more...
sanju
02-07 01:25 PM
I support country quota otherwise all the greencards will be taken by Indians and Chinese and the people from small countries will not even get a chance. I am sorry but of you are born on one of these countries then you have to wait before everyone who filed earlier.
If country quotas are removed in employment based category, skilled immigrants from other countries will get EQUAL chance just as skilled immigrants from India and China.
Here is a problem arising as the result of country quotas -
1.) Huge backlogs in EB green card categories
2.) Consulting companies apply for H1 for more and more people from backlogged countries because it will take 6-12 years for people from countries that are backlogged in EB green card category. This causes more backlogged EB green card categories, and more incentive for consulting companies to hire from backlogged countries. So less people from other countries are hired on H1.
As someone said on this forum, I took resume and my qualifications for the job interview, I did not take my birth certificate for the job interview. So why should the EB green card, which is a direct benefit of my employment, be judged based on where my birth certificate was issued?
Country quota system is WRONG at every level. Its only a matter of time that it will be removed. Sorry, if your application is not approved before the removal of country quota system.
.
If country quotas are removed in employment based category, skilled immigrants from other countries will get EQUAL chance just as skilled immigrants from India and China.
Here is a problem arising as the result of country quotas -
1.) Huge backlogs in EB green card categories
2.) Consulting companies apply for H1 for more and more people from backlogged countries because it will take 6-12 years for people from countries that are backlogged in EB green card category. This causes more backlogged EB green card categories, and more incentive for consulting companies to hire from backlogged countries. So less people from other countries are hired on H1.
As someone said on this forum, I took resume and my qualifications for the job interview, I did not take my birth certificate for the job interview. So why should the EB green card, which is a direct benefit of my employment, be judged based on where my birth certificate was issued?
Country quota system is WRONG at every level. Its only a matter of time that it will be removed. Sorry, if your application is not approved before the removal of country quota system.
.
2010 my little pony wallpaper
veni001
03-11 10:38 PM
No change for EB2..... India
EB3 moved about three months
Category India Most Other Countries
F1 8 July 2004 8 July 2004
FX 1 Jan 2005 1 Jan 2005
F2A 1 June 2006 1 June 2006
F2B 1 March 2002 1 March 2002
F3 22 May 2001 22 May 2001
F4 1 March 2000 1 March 2000
E1 Current Current
E2 1 February 2005 Current
E3 8 September 2001 1 February 2003
EW 1 June 2001 1 June 2001
E4 Current Current
E4-Religious Current Current
Source
Cut Off Dates- Consulate General of the United States Mumbai, India (http://mumbai.usconsulate.gov/cut_off_dates.html)
EB3 moved about three months
Category India Most Other Countries
F1 8 July 2004 8 July 2004
FX 1 Jan 2005 1 Jan 2005
F2A 1 June 2006 1 June 2006
F2B 1 March 2002 1 March 2002
F3 22 May 2001 22 May 2001
F4 1 March 2000 1 March 2000
E1 Current Current
E2 1 February 2005 Current
E3 8 September 2001 1 February 2003
EW 1 June 2001 1 June 2001
E4 Current Current
E4-Religious Current Current
Source
Cut Off Dates- Consulate General of the United States Mumbai, India (http://mumbai.usconsulate.gov/cut_off_dates.html)
more...
Canadian_Dream
04-10 05:56 PM
the fact that reform is needed does not mean this is the best way.
and btw i wonder what happens to true consulting companies- BCG, Oracle etc whose business is to provide these services. They are not some abusive offshore operation....how is it fair to them? Seems a bit radical to me...not that i oppose the need for reform.
My only point was: the way H1B was set-up there was too much leverage to the corporations. This led to abuse by them at your and my cost. End result was wage depression, Green Card Backlogs and now H1B crisis. No matter how you argue it, the abusers have been a clear winner as an end result. Look no further than mushrooming of recruiting companies, and growing profit margins of TCS, Infosys and Wipro.
In the end the reform has to come, unfortunately it came again at our cost. I agree it is not the best way to reform it, because it isn't in the best interest of H1B holders, but I guess the intention here is to stop the abuse at any cost. The best way probably would have been making H1B independent of the employer but again me and you are not kept in mind when a law like this is being written. What happens to BCG, Oracle etc, perhaps law should provide a way to separate wheat from chaff. If you take a closer look at it, these corporations do provide consulting services but consultants are still "Permanent Employees" with a fix wages and benefits but body shoppers have a different model with unpaid bench period and what not. In fact you can find
Permanent Residents and US Citizens wanting to work or working with BCG, Oracle etc, but you don't see that with bodyshoppers and that's why I guess the 50% US Citizen clause in the proposed law. Please don't confuse this with the notion that I support or oppose this law. I am just trying to argue that if off shoring companies (Infosys, TCS etc) with 90% H1B's and local body shopping firms 100% H1B are getting punished I have no sympathy for them. These are the same people who refuse to give people copy I-140 approval notice and file for 59 Green Cards out of 20,000 H1B's they bring.
How about sending back all H1Bs ? If there is no cheap labor around , the salaries for all others (Citizens and GC holders) go up. I so want to see 250 an hour rates.
Applying your logic , you should get a job in your home country if you are smart enough.
You should first read the original post that I responded to understand the context. As far as wages are concerned it is because of these corporations that hourly rates however high look meager when H1B statistics are collected by DOL, because a large cut is added to profit margins. That's why opponents of H1B program can point finger and say prevailing wages are not market wages. Do you support this practice of making profit by eating away a huge chunk of your pay just because they sponsor H1B (a Green Card the retention benefit to continue doing this for atleast 3-4 years) ? If you are then you are doing it at your own peril.
Check out some of the prevailing wages and see for yourself if these are real market wages:
System Analyst in San Jose California $64K
http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/cda/doc/content/032807_systmsanaly_sanfranciscoCA.pdf
Consultant in San Francisco 55K
http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/cda/doc/content/032807_taxconsII_sanjoseCA.pdf
and btw i wonder what happens to true consulting companies- BCG, Oracle etc whose business is to provide these services. They are not some abusive offshore operation....how is it fair to them? Seems a bit radical to me...not that i oppose the need for reform.
My only point was: the way H1B was set-up there was too much leverage to the corporations. This led to abuse by them at your and my cost. End result was wage depression, Green Card Backlogs and now H1B crisis. No matter how you argue it, the abusers have been a clear winner as an end result. Look no further than mushrooming of recruiting companies, and growing profit margins of TCS, Infosys and Wipro.
In the end the reform has to come, unfortunately it came again at our cost. I agree it is not the best way to reform it, because it isn't in the best interest of H1B holders, but I guess the intention here is to stop the abuse at any cost. The best way probably would have been making H1B independent of the employer but again me and you are not kept in mind when a law like this is being written. What happens to BCG, Oracle etc, perhaps law should provide a way to separate wheat from chaff. If you take a closer look at it, these corporations do provide consulting services but consultants are still "Permanent Employees" with a fix wages and benefits but body shoppers have a different model with unpaid bench period and what not. In fact you can find
Permanent Residents and US Citizens wanting to work or working with BCG, Oracle etc, but you don't see that with bodyshoppers and that's why I guess the 50% US Citizen clause in the proposed law. Please don't confuse this with the notion that I support or oppose this law. I am just trying to argue that if off shoring companies (Infosys, TCS etc) with 90% H1B's and local body shopping firms 100% H1B are getting punished I have no sympathy for them. These are the same people who refuse to give people copy I-140 approval notice and file for 59 Green Cards out of 20,000 H1B's they bring.
How about sending back all H1Bs ? If there is no cheap labor around , the salaries for all others (Citizens and GC holders) go up. I so want to see 250 an hour rates.
Applying your logic , you should get a job in your home country if you are smart enough.
You should first read the original post that I responded to understand the context. As far as wages are concerned it is because of these corporations that hourly rates however high look meager when H1B statistics are collected by DOL, because a large cut is added to profit margins. That's why opponents of H1B program can point finger and say prevailing wages are not market wages. Do you support this practice of making profit by eating away a huge chunk of your pay just because they sponsor H1B (a Green Card the retention benefit to continue doing this for atleast 3-4 years) ? If you are then you are doing it at your own peril.
Check out some of the prevailing wages and see for yourself if these are real market wages:
System Analyst in San Jose California $64K
http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/cda/doc/content/032807_systmsanaly_sanfranciscoCA.pdf
Consultant in San Francisco 55K
http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/cda/doc/content/032807_taxconsII_sanjoseCA.pdf
hair My Little Pony Cake Ideas on CakeCentral.com
alterego
07-04 08:31 PM
Everyone blaming CIS/DOS needs to understand some basics behind this mess. Before going to conclude anything, first, one should read all the ombudsman reports for last 3 or 4 years. Former INS or current USCIS’s functions and operations were not questionable and not known to public till ombudsman office was established. Ombudsman has helped customers and keep helping to improve efficiency of CIS. Ombudsman main concern (or goal) have been over the 4 years are
1. Primarily reducing backlogs in any application type particularly 485 and timely approval of any application.
2. Abolish the need for interim benefits like EAD, AP etc. If they approve 485 in 6 months, then most of us do not require EAD and AP.
3. Reduce the wastage of EB visas, as unused EB visas can not be carried over to next year (use it or lose it). Since 1992, about 200,000 EB visas were lost permanently. In 2003 alone, they issued only 64,000 EB visas and lost 88,000.
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Now lets come to July Visa bulletin mess.
Because of tight holding of visa cutoff dates for EB3 and EB2 for the first 8 months of 2007 (From Oct 2006 to May 2007) USCIS approved only 66,000 485s. For the next 4 months they have about 60K to 70K numbers available. If they approve the pending 485s with slower speed or old cut off dates, there is a potential estimated loss of 40,000 EB visas by Sep 2007. Thats why, based on ombudsman recommendation, DOS moved considerably the cut off date for June. When they took inventory in May, there are about 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications were pending due to non-availability of visa numbers. The “documentarily qualified 485 applications” mean the application filed long time back and processed by USCIS and cleared the FBI name and criminal check, and found eligible for green card. Apart from 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications, there is thousands of 485 applications (documentarily not yet qualified) pending due to name check. When DOS checked with USCIS they found only 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications (in all EB categories put together) are pending. However, the available visas are more than 40,000 (60to 70K). Then they made with out consulting properly with USCIS they made “current” for all EB categories. This is how they determine “current” or “over-subscribed” and how they establish cutoff dates.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered “Current.”
Whenever the total of documentarily qualified applicants in a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for the particular month, the category is considered to be “oversubscribed” and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories “current” for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories “current” ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of “current” there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making “current” for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as “current” in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
Excellent analysis and reccomendations. I feel that a visa number should be assigned at the point of 485 filing. If there is a problem it can be returned to the pool. That will be the least disruptive way to allot numbers in a timely fashion. In the end, that is likely to be the change that will come out of this.
This way, it will offer prospective applicants a more clear viewpoint of what they are up against when they consider their immigration options. i.e if you know you will have to wait 10 yrs to file an AOS even if you have an approved immigrant petition ala the family based immigrants, your plans would be different. You might not feel the wait worthwhile or even if you do, you do it fully aware of the consequences, 10 yrs exploitative employer on h1b etc.
If you notice, the level of hubris and cry is less in family based immigration even though the waits are longer. Atleast they know before they apply!
Your last point about a visa recapture is on the money. It is the least disruptive and easiest of the possible changes for current EB applicants in the current hostile atmosphere. It comes across as a rectification of USCIS inefficiency rather than a request for more immigration, which the public has clearly rejected at this time. If we can get 100-150K visas recaptured, this will greatly help EVERYONE in the EB queue for various reasons. It will buy us the 1-2 yrs needed before immigration is seriously addressed again. It will help those waiting to file 485 to file, those in 485 to have a hope to get out etc. It will help heavily retrogressed countries to keep getting more visas than the annual caps etc. I think that is something everyone can agree on as well.
1. Primarily reducing backlogs in any application type particularly 485 and timely approval of any application.
2. Abolish the need for interim benefits like EAD, AP etc. If they approve 485 in 6 months, then most of us do not require EAD and AP.
3. Reduce the wastage of EB visas, as unused EB visas can not be carried over to next year (use it or lose it). Since 1992, about 200,000 EB visas were lost permanently. In 2003 alone, they issued only 64,000 EB visas and lost 88,000.
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Now lets come to July Visa bulletin mess.
Because of tight holding of visa cutoff dates for EB3 and EB2 for the first 8 months of 2007 (From Oct 2006 to May 2007) USCIS approved only 66,000 485s. For the next 4 months they have about 60K to 70K numbers available. If they approve the pending 485s with slower speed or old cut off dates, there is a potential estimated loss of 40,000 EB visas by Sep 2007. Thats why, based on ombudsman recommendation, DOS moved considerably the cut off date for June. When they took inventory in May, there are about 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications were pending due to non-availability of visa numbers. The “documentarily qualified 485 applications” mean the application filed long time back and processed by USCIS and cleared the FBI name and criminal check, and found eligible for green card. Apart from 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications, there is thousands of 485 applications (documentarily not yet qualified) pending due to name check. When DOS checked with USCIS they found only 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications (in all EB categories put together) are pending. However, the available visas are more than 40,000 (60to 70K). Then they made with out consulting properly with USCIS they made “current” for all EB categories. This is how they determine “current” or “over-subscribed” and how they establish cutoff dates.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered “Current.”
Whenever the total of documentarily qualified applicants in a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for the particular month, the category is considered to be “oversubscribed” and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories “current” for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories “current” ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of “current” there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making “current” for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as “current” in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
Excellent analysis and reccomendations. I feel that a visa number should be assigned at the point of 485 filing. If there is a problem it can be returned to the pool. That will be the least disruptive way to allot numbers in a timely fashion. In the end, that is likely to be the change that will come out of this.
This way, it will offer prospective applicants a more clear viewpoint of what they are up against when they consider their immigration options. i.e if you know you will have to wait 10 yrs to file an AOS even if you have an approved immigrant petition ala the family based immigrants, your plans would be different. You might not feel the wait worthwhile or even if you do, you do it fully aware of the consequences, 10 yrs exploitative employer on h1b etc.
If you notice, the level of hubris and cry is less in family based immigration even though the waits are longer. Atleast they know before they apply!
Your last point about a visa recapture is on the money. It is the least disruptive and easiest of the possible changes for current EB applicants in the current hostile atmosphere. It comes across as a rectification of USCIS inefficiency rather than a request for more immigration, which the public has clearly rejected at this time. If we can get 100-150K visas recaptured, this will greatly help EVERYONE in the EB queue for various reasons. It will buy us the 1-2 yrs needed before immigration is seriously addressed again. It will help those waiting to file 485 to file, those in 485 to have a hope to get out etc. It will help heavily retrogressed countries to keep getting more visas than the annual caps etc. I think that is something everyone can agree on as well.
more...
24fps
02-19 07:59 PM
read my lips, THIS BILL WILL NEVER PASS
its so redundant that even NumbersUSA haven't even reported.
its so redundant that even NumbersUSA haven't even reported.
hot Will find at am rare hard feb results My+little+pony+cake+tin
sent
07-24 04:52 AM
My Lawyer says there is no need of such letter to be included and filed my papers and confident about getting that approved. I'm much worried and don't know what to do If gets rejected.
Sent an email to my lawyer again and waiting for his reply.
Any clue How to handle this?
Sent an email to my lawyer again and waiting for his reply.
Any clue How to handle this?
more...
house My little pony cake,
tomchi007
02-21 05:12 PM
Pardon my ignorance and pls help me understand, how does PD impact the mass 485 applications sent July/August 2007?
I thought the PD is only relevant for being able to apply for 485 and didnt matter if your 485 application had been received. Am I wrong?
I thought the PD is only relevant for being able to apply for 485 and didnt matter if your 485 application had been received. Am I wrong?
tattoo My Little Pony Cake
Dakota Newfie
07-02 07:50 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again - I don't see how the per country limit is unfair! It was set up so that immigrants from ALL nations would have EQUAL opportunity to immigrate to the U.S. and to prevent any one (or two) countries from monopolizing the visa numbers. Getting rid of the per country limit would most certainly lead to immigration from a limited number of sources (countries) and thus jeopardize the diversity of the immigration process. Getting rid of it would be like robbing Peter to pay Paul because those countries who are severely retrogressed now would only see limited benefits and those who are not all that retrogressed would fall backwards - is that fair!? It seems these forms are dominated by "certain" groups who have their own agenda and don't really care about ROW! It makes me feel uncomfortable being an IV member from ROW!
more...
pictures items cake personalized free overview features My+little+pony+cake+tin
edgarrecto
02-21 05:26 PM
how about eb 3 priority date for philippines? mine is september 27,2005. any predictions?
dresses My+little+pony+cake+decorations Table during youre my pk tothe best
sat0207
04-27 09:23 AM
Immigration Security Checks
�How and Why the Process Works
Background All applicants for a U.S. immigration benefit are subject to criminal and national security background checks to ensure they are eligible for that benefit. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the Federal agency that oversees immigration benefits, performs checks on every applicant, regardless of ethnicity, national origin or religion. Since 2002, USCIS has increased the number and scope of relevant background checks, processing millions of security checks without incident. However, in some cases, USCIS customers and immigrant advocates have expressed frustration over delays in processing applications, noting that individual customers have waited a year or longer for the completion of their adjudication pending the outcome of security checks. While the percentage of applicants who find their cases delayed by pending background checks is relatively small, USCIS recognizes that for those affected individuals, the additional delay and uncertainty can cause great anxiety. Although USCIS cannot guarantee the prompt resolution of every case, we can assure the public that applicants are not singled out based on race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. USCIS strives to balance the need for timely, fair and accurate service with the need to ensure a high level of integrity in the decision-making process. This fact sheet outlines the framework of the immigration security check process, explaining its necessity, as well as factors contributing to delays in resolving pending cases. Why USCIS Conducts Security Checks USCIS conducts security checks for all cases involving a petition or application for an immigration service or benefit. This is done both to enhance national security and ensure the integrity of the immigration process. USCIS is responsible for ensuring that our immigration system is not used as a vehicle to harm our nation or its citizens by screening out people who seek immigration benefits improperly or fraudulently. These security checks have yielded information about applicants involved in violent crimes, sex crimes, crimes against children, drug trafficking and individuals with known links to terrorism. These investigations require time, resources, and patience and USCIS recognizes that the process is slower for some customers than they would like. Because of that, USCIS is working closely with the FBI and other agencies to speed the background check process. However, USCIS will never grant an immigration service or benefit before the required security checks are completed regardless of how long those checks take.
To ensure that immigration benefits are given only to eligible applicants, USCIS adopted background security check procedures that address a wide range of possible risk factors. Different kinds of applications undergo different levels of scrutiny. USCIS normally uses the following three background check mechanisms but maintains the authority to conduct other background investigations as necessary:
� The Interagency Border Inspection System (IBIS)
Name Check� IBIS is a multiagency effort with a central system that combines information from multiple agencies, databases and system interfaces to compile data relating to national security risks, public safety issues and other law enforcement concerns. USCIS can quickly check information from these multiple government agencies to determine if the information in the system affects the adjudication of the case. Results of an IBIS check are usually available immediately. In some cases, information found during an IBIS check will require further investigation. The IBIS check is not deemed completed until all eligibility issues arising from the initial system response are resolved.
� FBI Fingerprint Check�FBI fingerprint checks are conducted for many applications. The FBI fingerprint check provides information relating to criminal background within the United States. Generally, the FBI forwards responses to USCIS within 24-48 hours. If there is a record match, the FBI forwards an electronic copy of the criminal history (RAP sheet) to USCIS. At that point, a USCIS adjudicator reviews the information to determine what effect it may have on eligibility for the benefit. Although the vast majority of inquiries yield no record or match, about 10 percent do uncover criminal history (including immigration violations). In cases involving arrests or charges without disposition, USCIS requires the applicant to provide court certified evidence of the disposition. Customers with prior arrests should provide complete information and certified disposition records at the time of filing to avoid adjudication delays or denial resulting from misrepresentation about criminal history. Even expunged or vacated convictions must be reported for immigration purposes.
� FBI Name Checks�FBI name checks are also required for many applications. The FBI name check is totally different from the FBI fingerprint check. The records maintained in the FBI name check process consist of administrative, applicant, criminal, personnel and other files compiled by law enforcement. Initial responses to this check generally take about two weeks. In about 80 percent of the cases, no match is found. Of the remaining 20 percent, most are resolved within six months. Less than one percent of cases subject to an FBI name check remain pending longer than six months. Some of these cases involve complex, highly sensitive information and cannot be resolved quickly. Even after FBI has provided an initial response to USCIS concerning a match, the name check is not complete until full information is obtained and eligibility issues arising from it are resolved. For most applicants, the process outlined above allows USCIS to quickly determine if there are criminal or security related issues in the applicant�s background that affect eligibility for immigration benefits. Most cases proceed forward without incident. However, due to both the sheer volume of security checks USCIS conducts, and the need to ensure that each applicant is thoroughly screened, some delays on individual applications are inevitable. Background checks may still be considered pending when either the FBI or relevant agency has not provided the final response to the background check or when the FBI or agency has provided a response, but the response requires further investigation or review by the agency or USCIS. Resolving pending cases is time-consuming and labor-intensive; some cases legitimately take months or evenseveral years to resolve. Every USCIS District Office performs regular reviews of the pending caseload to determine when cases have cleared and are ready to be decided. USCIS does not share information about the records match or the nature or status of any investigation with applicants or their representatives.
�How and Why the Process Works
Background All applicants for a U.S. immigration benefit are subject to criminal and national security background checks to ensure they are eligible for that benefit. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the Federal agency that oversees immigration benefits, performs checks on every applicant, regardless of ethnicity, national origin or religion. Since 2002, USCIS has increased the number and scope of relevant background checks, processing millions of security checks without incident. However, in some cases, USCIS customers and immigrant advocates have expressed frustration over delays in processing applications, noting that individual customers have waited a year or longer for the completion of their adjudication pending the outcome of security checks. While the percentage of applicants who find their cases delayed by pending background checks is relatively small, USCIS recognizes that for those affected individuals, the additional delay and uncertainty can cause great anxiety. Although USCIS cannot guarantee the prompt resolution of every case, we can assure the public that applicants are not singled out based on race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. USCIS strives to balance the need for timely, fair and accurate service with the need to ensure a high level of integrity in the decision-making process. This fact sheet outlines the framework of the immigration security check process, explaining its necessity, as well as factors contributing to delays in resolving pending cases. Why USCIS Conducts Security Checks USCIS conducts security checks for all cases involving a petition or application for an immigration service or benefit. This is done both to enhance national security and ensure the integrity of the immigration process. USCIS is responsible for ensuring that our immigration system is not used as a vehicle to harm our nation or its citizens by screening out people who seek immigration benefits improperly or fraudulently. These security checks have yielded information about applicants involved in violent crimes, sex crimes, crimes against children, drug trafficking and individuals with known links to terrorism. These investigations require time, resources, and patience and USCIS recognizes that the process is slower for some customers than they would like. Because of that, USCIS is working closely with the FBI and other agencies to speed the background check process. However, USCIS will never grant an immigration service or benefit before the required security checks are completed regardless of how long those checks take.
To ensure that immigration benefits are given only to eligible applicants, USCIS adopted background security check procedures that address a wide range of possible risk factors. Different kinds of applications undergo different levels of scrutiny. USCIS normally uses the following three background check mechanisms but maintains the authority to conduct other background investigations as necessary:
� The Interagency Border Inspection System (IBIS)
Name Check� IBIS is a multiagency effort with a central system that combines information from multiple agencies, databases and system interfaces to compile data relating to national security risks, public safety issues and other law enforcement concerns. USCIS can quickly check information from these multiple government agencies to determine if the information in the system affects the adjudication of the case. Results of an IBIS check are usually available immediately. In some cases, information found during an IBIS check will require further investigation. The IBIS check is not deemed completed until all eligibility issues arising from the initial system response are resolved.
� FBI Fingerprint Check�FBI fingerprint checks are conducted for many applications. The FBI fingerprint check provides information relating to criminal background within the United States. Generally, the FBI forwards responses to USCIS within 24-48 hours. If there is a record match, the FBI forwards an electronic copy of the criminal history (RAP sheet) to USCIS. At that point, a USCIS adjudicator reviews the information to determine what effect it may have on eligibility for the benefit. Although the vast majority of inquiries yield no record or match, about 10 percent do uncover criminal history (including immigration violations). In cases involving arrests or charges without disposition, USCIS requires the applicant to provide court certified evidence of the disposition. Customers with prior arrests should provide complete information and certified disposition records at the time of filing to avoid adjudication delays or denial resulting from misrepresentation about criminal history. Even expunged or vacated convictions must be reported for immigration purposes.
� FBI Name Checks�FBI name checks are also required for many applications. The FBI name check is totally different from the FBI fingerprint check. The records maintained in the FBI name check process consist of administrative, applicant, criminal, personnel and other files compiled by law enforcement. Initial responses to this check generally take about two weeks. In about 80 percent of the cases, no match is found. Of the remaining 20 percent, most are resolved within six months. Less than one percent of cases subject to an FBI name check remain pending longer than six months. Some of these cases involve complex, highly sensitive information and cannot be resolved quickly. Even after FBI has provided an initial response to USCIS concerning a match, the name check is not complete until full information is obtained and eligibility issues arising from it are resolved. For most applicants, the process outlined above allows USCIS to quickly determine if there are criminal or security related issues in the applicant�s background that affect eligibility for immigration benefits. Most cases proceed forward without incident. However, due to both the sheer volume of security checks USCIS conducts, and the need to ensure that each applicant is thoroughly screened, some delays on individual applications are inevitable. Background checks may still be considered pending when either the FBI or relevant agency has not provided the final response to the background check or when the FBI or agency has provided a response, but the response requires further investigation or review by the agency or USCIS. Resolving pending cases is time-consuming and labor-intensive; some cases legitimately take months or evenseveral years to resolve. Every USCIS District Office performs regular reviews of the pending caseload to determine when cases have cleared and are ready to be decided. USCIS does not share information about the records match or the nature or status of any investigation with applicants or their representatives.
more...
makeup My Little Pony Cake Cake by
drirshad
06-20 06:23 PM
Is there any official Period of Stay form or its just a summary statement from us about entry exit from start till now.
girlfriend prancing pony
ita
02-01 11:33 AM
That's fine ..To show that we are in status form the last non-immigrant visa entry to 485 filing stage should we have our monthly stubs or will W2 be sufficient? I'm afraid I've some misplaced. Again thank you very much for your responses.
>> Thank you very much for the response. I sent you a PM.
I don't respond to Private Messages. If you have questions for me and would like to get my opinion on it, please post in forums here.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
>> Thank you very much for the response. I sent you a PM.
I don't respond to Private Messages. If you have questions for me and would like to get my opinion on it, please post in forums here.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
hairstyles free shipping and got lots of My+little+pony+cake+pops
grinch
03-06 11:28 PM
Here's a WIP of my almost completed entry :
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v403/grinchvader/f1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v403/grinchvader/f3.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v403/grinchvader/f2.jpg
*gonna post in drawing and design
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v403/grinchvader/f1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v403/grinchvader/f3.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v403/grinchvader/f2.jpg
*gonna post in drawing and design
veerug
07-03 07:55 PM
What IV will do different than what AILF is planning to do? They are not asking for any money for participating in litigation. What will happen if you don't reach your target of $5000 before you do something? (may be lawsuit).
Nobody takes money for filing lawsuit in any case, atleast not in advance.
No offense, but i thought you need to be little bit more clear in what exactly you plan to do with $5000.
I don't care if you get offended with my asking. But I am trying to unsderstand if i am missing something.
Nobody takes money for filing lawsuit in any case, atleast not in advance.
No offense, but i thought you need to be little bit more clear in what exactly you plan to do with $5000.
I don't care if you get offended with my asking. But I am trying to unsderstand if i am missing something.
anurakt
12-27 10:55 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.
Austria
Airport transit implies staying within the airport for not more than 24 hours, without crossing the immigration. This applies to those passengers also who may be required to stay in the aircraft during the transit time.
US Passport Holders: Not required
Indian Passport Holders: Not Required
For more information on VISA / transit VISA requirements, please visit the official website of Austrian consulate/embassy.
http://www.aussenministerium.at/view.php3?f_id=5308&LNG=en&version=text
Address / Contact numbers in USA
Austrian Consulate General
31 East 69th Street
New York, NY 10021
Tel: +1 (212) 737 6400
Fax:+1 (212) 585 1992
E-mail: info@austria-ny.org
Public hours: Mo - Fr 9:00 am - 12:00 noon
Kuwait
US Passport Holders: Not required
Indian Passport Holders: Not required
For more information on VISA / transit VISA requirements, please contact the Kuwait Consulate/Embassy near you.
Address / Contact numbers in USA
Kuwait Information Office
2600 Virginia Ave, NW, Suite 404
Washington, D.C. 20037
Phone: 202-338-0211
Fax: 202-338-0957
Email:questions@kuwait-info.org
Netherlands
US Passport Holders: Not required
Indian Passport Holders: Not required
Address / Contact numbers in US
There are 58 offices across spread across different states in USA. To check the address, contact numbers, email address, working hours, etc., please click the below given URL. http://www.netherlands-embassy.org/location.asp
UK
US Passport Holders: Not required
Indian Passport Holders: Required*
*Exemptions
YOU ARE EXEMPT IF::
You are travelling FROM the US with a valid US visa and a valid airline ticket for travel via the United Kingdom to another country; or
You are travelling TO the US from another country and hold a valid airline ticket for travel via the United Kingdom and a valid US visa; or
You last entered the US with a valid US visa which has now expired but you hold a valid airline ticket for travel via the United Kingdom to another country and you are intending to transit the United Kingdom within 6 months of your last date of entry to the US; or
You have a valid US I - 551 Permanent Residence Card (Green Card) issued on or after 21 April 1998 (but see Note 1 and 2 below); or
You have a valid US Immigrant Visa packet (form 155A / 155B); or
You have an expired I - 551 Permanent Residence Card (issued on or after 21 April 1998) and a valid I-797 letter issued by the Bureau of Citizenship authorising its extension (but see Note 1 and 2 below); or
You have a valid Canadian Permanent Residence Card issued on or after 28 June 2002; or
You have a valid common format Category D visa issued by EU/EEA member states; or
You have a valid common format EU residence permit issued under Council Regulation (EC) No 1030/2002;
You hold a diplomatic or a service passport issued by the People's Republic of China; or
You hold a diplomatic or an official passport issued by the government of India; or
You hold a diplomatic or an official passport issued by the government of Vietnam.
Note :
Holding an I-512 Parole letter or an I-797C (Notice of Action) instead of a valid US visa; or a Transportation Letter instead of a valid US Permanent Resident Card issued on or after 21 April 1998 does NOT qualify you for exemption from the DAT visa requirement.
Holding a valid travel document with an ADIT stamp - worded "PROCESSED FOR I-551. TEMPORARY EVIDENCE OF LAWFUL ADMISSION FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE VALID UNTIL ......EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZED" - does NOT qualify you for exemption from the DAT visa requirement.
Whether holders of non-national (including refugee travel documents) require a DATV depends on their nationality and whether they qualify for one of the exemptions listed above. So, for instance, the holder of a non-national travel document (eg. a refugee travel document) who is a national or a citizen of one of the countries listed on the DATV list (eg. Afghanistan) will require a direct airside transit visa if they are travelling to the UK to transit onto a third country.
There are separate exemptions for holders of Australian, Canadian and New Zealand visas. Please click here for details.
For more information on VISA / transit VISA requirements, please visit the official website of UK consulate/embassy.
http://www.britainusa.com/visas/other_show.asp?SarticleType=25&Other_ID=313
This information has been prepared with utmost care; we cannot accept any responsibility for inaccuracies contained herein.
Address / Contact numbers in USA
There are many offices spread across different states in USA. To check the address, contact numbers, email address, working hours, etc., please click the below given URL.
http://www.britainusa.com/consular/locate.asp
Switzerland
US Passport Holders: Not required
Indian Passport Holders: Not required
For more information on VISA / transit VISA requirements, please visit the official website of Swiss consulate/embassy.
www.eda.admin.ch/washington_emb/e/home/consular/visas/needvisa.html
Address / Contact numbers in USA
There are many offices spread across different states in USA. To check the address, contact numbers, email address, working hours, etc., please click the below given URL.
http://www.eda.admin.ch/washington_emb/e/home/ovriew/email.p.html
* It is the responsibility of all travelers to obtain any required visas and travel permissions. I recommend all travelers check with the airline they are flying regarding applicable Transit and Visa Rules for the country they are transiting through. Immigrationvoice or myslef will NOT be responsible for any traveler being denied boarding on account of incorrect documentation.
Austria
Airport transit implies staying within the airport for not more than 24 hours, without crossing the immigration. This applies to those passengers also who may be required to stay in the aircraft during the transit time.
US Passport Holders: Not required
Indian Passport Holders: Not Required
For more information on VISA / transit VISA requirements, please visit the official website of Austrian consulate/embassy.
http://www.aussenministerium.at/view.php3?f_id=5308&LNG=en&version=text
Address / Contact numbers in USA
Austrian Consulate General
31 East 69th Street
New York, NY 10021
Tel: +1 (212) 737 6400
Fax:+1 (212) 585 1992
E-mail: info@austria-ny.org
Public hours: Mo - Fr 9:00 am - 12:00 noon
Kuwait
US Passport Holders: Not required
Indian Passport Holders: Not required
For more information on VISA / transit VISA requirements, please contact the Kuwait Consulate/Embassy near you.
Address / Contact numbers in USA
Kuwait Information Office
2600 Virginia Ave, NW, Suite 404
Washington, D.C. 20037
Phone: 202-338-0211
Fax: 202-338-0957
Email:questions@kuwait-info.org
Netherlands
US Passport Holders: Not required
Indian Passport Holders: Not required
Address / Contact numbers in US
There are 58 offices across spread across different states in USA. To check the address, contact numbers, email address, working hours, etc., please click the below given URL. http://www.netherlands-embassy.org/location.asp
UK
US Passport Holders: Not required
Indian Passport Holders: Required*
*Exemptions
YOU ARE EXEMPT IF::
You are travelling FROM the US with a valid US visa and a valid airline ticket for travel via the United Kingdom to another country; or
You are travelling TO the US from another country and hold a valid airline ticket for travel via the United Kingdom and a valid US visa; or
You last entered the US with a valid US visa which has now expired but you hold a valid airline ticket for travel via the United Kingdom to another country and you are intending to transit the United Kingdom within 6 months of your last date of entry to the US; or
You have a valid US I - 551 Permanent Residence Card (Green Card) issued on or after 21 April 1998 (but see Note 1 and 2 below); or
You have a valid US Immigrant Visa packet (form 155A / 155B); or
You have an expired I - 551 Permanent Residence Card (issued on or after 21 April 1998) and a valid I-797 letter issued by the Bureau of Citizenship authorising its extension (but see Note 1 and 2 below); or
You have a valid Canadian Permanent Residence Card issued on or after 28 June 2002; or
You have a valid common format Category D visa issued by EU/EEA member states; or
You have a valid common format EU residence permit issued under Council Regulation (EC) No 1030/2002;
You hold a diplomatic or a service passport issued by the People's Republic of China; or
You hold a diplomatic or an official passport issued by the government of India; or
You hold a diplomatic or an official passport issued by the government of Vietnam.
Note :
Holding an I-512 Parole letter or an I-797C (Notice of Action) instead of a valid US visa; or a Transportation Letter instead of a valid US Permanent Resident Card issued on or after 21 April 1998 does NOT qualify you for exemption from the DAT visa requirement.
Holding a valid travel document with an ADIT stamp - worded "PROCESSED FOR I-551. TEMPORARY EVIDENCE OF LAWFUL ADMISSION FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE VALID UNTIL ......EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZED" - does NOT qualify you for exemption from the DAT visa requirement.
Whether holders of non-national (including refugee travel documents) require a DATV depends on their nationality and whether they qualify for one of the exemptions listed above. So, for instance, the holder of a non-national travel document (eg. a refugee travel document) who is a national or a citizen of one of the countries listed on the DATV list (eg. Afghanistan) will require a direct airside transit visa if they are travelling to the UK to transit onto a third country.
There are separate exemptions for holders of Australian, Canadian and New Zealand visas. Please click here for details.
For more information on VISA / transit VISA requirements, please visit the official website of UK consulate/embassy.
http://www.britainusa.com/visas/other_show.asp?SarticleType=25&Other_ID=313
This information has been prepared with utmost care; we cannot accept any responsibility for inaccuracies contained herein.
Address / Contact numbers in USA
There are many offices spread across different states in USA. To check the address, contact numbers, email address, working hours, etc., please click the below given URL.
http://www.britainusa.com/consular/locate.asp
Switzerland
US Passport Holders: Not required
Indian Passport Holders: Not required
For more information on VISA / transit VISA requirements, please visit the official website of Swiss consulate/embassy.
www.eda.admin.ch/washington_emb/e/home/consular/visas/needvisa.html
Address / Contact numbers in USA
There are many offices spread across different states in USA. To check the address, contact numbers, email address, working hours, etc., please click the below given URL.
http://www.eda.admin.ch/washington_emb/e/home/ovriew/email.p.html
* It is the responsibility of all travelers to obtain any required visas and travel permissions. I recommend all travelers check with the airline they are flying regarding applicable Transit and Visa Rules for the country they are transiting through. Immigrationvoice or myslef will NOT be responsible for any traveler being denied boarding on account of incorrect documentation.
No comments:
Post a Comment