newbee7
07-05 12:58 AM
"Although USCIS stated in its 2006 Annual Report Response (at p. 8) that it provides detailed data to DOS, the tri-agency group identified gaps in USCIS’ data. Through these discussions, the Ombudsman learned that accounting and processing methods differ at the Nebraska and Texas Service Centers (where USCIS processes employment-based petitions)."
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOMB_Annual%20Report_2007.pdf
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOMB_Annual%20Report_2007.pdf
wallpaper Diggy Simmons, Justin Bieber
nixstor
07-05 01:05 PM
Who ever started this website should know that they are limited by the contributions from IV community. And we can only go so far in getting those contributions.
Instead of making this a paid site, why don't you create incentives to be 'contributing member'
> Publish a list of paid members and highlight their contribution and even sort them by total contribution. And mention 'anonymous' for those who don't want to be identified.
> Sell T-shirt with IV logo. And mention that 50% of the cost of T-shirt goes to IV fund. This works in two-ways, we get money and we get publicity.
> I don't prefer this but - create contributing-members only email-distro, or thread or section in the website.
RK,
Limited contributions is not equal to no contributions. Limited contributions from every one weill make us stronger.
Its not about getting extra privileges for paid members. No one (atleast me) wants a red carpet treatment her for paying 20USD. Its about fighting for a cause together. I dont think I need to underscore how Barrack Obama raised 32.5 mil USD. Most of us want to be future Americans right, if not all. I guess you should take a moment to consider the importance of contributions in the US of A
Instead of making this a paid site, why don't you create incentives to be 'contributing member'
> Publish a list of paid members and highlight their contribution and even sort them by total contribution. And mention 'anonymous' for those who don't want to be identified.
> Sell T-shirt with IV logo. And mention that 50% of the cost of T-shirt goes to IV fund. This works in two-ways, we get money and we get publicity.
> I don't prefer this but - create contributing-members only email-distro, or thread or section in the website.
RK,
Limited contributions is not equal to no contributions. Limited contributions from every one weill make us stronger.
Its not about getting extra privileges for paid members. No one (atleast me) wants a red carpet treatment her for paying 20USD. Its about fighting for a cause together. I dont think I need to underscore how Barrack Obama raised 32.5 mil USD. Most of us want to be future Americans right, if not all. I guess you should take a moment to consider the importance of contributions in the US of A
desi3933
01-30 03:04 PM
So, basically anyone laid off on I485 pending without a job is accumulating "out of status" days.That's your opinion?
No. This is NOT what I said.
Filing for I-485 covers out of status covers in most cases and it does not cover out of status from last admission to the date of I-485 filing.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
No. This is NOT what I said.
Filing for I-485 covers out of status covers in most cases and it does not cover out of status from last admission to the date of I-485 filing.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
2011 Never Say Never Toronto
Sakthisagar
06-11 11:01 AM
See below what Anti Immigrants are doing. Each and everyone visits this site should sign what IV have given the link
The following makes no sense it is utter non-sense.
COMPANIES LAYING-OFF THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN WORKERS DON�T NEED GUEST WORKERS
Please Support the Sanders-Grassley Employ America Amendment to the Tax Extenders bill
Dear Colleague:
Since the recession started in December of 2007, nearly 8 million Americans have lost their jobs and the unemployment rate has nearly doubled. In total, 15 million Americans are officially unemployed, another 8.8 million Americans are working part-time only because they cannot find a full-time job, and more than one million workers have given up looking for work altogether.
With the unemployment rate still unacceptably high and millions of people looking for a job, we have a responsibility to ensure that companies do not use temporary visa programs to replace American workers with cheaper labor from overseas.
Therefore, during the consideration of the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act, we will be offering an amendment that would prohibit companies which have announced mass lay-offs over the past year from hiring guest workers, unless they can prove that their overall employment will not be reduced as a result of these lay-offs.
At a time when millions of Americans are out of work, the notion that we need to import labor from abroad because there are not enough qualified, willing or able American workers in this country rings hollow.
Recently, some of the very companies that have hired tens of thousands of guest-workers from overseas have announced large scale lay-offs of American workers. The high-tech industry, a major employer of H-1B guest workers, has announced over 330,000 job cuts since 2008. The construction industry, a major employer of H-2B guest-workers, has laid-off 1.9 million workers since December of 2007.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, signed into law last February, included a provision to prevent companies receiving assistance through the Troubled Asset Relief Program from replacing laid-off American workers with guest-workers from overseas.
The Employ America Act expands upon this provision to prevent any company engaged in a mass lay-off of American workers from importing cheaper labor from abroad through temporary guest-worker programs. Those companies that are truly facing labor shortages would not be impacted by this legislation and could continue to obtain employer-sponsored visas. Only companies that are laying-off a large number of Americans would be barred from importing foreign workers through guest worker programs.
If you would like to co-sponsor this amendment, please have your staff contact Warren Gunnels in Sen. Sanders� office at 8-6358 or Kathy Nuebel Kovarik in Sen. Grassley's office at 4-3744.
Sincerely
The following makes no sense it is utter non-sense.
COMPANIES LAYING-OFF THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN WORKERS DON�T NEED GUEST WORKERS
Please Support the Sanders-Grassley Employ America Amendment to the Tax Extenders bill
Dear Colleague:
Since the recession started in December of 2007, nearly 8 million Americans have lost their jobs and the unemployment rate has nearly doubled. In total, 15 million Americans are officially unemployed, another 8.8 million Americans are working part-time only because they cannot find a full-time job, and more than one million workers have given up looking for work altogether.
With the unemployment rate still unacceptably high and millions of people looking for a job, we have a responsibility to ensure that companies do not use temporary visa programs to replace American workers with cheaper labor from overseas.
Therefore, during the consideration of the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act, we will be offering an amendment that would prohibit companies which have announced mass lay-offs over the past year from hiring guest workers, unless they can prove that their overall employment will not be reduced as a result of these lay-offs.
At a time when millions of Americans are out of work, the notion that we need to import labor from abroad because there are not enough qualified, willing or able American workers in this country rings hollow.
Recently, some of the very companies that have hired tens of thousands of guest-workers from overseas have announced large scale lay-offs of American workers. The high-tech industry, a major employer of H-1B guest workers, has announced over 330,000 job cuts since 2008. The construction industry, a major employer of H-2B guest-workers, has laid-off 1.9 million workers since December of 2007.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, signed into law last February, included a provision to prevent companies receiving assistance through the Troubled Asset Relief Program from replacing laid-off American workers with guest-workers from overseas.
The Employ America Act expands upon this provision to prevent any company engaged in a mass lay-off of American workers from importing cheaper labor from abroad through temporary guest-worker programs. Those companies that are truly facing labor shortages would not be impacted by this legislation and could continue to obtain employer-sponsored visas. Only companies that are laying-off a large number of Americans would be barred from importing foreign workers through guest worker programs.
If you would like to co-sponsor this amendment, please have your staff contact Warren Gunnels in Sen. Sanders� office at 8-6358 or Kathy Nuebel Kovarik in Sen. Grassley's office at 4-3744.
Sincerely
more...
pappu
12-25 06:50 PM
If you create groups on yahoo or google make sure you do not miss out on members that come to this thread for updates on state chapter and wish to join.
rockstart
03-10 03:16 PM
Thank you Saravanaraj that was exactly what I was thinking too but wanted to double check since there were some specific tools mentioned in Column H which I might not use in future. Common sense dictates that it should be similar to the job code and not to those specific tools. I think this will help other in similar boat as well
more...
nk2007
07-18 12:34 PM
Some of you have been concerned about my post regarding the rejection of some applications received on July 2nd. I've been checking and it seems to be true that some cases were sent back that day. Apparently, the number of cases sent back is small, however, so that is good news. And you should have received the case back by now if you're in that group. For everyone else, the way you will likely find that your case is being processed will be if the check is cashed. I would give this a few days and keep checking with the bank to see if the payment has cleared and this will be a lot faster in all likelihood than waiting on a receipt. Obviously, check with your lawyer on this.
2010 Justin Bieber: Never Say
Ramba
07-14 06:01 PM
Consult an attorney because if you applied for I-485 in July 2007 and quit employer in August, you might not be covered under AC21 since 6 months did not pass since adjucation request (I-485) was files with USCIS.
This is aboslutly incorrect. Dont spread false information.
Here is the Q&A in USCIS memo abot changing employer before 180 days
Question 10. Should service centers or district offices deny portability cases on the sole basis that the alien has left his or her employment with the I-140 petitioner prior to the I-485 application pending for 180 days?
Answer: No. The basis for adjustment is not actual (current) employment but prospective employment. Since there is no requirement that the alien have ever been employed by the petitioner while the I-140 and/or I-485 was pending, the fact that an alien left the I-140 petitioner before the I-485 has been pending 180 days will not necessarily render the alien ineligible to port. However, in all cases an offer of employment must have been bona fide. This means that, as of the time the I-140 was filed and at the time of filing the I-485 if not filed concurrently, the I-140 petitioner must have had the intent to employ the beneficiary, and the alien must have intended to undertake the employment, upon adjustment. Adjudicators should not presume absence of such intent and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate
This is aboslutly incorrect. Dont spread false information.
Here is the Q&A in USCIS memo abot changing employer before 180 days
Question 10. Should service centers or district offices deny portability cases on the sole basis that the alien has left his or her employment with the I-140 petitioner prior to the I-485 application pending for 180 days?
Answer: No. The basis for adjustment is not actual (current) employment but prospective employment. Since there is no requirement that the alien have ever been employed by the petitioner while the I-140 and/or I-485 was pending, the fact that an alien left the I-140 petitioner before the I-485 has been pending 180 days will not necessarily render the alien ineligible to port. However, in all cases an offer of employment must have been bona fide. This means that, as of the time the I-140 was filed and at the time of filing the I-485 if not filed concurrently, the I-140 petitioner must have had the intent to employ the beneficiary, and the alien must have intended to undertake the employment, upon adjustment. Adjudicators should not presume absence of such intent and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate
more...
Milind123
06-07 10:52 PM
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/nationalnamecheck.htm
hair Justin Bieber. justin
grinch
02-27 07:14 AM
Aw great work man!
I love it, I'm sure it'll be one of the top renders!
I love it, I'm sure it'll be one of the top renders!
more...
Deaddocus
03-15 07:57 AM
Modern knights, :D *ducks*
hot Here#39;s Justin Bieber at the
zen
04-06 08:55 PM
I know a person who was sent back; IO called the end client to verify his employment and asked if they could hire american worker instead, when the employer said they could, IO sent him back. I think they are only going after H1's working for smaller consulting companies.
You may write it off as a rumor, so be it, but IV needs to step in and take necessary action.
well if the employer is not supporting you ..then maybe the IO does have the authority to refuse ?? (well assuming that these cases are correct ..then I guess we can assume that IO has recd instructions from his superiors) it is good to hear from Pappu that IV is ready to take up this issue ...but till someone comes foward ..can IV focus on other issues like recapture, removal of country limits etc (there is no shortage of issues where focus is needed)
You may write it off as a rumor, so be it, but IV needs to step in and take necessary action.
well if the employer is not supporting you ..then maybe the IO does have the authority to refuse ?? (well assuming that these cases are correct ..then I guess we can assume that IO has recd instructions from his superiors) it is good to hear from Pappu that IV is ready to take up this issue ...but till someone comes foward ..can IV focus on other issues like recapture, removal of country limits etc (there is no shortage of issues where focus is needed)
more...
house Justin Bieber at the Never Say
v7461558
07-16 10:37 PM
Here's another potential way to go. Don't know if anyone has the balls to pursue it, but it may be quite effective.
IRS states "The IRS continues to investigate promoters of frivolous arguments and to refer cases to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution." http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=155289,00.html
Someone (preferably a lawyer) can write a letter to NumbersUSA stating that their widely disseminated template message, item (2), suggests that tax avoidance among H1B's is legal, and in this manner promotes tax avoidance. We can ask them to remove the message, or else we refer them to IRS Compliance and Enforcement.
This is not so far-fetched---note their wording: "Congress allows foreigners..."
IRS states "The IRS continues to investigate promoters of frivolous arguments and to refer cases to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution." http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=155289,00.html
Someone (preferably a lawyer) can write a letter to NumbersUSA stating that their widely disseminated template message, item (2), suggests that tax avoidance among H1B's is legal, and in this manner promotes tax avoidance. We can ask them to remove the message, or else we refer them to IRS Compliance and Enforcement.
This is not so far-fetched---note their wording: "Congress allows foreigners..."
tattoo Justin Bieber#39;s #39;Never Say
varshadas
02-05 08:02 PM
I can accomodate one more at the most. Three people are enough. More than that is a crowd. Hemal and the one other person who can make it, please go through the slide put up under Resources-> Meet the lawmakers drive. We have to prepare before we meet the Congressmen.
Things to do before we meet the Congressmen:
1> Research on Congressmen on his community efforts.
2> Read the slides.
3> Have a meeting between us to discuss what and how we are going to present the material to him.
Hemal, please distribute the flyers to as many people as possible and in whatever locations you can. I will send you an updated copy soon.
Thanks,
Varsha
Things to do before we meet the Congressmen:
1> Research on Congressmen on his community efforts.
2> Read the slides.
3> Have a meeting between us to discuss what and how we are going to present the material to him.
Hemal, please distribute the flyers to as many people as possible and in whatever locations you can. I will send you an updated copy soon.
Thanks,
Varsha
more...
pictures justin bieber never say never
nashim
01-13 02:59 PM
can you please share your views and experiences of Symphony Corp (www.symphony.cc)
dresses Justin Bieber at the Premiere
TexDBoy
09-10 01:20 PM
I just see the eagle ... it should have started already ...
more...
makeup quot;Justin Bieber: Never Say
miapplicant
09-11 11:00 AM
http://www.asianjournal.com/?c=201&a=29863
"In a move to fix America�s broken immigration system, the House Subcommittee on Immigration approved H.R. 5882, a bipartisan legislation introduced by Representatives Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and James Sensenbrenner (R-WI)."
Thanks. Given the various posts on this, I hope this is true true true...:p
"In a move to fix America�s broken immigration system, the House Subcommittee on Immigration approved H.R. 5882, a bipartisan legislation introduced by Representatives Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and James Sensenbrenner (R-WI)."
Thanks. Given the various posts on this, I hope this is true true true...:p
girlfriend Justin Bieber #39;Never Say
virald
07-24 12:05 PM
Virald,
What makes you start another stupid thread?
There are gazillion threads that discussed this issue at length. Already people have discussed this and are planning their plan B and for your kind information, Greg didnot say that all July 2 applications will be rejected.
Don't try to scare people and then try to back it up by saying "I am trying to figure that out too"
srikondoji
I am not trying to scare anyone. For you the thread might be stupid, not for me. Please keep your negative remarks to yourself. Just the fact that people are discussing in this thread invalidate your kind of comments.
Also, my assumption was people come here to discuss issues, when they have doubts. No one is a lawyer here, certainly not me, hence my statement. If you are so scared please do not visit this thread.
Peace.
What makes you start another stupid thread?
There are gazillion threads that discussed this issue at length. Already people have discussed this and are planning their plan B and for your kind information, Greg didnot say that all July 2 applications will be rejected.
Don't try to scare people and then try to back it up by saying "I am trying to figure that out too"
srikondoji
I am not trying to scare anyone. For you the thread might be stupid, not for me. Please keep your negative remarks to yourself. Just the fact that people are discussing in this thread invalidate your kind of comments.
Also, my assumption was people come here to discuss issues, when they have doubts. No one is a lawyer here, certainly not me, hence my statement. If you are so scared please do not visit this thread.
Peace.
hairstyles Justin Bieber#39;s “Never Say
kondur_007
04-10 10:28 AM
Does anyone have numbers for spillover last year category wise? I mean, last year how many EB4, EB5 and EB1 left out visas got spilled over to EB2? Thanks...
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.
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.
karanp25
07-14 06:23 PM
When did u file your application for EAD renewal and which service center? I am not sure why you think EAD renewal triggered this I-485 RFE?
I filed for 485 during July 2007. My 140 was already approved. Due to some problems I quit my employer in August 2007. My previous employer was a desi blood sucker. I was fed up & decided to quit after working for him for 3 years. I applied for H1 transfer with a new employer based on approved 140. I got H1 approval for another 3 years. Currently I am working for the new H1 sponsoring employer. I also received an EAD card based on pending 485 for one year. I didnt notify USICS of job change in July.
I applied for EAD extension this year. The application for EAD extension is pending. I got a following RFE on my 485:
Please state whether or not you are currently working for your I-140 petitioner.
You must submit a currently dated letter from you permanent employer, describing your present job duties & position in the organization, your proferred position (if different from your current one), the date you began employement & the offered salary & wage. The letter must also indicate whether the terms & conditions of your employement based visa petition (or labor certification) continue to exist.
I am not in good terms with my previous employer so I cant ask him for a letter. I can ask my new employer for such a letter.
Will USCIS come to know I quite Employer A before completing 180 days?
Also is it possible that 140 was revoked by my previous employer?
What document should I send to USCIS now?
I filed for 485 during July 2007. My 140 was already approved. Due to some problems I quit my employer in August 2007. My previous employer was a desi blood sucker. I was fed up & decided to quit after working for him for 3 years. I applied for H1 transfer with a new employer based on approved 140. I got H1 approval for another 3 years. Currently I am working for the new H1 sponsoring employer. I also received an EAD card based on pending 485 for one year. I didnt notify USICS of job change in July.
I applied for EAD extension this year. The application for EAD extension is pending. I got a following RFE on my 485:
Please state whether or not you are currently working for your I-140 petitioner.
You must submit a currently dated letter from you permanent employer, describing your present job duties & position in the organization, your proferred position (if different from your current one), the date you began employement & the offered salary & wage. The letter must also indicate whether the terms & conditions of your employement based visa petition (or labor certification) continue to exist.
I am not in good terms with my previous employer so I cant ask him for a letter. I can ask my new employer for such a letter.
Will USCIS come to know I quite Employer A before completing 180 days?
Also is it possible that 140 was revoked by my previous employer?
What document should I send to USCIS now?
ajju
02-20 03:55 PM
Ok guys before you shoot it down heres my calc for EB2 pending apps from 2000 to Dec 2003. Obviously its a rough estimate, who knows how many eb3s switched, labor subs etc etc etc.
From pending apps from 2000 to 2003 dec are about 96. Assume represents 1% of total population so it would be 9600. Each app has about 1.5 dependents so about 15,000? If you assume as lower say 0.5% then number would obviously increase to 29,000.
Ok now shoot me down.
Good calculation... On brighter side.. if I assume being 2%.. the numbers would be 7500.. Hope its enough to clear out with just the extra EB1 quotas in this quarter.. And then, next quarter we see some more progress for EB2 India.. Just a wishful thinking...
From pending apps from 2000 to 2003 dec are about 96. Assume represents 1% of total population so it would be 9600. Each app has about 1.5 dependents so about 15,000? If you assume as lower say 0.5% then number would obviously increase to 29,000.
Ok now shoot me down.
Good calculation... On brighter side.. if I assume being 2%.. the numbers would be 7500.. Hope its enough to clear out with just the extra EB1 quotas in this quarter.. And then, next quarter we see some more progress for EB2 India.. Just a wishful thinking...
No comments:
Post a Comment