new2gc
03-10 11:40 PM
You and I understand that we are already employed. Please check the Number USA site and tell me what common american people thinks about this.
yes, on CNN, Anericanworkforce.org are showing ad saying every year US govt is importing 1.5Million foreign workers.... I wonder where did they got that number.:confused:
yes, on CNN, Anericanworkforce.org are showing ad saying every year US govt is importing 1.5Million foreign workers.... I wonder where did they got that number.:confused:
wallpaper dibujos de amor romanticos.
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.
frostrated
07-13 08:37 AM
Do any of you think that the dates will move forward next month? Looking at the backlog numbers published by USCIS, I think they moved as far as they could to make use of all the available visas. I am thinking that the move next month might be only a few days or a month at the max. USCIS mentioned last month that we could expect the dates to be March/April 06 at the end of this fiscal year. Will this mean that EB2I will hold out at March / April 06 for the next fiscal year?
2011 Dibujos de amor, pinta y
hara_patta_for_rico
07-09 07:05 PM
I came across this law about the departmental control of numerical limitations, and I'd appreciate it if you all could post your interpretations of the same.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
Clause B is not the only thing. In any quarter they are not supposed to issue any more than 27% of 140,000(100%) = 37800. according to Clause A. After June 15th they issued 140,000 - 66000 = 74000. What about the last quarter quota of 37800? Where did it go? It was not supposed to be used before July.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
Clause B is not the only thing. In any quarter they are not supposed to issue any more than 27% of 140,000(100%) = 37800. according to Clause A. After June 15th they issued 140,000 - 66000 = 74000. What about the last quarter quota of 37800? Where did it go? It was not supposed to be used before July.
more...
skark
03-21 05:31 PM
Well, if the poll results is in anyway reflecting real numbers out there with pre 2003 EB3-India applicants being in substantial numbers, then its gonna be a loooong wait for PD to even reach mid to late 2003! Hope its not like that and the "PD seniors" were more active in the poll than the "newcomers"!
Either way we'll know very soon! *^$%&*$^&%# Just venting my frustration...
Either way we'll know very soon! *^$%&*$^&%# Just venting my frustration...
ZigZag
07-13 03:28 PM
See the attachment which I had come across in this forum and saved it
Hope this is helpful.
Hope this is helpful.
more...
Asian
12-27 09:34 AM
I could open Ohio college fund for my kid. They requested my child's social security number. ITIN does not work. I explained the situation that I cannot obtain one until GC. The customer service rep said it is okay to open without it but provide the SSN once acquired.
I think the biggest problem with the restriction is when trying to get a job. Many employers openly say they will not sponsor H-1B or green card. To be more precise, there are few companies who would do it.
You mean 529? Thanks of telling. I was planning to open an account for my kid's college.
Are you sure they wont let you open an account even if the kid is american citizen by birth?
I think the biggest problem with the restriction is when trying to get a job. Many employers openly say they will not sponsor H-1B or green card. To be more precise, there are few companies who would do it.
You mean 529? Thanks of telling. I was planning to open an account for my kid's college.
Are you sure they wont let you open an account even if the kid is american citizen by birth?
2010 dibujos de amor romanticos
thakkarbhav
08-10 02:47 PM
I understand your logic. No fight for EB2 or EB3 - final goal is the same. The logic of this thread is abosolutely correct. EB3 is waiting on 2002 and EB2 Progressing.....There should be balance based on each individual Year. I have other friends who are EB2 and I know they also support so can bring them in once we have anything concrete. I want BIG rally like 9/18 in DC. We never did anything after it so IV should plan for BIG rally to support EB3 and I think EB2 will be taken care automatically.
more...
EB3_SEP04
05-26 06:33 PM
I lost you there. Being silent and possibly getting arrested is protesting in a legal manner ? Why would you do that ? There are numerous other means of doing it.
Being within 100 miles of the border ITSELF is grounds for being asked the question about your immigration status as per that law. There need not be additional suspicious activity.
Do not get me wrong, I fully agree with you on how bad it is to be subjected to such trauma. Suggesting being silent at the cost of being arrested is what bothered me from your post.
I am not sure if they asking me to step out for further questioning or even taking me to a police station would be consiered an arrest. i mean i don't think the event will be recordded in my history/profile in such a way that anyone reviewing my history will say "eb3_sep04 was arrested in NH in May 2009 for ....". I think detention is not same as arrrest, i view detention is something like cops requiring anyone wait reseonably longer (> an hour or so). they wouldn't handcuff me for not saying a word. Again these are just my thoughts, i am not an expert on those jargens.
Being within 100 miles of the border ITSELF is grounds for being asked the question about your immigration status as per that law. There need not be additional suspicious activity.
Do not get me wrong, I fully agree with you on how bad it is to be subjected to such trauma. Suggesting being silent at the cost of being arrested is what bothered me from your post.
I am not sure if they asking me to step out for further questioning or even taking me to a police station would be consiered an arrest. i mean i don't think the event will be recordded in my history/profile in such a way that anyone reviewing my history will say "eb3_sep04 was arrested in NH in May 2009 for ....". I think detention is not same as arrrest, i view detention is something like cops requiring anyone wait reseonably longer (> an hour or so). they wouldn't handcuff me for not saying a word. Again these are just my thoughts, i am not an expert on those jargens.
hair dibujos de amor romanticos.
pitha
06-12 02:37 PM
house is 100 times more conservative than senate (does not matter if it is democratic controlled house and republican controlled house). If you think house is going to give us EB immigrants a break then you are completely off base. For every kyl, durbin and Kennedy in senate you will have three times more kyl, durbin and Kennedy in the house. House will take the senate bill and make some adjustments to it and not modifications. This bill cannot be repaired by amendments it is fundamentally flawed for us.whatever passes from the senate is the final bill, house will either reject it or rubber stamp it.
It looks like without H1b restrictions you may not get anything. That is mood in the Senate. If CIR is not coming what is your idea? Skill bill seperately is difficult if not impossible. Last minute they may increase H1b for a few years(But last minute increase of GC is impossible. You might have learned lesson on last lame duck session and February 2007) that will further screw up Gc waiting persons.If CIR comes you can have a chance of some favorable amendment in House if not happens in Senate. Also if you oppose CIR you are joining with your enemy and you have risk of losing crediblity. Compete America does not oppose CIR and they are opposing some portions and trying Amendments and they did not advice to any Senator to oppose the bill
It looks like without H1b restrictions you may not get anything. That is mood in the Senate. If CIR is not coming what is your idea? Skill bill seperately is difficult if not impossible. Last minute they may increase H1b for a few years(But last minute increase of GC is impossible. You might have learned lesson on last lame duck session and February 2007) that will further screw up Gc waiting persons.If CIR comes you can have a chance of some favorable amendment in House if not happens in Senate. Also if you oppose CIR you are joining with your enemy and you have risk of losing crediblity. Compete America does not oppose CIR and they are opposing some portions and trying Amendments and they did not advice to any Senator to oppose the bill
more...
potatoeater
05-26 04:36 PM
I-94 is a complete proof of your immigration status in the US.
carrying your gc is understandable, its just a card like your license.
But expecting folks to carry their immigration papers all the time, even when they haven't travelled abroad is a bit too much. As long as i have my license or state id with me, it should suffice.
This is just a classic case of harassing immigrants.
carrying your gc is understandable, its just a card like your license.
But expecting folks to carry their immigration papers all the time, even when they haven't travelled abroad is a bit too much. As long as i have my license or state id with me, it should suffice.
This is just a classic case of harassing immigrants.
hot Ninio Romantico. Amor
eb3India
07-01 10:26 PM
Hi guys techmia just created his ID and he must be from other side of the aile who just want see us as failure, please ignore these post and keep faith, remeber always we are legal and we follow law, this land is suppose to be land of law and no one is above it. if there is in justicse IV should fight with out fear, our strength is in our integrity and faith that we did;nt anything wrong and we should not be afraid of anything
more...
house dibujos de amor romanticos. dibujos de amor romanticos. dibujos de amor
Saralayar
07-13 10:37 AM
Hi,
All of us are here in US only for $$$$ and nothing else. For what reason you left your country and begging here for GC?. It is all $$$. All Attorneys charge $$$ for even sending you an email reply. Don't blame Murthy alone.:cool:
All of us are here in US only for $$$$ and nothing else. For what reason you left your country and begging here for GC?. It is all $$$. All Attorneys charge $$$ for even sending you an email reply. Don't blame Murthy alone.:cool:
tattoo 2011 dibujos de amor
ItIsNotFunny
10-17 02:38 PM
What did we achieve? Didn't come out with common agenda!
more...
pictures Imagenes romanticas ,de amor
kedrex
07-18 08:02 PM
bump it up - this is way too important!
dresses Ninio Romantico
GCStatus
09-18 12:20 AM
I will take it easy if you weren't intentionally insulting.
Woohoo, we have a winner
Woohoo, we have a winner
more...
makeup Imagenes de amor romanticas
techskill
09-18 12:28 PM
Then we shud ask him what are the fundametals of the economy.Because once he said he doesnt know anything abt economy.
girlfriend Imagenes de Amor, Romanticas,
amitjoey
01-18 05:26 PM
Thanks Pappu :D (Pappu, left a PM, pl reply. Wouldn't mind if you don't come back , you are busy. Thanks)
Several hundred members ... only about 50 posts !!
That's true, once it is posted on a web site, most likely many members of that site will come read the thread. How many will read, will go on increasing each day, east posting.
Extraordinary effort perm2gc and others, please keep it up !!
Members , give it a thought ... give a free gift, more the members ...best our efforts.
Thanks to all of you who are helping with this effort. 57 new members in the last 2 days and another 100 new last week. It has been very effective.
Several hundred members ... only about 50 posts !!
That's true, once it is posted on a web site, most likely many members of that site will come read the thread. How many will read, will go on increasing each day, east posting.
Extraordinary effort perm2gc and others, please keep it up !!
Members , give it a thought ... give a free gift, more the members ...best our efforts.
Thanks to all of you who are helping with this effort. 57 new members in the last 2 days and another 100 new last week. It has been very effective.
hairstyles dibujos de amor romanticos.
walking_dude
10-28 11:46 PM
I sent mine. Did you send yours?
vandanaverdia
09-10 04:00 PM
Yaaaayyyyyyyy....:D:D:p:)
kate123
02-04 11:28 AM
well said.
Some questions to those who are supporting country cap.
Why not put a country cap on foreign students’ visas since many of them get into the green card line eventually?
Why not put a country cap on H1B visas since many of them get into the green card line eventually?
Why not put a country cap on labor certifications?
Why not put a country cap on I-140s?
Why not impose a country cap at the port of entry?
Why not put a country cap on visitors’ visas?
Why not put a country cap on business visas?
Why not put a country cap on US trade with other countries?
Why not put a country cap on amount of US $ reserves that each country can have?
Why not put a country cap on children that foreigners in the US can bear?
Why not put a country cap on the foreigners’ earnings in the US?
.
.
.
And the list can go on.
Putting country cap on greens cards serves a hidden racist agenda of not letting the people of one particular ethnic group grow in number and become strong.
Some questions to those who are supporting country cap.
Why not put a country cap on foreign students’ visas since many of them get into the green card line eventually?
Why not put a country cap on H1B visas since many of them get into the green card line eventually?
Why not put a country cap on labor certifications?
Why not put a country cap on I-140s?
Why not impose a country cap at the port of entry?
Why not put a country cap on visitors’ visas?
Why not put a country cap on business visas?
Why not put a country cap on US trade with other countries?
Why not put a country cap on amount of US $ reserves that each country can have?
Why not put a country cap on children that foreigners in the US can bear?
Why not put a country cap on the foreigners’ earnings in the US?
.
.
.
And the list can go on.
Putting country cap on greens cards serves a hidden racist agenda of not letting the people of one particular ethnic group grow in number and become strong.