perseus
07-17 01:04 AM
here is a brief account of my, and my spouse's, arduous but successful journey toward the coveted green cards. i hope this account helps you somehow.
(note: what you read below is all of what i am willing to share. i have spent a lot of time in typing it. i will not have the time or inclination for any elaborations or explanations!)
1. landed in the united states on f-1 visa -- september 2000.
2. arrested on misdemeanor shoplifting charge after prank went awry -- june 2001; judge dropped charge in july 2001 and also sealed and expunged the record.
3. changed from f-1 to h-1b upon accepting job offer from employer A, via about two months of c.p.t. in september 2003 (never used o.p.t.)
4. obtained labor certification in may 2004, and approval of i-140 (via eb-2) in march 2005, both via employer A. (priority date was, hence, may 2004).
5. got married in home country in june 2006; spouse landed in the united states on h-4 in november 2006.
6. graduated with advanced degree (and high academic honors) in december 2006.
7. transferred h-1b from employer A to employer B in september 2007; abandoned employer A's i-140 approval.
8. spouse, who had been on h-4 since november 2006, changed to f-1 in september 2007 to pursue advanced degree; spouse graduated in may 2009.
9. arrested in april 2008 for driving while visually impaired; convicted and punished by judge with three-month driving probation and fine.
10. obtained new labor certification in march 2008 and obtained new i-140 approval (again via eb-2) in september 2008; both via employer B.
11. mailed i-485s for self and spouse in october 2008; did not realize while mailing that the priority date had recently retrogressed (had no attorney assistance); but uscis accepted petitions, cashed checks, and processed the i-485s by sending self and spouse biometric appointments and an r.f.e. (for spouse).
12. transferred h-1b again, from employer B to employer C, in june 2009, more than 180 days after i-485s had been pending; spouse simultaneously applied for change of status from f-1 to h-4.
13. self and spouse invited for i-485 interviews in october 2009 based on self's i-140 approval obtained through employer B; i-485 petitions denied because priority date had not been current when filed; self and spouse shocked and in near-panic! self began to consider restarting green card process from i-140 stage, this time via eb-1.
14. h-1b extended in december 2010 for a year, via employer C's petition; at time of extension approval, self's original six years on h-1b had elapsed.
15. re-filed i-485s in january 2010, this time with attorney's help (mainly to write cover letter).
16. self and spouse invited for i-485 interviews again in june 2010, based on second i-485 petitions (based on self's i-140 approval obtained via employer B, even though at this time self was with employer C with previously denied -- for a technicality -- i-485s); i-485 petitions approved at the interview -- jai siyaram!
17. self and spouse received approval notices and "card production ordered" emails, all dated 13 days after interview.
18. received green cards and "welcome to the united states" fliers, both in july 2010, 29 days after i-485 interviews -- jai shri krishna!
notes in conclusion:
1. the green card process via employment, from h-1b through i-485, with possible multiple approvals/denials of each, is daunting due to the time and expense involved (including possible cost of attorney)
2. uscis's emphasis on technicalities can be frustrating; in our experience, approval of a i-485 is ultimately a discretion exercised by a single reviewing officer.
3. overall, applicant and any spouse/kids (a) must have maintained legal status throughout the h1b through i-485 process, and (b) must never have been convicted of felonious assault or moral turpitude.
4. in the end, applicant would find that the immigration system works, slow though it is because of congressional quotas and a somewhat slothful or myopic uscis.
5. i offer my best wishes to all that are reading this, regardless of citizenship. as a proud (and relieved!) new permanent resident of the united states, i say to you, "good luck and an advance welcome!"
reminder: what you read above is all of what i am willing to share. i spent a lot of time in typing it. i won't have the time or inclination for elaborations or explanations but, most sincerely, i wish you well!
(note: what you read below is all of what i am willing to share. i have spent a lot of time in typing it. i will not have the time or inclination for any elaborations or explanations!)
1. landed in the united states on f-1 visa -- september 2000.
2. arrested on misdemeanor shoplifting charge after prank went awry -- june 2001; judge dropped charge in july 2001 and also sealed and expunged the record.
3. changed from f-1 to h-1b upon accepting job offer from employer A, via about two months of c.p.t. in september 2003 (never used o.p.t.)
4. obtained labor certification in may 2004, and approval of i-140 (via eb-2) in march 2005, both via employer A. (priority date was, hence, may 2004).
5. got married in home country in june 2006; spouse landed in the united states on h-4 in november 2006.
6. graduated with advanced degree (and high academic honors) in december 2006.
7. transferred h-1b from employer A to employer B in september 2007; abandoned employer A's i-140 approval.
8. spouse, who had been on h-4 since november 2006, changed to f-1 in september 2007 to pursue advanced degree; spouse graduated in may 2009.
9. arrested in april 2008 for driving while visually impaired; convicted and punished by judge with three-month driving probation and fine.
10. obtained new labor certification in march 2008 and obtained new i-140 approval (again via eb-2) in september 2008; both via employer B.
11. mailed i-485s for self and spouse in october 2008; did not realize while mailing that the priority date had recently retrogressed (had no attorney assistance); but uscis accepted petitions, cashed checks, and processed the i-485s by sending self and spouse biometric appointments and an r.f.e. (for spouse).
12. transferred h-1b again, from employer B to employer C, in june 2009, more than 180 days after i-485s had been pending; spouse simultaneously applied for change of status from f-1 to h-4.
13. self and spouse invited for i-485 interviews in october 2009 based on self's i-140 approval obtained through employer B; i-485 petitions denied because priority date had not been current when filed; self and spouse shocked and in near-panic! self began to consider restarting green card process from i-140 stage, this time via eb-1.
14. h-1b extended in december 2010 for a year, via employer C's petition; at time of extension approval, self's original six years on h-1b had elapsed.
15. re-filed i-485s in january 2010, this time with attorney's help (mainly to write cover letter).
16. self and spouse invited for i-485 interviews again in june 2010, based on second i-485 petitions (based on self's i-140 approval obtained via employer B, even though at this time self was with employer C with previously denied -- for a technicality -- i-485s); i-485 petitions approved at the interview -- jai siyaram!
17. self and spouse received approval notices and "card production ordered" emails, all dated 13 days after interview.
18. received green cards and "welcome to the united states" fliers, both in july 2010, 29 days after i-485 interviews -- jai shri krishna!
notes in conclusion:
1. the green card process via employment, from h-1b through i-485, with possible multiple approvals/denials of each, is daunting due to the time and expense involved (including possible cost of attorney)
2. uscis's emphasis on technicalities can be frustrating; in our experience, approval of a i-485 is ultimately a discretion exercised by a single reviewing officer.
3. overall, applicant and any spouse/kids (a) must have maintained legal status throughout the h1b through i-485 process, and (b) must never have been convicted of felonious assault or moral turpitude.
4. in the end, applicant would find that the immigration system works, slow though it is because of congressional quotas and a somewhat slothful or myopic uscis.
5. i offer my best wishes to all that are reading this, regardless of citizenship. as a proud (and relieved!) new permanent resident of the united states, i say to you, "good luck and an advance welcome!"
reminder: what you read above is all of what i am willing to share. i spent a lot of time in typing it. i won't have the time or inclination for elaborations or explanations but, most sincerely, i wish you well!
wallpaper Линк : Seal - Discography
485Mbe4001
12-17 06:20 PM
Look at the EB3 dates for Mexico for the last 4-6 months, they were all beyond april 2001 and still stuck for 4 months with little movement. Most people think that April 2001 sounds like a beacon of hope or a major hurdle after which things will be normal and we will start getting the GCs, i dont know how you can say EB3 moved fast, and for desis its a long long wait.
Now the biggest hurdle of Apr 30, 2001 is crossed. I am sure that not many people has filed between Sep 2001 and February 2002. Also if you look into PD for China and Phillipines, the dates moved very fast after June 2001. Lot of people applied in late 2002 and early 2003. My guess would be that it will take about 3 to 4 years to clear all the backlogs of 2003. For 2004 it may be over 5 years.
Now the biggest hurdle of Apr 30, 2001 is crossed. I am sure that not many people has filed between Sep 2001 and February 2002. Also if you look into PD for China and Phillipines, the dates moved very fast after June 2001. Lot of people applied in late 2002 and early 2003. My guess would be that it will take about 3 to 4 years to clear all the backlogs of 2003. For 2004 it may be over 5 years.
Pankaj
10-29 03:16 PM
When you would go for interview correct it by hand in the form. It would fine.
These kinds of mistakes are normal.
These kinds of mistakes are normal.
2011 seal and
Catherine
06-23 09:46 AM
The link and article are a little confusing in that they say that divorce does not affect immigration status once a green card has been issued. This is not always correct. I have a green card but it has conditions, i.e. an expiration date. This is what married couples have to apply to have removed after two years (actually in a 90 day window prior to the two year anniversary of receiving the card).
If you divorce prior to that date, you will be unable to file jointly (or at least, technically you shouldn't, though I've heard of some couples that may have done so as their relationship is still amicable) to have the conditions removed and attain unconditional residency.
Thus, you could have a green card (with conditions) and divorce WOULD affect your immigration status. As per the article, you would need then to file a waiver to have the conditions removed and keep your green card past its expiration date.
Hope that helps someone.
If you divorce prior to that date, you will be unable to file jointly (or at least, technically you shouldn't, though I've heard of some couples that may have done so as their relationship is still amicable) to have the conditions removed and attain unconditional residency.
Thus, you could have a green card (with conditions) and divorce WOULD affect your immigration status. As per the article, you would need then to file a waiver to have the conditions removed and keep your green card past its expiration date.
Hope that helps someone.
more...
Jerrome
05-21 04:11 PM
I have received RFE for my spouse, I have not received the details yet, but need to clarify the following(i am in touch with my attorney also).
We applied for her H1 in 2007 April, it got approved on September 2007.
We also applied 485 in July 2007 so she did not join the H1b Company on September 2007.
We applied COS to H4 on February 2008 but she started working on EAD from March 2008 onwards, she is still working on EAD.
Her H4 approved on November 2008(but i was no more in H1).
I think my wife's status is AOS from July 2007 onwards is that correct? Or is this a problem?
We applied for her H1 in 2007 April, it got approved on September 2007.
We also applied 485 in July 2007 so she did not join the H1b Company on September 2007.
We applied COS to H4 on February 2008 but she started working on EAD from March 2008 onwards, she is still working on EAD.
Her H4 approved on November 2008(but i was no more in H1).
I think my wife's status is AOS from July 2007 onwards is that correct? Or is this a problem?
pappu
12-16 01:25 PM
There is a possible solution to this. I do not wish to post it as everyone may try to misuse that route and thus block the avenue for deserving people. If you have been denied, you can contact IV.
more...
yjprakash
10-11 05:42 PM
I applied for EAD renewal on 07/15. and on sept 30 I called Customer service and yesterday I got a letter that say
"Our records indicate your application for employment authorization document was mailed on August 19, 2008. please check with local post office."
I dont understand what it means because it says they mailed my "application for EAD". It should be like "approval" or some thing like that right?
My online status & customer service automated system says that it was in processing. I dont understand this.
I am going to call Customer service again tomorrow.If any body knows what above sentence means please let me know.
btw, My wife EAD was approved on Aug 15th. She also applied same day.
"Our records indicate your application for employment authorization document was mailed on August 19, 2008. please check with local post office."
I dont understand what it means because it says they mailed my "application for EAD". It should be like "approval" or some thing like that right?
My online status & customer service automated system says that it was in processing. I dont understand this.
I am going to call Customer service again tomorrow.If any body knows what above sentence means please let me know.
btw, My wife EAD was approved on Aug 15th. She also applied same day.
2010 Facts about the Harbor Seal
kevinkris
08-06 01:57 PM
Is it a big blow for desi consulting firms??
US raises H-1B, L1 visa fee by $2000
Washington: The US Senate today approved a substantial increase in application fees for H-1B and L1 visas, most sought after by Indian IT professionals to fund a $ 600 million emergency package to improve security along the porous Mexican border.
The proposed massive increase in H-1B and L1 visa application fee would primarily affect the top Indian IT companies who rely majorly on these categories of visas to continue with their work in the US. The Senate measure increases the visa fee to $ 2,000 per application on those companies that have less than 50 percent of their employees as American citizens.
"I prefer our source, which is from these companies which are not, as I say they are companies whose whole purpose is to bring people in on H-1B and the vast majority of them from other countries who go back to the other countries. That is a better funding source," Senator Charles Schumer from New York said in his remarks on the Senate floor.
Schumer along with his other democratic colleagues including Senator Claire McCaskill has introduced the legislation in this regard, which was passed by unanimous consent. During the debate, however, Senator John McCain wanted to fund the security along the Mexican border with the stimulus money, which was turned down by Schumer.
"The bottom line is this. I like the H-1B programme, and I think it does a lot of good for a lot of American companies. In fact, in the immigration proposal I made, along with Senator Reid and Senator Menendez, as well as the outline with Senator Graham, we expand H-1B in a variety of ways," Schumer argued.
"There is a part of H-1B that is abused, and it is by companies that are not American companies or even companies that are making something. Rather, they are companies that take foreign folks, bring them here, and then they stay here for a few years, learn their expertise, and go back. We think we should increase the fees when they do that," the Senator said.
Rejecting McCain's proposal to get the funding from the stimulus money, Schumer said: "I hope, even though I cannot accept these amendments, that maybe we could come together on something that we could bring back in September because I do believe we have to secure the border."
Schumer said: "Even in the comprehensive proposal that we made, we said we have to secure the border and do other things as well. It is my belief that securing the border alone will not solve our immigration problems; that until we have comprehensive reform, particularly in making sure employers do not hire illegal immigrants which they now do, even though they do not know they are illegal immigrants because documents are so easily forged, that we have to do comprehensive. But we should do the border. To say we have to do comprehensive does not gainsay that we have to work on theborder and work on it quickly and soon."
It is not clear yet, if this increase would also apply only to those firms that are also H-1B-dependent.
US raises H-1B, L1 visa fee by $2000
Washington: The US Senate today approved a substantial increase in application fees for H-1B and L1 visas, most sought after by Indian IT professionals to fund a $ 600 million emergency package to improve security along the porous Mexican border.
The proposed massive increase in H-1B and L1 visa application fee would primarily affect the top Indian IT companies who rely majorly on these categories of visas to continue with their work in the US. The Senate measure increases the visa fee to $ 2,000 per application on those companies that have less than 50 percent of their employees as American citizens.
"I prefer our source, which is from these companies which are not, as I say they are companies whose whole purpose is to bring people in on H-1B and the vast majority of them from other countries who go back to the other countries. That is a better funding source," Senator Charles Schumer from New York said in his remarks on the Senate floor.
Schumer along with his other democratic colleagues including Senator Claire McCaskill has introduced the legislation in this regard, which was passed by unanimous consent. During the debate, however, Senator John McCain wanted to fund the security along the Mexican border with the stimulus money, which was turned down by Schumer.
"The bottom line is this. I like the H-1B programme, and I think it does a lot of good for a lot of American companies. In fact, in the immigration proposal I made, along with Senator Reid and Senator Menendez, as well as the outline with Senator Graham, we expand H-1B in a variety of ways," Schumer argued.
"There is a part of H-1B that is abused, and it is by companies that are not American companies or even companies that are making something. Rather, they are companies that take foreign folks, bring them here, and then they stay here for a few years, learn their expertise, and go back. We think we should increase the fees when they do that," the Senator said.
Rejecting McCain's proposal to get the funding from the stimulus money, Schumer said: "I hope, even though I cannot accept these amendments, that maybe we could come together on something that we could bring back in September because I do believe we have to secure the border."
Schumer said: "Even in the comprehensive proposal that we made, we said we have to secure the border and do other things as well. It is my belief that securing the border alone will not solve our immigration problems; that until we have comprehensive reform, particularly in making sure employers do not hire illegal immigrants which they now do, even though they do not know they are illegal immigrants because documents are so easily forged, that we have to do comprehensive. But we should do the border. To say we have to do comprehensive does not gainsay that we have to work on theborder and work on it quickly and soon."
It is not clear yet, if this increase would also apply only to those firms that are also H-1B-dependent.
more...
Leo
07-16 09:48 AM
sounds great to me :)
hair Leopard seal 6.
franklin
06-22 08:24 PM
Your choice - you can follow the instructions sent by UCSIS and hope for a smooth processing of I 485, or ignore the instructions and be sure to have delays
more...
xtronics
07-07 01:57 PM
gultie,
what sector are you in? IT/ Engg.?
is it for a consulting company? If so, Desi?
I heard they are scrutinizing desi consulting companies meticulously
I will be filing for my extension within the next few weeks
what sector are you in? IT/ Engg.?
is it for a consulting company? If so, Desi?
I heard they are scrutinizing desi consulting companies meticulously
I will be filing for my extension within the next few weeks
hot seal
rani77
10-09 09:29 AM
situation is quite different from CA. True, for first time driver's license, you have to show legal status proof. But, you are issued license for 4 years, irrespective of when your current status expires.
For DL renewal in CA, it happens by mail. You once again get 4 year license. No status proof required.
There is definitely no concept of different form of DL in CA where an officer will be able to receogize from the DL, whether is PR or not, as has become the law in Texas.
CA is quite cool with respect to DL renewals.
This was in past not now.
For DL renewal in CA, it happens by mail. You once again get 4 year license. No status proof required.
There is definitely no concept of different form of DL in CA where an officer will be able to receogize from the DL, whether is PR or not, as has become the law in Texas.
CA is quite cool with respect to DL renewals.
This was in past not now.
more...
house And by seal, I don#39;t mean
pd_recapturing
11-05 08:11 PM
This might be a serious issue. Take an infopass and dig it. Did you use AC21 by any chance?
tattoo Harbor seal on a rock next to
Macaca
07-11 06:28 PM
the bay area.
- SFSU
- SJSU
Most F1's are not realizing that they will NOT get GC without legislative changes. They need to be educated, if it is possible, about this FACT. I know that I, and most of my friends, would have been UNeducatable.
- SFSU
- SJSU
Most F1's are not realizing that they will NOT get GC without legislative changes. They need to be educated, if it is possible, about this FACT. I know that I, and most of my friends, would have been UNeducatable.
more...
pictures Tech Profile of Seal
roseball
03-29 08:31 PM
This is definitely good news for people who are in PERM stage but this also means fewer spill overs since all ROW EB-2 who were waiting for PERM will now file 485
In addition, with the economy picking up, I believe there will be a lot more people who will be porting their old EB-3 I PDs by starting a new Eb-2 case....effectively consuming more EB-2 I numbers but with no forward PD movement.
In addition, with the economy picking up, I believe there will be a lot more people who will be porting their old EB-3 I PDs by starting a new Eb-2 case....effectively consuming more EB-2 I numbers but with no forward PD movement.
dresses Seal
casinoroyale
09-04 03:23 PM
Sorry for a kind of lame question. I have H1B visa appt on Sep 22nd in Canada, if I get the visa, I have to pickup the passport nextday 3pm and fly that evening, but If I get 221g I would like to take the passport back in the interview and return back on the same day using AP.
Given this situation, what is the best way to book the flight? I am not going by road.
Given this situation, what is the best way to book the flight? I am not going by road.
more...
makeup Snow Seal Print at Art.com
prom2
10-22 07:47 PM
Opening this new thread due admin closed the other one.
Lets track June 07 filers.
Good luck !
TSC Jun 25
Waiting AP and GC.
Lets track June 07 filers.
Good luck !
TSC Jun 25
Waiting AP and GC.
girlfriend house heidi-klum-seal-lou-
FinalGC
05-01 11:05 AM
singhsa3:
You are missing one important point......You are trying to move the way state and federal govt works. State govt work environment is very similar to Indian or Chinese Govt....Logic and ethusiasm to change is missing here....
You have to work for State Govt to know this fact. The only way you can get them to do stuff, is being at a Director level job in the USCIS or perhaps lobbying with Congressmen. They only understand laws and policies.
Anyway I do not want to discourage you......Keep up the enthusiam dude!!!
What you may want to do is, write to the NEW Director, with your proposal and also send a copy to all the senators who have recently proposed new EB related immigration bills. This might make an impact...
You are missing one important point......You are trying to move the way state and federal govt works. State govt work environment is very similar to Indian or Chinese Govt....Logic and ethusiasm to change is missing here....
You have to work for State Govt to know this fact. The only way you can get them to do stuff, is being at a Director level job in the USCIS or perhaps lobbying with Congressmen. They only understand laws and policies.
Anyway I do not want to discourage you......Keep up the enthusiam dude!!!
What you may want to do is, write to the NEW Director, with your proposal and also send a copy to all the senators who have recently proposed new EB related immigration bills. This might make an impact...
hairstyles Heidi Klum and Seal Mix
trueguy
08-11 10:57 AM
please add year 05, 06, 07 and 08 too.
Please vote here for cases with PD of Jan 2004 onwards:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20797
Thanks.
Please vote here for cases with PD of Jan 2004 onwards:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20797
Thanks.
rongha_2000
04-30 05:24 PM
Its kind of an interesting thought process, but I am curious why do you assume that NON-Perm cases will be very few? And also forgive me for being negative here but you are "assuming" all those parameters which are critical to the decision making process. This is a very interesting approach and if we can get real data to back this up, then nothing like it. (BEC cases will be a big factor in this calculation)
All,
I am planning to write a letter to USCIS and DOS , suggesting the visa cut off dates for India. Kindly critique it. I will send this letter over the weekend and also post over here.
The rational are as follows (Of course , I will word them properly).
I have grouped applicants in the following groups
BEC, PERM ROW and PERM Non Row Countries. I then will estimate the visa usage by each categories using sources like FLCdata and DHS publications. Along the way I will make some assumption but the results should be realistic.
Fact 1: Per DOL , As of April'06 50K BEC labors were certified. Certification rates were 50% of labor processed (certified, denied or withdrawn).
Fact 2: Per DOL, as of Sep'07 362,000 BEC labor were processed (certified, denied or withdrawn).
Fact 3: Per DHS, total EB (2, 3, 4 and 5 only) visas issued in FY’07 were 135,479 and FY’06 was 122,121.
Fact 4: FLC data center indicates that between March’05 and Oct’05, ~6000 PERM applications were filled and certified.
Fact 5: Per FLC data , 46,340 ROW PERM applications were certified in FY’06 and 47, 251 ROW applications were certified in FY’07.
Assumption 1: Based on Fact 1, let us assume for FY’06 50K Eb2 and Eb3 visas were used for the people stuck in BEC.
Assumption 2: Based on Fact 1 and Fact 2, let us assumed that in total 200,000 labors were certified between March'05 and Sep'07 by BEC.
Assumption 3: The visa backlog is not an issue for the ROW countries. In other words, their dates could be made current.
Assumption 4: NIW applications are negligible
Assumption 5: Based on Fact 1 and Fact 3, let us assume in BEC accounted for 50K visa in FY’07.
Assumption 6: 50% of visas are used by retrogressed countries.
Calculation 1: BEC visa used in FY’06 = 122,121- 6,000 – 46,340 = 69,781
Calculation 2: BEC people remaining as on 10/01/2006 = 200,000-69,781-50,000= 80,219
Calculation 3: BEC people remaining as on 10/01/2007: Since total visas issued in FY07 > (47,251 + 80,219) therefore negligible. Also, assume that balance 8,000 application went to NIW.
So in other words, the dates in any case has to be greater than 10/01/2005 for the retrogressed countries. For the simple reason that Non-Perm cases would very few.
All,
I am planning to write a letter to USCIS and DOS , suggesting the visa cut off dates for India. Kindly critique it. I will send this letter over the weekend and also post over here.
The rational are as follows (Of course , I will word them properly).
I have grouped applicants in the following groups
BEC, PERM ROW and PERM Non Row Countries. I then will estimate the visa usage by each categories using sources like FLCdata and DHS publications. Along the way I will make some assumption but the results should be realistic.
Fact 1: Per DOL , As of April'06 50K BEC labors were certified. Certification rates were 50% of labor processed (certified, denied or withdrawn).
Fact 2: Per DOL, as of Sep'07 362,000 BEC labor were processed (certified, denied or withdrawn).
Fact 3: Per DHS, total EB (2, 3, 4 and 5 only) visas issued in FY’07 were 135,479 and FY’06 was 122,121.
Fact 4: FLC data center indicates that between March’05 and Oct’05, ~6000 PERM applications were filled and certified.
Fact 5: Per FLC data , 46,340 ROW PERM applications were certified in FY’06 and 47, 251 ROW applications were certified in FY’07.
Assumption 1: Based on Fact 1, let us assume for FY’06 50K Eb2 and Eb3 visas were used for the people stuck in BEC.
Assumption 2: Based on Fact 1 and Fact 2, let us assumed that in total 200,000 labors were certified between March'05 and Sep'07 by BEC.
Assumption 3: The visa backlog is not an issue for the ROW countries. In other words, their dates could be made current.
Assumption 4: NIW applications are negligible
Assumption 5: Based on Fact 1 and Fact 3, let us assume in BEC accounted for 50K visa in FY’07.
Assumption 6: 50% of visas are used by retrogressed countries.
Calculation 1: BEC visa used in FY’06 = 122,121- 6,000 – 46,340 = 69,781
Calculation 2: BEC people remaining as on 10/01/2006 = 200,000-69,781-50,000= 80,219
Calculation 3: BEC people remaining as on 10/01/2007: Since total visas issued in FY07 > (47,251 + 80,219) therefore negligible. Also, assume that balance 8,000 application went to NIW.
So in other words, the dates in any case has to be greater than 10/01/2005 for the retrogressed countries. For the simple reason that Non-Perm cases would very few.
indianabacklog
07-26 02:54 PM
This is not good news for us. The recaptured visas will go towards nurses and none from us wil benefit.We need to shout out loud.
We do benefit indirectly since they are no longer competing for the cherished 140,000 visa numbers that are allocated for employment based adjustment of status applicants.
We do benefit indirectly since they are no longer competing for the cherished 140,000 visa numbers that are allocated for employment based adjustment of status applicants.
No comments:
Post a Comment