Ramba
07-17 11:42 AM
The was no change in law and still there was a change in interpretation based on the current state of EB2, so this interpretation will change once some other category needs spill overs. The is no law which states spill over should be horizonal or vertical or diagonal :) It merely says that DOS can decide how the spill overs should flow.
DOS (or any government agency for that matter) cannot interpert the law differently for each year. One law and one interpretation. It can't follow the different set of rules when implementing the law each year. Initally, INA was designed to follow vertical spill over (diversity was important than preference catagory). But, AC21 law ameneded the INA to force the DOS to implement horizontal spill over (preference catagory is important than diversity). However, DOS was still follwing verical spill over evenafter the AC21 act till 2006. If DOS followd the law correctly, EB2-I and Ch would have never been retrogressed since 2005. Lucky for DOS, no one has challanged the DOS. Now they realized the mistake and follow the law correctly. They follw this till if congress changes the law.
DOS (or any government agency for that matter) cannot interpert the law differently for each year. One law and one interpretation. It can't follow the different set of rules when implementing the law each year. Initally, INA was designed to follow vertical spill over (diversity was important than preference catagory). But, AC21 law ameneded the INA to force the DOS to implement horizontal spill over (preference catagory is important than diversity). However, DOS was still follwing verical spill over evenafter the AC21 act till 2006. If DOS followd the law correctly, EB2-I and Ch would have never been retrogressed since 2005. Lucky for DOS, no one has challanged the DOS. Now they realized the mistake and follow the law correctly. They follw this till if congress changes the law.
wallpaper Hayley Williams is the lead
gc_lover
06-27 07:55 AM
Visa bulletin is based on the demand for visas. An immigrant vise is ISSUED when a GC is approved, and not filed. When a person receives an I485 approval letter that means his immigrant visa was assigned to him and that an immigrant visa number was used. Same applies to consular processing. The bottom line is that unless USCIS approves a huge amount of GCs in the coming months, the DOS can't and won't make adjustments in the middle of the month. STOP THIS RUMOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There is no point in explaining the same point over and over again. People are just creating new rumors in new threads without trying to read old threads.
There was a thread by logiclife about this rumor and his discussion with his lawyer.
There is no point in explaining the same point over and over again. People are just creating new rumors in new threads without trying to read old threads.
There was a thread by logiclife about this rumor and his discussion with his lawyer.
Rb_newsletter
01-21 06:15 PM
I got the below email from multiple friends. I don't know what is the source, who wrote this analysis because there is no links. I did NOT mean to spread the fear. Just sharing the contents unaltered.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, this is how many could read RECENT (Jan 8, 2010) actions / announcement by USCIS towards Consulting companies, which engages or merely places their employees at the client sites for various projects.
� No new H1B application will be approved, as per the new guidelines provided USCIS on Jan 08, 2010 memorandum � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
� No new H1B extension/stamping will be approved, as per the new guidelines provided USCIS on Jan 08, 2010 memorandum � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
� If an employee has H1B approved or extension approved, and if he/she comes back to US from a vacation or from an emergency, he/she would be deported back to his/her home country from the Port of Entry (PoE) � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
Why?
Because of 2 recent events:
1) USCIS gave new memorandum (which is now guidelines for USCIS professionals working on the H1B petitions/extensions) on Jan 08th, 2010. (Attached the PDF file for the memorandum).
2) Recently (Jan 2010) several H1B Employees were sent back (in some forum, its mentioned � all of them) to their home country from Newark, NJ and JFK, NY Port of Entry � these were the H1B employees, who went to spend Christmas/New Year vacation to their home countries.
What does the memorandum mention, specifically, about 3rd Party Consulting companies?
Link to the memorandum (PDF attached) � http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2010/H1B%20Employer-Employee%20Memo010810.pdf
Employer-Employee Relationship:
As per the memorandum, some previous H1B Law defines, the definition of an �US Employer�. Somewhere in that definition (Page 2 of memo), it mentions the word �Employer-Employee relationship�. Till now, it seems that there was no clear guidance on what kind of relationship was considered having Employer-Employee relationship. So, it was being, probably, interpreted independently or ambiguously. Now, on Jan 8th, 2010, USCIS has published this memorandum for TRAINING USCIS OFFICIALS about understanding, Employer-Employee relationship. The memorandum seems to have been prepared with a clear understanding about it, along with the specific EXAMPLES.
Memorandum has given few specific examples, which would QUALIFY for having Employer-Employee relationship, on Page 4-5 of the Memo � including the nature of the job/business. On Page 5-6, memorandum gives few specific examples, which would NOT QUALIFY for having Employer-Employee relationship. Third Party Placement / �Job-Shop� (better version of �Body-shop�, probably) is NOT QUALIFIED for meeting Employer-Employee Relationships � meaning, 3rd Party placement (which most of the small consulting companies do) doesn�t meet H1B requirement, as defined by the law � meaning for this job, the new H1B or Extension or Stamping petitions CANNOT be approved!! Period !!
This is how memorandum has identified 3rd Party Placements and in Bold letters, why it disqualifies for the H1B petitions (comments are in Red):
�The petitioner is a computer consulting company (which is what all small consulting do). The petitioner has contract with numerous outside companies in which it supplies these companies with employee to fulfill specific staffing needs. The specific positions are not outlined in the contract between the petitioner and the third-party company but are staffed on an as-needed basis (this is nothing but, Service Agreement between the petitioner and the mid-vendor!). The beneficiary is a computer analyst (which is what many small consulting company�s employee are). The beneficiary has been assigned to work for the third-party company to fill a core position to maintain the third-party company�s payroll (this nothing but, Mid-Vendor�s or so-called Prime-Vendor�s or Consulting Partner�s Revenue). Once placed at the client company, the beneficiary reports to a manager who works for the third-party company (as it happens, when Consulting partner hires employee as a contractor). The beneficiary does not report to the petitioner for work assignments, and all work assignments are determined by the third-party company (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). The petitioner does not control how the beneficiary will complete daily tasks, and no propriety information of the petitioner is used by the beneficiary to complete any work assignments (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). The beneficiary�s end-product, the payroll (payroll of mid-vendor/prime vendor/consulting partner), is not in any way related to the petitioner�s line of business, which is computer consulting. The beneficiary�s progress reviews are completed by the client company, not the petitioner (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). [Petitioner Has No Right to Control; No Exercise of Control].�
Right to Control:
Supreme Court has stated the definition of Employer-Employee Relationship (Page 3 of Memo), and there it was mentioned to have �Right to Control� over the work of the employee by the employer. From the entire memo, it sounds that Right control is well-established, ONLY WHEN, at least one supervisor from the petitioner�s company works with the beneficiary at the end-client site, and supervises beneficiary�s day-to-day work. So, big Consulting companies such as Wipro, Infosys, Accenture, Deloitte etc. will be good, as they would meet �Right to Control� and that way, they will satisfy H1B requirement by law, and their petitions for similar 3rd party consulting work, will be APPROVED, but not in case of, small consulting companies!! This is because, big consulting companies such as Accenture � have their entire or partial team � along with managers etc. � working at the same client site, where the beneficiary would be working, so they could supervise their work and so exercise control over their work etc., but that cannot be the case with the small consulting � because, their actual business has been, so far, to place employees and run pay-roll � not to get the client projects!
Why one could think that there are slim chances for this memorandum to get reversed in favor of small consulting companies?
This memorandum took care of big consulting companies such as Wipro, Infosys, Cognizant, Accenture etc. � meaning, these companies and their employees are NOT impacted. They can travel freely to-and-fro their home country etc. Since, big companies are not impacted, there will not be any big lobbying or oppositions to this memorandum, per say!! There don�t seem to be a platform for small consulting companies to gather and lobby, plus most the small consulting may not get involved, with fear of exposing themselves more to other issues!! So, it might be east to assume that this memorandum is permanent and not temporary. The recent deportation also indicates that the changes like this memorandum is for serious, not just the warning!
How this memorandum relates to the recent deportation events from NY and NJ airports?
There seems to be an anticipated link between these 2 events � Memorandum and recent Deportations � kind of an indication about the current level of government scrutiny and seriousness of the H1B program. Hence, there have been advices by others that � each employer and employee should operate by strictly following the H1B program requirements.
Link to Murthy.com front page posting about this � MurthyDotCom : NewsFlash! Note to H1Bs Traveling to U.S., Working for Consulting Companies (http://www.murthy.com/nflash/nf_h1conc.html)
What one could predict as happening sooner (trend)?
� Since, it seems big consulting companies (having their own consulting projects)/full-time end-clients and their beneficiaries are not impacted with these changes � there could be trend � employee moving from small companies to big companies for a better shelter for full-time positions � especially, when small consulting company�s immediate preventions / actions to this memo cannot ensure safety.
� Big consulting companies could buy small consulting companies or small consulting companies could sell their companies to big consulting companies (having their own consulting projects), to save their employee�s future/transition etc.
Good Luck my Friends....!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, this is how many could read RECENT (Jan 8, 2010) actions / announcement by USCIS towards Consulting companies, which engages or merely places their employees at the client sites for various projects.
� No new H1B application will be approved, as per the new guidelines provided USCIS on Jan 08, 2010 memorandum � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
� No new H1B extension/stamping will be approved, as per the new guidelines provided USCIS on Jan 08, 2010 memorandum � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
� If an employee has H1B approved or extension approved, and if he/she comes back to US from a vacation or from an emergency, he/she would be deported back to his/her home country from the Port of Entry (PoE) � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
Why?
Because of 2 recent events:
1) USCIS gave new memorandum (which is now guidelines for USCIS professionals working on the H1B petitions/extensions) on Jan 08th, 2010. (Attached the PDF file for the memorandum).
2) Recently (Jan 2010) several H1B Employees were sent back (in some forum, its mentioned � all of them) to their home country from Newark, NJ and JFK, NY Port of Entry � these were the H1B employees, who went to spend Christmas/New Year vacation to their home countries.
What does the memorandum mention, specifically, about 3rd Party Consulting companies?
Link to the memorandum (PDF attached) � http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2010/H1B%20Employer-Employee%20Memo010810.pdf
Employer-Employee Relationship:
As per the memorandum, some previous H1B Law defines, the definition of an �US Employer�. Somewhere in that definition (Page 2 of memo), it mentions the word �Employer-Employee relationship�. Till now, it seems that there was no clear guidance on what kind of relationship was considered having Employer-Employee relationship. So, it was being, probably, interpreted independently or ambiguously. Now, on Jan 8th, 2010, USCIS has published this memorandum for TRAINING USCIS OFFICIALS about understanding, Employer-Employee relationship. The memorandum seems to have been prepared with a clear understanding about it, along with the specific EXAMPLES.
Memorandum has given few specific examples, which would QUALIFY for having Employer-Employee relationship, on Page 4-5 of the Memo � including the nature of the job/business. On Page 5-6, memorandum gives few specific examples, which would NOT QUALIFY for having Employer-Employee relationship. Third Party Placement / �Job-Shop� (better version of �Body-shop�, probably) is NOT QUALIFIED for meeting Employer-Employee Relationships � meaning, 3rd Party placement (which most of the small consulting companies do) doesn�t meet H1B requirement, as defined by the law � meaning for this job, the new H1B or Extension or Stamping petitions CANNOT be approved!! Period !!
This is how memorandum has identified 3rd Party Placements and in Bold letters, why it disqualifies for the H1B petitions (comments are in Red):
�The petitioner is a computer consulting company (which is what all small consulting do). The petitioner has contract with numerous outside companies in which it supplies these companies with employee to fulfill specific staffing needs. The specific positions are not outlined in the contract between the petitioner and the third-party company but are staffed on an as-needed basis (this is nothing but, Service Agreement between the petitioner and the mid-vendor!). The beneficiary is a computer analyst (which is what many small consulting company�s employee are). The beneficiary has been assigned to work for the third-party company to fill a core position to maintain the third-party company�s payroll (this nothing but, Mid-Vendor�s or so-called Prime-Vendor�s or Consulting Partner�s Revenue). Once placed at the client company, the beneficiary reports to a manager who works for the third-party company (as it happens, when Consulting partner hires employee as a contractor). The beneficiary does not report to the petitioner for work assignments, and all work assignments are determined by the third-party company (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). The petitioner does not control how the beneficiary will complete daily tasks, and no propriety information of the petitioner is used by the beneficiary to complete any work assignments (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). The beneficiary�s end-product, the payroll (payroll of mid-vendor/prime vendor/consulting partner), is not in any way related to the petitioner�s line of business, which is computer consulting. The beneficiary�s progress reviews are completed by the client company, not the petitioner (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). [Petitioner Has No Right to Control; No Exercise of Control].�
Right to Control:
Supreme Court has stated the definition of Employer-Employee Relationship (Page 3 of Memo), and there it was mentioned to have �Right to Control� over the work of the employee by the employer. From the entire memo, it sounds that Right control is well-established, ONLY WHEN, at least one supervisor from the petitioner�s company works with the beneficiary at the end-client site, and supervises beneficiary�s day-to-day work. So, big Consulting companies such as Wipro, Infosys, Accenture, Deloitte etc. will be good, as they would meet �Right to Control� and that way, they will satisfy H1B requirement by law, and their petitions for similar 3rd party consulting work, will be APPROVED, but not in case of, small consulting companies!! This is because, big consulting companies such as Accenture � have their entire or partial team � along with managers etc. � working at the same client site, where the beneficiary would be working, so they could supervise their work and so exercise control over their work etc., but that cannot be the case with the small consulting � because, their actual business has been, so far, to place employees and run pay-roll � not to get the client projects!
Why one could think that there are slim chances for this memorandum to get reversed in favor of small consulting companies?
This memorandum took care of big consulting companies such as Wipro, Infosys, Cognizant, Accenture etc. � meaning, these companies and their employees are NOT impacted. They can travel freely to-and-fro their home country etc. Since, big companies are not impacted, there will not be any big lobbying or oppositions to this memorandum, per say!! There don�t seem to be a platform for small consulting companies to gather and lobby, plus most the small consulting may not get involved, with fear of exposing themselves more to other issues!! So, it might be east to assume that this memorandum is permanent and not temporary. The recent deportation also indicates that the changes like this memorandum is for serious, not just the warning!
How this memorandum relates to the recent deportation events from NY and NJ airports?
There seems to be an anticipated link between these 2 events � Memorandum and recent Deportations � kind of an indication about the current level of government scrutiny and seriousness of the H1B program. Hence, there have been advices by others that � each employer and employee should operate by strictly following the H1B program requirements.
Link to Murthy.com front page posting about this � MurthyDotCom : NewsFlash! Note to H1Bs Traveling to U.S., Working for Consulting Companies (http://www.murthy.com/nflash/nf_h1conc.html)
What one could predict as happening sooner (trend)?
� Since, it seems big consulting companies (having their own consulting projects)/full-time end-clients and their beneficiaries are not impacted with these changes � there could be trend � employee moving from small companies to big companies for a better shelter for full-time positions � especially, when small consulting company�s immediate preventions / actions to this memo cannot ensure safety.
� Big consulting companies could buy small consulting companies or small consulting companies could sell their companies to big consulting companies (having their own consulting projects), to save their employee�s future/transition etc.
Good Luck my Friends....!!
2011 and Hayley Williams,
chintu25
09-24 10:16 AM
Emailed All
:rolleyes: Whatever works :rolleyes:
matt_kelly@specter.senate.gov, <lisa_owings@specter.senate.gov BOUNCED
:rolleyes: Whatever works :rolleyes:
matt_kelly@specter.senate.gov, <lisa_owings@specter.senate.gov BOUNCED
more...
sidbee
02-13 07:46 PM
I am with you guys.Read my old posts, i have been thinking on this from day one.
mbawa2574
02-15 04:25 PM
Human nature is what tends to create the monopoly. That's the reason for having laws, we know favorism will always exist but a law would prevent it from going over the limit. The way you want it we'll have whites-only-business, asians-only-business and so on..
When you are tired of this discussion you should ask to stop the ones who started it saying their people are better and brighter than others and hence deserve larger immigration volume, before you ask to stop the people who answer them.
America is about freedom and liberty and is a law abiding country. Country caps is discrimination with people of two countries which have almost half of the population in the world. I am not saying increase visas for India or China. I am only saying increase the total number of visas and then make the system FIFO so that every skilled person in this world have same access to immigration.
When you are tired of this discussion you should ask to stop the ones who started it saying their people are better and brighter than others and hence deserve larger immigration volume, before you ask to stop the people who answer them.
America is about freedom and liberty and is a law abiding country. Country caps is discrimination with people of two countries which have almost half of the population in the world. I am not saying increase visas for India or China. I am only saying increase the total number of visas and then make the system FIFO so that every skilled person in this world have same access to immigration.
more...
polapragada
10-16 12:29 PM
Interesting statistics posted on Ron Gotcher forum
Credit to Nolefan
Hello Ron,
I have been silent spectator for long and I greatly enjoy reading this blog. The knowledge you bring is great. The blog is very informative & insightful and has given us lots of useful information. I have been thinking of contributing to this blog for sometime related to Pending visa number and spillover topic and this is my first post regarding that.
Recently, I did some calculations on EB1 & EB spillover to EB2 India/China for FY 2010. Here are points I considered
* Average Consular processing numbers for EB1 & EB2 / year are based on historic data from 1998 to 2008. (Data is available on DHS site)
* All ROW EB1 & EB2 applications from following categories will be approved before spill over happens
o consular processing (EB1 & EB2)
o ROW (EB1 & EB2) + Mexico + Philippines
* most applications for India / China EB2 from 2004 and prior are approved except few as mentioned on CIS report.
* Even if there are EB2 ROW I140 applications are pending, they may not be more than few thousands (based historic EB2 usage from EB2 ROW). Based on economic conditions, I assumed 5000 new I485 applications after approval of I140.
Calculations
EB1 spill over
Total quota allowed: 40040
Average consular processing: 5290
AOS Pending: 4050
New applications: 2500
spill over from EB1 ~ 40040 - 5290 � 4050 � 2500
spill over from EB1~ 28500
EB2 spill over
Total quota allowed: 40040
Average consular processing: 2199
AOS Pending (ROW): 7871
New applications: 2500
spill over from EB1 ~ 40040 - 2199 � 7871 � 2500
spill over from EB1~ 27470
Total EB1 & EB2 spill over = 28500 + 27470
Total EB1 & EB2 spill over = 55970
EB4 spill over
Total quota allowed: 9800
Average visa numbers used: 7432�� based on data from 1998 to 2008
spill over = 2368
EB5 spill over
Total quota allowed: 9800
Average visa numbers used: 465 �� based on data from 1998 to 2008
2008 data: 1360
spill over : 8440
Total spill over for EB2 India / China: spill over from (EB1 + EB2 + EB3 + EB4)
i.e. 28500 + 27470 + 2368 + 8440 ..
Total spill over for EB2 India / China: 66778
Preadjudicated EB2 India / China applications ~ 51000
Total pending EB2 India / China ~ 67061
If spill over occurs quarterly, then I would expect EB2 India / China dates should faster throughout year may be current by end of FY 2010.
Too good to believe..I hope it would go correct:D
And one more PRO factor is that EB1 are under high scruitny so less EB1s so high spillovers than ever before..
Credit to Nolefan
Hello Ron,
I have been silent spectator for long and I greatly enjoy reading this blog. The knowledge you bring is great. The blog is very informative & insightful and has given us lots of useful information. I have been thinking of contributing to this blog for sometime related to Pending visa number and spillover topic and this is my first post regarding that.
Recently, I did some calculations on EB1 & EB spillover to EB2 India/China for FY 2010. Here are points I considered
* Average Consular processing numbers for EB1 & EB2 / year are based on historic data from 1998 to 2008. (Data is available on DHS site)
* All ROW EB1 & EB2 applications from following categories will be approved before spill over happens
o consular processing (EB1 & EB2)
o ROW (EB1 & EB2) + Mexico + Philippines
* most applications for India / China EB2 from 2004 and prior are approved except few as mentioned on CIS report.
* Even if there are EB2 ROW I140 applications are pending, they may not be more than few thousands (based historic EB2 usage from EB2 ROW). Based on economic conditions, I assumed 5000 new I485 applications after approval of I140.
Calculations
EB1 spill over
Total quota allowed: 40040
Average consular processing: 5290
AOS Pending: 4050
New applications: 2500
spill over from EB1 ~ 40040 - 5290 � 4050 � 2500
spill over from EB1~ 28500
EB2 spill over
Total quota allowed: 40040
Average consular processing: 2199
AOS Pending (ROW): 7871
New applications: 2500
spill over from EB1 ~ 40040 - 2199 � 7871 � 2500
spill over from EB1~ 27470
Total EB1 & EB2 spill over = 28500 + 27470
Total EB1 & EB2 spill over = 55970
EB4 spill over
Total quota allowed: 9800
Average visa numbers used: 7432�� based on data from 1998 to 2008
spill over = 2368
EB5 spill over
Total quota allowed: 9800
Average visa numbers used: 465 �� based on data from 1998 to 2008
2008 data: 1360
spill over : 8440
Total spill over for EB2 India / China: spill over from (EB1 + EB2 + EB3 + EB4)
i.e. 28500 + 27470 + 2368 + 8440 ..
Total spill over for EB2 India / China: 66778
Preadjudicated EB2 India / China applications ~ 51000
Total pending EB2 India / China ~ 67061
If spill over occurs quarterly, then I would expect EB2 India / China dates should faster throughout year may be current by end of FY 2010.
Too good to believe..I hope it would go correct:D
And one more PRO factor is that EB1 are under high scruitny so less EB1s so high spillovers than ever before..
2010 Hayley Williams by Eryn Tripp
amsgc
07-03 11:08 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/04/us/04visas.html
Just sent her a thank you note and my letter above.
Just sent her a thank you note and my letter above.
more...
eb3_nepa
05-10 05:27 PM
Thanks for the clarification. Actually what i meant was, we did highlight to the lawmakers at some point that the points based system is better. I know it was never IV's policy to ask for a points based system.
And yes if the system worked fine, the US is definitely better than aus and canada combined. Money and everything wise. I guess someone on here correctly pointed out that it is the sheer volume of immigrants combined with the fact that there is no real incentive to speed things up. The employer is happy coz there is no need to raise wages and new h1's can always be hired, the immigration attorneys are happy coz they make money due to slowness, the American techie population is happy coz there is no mass influx of tech workers to "drive the wages lower", Anti-immigrant organizations are happy coz once again no mass influx which may lead to "chain migration", the Apartment industry is happy coz if u cant buy u HAVE to rent, and lastly UCSIS/DOL people are happy coz they get more time to review each case. If there is no point to granting you the GC faster why will they? You will pay the same amt of tax b4 and after ur GC. Now in the Canadian system, there is a Fixed Path AND it is QUICK. Both have to go hand in hand. Like one of my friends pointed out, in the US ur spouse cannot work and ur uncertain. In the UK/AUS/Canada, you make less money but we are more secure coz you can both work and we can buy a house etc. Once again this sounds like a broken record, but it is true.
And yes if the system worked fine, the US is definitely better than aus and canada combined. Money and everything wise. I guess someone on here correctly pointed out that it is the sheer volume of immigrants combined with the fact that there is no real incentive to speed things up. The employer is happy coz there is no need to raise wages and new h1's can always be hired, the immigration attorneys are happy coz they make money due to slowness, the American techie population is happy coz there is no mass influx of tech workers to "drive the wages lower", Anti-immigrant organizations are happy coz once again no mass influx which may lead to "chain migration", the Apartment industry is happy coz if u cant buy u HAVE to rent, and lastly UCSIS/DOL people are happy coz they get more time to review each case. If there is no point to granting you the GC faster why will they? You will pay the same amt of tax b4 and after ur GC. Now in the Canadian system, there is a Fixed Path AND it is QUICK. Both have to go hand in hand. Like one of my friends pointed out, in the US ur spouse cannot work and ur uncertain. In the UK/AUS/Canada, you make less money but we are more secure coz you can both work and we can buy a house etc. Once again this sounds like a broken record, but it is true.
hair hayley :)
spicy_guy
01-24 03:12 PM
I have been a silent reader of Murthy forum, and I have been observing JoeF's posts. He is NOT an anti-immigrant. He is just educating people about the law. That's what I see from his posts. He is knowledgeable enough to answer the questions of the forum readers.
Maybe his posts sound rude for the wounded and needy. But I think he isn't taking anything bad about immigration or prospective immigrants.
Anyways, thats not the topic of this thread and don't mean to detract.
Maybe his posts sound rude for the wounded and needy. But I think he isn't taking anything bad about immigration or prospective immigrants.
Anyways, thats not the topic of this thread and don't mean to detract.
more...
Aah_GC
08-16 12:17 AM
Yes, ofcourse he is a demon. There are hundereds of thousands of people are dying without food. Not everyone is taking the arms and killing innocent people. He is a fanatic. He deserves nothing less than death. He should be cut into pieces and should be a lesson for other terrorist.
Poverty is the reality of our subcontinent, the reason Kasab took arms was out of ignorance not due to deliberate fundamentalism, even if latter were true, it is all desperation. The thousands of hungry dying people you point out might just take up arms if they had a choice to beat poverty.
How bright were we when we were 20 year olds? I am in no way supporting Kasab, he will meet his end eventually. But we need to open our minds to the root causes of terrorism, when we do that we have an opportunity to leave our children with a better world. Cutting someone into pieces won't fetch you much, that is no different from Taliban's approach of stoning infidel women, singers and anti-shariats.
Poverty is the reality of our subcontinent, the reason Kasab took arms was out of ignorance not due to deliberate fundamentalism, even if latter were true, it is all desperation. The thousands of hungry dying people you point out might just take up arms if they had a choice to beat poverty.
How bright were we when we were 20 year olds? I am in no way supporting Kasab, he will meet his end eventually. But we need to open our minds to the root causes of terrorism, when we do that we have an opportunity to leave our children with a better world. Cutting someone into pieces won't fetch you much, that is no different from Taliban's approach of stoning infidel women, singers and anti-shariats.
hot Hayley Williams: I grew up
jkays94
05-25 12:08 PM
I heard that if you apply on your own and move out of US, it becomes very difficult to let the Can immigration authority about your current location and keep track of all the correspondence with them. But, the agency/lawyer does this thing very efficiantly. Any opinion on this ?
You can update your address online through the e-client tool. The only issue might be that your case may be transferred to a consulate location closer to you.
http://services3.cic.gc.ca/ecas/ECAS.jsp?language=english&page=ECAS.jsp
You can update your address online through the e-client tool. The only issue might be that your case may be transferred to a consulate location closer to you.
http://services3.cic.gc.ca/ecas/ECAS.jsp?language=english&page=ECAS.jsp
more...
house Hayley Williams of Paramore
needhelp!
09-23 05:01 PM
FIRST lets just send out the emails as requested by IV (Yes, this is OFFICIALLY ENDORSED BY IV initiative)
We will have all the time in the world to discuss the details.
We will have all the time in the world to discuss the details.
tattoo tyr swimwear Hayley Williams
unitednations
02-14 12:02 AM
Another thing that is hard to understand is that if EB3 ROW is getting all the unused visas, how did EB2 move forward two years in 2006? It was moving 6 months at a time till May-06. Did USCIS change the way they interpret the law in May-06? That would be weird, they should have done it when they declared in Nov-05 bulletin that AC21 provisions are not expected to apply.
It is possible that USCIS is allocating unused EB2 visas to EB2 India and China after all, and it is not moving forward only because of backlogged EB2 Labors getting approved. We will know for sure in a few months. There are still several 2001 EB2 Non-RIR cases in the backlog as per
http://www..com/usa-immigration-trackers/dallas-backlog-tracker/
One of the other lawyers had reported I think it was in July 2006 that Chinese as a whole were on pace to get approved just less then 7% of the total quota. That is the only statistic available. EB3 row had significant movement in the last quarter because that is when the unused visas from eb1 and eb2 got released to eb3.
India went all the way back to 1998 because they were only eligible to get 250 greencards per month. There are substitute labors from that far back which people were using. I wasn't surpirsed when it went that far back becuase I knew a number of people who got these labors.
If the overflow from eb1 or eb2 were going to eb2 india/china then eb3 row would never have moved past 2001. A lot of the 245i candidates are from ROW. (russian, pakistan, brazil, south korean, etc.).
It is possible that USCIS is allocating unused EB2 visas to EB2 India and China after all, and it is not moving forward only because of backlogged EB2 Labors getting approved. We will know for sure in a few months. There are still several 2001 EB2 Non-RIR cases in the backlog as per
http://www..com/usa-immigration-trackers/dallas-backlog-tracker/
One of the other lawyers had reported I think it was in July 2006 that Chinese as a whole were on pace to get approved just less then 7% of the total quota. That is the only statistic available. EB3 row had significant movement in the last quarter because that is when the unused visas from eb1 and eb2 got released to eb3.
India went all the way back to 1998 because they were only eligible to get 250 greencards per month. There are substitute labors from that far back which people were using. I wasn't surpirsed when it went that far back becuase I knew a number of people who got these labors.
If the overflow from eb1 or eb2 were going to eb2 india/china then eb3 row would never have moved past 2001. A lot of the 245i candidates are from ROW. (russian, pakistan, brazil, south korean, etc.).
more...
pictures Hayley Williams#39;s pictures:
sath2000
07-17 04:33 PM
Hi,
Here is my issue regarding the PD.
My Employer applied for labor through RIR under EB2 March6th 2004 which was then transffered to Philadelphia Backlog Center. Our Attorney suggested that we Apply through PERM process and Retain PD from the old case. Converted to PERM and applied on 09/26/2006 which was approved on 12/29/2006 but the letter said that they are not retaining PD from the old application as address is changed. Our employer moved 1 street accross in between these to application in Feb 2006. only street address changed everything including phone number remained same. My attorney said that he talked to the labor department in Chicago telling them that phone number didn't change. They said they will consider it and asked him to send a letter. It has been over 15 months he send the first letter. He said last month he also received a call from chicago office saying that they will take a look at the files.
In the meantime applied for I-140 and I-485 concurrently in July/Aug 2007. I-140 got approved on 05/28/2008 and got RFE for I-485 on 06/13/2008. responded to RFE and now case process resumed.
At this point I am trying to see if anyone have this kinda of issue and got resolved or there is away to get this resolved.
thank you
Here is my issue regarding the PD.
My Employer applied for labor through RIR under EB2 March6th 2004 which was then transffered to Philadelphia Backlog Center. Our Attorney suggested that we Apply through PERM process and Retain PD from the old case. Converted to PERM and applied on 09/26/2006 which was approved on 12/29/2006 but the letter said that they are not retaining PD from the old application as address is changed. Our employer moved 1 street accross in between these to application in Feb 2006. only street address changed everything including phone number remained same. My attorney said that he talked to the labor department in Chicago telling them that phone number didn't change. They said they will consider it and asked him to send a letter. It has been over 15 months he send the first letter. He said last month he also received a call from chicago office saying that they will take a look at the files.
In the meantime applied for I-140 and I-485 concurrently in July/Aug 2007. I-140 got approved on 05/28/2008 and got RFE for I-485 on 06/13/2008. responded to RFE and now case process resumed.
At this point I am trying to see if anyone have this kinda of issue and got resolved or there is away to get this resolved.
thank you
dresses Hayley Williams
Kushal
07-27 11:46 AM
As someone else mentioned on this forum, it is illegal to earn while on H1-B from sources other than your employer.
Nope that's not correct. You file your business earnings through 1099 and not W2. It has nothing to do with H1-B. Good luck.
Nope that's not correct. You file your business earnings through 1099 and not W2. It has nothing to do with H1-B. Good luck.
more...
makeup Hayley Williams: -, by, hayley
surabhi
07-17 11:45 AM
Is it accurate to say that new way of allocating spill over visas effectively acheive same effect as eliminiating country limits?
girlfriend Hayley Williams
harikris
06-01 09:38 PM
Basically message is, this is a reasonably big chunk of your vote bank, you can support them and gain their loyalty.
No. We are not big enough to come under the radar.
But Indians that are citizens of US are a size-able chunk. If they demand action, then the politicians might be obligated to server their citizens.
No. We are not big enough to come under the radar.
But Indians that are citizens of US are a size-able chunk. If they demand action, then the politicians might be obligated to server their citizens.
hairstyles hayley williams
sledge_hammer
02-16 06:50 AM
1) Does this mean that if we link from our webpages/homepages to IV, that it will count?
2) How about if I set up a website, create a thousand pages in it, and put a link to IV on each of those pages? Does that count? Is it the number of pages that point to IV that count? Or the number of websites? Do you know how the spiders work?
3) Also, how about clicking on IV. Like, can I google retrogression, and then go to page 2, and then click on IV. Will that count? If it does, then we can all do that daily. All the bums that come here and don't pay, they can atleast do this.
I am bringing this up because I had been googling retrogression for a long time, and IV never came up.
Yes that will work. This method of making google bring up a link on top is called "google bombing". This is exactly the method that was used to make George Bush's biography appear as the first link when you googled the key "failure".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_bomb
2) How about if I set up a website, create a thousand pages in it, and put a link to IV on each of those pages? Does that count? Is it the number of pages that point to IV that count? Or the number of websites? Do you know how the spiders work?
3) Also, how about clicking on IV. Like, can I google retrogression, and then go to page 2, and then click on IV. Will that count? If it does, then we can all do that daily. All the bums that come here and don't pay, they can atleast do this.
I am bringing this up because I had been googling retrogression for a long time, and IV never came up.
Yes that will work. This method of making google bring up a link on top is called "google bombing". This is exactly the method that was used to make George Bush's biography appear as the first link when you googled the key "failure".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_bomb
binadh
07-11 12:38 PM
You know BIGFOOT is also CANADIAN - Aye!!!!.
Do your own research before making a move. Don't get carried away with he said, she said ...... You know what I mean.
Do your own research before making a move. Don't get carried away with he said, she said ...... You know what I mean.
jonty_11
02-12 02:11 PM
man..I do not see any hope for India...EB2 esp.
This sucks...we are in for along haul teh indians on this community...brace urselves.
This sucks...we are in for along haul teh indians on this community...brace urselves.
