deepimpact
09-10 08:50 PM
It is a given that Demand is not stagnant . If it were , backlog would have been reduced by 140K this year alone.
Each year the new quota is 140K , as long as the new demand each year ~100K - the remaining 40K goes towards backlog elimination . We will know in the next inventory report what is "net" reduction for 2010. One can do rough math of latest inventory report and the current priority dates to arrive at ~approximate figure of 35-40K.
I think EB3 should get cleared in next 5 years - I think flood of new EB2 applications are overblown.
I think "peak demand" was between 2003 and 2007 . Good news is USCIS is no more wasting numbers .
Given that change to laws is almost impossible. We should sit tight and wait for 3-5 years.
The problem with your analysis is not every one in the backlog has equal access to excess of 35-40K visas available each year. Most of the excess comes from EB4,5,1 and 2ROW and all goes to EB2 I/C. EB3 ROW gets ~30K every year (42K- 4*2.8K).
Even if we are to assume that post 2007 the demand for EB2 I/C and EB3 is low then also it is ~ 15K for EB2 I/C and ~ 10K for EB3 ROW. But the way INA law is framed EB3 I (most backlogged with ~ 60K) will only get 2800 visa till either of EB2 I/C or EB3 row becomes current. And by current I mean real current, not July 2007. Using these numbers it will still take 4-5 for both EB2 I/C and EB3 Row to become current.
This is assuming low demand in all EB categories continue.
It will be only after 2014-15 that EB3I will get ~ 50K SOFAD(35K SOFAD which EB2 I/C was getting plus about 15K from EB3 ROW category). So in 2015 EB3 I will see a jump of ~ 4 yrs (2003-2007). So EB3I folks with PD after 2007 will have a relative wait time of ~ 8 yrs but folks from 2003-4 are looking at a 12-13 year wait unless reform like Recapture/STEM Degree holders & Dependents excluded from cap is passed.
Each year the new quota is 140K , as long as the new demand each year ~100K - the remaining 40K goes towards backlog elimination . We will know in the next inventory report what is "net" reduction for 2010. One can do rough math of latest inventory report and the current priority dates to arrive at ~approximate figure of 35-40K.
I think EB3 should get cleared in next 5 years - I think flood of new EB2 applications are overblown.
I think "peak demand" was between 2003 and 2007 . Good news is USCIS is no more wasting numbers .
Given that change to laws is almost impossible. We should sit tight and wait for 3-5 years.
The problem with your analysis is not every one in the backlog has equal access to excess of 35-40K visas available each year. Most of the excess comes from EB4,5,1 and 2ROW and all goes to EB2 I/C. EB3 ROW gets ~30K every year (42K- 4*2.8K).
Even if we are to assume that post 2007 the demand for EB2 I/C and EB3 is low then also it is ~ 15K for EB2 I/C and ~ 10K for EB3 ROW. But the way INA law is framed EB3 I (most backlogged with ~ 60K) will only get 2800 visa till either of EB2 I/C or EB3 row becomes current. And by current I mean real current, not July 2007. Using these numbers it will still take 4-5 for both EB2 I/C and EB3 Row to become current.
This is assuming low demand in all EB categories continue.
It will be only after 2014-15 that EB3I will get ~ 50K SOFAD(35K SOFAD which EB2 I/C was getting plus about 15K from EB3 ROW category). So in 2015 EB3 I will see a jump of ~ 4 yrs (2003-2007). So EB3I folks with PD after 2007 will have a relative wait time of ~ 8 yrs but folks from 2003-4 are looking at a 12-13 year wait unless reform like Recapture/STEM Degree holders & Dependents excluded from cap is passed.
wallpaper white bedroom with blue waves
eilsoe
03-04 02:16 PM
uuh... crap...
*goes to work on entry*
*goes to work on entry*
PresidentO
02-03 05:07 PM
So naive of you to think that Senator-elect (Is she sworn in yet?) Gillibrand would be the person to do this. She is already labeled a flip flopper for courting hispanic groups.
AFAIK, The 8 year wait time she was referring to was not EB wait times. That was posted here on IV, discussed and proved that she was talking in general. Actions speak louder than talk. Talk is free, action is risk for politicians.
Good luck!
AFAIK, The 8 year wait time she was referring to was not EB wait times. That was posted here on IV, discussed and proved that she was talking in general. Actions speak louder than talk. Talk is free, action is risk for politicians.
Good luck!
2011 black and white wallpapers
reddymjm
09-09 01:50 PM
did any one did math...
EB1 - all current
|
|
\/
EB2 - World current
|
|
\/
EB2 - India / China
|
| ( When above EB2 India/China gets current 2-3years? )
\/
EB3 All
|
|
\/
EB3 I/C ( When EB1 , EB2 is Current , all visa numbers will flood to EB3 right ? so may be in 4-5 years EB3 may get current ? )
If the fucking DOS/USCIS follow the same rules as they did for EB3, EB2 cannot be current (It can move till 2007 July) until last quarter of 2011 as the allotted quota is 3k for EB2 and there are 10k before Jan 1st 2007.
With their regualr quota EB3 ROW should be current by last quarter of 2011, it cannot be current before that, same logic quota 42k , waiting 42k.
Then in the last quarter of 2011 EB2 all Current, EB3 ROW current. THe new applications will take atleast 4 months to get processed. So if f** DOS/uscis does not want to waste visas they have to move EB3 I C M dates by atleast an year. So if alteast EB3 before 2004 may see some apporvals in the last quarter of next year. For any one after 2003 PD start Porting, waiting does not do any thing.
THIS MAY HAPPEN IF THEY FOLLOW THE SAME RULES as they were following so far for moving EB3 dates. If they make EB2 current in the first half all EB3 is screwed with lubricants.
For all those EB2 who preach EB3 that they are tracking LUD etc and not doing anything stop doing that.
EB1 - all current
|
|
\/
EB2 - World current
|
|
\/
EB2 - India / China
|
| ( When above EB2 India/China gets current 2-3years? )
\/
EB3 All
|
|
\/
EB3 I/C ( When EB1 , EB2 is Current , all visa numbers will flood to EB3 right ? so may be in 4-5 years EB3 may get current ? )
If the fucking DOS/USCIS follow the same rules as they did for EB3, EB2 cannot be current (It can move till 2007 July) until last quarter of 2011 as the allotted quota is 3k for EB2 and there are 10k before Jan 1st 2007.
With their regualr quota EB3 ROW should be current by last quarter of 2011, it cannot be current before that, same logic quota 42k , waiting 42k.
Then in the last quarter of 2011 EB2 all Current, EB3 ROW current. THe new applications will take atleast 4 months to get processed. So if f** DOS/uscis does not want to waste visas they have to move EB3 I C M dates by atleast an year. So if alteast EB3 before 2004 may see some apporvals in the last quarter of next year. For any one after 2003 PD start Porting, waiting does not do any thing.
THIS MAY HAPPEN IF THEY FOLLOW THE SAME RULES as they were following so far for moving EB3 dates. If they make EB2 current in the first half all EB3 is screwed with lubricants.
For all those EB2 who preach EB3 that they are tracking LUD etc and not doing anything stop doing that.
more...
chanduv23
03-17 10:08 AM
Substitute labors for EB2 should not IMPACT the delay more than 3 to 6 months. The reason is total EB2 labor india cases approved in 2004 itself is 3500(Straight out of DOL database, published on this forum last year). Some of these cases may have been substituted, worst case, lets say 100% of them applied to I-485. Now the number is 3 times that of 3500. that is 10500(including spouse and 1 child on average).
Another thing you need to consider is If anycase had a PD before sept 2004 and was filed for I-485 before July 2007. That must have got the approval unless there was a namecheck delay.
That should reduce the number to half., 5500(including dependent cases). This is my educated guess, Please dont pick on me. It wont help anybody.
Below are 3 categories left as per my analysis....
1) the applications filed in or after july 2007 OR
2) applications had a PD after sept 2004
3) Namecheck delayed cases.
Chances are that the volume of Subsitutions and porting PD is massive in July , 2007. Almost every Tom, Dick and Harry filed for 485 at that time. News spread like wild fire about the availability of visas and lawyers and consulting companies wanted to do maximum utilization and maximum business. People applied substituted labors for their cousins, friends etc.... and got EAD and AP, May not be working for the sponsering employer.
Another thing you need to consider is If anycase had a PD before sept 2004 and was filed for I-485 before July 2007. That must have got the approval unless there was a namecheck delay.
That should reduce the number to half., 5500(including dependent cases). This is my educated guess, Please dont pick on me. It wont help anybody.
Below are 3 categories left as per my analysis....
1) the applications filed in or after july 2007 OR
2) applications had a PD after sept 2004
3) Namecheck delayed cases.
Chances are that the volume of Subsitutions and porting PD is massive in July , 2007. Almost every Tom, Dick and Harry filed for 485 at that time. News spread like wild fire about the availability of visas and lawyers and consulting companies wanted to do maximum utilization and maximum business. People applied substituted labors for their cousins, friends etc.... and got EAD and AP, May not be working for the sponsering employer.
go_guy123
10-05 09:49 PM
Guys,
Just an update..I quit the company and joined small consulting firm. Got the project, labor approved, h1b approved (filed in premium) and prewailing wage determination will be started from next week.damn, i should ve done this 4 yrs back. these guys r fast. Never join as fulltime employee if you dont have green card
Congratulations...did you get the client letter to satisfy the new Employer-Employee relationship requirement. Was your H1B approved for just the duration of the project.
Just an update..I quit the company and joined small consulting firm. Got the project, labor approved, h1b approved (filed in premium) and prewailing wage determination will be started from next week.damn, i should ve done this 4 yrs back. these guys r fast. Never join as fulltime employee if you dont have green card
Congratulations...did you get the client letter to satisfy the new Employer-Employee relationship requirement. Was your H1B approved for just the duration of the project.
more...
desi chala usa
09-18 02:32 PM
Reading the posts about the economy has just shown me how ignorant many of the IV members are.
The economy is just going through it's ~10-year cycle. While it is a concern, it is NOT the end of the world. It just strenghtens USA's position in the world. Once again, it has proved that "if USA sneezes, the world catches the cold". The 10-years economic cycle follows a kind of Darwin's Law of the Fittest. The firms that are bubbled up get washed away, the economy cleans up and rebounds back. The 1990s saw it, the year ~2001 saw it with the dot.com burst and ~2009-2010 is seeing it with the mortgage burst.
While it is each one's perogative as to what you want to invest into (good time to buy stocks, or buy gold), another thing to understand is FDIC does NOT insure just 100K per account in each bank. There are multiple ways to increase this insurance to over $2 million in the same bank by opening different type of accounts or having different beneficiaries. Consult your bank for details.
No amount of govt. intervention can change the economy. It has it's own mind and will take it's own course.
There is no need to panic, pack and run.
Let the economy go through it's colon flush.
Please do not forget during 2001 - 2002 how many H1b friends packed and run away......Please think in terms of H1b people.....245(i) is saving you only up to 180 days.....if the person is crossing 180 days means he is all set for next 10 years to come back to U.S.A.
The economy is just going through it's ~10-year cycle. While it is a concern, it is NOT the end of the world. It just strenghtens USA's position in the world. Once again, it has proved that "if USA sneezes, the world catches the cold". The 10-years economic cycle follows a kind of Darwin's Law of the Fittest. The firms that are bubbled up get washed away, the economy cleans up and rebounds back. The 1990s saw it, the year ~2001 saw it with the dot.com burst and ~2009-2010 is seeing it with the mortgage burst.
While it is each one's perogative as to what you want to invest into (good time to buy stocks, or buy gold), another thing to understand is FDIC does NOT insure just 100K per account in each bank. There are multiple ways to increase this insurance to over $2 million in the same bank by opening different type of accounts or having different beneficiaries. Consult your bank for details.
No amount of govt. intervention can change the economy. It has it's own mind and will take it's own course.
There is no need to panic, pack and run.
Let the economy go through it's colon flush.
Please do not forget during 2001 - 2002 how many H1b friends packed and run away......Please think in terms of H1b people.....245(i) is saving you only up to 180 days.....if the person is crossing 180 days means he is all set for next 10 years to come back to U.S.A.
2010 Black and White Wallpapers
Jaime
09-10 12:15 PM
You have contributed 1000s of dollars to Social Security and if you don't fight for it, anti-immigrants will kick you out of the U.S. by frustrating you to the limit, and your Social Security money will go to fund Lou Dobb's retirement and that of others, except yours!
more...
nomi
12-13 01:24 PM
All , this subject has been raised very often and every time new members join in they start a thread and start questioning it.
- IV has indepth explored and studied this option and have found that this change is not possible administratively.
- we have not just met a lawyer. we have met few lawyers. we also have communicated with USCIS in the past.
- In the past some administrative changes have been done by USCIS, but this change cannot be done by them. All, we already had this idea long long ago and we also thought that why dont we do it if it so simple and then we dont have to go through all the legislative hurdles. But NO it cannot be done by USCIS.
- Faxing USCIS will not work. USCIS does not take policy decisions. We need to approach policy makers to get it done and that is what we are doing. By coming up with ideas, endlessly discussing despite explaination by IV and not working with IV action items we will all go in divergent directions and lose focus on the main action items we want each every member should focus. If you really feel for some idea and want to help, instead of asking IV to give explanation to every question on the forum, contact any of the active IV core members on the forum and bounce ideas. We need people with ideas and also same people willing to work on them too.
- If it was possible to get it done administratively, then in the current Skil bill push we would have/ and lawmakers would also have just asked USCIS to implement it.
Hope this explains this topic. Thanks
Thanks Pappu for explaination. Look like this door is already close. Well let me know if I can do anything to help.
- IV has indepth explored and studied this option and have found that this change is not possible administratively.
- we have not just met a lawyer. we have met few lawyers. we also have communicated with USCIS in the past.
- In the past some administrative changes have been done by USCIS, but this change cannot be done by them. All, we already had this idea long long ago and we also thought that why dont we do it if it so simple and then we dont have to go through all the legislative hurdles. But NO it cannot be done by USCIS.
- Faxing USCIS will not work. USCIS does not take policy decisions. We need to approach policy makers to get it done and that is what we are doing. By coming up with ideas, endlessly discussing despite explaination by IV and not working with IV action items we will all go in divergent directions and lose focus on the main action items we want each every member should focus. If you really feel for some idea and want to help, instead of asking IV to give explanation to every question on the forum, contact any of the active IV core members on the forum and bounce ideas. We need people with ideas and also same people willing to work on them too.
- If it was possible to get it done administratively, then in the current Skil bill push we would have/ and lawmakers would also have just asked USCIS to implement it.
Hope this explains this topic. Thanks
Thanks Pappu for explaination. Look like this door is already close. Well let me know if I can do anything to help.
hair White Wallpapers - Enjoy
ajthakur
07-14 05:17 PM
What options do I have now
more...
kedrex
07-18 08:03 PM
bump
hot White Wallpapers - White
pointlesswait
11-17 03:49 PM
why cant they spell out the damn rule.. instead of leaving it out for speculations...
insane!
insane!
more...
house hd wallpapers white.
kvrr
01-16 05:42 AM
Signed up for $100/month recurring payment. Thanks for setting this up.
tattoo smoke wallpapers. White Smoke
ya3
03-08 01:07 AM
hmm... I may join... If I get time. We'll see :D
Those WIPs are looking excellent, ppl. Especially Eilsoe's :thumb:
btw, if anyone wants to learn a 3d app without any prior knowledge... go CINEMA 4D:beam:
Those WIPs are looking excellent, ppl. Especially Eilsoe's :thumb:
btw, if anyone wants to learn a 3d app without any prior knowledge... go CINEMA 4D:beam:
more...
pictures Download Wallpaper
delax
03-16 03:04 PM
C'mon guys, what the hell have you been doing for so long?
I mean look at the archived Visa Bulletins, you observe the following:
1. EB2 was current for India ALL THROUGH 2003
2. EB2 was current for India ALL THROUGH 2004
3. EB2 was current for India till August 2005
4. After the retrogression in 2005, EB2 India moved up quickly through 2003-2004 to April 2004 by the beginning of 2007
5. Even after the summer 2007 fiasco (EB2 Current fro July, August 2007), the priority date for EB2 India moved to April 2004 and stayed there for 3 months
What more do you wish for?
I don't understand how there any can be anyone from 2004-2005 India still left in the EB2 category.
This is pathetic. What the hell have you been waiting for?
Thats because many people like me took nearly 3 years to clear their labor certification - so despite EB2 being current there were'nt many EB2 485s filed in 2004-2006 by people whose PDs were in the 2003-2004 time frame. My PD is July 2004 but my labor cleared only in Feb 2007 - thanks or no thanks to Philly BEC. Honestly I have nearly abandoned this whole desire for GC - I dont think GC is a need anymore, its only a desire - not trying to be philosphical but living my life without having to worry about some bureaucratic process over which I have no control.
I mean look at the archived Visa Bulletins, you observe the following:
1. EB2 was current for India ALL THROUGH 2003
2. EB2 was current for India ALL THROUGH 2004
3. EB2 was current for India till August 2005
4. After the retrogression in 2005, EB2 India moved up quickly through 2003-2004 to April 2004 by the beginning of 2007
5. Even after the summer 2007 fiasco (EB2 Current fro July, August 2007), the priority date for EB2 India moved to April 2004 and stayed there for 3 months
What more do you wish for?
I don't understand how there any can be anyone from 2004-2005 India still left in the EB2 category.
This is pathetic. What the hell have you been waiting for?
Thats because many people like me took nearly 3 years to clear their labor certification - so despite EB2 being current there were'nt many EB2 485s filed in 2004-2006 by people whose PDs were in the 2003-2004 time frame. My PD is July 2004 but my labor cleared only in Feb 2007 - thanks or no thanks to Philly BEC. Honestly I have nearly abandoned this whole desire for GC - I dont think GC is a need anymore, its only a desire - not trying to be philosphical but living my life without having to worry about some bureaucratic process over which I have no control.
dresses Wallpaper: Black White and
andy garcia
09-10 01:58 PM
This holds true for even your spouse not being eligible for in-state tuition. WHY???? Because you are a legal dependent(spouse/children) immigrant?
But the children/spouses of the illegal aliens are eligible for the same!!!!!
Guys, you have to move to Florida. When my wife and son were on H4 they were paying in-state tuition.
this is copied from the catalog of the school:
The following categories will be considered as Florida residents for tuition purposes:
Active duty members of the armed forces stationed in Florida, or whose home of record is in Florida, and their dependents.
Full-time instructional and administrative personnel employed by a public educational institution and their dependents
Qualified beneficiaries under the Florida Pre-Paid Postsecondary Expense Program.
In addition the following nonimmigrant categories are eligible to establish Florida residency: A, E, G, H-1, H-4, I, K, L, N, 0-1, O-3, R, and NATO I-7.
Others as permitted by state statute or rule
But the children/spouses of the illegal aliens are eligible for the same!!!!!
Guys, you have to move to Florida. When my wife and son were on H4 they were paying in-state tuition.
this is copied from the catalog of the school:
The following categories will be considered as Florida residents for tuition purposes:
Active duty members of the armed forces stationed in Florida, or whose home of record is in Florida, and their dependents.
Full-time instructional and administrative personnel employed by a public educational institution and their dependents
Qualified beneficiaries under the Florida Pre-Paid Postsecondary Expense Program.
In addition the following nonimmigrant categories are eligible to establish Florida residency: A, E, G, H-1, H-4, I, K, L, N, 0-1, O-3, R, and NATO I-7.
Others as permitted by state statute or rule
more...
makeup wallpapers white background.
invincibleasian
01-31 06:17 PM
I am actually looking for a very simple answer : My husband whose EB-2 I-140 had been approved some time back, wants to quit his job & pursue MBA on F-1. Would the I-539 be approved in this case ? Or should he plan for H4.
BTW , he has no plans to travel out of country so stamping is not an issue.
H4 is the best option. F1to h1 is a pain!
BTW , he has no plans to travel out of country so stamping is not an issue.
H4 is the best option. F1to h1 is a pain!
girlfriend Free Red and White Wallpapers
bfadlia
03-09 12:54 PM
As much as I hated it, being EB3 ROW with Jul05 pd, I feel it is good that they didn't randomly move the pd forward like last year then give gc to some random 2006, 2007 cases while there are plenty of 2004 and 2005 ROW people still waiting
hairstyles wallpapers white. laptop
p_kumar
02-20 03:16 PM
Do you belive this guy?. His name is Ron Gotcher. All he will say is GOTCHA!!!!:D
But seriously, Any chance of Eb3 advancing this year?.
But seriously, Any chance of Eb3 advancing this year?.
willigetgc?
08-10 10:30 PM
i feel frustrated at some peoples' unwillingness to admit that eb3 needs iv's help now more than ever. They are saying that nothing much can be done for eb3, as ins merely corrected its wrong interpretation in visa allocation
I went to the advocacy days in DC this June, and the biggest push IV was/is making - country cap elimination. The biggest benefactor of this change is EB3 (eb2 will be helped too, but that is how INS preference system works) - again, the biggest benefactor of this legislative change is eb3. IV has been pushing this issue over and over - try reaching out about town hall meetings or any such meetings with lawmakers - and you will figure out how much iv is working on behalf of eb3. Unfortunately, not many eb3 were active until the last 2 vbs. So, please do not say, "nothing much can be done for eb3" or "IV is not working for EB3". Its just that you may not see value in the route that IV is pursuing. It is eb3 members' unwillingness to admit that IV needs grass root help more than ever now.
but, if we are all willing to put our hearts and minds to it we can surely come up with new ideas that will help our cause. Surely, laws are written so that justice can happen. So if justice is not happening, the law would have some answer, somewhere.
Let me put forward my idea.
The ina language says that until eb2 is not current, there will be no spillover to eb3. Agreed. but i would contend that this statement is on a year to year basis. that is, if in the year 2002 (for example) all eb2 has been satisfied, then the spillovers should go to year 2002 eb3.
i am sorry to point this out, but you are looking at this from only your angle. Don't get me wrong, i would probably do the same. Having said that, logically this change will not fly with the uscis - 2 reasons - 1. Your contention that this rule is year to year - flawed contention 2. What does all eb2 satisfied mean? - these arguments will not work. I am not pulling you or the idea down - but simply stating my point of view based on what I know of the law.
is this something iv can point out and fight for? Can eb3 members put their money and efforts in this direction? Let me know if this sounds worthwhile
now a days we are seeing more threads related to spill over allocation interpretation etc, but i have not seen any single post by iv core about this. I am from eb3 community and share the frustration among others.
i remember a time just a few months ago this year, eb2 were complaining about spillover not happening, and iv core disputed it, saying that spillover was happening.
i see a lot of people suggesting to port from eb3 to eb2, instead of wasting time on these discussions. Well, porting is not an option for most of us. It is either because we are working for big companies (who do not want to extra burden) or not able to find a small company which can help us.
just like you are seeing the ground realities of porting from eb3 to eb2, i believe that iv knows the ground reality of proposing new interpretations to the law. I would go a little further in saying that the proposals considered here are changes in the law than changes in the interpretation of the law.
I may be wrong on my thinking, but I do hope you take a suggestion - when reading the INS law, understand it independently first. Then go back to see, if it can be applied on your interpretation. Do not start out with it, everything looks red when wearing red tinted glasses.......
After the advocacy days in DC, I am sold on what IV is offering and its commitment to the EB community. I am EB3 too and I am pretty much in the same boat as many of you here.
I went to the advocacy days in DC this June, and the biggest push IV was/is making - country cap elimination. The biggest benefactor of this change is EB3 (eb2 will be helped too, but that is how INS preference system works) - again, the biggest benefactor of this legislative change is eb3. IV has been pushing this issue over and over - try reaching out about town hall meetings or any such meetings with lawmakers - and you will figure out how much iv is working on behalf of eb3. Unfortunately, not many eb3 were active until the last 2 vbs. So, please do not say, "nothing much can be done for eb3" or "IV is not working for EB3". Its just that you may not see value in the route that IV is pursuing. It is eb3 members' unwillingness to admit that IV needs grass root help more than ever now.
but, if we are all willing to put our hearts and minds to it we can surely come up with new ideas that will help our cause. Surely, laws are written so that justice can happen. So if justice is not happening, the law would have some answer, somewhere.
Let me put forward my idea.
The ina language says that until eb2 is not current, there will be no spillover to eb3. Agreed. but i would contend that this statement is on a year to year basis. that is, if in the year 2002 (for example) all eb2 has been satisfied, then the spillovers should go to year 2002 eb3.
i am sorry to point this out, but you are looking at this from only your angle. Don't get me wrong, i would probably do the same. Having said that, logically this change will not fly with the uscis - 2 reasons - 1. Your contention that this rule is year to year - flawed contention 2. What does all eb2 satisfied mean? - these arguments will not work. I am not pulling you or the idea down - but simply stating my point of view based on what I know of the law.
is this something iv can point out and fight for? Can eb3 members put their money and efforts in this direction? Let me know if this sounds worthwhile
now a days we are seeing more threads related to spill over allocation interpretation etc, but i have not seen any single post by iv core about this. I am from eb3 community and share the frustration among others.
i remember a time just a few months ago this year, eb2 were complaining about spillover not happening, and iv core disputed it, saying that spillover was happening.
i see a lot of people suggesting to port from eb3 to eb2, instead of wasting time on these discussions. Well, porting is not an option for most of us. It is either because we are working for big companies (who do not want to extra burden) or not able to find a small company which can help us.
just like you are seeing the ground realities of porting from eb3 to eb2, i believe that iv knows the ground reality of proposing new interpretations to the law. I would go a little further in saying that the proposals considered here are changes in the law than changes in the interpretation of the law.
I may be wrong on my thinking, but I do hope you take a suggestion - when reading the INS law, understand it independently first. Then go back to see, if it can be applied on your interpretation. Do not start out with it, everything looks red when wearing red tinted glasses.......
After the advocacy days in DC, I am sold on what IV is offering and its commitment to the EB community. I am EB3 too and I am pretty much in the same boat as many of you here.
WAIT_FOR_EVER_GC
06-10 12:50 PM
WAKE UP CALL FOR THOSE STILL SITTING ON THE SIDELINES
On Tuesday, when we were on the Hill doing meetings during Advocacy days, we were informed by the senior Senate office that an amendment to prevent H1 and work authorizations is in the works in the Tax bill. We immediately requested this office to oppose this amendment. Senator office expressed full support for us and shared with us that the Senator's office has already expressed opposition to such an amendment.
We would like everyone to know that just because someone has EAD, it does not mean we are in safe haven. There is no safe haven till we have approved green cards. And for those who think that they don't need to participate actively, this is a wake up call.
We have also learned that this is degree 1 amendment. This means it will be voted on on the Senate floor even when it is non-germane to the bill. We have also learned that if such an amendment comes up for vote during this difficult political climate, it appears that such an amendment will have 70 votes in the senate which makes each one of us extremely vulnerable to be forced out. Everyone on H1, L1, J1 or EAD will risk the renewal of their current application status.
IV is working on defeating this amendment. Please stay tuned for further updates.
On Tuesday, Mr. Sanders sponsored an amendment S.AMDT.4319 in bill H.R.4213
AMENDMENT PURPOSE: Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S4754
COSPONSORS(2):
Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] - 6/9/2010
Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] - 6/9/2010
Source: Congressional Record - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) (http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r111:1:./temp/~r1119eE0Na:e98:)
SA 4319. Mr. SANDERS (for himself, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Harkin) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 4213, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Employ America Act''.
(b) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security may not approve a petition by an employer for any visa authorizing employment in the United States unless the employer has provided written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that--
(1) the employer has not provided a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.) during the 12-month period immediately preceding the date on which the alien is scheduled to be hired; and
(2) the employer does not intend to provide a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to such Act.
(c) Effect of Mass Layoff.--If an employer provides a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act after the approval of a visa described in subsection (b), any visas approved during the most recent 12-month period for such employer shall expire on the date that is 60 days after the date on which such notice is provided. The expiration of a visa under this subsection shall not be subject to judicial review.
(d) Notice Requirement.--Upon receiving notification of a mass layoff from an employer, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall inform each employee whose visa is scheduled to expire under subsection (c)--
(1) the date on which such individual will no longer be authorized to work in the United States; and
(2) the date on which such individual will be required to leave the United States unless the individual is otherwise authorized to remain in the United States.
(e) Exemption.--An employer shall be exempt from the requirements under this section if the employer provides written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that the total number of the employer's workers who are United States citizens and are working in the United States have not been, and will not be, reduced as a result of a mass layoff described in subsection (c).
(f) Rulemaking.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Labor shall promulgate regulations to carry out this section, including a requirement that employers provide notice to the Secretary of Homeland Security of a mass layoff (as defined in section 2 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101)).
What should we do. I am in tell me what I need to do?
On Tuesday, when we were on the Hill doing meetings during Advocacy days, we were informed by the senior Senate office that an amendment to prevent H1 and work authorizations is in the works in the Tax bill. We immediately requested this office to oppose this amendment. Senator office expressed full support for us and shared with us that the Senator's office has already expressed opposition to such an amendment.
We would like everyone to know that just because someone has EAD, it does not mean we are in safe haven. There is no safe haven till we have approved green cards. And for those who think that they don't need to participate actively, this is a wake up call.
We have also learned that this is degree 1 amendment. This means it will be voted on on the Senate floor even when it is non-germane to the bill. We have also learned that if such an amendment comes up for vote during this difficult political climate, it appears that such an amendment will have 70 votes in the senate which makes each one of us extremely vulnerable to be forced out. Everyone on H1, L1, J1 or EAD will risk the renewal of their current application status.
IV is working on defeating this amendment. Please stay tuned for further updates.
On Tuesday, Mr. Sanders sponsored an amendment S.AMDT.4319 in bill H.R.4213
AMENDMENT PURPOSE: Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S4754
COSPONSORS(2):
Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] - 6/9/2010
Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] - 6/9/2010
Source: Congressional Record - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) (http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r111:1:./temp/~r1119eE0Na:e98:)
SA 4319. Mr. SANDERS (for himself, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Harkin) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 4213, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Employ America Act''.
(b) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security may not approve a petition by an employer for any visa authorizing employment in the United States unless the employer has provided written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that--
(1) the employer has not provided a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.) during the 12-month period immediately preceding the date on which the alien is scheduled to be hired; and
(2) the employer does not intend to provide a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to such Act.
(c) Effect of Mass Layoff.--If an employer provides a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act after the approval of a visa described in subsection (b), any visas approved during the most recent 12-month period for such employer shall expire on the date that is 60 days after the date on which such notice is provided. The expiration of a visa under this subsection shall not be subject to judicial review.
(d) Notice Requirement.--Upon receiving notification of a mass layoff from an employer, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall inform each employee whose visa is scheduled to expire under subsection (c)--
(1) the date on which such individual will no longer be authorized to work in the United States; and
(2) the date on which such individual will be required to leave the United States unless the individual is otherwise authorized to remain in the United States.
(e) Exemption.--An employer shall be exempt from the requirements under this section if the employer provides written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that the total number of the employer's workers who are United States citizens and are working in the United States have not been, and will not be, reduced as a result of a mass layoff described in subsection (c).
(f) Rulemaking.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Labor shall promulgate regulations to carry out this section, including a requirement that employers provide notice to the Secretary of Homeland Security of a mass layoff (as defined in section 2 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101)).
What should we do. I am in tell me what I need to do?
No comments:
Post a Comment