cbadari99
06-24 09:40 PM
Hasn't this been discussed already?
It does not make a difference to America, if a few hundred thousand foreign workers get their GCs today or 10 years later. The people America would really be concerned about are outstanding researchers, but then these people fall in the EB1 category which is always current and so they have no cause for complaint. The other category that the US is concerned about is cheap and illegal labor, but that is not related to GCs. So in short, there is nothing about the Eb2/Eb3 GC backlog that America needs to worry about.
The delay causes anxiety & frustration only for us applicants. So the impact is only on us.
America is not bothered about losing outstanding researchers.
It does not make a difference to America, if a few hundred thousand foreign workers get their GCs today or 10 years later. The people America would really be concerned about are outstanding researchers, but then these people fall in the EB1 category which is always current and so they have no cause for complaint. The other category that the US is concerned about is cheap and illegal labor, but that is not related to GCs. So in short, there is nothing about the Eb2/Eb3 GC backlog that America needs to worry about.
The delay causes anxiety & frustration only for us applicants. So the impact is only on us.
America is not bothered about losing outstanding researchers.
geesee
08-20 11:35 PM
Here in NJ(at least in Somerville), they ask for H1B approval notice. No need to have the visa stamped on passport.
gccube
07-19 02:29 AM
I personally believe that PD is more significant than the RD but it makes sense to me that RD may take precedence if the PD is current (as suggested by some members of the forum).
But if we think that at all times RD is the order they process them what would happen in this scenario
1. A guy with 2001 PD filed later and was 750,000 th guy in the queue of AOS applications.
2. After accepting all the apps USCIS retrogressed the dates to 2002 Jan. That means that USCIS is asking for AOS apps which satisfy this PD. That means that a visa no is available as of that date for adjudication so the first new application received(after they are retrogressed) will be 750,001 th application.
3. If RD is the only processing order at all times then 750,001th application will not be sent to an officer for review until all other 750,000 th applications with a better RD are processed.
4. Assuming that this takes 3 years (for example) then they are accepting an application today which they are not going to even look at in the next three years and this is not making sense to me.
5. If they are accepting the 750,001 th application because that application qualifies for a visa no then that should be processed before the other applications(barring for special cases FBi name check issues, RFEs etc). This means PD comes into picture when there is retrogression. So then they have to apply the same rule for the I-485 applications which are pending with them. They some how have to order them on the PD and I assume this should not be rocket science for them as that data is part of our AOS applications.
Thanks everyone for your inputs.
But if we think that at all times RD is the order they process them what would happen in this scenario
1. A guy with 2001 PD filed later and was 750,000 th guy in the queue of AOS applications.
2. After accepting all the apps USCIS retrogressed the dates to 2002 Jan. That means that USCIS is asking for AOS apps which satisfy this PD. That means that a visa no is available as of that date for adjudication so the first new application received(after they are retrogressed) will be 750,001 th application.
3. If RD is the only processing order at all times then 750,001th application will not be sent to an officer for review until all other 750,000 th applications with a better RD are processed.
4. Assuming that this takes 3 years (for example) then they are accepting an application today which they are not going to even look at in the next three years and this is not making sense to me.
5. If they are accepting the 750,001 th application because that application qualifies for a visa no then that should be processed before the other applications(barring for special cases FBi name check issues, RFEs etc). This means PD comes into picture when there is retrogression. So then they have to apply the same rule for the I-485 applications which are pending with them. They some how have to order them on the PD and I assume this should not be rocket science for them as that data is part of our AOS applications.
Thanks everyone for your inputs.
reddymjm
03-08 11:50 PM
Nothing wrong in dreaming.
more...
ind_game
05-15 11:06 PM
Well, there you go. I am sure your congress liason will give you some good news next week.
thanks a lot for your wishes.....
thanks a lot for your wishes.....
Mayday
05-09 08:11 PM
actually I am pretty sure they are misinterpreting some more general requirement, like you have to be PRESENT in the USA for at least 6 months and being allowed to be present for more than a year, to apply for DL. Since for the first 12 months you can use a foreign DL.
do not trust clerks that sit at the entrance; they proved to know almost nothing about visa, I-94 and etc. If some rules seem absurd, go for manager right away and do not waste time on low-level clerks. Let them do their routine work - US citizens address changes and school-children DLs.
I have to go through them every time I need to change the address and/or get DL. Every time it ends up with a manager, and every time manager calls some other department and it ends up with issuing DL. So simply be persistent. If manager refuses - request written decline with law quote that they used to decline your application. Read this law and appeal based on what is said there.
do not trust clerks that sit at the entrance; they proved to know almost nothing about visa, I-94 and etc. If some rules seem absurd, go for manager right away and do not waste time on low-level clerks. Let them do their routine work - US citizens address changes and school-children DLs.
I have to go through them every time I need to change the address and/or get DL. Every time it ends up with a manager, and every time manager calls some other department and it ends up with issuing DL. So simply be persistent. If manager refuses - request written decline with law quote that they used to decline your application. Read this law and appeal based on what is said there.
more...
nj_03_2004
07-18 06:21 PM
Defense bill pulled after troop drawdawn measure fails
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/18/us.iraq.ap/index.html
Immigration Amendments on War Bill Fall by Wayside
http://www.numbersusa.com/index
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/18/us.iraq.ap/index.html
Immigration Amendments on War Bill Fall by Wayside
http://www.numbersusa.com/index
Green.Tech
06-18 02:19 PM
Please contribute for your own benefit.
more...
hopefulgc
09-12 12:11 PM
Actually,
why do they even have to locate old files physically?
All the data about case file number (LINXXX, SRCXX, etc), status and the associated priority date is in a single/distributed database (else we would not be able to check our status online )
WHY CAN'T USCIS NOT RUN A QUERY AGAINST THIS DATBASE....?
Well - what I say is - there is an issue and we have to fix it. But do you think such a tangential effort work?
It is also known/unknown that USCIS simply does not have a system in place to locate files with old PDs - constant changes to system may have resulted in poor record keeping. I do agree that this issue has to be brought to limelight.
I personally feel that any effort must be effective and not a half hearted effort - what I am trying to say is opening a thread and running 10 pages of messages and doing nothing? Does that work for us? Can that be effective?
why do they even have to locate old files physically?
All the data about case file number (LINXXX, SRCXX, etc), status and the associated priority date is in a single/distributed database (else we would not be able to check our status online )
WHY CAN'T USCIS NOT RUN A QUERY AGAINST THIS DATBASE....?
Well - what I say is - there is an issue and we have to fix it. But do you think such a tangential effort work?
It is also known/unknown that USCIS simply does not have a system in place to locate files with old PDs - constant changes to system may have resulted in poor record keeping. I do agree that this issue has to be brought to limelight.
I personally feel that any effort must be effective and not a half hearted effort - what I am trying to say is opening a thread and running 10 pages of messages and doing nothing? Does that work for us? Can that be effective?
Macaca
10-01 12:21 PM
In 2002 all the EB visas were issued (174,968). However, there were 31,532 unused family preference visas, so the limit for 2003 was 171,532 (140,000 + 31,532).
Guess what, in 2003 they only approved 82,137 EB visas, so they ended up with 88,482 unused EB visas
From where did you get 174,968?
Is there any case where unused FP #'s were captured for EB?
Guess what, in 2003 they only approved 82,137 EB visas, so they ended up with 88,482 unused EB visas
From where did you get 174,968?
Is there any case where unused FP #'s were captured for EB?
more...
virtual55
09-13 04:35 PM
http://www.andhraheadlines.com/World/BrowseArticle.aspx?ArtID=2303
franklin
07-20 06:19 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, ---but I thought that "This Ammendment" was attached to a defence bill. I dont think that it was the ammendment that was shot down, but the whole defence beill.
That is exactly what I thought as well. Which is why I'm confused by posters ranting about "people who voted against SKIL bill" and getting their knickers in a twist
That is exactly what I thought as well. Which is why I'm confused by posters ranting about "people who voted against SKIL bill" and getting their knickers in a twist
more...
singhsa3
09-12 11:29 AM
We won't know if it effective unless we execute it, which is the biggest issue with us "the execution".
So far as locating old PDs are concerned, it USCIS knows it exists and if there is willinglness, they can dig it out from anywhere.
On the other hand , if this not fixed then even if there are 200K extra visas, the sufferings will persist.
Well - what I say is - there is an issue and we have to fix it. But do you think such a tangential effort work?
It is also known/unknown that USCIS simply does not have a system in place to locate files with old PDs - constant changes to system may have resulted in poor record keeping. I do agree that this issue has to be brought to limelight.
I personally feel that any effort must be effective and not a half hearted effort - what I am trying to say is opening a thread and running 10 pages of messages and doing nothing? Does that work for us? Can that be effective?
So far as locating old PDs are concerned, it USCIS knows it exists and if there is willinglness, they can dig it out from anywhere.
On the other hand , if this not fixed then even if there are 200K extra visas, the sufferings will persist.
Well - what I say is - there is an issue and we have to fix it. But do you think such a tangential effort work?
It is also known/unknown that USCIS simply does not have a system in place to locate files with old PDs - constant changes to system may have resulted in poor record keeping. I do agree that this issue has to be brought to limelight.
I personally feel that any effort must be effective and not a half hearted effort - what I am trying to say is opening a thread and running 10 pages of messages and doing nothing? Does that work for us? Can that be effective?
catchupvijay
07-14 10:41 PM
Check posted.
more...
rcahk
04-05 09:00 PM
My PD Oct 2001. 45 letter received October 2005. No news at Apr.5 2006:o
gccovet
10-20 12:03 PM
The thread needs to float on top
^^BUMP^^
^^BUMP^^
more...
r_mistry
01-12 02:27 PM
Can somebody please provide their experience with SR?
1- When do you get a feedback from USCIS on the SR?
2 - Anybody still waiting for their AP filed at NSC last week of July???
thanks!!!
1- When do you get a feedback from USCIS on the SR?
2 - Anybody still waiting for their AP filed at NSC last week of July???
thanks!!!
forgerator
12-10 03:58 PM
this is great news for EB3 ROW!
Employment Third:
Worldwide: April through August 2005
China: June through September 2003
India: January through February 2002
Mexico: January through June 2004
Philippines: April through August 2005
Employment Third:
Worldwide: April through August 2005
China: June through September 2003
India: January through February 2002
Mexico: January through June 2004
Philippines: April through August 2005
chandsri81
05-14 10:35 AM
thanks! thats encouraging..they already gave us a conditional approval last week asking for some documents, which I sent immediately. They didn't even open my documents for a week, and then the underwriter came back asking for some more things including this I94..these people are crazy! Today's my deadline and i still haven't heard anything
I will let you know if they refuse the give us a loan..thanks again for the help!
I will let you know if they refuse the give us a loan..thanks again for the help!
Saralayar
07-20 09:23 PM
Stop Showing These Numbers, Assumptions... Alright You're Good In Mathematics.. #@#~! Vb Or C#... Whatever... Give Those People At Uscis The Benefit Of The Doubt... I Think They're Not That Dumb Like What You Think... Maybe You're Not Happy With You're Employer...cant Wait To Leave...
All are exagerated values. Unless we have the correct values, these predictions are just waste of time and mind disturbing.:(
All are exagerated values. Unless we have the correct values, these predictions are just waste of time and mind disturbing.:(
Aah_GC
06-10 10:09 AM
My suggestion - Do your best to support IV - contribute and make those calls. Rest: Leave it to the man above - and move on with your priorities.
No comments:
Post a Comment