satysh
07-16 11:51 PM
I sent an email to Roy Beck - Founder of NumbersUSA about the false information that they present via the fax. I am expecting some reply.
This is email that I sent..........
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Roy,
I am Satish. I am one of many immigrant workers working in USA. Recently, I came across www.NumbersUSA.com website and their propaganda. I respect your service to this country and your steps towards propagating your agenda to the congress. However, when I came across the following fax content intended to faxed to the members of congress from www.Numbersusa.com, I was completely shocked to see the points mentioned in the webfax. Let me give my insight on this.
The fax content is as follows
Dear [This fax will go to Your U.S. Senators and U.S. Representative ]
I oppose any increase in the annual H-1B visa cap, including those in the SKIL Act. I am counting on you to oppose it.
Here are just a few reasons why I hope you will oppose the SKIL Act:
(1) The six-year visas allow foreign workers to bring in their families, and guarantee thousands of anchor babies.
(2) H-1B salaries are tax-exempt - no FICA, no federal or state income taxes. They can live at the same level as tax-paying Americans at a lower cost. Therefore, Congress allows foreigners to "low-ball" American workers.
(3) H-1Bs can leave the job they came to fill and seek other jobs, not necessarily in the "hard to fill" category.
(4) Most H-1Bs are of a "protected" ethnic group, so H-1Bs have an affirmative action preference when competing with Americans for the same jobs.
The result of the SKIL Act would be to further depress the wages of Americans working in high-tech and scientific fields and to cause additional job displacement for those workers.
Sincerely, [Your Name Will Appear Here]
My view on the above points.
1) This is true that foreign workers bring their families. However, I reject the word "guarantee" used in the later part of the sentence. Let me further elaborate on this. When a H1B worker first arrives on the American soil, the worker's spouse and children if any, are on H4 visa. For your information, these dependents of foreign workers are on H4 visa, which is a highly restrictive visa. This visa does not guarantee a social security to women and children. By social security, I mean lot more than just a social security number. In some states, this results in inability to even drive and be completely dependent. Some of H4 people that I know are highly skilled such as Phds, Doctors, MBAs, etc.
2) This is most shocking of all the points. I would love to know the source of this information. I am a H1B worker for last 4+ years. I have paid all my taxes including federal, state taxes, social security taxes, Medicare, FICA, etc. This is not voluntary deduction. All my employers were mandated to deduct just as any American citizen. I would love to debate this with you and NumbersUSA reps, because I have facts and documents to prove this. In fact, Most of H1Bs pay FICA tax, which we simply cannot get after retirement (in this case mostly 6 years on H1B). I would encourage you and NumbersUSA to contact reputed IRS expert to get more information on this. In case you don't get this information. I would be more than happy to meet you in NumbersUSA office along my documents. If some person or employer does not pay taxes being on H1B, that person is treated as tax fraudster, whom I am sure IRS handles very effectively.
3) This is also not true. In my case I had to post my labor on job bulletin board (place where I had to work) for atleast 2-3 weeks with my skills, designation and salary offered. In case if any US citizen interested in this posting, he had an open opportunity to contact my employer about his interest in the job. By the way, salaries of thousands of H1B workers are on par with that of US citizens. Given a chance, I am sure that I can prove that I am better in all aspects of IT programming than some of the best on U.S. citizens. This promotes competitiveness.
4) I would love to have actual source of this information. I know many US registered organizations that hire H1B foreign workers, who worked with fellow U.S citizens without any problems. As far as my knowledge is concerned, most of these employers are "Equal Opportunity Employers".
Roy, America is a unique country that is built on immigrants. This is probably one of the reason why America is amazing in providing civil liberties to all people irrespective of caste, color and race. Also, America has such an immense talent in every field, which makes it a leader in this competitive world.
I certainly welcome yours and NumbersUSA perspective on this email.
Both of us strive to make America more strong and competitive.
Thanks,
Satish
"It is the theory that decides what we can observe."
Albert Einstein
This is email that I sent..........
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Roy,
I am Satish. I am one of many immigrant workers working in USA. Recently, I came across www.NumbersUSA.com website and their propaganda. I respect your service to this country and your steps towards propagating your agenda to the congress. However, when I came across the following fax content intended to faxed to the members of congress from www.Numbersusa.com, I was completely shocked to see the points mentioned in the webfax. Let me give my insight on this.
The fax content is as follows
Dear [This fax will go to Your U.S. Senators and U.S. Representative ]
I oppose any increase in the annual H-1B visa cap, including those in the SKIL Act. I am counting on you to oppose it.
Here are just a few reasons why I hope you will oppose the SKIL Act:
(1) The six-year visas allow foreign workers to bring in their families, and guarantee thousands of anchor babies.
(2) H-1B salaries are tax-exempt - no FICA, no federal or state income taxes. They can live at the same level as tax-paying Americans at a lower cost. Therefore, Congress allows foreigners to "low-ball" American workers.
(3) H-1Bs can leave the job they came to fill and seek other jobs, not necessarily in the "hard to fill" category.
(4) Most H-1Bs are of a "protected" ethnic group, so H-1Bs have an affirmative action preference when competing with Americans for the same jobs.
The result of the SKIL Act would be to further depress the wages of Americans working in high-tech and scientific fields and to cause additional job displacement for those workers.
Sincerely, [Your Name Will Appear Here]
My view on the above points.
1) This is true that foreign workers bring their families. However, I reject the word "guarantee" used in the later part of the sentence. Let me further elaborate on this. When a H1B worker first arrives on the American soil, the worker's spouse and children if any, are on H4 visa. For your information, these dependents of foreign workers are on H4 visa, which is a highly restrictive visa. This visa does not guarantee a social security to women and children. By social security, I mean lot more than just a social security number. In some states, this results in inability to even drive and be completely dependent. Some of H4 people that I know are highly skilled such as Phds, Doctors, MBAs, etc.
2) This is most shocking of all the points. I would love to know the source of this information. I am a H1B worker for last 4+ years. I have paid all my taxes including federal, state taxes, social security taxes, Medicare, FICA, etc. This is not voluntary deduction. All my employers were mandated to deduct just as any American citizen. I would love to debate this with you and NumbersUSA reps, because I have facts and documents to prove this. In fact, Most of H1Bs pay FICA tax, which we simply cannot get after retirement (in this case mostly 6 years on H1B). I would encourage you and NumbersUSA to contact reputed IRS expert to get more information on this. In case you don't get this information. I would be more than happy to meet you in NumbersUSA office along my documents. If some person or employer does not pay taxes being on H1B, that person is treated as tax fraudster, whom I am sure IRS handles very effectively.
3) This is also not true. In my case I had to post my labor on job bulletin board (place where I had to work) for atleast 2-3 weeks with my skills, designation and salary offered. In case if any US citizen interested in this posting, he had an open opportunity to contact my employer about his interest in the job. By the way, salaries of thousands of H1B workers are on par with that of US citizens. Given a chance, I am sure that I can prove that I am better in all aspects of IT programming than some of the best on U.S. citizens. This promotes competitiveness.
4) I would love to have actual source of this information. I know many US registered organizations that hire H1B foreign workers, who worked with fellow U.S citizens without any problems. As far as my knowledge is concerned, most of these employers are "Equal Opportunity Employers".
Roy, America is a unique country that is built on immigrants. This is probably one of the reason why America is amazing in providing civil liberties to all people irrespective of caste, color and race. Also, America has such an immense talent in every field, which makes it a leader in this competitive world.
I certainly welcome yours and NumbersUSA perspective on this email.
Both of us strive to make America more strong and competitive.
Thanks,
Satish
"It is the theory that decides what we can observe."
Albert Einstein
wallpaper tuscaloosa tornado 2000.
TeddyKoochu
09-10 02:01 PM
They can make a category current when Demand < Supply. So once all I-485s prior to 2007 are approved the monthly demand data they publish will show demand Prior to CY2011 = 200. So unless they use approved I-140 to determine demand , DOS will make the dates current(even if for 1 month). As long as USCIS uses pending I-485 data to determine demand, the July 2007 fiasco will keep on repeating every 3-4 years. The key here is to have USCIS provide the actual demand (people with approved I-140s). It was mentioned somewhere that the current USCIS database is not capable of sorting the I-140s by country of chargebility and hence the I-140 data can't be used to determine per country demand.
Agreed that the I140 data may not be exact due to system limitations but approximation can still work, they take up more people, EB2 ROW was current the whole of last year, FB2 is at Apr 2010. Even I140 statistics are shown on the volumes chart so I believe that the approximate numbers per country can be very easily derived or they can test the waters in small steps if they like. Since there is no guideline on this the agencies are legal in using judicious discretion.
Agreed that the I140 data may not be exact due to system limitations but approximation can still work, they take up more people, EB2 ROW was current the whole of last year, FB2 is at Apr 2010. Even I140 statistics are shown on the volumes chart so I believe that the approximate numbers per country can be very easily derived or they can test the waters in small steps if they like. Since there is no guideline on this the agencies are legal in using judicious discretion.
nixstor
07-04 09:44 PM
Please stop posting this on every thread. In one line you are just spamming. We all visit Attorney Oh's website often. He does not need any publicity
immigration-law.com
07/04/2007: Status and Issues Involving July 2007 485 Fiasco
* The AILF work on the lawsuit appears to be in progress without any hurdles. It has reported that enough candidates have come forward to participate in the lawsuit as the plaintiffs and it does not need any more candidates to move forward for the lawsuit. Some of other people are likely to be covered as members of the class action regardless of their actual participation in the lawsuit. People should send "THANK YOU" to the AILF Legal Action Center leaders and the attorneys who are actually working on this case. Some contribution to the AILF may be more than appropriate. Please visit the AILF site to learn how they can send in contribution.
#
# We have been asked by the readers to report the alleged conspiracy theory. We declined to do it. However, people may want to know potential issues that should be answered and explored. We will discuss these issues on following hypotehtical premises:
* Presumption of Facts: (1) The I-485 applications have been experiencing a tremendous backlog lately. (2) The causes for the backlog have been known to be delays in the security checks. Some of these applicants have sought a relief in federal courts in the form of mandamus actions. (3) Allegedly, the USCIS pull together local and Service Center employees and pull out pending I-485 cases which were older than six months in backlog, working overtime and during the weekend right before July 1, 2007. This is an assumption at this point. (4) As evidenced by the revised Visa Bulletin, apparently these employees contacted "en mass" the DOS to request the visa numbers for these pending I-485 cases, which the DOS reported in the release of the revised VB turned out exceeding 60,000. (5) The rule requires that the USCIS approves I-485 cases "prior to" to contacting and requesting a visa number. (6) The current USCIS policy and procedure also require that I-485 applications be adjudicated and approved "only after" the completion of clearance of the security checks.
* Issue I: Hypothetically, what happens if the USCIS takes out the visa number before they obtain the security clearace?
o Answer I: Obviously it would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: It will constitue a serious security lapse, compromising the homeland security.
* Issue II: Hypothetically, what hppens if the USCIS requests and takes out the visa numbers prior to adjudication and approval of the pending I-485 applications?
o Answer I: It is evident that the USCIS would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: There could be two probable consequences affecting the backlog I-485 applicants and the new July Visa Bulletin eligible I-485 applicants, shoud the hypothetical facts develop. (1) The backlog I-485 applicants who have been issued I-485 approval notices should not be affected by the fiasco, albeit the potential revocation of the I-485 approvals. In most cases, revocation of the approved I-485 requires the time-consuming immigration court proceedings, assuming that the USCIS has a sufficient cause of action which may be questionable in this case. (2) The backlog I-485 applicants who have yet to receive the approval notice and the USCIS has yet to adjudicate and approve the application might be vulnerable in that the USCIS might be required to return the visa numbers for these cases as there was an error. Hypothetically, these numbers could be returned to the State Department and based on these returned number, the State Department might be required to revise the July Visa Bulletin again.
immigration-law.com
07/04/2007: Status and Issues Involving July 2007 485 Fiasco
* The AILF work on the lawsuit appears to be in progress without any hurdles. It has reported that enough candidates have come forward to participate in the lawsuit as the plaintiffs and it does not need any more candidates to move forward for the lawsuit. Some of other people are likely to be covered as members of the class action regardless of their actual participation in the lawsuit. People should send "THANK YOU" to the AILF Legal Action Center leaders and the attorneys who are actually working on this case. Some contribution to the AILF may be more than appropriate. Please visit the AILF site to learn how they can send in contribution.
#
# We have been asked by the readers to report the alleged conspiracy theory. We declined to do it. However, people may want to know potential issues that should be answered and explored. We will discuss these issues on following hypotehtical premises:
* Presumption of Facts: (1) The I-485 applications have been experiencing a tremendous backlog lately. (2) The causes for the backlog have been known to be delays in the security checks. Some of these applicants have sought a relief in federal courts in the form of mandamus actions. (3) Allegedly, the USCIS pull together local and Service Center employees and pull out pending I-485 cases which were older than six months in backlog, working overtime and during the weekend right before July 1, 2007. This is an assumption at this point. (4) As evidenced by the revised Visa Bulletin, apparently these employees contacted "en mass" the DOS to request the visa numbers for these pending I-485 cases, which the DOS reported in the release of the revised VB turned out exceeding 60,000. (5) The rule requires that the USCIS approves I-485 cases "prior to" to contacting and requesting a visa number. (6) The current USCIS policy and procedure also require that I-485 applications be adjudicated and approved "only after" the completion of clearance of the security checks.
* Issue I: Hypothetically, what happens if the USCIS takes out the visa number before they obtain the security clearace?
o Answer I: Obviously it would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: It will constitue a serious security lapse, compromising the homeland security.
* Issue II: Hypothetically, what hppens if the USCIS requests and takes out the visa numbers prior to adjudication and approval of the pending I-485 applications?
o Answer I: It is evident that the USCIS would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: There could be two probable consequences affecting the backlog I-485 applicants and the new July Visa Bulletin eligible I-485 applicants, shoud the hypothetical facts develop. (1) The backlog I-485 applicants who have been issued I-485 approval notices should not be affected by the fiasco, albeit the potential revocation of the I-485 approvals. In most cases, revocation of the approved I-485 requires the time-consuming immigration court proceedings, assuming that the USCIS has a sufficient cause of action which may be questionable in this case. (2) The backlog I-485 applicants who have yet to receive the approval notice and the USCIS has yet to adjudicate and approve the application might be vulnerable in that the USCIS might be required to return the visa numbers for these cases as there was an error. Hypothetically, these numbers could be returned to the State Department and based on these returned number, the State Department might be required to revise the July Visa Bulletin again.
2011 tuscaloosa tornado 2000.
SunnySurya
07-28 12:21 PM
No, you won't be banned from IV. You just will be banned from this country.
And by the way, the thing you were trying to do is not protected by "the first amendment"
So I cannot even speak on IV and even little I defended my religion, I will be banned from IV? Freedom Of Speech
And by the way, the thing you were trying to do is not protected by "the first amendment"
So I cannot even speak on IV and even little I defended my religion, I will be banned from IV? Freedom Of Speech
more...
reachinus
02-07 09:01 AM
I can donate 16000 US Airways miles from 2 accounts. Please let me know the process.
looivy
11-11 09:42 AM
IV please mobilize resources for Lame Duck.
more...
chanduv23
05-26 04:40 PM
There is a rule that you are suppossed to carry your passport all the times if you are on a visa.
Border patrol has the right to ask you for documents.
Fines are like $100 or so - not quite sure.
I was once driving on Adirondocks and was stopped by the border patrol. I showed my dirver's license but they wanted to see the visa. We waited there for sometime as they validated us on their computer and then let us go - they were friendly and suggested that it is always good to carry documents.
Border patrol has the right to ask you for documents.
Fines are like $100 or so - not quite sure.
I was once driving on Adirondocks and was stopped by the border patrol. I showed my dirver's license but they wanted to see the visa. We waited there for sometime as they validated us on their computer and then let us go - they were friendly and suggested that it is always good to carry documents.
2010 tuscaloosa tornado 2000.
uma001
03-21 03:30 PM
****Plus $12K and then what? You will leave the firm in 6 months.****
Working for them till I get green card itself a big thing.You know getting green card takes a decade. How can you leave in 6 months just after filing.
BTW,Are you the owner of one of these companies?
Companies,
Don't show green card fruits before hiring an employee...Just be frank. Say it if you dont do green card before hiring , not after joining.
Working for them till I get green card itself a big thing.You know getting green card takes a decade. How can you leave in 6 months just after filing.
BTW,Are you the owner of one of these companies?
Companies,
Don't show green card fruits before hiring an employee...Just be frank. Say it if you dont do green card before hiring , not after joining.
more...
BlueSunD
03-11 12:01 AM
Really sorry everybody, guess I�m the last one to post, I don�t know if I made it on time, but if not tell me and I�ll put the image down. Really sorry everybody... yes again.
Any way my entry :
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v55/BlueSunD/Maya/BSDFinalSubway.jpg) http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v55/BlueSunD/Maya/BSDFinalSubway.jpg
and the wires:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v55/BlueSunD/Maya/FinalPersp.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v55/BlueSunD/Maya/Final4Views.jpg
Any way my entry :
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v55/BlueSunD/Maya/BSDFinalSubway.jpg) http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v55/BlueSunD/Maya/BSDFinalSubway.jpg
and the wires:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v55/BlueSunD/Maya/FinalPersp.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v55/BlueSunD/Maya/Final4Views.jpg
hair tuscaloosa tornado 2000.
chanduv23
04-09 10:40 PM
We are not saying that they are not doing their job well. We just want better visibility to plan our future. I want to buy Hose which has substancial investment, can I buy during this uncertainity, may be.
Buying a hose is not substantial investment. It may cost $20 to $50 based on the length you need
Buying a hose is not substantial investment. It may cost $20 to $50 based on the length you need
more...
sanju
02-07 01:25 PM
I support country quota otherwise all the greencards will be taken by Indians and Chinese and the people from small countries will not even get a chance. I am sorry but of you are born on one of these countries then you have to wait before everyone who filed earlier.
If country quotas are removed in employment based category, skilled immigrants from other countries will get EQUAL chance just as skilled immigrants from India and China.
Here is a problem arising as the result of country quotas -
1.) Huge backlogs in EB green card categories
2.) Consulting companies apply for H1 for more and more people from backlogged countries because it will take 6-12 years for people from countries that are backlogged in EB green card category. This causes more backlogged EB green card categories, and more incentive for consulting companies to hire from backlogged countries. So less people from other countries are hired on H1.
As someone said on this forum, I took resume and my qualifications for the job interview, I did not take my birth certificate for the job interview. So why should the EB green card, which is a direct benefit of my employment, be judged based on where my birth certificate was issued?
Country quota system is WRONG at every level. Its only a matter of time that it will be removed. Sorry, if your application is not approved before the removal of country quota system.
.
If country quotas are removed in employment based category, skilled immigrants from other countries will get EQUAL chance just as skilled immigrants from India and China.
Here is a problem arising as the result of country quotas -
1.) Huge backlogs in EB green card categories
2.) Consulting companies apply for H1 for more and more people from backlogged countries because it will take 6-12 years for people from countries that are backlogged in EB green card category. This causes more backlogged EB green card categories, and more incentive for consulting companies to hire from backlogged countries. So less people from other countries are hired on H1.
As someone said on this forum, I took resume and my qualifications for the job interview, I did not take my birth certificate for the job interview. So why should the EB green card, which is a direct benefit of my employment, be judged based on where my birth certificate was issued?
Country quota system is WRONG at every level. Its only a matter of time that it will be removed. Sorry, if your application is not approved before the removal of country quota system.
.
hot tuscaloosa tornado 2000.
vbkris77
04-10 12:28 PM
What you said is absolutely true. EB1 Last year and the year before saw lot more approvals than usual. My reasoning is that even though EB1 was current for all along, they never really approved I140s to give them GC. So In the overall clearing of I140s, CIS cleared lot more EB1 cases and became approved during last 2 years. If you look at the I140 completion in the dash board, it will be very much clear that the completions came down to 4 digits for each month from 5 digits. Receipts continued to be less than 5K per month.
This year, we may see a big dip in EB1 cases and larger EB2 spillover. EB4 spillover is ruled out after this bulletin.
Here are the details for last year and years before:
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
This year, we may see a big dip in EB1 cases and larger EB2 spillover. EB4 spillover is ruled out after this bulletin.
Here are the details for last year and years before:
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
more...
house tuscaloosa tornado 2000.
immi2006
02-22 07:26 PM
Hi,
I called USCIS today, i was asked to take infopass to get a status update on my case, as it was pending in local office. I am not sure why.
My PD is 2001 March, from Dallas BEC - LC cleared on June 2007. Filed 140+485 on July 2. In my company atleast 400 - 500 number of EB2 cases came thru in June 2007, there were a few hundred lcs from BEC for EB3 too..from 2000-2001 time frame, based on some of the threads I have seen. We are one of the largest networking company in San Jose, here. I am sure there are other companoies that have good number of folks, also depends on how many stuck on..
Filed my 10 th year H1 extension,
PD March 2001
EB2 - Category - Adv Degree
Country - India
Degree - Research IIT/IISc Bangalore.
Following advice of 'Googler' i skimmed through the USCIS OMbud's report. So USCIS is not able to accurately 'count' the cases because old cases at local offices are not accounted in system (?) . Otherwise it would have been a quick data base query to obtain whatever statistics.
And i was interested in knowing how many India EB2 pending till Oct.2002 ;-)
I called USCIS today, i was asked to take infopass to get a status update on my case, as it was pending in local office. I am not sure why.
My PD is 2001 March, from Dallas BEC - LC cleared on June 2007. Filed 140+485 on July 2. In my company atleast 400 - 500 number of EB2 cases came thru in June 2007, there were a few hundred lcs from BEC for EB3 too..from 2000-2001 time frame, based on some of the threads I have seen. We are one of the largest networking company in San Jose, here. I am sure there are other companoies that have good number of folks, also depends on how many stuck on..
Filed my 10 th year H1 extension,
PD March 2001
EB2 - Category - Adv Degree
Country - India
Degree - Research IIT/IISc Bangalore.
Following advice of 'Googler' i skimmed through the USCIS OMbud's report. So USCIS is not able to accurately 'count' the cases because old cases at local offices are not accounted in system (?) . Otherwise it would have been a quick data base query to obtain whatever statistics.
And i was interested in knowing how many India EB2 pending till Oct.2002 ;-)
tattoo tuscaloosa tornado.
starscream
09-10 09:25 PM
Can anyone plz updae what happened to HR 5882 - did the house judiciary commitee pass the bill
more...
pictures tuscaloosa tornado 2000.
newbee7
07-05 12:58 AM
"Although USCIS stated in its 2006 Annual Report Response (at p. 8) that it provides detailed data to DOS, the tri-agency group identified gaps in USCIS’ data. Through these discussions, the Ombudsman learned that accounting and processing methods differ at the Nebraska and Texas Service Centers (where USCIS processes employment-based petitions)."
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOMB_Annual%20Report_2007.pdf
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOMB_Annual%20Report_2007.pdf
dresses tuscaloosa tornado 2000.
alanoconnor
08-15 03:57 PM
All
Charge-ability
Areas
Except
Those
Listed
CHINA-
mainland born INDIA MEXICO PHILIP-PINES
Employ-ment
-Based
1st 01JAN07 01JAN07 01JAN07 01JAN07 01JAN07
2nd 01JAN07 01JAN06 01APR04 01JAN07 01JAN07
3rd 01AUG02 U U U 01AUG02
Other
Workers U U U U U
4th 01JAN07 01JAN07 01JAN07 01JAN07 01JAN07
Certain Religious Workers 01JAN07 01JAN07 01JAN07 01JAN07 01JAN07
5th 01JAN07 01JAN07 01JAN07 01JAN07 01JAN07
Targeted Employ-ment Areas/
Regional Centers 01JAN07 01JAN07 01JAN07 01JAN07 01JAN07
Charge-ability
Areas
Except
Those
Listed
CHINA-
mainland born INDIA MEXICO PHILIP-PINES
Employ-ment
-Based
1st 01JAN07 01JAN07 01JAN07 01JAN07 01JAN07
2nd 01JAN07 01JAN06 01APR04 01JAN07 01JAN07
3rd 01AUG02 U U U 01AUG02
Other
Workers U U U U U
4th 01JAN07 01JAN07 01JAN07 01JAN07 01JAN07
Certain Religious Workers 01JAN07 01JAN07 01JAN07 01JAN07 01JAN07
5th 01JAN07 01JAN07 01JAN07 01JAN07 01JAN07
Targeted Employ-ment Areas/
Regional Centers 01JAN07 01JAN07 01JAN07 01JAN07 01JAN07
more...
makeup the people of Tuscaloosa,
andy garcia
09-10 11:58 AM
Many are : they jailed themsleves inside their closets
Are you saying that whoever is happy in their job without a GC is in a closet or jail?
Are you saying that whoever is happy in their job without a GC is in a closet or jail?
girlfriend girlfriend tuscaloosa tornado
ArunAntonio
04-23 12:17 AM
I was the first person in the QnA - disappointed at the intent of this meeting - they really care about illegal immigration - not once legal immigrants were discussed. It was a farce and IV was just used as an organization to show support to him - very disappointed.:mad:
gautamagg,
I was at the meeting and I was really taken aback by your question, it was totally out of context, I think I understand your position which is 'You wanted GC - you are not getting it - you decide to go back - but before that you decide to attend school - but cant get F1 coz you extablizhed Intent to Immigrate' -- This is a unique situation... atleast not something the larger IV community is affected by, but the accusing tone of your question to the Rep. was uncalled for .. I dont even know what you expected out of this meeting for your situation .. just try to get some perspective and place things incontext.. and again numbers matter.. if there were thousands of ppl in your situation your problem would have been addressed... anyways.. I beg to differ on your opinion about it being a farce.. There is effort being put to address the issues and IV has to maintain presence and make sure our issues are out there and are being noticed and not forgotten.. and thats what precisely happened yesterday.. IV members who are affected by Retrogression made their presence felt, the Core members were present on the dias rubbing shoulders with Congressman Gutierrez and representing the retrogressed community.
Your issue.. my friend .. unfortunately is not on the mandate of IV or the congressman..no doubt you were disappointed.. but good luck with you efforts and struggle.
gautamagg,
I was at the meeting and I was really taken aback by your question, it was totally out of context, I think I understand your position which is 'You wanted GC - you are not getting it - you decide to go back - but before that you decide to attend school - but cant get F1 coz you extablizhed Intent to Immigrate' -- This is a unique situation... atleast not something the larger IV community is affected by, but the accusing tone of your question to the Rep. was uncalled for .. I dont even know what you expected out of this meeting for your situation .. just try to get some perspective and place things incontext.. and again numbers matter.. if there were thousands of ppl in your situation your problem would have been addressed... anyways.. I beg to differ on your opinion about it being a farce.. There is effort being put to address the issues and IV has to maintain presence and make sure our issues are out there and are being noticed and not forgotten.. and thats what precisely happened yesterday.. IV members who are affected by Retrogression made their presence felt, the Core members were present on the dias rubbing shoulders with Congressman Gutierrez and representing the retrogressed community.
Your issue.. my friend .. unfortunately is not on the mandate of IV or the congressman..no doubt you were disappointed.. but good luck with you efforts and struggle.
hairstyles the Tuscaloosa tornado is
ajthakur
07-14 06:09 PM
I know I acted irresponsibly. Under the circumstances I had to. The person employing me was trying to use me for (something) for which my conscience didnt allow. So the decision to quit was best. I can't write all the circumstances here. I knew I could get into problems with immigration department for my irrational yet moral decision to quit company before 180 days. I think this problem with USCIS is far more acceptable than doing something for your employer that your heart doesnt allow you to.
Of course, you know your problems best, but it was obviously irresponsible of you to quit before letting 180 days pass after applying for 485.
Here is the problem. The letter of employment you send to CIS must have a start date which will expose your violation of the 180 day rule. So unless you lie here, you are likely in in trouble. Your best bet is to suck it up and return to your sponsoring employer. That will ensure your case 100%. Any other option is risky.
Go to a knowledged attorney. Khanna, Murthy, Gotcher etc., are the names I know.
Of course, you know your problems best, but it was obviously irresponsible of you to quit before letting 180 days pass after applying for 485.
Here is the problem. The letter of employment you send to CIS must have a start date which will expose your violation of the 180 day rule. So unless you lie here, you are likely in in trouble. Your best bet is to suck it up and return to your sponsoring employer. That will ensure your case 100%. Any other option is risky.
Go to a knowledged attorney. Khanna, Murthy, Gotcher etc., are the names I know.
mayhemt
02-09 06:49 AM
i can drive my minivan from zip code 32771 (orlando area). so 6 seats are vacant.
i can pick up members from daytona beach area, jacksonville etc. if someone is coming from south florida, tampa area they can stop by at orlando and we can car pool from orlando.
i need atleast one person who can drive at night, cause i cannot.
I would like to join, I live in Orlando area... do you happen to hear from other interested members?
i can pick up members from daytona beach area, jacksonville etc. if someone is coming from south florida, tampa area they can stop by at orlando and we can car pool from orlando.
i need atleast one person who can drive at night, cause i cannot.
I would like to join, I live in Orlando area... do you happen to hear from other interested members?
iamgsprabhu
10-15 02:55 PM
Kindly download the Attached Doc.
No comments:
Post a Comment