uma001
07-24 05:07 PM
If they receive too many responses during advertizing period, they may not process your gc. That is all to it. At that time u might chill out and wait for a year or so and reply. If your skills are in demand, I do not see a reason to wait. It is always better to take a dive as early as possible. Good luck.
Absolutely correct. This is the experience I had in my case. My company is fortune 550 company. They received lot of responses when they posted ads. I could not beleive the repsonse I got from VP. And they do not want to file green card now. He simply said 'he found candidates' :(
Absolutely correct. This is the experience I had in my case. My company is fortune 550 company. They received lot of responses when they posted ads. I could not beleive the repsonse I got from VP. And they do not want to file green card now. He simply said 'he found candidates' :(
wallpaper Stained glass window 16
ravi2patel
07-24 02:38 PM
ashkam - Thanks alot for the info....my case is "If your job (description, location and salary) remains same or similar under the new company"...still i don't understand why my attorney says to start all over again.
I feel like packing up and go back home ...this country's immi system is all messed up...not sure i can mentally handle it anymore :(
I feel like packing up and go back home ...this country's immi system is all messed up...not sure i can mentally handle it anymore :(
Ennada
12-16 11:25 AM
Yes. I got mine extended in FL with EAD.. but the extension was only for an year eventhough the EAD was for 2-years.
~GCA
Even with H1, they renew the DLs only for a year. That the way FL rolls. I've been renewing every year since 2002.
~GCA
Even with H1, they renew the DLs only for a year. That the way FL rolls. I've been renewing every year since 2002.
2011 old stained glass windows
gc_kaavaali
06-28 04:02 PM
So many times discussed about this topic. As soon as you start using EAD you are done with H1. You are no longer on H1. You need to give all prior I-94's when you are leaving US.
I am one of the July 2007 485 filer.
Me and wife have EAD's which we are using right now on I-9's to work.
I have an expired H1 stamp on passport.
Wife too has expired H4 stamp on passport.
I have a valid h1b approval notice until 5/31/2013
Wife too has a valid h4 approval notice until 5/31/2013
I have an AP which is valid for 1 year from today.
I want to visit India for a marriage.
Questions I have:
- While exiting USA, do they take my I-94 ?
- While coming back, if I show my AP, does my H1 status cancels out?
- Given the sad situation of our GC's. but the fact that I have H1 approval, should I simply goto consulate in mumbai, and re-enter on h1? Someone said on this forum that one can have only 1 status, h1 or parole. So if I enter on h1, will that invalidate my Adjustment of status?
- Entering back on h1 stamp, will give me 3 years of least headache, cos I wont have to renew AP every year.
- Entering back on h1, will keep my wife's H4 valid too.
So question is should I enter back on H1 or AP?
I am one of the July 2007 485 filer.
Me and wife have EAD's which we are using right now on I-9's to work.
I have an expired H1 stamp on passport.
Wife too has expired H4 stamp on passport.
I have a valid h1b approval notice until 5/31/2013
Wife too has a valid h4 approval notice until 5/31/2013
I have an AP which is valid for 1 year from today.
I want to visit India for a marriage.
Questions I have:
- While exiting USA, do they take my I-94 ?
- While coming back, if I show my AP, does my H1 status cancels out?
- Given the sad situation of our GC's. but the fact that I have H1 approval, should I simply goto consulate in mumbai, and re-enter on h1? Someone said on this forum that one can have only 1 status, h1 or parole. So if I enter on h1, will that invalidate my Adjustment of status?
- Entering back on h1 stamp, will give me 3 years of least headache, cos I wont have to renew AP every year.
- Entering back on h1, will keep my wife's H4 valid too.
So question is should I enter back on H1 or AP?
more...
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
optimystic
09-15 01:28 PM
Had they able to think that far, may be many of the issues we face today wouldn't have cropped.
They have a made a mockery out of the processing dates and of a thing called 'accountability' . There's no such word in their dictionary :mad::mad::mad:
They have a made a mockery out of the processing dates and of a thing called 'accountability' . There's no such word in their dictionary :mad::mad::mad:
more...
immi2006
10-21 11:40 PM
I do not think so, even though you have two application , there will be only 1 A# for each applicant.
We got only 1 FP notice for each of us. Our case is slightly different. I filed for myself and my wife. My wife filed for herself.
We did not apply for EAD and AP, through my wife. I applied from my side for both of us.
OK, everyone knows that double I485 was not a good idea. However, many people had done it and I was one who was thinking of it, but did not do it. As per my attorney's advise, stopping a check issued to a governmental entity is not legal. On these grounds, I decided not to file 2nd time.
I guess the best way would be to withdraw the second petition. One can do that by writing a letter stating the reason for withdrawal and sending it to the appropriate service center (with tracking number.) Of course, the reason should be true, "Due to the July Visa Bulletin fiasco and indications that my first I485 could have been lost, I sent out a second application which is should not be considered anymore," or something like that. Withdrawal of the second I485 would, most likely, be the safest way to go about it.
Regards,
We got only 1 FP notice for each of us. Our case is slightly different. I filed for myself and my wife. My wife filed for herself.
We did not apply for EAD and AP, through my wife. I applied from my side for both of us.
OK, everyone knows that double I485 was not a good idea. However, many people had done it and I was one who was thinking of it, but did not do it. As per my attorney's advise, stopping a check issued to a governmental entity is not legal. On these grounds, I decided not to file 2nd time.
I guess the best way would be to withdraw the second petition. One can do that by writing a letter stating the reason for withdrawal and sending it to the appropriate service center (with tracking number.) Of course, the reason should be true, "Due to the July Visa Bulletin fiasco and indications that my first I485 could have been lost, I sent out a second application which is should not be considered anymore," or something like that. Withdrawal of the second I485 would, most likely, be the safest way to go about it.
Regards,
2010 Antique stained glass window
currentlydependent
03-17 02:40 PM
Although it might seem very appealing to put in multiple applications to increase the chance of obtaining a visa, one would actually be aggravating the situation than alleviating it. So the thought process should be how can one prevent the lottery situation from arising.. applying for a single visa on a requirement basis should suffice. That said it is unfortunate that the current situation and cap forces us to think of ways to resort to finding loop holes and take un-required actions. In an ideal world they should increase the cap. But whatever cap we have now, does not give us the right to jeopardize others chances of getting a visa. We should work this out together. Lets not clog the system.
Imagine hearing from somebody that they have a visa they never used when you don't have one, don't be that somebody.
I am currently on a dependent visa and have to go through the H-1 process. I have a masters and have every intention to stick to that quota and apply only one.
-A
Imagine hearing from somebody that they have a visa they never used when you don't have one, don't be that somebody.
I am currently on a dependent visa and have to go through the H-1 process. I have a masters and have every intention to stick to that quota and apply only one.
-A
more...
learning01
05-10 11:48 AM
immi2006
That's what we need to do in these forums.
You see, I tried to follow the second link; it didn't work. I tried the first link. It took me to a web site that is totally disorganized and poorly built; I dont have time to navigate and see what you posted about.
After this second corrected post, I follow the link. It is NOT about the CIR and the logjam; it is an attempt to arrive at an agreement to have a working methodology to verify and check illegal immigrants.
Hence, my title: please read and post your opinion, instead of just posting thie links or the story.
That's what we need to do in these forums.
You see, I tried to follow the second link; it didn't work. I tried the first link. It took me to a web site that is totally disorganized and poorly built; I dont have time to navigate and see what you posted about.
After this second corrected post, I follow the link. It is NOT about the CIR and the logjam; it is an attempt to arrive at an agreement to have a working methodology to verify and check illegal immigrants.
Hence, my title: please read and post your opinion, instead of just posting thie links or the story.
hair Stained glass windows
trueguy
08-08 06:08 PM
I tried that info from but that info is not complete. I know there are more people on IV site than any where else so thought of doing this poll.
Thanks
Thanks
more...
eb2_hope
08-22 06:55 PM
I support this..I call every second day .....
hot Church Stained Glass Windows
sekasi
08-25 07:12 PM
I want a smug smiley.
Also, the 'mad' one, :m: looks more like a steaming bun than an angry face ; )
Also, the 'mad' one, :m: looks more like a steaming bun than an angry face ; )
more...
house Stained Glass Art Panels Page
thomachan72
06-04 11:38 AM
Senate is planning to vote on THIS friday and I don't see any urgency or any heat(debate) on this topic. today they will strat debating at 2:30????
No, they said may be this Friday / next week.
No, they said may be this Friday / next week.
tattoo We love stained glass and
trueguy
08-10 02:10 PM
As I said earlier, i don't know how to add more options to this poll. If you know then tell me the options and I will add more options for EB3-I till date or may be for future dates if you like that.
more...
pictures Antique Art Nouveau Stained
teddy the dog
02-07 08:59 PM
Advance Parole. You are not alone. :)
dresses Angel Stained Glass Window
jonty_11
08-10 05:16 PM
how is this possible.......mr mustang plzzz come back to throw more lite and enliten us.....
more...
makeup Stained Glass Window
RNGC
04-08 09:38 PM
As per INA 202, many of you know that for employment based immigration, the limit is 7% of 140k per country, if there are unused visas from family based or from previous years, USCIS should try to use them, which is not happenning....
see a detailed notes on INA 202 here...
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=240387
(search for gclong1)
I am trying to understand why the 7% was set ? When the law was signed. Things have drastically changed, more skilled people are coming to US from India, shouldn't the law be changed ? I think we should start pushing for more employment based visas, double it to 300k. The 7% formula has to be revisited.
Is 7% per country is fair ?
------------------------
Legal Immigrant Source Source:
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2006/table03d.xls
(More reports here...(http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/LPR06.shtm)
Population Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population
Cuba: ( BTW, Cuba is just taken as a example just to explain the math)
Total Population = 11,000,000 (11 Million)
Total Population Percent = 0.17 %
Legal Immigrants from Cuba to USA in 2006 = 45,614
Percent of Legal Immigrants from Cuba to USA compared with their population in 2006 = 0.4146 %
[(45614.0/11000000.0)*100.0 = 0.4146]
India:
Total Population = 1,131,264,000 (1.1 Billion)
Total Population Percent = 17 %
Legal Immigrants from India to USA in 2006= 61,369
Percent of Legal Immigrants from India to USA compared with their population in 2006 = 0.0054
[(61369.0/1131264000)*100.0 = 0.0054]
Cuba has a 0.4146 Legal Immigrants in US per 100 of their population
India has 0.0054 Legal Immigrants in US per 100 of their population
What is the difference in percent ?
(0.4146 - 0.0054)*100.0 = 40.92 % difference!!!!
India constitute 17% of world population, Cuba constitute .17 % of world population, so if we go by a country's population in deciding the % of EB visas it gets...
(17.0/100.0) * 140000.0 = 23,800 EB visas ?
(0.17/100.0) * 140000.0 = 238 EB visas ?
Soon, USA will be Chindia!
I am not arguing that we should follow the above formula either, just like how India and Cuba both have 7% limit, which does not make sense, the above math also does not make sense....
My argument is 7% per country limit for all countries, for a small country with 1 Million population and a big country with 1 B population does not make sense.
So, two issues need to dealt with for long term solution.
1. 140k EB visas to be increased to 300k
2. 7% per country needs to be changed (not sure what should be the criteria)
see a detailed notes on INA 202 here...
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=240387
(search for gclong1)
I am trying to understand why the 7% was set ? When the law was signed. Things have drastically changed, more skilled people are coming to US from India, shouldn't the law be changed ? I think we should start pushing for more employment based visas, double it to 300k. The 7% formula has to be revisited.
Is 7% per country is fair ?
------------------------
Legal Immigrant Source Source:
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2006/table03d.xls
(More reports here...(http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/LPR06.shtm)
Population Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population
Cuba: ( BTW, Cuba is just taken as a example just to explain the math)
Total Population = 11,000,000 (11 Million)
Total Population Percent = 0.17 %
Legal Immigrants from Cuba to USA in 2006 = 45,614
Percent of Legal Immigrants from Cuba to USA compared with their population in 2006 = 0.4146 %
[(45614.0/11000000.0)*100.0 = 0.4146]
India:
Total Population = 1,131,264,000 (1.1 Billion)
Total Population Percent = 17 %
Legal Immigrants from India to USA in 2006= 61,369
Percent of Legal Immigrants from India to USA compared with their population in 2006 = 0.0054
[(61369.0/1131264000)*100.0 = 0.0054]
Cuba has a 0.4146 Legal Immigrants in US per 100 of their population
India has 0.0054 Legal Immigrants in US per 100 of their population
What is the difference in percent ?
(0.4146 - 0.0054)*100.0 = 40.92 % difference!!!!
India constitute 17% of world population, Cuba constitute .17 % of world population, so if we go by a country's population in deciding the % of EB visas it gets...
(17.0/100.0) * 140000.0 = 23,800 EB visas ?
(0.17/100.0) * 140000.0 = 238 EB visas ?
Soon, USA will be Chindia!
I am not arguing that we should follow the above formula either, just like how India and Cuba both have 7% limit, which does not make sense, the above math also does not make sense....
My argument is 7% per country limit for all countries, for a small country with 1 Million population and a big country with 1 B population does not make sense.
So, two issues need to dealt with for long term solution.
1. 140k EB visas to be increased to 300k
2. 7% per country needs to be changed (not sure what should be the criteria)
girlfriend Five stained glass windows
eb2_immigrant
09-16 02:35 PM
I would say go ahead with your plans, There is no risk at all. I got back from India 2 weeks ago,showed my AP (I was asked to join a seperate line for AP holders). Officer asked for my SSN# thats it.
Do not wait for USCIS to make decisions.
Do not wait for USCIS to make decisions.
hairstyles stained glass transom,
santb1975
04-10 06:02 PM
Together we can accomplish a lot
thomachan72
03-25 02:20 PM
It seems to be only on economy? I couldn't find anything on immigration.
sbmallik
07-02 11:28 AM
Since this is not the first H-1 you have the option to stamp the visa in Canada / Mexico. However, these consulates cannot evaluate the educational credentials unless they are from that country or USA. Please carry educational evaluations with you. Moreover your valid AP will be a handy backup.
No comments:
Post a Comment