conundrum
03-16 05:12 PM
Faxed mine a few mins ago
wallpaper of Rihanna red curly hair.
rajarao
07-30 01:10 PM
Congratulations on your approval. Yor are really lucky and we envy you.
I know the systems is so much screwed up. There are so many frustrated people with their priority dates EB2 before August 2004 and could not file I-485 until this July. Its a wonder USCIS approved a case with priorioty date of August 2005. :mad: :confused: the system is so disgusting.
I know the systems is so much screwed up. There are so many frustrated people with their priority dates EB2 before August 2004 and could not file I-485 until this July. Its a wonder USCIS approved a case with priorioty date of August 2005. :mad: :confused: the system is so disgusting.
SAP
02-06 09:47 PM
i would say give some peace of mind to your employer first you flirt with him that you will go to labor department. he will pay you and give you want u want with a smile. try it
sap
sap
2011 She#39;s been with the red for
msp1976
03-31 08:55 AM
Hello everyone,
My LC was filed in Perm process and even got approved but the hard copy got lost in mail handling. Can I have another LC filed from the same company? Furthermore, can I reuse my first LC's postings-advertisements that the company does before filing the LC?
Please any suggestions would be greatly appreciated
Thank you.
I believe that you do not have to refile just because you lost the hard copy...
This is not a lottery ticket that if you lose, you are left with nothing..
There must a procedure to get the same certificate reissued from DOL..
Please do the research and let is know...
My LC was filed in Perm process and even got approved but the hard copy got lost in mail handling. Can I have another LC filed from the same company? Furthermore, can I reuse my first LC's postings-advertisements that the company does before filing the LC?
Please any suggestions would be greatly appreciated
Thank you.
I believe that you do not have to refile just because you lost the hard copy...
This is not a lottery ticket that if you lose, you are left with nothing..
There must a procedure to get the same certificate reissued from DOL..
Please do the research and let is know...
more...
imneedy
02-05 10:12 AM
Shahuja and Raju,
thanks for your reply, let's hope you get them soon.
thanks for your reply, let's hope you get them soon.
manja
01-18 01:09 PM
Check out this website. It has all the information we all want:
http://www.visataxes.com/
http://www.visataxes.com/
more...
mchundi
07-28 10:17 AM
Thanks for the reply Mchundi, however, if i CHANGE the job does the rule for a 3 year H1B STILL apply? I mean how does the 3 year thing apply to me? I only have a little over 1 year on this current H1 (out of SIX years).
h1b-tristate,
All this was discussed a few times in this thread and other threads as well.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=1216
--MC
h1b-tristate,
All this was discussed a few times in this thread and other threads as well.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=1216
--MC
2010 rihanna-long-red-hair.jpg
sheela
08-06 12:35 PM
Received an email from CRIS stating that Notice mailed welcoming the new permanent resident. Those who are tracking approval, check out IV profile/tracker.
Congrats!!!
Quick question: What is the best time to check for update on USCIS site. Does it happen all the time/real time/ morning/evening. It will prevent/help people visiting case status every now-and-then.
Congrats!!!
Quick question: What is the best time to check for update on USCIS site. Does it happen all the time/real time/ morning/evening. It will prevent/help people visiting case status every now-and-then.
more...
gc_bulgaria
10-09 04:18 PM
http://www.immigration-law.com/
10/08/2007: I-140 Portability After 180 Days of 485 Filing and Service Centers Standard Procedure of Review and Adjudication
When there is a retrogression of visa numbers and anticipated long delays in 485 adjudication due to the massive July VB fiasco 485 filings, it is anticipated that there will be a substantial number of 485 applicants who may have to change employment along the way, either voluntarily or involuntarily, under AC 21 Section 106(c) provision. Accordingly, whether one reports the change of employment proactively or not, one should learn the internal review and adjudication procedures within the Service Center which are adopted by the adjudicators in adjudicating such I-485 applications.
The good material to review on this procedure is the USCIS Standard Operating Procedure for the adjudicators. The SOP states that "If the alien is using the portability provisions of AC21 106(c), the adjudicator must determine that both the ported labor certification and the ported I-140 are still valid under the current employer, especially in regards to the continual payment of the prevailing wage, similar occupation classification, and the employer’s ability to pay the prevailing wage."
(1) Prevailing Wage Payment: The AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer pays the prevailing wage or higher wage for portability. However, the adjudicators review the wage as part of their determination of "continuing validity" of the ported certified labor certification application and I-140 petition. When the applicant stays with the same employer without changing employer, payment of wage less than the prevailing wage should not present any serious issue inasmuch as the employer establishes that the employer was financially able to pay the prevailing wage and is continuously able to pay the prevailing wage until the green card is approved. However, when there is a change of employer who pays less than the prevailing wage, there is no clear-cut rule with reference to this issue. Payment of less than prevailing wage thus potentially can raise two issues when there is a change of employer. One is the adjudicator's argument that there is no continuing validity of the labor certification or I-140 petition. The other is the argument that different wage reflects that the labor certification job and the new job with the new employer are two different occupational classifications.
(2) Similar occupational classification issue: The similarity of the two positions involves not the "jobs" but "occupational classification." Accordingly, the old and new positions do not necessarily have to match exactly in every details, especially specific skill sets. Currently, the USCIS is looking up the Labor Department SOC/OES classifications of occupations. When the two jobs fall under the same occupational classification in the DOL occupational definitions, the two jobs are generally considered "similar" occupational classification. As long as the two jobs belong to a similar occupational classification, the applicant can work for the new employer anywhere in the United States. There is no physical location restrictions.
(3) Employer's financial ability to pay the wage: Again, AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer must prove that the new employer has and will have a financial ability to pay the prevailing wage. However, the adjudicators appear to review the portability case considering the new employer's ability to pay as well as part of review of continuing vality of labor certification and I-140 petition.
Remember that when there is a portability issue, two things can ensue. If one proactively reports the eligibility of portability meeting all the foregoing requirment, the adjudicators are likely to decide the pending I-485 application on the merit. However, if the 485 applicants do not report proactively change of employment and the USCIS somehow obtains information of the alien's change of employment, for instance, by employer's report of termination of employment or withdrawal of I-140 petition or substitution of alien beneficiary, then 485 applicants are likely to be served a notice of intent to deny I-485 applications or in most cases, the adjudicator transfers the I-485 file to the local district office for interview.
In AC 21 106(c) portability situation, the adjudicators also review the issue of the continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition involving the original employer, and are likely to raise similar issues which are described above. However, when the alien ports with the "approved" I-140 petition with a copy of the last paycheck and W-2, the adjudicators rarely revisit the original employer's foregoing issues in determining the 140 portability issue. The issues are raised when the alien ports before the I-140 petition is approved. Under the Yates Memorandum, when the alien ports before I-140 petition is approved, the alien has a burden of proof that the I-140 petition was approvable. Accordingly, inasmuch as I-140 petition was approvable and the alien ports after 180 days of I-485 filing, even if the original employer withdraws the I-140 petition, the pending I-485 will not be affected. Yates Memorandum indicates that in such a circumstance, the adjudicator should adjudicate the pending I-140 petition and if finds approvable, then recognizes 106(c) portability and continues to adjudicate the pending I-485 application. Without doubt, in the foregoing situation, the adjudicator will intensively and carefully review the issue of continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition issues which are specified above, particularly the employer's financial ability to pay the wage, and the applicant will have to overcome tremendous hurdles to deal with the challenges by the USCIS. Accordingly, people should not port before I-140 petition is approved unless they are assured that the original employer will continuously cooperate and support his/her green card process.
10/08/2007: I-140 Portability After 180 Days of 485 Filing and Service Centers Standard Procedure of Review and Adjudication
When there is a retrogression of visa numbers and anticipated long delays in 485 adjudication due to the massive July VB fiasco 485 filings, it is anticipated that there will be a substantial number of 485 applicants who may have to change employment along the way, either voluntarily or involuntarily, under AC 21 Section 106(c) provision. Accordingly, whether one reports the change of employment proactively or not, one should learn the internal review and adjudication procedures within the Service Center which are adopted by the adjudicators in adjudicating such I-485 applications.
The good material to review on this procedure is the USCIS Standard Operating Procedure for the adjudicators. The SOP states that "If the alien is using the portability provisions of AC21 106(c), the adjudicator must determine that both the ported labor certification and the ported I-140 are still valid under the current employer, especially in regards to the continual payment of the prevailing wage, similar occupation classification, and the employer’s ability to pay the prevailing wage."
(1) Prevailing Wage Payment: The AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer pays the prevailing wage or higher wage for portability. However, the adjudicators review the wage as part of their determination of "continuing validity" of the ported certified labor certification application and I-140 petition. When the applicant stays with the same employer without changing employer, payment of wage less than the prevailing wage should not present any serious issue inasmuch as the employer establishes that the employer was financially able to pay the prevailing wage and is continuously able to pay the prevailing wage until the green card is approved. However, when there is a change of employer who pays less than the prevailing wage, there is no clear-cut rule with reference to this issue. Payment of less than prevailing wage thus potentially can raise two issues when there is a change of employer. One is the adjudicator's argument that there is no continuing validity of the labor certification or I-140 petition. The other is the argument that different wage reflects that the labor certification job and the new job with the new employer are two different occupational classifications.
(2) Similar occupational classification issue: The similarity of the two positions involves not the "jobs" but "occupational classification." Accordingly, the old and new positions do not necessarily have to match exactly in every details, especially specific skill sets. Currently, the USCIS is looking up the Labor Department SOC/OES classifications of occupations. When the two jobs fall under the same occupational classification in the DOL occupational definitions, the two jobs are generally considered "similar" occupational classification. As long as the two jobs belong to a similar occupational classification, the applicant can work for the new employer anywhere in the United States. There is no physical location restrictions.
(3) Employer's financial ability to pay the wage: Again, AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer must prove that the new employer has and will have a financial ability to pay the prevailing wage. However, the adjudicators appear to review the portability case considering the new employer's ability to pay as well as part of review of continuing vality of labor certification and I-140 petition.
Remember that when there is a portability issue, two things can ensue. If one proactively reports the eligibility of portability meeting all the foregoing requirment, the adjudicators are likely to decide the pending I-485 application on the merit. However, if the 485 applicants do not report proactively change of employment and the USCIS somehow obtains information of the alien's change of employment, for instance, by employer's report of termination of employment or withdrawal of I-140 petition or substitution of alien beneficiary, then 485 applicants are likely to be served a notice of intent to deny I-485 applications or in most cases, the adjudicator transfers the I-485 file to the local district office for interview.
In AC 21 106(c) portability situation, the adjudicators also review the issue of the continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition involving the original employer, and are likely to raise similar issues which are described above. However, when the alien ports with the "approved" I-140 petition with a copy of the last paycheck and W-2, the adjudicators rarely revisit the original employer's foregoing issues in determining the 140 portability issue. The issues are raised when the alien ports before the I-140 petition is approved. Under the Yates Memorandum, when the alien ports before I-140 petition is approved, the alien has a burden of proof that the I-140 petition was approvable. Accordingly, inasmuch as I-140 petition was approvable and the alien ports after 180 days of I-485 filing, even if the original employer withdraws the I-140 petition, the pending I-485 will not be affected. Yates Memorandum indicates that in such a circumstance, the adjudicator should adjudicate the pending I-140 petition and if finds approvable, then recognizes 106(c) portability and continues to adjudicate the pending I-485 application. Without doubt, in the foregoing situation, the adjudicator will intensively and carefully review the issue of continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition issues which are specified above, particularly the employer's financial ability to pay the wage, and the applicant will have to overcome tremendous hurdles to deal with the challenges by the USCIS. Accordingly, people should not port before I-140 petition is approved unless they are assured that the original employer will continuously cooperate and support his/her green card process.
hair With red hair, long and sexy
nhfirefighter13
June 4th, 2004, 01:36 PM
Who'd have thought a photo of a bubble could be so neat? :)
Those are cool (I like the very first one best) what shutter speed were those taken at?
Those are cool (I like the very first one best) what shutter speed were those taken at?
more...
Student with no hopes
12-10 09:49 AM
DREAM act is a political issue if passed will get Democrats millions and millions of hispanic votes and possibly help them in 2012 election. Republicans will also want those votes. So there is a possibility that DREAM will pass some day. It is unfortunate illegal aliens get path to citizenship and legal immigrants like us have to wait on an untimed line with a hope to get green card. It is all politics my friends. Bottom line is they are illegal when they came here. If they are students they should get F1 visas if they are working should get work permits. Giving them citizenship is ridiculous. No one supports our cause, not even the Hispanic community. Dude we should oppose illegal immigration that has kept legal immigration at hostage. Jai Hind!1
Few problems with your post
#1 It is politics to help the the hispanic community. At the same time, it is also common sense - since they are the ones, putting their neck out to get the reform. We sit at work and complain - and take no positive action to get the relief.
#2 These people have to stand in line for GC and then citizenship - it is not direct citizenship - it is a path to legal residency.
#3 If you are illegal, can't get any kind of visa - F1 or H1 or even a drivers license - which is why this legislation is justified or accepted by most americans.
Few problems with your post
#1 It is politics to help the the hispanic community. At the same time, it is also common sense - since they are the ones, putting their neck out to get the reform. We sit at work and complain - and take no positive action to get the relief.
#2 These people have to stand in line for GC and then citizenship - it is not direct citizenship - it is a path to legal residency.
#3 If you are illegal, can't get any kind of visa - F1 or H1 or even a drivers license - which is why this legislation is justified or accepted by most americans.
hot 00 rihanna red long hair 6
raydhan
05-09 04:47 PM
can this event me scheduled to someother day, preferably a weekend ?
Also, May 15th is mine and my daughter's birthday, so I would have to be at home in the evening ?
asdqwe2k,
Actually this event is being held to celebrate your's and your daughter's birthday if you didn't know. :-)
Happy birthday to both of you in advance. Enjoy.
Also, May 15th is mine and my daughter's birthday, so I would have to be at home in the evening ?
asdqwe2k,
Actually this event is being held to celebrate your's and your daughter's birthday if you didn't know. :-)
Happy birthday to both of you in advance. Enjoy.
more...
house Rihanna has gone long again-
Queen Josephine
June 19th, 2005, 08:53 PM
It is out and installed. I loaded up the rainbow picture, did an adjustment layer, but don't seem to be making changes that really improve the shot. I'll try some more later, but I have to go, the sun is about to rise :)
If you get frustrated with it, drop a note. I actually did the rainbow pic this am before I left the house.... took screen shots while doing it and made a pdf file for you. I just haven't had time to get it up on my website yet though. Maybe tomorrow!
If you get frustrated with it, drop a note. I actually did the rainbow pic this am before I left the house.... took screen shots while doing it and made a pdf file for you. I just haven't had time to get it up on my website yet though. Maybe tomorrow!
tattoo Rihanna-Long-Straight-Red-
ikass
05-29 08:18 AM
Hello IV members and leadership team,
I applaud you all for your time and effort in addressing issues that concern our eligibility to work legally and mutually benefit from this country. As we strive to get CIR passed, which has been elusive for years and still struggling at various levels, I was wondering why can`t we work to get small wins. I would like to mention four known ideas that we can push forward and that I believe can be accomplished via small amendments:
1) Temporarily remove Per country quota for Employment -Based Green Card
2) Do not count dependents towards numerical visa count
3) Issue EAD to candidates who have I-140 approved and renew it until Green Card number becomes available.
4) Do not tie EAD to specific company or wait six months in a position to change jobs
This four things can have a quick impact and give us all a temporary relief.
We can try and build advocacy effort to get this done. Especially for the June 7th and 8th advocacy days.
"SMALL CHANGE BIG IMPACT"
Thanks,
Giri
I applaud you all for your time and effort in addressing issues that concern our eligibility to work legally and mutually benefit from this country. As we strive to get CIR passed, which has been elusive for years and still struggling at various levels, I was wondering why can`t we work to get small wins. I would like to mention four known ideas that we can push forward and that I believe can be accomplished via small amendments:
1) Temporarily remove Per country quota for Employment -Based Green Card
2) Do not count dependents towards numerical visa count
3) Issue EAD to candidates who have I-140 approved and renew it until Green Card number becomes available.
4) Do not tie EAD to specific company or wait six months in a position to change jobs
This four things can have a quick impact and give us all a temporary relief.
We can try and build advocacy effort to get this done. Especially for the June 7th and 8th advocacy days.
"SMALL CHANGE BIG IMPACT"
Thanks,
Giri
more...
pictures Rihanna with long red locks.
nitkad
03-20 04:28 PM
Hi,
I heard that USCIS revoked the I140s for all the applicants who were employee of certain company as the company was fraud. In this case what happens? I have a very genuine case but I think my company may be doing some weird things.
Thanks
I heard that USCIS revoked the I140s for all the applicants who were employee of certain company as the company was fraud. In this case what happens? I have a very genuine case but I think my company may be doing some weird things.
Thanks
dresses Rihanna - long hair - red hair
GCBy3000
01-03 11:12 AM
This is a great move strategically to make members part of IV. With this, there is no need for IV to constantly campaingn for funds with regular active members. IV's energy towards campaign could be targeted towards the new members and other non monthly contributors.
I appreciate all the members who have volunteered to contribute on monthly basis. It is just a matter of spending on one lunch / one bar outing or for a movie.
Still let us keep a open thread for every month to make sure the fire on monthly contribution keeps burning. We dont want it to subside until we reach our goal.
I appreciate all the members who have volunteered to contribute on monthly basis. It is just a matter of spending on one lunch / one bar outing or for a movie.
Still let us keep a open thread for every month to make sure the fire on monthly contribution keeps burning. We dont want it to subside until we reach our goal.
more...
makeup rihanna red long hair
what_now
06-03 06:09 PM
to Phoenix lockbox 4/12. It was sent to CSC. I got my card approved 5/26. Got Card on 6/3.
My wife case though still pending at CSC.:confused:
My wife case though still pending at CSC.:confused:
girlfriend rihanna sexy with red long
Munna Bhai
02-08 11:59 AM
You want to keep your 140 intact for 2 reasons:
1. To port the priority date for future use in a subsequent Greencard petition.
2. To get more H1 extensions based on this 140, until you have another labor and 140 going on with new employer.
First, about 1:
There is a lot of information on this thread about priority date transfers (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=912)from old approved 140 to a new 140. Read that thread and you will learn all you want to learn and all the information out there in the immigration world about PD transfer from one 140 to another 140.
In a nutshell:
Its a grey area of the law. If your 140 is never revoked, you would be fine and able to port your priority date. If it is revoked for fraud and willful misrepresentation, then you cannot port that PD under any circumstances. If 140 is revoked by employer then it falls into grey area. USCIS adjudicator's field manual says that you can still port your PD. The code of federal regulations says that you cannot. Currently USCIS is porting priority dates even if employer has revoked that 140, and they are following the AFM(adjudicator's field manual). However that can change in future. Legislation trumps regulation and regulation trumps the adjudicator's field manual. For now, things are great as AFM is being followed.
About 2:
If you have an H1 approved for 3 years after 140 approval, and you transfer jobs to a new employer and get another H1. You should be fine. If your previous employer cancels your I-140 after you leave and go to another employer, then USCIS will not go back and cancel your H1 because it was based on an approved 140 that is now revoked. This is what is happening as of now. At the time of H1 transfer to your new employer, your 140 should be in good status and you should have a photocopy of your approved 140. Once your H1 transfer is done (probably will have same end-date as the current 3-year H1 from your current employer), if the 140 is revoked AFTER that, then you should be fine. I am saying this based on advice from a very good lawyer.
Now, in far future, USCIS may decide to go and look for H1s that were approved based on approved 140 and then if that 140 is revoked, then they would go and cancel that H1 also. Its very very unlikely that they would do that even in future. They dont have that kind of resources to keep track of H1s based on 140 approvals and then go back and cancel them whenever some disappointed employer revokes 140.
About preventing 140 from being revoked:
I do not think that by changing lawyers, you can stop the previous 140 from being revoked. Your previous employer, for any reason, can get that 140 revoked with any lawyer they choose, regardless of who your current lawyer is. Lawyers are tied to clients, not petitions and cases. However, if someone knows more about this, please post here.
Thanks, please let everyone know if by changing lawyers is there anyway of protecting I-140 from being revoked?? or is there any other way out??
1. To port the priority date for future use in a subsequent Greencard petition.
2. To get more H1 extensions based on this 140, until you have another labor and 140 going on with new employer.
First, about 1:
There is a lot of information on this thread about priority date transfers (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=912)from old approved 140 to a new 140. Read that thread and you will learn all you want to learn and all the information out there in the immigration world about PD transfer from one 140 to another 140.
In a nutshell:
Its a grey area of the law. If your 140 is never revoked, you would be fine and able to port your priority date. If it is revoked for fraud and willful misrepresentation, then you cannot port that PD under any circumstances. If 140 is revoked by employer then it falls into grey area. USCIS adjudicator's field manual says that you can still port your PD. The code of federal regulations says that you cannot. Currently USCIS is porting priority dates even if employer has revoked that 140, and they are following the AFM(adjudicator's field manual). However that can change in future. Legislation trumps regulation and regulation trumps the adjudicator's field manual. For now, things are great as AFM is being followed.
About 2:
If you have an H1 approved for 3 years after 140 approval, and you transfer jobs to a new employer and get another H1. You should be fine. If your previous employer cancels your I-140 after you leave and go to another employer, then USCIS will not go back and cancel your H1 because it was based on an approved 140 that is now revoked. This is what is happening as of now. At the time of H1 transfer to your new employer, your 140 should be in good status and you should have a photocopy of your approved 140. Once your H1 transfer is done (probably will have same end-date as the current 3-year H1 from your current employer), if the 140 is revoked AFTER that, then you should be fine. I am saying this based on advice from a very good lawyer.
Now, in far future, USCIS may decide to go and look for H1s that were approved based on approved 140 and then if that 140 is revoked, then they would go and cancel that H1 also. Its very very unlikely that they would do that even in future. They dont have that kind of resources to keep track of H1s based on 140 approvals and then go back and cancel them whenever some disappointed employer revokes 140.
About preventing 140 from being revoked:
I do not think that by changing lawyers, you can stop the previous 140 from being revoked. Your previous employer, for any reason, can get that 140 revoked with any lawyer they choose, regardless of who your current lawyer is. Lawyers are tied to clients, not petitions and cases. However, if someone knows more about this, please post here.
Thanks, please let everyone know if by changing lawyers is there anyway of protecting I-140 from being revoked?? or is there any other way out??
hairstyles Rihanna#39;s bright red hair,
ags123
07-26 11:44 AM
Yes it can be done for 180 days after approval given that marriage occured before approval.
My confusion is with the lockboxes.
The application says file at chicago lockbox
The lawyer says Nebraska Service Centre.
Anyone who has recently done this please let me know.
Thanks
A
My confusion is with the lockboxes.
The application says file at chicago lockbox
The lawyer says Nebraska Service Centre.
Anyone who has recently done this please let me know.
Thanks
A
sanju
08-02 11:46 PM
Thanks for the information. VB dates were stuck around April 2001 date because a large number of applications were filed to meet the deadline for
245i.
The dates were �current� until 2005 because of the availability of unused visa numbers that were recaptured by AC-21 bill - passed in 2000-2001. So countries with larger applicant pool got (a lot) more than the otherwise allowed ~3000 green cards in each category. Since 2005, there are no recaptured visa numbers are available, so applicants in a category from any specific country cannot get more than ~ 3000 green cards. Pls. see the distribution of green card numbers in 2006 in his document:
http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY06AnnualReportTableV-Part2.pdf
Most people on the forum are busy tracking their 485 receipt, of encashment of bank checks, IO comments etc. Most people will learn that all this is tracking is of no use other than helping everybody to have higher BP. If more green card numbers are not allocated, the wait time for applicants with priority date 2006 could possibly be more than a decade. The past trends were driven by positive events like visa recapture etc. So these trends are not reflective of what to expect in the future. But looking at 2006 numbers, one thing is for sure, the wait times could be a many more that what we would expect.
There is only thing that can prevent wait times of more than 10-15 years - change in the law to increase the number of EB GCs.
245i.
The dates were �current� until 2005 because of the availability of unused visa numbers that were recaptured by AC-21 bill - passed in 2000-2001. So countries with larger applicant pool got (a lot) more than the otherwise allowed ~3000 green cards in each category. Since 2005, there are no recaptured visa numbers are available, so applicants in a category from any specific country cannot get more than ~ 3000 green cards. Pls. see the distribution of green card numbers in 2006 in his document:
http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY06AnnualReportTableV-Part2.pdf
Most people on the forum are busy tracking their 485 receipt, of encashment of bank checks, IO comments etc. Most people will learn that all this is tracking is of no use other than helping everybody to have higher BP. If more green card numbers are not allocated, the wait time for applicants with priority date 2006 could possibly be more than a decade. The past trends were driven by positive events like visa recapture etc. So these trends are not reflective of what to expect in the future. But looking at 2006 numbers, one thing is for sure, the wait times could be a many more that what we would expect.
There is only thing that can prevent wait times of more than 10-15 years - change in the law to increase the number of EB GCs.
ujjvalkoul
05-01 01:56 PM
Does - Emergency Appoinment include - people already working in US ? are you sure ?
Yes it does, if you go to book the appoint (emergency) or view dates available for emergency appts (on vfs visa website) , it lists the Examples for emergency appointments and include ppl who are already in US and need to go backto join their work
Yes it does, if you go to book the appoint (emergency) or view dates available for emergency appts (on vfs visa website) , it lists the Examples for emergency appointments and include ppl who are already in US and need to go backto join their work
No comments:
Post a Comment