jungalee43
02-16 03:11 PM
I did some research on murthy.com and found that AC21 did abolish 'per country of birth quota' on recycled numbers. I am posting a link to this murthy.com article of Oct 6, 2000 which clarifies the issue.
http://www.murthy.com/news/UDh1det.html
If the link fails I am reporducing the paragraph here: -
Major highlights of ACTA are listed below :
Per Country Quotas for Immigrant Visas
"Under Section 104, with respect to immigrant visas, the per country quota, which has been adversely affecting those from China and India and which the U.S. State Department had stated could possibly affect those from the Philippines in the near future, may have been resolved with this Bill. It has always been the case that not all of the available immigrant visas were issued, since most countries did not have enough applicants to use the total available. ACTA provides that if the INS or the U.S. State Department does not issue all of the immigrant visas that should be issued in that FY, the unused immigrant visa numbers should be made available to all countries without the per country quota limit applying."
Retrogression started as the recycled numbers are no longer available and with that country quota showed its horrible effect. It is clear guys we have to concentrate our energy and our thoughts on this quota. Quota on the basis of "country of birth" on talent or skill needed is really hard to explain and we can have good logical arguments to support its abolition.
http://www.murthy.com/news/UDh1det.html
If the link fails I am reporducing the paragraph here: -
Major highlights of ACTA are listed below :
Per Country Quotas for Immigrant Visas
"Under Section 104, with respect to immigrant visas, the per country quota, which has been adversely affecting those from China and India and which the U.S. State Department had stated could possibly affect those from the Philippines in the near future, may have been resolved with this Bill. It has always been the case that not all of the available immigrant visas were issued, since most countries did not have enough applicants to use the total available. ACTA provides that if the INS or the U.S. State Department does not issue all of the immigrant visas that should be issued in that FY, the unused immigrant visa numbers should be made available to all countries without the per country quota limit applying."
Retrogression started as the recycled numbers are no longer available and with that country quota showed its horrible effect. It is clear guys we have to concentrate our energy and our thoughts on this quota. Quota on the basis of "country of birth" on talent or skill needed is really hard to explain and we can have good logical arguments to support its abolition.
sledge_hammer
05-14 04:12 PM
Not too many EB2 Indians will benifit from this movement???
needhelp!
07-30 02:26 AM
please count me for tx (dallas)
desiin_va
06-13 09:35 AM
Check with a good attorney but as far i know, if you get paid by the for-profit consulting company (even if they place you at non-profit org), you will be subjected to H1B cap.
If your H1B paperwork (i-765) is directly from a non-profit org (like Univ, Govt, etc), then only are you cap exempt.
Also remember, if you ever want to txfr from non-profit to for-profit, you will be again subjected to cap. This assumes you were never counted against the for-profit company cap in any fiscal year quota.
I concur, though your physical presence is at non-profit org you are being paid by the consulting company which is for-profit which means you come under H1B cap. I currently work for non-profit, used to work for a consulting comp. PM me if u need more info.
If your H1B paperwork (i-765) is directly from a non-profit org (like Univ, Govt, etc), then only are you cap exempt.
Also remember, if you ever want to txfr from non-profit to for-profit, you will be again subjected to cap. This assumes you were never counted against the for-profit company cap in any fiscal year quota.
I concur, though your physical presence is at non-profit org you are being paid by the consulting company which is for-profit which means you come under H1B cap. I currently work for non-profit, used to work for a consulting comp. PM me if u need more info.
more...
bigboy007
04-09 03:07 PM
I think too that you in ok shape , I dont see a reason why ppl are against Labor certs not that i have one its legal at time. as Karthik mentioned good to keep all paychecks.
I think you are in good shape to use AC21. Just make sure that you have the paystubs for the first 180 days after filing the I485 application in your present company if in case you get a RFE. That is one of the easy proof that you worked in company A for 180 days after fileing I-485.
I think you are in good shape to use AC21. Just make sure that you have the paystubs for the first 180 days after filing the I485 application in your present company if in case you get a RFE. That is one of the easy proof that you worked in company A for 180 days after fileing I-485.
youngindia
06-08 01:27 AM
Its not abt H1-B abuse, its abt the way it was brought up. Instead of looking into his own house (USCIS and DOL) Sen.Durbin held Indian companies responsible and almost started bashing them. Little did he anticipate that they will come back in this way.
H1-B abuse is a different issue. Sen. Durbin should have looked into rulemaking part of the game than bashing players of the game.
When the US was instrumental in doing WTO negotiations during late 90's (BTW-your's truely grew up during that period witnessing this through newspaper articles - was an exact reversal of roles played by India and US then)they never realized that globalizing markets would lead to globalizing labor market also. Now, IT has become a virtual industry with a pretty much open labor market. Professionals making Rs.50000 ($1200) are competing with those making $5000 a month. US politicians made a classic judgement error in 90's. Now, protectionist measures are being brought in by the very same people who championed globalization for a decade.
The letter puts things in perspective for sen. Durbin. It seems to carry a veiled warning about backlash of these protectionist measures on the US companies doing business in India. Starting from McDonalds,subway,coke (now even Walmart) to Ford, GM, IBM, Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, Abott, J&J, JP Morgan, Bank of America and many more have huge business interests in India. The size of Indian market totals upto atleast 0.8 billion human individuals with need for housing, auto, computers, electronics, healthcare, finance, consumer products etc. Losing an inch of it can make an international co. nervous.
As far as Indian consumers go they now have options- British, German, Japanese, French and now even the Indian companies.
Durbin tried to scare a cat, unfortunately for him it turned out to be a big wild cat- aTiger.
H1-B abuse is a different issue. Sen. Durbin should have looked into rulemaking part of the game than bashing players of the game.
When the US was instrumental in doing WTO negotiations during late 90's (BTW-your's truely grew up during that period witnessing this through newspaper articles - was an exact reversal of roles played by India and US then)they never realized that globalizing markets would lead to globalizing labor market also. Now, IT has become a virtual industry with a pretty much open labor market. Professionals making Rs.50000 ($1200) are competing with those making $5000 a month. US politicians made a classic judgement error in 90's. Now, protectionist measures are being brought in by the very same people who championed globalization for a decade.
The letter puts things in perspective for sen. Durbin. It seems to carry a veiled warning about backlash of these protectionist measures on the US companies doing business in India. Starting from McDonalds,subway,coke (now even Walmart) to Ford, GM, IBM, Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, Abott, J&J, JP Morgan, Bank of America and many more have huge business interests in India. The size of Indian market totals upto atleast 0.8 billion human individuals with need for housing, auto, computers, electronics, healthcare, finance, consumer products etc. Losing an inch of it can make an international co. nervous.
As far as Indian consumers go they now have options- British, German, Japanese, French and now even the Indian companies.
Durbin tried to scare a cat, unfortunately for him it turned out to be a big wild cat- aTiger.
more...
tnite
09-30 02:21 PM
Can you please tell us what the RFE was about....Did you use AC21.
Me and my spouse both have RFE....so i dont know what to expect. And I have used AC21 and changed jobs....I am just hoping it is not related to this.
The RFE was for my I20's and OPT EAD card and Marriage certificate.
Me and my spouse both have RFE....so i dont know what to expect. And I have used AC21 and changed jobs....I am just hoping it is not related to this.
The RFE was for my I20's and OPT EAD card and Marriage certificate.
ganguteli
06-12 11:50 AM
I was born in Oct too :) :)
2 October 1869 ?
2 October 1869 ?
more...
s_r_e_e
08-13 02:40 PM
who is vld rao?
akilaakka
10-05 12:44 PM
If the information he said to me is true.
He is from India.
EB 2 NIW. Filed concurently in Sep 2005. Got his card and his wife's approved few weeks ago
He is from India.
EB 2 NIW. Filed concurently in Sep 2005. Got his card and his wife's approved few weeks ago
more...
ragz4u
03-15 11:39 AM
hi Super_Moderator,
Why cant we try to add now..instead of waiting for later time..to add this ammendment thru some senator or somebody for filing 485 during retrogression...
just to know whey we need to wait for later to add this...
Unfotunately thats not the way the US political system works! Just as we are trying to get pro-immigrant stuff in, there are others who are trying to negate our force and in fact get any pro immigrant stuff out! Example, numbersusa.
As I have said in my previous post, we are trying to push for the pro-immigrant package at every step. It could happen now, it could happen later, in the worst case it might not happen at all! There are a lot of forces involved in this.
What is in our control is to keep trying and not give up till the very end. And make no mistake, we are doing that every second coz we are in the same boat as you are.
Why cant we try to add now..instead of waiting for later time..to add this ammendment thru some senator or somebody for filing 485 during retrogression...
just to know whey we need to wait for later to add this...
Unfotunately thats not the way the US political system works! Just as we are trying to get pro-immigrant stuff in, there are others who are trying to negate our force and in fact get any pro immigrant stuff out! Example, numbersusa.
As I have said in my previous post, we are trying to push for the pro-immigrant package at every step. It could happen now, it could happen later, in the worst case it might not happen at all! There are a lot of forces involved in this.
What is in our control is to keep trying and not give up till the very end. And make no mistake, we are doing that every second coz we are in the same boat as you are.
GCard_Dream
04-27 05:15 PM
I am not sure. May be it is. Details are still not out yet and I don't see the text of the bill on thomas. Hopefully more detail will emerge in next day or so and then we will know for sure.
http://www.swnebr.net/newspaper/cgi-bin/articles/articlearchiver.pl?160478
http://www.swnebr.net/newspaper/cgi-bin/articles/articlearchiver.pl?160478
more...
Appu
04-02 12:40 AM
You guys probably verified this already but -
if you read (the intended) Sec 218D (amendment to the INA) and Sec 602 of S.2454, they do not exclude legal aliens.
All that is required under 218D is that a person must have been in the US on or before Jan 7, 2004 and have proof of employment.
Why shouldn't a legal nonimmigrant visa holder apply for AOS under 218D?
What am I missing here?
if you read (the intended) Sec 218D (amendment to the INA) and Sec 602 of S.2454, they do not exclude legal aliens.
All that is required under 218D is that a person must have been in the US on or before Jan 7, 2004 and have proof of employment.
Why shouldn't a legal nonimmigrant visa holder apply for AOS under 218D?
What am I missing here?
eager_immi
02-11 08:47 AM
They don't listen to anyone they are answerable to why would they listen to people with least amount if rights.
The Judicial system is run by Bush and et al..they wont listen to soemone who they are not answerable to.
The Judicial system is run by Bush and et al..they wont listen to soemone who they are not answerable to.
more...
gc_chahiye
09-23 02:11 AM
Gurus,
Yesterday my lawyer received receipts for my spouse and kids (485/EAD/AP) but not for myself. Now my lawyer is insisting upon sending me the copies of the receipts and do not want to send me the originals. With respect to that I have following questions:
1) Is that o.k having copies only or we should have originals? If we do not
have originals what bad may happen?
2) Either my lawyer or I have not received any of my receipts but we
received all receipts of my family. Is this normal? How long should we wait
for my receipts before contacting USCIS? By the way USCIS already gave
me my all numbers for teh receipts and according to USCIS my receipts
already mailed on Sept 14th. What would be advisable action for me in
this case?
3) None of the receipts of my family contain Priority Date. PD field is blank on all receipts. Is this O.K.?
Thanks.
- BharatPremi
1. we also only have the copies of our receipts. Lawyers say the originals are property of the employer. Does not matter I think, as what we needed were the receipt numbers to track status, and a copy in case we communicate with USCIS (if we communicate with USCIS for something, we'll only include a copy of the receipt, dont need original). If you ever feel you need the original receipt (esp. of the 485) you can point them to the regulation that says you need original 485 receipt if you travel when you have AOS pending. there was a thread earlier on IV, and also lots of Google references:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22is+in+possession+of+the+original%22+tr avel+adjustment&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS230US230
2. people have got receipts (even fingerprinting notices, appointments) weeks apart from their co-applicant. I would say hang on a week before you contact uscis.
3. our receipt also had the PD field blank. Apparently thats normal
Yesterday my lawyer received receipts for my spouse and kids (485/EAD/AP) but not for myself. Now my lawyer is insisting upon sending me the copies of the receipts and do not want to send me the originals. With respect to that I have following questions:
1) Is that o.k having copies only or we should have originals? If we do not
have originals what bad may happen?
2) Either my lawyer or I have not received any of my receipts but we
received all receipts of my family. Is this normal? How long should we wait
for my receipts before contacting USCIS? By the way USCIS already gave
me my all numbers for teh receipts and according to USCIS my receipts
already mailed on Sept 14th. What would be advisable action for me in
this case?
3) None of the receipts of my family contain Priority Date. PD field is blank on all receipts. Is this O.K.?
Thanks.
- BharatPremi
1. we also only have the copies of our receipts. Lawyers say the originals are property of the employer. Does not matter I think, as what we needed were the receipt numbers to track status, and a copy in case we communicate with USCIS (if we communicate with USCIS for something, we'll only include a copy of the receipt, dont need original). If you ever feel you need the original receipt (esp. of the 485) you can point them to the regulation that says you need original 485 receipt if you travel when you have AOS pending. there was a thread earlier on IV, and also lots of Google references:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22is+in+possession+of+the+original%22+tr avel+adjustment&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS230US230
2. people have got receipts (even fingerprinting notices, appointments) weeks apart from their co-applicant. I would say hang on a week before you contact uscis.
3. our receipt also had the PD field blank. Apparently thats normal
GotGC??
01-08 12:03 AM
.
I wud just like to add that shud you travel and use your current visa your new I-94 will be stamped with date June 07. Then you have to extend you H-4 and your old approval will not be valid.
That's not true. I've done that many times, and I'm sure many other would have done the same without affecting the newly approved petition.
Yes, something about the "last action rule" (I don't know much about it) causes some problem when you are outside the US at the time your H1/H4 petition gets approved (in other words, you should be present in the US the day the H1/H4 gets approved) but this rule does not apply in this case because the petition has already been approved.
These are just my thoughts. And I am not a layer.
Do you have a basis for the statement you are making? Any references, rules, etc.?
Have a great trip
I wud just like to add that shud you travel and use your current visa your new I-94 will be stamped with date June 07. Then you have to extend you H-4 and your old approval will not be valid.
That's not true. I've done that many times, and I'm sure many other would have done the same without affecting the newly approved petition.
Yes, something about the "last action rule" (I don't know much about it) causes some problem when you are outside the US at the time your H1/H4 petition gets approved (in other words, you should be present in the US the day the H1/H4 gets approved) but this rule does not apply in this case because the petition has already been approved.
These are just my thoughts. And I am not a layer.
Do you have a basis for the statement you are making? Any references, rules, etc.?
Have a great trip
more...
rjgleason
October 23rd, 2005, 04:44 AM
Very nice Michael.....I would be interested in knowing the shooting parameters of these shots, what lenses used, etc. Also, your lighting set-up.
TheCanadian
11-25 11:54 PM
What part of two rows of 5 didn't you understand?
WeldonSprings
02-25 03:01 PM
USCIS can pre-adjudicate a case, even when visa numbers are not available. This means that USCIS processes all the application, but just waits for a visa number to finalize it.
The processing date listed is the received date of the oldest case that they have not adjudicated or pre-adjudicated yet (maybe due to some problem). It does not mean that cases filed after April 2007 are or will not be adjudicated.
The processing date listed is the received date of the oldest case that they have not adjudicated or pre-adjudicated yet (maybe due to some problem). It does not mean that cases filed after April 2007 are or will not be adjudicated.
thomachan72
09-04 03:44 PM
Man...in what category they gave you the GC. Is it for your good Gelf english or for your analytical skill. Did you consider the new borns before concluding 'In 1-2 years every one wil be finished.' Come with more ammo (means more Ammunition and dont come with more girls) :eek:
Not good words to use and not good way to react while in mourning and praying for lost souls brother:D;)
Not good words to use and not good way to react while in mourning and praying for lost souls brother:D;)
carbon
09-25 04:19 PM
I agree that 1/2 million people can't impact housing market significantly.
but look at the numbers, 1/2 million people means $100 billion untapped
market. Personaly I can't imagine any business community who wouldn't consider
this huge potential market seriously.(We are not poor
immigrants that they can ignore, we are professinals with good credit)
Who knows they might help a little to push our issues in DC or reach our goal of
raising 60K !
All IV has to do is send a simple letter to them. Whats harm in doing that !!!
but look at the numbers, 1/2 million people means $100 billion untapped
market. Personaly I can't imagine any business community who wouldn't consider
this huge potential market seriously.(We are not poor
immigrants that they can ignore, we are professinals with good credit)
Who knows they might help a little to push our issues in DC or reach our goal of
raising 60K !
All IV has to do is send a simple letter to them. Whats harm in doing that !!!
