ajaykk
07-21 01:33 PM
Mailed on 07/14
Recvd: 07/15
Soft LUD's: 07/17, 07/18 & 07/20
Recvd: 07/15
Soft LUD's: 07/17, 07/18 & 07/20
wallpaper Today is the 129th irthday of
newbee7
07-10 10:04 AM
eb3_nepa,
This flowers campaign is based on the principles of non voilent protest.
This flowers campaign is based on the principles of non voilent protest.
tonyHK12
02-25 08:32 AM
Contributed $100. Your transaction ID for this payment is: 6WA26225ME502873T
go IV!
go IV!
2011 happy-irthday-ears.gif
grimreaper
11-18 11:55 AM
Dear XXX
Thank you for contacting me with your position regarding immigration. It is good to learn the views of my friends and neighbors in northern California, and I appreciate having your input.
Current estimates suggest that there may be as many as twelve million undocumented immigrants in our country. A balanced approach to immigration reform is needed to contain and reverse this trend. Any solution must protect the United States economy, meet our homeland security needs, and reduce the backlog and wait times associated with legitimate applications for legal entry.
Our economy relies upon hard working people to perform every type of work, from back-breaking farm labor to high tech jobs, and America has always welcomed workers, foreign and domestic, who endeavor to advance the U.S. economy. It is simply not realistic to expect our economy to continue prospering without providing some mechanism for legal temporary workers to continue their efforts.
That is why I am a cosponsor of the AgJOBS bill. Our national economic survival relies on retaining the agricultural labor force while bringing workers out from the shadows, a goal the AgJOBS bill helps meet. However, I also believe we should significantly enhance the American labor market by placing a priority on educating U.S. students and training American workers instead of fostering a reliance on foreign workers. Businesses seeking to hire a temporary professional worker should pledge that they have made a good-faith effort to hire U.S. workers first and that the temporary professional worker will not displace a U.S. worker. I believe that these provisions can be met without stifling business and economic growth.
In addition, true border security can come only from the increased use of manpower and effective technology together with an efficient and judicious legal immigration application process. The indefinite state of limbo in which many applicants for legal American immigration status find themselves is a part of the problem that we can control. By allocating more resources to efficiently process applications, we can significantly cut wait times for applicants and reduce the influx of undocumented immigrants. As Congress considers future immigration legislation, I will factor your recommendations into my decision making.
Thank you again for sharing your views. I am proud to serve California's Eleventh District, and I am committed to working hard for you. If you would like more information about the issues I am working on in Congress, I encourage you to visit my website at Congressman Jerry McNerney (http://www.mcnerney.house.gov).
Sincerely,
Jerry McNerney
Member of Congress
Thank you for contacting me with your position regarding immigration. It is good to learn the views of my friends and neighbors in northern California, and I appreciate having your input.
Current estimates suggest that there may be as many as twelve million undocumented immigrants in our country. A balanced approach to immigration reform is needed to contain and reverse this trend. Any solution must protect the United States economy, meet our homeland security needs, and reduce the backlog and wait times associated with legitimate applications for legal entry.
Our economy relies upon hard working people to perform every type of work, from back-breaking farm labor to high tech jobs, and America has always welcomed workers, foreign and domestic, who endeavor to advance the U.S. economy. It is simply not realistic to expect our economy to continue prospering without providing some mechanism for legal temporary workers to continue their efforts.
That is why I am a cosponsor of the AgJOBS bill. Our national economic survival relies on retaining the agricultural labor force while bringing workers out from the shadows, a goal the AgJOBS bill helps meet. However, I also believe we should significantly enhance the American labor market by placing a priority on educating U.S. students and training American workers instead of fostering a reliance on foreign workers. Businesses seeking to hire a temporary professional worker should pledge that they have made a good-faith effort to hire U.S. workers first and that the temporary professional worker will not displace a U.S. worker. I believe that these provisions can be met without stifling business and economic growth.
In addition, true border security can come only from the increased use of manpower and effective technology together with an efficient and judicious legal immigration application process. The indefinite state of limbo in which many applicants for legal American immigration status find themselves is a part of the problem that we can control. By allocating more resources to efficiently process applications, we can significantly cut wait times for applicants and reduce the influx of undocumented immigrants. As Congress considers future immigration legislation, I will factor your recommendations into my decision making.
Thank you again for sharing your views. I am proud to serve California's Eleventh District, and I am committed to working hard for you. If you would like more information about the issues I am working on in Congress, I encourage you to visit my website at Congressman Jerry McNerney (http://www.mcnerney.house.gov).
Sincerely,
Jerry McNerney
Member of Congress
more...
anandrajesh
12-12 03:32 PM
zI have mentioned IV to a some Indians. They have no interest. Some of them are not bothered about retrogression. They exepect the GC to fall in their lap while they are sipping tea and eating samosa.
Also, it is hard to trust a mainly Indian set up. The Indian contracting companies have set a very shameless level. I told my friends that IV appears different but it is hard to change your opinion when you see something else 10 times a day.
I apolozie to the sensitive Indians if I this is breaking news. But this is the general feeling and a reason for hate in the blogs: where there is smoke there is fire. It is embarassing.
You hit the nail right on the head. The Indian Contracting Coz do a shameless job and so are some of the Indians who shamelessly cook their resumes up to match any reqt.
I have an American Lead who interviewed this indian guy over the telephone and he did appear very smart, but when he joined our company he was plain dumb and didnt know anything. Apparently somebody else attended his telephone interview. Talk about breaking FAITH i have built all these years. He doesnt trust Indians anymore. Who is to be blamed here???
Also, it is hard to trust a mainly Indian set up. The Indian contracting companies have set a very shameless level. I told my friends that IV appears different but it is hard to change your opinion when you see something else 10 times a day.
I apolozie to the sensitive Indians if I this is breaking news. But this is the general feeling and a reason for hate in the blogs: where there is smoke there is fire. It is embarassing.
You hit the nail right on the head. The Indian Contracting Coz do a shameless job and so are some of the Indians who shamelessly cook their resumes up to match any reqt.
I have an American Lead who interviewed this indian guy over the telephone and he did appear very smart, but when he joined our company he was plain dumb and didnt know anything. Apparently somebody else attended his telephone interview. Talk about breaking FAITH i have built all these years. He doesnt trust Indians anymore. Who is to be blamed here???
agadre
07-02 09:34 AM
USICS has hired the hollywood actors in order to clear backlog. Now most of those celebrities have lots of experiences of giving signatures to fans, uscis has assigned them the mail receiving clerk's duties.
Thats a good one.:D
Thats a good one.:D
more...
anzerraja
07-20 11:09 AM
Dear Members
For those of you joining us late, here is some info about this thread.
1. This is to do our least part to the core IV Team for their selfless sacrifice, for all of us getting the benefits of legal immigration. Note that , Aman Kapoor , the co-founder of IV has done his part by sacrificing $64,000/- from his own personal funds towards the administrative costs of IV. Yes you read it right , it is $64,000/- We come to know from his co-worker that he has sold his house towards running this show for us.
2. We have not yet figured out a way to reimburse these costs as IV does not yet have administrative costs part of the expenditure allocation, as we understand it. So instead of a wait and watch, we decided to go ahead with collecting the pledge from the members on the amount they are putting forth for reimbursing the amount. Once we come up with a strategy(members we look for your suggestions on how to get this done, please add your comments) we will instruct the members pledged to pay out.
So do not pay it directly to the IV core funds, yet.
Please help us spread the message about this thread in other threads by copy and pasting the following in other threads too.
There is a funding drive in this other thread towards reimbursing Aman and other core IV member's expenses towards the administrative costs of IV.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/sh...ad.php?t=10708
Could you please pledge an amount ?
Thanks
Anzer
For those of you joining us late, here is some info about this thread.
1. This is to do our least part to the core IV Team for their selfless sacrifice, for all of us getting the benefits of legal immigration. Note that , Aman Kapoor , the co-founder of IV has done his part by sacrificing $64,000/- from his own personal funds towards the administrative costs of IV. Yes you read it right , it is $64,000/- We come to know from his co-worker that he has sold his house towards running this show for us.
2. We have not yet figured out a way to reimburse these costs as IV does not yet have administrative costs part of the expenditure allocation, as we understand it. So instead of a wait and watch, we decided to go ahead with collecting the pledge from the members on the amount they are putting forth for reimbursing the amount. Once we come up with a strategy(members we look for your suggestions on how to get this done, please add your comments) we will instruct the members pledged to pay out.
So do not pay it directly to the IV core funds, yet.
Please help us spread the message about this thread in other threads by copy and pasting the following in other threads too.
There is a funding drive in this other thread towards reimbursing Aman and other core IV member's expenses towards the administrative costs of IV.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/sh...ad.php?t=10708
Could you please pledge an amount ?
Thanks
Anzer
2010 Happy Birthday Polarbear!
satish_hello
09-24 10:34 AM
I got my LUD on my I-485 and my wife, and got 4 e-mail from cris, that my application was received from other center(CSC).
I am still waiting for my FP.
What does it mean.
Regards
satish
I am still waiting for my FP.
What does it mean.
Regards
satish
more...
485Question
09-28 01:51 PM
Please update your signature with your details, and it will be easy.
hair Birthday Swearbear Talking
anujcb
06-05 03:30 PM
Did some investigation into the LIN/WAC number series that was issued starting from June 1...here are the details.
WAC071795xxxx - June 1
WAC071805xxxx - June 2
WAC071815xxxx - June 4
......
LIN071735xxxx - June 1
LIN071745xxxx - June 4
......
WAC071795xxxx - June 1
WAC071805xxxx - June 2
WAC071815xxxx - June 4
......
LIN071735xxxx - June 1
LIN071745xxxx - June 4
......
more...
arsh007
12-16 01:35 PM
also focus on the positives ..for eg I am happy that because of these delays I didnt run and buy a house in usa (which is one of the worst investments that a person can make).
Just like to correct you here my friend - Its incorrect to suggest that a house is a bad investment in the US. On the other hand, why treat it as an investment like so many foolish real estate speculators out there. Think of it as a place to live and be part of the American Dream. If not for this dream, many of us would have packed up and gone home back to our own countries.
Just like to correct you here my friend - Its incorrect to suggest that a house is a bad investment in the US. On the other hand, why treat it as an investment like so many foolish real estate speculators out there. Think of it as a place to live and be part of the American Dream. If not for this dream, many of us would have packed up and gone home back to our own countries.
hot Happy Birthday Glitter Bear
chapper
08-13 03:20 PM
Congrats! Where is ur I140 approved from.
Guys
Just saw my cheque cashed.. I think it got transferred over to TSC. I sent to NSC on Jul 2. And yes i had LUD in my I-140 as 7/28
Guys
Just saw my cheque cashed.. I think it got transferred over to TSC. I sent to NSC on Jul 2. And yes i had LUD in my I-140 as 7/28
more...
house Happy Birthday Bear Graphic
immigrationaccount
08-28 06:19 PM
For those who got approvals,
Were there any RFEs regarding birth certificates in the cases where an affidavit was submitted initially?
I submitted birth affidavit with my application, PD 24/March/06, goes current from 1/Sep.
I understand from my parents that it takes good effort and may take long time to get the birth certificate. It will be a great help if you can share your experience.
Thank you.
Were there any RFEs regarding birth certificates in the cases where an affidavit was submitted initially?
I submitted birth affidavit with my application, PD 24/March/06, goes current from 1/Sep.
I understand from my parents that it takes good effort and may take long time to get the birth certificate. It will be a great help if you can share your experience.
Thank you.
tattoo Happy Birthday Bear With
.jpg "Happy 50th Birthday")
delax
07-27 07:58 PM
Seems like You are not waiting for GC for more than 8 years. You have not been separated from ur family for more than 3 years. Thats why you don't agree with EB3-I fight. Look at the PD for last 3 years. EB3-I is stuck in 2001 since early 2005. It has not moved in last 3 years and you are saying People should keep quiet about it. How selfish of you.
I never said we should keep quiet about it. I was only responding to an earlier post reagarding 'EB2 - elitist protectionism'. Just like you are within your rights to look after yourself, so is everybody else - welcome to capitalism. I have always maintained that going down the road of EB3 versus EB2 is detrimental to this group. Your post only adds to this.
In anycase I dont know how splitting visas equally between EB2I and EB3I can pass the smell test even if DOS were to implement it - there is a categorization that is already established AFTER the initial handout is made on an equal basis. The split completely negates it - at least to the extent any EB2ROW spill over is directed to EB3 when EB2 I and C are already retrogressed.
Lets not swear by capitalism but selectively resort to socialism.
I never said we should keep quiet about it. I was only responding to an earlier post reagarding 'EB2 - elitist protectionism'. Just like you are within your rights to look after yourself, so is everybody else - welcome to capitalism. I have always maintained that going down the road of EB3 versus EB2 is detrimental to this group. Your post only adds to this.
In anycase I dont know how splitting visas equally between EB2I and EB3I can pass the smell test even if DOS were to implement it - there is a categorization that is already established AFTER the initial handout is made on an equal basis. The split completely negates it - at least to the extent any EB2ROW spill over is directed to EB3 when EB2 I and C are already retrogressed.
Lets not swear by capitalism but selectively resort to socialism.
more...
pictures Book - Happy Birthday Bear
kosu
06-13 06:53 PM
Atlast all my checks are cashed today. I am able to get my case number from the checks. Even though INS received my application on June 6th, in my 485 it says that they have received my application only on June 11th. Wonder why?
dresses Click to enlarge
reddymjm
02-17 12:29 PM
you just completed your payment.
Your transaction ID for this payment is: 5A429240D924xxxxxx.
Your transaction ID for this payment is: 5A429240D924xxxxxx.
more...
makeup Happy Birthday Party Hat.
gc28262
07-19 07:56 PM
My thoughts:
I understand and share the despair and hopelessness felt by EB3 guys.
Unfortunately when Visa bulletin comes out and when EB2 progresses, we EB3 guys are suddenly aware of our plight and switch to action mode. After a while this enthusiasm fades away till the next bulletin. These emotional responses won't get us anywhere. If we need to get our issues resolved, we need to work on a consistent basis irrespective of the visa bulletin status. We all need to take more active participation in IVs action items as well as contributing to IV efforts as much as we can. IMO signing up for contributions is the easiest thing to do.
Spillover issues:
Upto 2007 these spillovers were coming to EB3. Some folks analysed INA and figured it out that USCIS/DOS was interpreting spillovers incorrectly and that it should flow across. So they contacted USCIS with their findings and argued for their cause. Since then USCIS/DOS interpretation of spillover interpretation changed. Remember these folks did a thorough analysis of the laws and then approached USCIS/DOS. So to change it the other way you have to have a solid legal basis. Writing to lawmakers just out of frustration will not help. If USCIS/DOS is interpreting spillovers correctly as per law, there isn't much anyone can change it without a legislative change.
If we have to go through legislative path, there are easier fixes that can be achieved by legislative fixes like visa recapture etc. That is the reason, IV has planned a long term strategy to end retrogression for all categories. We all need to participate in these action items, contact lawmakers etc with our issues.
Here is an official IV discussion about spillover rules:
ImmigrationVoice.org - USCIS data analysis (http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=97&Itemid=36#_Toc246743452)
Visa spillage rules
There is a supply of 140,000 permanent visas in the EB category for a year. EB1, EB2, EB3 have an equal share of 28.6% or 40,040 visas per year. There is a 7% cap per country on the overall legal immigration including family and skill based. This amounts to 25,620 visas for a single country in EB category. There is a rule to cap 27% of a category in a quarter. So in the first quarter only 10,811 (rounded) visas can be given in any of the categories.
If the supply exceeds demand capped by per country, then per country quota is relaxed to the matching ratio of family based approvals. For practical consideration, it means that the spillover visas beyond 25,620 to a single country can’t be given in the first 3 quarters. The last quarter spillover will need to be first in first out for all the retrogressed countries. This should not limit immigrants from other countries to use up their quota.
Following is the rule from INA Section 201to maintain ratio. There is a different section to override this logic in the last quarter of any calendar year.
(e) Special Rules for Countries at Ceiling. - If it is determined that the total number of immigrant visas made available under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area will exceed the numerical limitation specified in subsection (a)(2) in any fiscal year, in determining the allotment of immigrant visa numbers to natives under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203, visa numbers with respect to natives of that state or area shall be allocated (to the extent practicable and otherwise consistent with this section and section 203) in a manner so that
(1) the ratio of the visa numbers made available under section 203(a) to the visa numbers made available under section 203(b) is equal to the ratio of the worldwide level of immigration under section 201(c) to such level under section 201 (d);
(2) except as provided in subsection (a)(4), the proportion of the visa numbers made available under each of paragraphs (1) through (4) of section 203(a) is equal to the ratio of the total number of visas made available under the respective paragraph to the total number of visas made available under section 203(a), and
(3) 3/ except as provided in subsection (a)(5), the proportion of the visa numbers made available under each of paragraphs (1) through (5) of section 203(b) is equal to the ratio of the total number of visas made available under the respective paragraph to the total number of visas made available under section 203(b).
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as limiting the number of visas that may be issued to natives of a foreign state or dependent area under section 203(a) or 203(b) if there is insufficient demand for visas for such natives under section 203(b) or 203(a), respectively, or as limiting the number of visas that may be issued under section 203(a)(2)(A) pursuant to subsection (a)(4)(A).
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as limiting the number of visas that may be issued to natives of a foreign state or dependent area under section 203(a) or 203(b) if there is insufficient demand for visas for such natives under section 203(b) or 203(a) , respectively, or as limiting the number of visas that may be issued under section 203(a)(2)(A) pursuant to subsection (a)(4)(A).
I understand and share the despair and hopelessness felt by EB3 guys.
Unfortunately when Visa bulletin comes out and when EB2 progresses, we EB3 guys are suddenly aware of our plight and switch to action mode. After a while this enthusiasm fades away till the next bulletin. These emotional responses won't get us anywhere. If we need to get our issues resolved, we need to work on a consistent basis irrespective of the visa bulletin status. We all need to take more active participation in IVs action items as well as contributing to IV efforts as much as we can. IMO signing up for contributions is the easiest thing to do.
Spillover issues:
Upto 2007 these spillovers were coming to EB3. Some folks analysed INA and figured it out that USCIS/DOS was interpreting spillovers incorrectly and that it should flow across. So they contacted USCIS with their findings and argued for their cause. Since then USCIS/DOS interpretation of spillover interpretation changed. Remember these folks did a thorough analysis of the laws and then approached USCIS/DOS. So to change it the other way you have to have a solid legal basis. Writing to lawmakers just out of frustration will not help. If USCIS/DOS is interpreting spillovers correctly as per law, there isn't much anyone can change it without a legislative change.
If we have to go through legislative path, there are easier fixes that can be achieved by legislative fixes like visa recapture etc. That is the reason, IV has planned a long term strategy to end retrogression for all categories. We all need to participate in these action items, contact lawmakers etc with our issues.
Here is an official IV discussion about spillover rules:
ImmigrationVoice.org - USCIS data analysis (http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=97&Itemid=36#_Toc246743452)
Visa spillage rules
There is a supply of 140,000 permanent visas in the EB category for a year. EB1, EB2, EB3 have an equal share of 28.6% or 40,040 visas per year. There is a 7% cap per country on the overall legal immigration including family and skill based. This amounts to 25,620 visas for a single country in EB category. There is a rule to cap 27% of a category in a quarter. So in the first quarter only 10,811 (rounded) visas can be given in any of the categories.
If the supply exceeds demand capped by per country, then per country quota is relaxed to the matching ratio of family based approvals. For practical consideration, it means that the spillover visas beyond 25,620 to a single country can’t be given in the first 3 quarters. The last quarter spillover will need to be first in first out for all the retrogressed countries. This should not limit immigrants from other countries to use up their quota.
Following is the rule from INA Section 201to maintain ratio. There is a different section to override this logic in the last quarter of any calendar year.
(e) Special Rules for Countries at Ceiling. - If it is determined that the total number of immigrant visas made available under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area will exceed the numerical limitation specified in subsection (a)(2) in any fiscal year, in determining the allotment of immigrant visa numbers to natives under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203, visa numbers with respect to natives of that state or area shall be allocated (to the extent practicable and otherwise consistent with this section and section 203) in a manner so that
(1) the ratio of the visa numbers made available under section 203(a) to the visa numbers made available under section 203(b) is equal to the ratio of the worldwide level of immigration under section 201(c) to such level under section 201 (d);
(2) except as provided in subsection (a)(4), the proportion of the visa numbers made available under each of paragraphs (1) through (4) of section 203(a) is equal to the ratio of the total number of visas made available under the respective paragraph to the total number of visas made available under section 203(a), and
(3) 3/ except as provided in subsection (a)(5), the proportion of the visa numbers made available under each of paragraphs (1) through (5) of section 203(b) is equal to the ratio of the total number of visas made available under the respective paragraph to the total number of visas made available under section 203(b).
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as limiting the number of visas that may be issued to natives of a foreign state or dependent area under section 203(a) or 203(b) if there is insufficient demand for visas for such natives under section 203(b) or 203(a), respectively, or as limiting the number of visas that may be issued under section 203(a)(2)(A) pursuant to subsection (a)(4)(A).
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as limiting the number of visas that may be issued to natives of a foreign state or dependent area under section 203(a) or 203(b) if there is insufficient demand for visas for such natives under section 203(b) or 203(a) , respectively, or as limiting the number of visas that may be issued under section 203(a)(2)(A) pursuant to subsection (a)(4)(A).
girlfriend Happy 50th Birthday
apahilaj
12-16 06:48 PM
Guys, any update on your FP notices? I have written to ombudsman almost 3 weeks ago about not receiving FP notices and nothing yet...
What are you guys thinking as next step?
What are you guys thinking as next step?
hairstyles Happy Birthday Singing Bear #
darslee
07-07 12:32 AM
The South African family is "staying tuned". July 14th is my daughter's birthday and we have a party planned (We live 3 hours drive away from San Jose) but any other day, you can count on us being there!
Macaca
07-08 09:28 PM
Macaca:
The anticipated demand (that is calculated based on Pending Applications, New Applications that might become approvable and plethora of other factors including guess work) on Oct 1 2005/Oct 1 2006 was MUCH higher than 140,000 that was available for the entire year. Infact you have to break 140,000 into four quarters and apply contry quota (7%) to it since EB-3 ROW was not current on these dates. Thus it was hardly a surprise that India and China and EB-3 ROW remained retrogress on these dates.
Now fast forward to June 2007, there were 40,000 visa available in that last quarter and EB-3 ROW was in no position to consume that many that means spillover would come to India and China EB3/EB3 or else visa would be wasted in big numbers. The solution was to increase the supply and hence everything was current overnight. Until USCIS came in to spoil the party. They didn't do it in any simple way instead they choose the route of complete exhashtion and hence shutting the door.
Bottom line is: Unless demand for EB-3 ROW subsides (or it becomes current leaving substantial numbers for spillover) India EB-2 will always be cap subjected to 3200 or so visas every year. The sad part is catching up with the demand for EB-3 ROW is a moving target and thus EB-2 India might NEVER qualify for spillovers. I hope I am proved wrong by someone who has more insight.
My analysis is minimally, if at all, dependent on India, China, ROW, ...
Offcourse I don't know all laws. I will believe DOS/USCIS URLs that explain how VB dates are set.
In general, it will be very useful to finds URLs that explain VB date setting and identify USCIS inconsistencies which they call LAW.
The anticipated demand (that is calculated based on Pending Applications, New Applications that might become approvable and plethora of other factors including guess work) on Oct 1 2005/Oct 1 2006 was MUCH higher than 140,000 that was available for the entire year. Infact you have to break 140,000 into four quarters and apply contry quota (7%) to it since EB-3 ROW was not current on these dates. Thus it was hardly a surprise that India and China and EB-3 ROW remained retrogress on these dates.
Now fast forward to June 2007, there were 40,000 visa available in that last quarter and EB-3 ROW was in no position to consume that many that means spillover would come to India and China EB3/EB3 or else visa would be wasted in big numbers. The solution was to increase the supply and hence everything was current overnight. Until USCIS came in to spoil the party. They didn't do it in any simple way instead they choose the route of complete exhashtion and hence shutting the door.
Bottom line is: Unless demand for EB-3 ROW subsides (or it becomes current leaving substantial numbers for spillover) India EB-2 will always be cap subjected to 3200 or so visas every year. The sad part is catching up with the demand for EB-3 ROW is a moving target and thus EB-2 India might NEVER qualify for spillovers. I hope I am proved wrong by someone who has more insight.
My analysis is minimally, if at all, dependent on India, China, ROW, ...
Offcourse I don't know all laws. I will believe DOS/USCIS URLs that explain how VB dates are set.
In general, it will be very useful to finds URLs that explain VB date setting and identify USCIS inconsistencies which they call LAW.
dingudi
03-23 05:29 PM
Thanks dingudi. If you know of a solid case where someone was RFE'd because of landing while on 485, then it looks like I might seriously consider abandoning it as well.
One last question: Let's hypothetically say that I do decide to land and somehow manage to get back into the US without any issues using my AP. However, every subsequent time I leave the U.S. and return, I run the risk of getting "caught" at the POE with regards to the 485/Canadian residency conflict. Am I correct in this assessment?
Again, I appreciate your input immensely. Thanks!
Like Dard-E-Disco pointed, that is the link I am aware of regarding someone getting the RFE. Also you will not know what may happen at POE unless you travel and find out yourself.
I had also landed in canada in 2004 and came back to US but at that time my I-140 was also not filed. But as soon as my I-1485 got filed last year I had to take a decision whether I want US GC or canadian GC because my 3 year validity for canada GC was getting over last year. So I decided not to pursue canada GC and just stick to getting a US GC.
Believe me I had also invested so much money and time in trying to canadian GC but because my AOS got filed last year, I made the decision to let go of my canadian GC.
One last question: Let's hypothetically say that I do decide to land and somehow manage to get back into the US without any issues using my AP. However, every subsequent time I leave the U.S. and return, I run the risk of getting "caught" at the POE with regards to the 485/Canadian residency conflict. Am I correct in this assessment?
Again, I appreciate your input immensely. Thanks!
Like Dard-E-Disco pointed, that is the link I am aware of regarding someone getting the RFE. Also you will not know what may happen at POE unless you travel and find out yourself.
I had also landed in canada in 2004 and came back to US but at that time my I-140 was also not filed. But as soon as my I-1485 got filed last year I had to take a decision whether I want US GC or canadian GC because my 3 year validity for canada GC was getting over last year. So I decided not to pursue canada GC and just stick to getting a US GC.
Believe me I had also invested so much money and time in trying to canadian GC but because my AOS got filed last year, I made the decision to let go of my canadian GC.
No comments:
Post a Comment