Blog Feeds
01-26 08:40 AM
Summary
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
wallpaper Amor del alma
-front1.jpg "amor eterno tattoo. rocio")
shana04
07-21 09:05 AM
Friends / Gurus,
Please advice or suggest.
Here is my situation, filed I 485 in July 2007 and No FP done.
Called USCIS in Mar 2008 and opened a SR and got SR for my self in hard copy and an email for my wife that some one contacted about your case for FP and a notice will be mailed to with specific time and date.
And I waited this long and no notice has arrived for me and dates are current in Aug 2008.
Today (July 21 2008) I called USCIS and used the following menus.
2-6-1-(Enter Receipt Number)-1-1-3-1
And a representative has greeted very well and asked bunch of questions and asked to answer yes or no (no details just yes or no)
Then she said as the Background Clearance has not been done for my case, they would not send the FP. And to open a SR I have to wait at least 441 days from Receipt date of I485 to open SR.
When I asked about my wife's case, she replied the same in no FP has done then probably she has not got her background clearance yet. so need to wait for 441 days for her case too.
Then I said my dates are current and if no FP done then I would loose my chance and she replied that until background clearance is done no FP will be sent and they would not touch the case until then.
Friends / Gurus, any advice or please let me know how to follow up on this. I do not want to loose this opportunity.
Thanks in advance.
Shana
Please advice or suggest.
Here is my situation, filed I 485 in July 2007 and No FP done.
Called USCIS in Mar 2008 and opened a SR and got SR for my self in hard copy and an email for my wife that some one contacted about your case for FP and a notice will be mailed to with specific time and date.
And I waited this long and no notice has arrived for me and dates are current in Aug 2008.
Today (July 21 2008) I called USCIS and used the following menus.
2-6-1-(Enter Receipt Number)-1-1-3-1
And a representative has greeted very well and asked bunch of questions and asked to answer yes or no (no details just yes or no)
Then she said as the Background Clearance has not been done for my case, they would not send the FP. And to open a SR I have to wait at least 441 days from Receipt date of I485 to open SR.
When I asked about my wife's case, she replied the same in no FP has done then probably she has not got her background clearance yet. so need to wait for 441 days for her case too.
Then I said my dates are current and if no FP done then I would loose my chance and she replied that until background clearance is done no FP will be sent and they would not touch the case until then.
Friends / Gurus, any advice or please let me know how to follow up on this. I do not want to loose this opportunity.
Thanks in advance.
Shana
DallasBlue
07-18 09:24 PM
Can I expect Conference call this Sunday (07/21) ? Please provide me the Phone number / Any password-Pin/ ANd time for the conference call.
yes. 7/22 @ 11am cst
Dial-In #: 1-218-486-1300
Bridge:
yes. 7/22 @ 11am cst
Dial-In #: 1-218-486-1300
Bridge:
2011 amor eterno tattoo. rocio
howzatt
07-13 06:37 PM
n1 buehler
more...
msp1976
10-16 10:14 AM
What are you saying? Health Services dismal? I thought it was better than US in many aspects. The cost is cheap for treatment (unless you have some uncommon disease. Since the system is churning up so many doctors, there is a lot of competition. Even in small villages you will find many doctors competing for patients. Maybe that is not true for everywhere, but that is what I have seen in my home state Haryana.
Also the education system may not be perfect, but kids don't have to go to private schools, because public schools have run out of capacity. There are problems like not all-around development, and not all kids doing great in studies. But that is true even in US, unless you are sending your kids to a fine private school (which by the way you can do in India, if you have money). JMHO
You can get reasonable education and health care in India if you are in the top 10% income range. You can get reasonable eduction and health care in US if you are in the top 50% income rage. That is the main difference...
Also the education system may not be perfect, but kids don't have to go to private schools, because public schools have run out of capacity. There are problems like not all-around development, and not all kids doing great in studies. But that is true even in US, unless you are sending your kids to a fine private school (which by the way you can do in India, if you have money). JMHO
You can get reasonable education and health care in India if you are in the top 10% income range. You can get reasonable eduction and health care in US if you are in the top 50% income rage. That is the main difference...
fide_champ
06-25 10:39 AM
The reason for rushing the application is that it could retrogress midway during the month of July. It may seem unlikely but you never know. That's one reason to file it as early as possible.
But i did not know the attorney would like to file it in June for me. I just wanted to find out if anyone's sent it early and received receipt.
But i did not know the attorney would like to file it in June for me. I just wanted to find out if anyone's sent it early and received receipt.
more...
vinay.shah73
01-17 03:12 AM
Both I and my wife had LUD update on Jan 9th. We got an RFE for her (but not me), asking for evidence regarding the bona fides of marriage. It will be great if you can share your experiences on RFE with us.
Here is what USCIS specifically requested:
1. Birth certificates of children
2. Documents of joint ownership of property such as car title, house (grant deed or rental agreement), etc.
3. Joint income tax returns
4. Joint financial accounts such as bank statements
5. Spousal insurance coverage such as health insurance and life insurance
In my original application, I had submitted the marriage certificate (in English) from India. I can resubmit that.
Things that I plan to submit:
a) Marriage certificate from India.
b) Joint US income tax returns for 2006.
c) Joint bank statement.
d) Kaiser health insurance for spouse.
e) Joint credit card statements.
We do not have kids. No car title or house on joint name. No rental agreement or utility bills on joint name. We do not have life insurance.
Please let me know if these documents sound reasonable enough to convince USCIS. If there is anything else that I can provide, please do let me know.
Thanks a lot!
vinay.shah73@gmail.com
PS: I filed I-485 in Jan 2007 under EB-1 in Nebraska Service Center. My I-140 was also approved in Jan 2007. This was not a concurrent filing. I filed I-485 after getting I-140 approved. Got finger-print, EAD, AP in April.
Here is what USCIS specifically requested:
1. Birth certificates of children
2. Documents of joint ownership of property such as car title, house (grant deed or rental agreement), etc.
3. Joint income tax returns
4. Joint financial accounts such as bank statements
5. Spousal insurance coverage such as health insurance and life insurance
In my original application, I had submitted the marriage certificate (in English) from India. I can resubmit that.
Things that I plan to submit:
a) Marriage certificate from India.
b) Joint US income tax returns for 2006.
c) Joint bank statement.
d) Kaiser health insurance for spouse.
e) Joint credit card statements.
We do not have kids. No car title or house on joint name. No rental agreement or utility bills on joint name. We do not have life insurance.
Please let me know if these documents sound reasonable enough to convince USCIS. If there is anything else that I can provide, please do let me know.
Thanks a lot!
vinay.shah73@gmail.com
PS: I filed I-485 in Jan 2007 under EB-1 in Nebraska Service Center. My I-140 was also approved in Jan 2007. This was not a concurrent filing. I filed I-485 after getting I-140 approved. Got finger-print, EAD, AP in April.
2010 amor eterno rocio durcal.
mugwump
12-07 04:41 PM
I was worried because in the application, the admissions advisor was asking em to fill SSN & Visa status information. I was a bit worried to give that information if that is going to be voilated in any way.
You will be fine, i am on H1 and doing my MS part time!!
You will be fine, i am on H1 and doing my MS part time!!
more...
nogcyet
07-17 12:05 AM
my attorney did not ask for w2 or tax return, my company uses berry, appleman and leiden, usabal.com
wonder why different attorneys have different requirements
Copy of W2 and recent two pay-stubs is sufficient to file AOS.:)
wonder why different attorneys have different requirements
Copy of W2 and recent two pay-stubs is sufficient to file AOS.:)
hair amor eterno rocio durcal
tonyHK12
11-30 09:14 PM
We need to get all these businesses to join together with Immigration voice and support us by lobbying and funding.
No Great H-1b will come here if its going to take 10-20 years to get a Green card.
I would suggest, lets have another action item to write to these companies about IV and ask for their help for Legal Immigrants that everyone needs.
This is a big thing that is missing so far.
See how the president of the Agricultural board, unions appear on TV asking for support for illegals and also get invited to Congress.
No Great H-1b will come here if its going to take 10-20 years to get a Green card.
I would suggest, lets have another action item to write to these companies about IV and ask for their help for Legal Immigrants that everyone needs.
This is a big thing that is missing so far.
See how the president of the Agricultural board, unions appear on TV asking for support for illegals and also get invited to Congress.
more...
gc_on_demand
05-22 10:18 AM
Hello -
if they are to terminate concurrent filing. How long would it take for
the rule to take place. This includes 2 months comment period and all
Thanks
P :)
I think after comment period with in week they publish rule in federal register.
So at max by aug 15th they will make this rule.
if they are to terminate concurrent filing. How long would it take for
the rule to take place. This includes 2 months comment period and all
Thanks
P :)
I think after comment period with in week they publish rule in federal register.
So at max by aug 15th they will make this rule.
hot amor eterno rocio durcal. amor eterno rocio durcal.
tinoue
09-27 09:52 AM
I have approved I140 notice ... i dont see A# can you pls help me find that number in approval notice (797)
It is in "Beneficiary" section, right above my name. But I heard some people do not have numbers on thier approved I-140. I do not know why, though.
It is in "Beneficiary" section, right above my name. But I heard some people do not have numbers on thier approved I-140. I do not know why, though.
more...
house Rocio Durcal - Amor Eterno
GC092003
04-18 11:33 AM
I received a receipt confirmation for my I-140 petition. It shows that they received on March 24, 2006. I tried to check on the status on USCIS website in case status. I could not find my case so far. Does it take so long to be updated. I am worried if my petition is misplaced somewhere...
Please give me your advice.
Please give me your advice.
tattoo amor eterno rocio durcal.
guygeek007
07-31 11:03 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
more...
pictures Rocio Durcal - Amor Eterno
eb3_nepa
08-14 02:47 PM
How did you come up with $745? I-485 application fees were $325 + $70 fee for biometrics. That makes it $395 per application or $790 for two applications. Maybe your lawyer gave you incorrect advice about the fees??
$745 is the CORRECT fee for 485+765+131 including the bio-metric fees. The USCIS must have screwed up. How else did one get received correctly and one get messed up!!??
$745 is the CORRECT fee for 485+765+131 including the bio-metric fees. The USCIS must have screwed up. How else did one get received correctly and one get messed up!!??
dresses amor eterno rocio durcal. Rocio Durcal Amor Eterno; Rocio Durcal Amor Eterno
kumarc123
08-13 02:09 PM
after rolling out the sept visa ... rao saab aaram kar rahe hain...
kindly not "DISTUB"
:D:D:D
(translation : __mr rao is resting__)
Come on guys, give him a break.
His analysis was accurate, if any of you came across the September 08 bulletin, EB2 advanced by two months. Which equates to what vldrao analyzed in the past, the use of 20,000 visas in September.
We all IV members stand united and lets not adverse someone on the basis of his righteousness. Even if a IV member is wrong, let's all correct him.
Thanks
kindly not "DISTUB"
:D:D:D
(translation : __mr rao is resting__)
Come on guys, give him a break.
His analysis was accurate, if any of you came across the September 08 bulletin, EB2 advanced by two months. Which equates to what vldrao analyzed in the past, the use of 20,000 visas in September.
We all IV members stand united and lets not adverse someone on the basis of his righteousness. Even if a IV member is wrong, let's all correct him.
Thanks
more...
makeup amor eterno rocio durcal.
ita
01-26 12:10 AM
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=23042
Thank you.
Thank you.
girlfriend amor eterno rocio durcal. Rocio Durcal - Amor eterno - High Quality Music
pappu
07-18 02:14 PM
=======================
Message from IV
IV does not recommend any such actions.
We are aware of the issue and if there is any acion item, we will post it.
also be aware of what we posted earlier on this issue:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6084
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=100024#post100024
=========================
Message from IV
IV does not recommend any such actions.
We are aware of the issue and if there is any acion item, we will post it.
also be aware of what we posted earlier on this issue:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6084
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=100024#post100024
=========================
hairstyles Amor Eterno by Rocio Durcal
mbartosik
11-19 12:14 PM
For Nebraska:
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
For Texas:
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=TSC
Summary for I485:
Nebraska has processed most applications that it has had for 7 months (filed on or before April 14 2007).
Texas has processed most applications that it has had for 6 months.
Since 6 months is the target, Texas can be considered to be caught up, and Nebraska will likely have caught up next month.
For I485 that makes the visa bulletin the main issue.
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
For Texas:
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=TSC
Summary for I485:
Nebraska has processed most applications that it has had for 7 months (filed on or before April 14 2007).
Texas has processed most applications that it has had for 6 months.
Since 6 months is the target, Texas can be considered to be caught up, and Nebraska will likely have caught up next month.
For I485 that makes the visa bulletin the main issue.
ChainReaction
02-15 09:06 AM
How about requesting a $1donation when a non-contributing member ask a question, or $5 dollars for ten posts.It is not much but will definitely bring some revenue.
We can have a forum like member only access...where the question can only be posted by payed members or by people who pay a small donation? The idea is that the amount requested is not much ,which anyone can afford, but the number of questions people ask on our forum will definitely generate some revenue.
We can start a volunteer thread as a pilot program to see what kind of response we get...what do Core and rest of the member think of it?
We can have a forum like member only access...where the question can only be posted by payed members or by people who pay a small donation? The idea is that the amount requested is not much ,which anyone can afford, but the number of questions people ask on our forum will definitely generate some revenue.
We can start a volunteer thread as a pilot program to see what kind of response we get...what do Core and rest of the member think of it?
yanj
12-14 11:51 AM
Thanks !
No comments:
Post a Comment