rb_248
04-10 04:39 PM
How many for MSFT + Infy ?
wallpaper londe highlights in rown
thomachan72
09-04 02:09 PM
Good. Let us collect a list of people who died and pray for them.
I you could add their PD and Category also, would be nice.
Funniest thread and indeed your reply was the funniest for today. I cant stop laughing..really.. you answered so seriously but yet hiding so much humor in it.. wonderful.
Isn't there an online community for people from andhra? why chose IV for these prayer requests? Previously it was praying for SRK who apparently got raped at the POE and now for all dead people??
Even the thread anouncing the members who got freedom this month is being drowned by these discussions. There is enough to celebrate this month...lot of our brothers / sisters have been greened...let us celebrate their freedom and forget our misseries for some time.
I you could add their PD and Category also, would be nice.
Funniest thread and indeed your reply was the funniest for today. I cant stop laughing..really.. you answered so seriously but yet hiding so much humor in it.. wonderful.
Isn't there an online community for people from andhra? why chose IV for these prayer requests? Previously it was praying for SRK who apparently got raped at the POE and now for all dead people??
Even the thread anouncing the members who got freedom this month is being drowned by these discussions. There is enough to celebrate this month...lot of our brothers / sisters have been greened...let us celebrate their freedom and forget our misseries for some time.
rbalaji5
03-19 01:03 PM
If it is true, how come the few person with old priority date (2002) is still waiting and some person with later priority date (2003,2004) got their GC..after Name check
2011 dark reddish-rown, londe
wellwishergc
12-26 11:39 AM
I will join in.
I will be calling in.
I will be calling in.
more...
rangakutta
02-10 11:56 AM
I have a masters in Electrical engineering. And my job duties is system administration or say system analyst.
pcjandyala
07-22 10:14 PM
Shana,
Once you take the infopass appointment, you can go to your local office (indicated on the appointment) and wait in the line/queue and ask your questions them when they call your number.
It's simple process.
Thanks
Once you take the infopass appointment, you can go to your local office (indicated on the appointment) and wait in the line/queue and ask your questions them when they call your number.
It's simple process.
Thanks
more...
drirshad
10-26 06:19 PM
My case went directly to CSC for H1 extension and is pending since July 10 any idea others have same problem.
Application Type: I129, PETITION FOR A NON IMMIGRANT WORKER
Current Status: Your I129 PETITION FOR A NON IMMIGRANT WORKER was received on July 10, 2006. We will mail you a decision as soon as processing is complete. You can use our processing dates to estimate when this case will be done. Follow the the link below for current processing dates.
Edit/Delete Message
Application Type: I129, PETITION FOR A NON IMMIGRANT WORKER
Current Status: Your I129 PETITION FOR A NON IMMIGRANT WORKER was received on July 10, 2006. We will mail you a decision as soon as processing is complete. You can use our processing dates to estimate when this case will be done. Follow the the link below for current processing dates.
Edit/Delete Message
2010 Brown Hair with Blonde
ash27
04-03 02:02 PM
It is still not very clear if working with companies like TekSystems on EAD is fine using AC-21.
This question has been asked before. However, I have not seen any specific answers regarding this. Any information will be appreciated.
Thanks
This question has been asked before. However, I have not seen any specific answers regarding this. Any information will be appreciated.
Thanks
more...
maine_gc
02-01 12:48 PM
Thank you all.
PD is Nov 2004 - EB2
PD is Nov 2004 - EB2
hair Her highlights bring a
samshah
07-14 09:34 PM
We are in Houston and are interested to join.
more...
gcseeker2002
02-20 03:16 PM
I was looking at the flcdatacenter website for Perm labors filed in 2006, and here are the numbers of total perm filed :
Total : 105960
India : 26636 = 25.2%
China : 8222 = 7.75%
No wonder china is moving faster in the EB categories
Total : 105960
India : 26636 = 25.2%
China : 8222 = 7.75%
No wonder china is moving faster in the EB categories
hot Kim Kardashian is londe
cool_guy_onnet1
06-01 01:28 PM
New Immigration Bill Amendment Could Help Keep Foreign Tech Workers In U.S.
A proposal to create a dual green-card system that favors high tech talent has bi-partisan support in the Senate.
By Marianne Kolbasuk McGee
InformationWeek
May 31, 2007 04:50 PM
A bi-partisan group of U.S. senators next week is expected to introduce to the immigration reform bill an amendment that proposes to retain a pool of 140,000 employer-sponsored green cards for foreign workers seeking permanent residence in the United States.
Amendment S.1249, being co-sponsored by senators Maria Cantwell (D-Wash), John Cornyn (R-Tex.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Orrin Hatch (R-Pa.), and Robert Bennett (R-Utah) proposes that the U.S. create a dual green-card system that, in addition to a new merit-point green card system that's proposed in the main bill, would also keep an annual pool of 140,000 employer-sponsored based green cards for foreign workers.
The revised legislation also proposes the United States establish no limit on H-1B visas for foreign professionals with masters or doctoral degrees in science, technology, engineering and math, or STEM fields.
"This would set up a complementary and parallel employer-sponsored system to the merit system" said Robert Hoffman, Oracle VP of government affairs and co-chair of Compete America, a coalition of technology companies. "This system would be more like Australia's" where immigration is granted in dual programs that includes employer-based sponsorship and merit points.
By the U.S. retaining a system allowing employer-based green cards to be issued each year, businesses would have better control over the talent they'd like to keep in the U.S., say tech employers.
One of the biggest criticisms that tech employers have about the current immigration reform bill being hammered out in the Senate is the proposed merit-based green card system. The process awards individuals with points based on the person's education, skills, and other factors.
Tech companies complain that a point-based system would shift to government bureaucrats too much control about the kind of talent pool that's available to employers in U.S. Amendment S.1249 proposes retaining employer-based immigration and expanding permanent residency to those foreigners with advanced STEM degrees, said Hoffman.
The amendment also proposes eliminating caps on H-1B visas issued to foreign students who have advanced degrees from U.S. universities. Right now, in addition to the 65,000 H-1B visas issued each year by the United States, an additional 20,000 H-1B visas are available to foreign students with advanced degrees from U.S. universities. The new amendment would eliminate that annual ceiling for advanced U.S. degrees.
In addition, the amendment also proposes providing 20,000 H-1B visas annually to foreigners with advanced degrees in STEM fields from foreign schools.
"Masters and PhDs would be exempt from the cap on H-1Bs and green cards," said Hoffman.
The amendment also proposes retracting a provision in the immigration reform bill that H-1B visa holders must have degrees that match their jobs. However, under the amendment, an H-1B visa holder with a degree in mathematics could continue to apply for work in a software engineering job, even without the software engineering degree.
"We're strongly in favor of this amendment," said Hoffman. "It's the single most important amendment in this [immigration] bill," he said.
Not everyone feels the same way. In a statement, U.S tech-professional advocacy group the Programmers Guild, called the amendment "a declaration of war on American tech workers."
A proposal to create a dual green-card system that favors high tech talent has bi-partisan support in the Senate.
By Marianne Kolbasuk McGee
InformationWeek
May 31, 2007 04:50 PM
A bi-partisan group of U.S. senators next week is expected to introduce to the immigration reform bill an amendment that proposes to retain a pool of 140,000 employer-sponsored green cards for foreign workers seeking permanent residence in the United States.
Amendment S.1249, being co-sponsored by senators Maria Cantwell (D-Wash), John Cornyn (R-Tex.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Orrin Hatch (R-Pa.), and Robert Bennett (R-Utah) proposes that the U.S. create a dual green-card system that, in addition to a new merit-point green card system that's proposed in the main bill, would also keep an annual pool of 140,000 employer-sponsored based green cards for foreign workers.
The revised legislation also proposes the United States establish no limit on H-1B visas for foreign professionals with masters or doctoral degrees in science, technology, engineering and math, or STEM fields.
"This would set up a complementary and parallel employer-sponsored system to the merit system" said Robert Hoffman, Oracle VP of government affairs and co-chair of Compete America, a coalition of technology companies. "This system would be more like Australia's" where immigration is granted in dual programs that includes employer-based sponsorship and merit points.
By the U.S. retaining a system allowing employer-based green cards to be issued each year, businesses would have better control over the talent they'd like to keep in the U.S., say tech employers.
One of the biggest criticisms that tech employers have about the current immigration reform bill being hammered out in the Senate is the proposed merit-based green card system. The process awards individuals with points based on the person's education, skills, and other factors.
Tech companies complain that a point-based system would shift to government bureaucrats too much control about the kind of talent pool that's available to employers in U.S. Amendment S.1249 proposes retaining employer-based immigration and expanding permanent residency to those foreigners with advanced STEM degrees, said Hoffman.
The amendment also proposes eliminating caps on H-1B visas issued to foreign students who have advanced degrees from U.S. universities. Right now, in addition to the 65,000 H-1B visas issued each year by the United States, an additional 20,000 H-1B visas are available to foreign students with advanced degrees from U.S. universities. The new amendment would eliminate that annual ceiling for advanced U.S. degrees.
In addition, the amendment also proposes providing 20,000 H-1B visas annually to foreigners with advanced degrees in STEM fields from foreign schools.
"Masters and PhDs would be exempt from the cap on H-1Bs and green cards," said Hoffman.
The amendment also proposes retracting a provision in the immigration reform bill that H-1B visa holders must have degrees that match their jobs. However, under the amendment, an H-1B visa holder with a degree in mathematics could continue to apply for work in a software engineering job, even without the software engineering degree.
"We're strongly in favor of this amendment," said Hoffman. "It's the single most important amendment in this [immigration] bill," he said.
Not everyone feels the same way. In a statement, U.S tech-professional advocacy group the Programmers Guild, called the amendment "a declaration of war on American tech workers."
more...
house Brown Hair With Bleach Blonde
snathan
04-08 04:16 PM
Does July 1st include the weekend till 3rd July or it just hardstop @ July 1st?
Hard stop at June 30th....
Hard stop at June 30th....
tattoo Please do not get londe
arrarrgee
07-17 02:39 PM
I second that...Why should there be a link between his req and his contribution? If we are able to answer/clarify whatever doubt he has..probably he would see the value in continuing with the group and probably contribute too...else no first timers would ever wanna join us
can you please help me link the connection between my request and my contribution to IV? I fail to undersand your point!
can you please help me link the connection between my request and my contribution to IV? I fail to undersand your point!
more...
pictures hot Hair Highlights, Haircuts,
newbie2020
05-18 07:42 AM
This one is an earlier bills introduced earlier ,This is similar to the bills being discussed
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:1:./temp/~c110j4GOX5::
Since the text of this bill is similar to other bill should we try to get these law maker's support.
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press...vatorsAct.html
KENNEDY AND MCCAUL ANNOUNCE “NEW AMERICAN INNOVATORS ACT”
(Washington, DC) - Congressman Patrick J. Kennedy (D-RI) and Congressman Michael McCaul (R-TX) announced the introduction of the New American Innovators Act. The New American Innovators Act would exempt foreign students receiving Ph.D.’s from accredited, American universities from numerical immigration limits.
“The New American Innovators Act takes the best and the brightest and moves them to the front of the green card line,” said Congressman Patrick Kennedy. “The global competition for talent is getting fiercer with each passing year. Although we already have the most talented workforce in the world, we cannot sit idly by while other countries work to attract the best international talent – especially when those individuals have been educated in our universities. The New American Innovators Act targets the cream of the crop. These are individuals who will generate breakthroughs, start businesses, create jobs, and ultimately help to drive our economic growth for years to come. It is absurd that we would spend time and money educating them only to force them to go to our economic competitors, even if they want to stay.”
“We need to ensure that U.S. employers continue to create and stay on the ‘cutting-edge’ of the global market,” stated Congressman Michael McCaul. “I am proud to work across the aisle in a bipartisan fashion to co-introduce this bill with Congressman Kennedy that will add to America’s economic strength by offering increased access to the best talent, no matter where they may be born. These individuals are the best and the brightest, having graduated from U.S. universities with doctorate degrees and are already present and working in America. These professionals add to our prosperity, by making enormous contributions to our economy. The last thing we want to do is force them to leave the country. ”
“We must continue to be committed to ensuring U.S. employers have the talent necessary to compete worldwide. Without the ability to retain them, we risk losing these hard-working, valued workers, who we have spent an enormous amount of funds training and educating to our national competitors abroad.”
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:1:./temp/~c110j4GOX5::
Since the text of this bill is similar to other bill should we try to get these law maker's support.
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press...vatorsAct.html
KENNEDY AND MCCAUL ANNOUNCE “NEW AMERICAN INNOVATORS ACT”
(Washington, DC) - Congressman Patrick J. Kennedy (D-RI) and Congressman Michael McCaul (R-TX) announced the introduction of the New American Innovators Act. The New American Innovators Act would exempt foreign students receiving Ph.D.’s from accredited, American universities from numerical immigration limits.
“The New American Innovators Act takes the best and the brightest and moves them to the front of the green card line,” said Congressman Patrick Kennedy. “The global competition for talent is getting fiercer with each passing year. Although we already have the most talented workforce in the world, we cannot sit idly by while other countries work to attract the best international talent – especially when those individuals have been educated in our universities. The New American Innovators Act targets the cream of the crop. These are individuals who will generate breakthroughs, start businesses, create jobs, and ultimately help to drive our economic growth for years to come. It is absurd that we would spend time and money educating them only to force them to go to our economic competitors, even if they want to stay.”
“We need to ensure that U.S. employers continue to create and stay on the ‘cutting-edge’ of the global market,” stated Congressman Michael McCaul. “I am proud to work across the aisle in a bipartisan fashion to co-introduce this bill with Congressman Kennedy that will add to America’s economic strength by offering increased access to the best talent, no matter where they may be born. These individuals are the best and the brightest, having graduated from U.S. universities with doctorate degrees and are already present and working in America. These professionals add to our prosperity, by making enormous contributions to our economy. The last thing we want to do is force them to leave the country. ”
“We must continue to be committed to ensuring U.S. employers have the talent necessary to compete worldwide. Without the ability to retain them, we risk losing these hard-working, valued workers, who we have spent an enormous amount of funds training and educating to our national competitors abroad.”
dresses Her hair is a soft rown with
Blog Feeds
09-29 08:10 PM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3Nqds9wEE1-SP29k8T86Pym3zymaPX4359qyD41dPg3I7tfW-_pmntOJf3BJhEIBKngGYlagsBHJJpx-6JOMa7l3XVhgYzQpxkdviie6IYuR9r9hpLd2RpInXl8zsMScDMAoa6gMIInA/s320/RFE+FROM+HELL.JPG (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3Nqds9wEE1-SP29k8T86Pym3zymaPX4359qyD41dPg3I7tfW-_pmntOJf3BJhEIBKngGYlagsBHJJpx-6JOMa7l3XVhgYzQpxkdviie6IYuR9r9hpLd2RpInXl8zsMScDMAoa6gMIInA/s1600-h/RFE+FROM+HELL.JPG)
Dear Director Mayorkas:
Last week in a speech you broached the subject of the possible need to increase filing fees because of a decrease in the number of applications received by USCIS this fiscal year. You also noted that there was over $100 million shortfall in your budget because of these decreased filings. I have some suggestions to meet your budget.
First, look at your budget projections from this last year. Last October, who didn't see the recession? Why weren't reductions in force made at that time? On April 1 when only 33% of the H-1B applications were filed as compared to the year before, why didn't USCIS staff get pared down? A monumental increase in naturalization applications occurred before the Presidential elections (as they do every 4 years), who did not not see a decrease in naturalization applications for 2009! My heck, every business in America was laying off employees, but not USCIS!
Second, have a heart to heart talk with anyone who issues an RFE that requires more than 5 pages to respond to. This last week we submitted a 3,000 page (30 lb.) response to an RFE (see the picture above), which alleged that an Accountant was not a professional position! Director, what is the deal with your Service Centers? Is there simply too little to do and too many employees? The "service" we are receiving as your customers is not doing the American Economy any good.
Third, why are the local adjudications officers interviewing non-current priority date visa applicants, including on Saturdays in September! You are paying OVERTIME to examiners to interview people who cannot be approved for their green cards. What sense does that make?
I have many other ideas as well if you would like to chat. The bottom line is this. The agency you have just taken over is in serious need of a top to bottom review. You have a monstrous challenge ahead of you to bring this agency in line with the priorities it should have. Priorities that not only include national security, but also ensuring our own economic well being and competitiveness by promoting job growth and allowing companies to hire qualified workers, keeping families together through reunification, and bringing new citizens into the fold.
You need to get control of service centers, where officers are issuing, at increasingly frequent rates, Requests for Evidence that are not only unnecessary, but which are onerous and burdensome, and appear to be designed to make the employer give up his request for the visa application. You have local offices finding marriage "fraud" where no such fraud exists. You have CIS doing 25,000 random walk ins of legitimate U.S. employers of H-1B workers, disrupting the workplace asking questions about the H-1B employer, without regard to a lawyers appearance in the case in clear violation of the 6th Amendment. The list could go on about what your agency is doing wrong. And, while there are things USCIS does right, the reality is that rather than serving immigrants and their employers, you are punishing them.
So, before you raise your fees, I think you MUST first get your own house in order. You should not and cannot honestly balance your budgetary disaster on the backs of the employers and immigrants you are committed to serving.
With all sincerity, I wish you the best of luck in your new position.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-2662713464097056944?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/09/rfe-hell-and-increased-uscis-filing.html)
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3Nqds9wEE1-SP29k8T86Pym3zymaPX4359qyD41dPg3I7tfW-_pmntOJf3BJhEIBKngGYlagsBHJJpx-6JOMa7l3XVhgYzQpxkdviie6IYuR9r9hpLd2RpInXl8zsMScDMAoa6gMIInA/s320/RFE+FROM+HELL.JPG (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3Nqds9wEE1-SP29k8T86Pym3zymaPX4359qyD41dPg3I7tfW-_pmntOJf3BJhEIBKngGYlagsBHJJpx-6JOMa7l3XVhgYzQpxkdviie6IYuR9r9hpLd2RpInXl8zsMScDMAoa6gMIInA/s1600-h/RFE+FROM+HELL.JPG)
Dear Director Mayorkas:
Last week in a speech you broached the subject of the possible need to increase filing fees because of a decrease in the number of applications received by USCIS this fiscal year. You also noted that there was over $100 million shortfall in your budget because of these decreased filings. I have some suggestions to meet your budget.
First, look at your budget projections from this last year. Last October, who didn't see the recession? Why weren't reductions in force made at that time? On April 1 when only 33% of the H-1B applications were filed as compared to the year before, why didn't USCIS staff get pared down? A monumental increase in naturalization applications occurred before the Presidential elections (as they do every 4 years), who did not not see a decrease in naturalization applications for 2009! My heck, every business in America was laying off employees, but not USCIS!
Second, have a heart to heart talk with anyone who issues an RFE that requires more than 5 pages to respond to. This last week we submitted a 3,000 page (30 lb.) response to an RFE (see the picture above), which alleged that an Accountant was not a professional position! Director, what is the deal with your Service Centers? Is there simply too little to do and too many employees? The "service" we are receiving as your customers is not doing the American Economy any good.
Third, why are the local adjudications officers interviewing non-current priority date visa applicants, including on Saturdays in September! You are paying OVERTIME to examiners to interview people who cannot be approved for their green cards. What sense does that make?
I have many other ideas as well if you would like to chat. The bottom line is this. The agency you have just taken over is in serious need of a top to bottom review. You have a monstrous challenge ahead of you to bring this agency in line with the priorities it should have. Priorities that not only include national security, but also ensuring our own economic well being and competitiveness by promoting job growth and allowing companies to hire qualified workers, keeping families together through reunification, and bringing new citizens into the fold.
You need to get control of service centers, where officers are issuing, at increasingly frequent rates, Requests for Evidence that are not only unnecessary, but which are onerous and burdensome, and appear to be designed to make the employer give up his request for the visa application. You have local offices finding marriage "fraud" where no such fraud exists. You have CIS doing 25,000 random walk ins of legitimate U.S. employers of H-1B workers, disrupting the workplace asking questions about the H-1B employer, without regard to a lawyers appearance in the case in clear violation of the 6th Amendment. The list could go on about what your agency is doing wrong. And, while there are things USCIS does right, the reality is that rather than serving immigrants and their employers, you are punishing them.
So, before you raise your fees, I think you MUST first get your own house in order. You should not and cannot honestly balance your budgetary disaster on the backs of the employers and immigrants you are committed to serving.
With all sincerity, I wish you the best of luck in your new position.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-2662713464097056944?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/09/rfe-hell-and-increased-uscis-filing.html)
more...
makeup Brown hair with white londe
priderock
05-15 01:33 PM
Here's a rather strange and may be uncommon situation for someone I know who needs suggestions from gurus here...such huge PD movements do result in strange situations such as these :)
EB3 India Labor + I-140 certified with PD Feb 2003
EB2-140 pending at NSC hoping to port the EB3 PD date
So both cases are now current, which leads to a couple of options for AOS:
1. File based on approved EB3 (and risk a potential retrogression in future)
2. File based on pending EB2 140 before it is approved (and risk potential RFE, etc. and who knows if it would be too late to revert to the EB3)
The other option is to upgrade the EB2 140 to PP, but could you please list the relative merits of the above two options?
If I were you I will upgrade I140 to PP and wait until it is adjudicated. It should be done before 1st June if you move fast.
I will not risk filing with EB2 while I140 is still pending. I would rather go with EB3. One in hand is worth a dozen in the bush.
EB3 India Labor + I-140 certified with PD Feb 2003
EB2-140 pending at NSC hoping to port the EB3 PD date
So both cases are now current, which leads to a couple of options for AOS:
1. File based on approved EB3 (and risk a potential retrogression in future)
2. File based on pending EB2 140 before it is approved (and risk potential RFE, etc. and who knows if it would be too late to revert to the EB3)
The other option is to upgrade the EB2 140 to PP, but could you please list the relative merits of the above two options?
If I were you I will upgrade I140 to PP and wait until it is adjudicated. It should be done before 1st June if you move fast.
I will not risk filing with EB2 while I140 is still pending. I would rather go with EB3. One in hand is worth a dozen in the bush.
girlfriend dark rown hair with londe
shaikhshehzadali
07-16 07:16 PM
Lets not count the chickens before they are hatched. Its entirely plausible that if anything favourable comes up, its due to combined efforts. Lets not fight out yet, as if we havent seen anything concrete yet.
cheers
It's pretty strange..I really don't understand...why the entire credit is either being given to IV...or for that matter to AILA/AILF....Everyone has contributed....
People about to file I-485 have spread the word to everyone abt the injustice done to them...whereas each organization has done its own thing...
I won't blame or taunt AILA/AILF....because the idea of class lawsuit itself would have scared a lot of people in USCIS.....that also coming from legal organization...And filing a lawsuit takes time...there r lot of things to be considered..
cheers
It's pretty strange..I really don't understand...why the entire credit is either being given to IV...or for that matter to AILA/AILF....Everyone has contributed....
People about to file I-485 have spread the word to everyone abt the injustice done to them...whereas each organization has done its own thing...
I won't blame or taunt AILA/AILF....because the idea of class lawsuit itself would have scared a lot of people in USCIS.....that also coming from legal organization...And filing a lawsuit takes time...there r lot of things to be considered..
hairstyles with Auburn Highlights
qvadis
04-02 11:37 PM
I second morpheus suggestion to add more names to the list. Please, don't take any offense but I believe that it would be good to have some diversity.
Some more immigrants:
Andy Bechtolsheim, cofounder Sun,
Safi Qureshey, cofounder of AST
Some more immigrants:
Andy Bechtolsheim, cofounder Sun,
Safi Qureshey, cofounder of AST
bbenhill
07-09 04:14 PM
Hi, some questions regarding ur case :
- Did u include the bank statement (in US and Indonesia) ? What is your city ? (sby, jkt or bali) ?
- After u got asylum, did u ever go back to Indonesia ?
- Did u give them ur bank account statement copy in US ?
Thx
My parents went to request for visitor visa for a second time. They got rejected again. This time only my parents applied, without my brothers. They showed the VO a letter stating reasons why they won't immigrate to the US (have 3 sons in Indonesia, taking care of elderly parent and have business & properties in Indonesia). The letter also stated that parents only want a short duration visa just to attend my wedding. All questions VO asked was about me, that I got asylum and didn't come back. Now I really don't know what to do. Should I include a notarized letter from me stating that I will make sure my parents go back to Indonesia within the allowed time? My parents don't have the intention to immigrate but I don't know how they can convince the VO.
I would really appreciate your advice. Thank you so much!
- Did u include the bank statement (in US and Indonesia) ? What is your city ? (sby, jkt or bali) ?
- After u got asylum, did u ever go back to Indonesia ?
- Did u give them ur bank account statement copy in US ?
Thx
My parents went to request for visitor visa for a second time. They got rejected again. This time only my parents applied, without my brothers. They showed the VO a letter stating reasons why they won't immigrate to the US (have 3 sons in Indonesia, taking care of elderly parent and have business & properties in Indonesia). The letter also stated that parents only want a short duration visa just to attend my wedding. All questions VO asked was about me, that I got asylum and didn't come back. Now I really don't know what to do. Should I include a notarized letter from me stating that I will make sure my parents go back to Indonesia within the allowed time? My parents don't have the intention to immigrate but I don't know how they can convince the VO.
I would really appreciate your advice. Thank you so much!
dontcareaboutGC
03-19 11:24 AM
Ignore this if this is a repost!
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security,
and International Law
Hearing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Government Perspectives
on Immigration Statistics
Testimony of Charles Oppenheim
Chief, Immigrant Control and Reporting Division
Visa Services Office
U.S. Department of State
June 6, 2007
2:00 p.m.
2141 Rayburn House Office Building
Chairman Lofgren, Ranking Member King, and distinguished members of
the Committee, it is a pleasure to be here this afternoon to answer
your questions and provide an overview of our immigrant visa control
and reporting program operated by the U.S. Department of State. The
Department of State is responsible for administering the provisions of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) related to the numerical
limitations on immigrant visa issuances. At the beginning of each
month, the Visa Office (VO) receives a report from each consular post
listing totals of documentarily-qualified immigrant visa applicants in
categories subject to numerical limitation. Cases are grouped in three
different categories: 1) foreign state chargeability, 2) preference,
and 3) priority date.
Foreign state chargeability for visa purposes refers to the fact that
an immigrant is chargeable to the numerical limitation for the foreign
state or dependent area in which the immigrant's place of birth is
located. Exceptions are provided for a child (unmarried and under 21
years of age) or spouse accompanying or following to join a principal
to prevent the separation of family members, as well as for an
applicant born in the United States or in a foreign state of which
neither parent was a native or resident. Alternate chargeability is
desirable when the visa cut-off date for the foreign state of a parent
or spouse is more advantageous than that of the applicant's foreign
state.
As established by the Immigration and Nationality Act, preference is
the visa category that can be assigned based on relationships to U.S.
citizens or legal permanent residents. Family-based immigration falls
under two basic categories: unlimited and limited. Preferences
established by law for the limited category are:
Family First Preference (F1): Unmarried sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their minor children, if any.
Family Second Preference (F2): Spouses, minor children, and unmarried
sons and daughters of lawful permanent residents.
Family Third Preference (F3): Married sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their spouses and minor children.
Family Fourth Preference (F4): Brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens
and their spouses and minor children provided the U.S. citizen is at
least 21 years of age.
The Priority Date is normally the date on which the petition to accord
the applicant immigrant status was filed, generally with U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). VO subdivides the annual
preference and foreign state limitations specified by the INA into
monthly allotments. The totals of documentarily-qualified applicants
which have been reported to VO are compared each month with the
numbers available for the next regular allotment. The determination of
how many numbers are available requires consideration of several
variables, including: past number use; estimates of future number use
and return rates; and estimates of USCIS demand based on cut-off date
movements. Once this consideration is completed, the cutoff dates are
established and numbers are allocated to reported applicants in order
of their priority dates, the oldest dates first.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy
all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is
considered "Current." For example: If the monthly allocation target is
10,000, and we only have 5,000 applicants, the category can be
"Current.� Whenever the total of documentarily-qualified applicants in
a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for
the particular month, the category is considered to be
"oversubscribed" and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
The cut-off date is the priority date of the first
documentarily-qualified applicant who could not be accommodated for a
visa number. For example, if the monthly target is 10,000 and we have
25,000 applicants, then we would need to establish a cut-off date so
that only 10,000 numbers would be allocated. In this case, the cut-off
would be the priority date of the 10,001st applicant.
Only persons with a priority date earlier than a cut-off date are
entitled to allotment of a visa number. The cut-off dates are the 1st,
8th, 15th, and 22nd of a month, since VO groups demand for numbers
under these dates. (Priority dates of the first through seventh of a
month are grouped under the 1st, the eighth through the 14th under the
8th, etc.) VO attempts to establish the cut-off dates for the
following month on or about the 8th of each month. The dates are
immediately transmitted to consular posts abroad and USCIS, and also
published in the Visa Bulletin and online at the website
www.travel.state.gov. Visa allotments for use during that month are
transmitted to consular posts. USCIS requests visa allotments for
adjustment of status cases only when all other case processing has
been completed. I am submitting the latest Visa Bulletin for the
record or you can click on: Visa Bulletin for June 2007.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE SYSTEM AND CLARIFICATION OF SOME
FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS:
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified
at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every
applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date
been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, visa allotments
are made only on the basis of the total applicants reported
�documentarily qualified� (or, theoretically ready for interview) each
month. Demand for visa numbers can fluctuate from one month to
another, with the inevitable impact on cut-off dates.
If an applicant is reported documentarily qualified but allocation of
a visa number is not possible because of a visa availability cut-off
date, the demand is recorded at VO and an allocation is made as soon
as the applicable cut-off date advances beyond the applicant's
priority date. There is no need for such applicant to be reported a
second time.
Visa numbers are always allotted for all documentarily-qualified
applicants with a priority date before the relevant cut-off date, as
long as the case had been reported to VO in time to be included in the
monthly calculation of visa availability. Failure of visa number
receipt by the overseas processing office could mean that the request
was not dispatched in time to reach VO for the monthly allocation
cycle, or that information on the request was incomplete or inaccurate
(e.g., incorrect priority date).
Allocations to Foreign Service posts outside the regular monthly cycle
are possible in emergency or exceptional cases, but only at the
request of the office processing the case. Note that, should
retrogression of a cut-off date be announced, VO can honor
extraordinary requests for additional numbers only if the applicant's
priority date is earlier than the retrogressed cut-off date. Not all
numbers allocated are actually used for visa issuance; some are
returned to VO and are reincorporated into the pool of numbers
available for later allocation during the fiscal year. The rate of
return of unused numbers may fluctuate from month to month, just as
demand may fluctuate. Lower returns mean fewer numbers available for
subsequent reallocation. Fluctuations can cause cut-off date movement
to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly
possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches
the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7 percent is a
cap, which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed.
Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The
country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the
annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This
limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled,
however. A portion of the numbers provided to the Family Second
preference category is exempt from this per-country cap. The American
Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (AC21) removed the
per-country limit in any calendar quarter in which overall applicant
demand for Employment-based visa numbers is less than the total of
such numbers available.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by
documentarily-qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds
the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation,
that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may
require the establishment of a cut-off date which is earlier than that
which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The
prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same
percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual
limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off
dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off
dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
The committee submitted several questions that fell outside of VO�s
area of work, therefore, I have provided in my written testimony today
the answers only to those questions that the Department of State can
answer. Thank you for this opportunity.
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security,
and International Law
Hearing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Government Perspectives
on Immigration Statistics
Testimony of Charles Oppenheim
Chief, Immigrant Control and Reporting Division
Visa Services Office
U.S. Department of State
June 6, 2007
2:00 p.m.
2141 Rayburn House Office Building
Chairman Lofgren, Ranking Member King, and distinguished members of
the Committee, it is a pleasure to be here this afternoon to answer
your questions and provide an overview of our immigrant visa control
and reporting program operated by the U.S. Department of State. The
Department of State is responsible for administering the provisions of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) related to the numerical
limitations on immigrant visa issuances. At the beginning of each
month, the Visa Office (VO) receives a report from each consular post
listing totals of documentarily-qualified immigrant visa applicants in
categories subject to numerical limitation. Cases are grouped in three
different categories: 1) foreign state chargeability, 2) preference,
and 3) priority date.
Foreign state chargeability for visa purposes refers to the fact that
an immigrant is chargeable to the numerical limitation for the foreign
state or dependent area in which the immigrant's place of birth is
located. Exceptions are provided for a child (unmarried and under 21
years of age) or spouse accompanying or following to join a principal
to prevent the separation of family members, as well as for an
applicant born in the United States or in a foreign state of which
neither parent was a native or resident. Alternate chargeability is
desirable when the visa cut-off date for the foreign state of a parent
or spouse is more advantageous than that of the applicant's foreign
state.
As established by the Immigration and Nationality Act, preference is
the visa category that can be assigned based on relationships to U.S.
citizens or legal permanent residents. Family-based immigration falls
under two basic categories: unlimited and limited. Preferences
established by law for the limited category are:
Family First Preference (F1): Unmarried sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their minor children, if any.
Family Second Preference (F2): Spouses, minor children, and unmarried
sons and daughters of lawful permanent residents.
Family Third Preference (F3): Married sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their spouses and minor children.
Family Fourth Preference (F4): Brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens
and their spouses and minor children provided the U.S. citizen is at
least 21 years of age.
The Priority Date is normally the date on which the petition to accord
the applicant immigrant status was filed, generally with U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). VO subdivides the annual
preference and foreign state limitations specified by the INA into
monthly allotments. The totals of documentarily-qualified applicants
which have been reported to VO are compared each month with the
numbers available for the next regular allotment. The determination of
how many numbers are available requires consideration of several
variables, including: past number use; estimates of future number use
and return rates; and estimates of USCIS demand based on cut-off date
movements. Once this consideration is completed, the cutoff dates are
established and numbers are allocated to reported applicants in order
of their priority dates, the oldest dates first.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy
all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is
considered "Current." For example: If the monthly allocation target is
10,000, and we only have 5,000 applicants, the category can be
"Current.� Whenever the total of documentarily-qualified applicants in
a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for
the particular month, the category is considered to be
"oversubscribed" and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
The cut-off date is the priority date of the first
documentarily-qualified applicant who could not be accommodated for a
visa number. For example, if the monthly target is 10,000 and we have
25,000 applicants, then we would need to establish a cut-off date so
that only 10,000 numbers would be allocated. In this case, the cut-off
would be the priority date of the 10,001st applicant.
Only persons with a priority date earlier than a cut-off date are
entitled to allotment of a visa number. The cut-off dates are the 1st,
8th, 15th, and 22nd of a month, since VO groups demand for numbers
under these dates. (Priority dates of the first through seventh of a
month are grouped under the 1st, the eighth through the 14th under the
8th, etc.) VO attempts to establish the cut-off dates for the
following month on or about the 8th of each month. The dates are
immediately transmitted to consular posts abroad and USCIS, and also
published in the Visa Bulletin and online at the website
www.travel.state.gov. Visa allotments for use during that month are
transmitted to consular posts. USCIS requests visa allotments for
adjustment of status cases only when all other case processing has
been completed. I am submitting the latest Visa Bulletin for the
record or you can click on: Visa Bulletin for June 2007.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE SYSTEM AND CLARIFICATION OF SOME
FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS:
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified
at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every
applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date
been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, visa allotments
are made only on the basis of the total applicants reported
�documentarily qualified� (or, theoretically ready for interview) each
month. Demand for visa numbers can fluctuate from one month to
another, with the inevitable impact on cut-off dates.
If an applicant is reported documentarily qualified but allocation of
a visa number is not possible because of a visa availability cut-off
date, the demand is recorded at VO and an allocation is made as soon
as the applicable cut-off date advances beyond the applicant's
priority date. There is no need for such applicant to be reported a
second time.
Visa numbers are always allotted for all documentarily-qualified
applicants with a priority date before the relevant cut-off date, as
long as the case had been reported to VO in time to be included in the
monthly calculation of visa availability. Failure of visa number
receipt by the overseas processing office could mean that the request
was not dispatched in time to reach VO for the monthly allocation
cycle, or that information on the request was incomplete or inaccurate
(e.g., incorrect priority date).
Allocations to Foreign Service posts outside the regular monthly cycle
are possible in emergency or exceptional cases, but only at the
request of the office processing the case. Note that, should
retrogression of a cut-off date be announced, VO can honor
extraordinary requests for additional numbers only if the applicant's
priority date is earlier than the retrogressed cut-off date. Not all
numbers allocated are actually used for visa issuance; some are
returned to VO and are reincorporated into the pool of numbers
available for later allocation during the fiscal year. The rate of
return of unused numbers may fluctuate from month to month, just as
demand may fluctuate. Lower returns mean fewer numbers available for
subsequent reallocation. Fluctuations can cause cut-off date movement
to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly
possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches
the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7 percent is a
cap, which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed.
Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The
country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the
annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This
limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled,
however. A portion of the numbers provided to the Family Second
preference category is exempt from this per-country cap. The American
Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (AC21) removed the
per-country limit in any calendar quarter in which overall applicant
demand for Employment-based visa numbers is less than the total of
such numbers available.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by
documentarily-qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds
the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation,
that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may
require the establishment of a cut-off date which is earlier than that
which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The
prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same
percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual
limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off
dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off
dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
The committee submitted several questions that fell outside of VO�s
area of work, therefore, I have provided in my written testimony today
the answers only to those questions that the Department of State can
answer. Thank you for this opportunity.
No comments:
Post a Comment