bpratap
05-28 05:37 PM
My Loan is not Jumbo loan, its under 400K
I don't have 20% down. But I was speaking to the Loan officer, he was telling, it doesn't matter if you put more down or not, 3yr forward continuous visa is req. I never heard this earlier.
I finally got the Loan Approved !
The underwriters was OK with my H1B + I-140 Approval + I-485 Reciept.
Thank you all for the tips and leads.
After a long 60 day wait, I m finally getting the house on Monday. :)
I don't have 20% down. But I was speaking to the Loan officer, he was telling, it doesn't matter if you put more down or not, 3yr forward continuous visa is req. I never heard this earlier.
I finally got the Loan Approved !
The underwriters was OK with my H1B + I-140 Approval + I-485 Reciept.
Thank you all for the tips and leads.
After a long 60 day wait, I m finally getting the house on Monday. :)
wallpaper 1975 Pontiac Trans Am - Here,
satishku_2000
07-05 05:21 PM
In which state you are? Did you call your senators , if yes please put the name of state and senators name here..so I can match with my list and tell you that whether I called them or not.
Boxer , Feinstein senators of CA , I called Lofgren , Gary miller (R) 42nd district of CA and Just spoke with NYtimes reporter on the follow up story ...:)
Boxer , Feinstein senators of CA , I called Lofgren , Gary miller (R) 42nd district of CA and Just spoke with NYtimes reporter on the follow up story ...:)
pappu
08-12 10:55 AM
Senate Passage of Border Security Legislation
August 12, 2010
Today, I come to the floor to seek unanimous consent to pass a smart, tough, and effective $600 million bill that will significantly enhance the security and integrity of our nation’s southern border—which currently lacks the resources needed to fully combat the drug smugglers, gun-runners, human-traffickers, money launderers and other organized criminals that seek to do harm to innocent Americans along our border….
The best part of this border package, Mr. President, is that it is fully paid for and does not increase the deficit by a single penny. In actuality, the Congressional Budget Office has determined that this bill will yield a direct savings to taxpayers of $50 million….
The emergency border funds we are passing today are fully paid for by assessing fees on certain types of companies who hire foreign workers using certain types of visas in a way that Congress did not intend. I want to take a moment to explain exactly what we are doing in this bill a little further because I want everyone to clearly understand how these offsets are designed.
In 1990, Congress realized that the world was changing rapidly and that technological innovations like the internet were creating a high demand in the United States for high-tech workers to create new technologies and products. Consequently, Congress created the H-1B visa program to allow U.S. employers to hire foreign tech workers in special circumstances when they could not find an American citizen who was qualified for the job.
Many of the companies that use this program today are using the program in the exact way Congress intended. That is, these companies (like Microsoft, IBM, and Intel) are hiring bright foreign students educated in our American universities to work in the U.S. for 6 or 7 years to invent new product lines and technologies so that Microsoft, IBM, and Intel can sell more products to the American public. Then—at the expiration of the H-1B visa period—these companies apply for these talented workers to earn green cards and stay with the company.
When the H-1B visa program is used in this manner, it is a good program for everyone involved. It is good for the company. It is good for the worker. And it is good for the American people who benefit from the products and jobs created by the innovation of the H-1B visa holder.
Every day, companies like Oracle, Cisco, Apple and others use the H-1B visa program in the exact way I have just described—and their use of the program has greatly benefitted this country.
But recently, some companies have decided to exploit an unintended loophole in the H-1B visa program to use the program in a manner that many in Congress, including myself, do not believe is consistent with the program’s intent.
Rather than being a company that makes something, and simply needs to bring in a talented foreign worker to help innovate and create new products and technologies—these other companies are essentially creating “multinational temp agencies” that were never contemplated when the H-1B program was created.
The business model of these newer companies is not to make any new products or technologies like Microsoft or Apple does. Instead, their business model is to bring foreign tech workers into the United States who are willing to accept less pay than their American counterparts, place these workers into other companies in exchange for a “consulting fee,” and transfer these workers from company to company in order to maximize profits from placement fees. In other words, these companies are petitioning for foreign workers simply to then turn around and provide these same workers to other companies who need cheap labor for various short term projects.
Don’t take my word for it. If you look at the marketing materials of some of the companies that fall within the scope covered by today’s legislation, their materials boast about their “outsourcing expertise” and say that their advantage is their ability to conduct what they call “labor arbitrage” which is—in their own words—“transferring work functions to a lower cost environment for increased savings.”
The business model used by these companies within the United States is creating three major negative side effects. First, it is ruining the reputation of the H-1B program, which is overwhelmingly used by good actors for beneficial purposes. Second, according to the Economic Policy institute, it is lowering the wages for American tech workers already in the marketplace. Third, it is also discouraging many of our smartest students from entering the technology industry in the first place. Students can see that paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for advanced schooling is not worth the cost when the market is being flooded with foreign temporary workers willing to do tech-work for far less pay because their foreign education was much cheaper and they intend to move back home when their visa expires to a country where the cost of living is far less expensive.
This type of use of the H-1B visa program will be addressed as part of comprehensive immigration reform and will likely be dramatically restricted. We will be reforming the legal immigration system to encourage the world’s best and brightest individuals to come to the United States and create the new technologies and businesses that will employ countless American workers, but will discourage businesses from using our immigration laws as a means to obtain temporary and less-expensive foreign labor to replace capable American workers.
Nevertheless, I do wish to clarify a previous mischaracterization of these firms, where I labeled them as “chop shops.” That statement was incorrect, and I wish to acknowledge that. In the tech industry, these firms are sometimes known as “body shops” and that’s what I should have said.
While I strongly oppose the manner in which these firms are using the H-1B visa to accomplish objectives that Congress never intended, it would be unfortunate if anyone concluded from my remarks that these firms are engaging in illegal behavior.
But I also want to make clear that the purpose of this fee is not to target businesses from any particular country. Many news articles have reported that the only companies that will be affected by this fee are companies based in India and that, ipso facto, the purpose of this legislation must be to target Indian IT companies.
Well, it is simply untrue that the purpose of this legislation is to target Indian companies. We are simply raising fees for businesses who use the H-1B visa to do things that are contrary to the program’s original intent.
Visa fees will only increase for companies with more than 50 workers who continue to employ more than 50 percent of their employees through the H-1B program. Congress does not want the H-1B visa program to be a vehicle for creating multinational temp agencies where workers do not know what projects they will be working on—or what cities they will be working in—when they enter the country.
The fee is based solely upon the business model of the company, not the location of the company.
If you are using the H-1B visa to innovate new products and technologies for your own company to sell, that is a good thing regardless of whether the company was originally founded in India, Ireland, or Indiana.
But if you are using the H-1B visa to run a glorified international temp agency for tech workers in contravention of the spirit of the program, I and my colleagues believe that you should have to pay a higher fee to ensure that American workers are not losing their jobs because of unintended uses of the visa program that were never contemplated when the program was created.
This belief is consistent regardless of whether the company using these staffing practices was founded in Bangalore, Beijing, or Boston.
Raising the fees for companies hiring more than 50 percent of their workforce through foreign visas will accomplish two important goals. First, it will provide the necessary funds to secure our border without raising taxes or adding to the deficit. Second, it will level the playing field for American workers so that they do not lose out on good jobs here in America because it is cheaper to bring in a foreign worker rather than hire an American worker.
Let me tell you what objective folks around the world are saying about the impact of this fee increase. In an August 6, 2010, Wall Street Journal article, Avinash Vashistha—the CEO of a Bangalore based off-shoring advisory consulting firm—told the Journal that the new fee in this bill “would accelerate Indian firms’ plans to hire more American-born workers in the U.S.” What’s wrong with that? In an August 7, 2010 Economic Times Article, Jeya Kumar, a CEO of a top IT company, said that this bill would “erode cost arbitrage and cause a change in the operational model of Indian offshore providers.”
The leaders of this business model are agreeing that our bill will make it more expensive to bring in foreign tech workers to compete with American tech workers for jobs here in America. That means these companies are going to start having to hire U.S. tech workers again.
So Mr. President, this bill is not only a responsible border security bill, it has the dual advantage of creating more high-paying American jobs.
Finally, Mr. President, I want to be clear about one other thing. Even though passing this bill will secure our border, I again say that the only way to fully restore the rule of law to our entire immigration system is by passing comprehensive immigration reform….
The urgency for immigration reform cannot be overstated because it is so overdue. The time for excuses is now over, it is now time to get to work.
August 12, 2010
Today, I come to the floor to seek unanimous consent to pass a smart, tough, and effective $600 million bill that will significantly enhance the security and integrity of our nation’s southern border—which currently lacks the resources needed to fully combat the drug smugglers, gun-runners, human-traffickers, money launderers and other organized criminals that seek to do harm to innocent Americans along our border….
The best part of this border package, Mr. President, is that it is fully paid for and does not increase the deficit by a single penny. In actuality, the Congressional Budget Office has determined that this bill will yield a direct savings to taxpayers of $50 million….
The emergency border funds we are passing today are fully paid for by assessing fees on certain types of companies who hire foreign workers using certain types of visas in a way that Congress did not intend. I want to take a moment to explain exactly what we are doing in this bill a little further because I want everyone to clearly understand how these offsets are designed.
In 1990, Congress realized that the world was changing rapidly and that technological innovations like the internet were creating a high demand in the United States for high-tech workers to create new technologies and products. Consequently, Congress created the H-1B visa program to allow U.S. employers to hire foreign tech workers in special circumstances when they could not find an American citizen who was qualified for the job.
Many of the companies that use this program today are using the program in the exact way Congress intended. That is, these companies (like Microsoft, IBM, and Intel) are hiring bright foreign students educated in our American universities to work in the U.S. for 6 or 7 years to invent new product lines and technologies so that Microsoft, IBM, and Intel can sell more products to the American public. Then—at the expiration of the H-1B visa period—these companies apply for these talented workers to earn green cards and stay with the company.
When the H-1B visa program is used in this manner, it is a good program for everyone involved. It is good for the company. It is good for the worker. And it is good for the American people who benefit from the products and jobs created by the innovation of the H-1B visa holder.
Every day, companies like Oracle, Cisco, Apple and others use the H-1B visa program in the exact way I have just described—and their use of the program has greatly benefitted this country.
But recently, some companies have decided to exploit an unintended loophole in the H-1B visa program to use the program in a manner that many in Congress, including myself, do not believe is consistent with the program’s intent.
Rather than being a company that makes something, and simply needs to bring in a talented foreign worker to help innovate and create new products and technologies—these other companies are essentially creating “multinational temp agencies” that were never contemplated when the H-1B program was created.
The business model of these newer companies is not to make any new products or technologies like Microsoft or Apple does. Instead, their business model is to bring foreign tech workers into the United States who are willing to accept less pay than their American counterparts, place these workers into other companies in exchange for a “consulting fee,” and transfer these workers from company to company in order to maximize profits from placement fees. In other words, these companies are petitioning for foreign workers simply to then turn around and provide these same workers to other companies who need cheap labor for various short term projects.
Don’t take my word for it. If you look at the marketing materials of some of the companies that fall within the scope covered by today’s legislation, their materials boast about their “outsourcing expertise” and say that their advantage is their ability to conduct what they call “labor arbitrage” which is—in their own words—“transferring work functions to a lower cost environment for increased savings.”
The business model used by these companies within the United States is creating three major negative side effects. First, it is ruining the reputation of the H-1B program, which is overwhelmingly used by good actors for beneficial purposes. Second, according to the Economic Policy institute, it is lowering the wages for American tech workers already in the marketplace. Third, it is also discouraging many of our smartest students from entering the technology industry in the first place. Students can see that paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for advanced schooling is not worth the cost when the market is being flooded with foreign temporary workers willing to do tech-work for far less pay because their foreign education was much cheaper and they intend to move back home when their visa expires to a country where the cost of living is far less expensive.
This type of use of the H-1B visa program will be addressed as part of comprehensive immigration reform and will likely be dramatically restricted. We will be reforming the legal immigration system to encourage the world’s best and brightest individuals to come to the United States and create the new technologies and businesses that will employ countless American workers, but will discourage businesses from using our immigration laws as a means to obtain temporary and less-expensive foreign labor to replace capable American workers.
Nevertheless, I do wish to clarify a previous mischaracterization of these firms, where I labeled them as “chop shops.” That statement was incorrect, and I wish to acknowledge that. In the tech industry, these firms are sometimes known as “body shops” and that’s what I should have said.
While I strongly oppose the manner in which these firms are using the H-1B visa to accomplish objectives that Congress never intended, it would be unfortunate if anyone concluded from my remarks that these firms are engaging in illegal behavior.
But I also want to make clear that the purpose of this fee is not to target businesses from any particular country. Many news articles have reported that the only companies that will be affected by this fee are companies based in India and that, ipso facto, the purpose of this legislation must be to target Indian IT companies.
Well, it is simply untrue that the purpose of this legislation is to target Indian companies. We are simply raising fees for businesses who use the H-1B visa to do things that are contrary to the program’s original intent.
Visa fees will only increase for companies with more than 50 workers who continue to employ more than 50 percent of their employees through the H-1B program. Congress does not want the H-1B visa program to be a vehicle for creating multinational temp agencies where workers do not know what projects they will be working on—or what cities they will be working in—when they enter the country.
The fee is based solely upon the business model of the company, not the location of the company.
If you are using the H-1B visa to innovate new products and technologies for your own company to sell, that is a good thing regardless of whether the company was originally founded in India, Ireland, or Indiana.
But if you are using the H-1B visa to run a glorified international temp agency for tech workers in contravention of the spirit of the program, I and my colleagues believe that you should have to pay a higher fee to ensure that American workers are not losing their jobs because of unintended uses of the visa program that were never contemplated when the program was created.
This belief is consistent regardless of whether the company using these staffing practices was founded in Bangalore, Beijing, or Boston.
Raising the fees for companies hiring more than 50 percent of their workforce through foreign visas will accomplish two important goals. First, it will provide the necessary funds to secure our border without raising taxes or adding to the deficit. Second, it will level the playing field for American workers so that they do not lose out on good jobs here in America because it is cheaper to bring in a foreign worker rather than hire an American worker.
Let me tell you what objective folks around the world are saying about the impact of this fee increase. In an August 6, 2010, Wall Street Journal article, Avinash Vashistha—the CEO of a Bangalore based off-shoring advisory consulting firm—told the Journal that the new fee in this bill “would accelerate Indian firms’ plans to hire more American-born workers in the U.S.” What’s wrong with that? In an August 7, 2010 Economic Times Article, Jeya Kumar, a CEO of a top IT company, said that this bill would “erode cost arbitrage and cause a change in the operational model of Indian offshore providers.”
The leaders of this business model are agreeing that our bill will make it more expensive to bring in foreign tech workers to compete with American tech workers for jobs here in America. That means these companies are going to start having to hire U.S. tech workers again.
So Mr. President, this bill is not only a responsible border security bill, it has the dual advantage of creating more high-paying American jobs.
Finally, Mr. President, I want to be clear about one other thing. Even though passing this bill will secure our border, I again say that the only way to fully restore the rule of law to our entire immigration system is by passing comprehensive immigration reform….
The urgency for immigration reform cannot be overstated because it is so overdue. The time for excuses is now over, it is now time to get to work.
2011 2002 pontiac firebird trans am
gsc999
07-15 04:12 AM
GSC999 is back..Yay
Hello Santb,
Thanks for the welcome, good to see you too. Hope things are well.
Finally made it through the hectic work schedule.
Lets get some things done. We have the San Francisco 5K walk/race coming up too. Gotta get ready for that.
This is a shout-out to Bay area members. Contact Nola, Santb or me to participate in this event.
Cheers
g
Hello Santb,
Thanks for the welcome, good to see you too. Hope things are well.
Finally made it through the hectic work schedule.
Lets get some things done. We have the San Francisco 5K walk/race coming up too. Gotta get ready for that.
This is a shout-out to Bay area members. Contact Nola, Santb or me to participate in this event.
Cheers
g
more...
shi120
12-27 03:35 PM
I am in the same boat, was planning to leave for India on 12/25 had to cancel tickets. My spouse is on an F1 and hence cannot re-enter without AP. Tried to expedite by contacting CSC, senator, congress rep. Know that it has been approved, but is waiting for production which could take 2-4 weeks. Applied on 08/03, notice date 09/13, supposedly approved on 12/12 awaiting production. This has been really frustrating. If you are on a valid H or L visa you can come back on it without any issue.
GCKaMaara
02-23 04:34 PM
I am expecting about a year forward movement for EB2 India in April 2009 bulletin.
I hope they move EB3 India to 16-Oct-2001 :)
I hope they move EB3 India to 16-Oct-2001 :)
more...
gctoget
07-31 10:27 AM
There will be a conference call for SoCal IV members on August 7th,2007 at 8:00 P.M.
Please join SoCal IV yahoogroup for more info.
Send blank e-mail to
SC_Immigration_Voice-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Please join SoCal IV yahoogroup for more info.
Send blank e-mail to
SC_Immigration_Voice-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
2010 Pontiac Trans Am Burnout
.jpg "dec) 2000 pontiac trans am")
GooblyWoobly
03-18 03:16 AM
The upper limit should be on a per state basis, at the very least. 150K AGI in CA is not much of a deal. Pretty much all double income families will cross that limit, and quite a few single income ones. Bummer!!:mad:
BTW, you can barely afford a Condo or a low end home in Bay Area for 150k AGI.
Not surprising. People who earn $75K (single) or $150K (as a couple) are not the ones who drastically change their lifestyles because of recession or high gas prices. In fact these people are anyways earning much above the national average. It's the low/middle-income folks that bear the brunt of high inflation and soaring gas prices...they are the ones being goaded into spending.
Anyways, think twice before you spend the rebate foolishly. Why not send it to IV, contribute to an IRA or fund your kid's 529 plan?
Thanks,
Jayant
BTW, you can barely afford a Condo or a low end home in Bay Area for 150k AGI.
Not surprising. People who earn $75K (single) or $150K (as a couple) are not the ones who drastically change their lifestyles because of recession or high gas prices. In fact these people are anyways earning much above the national average. It's the low/middle-income folks that bear the brunt of high inflation and soaring gas prices...they are the ones being goaded into spending.
Anyways, think twice before you spend the rebate foolishly. Why not send it to IV, contribute to an IRA or fund your kid's 529 plan?
Thanks,
Jayant
more...
chandsri81
04-28 01:52 PM
Thank you!
Mine's a conventional loan - will the same guidelines apply?
We have sent them all the documents - we should know in about 2 weeks
Mine's a conventional loan - will the same guidelines apply?
We have sent them all the documents - we should know in about 2 weeks
hair 1979 Pontiac Trans Am - Old
apet2007
03-10 11:18 PM
You must be a permanent resident to open or own an S-Corp. An LLC is the best way to go and if you are not engaged in actual sale of goods, you can register this LLC in Nevada and pay no corporate taxes. I've done it. All income then passes through your own filing. Have a CPA and I strongly recommend you do this. Registering a NV LLC only costs $195 annually. Go to incorpservices.com and it will walk you through.
more...
vgayalu
04-01 10:19 AM
Hi All,
I'm new to immigration Voice. I've read abt this in immigration portal and understand that a group of people are leading this. I wish them all the best and i extend my full support. Also i heard that this group is collecting funds. Can someone please point me where would i contribute.
Thanks
RAJ
SWA: Virginia
SWA Receipt Date (Priority Date): October 31,2002
EB2 - RIR
Forwarded to Philadelphia Regional DOL on June 22, 2004
BEC Case Number: P-04282-*****
45 Day Letter Received and Replied : Feb 2005
Congrtualations on taking good descission ( To Contribute Immigration voice.) You can see link in the bottom of the home page of Immigration voice.
I'm new to immigration Voice. I've read abt this in immigration portal and understand that a group of people are leading this. I wish them all the best and i extend my full support. Also i heard that this group is collecting funds. Can someone please point me where would i contribute.
Thanks
RAJ
SWA: Virginia
SWA Receipt Date (Priority Date): October 31,2002
EB2 - RIR
Forwarded to Philadelphia Regional DOL on June 22, 2004
BEC Case Number: P-04282-*****
45 Day Letter Received and Replied : Feb 2005
Congrtualations on taking good descission ( To Contribute Immigration voice.) You can see link in the bottom of the home page of Immigration voice.
hot 1982 Trans Am Image
seahawks
09-12 12:55 AM
awesome bump thread....
more...
house Pontiac Trans Am vs.
yabadaba
07-11 09:19 AM
My online status shows
"On August 17, 2007, we received this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS..........................."
My recepit date was however July 2nd 2007. Are they processing my application or they go by received date of 8/17?
can someone explain how this works?
no one knows..if u call up the cust service ppl.. they will say we received it on aug 17th..so thats the RD..we know better...but doesnt get us anywhere
"On August 17, 2007, we received this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS..........................."
My recepit date was however July 2nd 2007. Are they processing my application or they go by received date of 8/17?
can someone explain how this works?
no one knows..if u call up the cust service ppl.. they will say we received it on aug 17th..so thats the RD..we know better...but doesnt get us anywhere
tattoo Pontiac : Trans Am ROCKET FAST
pbojja
09-11 05:17 PM
What we are expecting after this calc. camp ? I dont think so they will revise bulletin nor they will give single extra visa above 140k. I think we should focus on HR 5882 .. We should send something to lawmakers.
Just a thought.
I think they will improve the communication between USCIS and DOL . Dont you think it unjustice for 2003-2005 PD holders when they move dates to 2006 and approve 2006 cases ? cant they just move it to 2005 and say approve as many cases as possible for them ? why approve 2006 cases .
Yes focus on HR 5882 is very important but nothing wrong with this campign either ....Just my thoughts
Just a thought.
I think they will improve the communication between USCIS and DOL . Dont you think it unjustice for 2003-2005 PD holders when they move dates to 2006 and approve 2006 cases ? cant they just move it to 2005 and say approve as many cases as possible for them ? why approve 2006 cases .
Yes focus on HR 5882 is very important but nothing wrong with this campign either ....Just my thoughts
more...
pictures 1999 trans am
yibornindia
11-25 01:51 PM
The lawyer I am working with also said the same thing. If 485 is denied in error (whatever is the reason, AC21 or not), one can file MTR and also continue working on EAD. Since the 485 was denied in error, the employment while MTR is being filed, pending will NOT be counted as unauthorised employment. If you read RG forums, he gave exact similar opinion.
I agree with Chandu, we should try to get this from CIS. Just don't know how:(
I am on EAD with an employer who doesn't understand or willing to work with any immigration issues. If my 485 will get denied in error, I will surely loose the Job, as leave without pay is also not an option for me. I wonder if I loose my job this way, will CIS consider this after an MTR or will again reject my 485 stating 'no job' as a reason?
I agree with Chandu, we should try to get this from CIS. Just don't know how:(
I am on EAD with an employer who doesn't understand or willing to work with any immigration issues. If my 485 will get denied in error, I will surely loose the Job, as leave without pay is also not an option for me. I wonder if I loose my job this way, will CIS consider this after an MTR or will again reject my 485 stating 'no job' as a reason?
dresses 1980+trans+am+pictures
singhsa3
09-12 01:50 PM
These are all good thoughts but what u are suggesting takes some time.
The issue has two legs:
Leg 1: Process fix
Leg 2: Increasing number of greencards
What I am talking about is leg 1 and what you are talking about is for leg 2
and both are required.
Sanjeev - I personally feel there is no easy solution for this. Our efforts must be well organized and there has to be geniune effort. A lot of people who post here are all frustrated and angered and they channelize their anger and frustration through these forums whereas instead if it is channelized in a positive way - our campaigns will be more effective and we can reach our goals.
The issue has two legs:
Leg 1: Process fix
Leg 2: Increasing number of greencards
What I am talking about is leg 1 and what you are talking about is for leg 2
and both are required.
Sanjeev - I personally feel there is no easy solution for this. Our efforts must be well organized and there has to be geniune effort. A lot of people who post here are all frustrated and angered and they channelize their anger and frustration through these forums whereas instead if it is channelized in a positive way - our campaigns will be more effective and we can reach our goals.
more...
makeup 1995 Pontiac Trans Am - The
pa_arora
06-10 05:22 PM
When do you think would EB2-I hit Feb 2005? Before this year end?
NO ONE knows abut it...no one includes USCIS too. cause they dont work on what will be needed in future.
NO ONE knows abut it...no one includes USCIS too. cause they dont work on what will be needed in future.
girlfriend 2000 trans am pictures
alterego
10-01 09:51 PM
I think there will not much visa numbers unused. If at all, it may be in few hundreds. We are thinking our point of view, even wasting one visa number is ridiculus based on number peoples are waiting. However, the INA states that every year "not more than 140,000 EB visas should be issued".It sets only upper limit not the lower limit. Therefore DOS has be more vigilant in not exceding 140K. By doing so, there may be a few wastage of numbers. If they issue 120K instead of 140K, it is not the violation of law. Insted if they issue 141K it is vialotion of law.
However, if the wastage is more than few hundreds it is definitly not acceptable.
Last year they "wasted" about 10K visa numbers. It is absolutely up to them. However congress has authorized 140k a year and there are huge backlogs for AOS and CP. So when you put that together, leaving about 10K unapproved is clearly not enforcing congressional mandates. The ombudsman blasted them for this in his report, then we had the VB fiasco. None of this sounds like great management of the benefits. There clearly is room for improvement.
We (us and our employers) as the recipients of the benefits are complaining about this, and it is perfectly legitimate.
If any visa numbers are left unused, I definitely think we ought to take up this issue with congressional leaders like Zoe Lofgren. Even just a visa recapture legislation alone would help us tremendously until 2009(about the earliest they might get back to this issue more fully).
However, if the wastage is more than few hundreds it is definitly not acceptable.
Last year they "wasted" about 10K visa numbers. It is absolutely up to them. However congress has authorized 140k a year and there are huge backlogs for AOS and CP. So when you put that together, leaving about 10K unapproved is clearly not enforcing congressional mandates. The ombudsman blasted them for this in his report, then we had the VB fiasco. None of this sounds like great management of the benefits. There clearly is room for improvement.
We (us and our employers) as the recipients of the benefits are complaining about this, and it is perfectly legitimate.
If any visa numbers are left unused, I definitely think we ought to take up this issue with congressional leaders like Zoe Lofgren. Even just a visa recapture legislation alone would help us tremendously until 2009(about the earliest they might get back to this issue more fully).
hairstyles 2000 trans am pictures
nk2006
10-21 03:32 PM
I am sending PMs to senior members of forum requesting to send emails. Started with "A" :)
Thank you for doing this.
Thank you for doing this.
SkilledWorker4GC
07-15 02:50 PM
Total So far 1340.00. We are Well short of our target of 2000.00. Let's Go Guys. $5 to IV = Hope for GC = Subway FootLong Sub.
Jaime
09-12 05:27 PM
Bump
No comments:
Post a Comment