Jitamitra
11-15 11:56 AM
Sounds like a good idea. It surely does touch them emotionally. Next year would be really tough with the elections coming around the corner. Let's put our voice before the year ends.
ravi.shah
05-17 12:04 PM
Thanks IV.
I sent an email for first time to the Senators !
I sent an email for first time to the Senators !
sammyb
12-10 12:32 PM
Why can't we move from a free service to a membership based and see how many people still continue ... evenif with 25K members it is only a handful who are active and part of the initiative ... so I would suggest to go for a membership ...
it could be a per month basis or pay a big amount and get membership for life or year ... say $200 for a year or $20 for a month ... we don't need the number/mass unless they are active in all way ... just my thoughts ... hope the IV core team will consider that ... enough of free rides ... now pay for it and get the access to forums ... :mad:
it could be a per month basis or pay a big amount and get membership for life or year ... say $200 for a year or $20 for a month ... we don't need the number/mass unless they are active in all way ... just my thoughts ... hope the IV core team will consider that ... enough of free rides ... now pay for it and get the access to forums ... :mad:
thomachan72
07-21 09:01 AM
Risker,
I am very glad that you brought this point. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than suing the DOL. We may not sue DOL on their inability to clear the backlogs, but we can definitely sue them in their utter and deliberate disregard to FIFO procedures (mind that some people with priority dates in 2004, 2005 have already got their labor certifications, but some with priority dates in 2001, 2002 are still stuck). When I read on the DOL web site that they have tried to maintain FIFO, it makes me feel like puking.
Some folks have pointed that the lawsuit is not worth, as it has little chance of winning. To me personally, more than winning or loosing, it is a matter of bringing injustice to the light, as Gandhi has said something in this line: First step against injustice is to make it visible. This law suit will bring public scrutiny to the misdeeds of the DOL.
Even if all the backlogs get cleared by September 2007, severe damage has been already dealt to our lives. Though I am close to getting my labor clearance (I filed RRI few weeks back), I am strongly in favor of continuing with the law suit even after getting the labor clearance.
Let�s get IV�s attention and support in this area. Let�s talk to AILA. Let�s write letters to senators and house representatives (congresswoman Lofgren may be good person to start with). Let�s write to media personnel. Let�s do whatever needs to be done to expose this insult and injury to the immigrants who waited in the line for years and followed rules of the game.
I would strongly suggest talking personally to IV leaders about this. These are folks who by now really have a feel about how things are handled out there. They will suggest the best way to tackle this issue and am sure with their mature guidance, this is a very simple techinical issue that can be resolved. You are literally just saying "SIR, I WAS HERE BEFORE. I KNOW YOU ARE BUSY AND POSSIBLY FAILED TO NOTICE ME, BUT HERE I AM, AND I HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR LONG TO GET YOUR ATTENTION". honestly I dont think even USCIS wants to hurt you purposely, its just that the traffic of new PERM thing has overcrowded their desk and mind so they have shelved your applications unknowingly. PLEASE SHOUT OUT----THROUGH IV ONLY. let them realize that we have a strong organization and ONLY ONE STRONG ORGANIZATION.
I am very glad that you brought this point. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than suing the DOL. We may not sue DOL on their inability to clear the backlogs, but we can definitely sue them in their utter and deliberate disregard to FIFO procedures (mind that some people with priority dates in 2004, 2005 have already got their labor certifications, but some with priority dates in 2001, 2002 are still stuck). When I read on the DOL web site that they have tried to maintain FIFO, it makes me feel like puking.
Some folks have pointed that the lawsuit is not worth, as it has little chance of winning. To me personally, more than winning or loosing, it is a matter of bringing injustice to the light, as Gandhi has said something in this line: First step against injustice is to make it visible. This law suit will bring public scrutiny to the misdeeds of the DOL.
Even if all the backlogs get cleared by September 2007, severe damage has been already dealt to our lives. Though I am close to getting my labor clearance (I filed RRI few weeks back), I am strongly in favor of continuing with the law suit even after getting the labor clearance.
Let�s get IV�s attention and support in this area. Let�s talk to AILA. Let�s write letters to senators and house representatives (congresswoman Lofgren may be good person to start with). Let�s write to media personnel. Let�s do whatever needs to be done to expose this insult and injury to the immigrants who waited in the line for years and followed rules of the game.
I would strongly suggest talking personally to IV leaders about this. These are folks who by now really have a feel about how things are handled out there. They will suggest the best way to tackle this issue and am sure with their mature guidance, this is a very simple techinical issue that can be resolved. You are literally just saying "SIR, I WAS HERE BEFORE. I KNOW YOU ARE BUSY AND POSSIBLY FAILED TO NOTICE ME, BUT HERE I AM, AND I HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR LONG TO GET YOUR ATTENTION". honestly I dont think even USCIS wants to hurt you purposely, its just that the traffic of new PERM thing has overcrowded their desk and mind so they have shelved your applications unknowingly. PLEASE SHOUT OUT----THROUGH IV ONLY. let them realize that we have a strong organization and ONLY ONE STRONG ORGANIZATION.
more...
MannyD
11-08 03:11 PM
Democrats have taken control of senate also...
I don't think that Dems are quite there yet. I thought I saw CNN reporting one seat in Virginia still undecided. This is the seat where Allen's the incumbent. He is trailing by a thin margin, and I suppose there'd be a recount here. It appears Allen may lose his senate seat in Virginia thanks to his infamous utterance. In that case Dems have the majority.
If GOP were to retain majority in Senate and Dems in House, what would be fate of the congress? Will anything pass through both houses?
I don't think that Dems are quite there yet. I thought I saw CNN reporting one seat in Virginia still undecided. This is the seat where Allen's the incumbent. He is trailing by a thin margin, and I suppose there'd be a recount here. It appears Allen may lose his senate seat in Virginia thanks to his infamous utterance. In that case Dems have the majority.
If GOP were to retain majority in Senate and Dems in House, what would be fate of the congress? Will anything pass through both houses?
senthil1
07-19 01:57 AM
In many consulting companies when a H1b person joins then first question he asks is Can I file in EB2 because I have Master degree. Then only they are creating a job requirement. So there is more possiblity of creating job requirement mainly in consulting. It may not be a illegal so no violation of law involved but it is not good faith. So we cannot complain to officials. Also I am not telling all the Eb2s are like that.
Are u saying all eb2s have earned the experience under the table. Then why couldn't you do so then ?
Dont blame the lawyers or the employers. May be there are one or two, which I am yet to find. But if you have seen it and very sure of it, why didnt u complain about it earlier to the appropiate officials.
Dont be a cry baby.
Are u saying all eb2s have earned the experience under the table. Then why couldn't you do so then ?
Dont blame the lawyers or the employers. May be there are one or two, which I am yet to find. But if you have seen it and very sure of it, why didnt u complain about it earlier to the appropiate officials.
Dont be a cry baby.
more...
dallasdude
06-01 11:26 AM
One time I travelled on air france, some guy a few rows in front of me tried to grope the hostess. The crew got his information and charged him with misdemeanor. I think the french are pretty sensitive.
dixie
07-05 12:28 AM
Yep. My impression is that IEEE USA is anti H1b, but it supports EB visa. For those who rail against desi consulting firms, IEEE USA is the friend, not the foe.
On the surface, yes, IEEE-USA supports EB visas and opposes H1-B visas. But if you take a closer look, its not as clear cut as that. What they really want is to restrict immigration to the most exceptional foreign scientists and engineers (roughly those who would qualify for EB1), and make the path to a GC faster for them. They are dead opposed to foreigners being hired for general engineering jobs, and the current practise of almost everyone on an H1-B being eligible to apply for a GC. I would think twice before calling them a friend to any of us; they are at best anti free-trade restrictionists minus the rabidity and political incorrectness of our "friends". A while ago there was a discussion on IEEE-USA's reaction to CIR, where they expressed displeasure on the increase in H1-Bs along with the increase in permanent visas.
On the surface, yes, IEEE-USA supports EB visas and opposes H1-B visas. But if you take a closer look, its not as clear cut as that. What they really want is to restrict immigration to the most exceptional foreign scientists and engineers (roughly those who would qualify for EB1), and make the path to a GC faster for them. They are dead opposed to foreigners being hired for general engineering jobs, and the current practise of almost everyone on an H1-B being eligible to apply for a GC. I would think twice before calling them a friend to any of us; they are at best anti free-trade restrictionists minus the rabidity and political incorrectness of our "friends". A while ago there was a discussion on IEEE-USA's reaction to CIR, where they expressed displeasure on the increase in H1-Bs along with the increase in permanent visas.
more...
acecupid
07-15 06:19 PM
Based on the wording of the visa distribution law, it does not look like the pattern change is a permanent one. The pattern might change again as per USCIS whims and fancy.
Read the part "Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to limit the authority of the Secretary of State to determine the procedures for the processing of immigrant visa applications or the locations where such applications will be processed."
Read the part "Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to limit the authority of the Secretary of State to determine the procedures for the processing of immigrant visa applications or the locations where such applications will be processed."
awenger
08-21 06:55 PM
I disagree. I would expect a person to convey that they are not officially open despite the doors being open. I agree its not nice on customers part to enter before the office is officially open, but that does not mean the officer just threatens a countryman.
We should learn to respect our countrymen/women first. If I were to try to enter a business which is closed but doors are open, I can tell that someone would tell me that same verbally!
You are correct - the Consulate official should have been firm, but polite. However, this does not excuse the person who tried to enter the Consulate before it officially opened. This is not your run-of-the-mill business establishment, but a government office / establishment with significant security concerns. Why don't you go to a federal building or a courthouse, or say, to the airport, and walk through a security checkpoint without listening to the instructions of the officers nearby, and see what happens. Maybe other people have tried this before, and the Consul official lost his cool on the day your were present. Again, this does not excuse his/her behaviour, but I wouldn't damn him/her for this.
In addition, at these government offices, the officials have to deal with people who demand 100% positive attitude while offering little in return. Read some of the responses on this thread: would you like to attend to their concerns on a daily basis?
We should learn to respect our countrymen/women first. If I were to try to enter a business which is closed but doors are open, I can tell that someone would tell me that same verbally!
You are correct - the Consulate official should have been firm, but polite. However, this does not excuse the person who tried to enter the Consulate before it officially opened. This is not your run-of-the-mill business establishment, but a government office / establishment with significant security concerns. Why don't you go to a federal building or a courthouse, or say, to the airport, and walk through a security checkpoint without listening to the instructions of the officers nearby, and see what happens. Maybe other people have tried this before, and the Consul official lost his cool on the day your were present. Again, this does not excuse his/her behaviour, but I wouldn't damn him/her for this.
In addition, at these government offices, the officials have to deal with people who demand 100% positive attitude while offering little in return. Read some of the responses on this thread: would you like to attend to their concerns on a daily basis?
more...
amitjoey
06-01 01:32 PM
Have we reached 10K yet? Anyone keeping count?
I think we reached 10K. But we need to bump it up further.
Please help by posting it on other Immigration forums. We need to make this event a great success.
Thank you desixp,rainy,larun,sgp,anilkhandekar,niles123, hope_GC, Munnabhai, kiran24, wait_2010, mallikonnet,puddonhead,Ransaj,snisachu, altima-72,spullugur,spicy_guy,muni_k,veereddy, pune_guy, silibili, kandhu, frankiesaysrelax, srinithati, for your contributions.
Total is $11,100
I think we reached 10K. But we need to bump it up further.
Please help by posting it on other Immigration forums. We need to make this event a great success.
Thank you desixp,rainy,larun,sgp,anilkhandekar,niles123, hope_GC, Munnabhai, kiran24, wait_2010, mallikonnet,puddonhead,Ransaj,snisachu, altima-72,spullugur,spicy_guy,muni_k,veereddy, pune_guy, silibili, kandhu, frankiesaysrelax, srinithati, for your contributions.
Total is $11,100
chanduv23
06-26 09:00 PM
Few min back I just got the "Card production ordered" email - Took a total of 28 days
more...
RahSaj
05-30 09:53 PM
Amount = $50.00
learning01
06-13 09:10 PM
from where would a child under 14 or a dependent spouse give I-131?
I haven't checked at this point, but I think I-131 is affidavit of support. Am I correct?
* USCIS Processing Fees
I-485: $325.00
(Per person) I-131: $170.00
I-765: $180.00
Fingerprints: $ 70.00
TOTAL $745.00
* USCIS Processing Fees I-485: $225.00
(Per CHILD under I-131: $170.00
14 years of age) I-765: $180.00
TOTAL $575.00
I haven't checked at this point, but I think I-131 is affidavit of support. Am I correct?
* USCIS Processing Fees
I-485: $325.00
(Per person) I-131: $170.00
I-765: $180.00
Fingerprints: $ 70.00
TOTAL $745.00
* USCIS Processing Fees I-485: $225.00
(Per CHILD under I-131: $170.00
14 years of age) I-765: $180.00
TOTAL $575.00
more...
Dhundhun
01-14 06:01 PM
Why H1B, F1, etc.?
Whenever US allows a person/family to come in US on work/study, US should provide equal opportunity to that person/family in most aspects of life (except National Security, Voting Rights, etc. which is after becoming citizen).
If at all any binding required, it could be somthing like six months - not of years and years.
Some bold decisions required - just like closing Guantanamo prision
Whenever US allows a person/family to come in US on work/study, US should provide equal opportunity to that person/family in most aspects of life (except National Security, Voting Rights, etc. which is after becoming citizen).
If at all any binding required, it could be somthing like six months - not of years and years.
Some bold decisions required - just like closing Guantanamo prision
Jaime
09-04 11:37 AM
You still have time to arrange your plans and attend! Here�s why you should come:
You have probably made up your mind not to attend the rally. Perhaps you think that already many people will attend and that one more or one less person (You) will not make a difference. But it will! In fact, let�s not even think about whether one more or one less person will make a difference. Rather, I invite you to think this way: Do it because it�s right! Do it for yourself! Think to yourself that you would do this even if you were the only person attending the rally. Think of Gandhi. Think of Martin Luther King.
You have been very frustrated for years with this broken immigration system, right? Perhaps you�ve been stuck for years, no raises, spouse cannot work, children aging out? How many times have you wanted to tell Congress what�s on your mind? This is likely your ONLY CHANCE to do so! Again, think of this in terms of you attending even if you were the only person attending. Attend because you are mad. Attend because you want to see change. Attend to make yourself visible, and make everyone out there know of your silent struggle. The silent struggle that you have had to put up for years. Even if that�s all you do, you will feel better. People will know the unfairness that you have been treated with! Attend because IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO! If your friends are not attending, try to convince them, but if they choose not to go, don�t let that influence you! Sometimes in life we have to do things just because they are right, no other reason. Will this rally work? Will lawmakers listen? Will my employer be mad that I took a day off? Will I have to spend $500 to get there? None of that matters! The only reason of why you should attend is because you have been abused, and you will not take it! You have dignity! You will go and tell Congress to stop messing with you unfairly. You have the power, freedom and OBLIGATION to do so! Your children will be proud of you. If you do not attend the rally, it will be a once-in-a-lifetime lost opportunity! LET�S GO! WE CAN DO THIS TOGETHER!!!!!!!!!!!
You have probably made up your mind not to attend the rally. Perhaps you think that already many people will attend and that one more or one less person (You) will not make a difference. But it will! In fact, let�s not even think about whether one more or one less person will make a difference. Rather, I invite you to think this way: Do it because it�s right! Do it for yourself! Think to yourself that you would do this even if you were the only person attending the rally. Think of Gandhi. Think of Martin Luther King.
You have been very frustrated for years with this broken immigration system, right? Perhaps you�ve been stuck for years, no raises, spouse cannot work, children aging out? How many times have you wanted to tell Congress what�s on your mind? This is likely your ONLY CHANCE to do so! Again, think of this in terms of you attending even if you were the only person attending. Attend because you are mad. Attend because you want to see change. Attend to make yourself visible, and make everyone out there know of your silent struggle. The silent struggle that you have had to put up for years. Even if that�s all you do, you will feel better. People will know the unfairness that you have been treated with! Attend because IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO! If your friends are not attending, try to convince them, but if they choose not to go, don�t let that influence you! Sometimes in life we have to do things just because they are right, no other reason. Will this rally work? Will lawmakers listen? Will my employer be mad that I took a day off? Will I have to spend $500 to get there? None of that matters! The only reason of why you should attend is because you have been abused, and you will not take it! You have dignity! You will go and tell Congress to stop messing with you unfairly. You have the power, freedom and OBLIGATION to do so! Your children will be proud of you. If you do not attend the rally, it will be a once-in-a-lifetime lost opportunity! LET�S GO! WE CAN DO THIS TOGETHER!!!!!!!!!!!
more...
Caliber
04-10 09:33 AM
[QUOTE=chaanakya;333554]3. You seem to be under the impression that IV got the visa-bulletin reversed??? Moses, wake up and smell the roses. The massive class-action lawsuit being pursued by AILA, the Silicon Valley lobby pressuring Zoe Lofgren, almost all immigration lawyers asking people to join the class action .. what about all of that? Do think your 25 bucks on the flower campaign is what got the bulletin reversed?
SERIOUSLY?? QUOTE]
You just woke up and asking others to wake up? A cat like thinking?
Chaanakya has a great name and you spoiled it too. If not for money, can you list your contributions and it helped others?
All you guys know is BLAME ... Blame.. Blame....
Enjoy your free lunch at the cost of others and cut the same hand that fed you.
SERIOUSLY?? QUOTE]
You just woke up and asking others to wake up? A cat like thinking?
Chaanakya has a great name and you spoiled it too. If not for money, can you list your contributions and it helped others?
All you guys know is BLAME ... Blame.. Blame....
Enjoy your free lunch at the cost of others and cut the same hand that fed you.
spicy_guy
05-17 06:03 PM
Done.
I think its a good idea to post this link to some other active immigration forums so we can grab some more interested interested prospective immigrants.
I think its a good idea to post this link to some other active immigration forums so we can grab some more interested interested prospective immigrants.
acecupid
07-15 06:14 PM
Here is the actual text of the visa distribution law. Also available on USCIS website.
INA: ACT 202 - NUMERICAL LIMITATION TO ANY SINGLE FOREIGN STATE
Sec. 202. [8 U.S.C. 1152]
(a) Per Country Level. -
(1) Nondiscrimination. -
(A) Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 101(a)(27) , 201(b)(2)(A)(i) , and 203, no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person's race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.
(B) 1/ Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to limit the authority of the Secretary of State to determine the procedures for the processing of immigrant visa applications or the locations where such applications will be processed.
(2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. - Subject to 1a/ paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed 7 percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or 2 percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.
(3) Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter.
(5) 2/ RULES FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS-
(A) EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
(B) LIMITING FALL ACROSS FOR CERTAIN COUNTRIES SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION (e)- In the case of a foreign state or dependent area to which subsection (e) applies, if the total number of visas issued under section 203(b) exceeds the maximum number of visas that may be made available to immigrants of the state or area under section 203(b)consistent with subsection (e) (determined without regard to this paragraph),in applying subsection (e) all visas shall be deemed to have been required for the classes of aliens specified in section 203(b).
(b) Rules for Chargeability. - Each independent country, self-governing dominion, mandated territory, and territory under the international trusteeship system of the United Nations, other than the United States and its outlying possessions, shall be treated as a separate foreign state for the purposes of a numerical level established under subsection (a)(2) when approved by the Secretary of State. All other inhabited lands shall be attributed to a foreign state specified by the Secretary of State. F or the purposes of this Act the foreign state to which an immigrant is chargeable shall be determined by birth within such foreign state except that-
(1) an alien child, when accompanied by or following to join his alien parent or parents, may be charged to the foreign state of either parent if such parent has received or would be qualified for an immigrant visa, if necessary to prevent the separation of the child from the parent or parents, and if immigration charged to the foreign state to which such parent has been or would be chargeable has not reached a numerical level established under subsection (a)(2) for that fiscal year;
(2) if an alien is chargeable to a different foreign state from that of his spouse, the foreign state to which such alien is chargeable may, if necessary to prevent the separation of husband and wife, be determined by the foreign state of the spouse he is accompanying or following to join, if such spouse has received or would be qualified for an immigrant visa and if immigration charged to the foreign state to which such spouse has been or would be chargeable has not reached a numerical level estab lished under subsection (a)(2) for that fiscal year; (3) an alien born in the United States shall be considered as having been born in the country of which he is a citizen or subject, or, if he is not a citizen or subject of any country, in the last foreign country in which he had his residence as determined by the consular officer; and (4) an alien born within any foreign state in which neither of his parents was born and in which neither of his parents had a residence at the time of such alien's birth may be charged to the foreign state of either parent.
(c) Chargeability for Dependent Areas. - Any immigrant born in a colony or other component or dependent area of a foreign state overseas from the foreign state, other than an alien described in section 201(b) , shall be chargeable for the purpose of the limitation set forth in subsection (a), to the foreign state.
(d) Changes in Territory. - In the case of any change in the territorial limits of foreign states, the Secretary of State shall, upon recognition of such change, issue appropriate instructions to all diplomatic and consular offices.
(e) Special Rules for Countries at Ceiling. - If it is determined that the total number of immigrant visas made available under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area will exceed the numerical limitation specified in subsection (a)(2) in any fiscal year, in determining the allotment of immigrant visa numbers to natives under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203, visa numbers with respect to natives of that state or area shall be allocated (to the extent practicable and otherwise consistent with this section and section 203) in a manner so that -
(1) the ratio of the visa numbers made available under section 203(a) to the visa numbers made available under section 203(b) is equal to the ratio of the worldwide level of immigration under section 201(c) to such level under section 201 (d);
(2) except as provided in subsection (a)(4), the proportion of the visa numbers made available under each of paragraphs (1) through (4) of section 203(a) is equal to the ratio of the total number of visas made available under the respective paragraph to the total number of visas made available under section 203(a), and
(3) 3/ except as provided in subsection (a)(5), the proportion of the visa numbers made available under each of paragraphs (1) through (5) of section 203(b) is equal to the ratio of the total number of visas made available under the respective paragraph to the total number of visas made available under section 203(b).
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as limiting the number of visas that may be issued to natives of a foreign state or dependent area under section 203(a) or 203(b) if there is insufficient demand for visas for such natives under section 203(b) or 203(a), respectively, or as limiting the number of visas that may be issued under section 203(a)(2)(A) pursuant to subsection (a)(4)(A).
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as limiting the number of visas that may be issued to natives of a foreign state or dependent area under section 203(a) or 203(b) if there is insufficient demand for visas for such natives under section 203(b) or 203(a) , respectively, or as limiting the number of visas that may be issued under section 203(a)(2)(A) pursuant to subsection (a)(4)(A).
INA: ACT 202 - NUMERICAL LIMITATION TO ANY SINGLE FOREIGN STATE
Sec. 202. [8 U.S.C. 1152]
(a) Per Country Level. -
(1) Nondiscrimination. -
(A) Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 101(a)(27) , 201(b)(2)(A)(i) , and 203, no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person's race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.
(B) 1/ Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to limit the authority of the Secretary of State to determine the procedures for the processing of immigrant visa applications or the locations where such applications will be processed.
(2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. - Subject to 1a/ paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed 7 percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or 2 percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.
(3) Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter.
(5) 2/ RULES FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS-
(A) EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
(B) LIMITING FALL ACROSS FOR CERTAIN COUNTRIES SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION (e)- In the case of a foreign state or dependent area to which subsection (e) applies, if the total number of visas issued under section 203(b) exceeds the maximum number of visas that may be made available to immigrants of the state or area under section 203(b)consistent with subsection (e) (determined without regard to this paragraph),in applying subsection (e) all visas shall be deemed to have been required for the classes of aliens specified in section 203(b).
(b) Rules for Chargeability. - Each independent country, self-governing dominion, mandated territory, and territory under the international trusteeship system of the United Nations, other than the United States and its outlying possessions, shall be treated as a separate foreign state for the purposes of a numerical level established under subsection (a)(2) when approved by the Secretary of State. All other inhabited lands shall be attributed to a foreign state specified by the Secretary of State. F or the purposes of this Act the foreign state to which an immigrant is chargeable shall be determined by birth within such foreign state except that-
(1) an alien child, when accompanied by or following to join his alien parent or parents, may be charged to the foreign state of either parent if such parent has received or would be qualified for an immigrant visa, if necessary to prevent the separation of the child from the parent or parents, and if immigration charged to the foreign state to which such parent has been or would be chargeable has not reached a numerical level established under subsection (a)(2) for that fiscal year;
(2) if an alien is chargeable to a different foreign state from that of his spouse, the foreign state to which such alien is chargeable may, if necessary to prevent the separation of husband and wife, be determined by the foreign state of the spouse he is accompanying or following to join, if such spouse has received or would be qualified for an immigrant visa and if immigration charged to the foreign state to which such spouse has been or would be chargeable has not reached a numerical level estab lished under subsection (a)(2) for that fiscal year; (3) an alien born in the United States shall be considered as having been born in the country of which he is a citizen or subject, or, if he is not a citizen or subject of any country, in the last foreign country in which he had his residence as determined by the consular officer; and (4) an alien born within any foreign state in which neither of his parents was born and in which neither of his parents had a residence at the time of such alien's birth may be charged to the foreign state of either parent.
(c) Chargeability for Dependent Areas. - Any immigrant born in a colony or other component or dependent area of a foreign state overseas from the foreign state, other than an alien described in section 201(b) , shall be chargeable for the purpose of the limitation set forth in subsection (a), to the foreign state.
(d) Changes in Territory. - In the case of any change in the territorial limits of foreign states, the Secretary of State shall, upon recognition of such change, issue appropriate instructions to all diplomatic and consular offices.
(e) Special Rules for Countries at Ceiling. - If it is determined that the total number of immigrant visas made available under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area will exceed the numerical limitation specified in subsection (a)(2) in any fiscal year, in determining the allotment of immigrant visa numbers to natives under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203, visa numbers with respect to natives of that state or area shall be allocated (to the extent practicable and otherwise consistent with this section and section 203) in a manner so that -
(1) the ratio of the visa numbers made available under section 203(a) to the visa numbers made available under section 203(b) is equal to the ratio of the worldwide level of immigration under section 201(c) to such level under section 201 (d);
(2) except as provided in subsection (a)(4), the proportion of the visa numbers made available under each of paragraphs (1) through (4) of section 203(a) is equal to the ratio of the total number of visas made available under the respective paragraph to the total number of visas made available under section 203(a), and
(3) 3/ except as provided in subsection (a)(5), the proportion of the visa numbers made available under each of paragraphs (1) through (5) of section 203(b) is equal to the ratio of the total number of visas made available under the respective paragraph to the total number of visas made available under section 203(b).
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as limiting the number of visas that may be issued to natives of a foreign state or dependent area under section 203(a) or 203(b) if there is insufficient demand for visas for such natives under section 203(b) or 203(a), respectively, or as limiting the number of visas that may be issued under section 203(a)(2)(A) pursuant to subsection (a)(4)(A).
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as limiting the number of visas that may be issued to natives of a foreign state or dependent area under section 203(a) or 203(b) if there is insufficient demand for visas for such natives under section 203(b) or 203(a) , respectively, or as limiting the number of visas that may be issued under section 203(a)(2)(A) pursuant to subsection (a)(4)(A).
kate123
02-14 10:51 PM
Sanju,
I did not expect such a cheap statement from a senior member like you. Infact posts like yours creates separate groups.
Please try to contribute towards achieving the goal. If you do not like our posts please ignore this thread.
Please do not call any one as IDIOT..
Thanks!
Look at the two group of idiots here, each one trying to agrue for a specific provision to benefit him ONLY, and finding foolish reasons to support their arguments. Insane idiots or educated illitrates? You deicde. Either way, they are both the same.
.
I did not expect such a cheap statement from a senior member like you. Infact posts like yours creates separate groups.
Please try to contribute towards achieving the goal. If you do not like our posts please ignore this thread.
Please do not call any one as IDIOT..
Thanks!
Look at the two group of idiots here, each one trying to agrue for a specific provision to benefit him ONLY, and finding foolish reasons to support their arguments. Insane idiots or educated illitrates? You deicde. Either way, they are both the same.
.
bekugc
06-04 12:56 PM
btw, my question as per the orig subject of the thread is still unanswered.. can anybody comment?
************************************************** *****
when 485 pending pple r requesting AP to travel out and return back.
the question: 3 on page 3 of the I-131 applicatin - "If the travel document will be delivered to an overseas office, where should the notice to pick up the document be sent:"
in part 7 of the application --> can it be left empty???
since we r expecting to AP approval to arrive by mail to our mailing address, can we leave this question 3 on page3/part 7 EMPTY?
************************************************** *****
************************************************** *****
when 485 pending pple r requesting AP to travel out and return back.
the question: 3 on page 3 of the I-131 applicatin - "If the travel document will be delivered to an overseas office, where should the notice to pick up the document be sent:"
in part 7 of the application --> can it be left empty???
since we r expecting to AP approval to arrive by mail to our mailing address, can we leave this question 3 on page3/part 7 EMPTY?
************************************************** *****
No comments:
Post a Comment