Mike Tyson Tattoos

Add Wachovia now acquired by Wells Fargo to the list. They don't even do H1 extensions.

That's too bad.

You are correct. I joined the new employer on H1 B transfer. I didnt use AC21(ead)to work for my new employer.
Nowhere in this post, do I see the fact that the OP used AC21 when he moved in August 2007.

Does not AC21 come in when you have used EAD to move instead of a H1 transfer?

In my understanding, by doing a H1 transfer rather than invoking AC21, the OP preserved the status of the original petition unless the employer revoked the I140 for fraud. If that's the case, shouldn't the RFE be worded differently?

If that's not the case, all the OP has to do is craft a response to the RFE with an Employment Verification Letter from his current employer attesting to the similar nature of job etc.. and move forward.

Either way, an attorney would be the safest bet..

This once again proves that most of the popular immigration attorneys and other parties claiming to have "inside" information really don't have much more access to information than the rest of us.

I had trouble sifting through all that data and figuring out what that was all about.
Could you give the specific report that you used for these numbers. And, if possible, any hints on how you arrived at the data below. I would appreciate that.

Thanks....
Can you re-estimate the new dates. Using this data

******* EB Pref*******EB3
FY**|*Total*|INDIA | *Total* |India
2000|107,024| 15888| 049,736| 05567
2001|179,195| 41720| 086,058| 16405
2002|174,968| 41919| 088,555| 17428
2003|082,137| 20818| 046,613| 10680
2004|155,330| 39496| 085,969| 19962
2005|246,877| 47160| 129,070| 23399
2006|?????????TBP in the near future ???????


THis are the number of visas issued for each fiscal year since FY 2000 for the EB preference.
They are under this link:DOS Visa Statistics (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/statistics/statistics_1476.html)

andy

Read your above sentence, then read your below sentence. If I try to find a relation between these two sentences I do not know what you are talking.




I think you know pretty well what I am talking about. USCIS has not "reacted" in any malicious way against the immigrant community wrt. to July 07 actions. If you find they have done so they will be severely answerable to various laws in the country. Do you think the lawyers will keep quite when they sense blood in the water? There has been no "reaction" by USCIS, except as a figment of imagination in the minds of this community.



Again I am not sure what you are saying but MY PD is in early 2004 and RD was in Aug, they moved my application to another centre and my new RD is Oct. then I saw 2006 and 2007 cases getting approved. This is not right, why are they going by RD and not on PD?.


USCIS has always gone by RD, not PD to a large extent (there have been deviations here and there, but none of them are due to policy issues). It is unfortunate that due to your application movement to another center you got a bad "RD" -- you should probably work with them to get the RD fixed.

PD based processing is not sustainable as I had highlighted before. If you applied for 485 before someone else, you should be approved first. Now I am saying applied for 485, not Labor/Perm. Now dont come back with a post saying I applied July 2 00:01, but someone with July 3rd 23:55 is getting approved before I am. Afford some granularity of a week or so.


Exactly dude, there should be some synchronization between DOL and USCIS. Just saying that USCIS is not responsible for DOL’s actions does not solve the problem, they can conveniently blame each other and take till eternity to process applications and you will keep saying the same thing that USCIS is not to be blamed.

No, you did not say that, all you said was USCIS is not doing anything wrong.


I did not say USCIS is "doodh ka dula", but DoL and USCIS are two different entities. You cant blame one for the problems of the other. USCIS has its share of blames, but to blame everything on USCIS just shows that you have lost your objectivity. You don't want to be blamed for the actions of your colleague, so why do you blame USCIS for things which are not their doing??


If you keep blaming USCIS for everything (I am sure some of you want to blame the economic crisis, the Darfur issue etc. on USCIS too, come on!, you know you wanted to ;) ), the community's credibility comes into question.


End of the day, you (and/or others) are distracting the OP's idea with FUD. If you have constructive ideas to channel OPs enthusiasm you should suggest alternatives. Not make her/him fearful with untenable accusations of retribution from USCIS.

Yaar JohnAmit.........they are making fun of those who are crying about cheap labor and immigration system....they created it for fun.

I have seen this same footage months ago and to it don't look real, its cooked. Some facts there are just un-digestible like the gora guy will take job of a waiter immediately after working as senior exec. cmon market is not that bad unless he don't know anything else and don't have ability to get other similar job, then he should be fired anyways. and then that carlos guy, his dress up don't seems convincing that other execs will give me good response after presentation. its all cooked... showing 600k+ numbers are all bogus.

I sent you yesterday.

I have some Delta Skymiles (3729miles), Not sure how to donate. If anyone needs them let me know.

I hope this lawsuit fails. Looking ahead this lawsuit, if it succeeds might do us more damage than good. Law of unintended consequences states that something can happen we haven't thought of.
Supposing, if lawsuit goes ahead and wins, one outcome might be - USCIS might start adhering to strict interpretation of 7% per country, or curtail spillovers drastically. Then we are in deep shit.
How can USCIS adher to 7% per country quota when AC21 explicitly says that if visas are still available after allotment to ROW, the remaining visas must spill over to the over subscribed countries?
As a result of failure of this lawsuite, if they start adhering to 7% cap, then they are in violation of AC21. That would be another lawsuite for sure.

I think the whole discussion can be summed up in the following manner: The CIR in its present form does more harm to us than good. If we can manage to get a favourable amendment attached then we are in good shape else we are in trouble.

People might approach the issue in different ways:some might want to take a chance and work on it to get an admendment and some might not want to support it fearing an amendment wont be possible.

That is what these computer workers do. Go to forums, steal code, copy that at the appropriate place, change variable names and screw up all the copyright issues.
Thank You ! That was a good peek into your level of knowledge and understanding. No wonder you are always jealous of IT guys.

so there should be 40-50k EB visas left over in this year...?

have sent you a p.m.

When did you submitted your applications?

Please let me know? thanks

I agree with you completely ! I wish and pray Interfilers and labor substitution applicants rot in hell.

I'm right there with you on labor substitution, but I would not really blame interfilers that much.

Though one thing that I would like to see USCIS do is allow people to port EB3 priority date to EB2 only if they were eligible for EB2 as of that priority date. i.e. If you did not have a Masters or 5 years exp. as of June 2002 and so you filed EB3 and have a June 2002 EB3 PD, you should not be allowed to claim June 2002 EB2 priority date based today based on the experience or masters degree as of today. Allowing that does not sound fair to a say a June 2003 PD EB2 person who was eligible for EB2 as of June 2003 and filed EB2.

We're definitely pursuing this problem also through our lobbyist, but for now given the drastic changes in the Comprehensive Immigration Bills, all the effort is going into that. Once that cools down a bit, we will concentrate on the procedural issues like FBI name check as we do realize that a large number of us are likely to get stuck there.


Admin,

Thanks for taking this into account. Including me many are affected by name check.How will this affect all eventually? As an example, consider this.

Let us say your PD becomes current in 2006 and u are waiting for name check.Name check is not cleared in 2006. So the yearly quota which was available to you could not be used because of name check. So the visa in 2006 is not used up, even though it was available.That is one precious Visa number was not used up and got lost in the yearly quota system. Then
in 2007, you get in line ahead of candidates whose PD becomes current in 2007.

So in effect all of us loose.

Category: EB3 India
PD: Oct 2001
140 AD:Sep,2005
485 RD:06/25/2007

I sent an email to Roy Beck - Founder of NumbersUSA about the false information that they present via the fax. I am expecting some reply.
This is email that I sent..........

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Roy,

I am Satish. I am one of many immigrant workers working in USA. Recently, I came across www.NumbersUSA.com website and their propaganda. I respect your service to this country and your steps towards propagating your agenda to the congress. However, when I came across the following fax content intended to faxed to the members of congress from www.Numbersusa.com, I was completely shocked to see the points mentioned in the webfax. Let me give my insight on this.

The fax content is as follows

Dear [This fax will go to Your U.S. Senators and U.S. Representative ]

I oppose any increase in the annual H-1B visa cap, including those in the SKIL Act. I am counting on you to oppose it.

Here are just a few reasons why I hope you will oppose the SKIL Act:

(1) The six-year visas allow foreign workers to bring in their families, and guarantee thousands of anchor babies.

(2) H-1B salaries are tax-exempt - no FICA, no federal or state income taxes. They can live at the same level as tax-paying Americans at a lower cost. Therefore, Congress allows foreigners to "low-ball" American workers.

(3) H-1Bs can leave the job they came to fill and seek other jobs, not necessarily in the "hard to fill" category.

(4) Most H-1Bs are of a "protected" ethnic group, so H-1Bs have an affirmative action preference when competing with Americans for the same jobs.

The result of the SKIL Act would be to further depress the wages of Americans working in high-tech and scientific fields and to cause additional job displacement for those workers.

Sincerely, [Your Name Will Appear Here]

My view on the above points.

1) This is true that foreign workers bring their families. However, I reject the word "guarantee" used in the later part of the sentence. Let me further elaborate on this. When a H1B worker first arrives on the American soil, the worker's spouse and children if any, are on H4 visa. For your information, these dependents of foreign workers are on H4 visa, which is a highly restrictive visa. This visa does not guarantee a social security to women and children. By social security, I mean lot more than just a social security number. In some states, this results in inability to even drive and be completely dependent. Some of H4 people that I know are highly skilled such as Phds, Doctors, MBAs, etc.
2) This is most shocking of all the points. I would love to know the source of this information. I am a H1B worker for last 4+ years. I have paid all my taxes including federal, state taxes, social security taxes, Medicare, FICA, etc. This is not voluntary deduction. All my employers were mandated to deduct just as any American citizen. I would love to debate this with you and NumbersUSA reps, because I have facts and documents to prove this. In fact, Most of H1Bs pay FICA tax, which we simply cannot get after retirement (in this case mostly 6 years on H1B). I would encourage you and NumbersUSA to contact reputed IRS expert to get more information on this. In case you don't get this information. I would be more than happy to meet you in NumbersUSA office along my documents. If some person or employer does not pay taxes being on H1B, that person is treated as tax fraudster, whom I am sure IRS handles very effectively.
3) This is also not true. In my case I had to post my labor on job bulletin board (place where I had to work) for atleast 2-3 weeks with my skills, designation and salary offered. In case if any US citizen interested in this posting, he had an open opportunity to contact my employer about his interest in the job. By the way, salaries of thousands of H1B workers are on par with that of US citizens. Given a chance, I am sure that I can prove that I am better in all aspects of IT programming than some of the best on U.S. citizens. This promotes competitiveness.
4) I would love to have actual source of this information. I know many US registered organizations that hire H1B foreign workers, who worked with fellow U.S citizens without any problems. As far as my knowledge is concerned, most of these employers are "Equal Opportunity Employers".

Roy, America is a unique country that is built on immigrants. This is probably one of the reason why America is amazing in providing civil liberties to all people irrespective of caste, color and race. Also, America has such an immense talent in every field, which makes it a leader in this competitive world.

I certainly welcome yours and NumbersUSA perspective on this email.

Both of us strive to make America more strong and competitive.

Thanks,
Satish

"It is the theory that decides what we can observe."
Albert Einstein

14% Asians Americans in US. (includes indians,chinese koreans, viatnamese, japanese etc)

I dont know about India and china specifically.

There are 2.7 million Indian americans in the U.S and 9.3 Chinese Americans.

You do the math.

Not sure if the totals include GC holders

What i would say is that if folks from a particular country is getting 'edge' in numbers , then the diversity axe should be applied. In that sense i was wondering whether the country quota applied is 'fair' ( i know what is fair is determined by the country which made the rules/laws/practices . ) to India,China .

"Eb3 India PD of May 2001"---optimystic

You should have got GC by now right??

I missed on some of the conversation here
- '92-'00 was a good economic time because of the dot com boom.

It happened because of Al Gore and policies of Clinton

- the repubs were in charge of the house and senate, and they helped in part to frame/pass the policies during that time.

I thought they are in charge till 2006? So what got changed from 1992-2000 and from 2000-2006?
- the housing sector debacle started in the clinton era, when the dems pushed the fannie may & freddie mac to lower the lending standards to give loans to the people who couldn't afford it. though it sounded like a good objective they all knew that at one point it would boomerang.

This credit problem was caused by not only Fannie/Freddie but due to deregulation of banking and finance sector that started from Regan era. Republicans are so proud of deregulation.

- the dems did that for their own purposes:
1. to gain the support of the lower income/middle income population which they did.

And for Bush to be proud of the ownership society that he bragged about in 2004.

2. to fatten their own wallets-they changed the compensation rules so that the more they loan out the more their compensation. the dem guy in charge of the loaning agencies earned 90 mil in 6 years.

Prove.

3. the top two beneficiaries of contribution from fm/fm were guess who chris dodd & barck obama (barack got 130K in just 3 years). not to mention the favorable interest rates on their mortgage loans.

Not True. The employees of the firm gave to obama campaign. Companies are prohibited by law from giving donations. On the otherhand
The New York Times has published a separate list looking at contributions from "directors, officers, and lobbyists for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" for the 2008 campaign cycle. That list � using figures from the Federal Election Commission � shows McCain receiving $169,000, while Obama received only $16,000.

- the US has prospered so far because of its capitalistic philosophy. it has advanced innovation, and entrepreneurship, because innovators know they'll be compensated for their hardwork. barack recently claimed he want's to spread the wealth around which is a socialist philosophy...you've seen that in the communist countries (no growth, poverty, and low standards).

FOX news talking point. He meant tax the rich to give tax break for the middle class. If you are super rich then I understand your anger.
Unregulated capitalism will cause serious trouble. We just found that out.
[/QUOTE]

- barack has had no accomplishment at all...no executive decision made, no major legislation (bills) introduced or passed (let alone through bipartisan efforts). so all of a sudden to assume he's going to bring change is ridiculous. hillary would have made a better president of course the press decides/controls everything now.

It is leadership skills. Not the most experienced skill that is needed. He obviously has the skills since he defeated the great clintons.

- look at the huge spending plan he has (free giveaways to everybody)...to fund that he'll tax you and I (take away whatever money we've saved).

FOX news talking points. He said he will give tax cut for middle class. Moreover McCain's spending plan is will have a deficit of 1trillion compared to 750billion from obama's plan. Google.

- he's ambiguous on everything...he changed his initial position on almost everything, and not just once (again according to the audience)

FOX news talking point again. No proof. McCain said economy fundamentally good then bad, he has a long list. I don't have time http://www.bi30.org/wordpress/flipflopper.htm

I don't think we need to go thru all this again. all i care now is my gc, and I don't think obama is for it. even if he says he's for it, you can't trust him. he'll change his position when it becomes unpopular.

again be rational in your thinking.

p.s with the limited time I had I wrote all this...so don't pounce on any gramatical errors (of course the dems like to do that).