sammas
07-12 04:01 PM
F. DETERMINATION OF THE NUMERICAL LIMITS ON IMMIGRANTS REQUIRED UNDER THE TERMS OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT (INA)
The State Department is required to make a determination of the worldwide numerical limitations, as outlined in Section 201(c) and (d) of the INA, on an annual basis. These calculations are based in part on data provided by U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (CIS) regarding the number of immediate relative adjustments in the preceding year and the number of aliens paroled into the United States under Section 212(d)(5) in the second preceding year. Without this information, it is impossible to make an official determination of the annual limits. To avoid delays in processing while waiting for the CIS data, the Visa Office (VO) bases allocations on the minimum annual limits outlined in Section 201 of the INA. On July 7th, CIS provided the required data to VO.
The Department of State has determined the Family and Employment preference numerical limits for FY-2010 in accordance with the terms of Section 201 of the INA. These numerical limitations for FY-2010 are as follows:
Worldwide Family-Sponsored preference limit: 226,000
Worldwide Employment-Based preference limit: 150,667
Under INA Section 202(A), the per-country limit is fixed at 7% of the family and employment annual limits. For FY-2010 the per-country limit is 26,367. The dependent area annual limit is 2%, or 7,533.
The State Department is required to make a determination of the worldwide numerical limitations, as outlined in Section 201(c) and (d) of the INA, on an annual basis. These calculations are based in part on data provided by U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (CIS) regarding the number of immediate relative adjustments in the preceding year and the number of aliens paroled into the United States under Section 212(d)(5) in the second preceding year. Without this information, it is impossible to make an official determination of the annual limits. To avoid delays in processing while waiting for the CIS data, the Visa Office (VO) bases allocations on the minimum annual limits outlined in Section 201 of the INA. On July 7th, CIS provided the required data to VO.
The Department of State has determined the Family and Employment preference numerical limits for FY-2010 in accordance with the terms of Section 201 of the INA. These numerical limitations for FY-2010 are as follows:
Worldwide Family-Sponsored preference limit: 226,000
Worldwide Employment-Based preference limit: 150,667
Under INA Section 202(A), the per-country limit is fixed at 7% of the family and employment annual limits. For FY-2010 the per-country limit is 26,367. The dependent area annual limit is 2%, or 7,533.
wallpaper or ackground design.
texanmom
09-26 11:46 AM
I just got a call from Eilene Zimmerman regarding the article and she promised me that she is working on fixing the error soon
If we make a big enough noise, perhaps we can get CNN to write an article focusing on our issues. Please continue to press for changes.
If we make a big enough noise, perhaps we can get CNN to write an article focusing on our issues. Please continue to press for changes.
jayleno
10-15 03:21 PM
I propose Non Co-operation Movement for another flower campaign. I know art imitates life and life imitates art etc. But imitates again and again irritates.
I dont understand how sending flowers is Gandhigiri. Yes, I did watch the movie you are going to refer to, but still its just Munna Bhai Giri.
I dont understand how sending flowers is Gandhigiri. Yes, I did watch the movie you are going to refer to, but still its just Munna Bhai Giri.
2011 geeky designer wallpapers
meg_z
06-22 03:52 PM
USCIS filing fee - $180.00 check payable to 'United States Citizenship and Immigration Service' OR 'USCIS' with your SSN# and I-765 mentioned in the comments section of the check
Thanks.
Thanks.
more...
desi3933
03-10 02:28 PM
>> Once they reached last quarter then they will make EB2-I/C current and distribute those spill-over visas across EB.
Would you mind explaining two "they" here? Whom you are referring to?
Hint: This is a trap question.
Since you chose to not to answer my question, I assume you have no idea what you are talking about.
Please ignore MDix.
Would you mind explaining two "they" here? Whom you are referring to?
Hint: This is a trap question.
Since you chose to not to answer my question, I assume you have no idea what you are talking about.
Please ignore MDix.
Naveen
04-07 08:12 AM
Well said! I came back first week of Feb 09 and no issues. Just usual jibber-jabber.
Rumor, rumor, and more rumors. We Indians get a kick out of this stuff, dont we? This actually happened with me couple of weeks ago.
......
Rumor, rumor, and more rumors. We Indians get a kick out of this stuff, dont we? This actually happened with me couple of weeks ago.
......
more...
optimist578
03-02 04:58 PM
NJ Fellows,
Has anybody contacted Congressman Albio Sires? Is anybody interested to join me? I am trying to schedule a meeting with him next week.
Thanks.
kamla345@yahoo.com
Has anybody contacted Congressman Albio Sires? Is anybody interested to join me? I am trying to schedule a meeting with him next week.
Thanks.
kamla345@yahoo.com
2010 ackground wallpaper.
BumbleBee
08-16 06:22 PM
Because you guys are not as clever as EB2s.
Very Good first post :eek:!!! Please hide wherever you were hiding till now, STOP judging.
clever adj
Definition: bright, ingenious
Antonyms: awkward, foolish, idiotic, ignorant, naive, senseless, stupid, unclever
Very Good first post :eek:!!! Please hide wherever you were hiding till now, STOP judging.
clever adj
Definition: bright, ingenious
Antonyms: awkward, foolish, idiotic, ignorant, naive, senseless, stupid, unclever
more...
vamsi_poondla
09-26 12:36 PM
Excellent coordination...
hair wallpaper background
looivy
02-14 03:23 AM
However, the immigration policy has been Europe friendly. They allowed free flow of white Europeans during 19th and a good part of 20th century. No doubt that these Europeans who came also struggled initially.
The recent policy is to block non-English speaking Mexicans. Why shoudl language and to some extent race be a factor?
The recent policy is to block non-English speaking Mexicans. Why shoudl language and to some extent race be a factor?
more...
franklin
04-23 02:31 PM
Thank you Nor Cal members, on behalf of 1 member who was unable to attend. I encourage those not already part of the Nor Cal Yahoo group to join it.
There are roughly 10 members trying very hard to boost activity without our section, and it encourages me that there were around 50 or so representatives at the meeting.
Stay active, join your chapter!
There are roughly 10 members trying very hard to boost activity without our section, and it encourages me that there were around 50 or so representatives at the meeting.
Stay active, join your chapter!
hot Gold Design Wallpaper
nozerd
01-27 10:47 AM
I went back and reread the July 2001 Bulletin.
How difficult would it be to lobby for extending the same logic for removing per country cap ? I am sure removing 7% cap would definitely help.
Also since EB3 World has a cut off does it mean that no visas will be left from the world pool which can be recaptured ?
How difficult would it be to lobby for extending the same logic for removing per country cap ? I am sure removing 7% cap would definitely help.
Also since EB3 World has a cut off does it mean that no visas will be left from the world pool which can be recaptured ?
more...
house Wallpaper Background
Nil
03-10 09:27 PM
How abt showing the US govt - what is in it for them?
If they recapture x number of visas and y % buys a house soon after, it is a win-win situation. They provide solid ground under the feet of LEGALs and the benefactors build on top of that ground.
A key item will be to get a petition from a number of IVeans pledging to buy a house if they get a green card. If that number turns out high, this will be a good blil-board for our cause.
If they recapture x number of visas and y % buys a house soon after, it is a win-win situation. They provide solid ground under the feet of LEGALs and the benefactors build on top of that ground.
A key item will be to get a petition from a number of IVeans pledging to buy a house if they get a green card. If that number turns out high, this will be a good blil-board for our cause.
tattoo Fairy Design Wallpaper
mayhemt
09-10 08:06 AM
I get this question every day, what are the hopes for EB3-I, or rather are there any hopes for EB3-I? Are we fighting a lost battle?
What do people here really think?
1. There are X % chance that there would be some immigration bill that would help us and we will have GC in next couple of years?
2. Keep going on with life as is, till the time we can renew EAD every 2 years, and AP every year.
3. Wait for another X years, and then go back.
4. Hopefully my son/daughter will be 21 by 2020, and will sponsor my GC.
--- Hoping family based GC would still be allowed by then
5. Don't know, confused?
6. Look for entrepreneurial options & file in EB5. You get freedom from daily-job-rat-race and visa/GC hassles.
What do people here really think?
1. There are X % chance that there would be some immigration bill that would help us and we will have GC in next couple of years?
2. Keep going on with life as is, till the time we can renew EAD every 2 years, and AP every year.
3. Wait for another X years, and then go back.
4. Hopefully my son/daughter will be 21 by 2020, and will sponsor my GC.
--- Hoping family based GC would still be allowed by then
5. Don't know, confused?
6. Look for entrepreneurial options & file in EB5. You get freedom from daily-job-rat-race and visa/GC hassles.
more...
pictures A quick design wallpaper to
EB2_Jun03_dude
02-21 05:11 PM
I-485: EB2 India with PD June 2003
I was wondering why I am I getting a LUD in Feb 08? (since EB2 India is 'U').
Now I know why :) it seems USCIS is getting ready for the deluge in April 08' :D
I was wondering why I am I getting a LUD in Feb 08? (since EB2 India is 'U').
Now I know why :) it seems USCIS is getting ready for the deluge in April 08' :D
dresses as my ackground wallpaper
luvschocolates
08-21 08:06 PM
Thank you to those of you who were kind enough to respond with helpful information and some understanding for my situation. I do appreciate that much.
And for those of you who were sarcastic and rude and accusing me of being illegal, if that was the case, then why has USCIS not stated that one time in all the correspondence I have had from them and why are they willing to give me a chance to file the required forms at this time?
They know where I live, who I live with and anything else they need to know. Illegal immigrants don't make themselves known to anybody that could/would report them. If I had something to hide, I would do so, but I have no secrets from them whatsoever. I have done all I have been asked to do and have the paperwork to prove it. I have not gotten a job anywhere outside of the home I live in and they are well aware of what I do here, I have not committed any crimes, my biometrics have come back clear, therefore I have no criminal record in my home country, so therefore I am not a threat whatsoever to anyone in the US.
No one at USCIS has ever stated by phone or mail that I am here illegally and if that was the case, I would think they would have been quick to deport me since they knew everything they needed to know in order to find me and still do. I have nothing to hide.
And for those of you who were sarcastic and rude and accusing me of being illegal, if that was the case, then why has USCIS not stated that one time in all the correspondence I have had from them and why are they willing to give me a chance to file the required forms at this time?
They know where I live, who I live with and anything else they need to know. Illegal immigrants don't make themselves known to anybody that could/would report them. If I had something to hide, I would do so, but I have no secrets from them whatsoever. I have done all I have been asked to do and have the paperwork to prove it. I have not gotten a job anywhere outside of the home I live in and they are well aware of what I do here, I have not committed any crimes, my biometrics have come back clear, therefore I have no criminal record in my home country, so therefore I am not a threat whatsoever to anyone in the US.
No one at USCIS has ever stated by phone or mail that I am here illegally and if that was the case, I would think they would have been quick to deport me since they knew everything they needed to know in order to find me and still do. I have nothing to hide.
more...
makeup geometric design wallpaper
arnab221
09-10 04:19 PM
This sucks man. Another reccess to delibrate on HR6020 and they will be back at 5:00 for a vote.
Who knows if we will ever get a chance to day or not. GURU's please give your opinions.
............................................
$470 till date
Maybe they will be too tired to vote and will all vote AYE !!!
Who knows if we will ever get a chance to day or not. GURU's please give your opinions.
............................................
$470 till date
Maybe they will be too tired to vote and will all vote AYE !!!
girlfriend design background
desidude
09-26 11:47 AM
I just sent an email to the editor... hope these mails open their eyes and they repost the correct article... :D
hairstyles Hut Wallpaper Background
frostrated
08-21 11:20 AM
I am NOT here illegally. I was told BY someone at USCIS when I submitted the first application that as long as I was submitting requested applications and the required fees, I was not considered an illegal alien. If that was the case, why has no one at USCIS ever told me that? They know where I live, who I live with and everything else they need to know, I have no secrets from them, but not once have I received a letter, phone call or anything else to request for me to leave. I guess those of you that are professionals or those who already have a green card, are better than people like myself who are considered blue collar. I don't receive a dime for what I do, room and board is it so therefore I am not taking away anything from Americans who were born in this country.
In 2003 when I arrived here, PASSPORTS WERE NOT REQUIRED. I had a birth certificate and valid driver's license, that is all customs asked for at the Toronto airport and that is all I gave them. IF passports were required, I would have gotten one, but since they were not, what was I to do? I am not from an overseas country and I have visited the US most of my life as a child and as an adult without any trouble and was never asked for a passport. All that changed in 2005 - not my fault.
I came here looking for some assistance but seem to have gotten a bunch of sarcastic comments that are really not helpful and weren't necessary.
It's funny how you make assumptions and you all are here for similar reasons and needed help at some point. As for not criticizing USCIS for doing their job right - I doubt you would say the same thing if you were my shoes. I do not appreciate the criticism or sarcasm, I thought this was supposed to be a place to get some help, I guess I was wrong.
I won't be back.
It is true that when you entered the country, passports were not required of Canadian citizens. But you overlook one aspect. Canadian citizens who are visitors to the United States need to leave at the end of 6 months. Any visitor who stays beyond six months is accuring illegal stay. If you came in 2005, either in late 2005 or early 2006 you started to accure illegal stay. This is not a fault of the USCIS, but yours in not finding out about the rule. Also, A visitor who intends to live, work or study in the U.S. may be permanently barred from the U.S. Please refer to Canadian Citizens • U.S. Consular Services in Canada (http://www.consular.canada.usembassy.gov/canadians.asp) for more details on your stay.
As for blaming the USCIS for not notifying you earlier, there are a plethora of applications pending before yours, so it will take time for them to look at your application. The additional forms that USCIS has asked you, were forms that you need to have sent when you applied your I-485. These were all suplments you would have found had you looked up the filing instructions. no I-485 can be approved without those forms. It has been law since the early 1990s when the law was made.
And, since you entered the country to marry your fiance, when that did not happen, you should have left and re-applied through another means. If the people you are looking after cannot afford to pay for your adjustment, and pay you only food and board, they are in fact breaking the law by hiring an illegal alien. Room and food is considered pay as far as USCIS is concerned.
In 2003 when I arrived here, PASSPORTS WERE NOT REQUIRED. I had a birth certificate and valid driver's license, that is all customs asked for at the Toronto airport and that is all I gave them. IF passports were required, I would have gotten one, but since they were not, what was I to do? I am not from an overseas country and I have visited the US most of my life as a child and as an adult without any trouble and was never asked for a passport. All that changed in 2005 - not my fault.
I came here looking for some assistance but seem to have gotten a bunch of sarcastic comments that are really not helpful and weren't necessary.
It's funny how you make assumptions and you all are here for similar reasons and needed help at some point. As for not criticizing USCIS for doing their job right - I doubt you would say the same thing if you were my shoes. I do not appreciate the criticism or sarcasm, I thought this was supposed to be a place to get some help, I guess I was wrong.
I won't be back.
It is true that when you entered the country, passports were not required of Canadian citizens. But you overlook one aspect. Canadian citizens who are visitors to the United States need to leave at the end of 6 months. Any visitor who stays beyond six months is accuring illegal stay. If you came in 2005, either in late 2005 or early 2006 you started to accure illegal stay. This is not a fault of the USCIS, but yours in not finding out about the rule. Also, A visitor who intends to live, work or study in the U.S. may be permanently barred from the U.S. Please refer to Canadian Citizens • U.S. Consular Services in Canada (http://www.consular.canada.usembassy.gov/canadians.asp) for more details on your stay.
As for blaming the USCIS for not notifying you earlier, there are a plethora of applications pending before yours, so it will take time for them to look at your application. The additional forms that USCIS has asked you, were forms that you need to have sent when you applied your I-485. These were all suplments you would have found had you looked up the filing instructions. no I-485 can be approved without those forms. It has been law since the early 1990s when the law was made.
And, since you entered the country to marry your fiance, when that did not happen, you should have left and re-applied through another means. If the people you are looking after cannot afford to pay for your adjustment, and pay you only food and board, they are in fact breaking the law by hiring an illegal alien. Room and food is considered pay as far as USCIS is concerned.
GCard_Dream
12-28 12:26 PM
Both of the flights were on the same itinerary and were booked through Thai. United was asking for money for international part of the travel because he said that Thai would charge United for the extra weight if United checked in the luggage all the way to Bangkok, which isn't really true because Thai did allow 70 LB then. I am not sure what the regulation is now.
I think you are right that the guy was probably ignorant and didn't really care becasue I wasn't flying United after LA anyways.
i have never had that problem
may have been because you booked those flights separately, if they are on the same itinerary and both were booked through Thai, United should not do that, guess they don't care because you are not continuing on United. btw how could they demand money for the international part of the flight- they are not Thai and their rules don't apply...i also think the person you dealt with was ignorant...
the problem i have seen- you fly into the US and have a connecting flight onwards- if you take it withing 24 hrs ie same day- bags just continue- if not you are stuck with domestic rules. now it no longer matters on american carriers at least, intl allowance has also been decreased to 50 lbs.
I think you are right that the guy was probably ignorant and didn't really care becasue I wasn't flying United after LA anyways.
i have never had that problem
may have been because you booked those flights separately, if they are on the same itinerary and both were booked through Thai, United should not do that, guess they don't care because you are not continuing on United. btw how could they demand money for the international part of the flight- they are not Thai and their rules don't apply...i also think the person you dealt with was ignorant...
the problem i have seen- you fly into the US and have a connecting flight onwards- if you take it withing 24 hrs ie same day- bags just continue- if not you are stuck with domestic rules. now it no longer matters on american carriers at least, intl allowance has also been decreased to 50 lbs.
srkamath
07-13 02:30 PM
I agree. Infact my application hasnt even been touched once (July 2, RD), no soft LUD either, even after FP .. makes me believe that there might be other applications out there too that have never been touched so far..so we cant assume that all the cases prior to July 2007 have already been pre-adjudicated, just because the processing-dates at NSC say July 2007. I think the processing dates reflect only those cases whose PD was current when the processing-dates timeframe came out. We will know more accurately when the processing-dates are updated next month. If the processing-dates, even after next month's update remain at July, 2007, then we can probably assume that our cases have already been pre-adjudicated. (still makes me wonder how that can happen without any soft LUDs at all, but anything is possible). I will keep my fingers crossed and hope for the best.
We should compare the processing date at NSC / TSC with the erroneous receipt date they show in the online case status. Their computer systems are more likely to have recorded that date than the presumably hand-typed receipt date on our I-485 receipt notices......
My actual receipt date is July 2nd, but the online case status shows Aug23 rd, i'm not expecting anything to happen until TSC proc. date gets past Aug 23rd.
We should compare the processing date at NSC / TSC with the erroneous receipt date they show in the online case status. Their computer systems are more likely to have recorded that date than the presumably hand-typed receipt date on our I-485 receipt notices......
My actual receipt date is July 2nd, but the online case status shows Aug23 rd, i'm not expecting anything to happen until TSC proc. date gets past Aug 23rd.