jonty_11
07-06 01:31 PM
Why USCIS suddenly did this press release? Something fishy?
see now this rumor is taking steam.....this would make james WAtt proud...
I think we are onto something here.
see now this rumor is taking steam.....this would make james WAtt proud...
I think we are onto something here.
us-alien
07-23 05:22 PM
Guys, We just got the magic e-mail.!!
Card Production ordered
PD AUG 2004
RD :FEB 2005
EB3 INDIA :) :) :)
thx everyone for your help and suppport!!
Here's my analysis on how this case which a late PD could have been approved this fast:
1) this labor might have been approved from one those states which had fast approvals was able to able to apply for concurrent filing before jan 1st, 2005 when EB3 retrogressed.
2) since there were very less cases between 2003-2004 in I-485 (due to slow BEC processing), this particular case was selected based on RD.
3) but with the current openings, there will be a lot of cases between 2003-2004 enough to use up the numbers esp for india until the next several years.
So i dont think we can guess that the I-485 dates will now be at 2005 or later.
Card Production ordered
PD AUG 2004
RD :FEB 2005
EB3 INDIA :) :) :)
thx everyone for your help and suppport!!
Here's my analysis on how this case which a late PD could have been approved this fast:
1) this labor might have been approved from one those states which had fast approvals was able to able to apply for concurrent filing before jan 1st, 2005 when EB3 retrogressed.
2) since there were very less cases between 2003-2004 in I-485 (due to slow BEC processing), this particular case was selected based on RD.
3) but with the current openings, there will be a lot of cases between 2003-2004 enough to use up the numbers esp for india until the next several years.
So i dont think we can guess that the I-485 dates will now be at 2005 or later.
Karthikthiru
09-09 12:32 PM
Just contributed another $ 100 for the Sept 18th rally. Already sponsored a ticket for a person for the rally. I cannot attend the rally because I have a son who will be joining pre-school from Sept 17. So I need to be in stay in Dallas for the first week or so from Sept 17th
Karthik
Karthik
addsf345
11-20 03:38 PM
Some benefits can be revoked automatically (I-140, I-485), some can be revoked only after determination is made by USCIS and a beneficiary is notified and has an opportunity to respond. EAD is one of the latter.
See e.g., 8 CFR Part 205 titled "Revocation of approval of petitions". It has two sections: 205.1 Automatic revocation and 205.2 Revocation on notice.
http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/PDFgate.cgi?WAISdocID=203798478322+8+2+0&WAISaction=retrieve
EAD is not listed in Sec. 205.1. Moreover, 8 CFR �274a.12(c) specifically lists reasons for automatic revocation. I-485 denial is not listed as such a reason. Therefore, EAD remains valid even after I-485 denial untill it expires or until USCIS director revokes it. I do not see any basis for a different legal interpretation.
See also this court of appeals (8th Cir.) decision where the court says that automatic revocation occurs only if a specific condition specified in the laws and regs is met:
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/399/399.F3d.891.04-1132.html
"The district court thought that her adoptive father's petition for immediate relative status was automatically revoked when Taylor reached age 21, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. � 205.1(a)(3)(i)(F), but the record does not appear to support that conclusion. The automatic revocation occurs only if the alien reaches age 21 before commencing her journey to the United States (which Taylor did not) or if the alien reaches age 21 before a decision on a pending application for adjustment of status becomes final (and there is no evidence in the record that Taylor ever applied for adjustment of status). See 8 C.F.R. � 205.1(a)(3). Thus, it is possible that the petition for immediate relative status was not revoked when Taylor reached age 21, but rather � if the 1984 visa petition was "currently valid" as of her 21st birthday � automatically converted to an approved petition for classification as an unmarried daughter of a citizen of the United States, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. � 204.2(i)(2). See 8 U.S.C. � 1153(a)(1). In that case, Taylor may have been legally present throughout her time in the United States."
Thank you 'lazycis' for reconfirming this. Just 2 weeks back I used to think that keep working on H1B is lot safer than using EAD :o
See e.g., 8 CFR Part 205 titled "Revocation of approval of petitions". It has two sections: 205.1 Automatic revocation and 205.2 Revocation on notice.
http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/PDFgate.cgi?WAISdocID=203798478322+8+2+0&WAISaction=retrieve
EAD is not listed in Sec. 205.1. Moreover, 8 CFR �274a.12(c) specifically lists reasons for automatic revocation. I-485 denial is not listed as such a reason. Therefore, EAD remains valid even after I-485 denial untill it expires or until USCIS director revokes it. I do not see any basis for a different legal interpretation.
See also this court of appeals (8th Cir.) decision where the court says that automatic revocation occurs only if a specific condition specified in the laws and regs is met:
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/399/399.F3d.891.04-1132.html
"The district court thought that her adoptive father's petition for immediate relative status was automatically revoked when Taylor reached age 21, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. � 205.1(a)(3)(i)(F), but the record does not appear to support that conclusion. The automatic revocation occurs only if the alien reaches age 21 before commencing her journey to the United States (which Taylor did not) or if the alien reaches age 21 before a decision on a pending application for adjustment of status becomes final (and there is no evidence in the record that Taylor ever applied for adjustment of status). See 8 C.F.R. � 205.1(a)(3). Thus, it is possible that the petition for immediate relative status was not revoked when Taylor reached age 21, but rather � if the 1984 visa petition was "currently valid" as of her 21st birthday � automatically converted to an approved petition for classification as an unmarried daughter of a citizen of the United States, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. � 204.2(i)(2). See 8 U.S.C. � 1153(a)(1). In that case, Taylor may have been legally present throughout her time in the United States."
Thank you 'lazycis' for reconfirming this. Just 2 weeks back I used to think that keep working on H1B is lot safer than using EAD :o
more...
Libra
09-11 04:56 PM
thank you saikatmandal.
gc_on_demand
06-10 10:00 AM
There is a chance of EB1 & EB2 ROW spillover :D
US bulletin is out too:
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4252.html
EMPLOYMENT SECOND PREFERENCE VISA AVAILABILITY
There have been questions raised regarding the way numbers have been provided to the China and India in the Employment Second preference categories beginning in April. Section 202(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act states that if total demand for visas in an Employment preference category is insufficient to use all available visa numbers in that category in a calendar quarter, then the unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limit. (For example: If the second preference annual limit were 40,000, number use by �All Other Countries� were estimated to be only 25,000, and the China/India combined number use based on their per-country limits were 6,000, then there would be 9,000 numbers unused. Those 9,000 numbers could then be made available to China and India applicants without regard to their per-country limits.)
Based on the informaiton available, it was been determined that the demand from �All Other Countries� for Second preference numbers, plus the amount of numbers available under China and India Second preference per-country limit, would be insufficient to utilize all available numbers under the annual limit for this category. Therefore, pursuant to Section 202(a)(5) of the Act, the unused numbers have been made available to China and India Second preference applicants. Since Section 203(e)(1) of the Act requires that such unused numbers be made available strictly in priority date order, the China and India applicants have been subject to the identical cut-off date. As there are more Employment Second preference applicants from India and the Indian applicants may have earlier priority dates, it is likely that Indian applicants will receive a larger portion of the available numbers than Chinese applicants.
It should be noted that the Employment Second preference category is "Current" for all countries except China and India. If at any point it appears that demand from �All Other Countries� would utilize all available numbers, then an adjustment would be made to the China/India cut-off date. Therefore, providing the unused numbers to China and India in no way disadvantages applicants from any other country, and helps to insure that the worldwide annual limit can be reached.
EMPLOYMENT THIRD PREFERENCE VISA AVAILABILITY
Demand for numbers, primarily by USCIS for adjustment of status cases, will bring the entire Employment Third preference category to the annual numerical limit by the end of June. As a result, this category will become �unavailable� beginning in July and will remain so for the remainder of FY-2008. Such action will only be temporary, however, and Employment Third preference availability will return to the cut-off dates established for June in October, the first month of the new fiscal year.
Dont dream .. Out of 140k it can be max 10-20k unused nos. Will it be useful for half million applications ???
US bulletin is out too:
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4252.html
EMPLOYMENT SECOND PREFERENCE VISA AVAILABILITY
There have been questions raised regarding the way numbers have been provided to the China and India in the Employment Second preference categories beginning in April. Section 202(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act states that if total demand for visas in an Employment preference category is insufficient to use all available visa numbers in that category in a calendar quarter, then the unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limit. (For example: If the second preference annual limit were 40,000, number use by �All Other Countries� were estimated to be only 25,000, and the China/India combined number use based on their per-country limits were 6,000, then there would be 9,000 numbers unused. Those 9,000 numbers could then be made available to China and India applicants without regard to their per-country limits.)
Based on the informaiton available, it was been determined that the demand from �All Other Countries� for Second preference numbers, plus the amount of numbers available under China and India Second preference per-country limit, would be insufficient to utilize all available numbers under the annual limit for this category. Therefore, pursuant to Section 202(a)(5) of the Act, the unused numbers have been made available to China and India Second preference applicants. Since Section 203(e)(1) of the Act requires that such unused numbers be made available strictly in priority date order, the China and India applicants have been subject to the identical cut-off date. As there are more Employment Second preference applicants from India and the Indian applicants may have earlier priority dates, it is likely that Indian applicants will receive a larger portion of the available numbers than Chinese applicants.
It should be noted that the Employment Second preference category is "Current" for all countries except China and India. If at any point it appears that demand from �All Other Countries� would utilize all available numbers, then an adjustment would be made to the China/India cut-off date. Therefore, providing the unused numbers to China and India in no way disadvantages applicants from any other country, and helps to insure that the worldwide annual limit can be reached.
EMPLOYMENT THIRD PREFERENCE VISA AVAILABILITY
Demand for numbers, primarily by USCIS for adjustment of status cases, will bring the entire Employment Third preference category to the annual numerical limit by the end of June. As a result, this category will become �unavailable� beginning in July and will remain so for the remainder of FY-2008. Such action will only be temporary, however, and Employment Third preference availability will return to the cut-off dates established for June in October, the first month of the new fiscal year.
Dont dream .. Out of 140k it can be max 10-20k unused nos. Will it be useful for half million applications ???
more...
singhsa3
07-20 04:03 PM
The numbers are assumptions and NOT facts. Most of these numbers have actually been pulled from other places or based on some rationale (for example 750,000 from Matthew Oh site, 5 minutes/EAD based on what need to be done to print out a card and pack in an envelop)
Workforce of 30 though is a gross assumption. Bigger the number better it is. So we may actually want to question USCIS if there are any resource constraints.
Outsourcing is a perfect Idea! What do you have in mind Wipro at Banglore? :D
What about receipt notices? Isn't that teh first step? I do not believe it will take 20 months to get a receipt notice. Are you sure they have only 30 folks for EAD. Is that a known fact? What if it is 300?
How about outsourcing it?
Workforce of 30 though is a gross assumption. Bigger the number better it is. So we may actually want to question USCIS if there are any resource constraints.
Outsourcing is a perfect Idea! What do you have in mind Wipro at Banglore? :D
What about receipt notices? Isn't that teh first step? I do not believe it will take 20 months to get a receipt notice. Are you sure they have only 30 folks for EAD. Is that a known fact? What if it is 300?
How about outsourcing it?
abhisam
07-13 04:47 PM
count us in..simi valley
more...
mirage
07-05 12:38 PM
Yes, They always do that. I did fill that form for my Senator and congressman when they did inquiry for my application in the backlog center.
I sent faxes to my senators and congressman on 2nd july. But haven't heard back from them. When they'll reply they will send me the same form.
I wrote letters to Cornyn and Hutcison about the situation. They have asked me to fill the privacy form authorizing the senator to access my data. Did anyone do this?
I sent faxes to my senators and congressman on 2nd july. But haven't heard back from them. When they'll reply they will send me the same form.
I wrote letters to Cornyn and Hutcison about the situation. They have asked me to fill the privacy form authorizing the senator to access my data. Did anyone do this?
jthomas
03-18 11:46 AM
mmm...didnt knew about this..After living and working here for ten years, i am still in-eligible for the tax rebate...phew!!!! (filed jointly, no SSN for my wife)..maybe i will claim it all next year....I am eternally optimistic :-)
I understand your point. How about we group everybody who won't be eligible for tax rebate this year and then write letters/fax to law makers, and others working in that area.
That should make our Highly skilled immigrant community visible. Newspaper editors are always in a look out for new articles. Why don't we make an article and give it to all our local newspaper editors.
I understand your point. How about we group everybody who won't be eligible for tax rebate this year and then write letters/fax to law makers, and others working in that area.
That should make our Highly skilled immigrant community visible. Newspaper editors are always in a look out for new articles. Why don't we make an article and give it to all our local newspaper editors.
more...
ronhira
07-06 02:32 PM
Guys for sake of transparency and moving ahead with a change, we should hold elections for the core team. Lobbying efforts are not working at all.
absolutely, i need to see microsoft projects to keep track of the lobbying project. why can't the current folks show progress as per the microsoft projects plan. after the end of time and budget, we need to see the result in the form of our GC. that's how we do all our projects at work. why is this lobbying thing any different.
if i can summarize bawa's point, we need to cut all ties with democrats, trash obama repeatedly unless we are sure that we have aligned with sarah palin and we are sure that we have been sidelined for next 8 years. wonderful strategy to ensure 100% failure, i luv it, the change we can believe in.
absolutely, i need to see microsoft projects to keep track of the lobbying project. why can't the current folks show progress as per the microsoft projects plan. after the end of time and budget, we need to see the result in the form of our GC. that's how we do all our projects at work. why is this lobbying thing any different.
if i can summarize bawa's point, we need to cut all ties with democrats, trash obama repeatedly unless we are sure that we have aligned with sarah palin and we are sure that we have been sidelined for next 8 years. wonderful strategy to ensure 100% failure, i luv it, the change we can believe in.
dpp
10-11 09:00 PM
We cannot start a S-corp on EAD. Need to be GC holder or US Citizen.
The Internal Revenue Code provides that a Corporation filed with any U.S. state shall be taxed under "Subchapter C." This essentially means that all Corporations start out as C-Corporations for tax purposes.
Should a Corporation's owners later wish to be taxed as an S-Corporation, they would file a "Subchapter S" federal tax election (Form 2553) within 75 days of incorporating or within 75 days of the beginning of the calendar year. To do this, the Corporation would need to have less than 100 owners, all of whom must be either U.S. Citizens or permanent resident aliens ("green card" holders). Once the "S" tax election is made, the return to be filed is the 1120 "S", rather than the 1120. Whether or not you decide to be taxed as an S-Corporation, your company is still a "General Corporation" in the eyes of the state of incorporation.
http://www.incnow.com/incorporating.shtml
http://www.legalzoom.com/incorporation-guide/definition-of-s-corporation.html
But we can setup Solo or Partership or C-Corp. Don't run into legal issues by setting up S-Corp on EAD, before getting GC.
Good luck.
The Internal Revenue Code provides that a Corporation filed with any U.S. state shall be taxed under "Subchapter C." This essentially means that all Corporations start out as C-Corporations for tax purposes.
Should a Corporation's owners later wish to be taxed as an S-Corporation, they would file a "Subchapter S" federal tax election (Form 2553) within 75 days of incorporating or within 75 days of the beginning of the calendar year. To do this, the Corporation would need to have less than 100 owners, all of whom must be either U.S. Citizens or permanent resident aliens ("green card" holders). Once the "S" tax election is made, the return to be filed is the 1120 "S", rather than the 1120. Whether or not you decide to be taxed as an S-Corporation, your company is still a "General Corporation" in the eyes of the state of incorporation.
http://www.incnow.com/incorporating.shtml
http://www.legalzoom.com/incorporation-guide/definition-of-s-corporation.html
But we can setup Solo or Partership or C-Corp. Don't run into legal issues by setting up S-Corp on EAD, before getting GC.
Good luck.
more...
mallu
03-31 09:55 PM
.... We have NO RIGHTS WHATSOEVER to ask for that.
There may not be rights, but certainly immigrants can request law makers to deal with a dysfunctional organization like USCIS. And USCIS can be dragged to court via WOM and most of the time judges understand the immigrant situation and serve justice.
There may not be rights, but certainly immigrants can request law makers to deal with a dysfunctional organization like USCIS. And USCIS can be dragged to court via WOM and most of the time judges understand the immigrant situation and serve justice.
gjoe
10-03 04:47 PM
We have to first fight to get all visa number allocated. How?
1) Assign visa numbers to all I485 cases based on PD at the begining of each year
2) After assigning the visa number they can do the rest of the processing
3) If application is denied they can transfer the visa number to the next application in queue as per the PD
I think this is a good start and fair system which would slove some of the problem we have today.
We can work on getting the backlog eliminated seperately because this issue is going to take lot of efforts, money and politics.
1) Assign visa numbers to all I485 cases based on PD at the begining of each year
2) After assigning the visa number they can do the rest of the processing
3) If application is denied they can transfer the visa number to the next application in queue as per the PD
I think this is a good start and fair system which would slove some of the problem we have today.
We can work on getting the backlog eliminated seperately because this issue is going to take lot of efforts, money and politics.
more...
amitjoey
07-18 03:48 PM
Hi everyone!
I just realized that USCIS has made a mistake in I-140 approval notice. My labor and I-140 application was for EB-3. However, my lawyer made a mistake in checking EB-2 box instead of EB-3 box in the I-140 application. All other description and details were for EB-3.
USCIS also sent an RFE to know whether the application is for EB-2 or EB-3. My lawyer promptly responded that it was an honest mistake and the application was for EB-3.
Just today I realized that despite our response to RFE, USCIS gave and approval notice of I-140 for EB-2 and not EB-3.
I don't know, if my lawyer has noticed this mistake yet. I want to apply for AOS now and don't want to draw my employer / lawyer attention to it as I don't know what their reaction will be.
Can any one please advice me if this will have any adverse implication down the line? I am concerned as the approval is inconsistent with the labor approval that was with the intention of filing under EB-3. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!
My opinion (Just my opinion, use with risk). You should let your attorney know, and come clean with it. They will put in an explanation that such a mistake happened, but it is really EB-3. You have nothing to worry, since your attorney has already pointed it out earlier to USCIS, and that documentation should be included. This is much easier than having to deal with it later and being stuck. Ofcourse your attorney should know what to do, and s/he knows the importance of filing I-485 NOW, so they can advise much better.
I just realized that USCIS has made a mistake in I-140 approval notice. My labor and I-140 application was for EB-3. However, my lawyer made a mistake in checking EB-2 box instead of EB-3 box in the I-140 application. All other description and details were for EB-3.
USCIS also sent an RFE to know whether the application is for EB-2 or EB-3. My lawyer promptly responded that it was an honest mistake and the application was for EB-3.
Just today I realized that despite our response to RFE, USCIS gave and approval notice of I-140 for EB-2 and not EB-3.
I don't know, if my lawyer has noticed this mistake yet. I want to apply for AOS now and don't want to draw my employer / lawyer attention to it as I don't know what their reaction will be.
Can any one please advice me if this will have any adverse implication down the line? I am concerned as the approval is inconsistent with the labor approval that was with the intention of filing under EB-3. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!
My opinion (Just my opinion, use with risk). You should let your attorney know, and come clean with it. They will put in an explanation that such a mistake happened, but it is really EB-3. You have nothing to worry, since your attorney has already pointed it out earlier to USCIS, and that documentation should be included. This is much easier than having to deal with it later and being stuck. Ofcourse your attorney should know what to do, and s/he knows the importance of filing I-485 NOW, so they can advise much better.
ArkBird
03-05 09:28 PM
My PD is March-2003 and I didn't get the labor cleared till Late 2006
I just can't help wondering how did you get your labor in 2004 with the PD of May-2003? How come snake of BEC didn't bite you? :)
My adjustment application is pending for almost five years now. I was not in the habit of tracking LUDs but of late I was tracking and concluded that most of the time it means nothing.
Here is what happened today. My attorney had applied for my travel document on Jan 28. I got three soft LUDs between Feb 8 to 10. Status remaing same "Case received and pending". To my surprise today I received my travel documents from my attorney. The issue date on the document is March 5. My attorney mailed it to me on March 3, I believe as soon as he received it.
The last LUD on my case is still Feb 10 and the status still says "Received and Pending".
I think we should not go too much by the LUDs.
I just can't help wondering how did you get your labor in 2004 with the PD of May-2003? How come snake of BEC didn't bite you? :)
My adjustment application is pending for almost five years now. I was not in the habit of tracking LUDs but of late I was tracking and concluded that most of the time it means nothing.
Here is what happened today. My attorney had applied for my travel document on Jan 28. I got three soft LUDs between Feb 8 to 10. Status remaing same "Case received and pending". To my surprise today I received my travel documents from my attorney. The issue date on the document is March 5. My attorney mailed it to me on March 3, I believe as soon as he received it.
The last LUD on my case is still Feb 10 and the status still says "Received and Pending".
I think we should not go too much by the LUDs.
more...
chanduv23
09-12 12:20 PM
why do we have to get names from people...
simply decide a course of action... like send out letters or the big-as calculator brother singhsa3 suggested and let them ship it out individually
Well - what I am suggesting is - the more the authenticity - the more effective. The more the anonymous the less effective.
It is not about names or addresses - it is about genuineness.
simply decide a course of action... like send out letters or the big-as calculator brother singhsa3 suggested and let them ship it out individually
Well - what I am suggesting is - the more the authenticity - the more effective. The more the anonymous the less effective.
It is not about names or addresses - it is about genuineness.
gclabor07
07-11 10:52 AM
Folks,
Congrats to all those who are current. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for my chance to file I-485. It would really benefit the rest of us who missed the last July 07 boat.
Congrats to all those who are current. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for my chance to file I-485. It would really benefit the rest of us who missed the last July 07 boat.
ArkBird
08-12 03:10 PM
Am I the only one here feeling like being used as toilet paper waiting to get flushed with other "stuff" ??
suriajay12
03-07 07:24 AM
http://www.shusterman.com/
news ticker mentions Eb3 ROW and Eb3 phillipines will Retrogress by 1 year to 2004. (He mentions a phone call from Hillary, not too sure whether to believe it)
Could this be futher indication that the spill over from Eb1 and Eb4 and Eb5 will go to Eb2 India and China?
only Monday will tell... This is one nerve wracking weekend.
immigration-law.com also says the same thngs:
"03/07/2009: Wild-Fire Rumor of EB-3 One Year Retrogression for Worldwide Category in April 2009 Visa Bulletin
* The April 2009 Visa Bulletin is likely released shortly. However, there is a wild fire burning towns all over from the rumor that EB-3 visa numbers will be moved backward for one full year for Rest of World category in the April 2009 Visa Bulletin. The sources of the information appear to be credible, but we will have to wait and see. "
news ticker mentions Eb3 ROW and Eb3 phillipines will Retrogress by 1 year to 2004. (He mentions a phone call from Hillary, not too sure whether to believe it)
Could this be futher indication that the spill over from Eb1 and Eb4 and Eb5 will go to Eb2 India and China?
only Monday will tell... This is one nerve wracking weekend.
immigration-law.com also says the same thngs:
"03/07/2009: Wild-Fire Rumor of EB-3 One Year Retrogression for Worldwide Category in April 2009 Visa Bulletin
* The April 2009 Visa Bulletin is likely released shortly. However, there is a wild fire burning towns all over from the rumor that EB-3 visa numbers will be moved backward for one full year for Rest of World category in the April 2009 Visa Bulletin. The sources of the information appear to be credible, but we will have to wait and see. "
swo
07-23 10:58 AM
Show me the law that says they MUST use 140,000. Sadly, I think you're wrong.
Enforce EXECUTIVE BRANCH AGENCY - USCIS to consume unused EB Numbers
Firstly, the executive branch agency USCIS failed to UPHOLD the law by not fully issuing 140,000 numbers when there was hugh backlog.
Secondly, Change the following:
1. Allow USCIS to use previous unused EB numbers since 2000.
2. Change the way the Dept. of State allocates the EB numbers throughout the Fiscal Year. The Dept. of State should allocate the EB numbers UNIFORMLY across the 4 QUARTERS.
Enforce EXECUTIVE BRANCH AGENCY - USCIS to consume unused EB Numbers
Firstly, the executive branch agency USCIS failed to UPHOLD the law by not fully issuing 140,000 numbers when there was hugh backlog.
Secondly, Change the following:
1. Allow USCIS to use previous unused EB numbers since 2000.
2. Change the way the Dept. of State allocates the EB numbers throughout the Fiscal Year. The Dept. of State should allocate the EB numbers UNIFORMLY across the 4 QUARTERS.
No comments:
Post a Comment