agadre
06-29 06:12 PM
Nothing will happen. The dates will be retrogresses on Monday. May be we will see 'U' in Visa Bulletin. The AILA will try to pursue DOS and USICS but they will politely say "sorry for the trouble" This will lead to the law suit. Some people will submit their resignation. In the next year you will see those at some higher post somewhere.
Wow. We are living in the great country built by Immigrants were there is no value of Immigrant. For undocumented immigrants, there are senators to help them. For rich people, they have money so don't have to do anything. For middle class immigrant like you and me IV forum is there to show our frustration.
I am now seriously thinking of going back to my home country were I would be considered moron who came back from US.
Who said US is very differnet from India..:D
Wow. We are living in the great country built by Immigrants were there is no value of Immigrant. For undocumented immigrants, there are senators to help them. For rich people, they have money so don't have to do anything. For middle class immigrant like you and me IV forum is there to show our frustration.
I am now seriously thinking of going back to my home country were I would be considered moron who came back from US.
Who said US is very differnet from India..:D
wallpaper compaq wallpaper. Compaq Hp
waitforevergc
05-09 08:35 PM
Thomas:
There is no point preaching things to lunatics like Hunter. Let us just ignore him.
There are a lot of people like him on internet. We cant educate everyone.
Moderators, please block such people in their initial comments in the future.
There is no point preaching things to lunatics like Hunter. Let us just ignore him.
There are a lot of people like him on internet. We cant educate everyone.
Moderators, please block such people in their initial comments in the future.
amitjoey
07-09 07:54 PM
We need media, print media. Talk shows, ?.? dont know.
2011 wallpaper compaq wallpaper
EB2DEC152005
08-18 09:44 PM
Finally I am greened.
For me here is the status.
Card/ Document Production
On August 18, 2010, we ordered production of your new card. Please allow 30 days for your card to be mailed to you. If we need something from you we will contact you. If you move before you receive the card, call customer service at 1-800-375-5283.
For my wife, status is like this.
Decision
On August 18, 2010, we mailed you a notice that we had registered this customer's new permanent resident status. Please follow any instructions on the notice. Your new permanent resident card should be mailed within 60 days following this registration or after you complete any ADIT processing referred to in the welcome notice, whichever is later. If you move before receiving your card, please call our customer service center at 1-800-375-5283.
Did anybody get the above status? What does not it mean?
For me here is the status.
Card/ Document Production
On August 18, 2010, we ordered production of your new card. Please allow 30 days for your card to be mailed to you. If we need something from you we will contact you. If you move before you receive the card, call customer service at 1-800-375-5283.
For my wife, status is like this.
Decision
On August 18, 2010, we mailed you a notice that we had registered this customer's new permanent resident status. Please follow any instructions on the notice. Your new permanent resident card should be mailed within 60 days following this registration or after you complete any ADIT processing referred to in the welcome notice, whichever is later. If you move before receiving your card, please call our customer service center at 1-800-375-5283.
Did anybody get the above status? What does not it mean?
more...
CADude
10-12 06:54 PM
Please send your proof to Email: "PublicAffairs, CISOmbudsman" <CISOmbudsman.Publicaffairs@dhs.gov>. This will help for future applicants. I don't want anyone go though this random waiting game. Thank you
wow.. I finally got my receipt numbers.. I called USCIS and it seems it was just entered into the system today. It starts with LIN...
EB3 India
PD-Dec02, I-140-Nov06 TSC
July 2, Got the receipt for I-485 and EAD today
wow.. I finally got my receipt numbers.. I called USCIS and it seems it was just entered into the system today. It starts with LIN...
EB3 India
PD-Dec02, I-140-Nov06 TSC
July 2, Got the receipt for I-485 and EAD today
ivy55
06-19 12:48 PM
I have the following question
1.I have approved an I140 from Vermont. Where do I submit my I485 do I have to enclose I140
2. My spouse and children are in the US do I need to submit affidavit of support, W2 etc
3. There is an A3 in my Labour Certification but not in the I140, do I use this A# in the I485
Thanks
1.I have approved an I140 from Vermont. Where do I submit my I485 do I have to enclose I140
2. My spouse and children are in the US do I need to submit affidavit of support, W2 etc
3. There is an A3 in my Labour Certification but not in the I140, do I use this A# in the I485
Thanks
more...
seahawks
09-14 12:31 AM
you guys might want to talk to your attorneys. Most of the time attorneys ping with their contact in service centers and get some answers if it is still not receipted.
Most of them have an email id whom they contact and find out normally. I am not sure if service centers are responsive if there are huge amounts of data entry still going on.
Most of them have an email id whom they contact and find out normally. I am not sure if service centers are responsive if there are huge amounts of data entry still going on.
2010 tattoo 2010 compaq wallpaper.
inderman
10-21 02:11 PM
There are plenty of folks waiting approval like you including me as well... If your attorney has followed up with USCIS and if u have created an SR, thats probably the best you could do to let USCIS know that they shudn't b sitting on ur case...
Lets hope for the best.... Keep us updated if u see an LUD or get an update...
Lets hope for the best.... Keep us updated if u see an LUD or get an update...
more...
syedn
08-16 04:38 PM
I got welcome notice last week but no news on wife's application.
Opened SR, sent email, took infopass but no news..
Any idea how to move it forward.
Same situation. Opened an ombudsman investigation...
Opened SR, sent email, took infopass but no news..
Any idea how to move it forward.
Same situation. Opened an ombudsman investigation...
hair wallpaper windows 7. windows 7
gccovet
11-07 10:37 AM
How can we get this issue more visible to IV members? Just 64 letter is not enough. We are a community of 30K strong!!!
Folks,
Please start ending letters, ask/encourage your peers to send them as well.
Looks like most of IV members are being ignorant of these issue, this will be a big issue if not acted fast. We need to get it corrected before it becomes a major one. Look at DOL's unemployment figures 6.5% unemployment was announced!!!! Worst since 1994.
Please act on these.
Thanks for your support.
GCCovet
Folks,
Please start ending letters, ask/encourage your peers to send them as well.
Looks like most of IV members are being ignorant of these issue, this will be a big issue if not acted fast. We need to get it corrected before it becomes a major one. Look at DOL's unemployment figures 6.5% unemployment was announced!!!! Worst since 1994.
Please act on these.
Thanks for your support.
GCCovet
more...
DallasBlue
08-12 02:44 PM
http://www.ailf.org/lac/clearinghouse_mandamus.shtml
Plaintiffs' Arguments
Plaintiffs have responded to USCIS with legal arguments summarized below. The case citations provide recent examples of cases where the courts have agreed with plaintiffs' arguments. For further discussion of the elements of a successful mandamus complaint, see AILF's Practice Advisory, "Mandamus Actions: Avoiding Dismissal and Proving the Case."
1) Plaintiffs have a clear right to have their adjustment applications and visa petitions adjudicated in a timely manner.
Plaintiffs maintain that the right to adjudication is derived from USCIS's mandatory duty to process the applications and the fact that plaintiffs are the intended beneficiaries of the applications. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (providing that the "applicant shall be notified of the decision of the director and, if the application is denied, the reasons for the denial"); Haidari v. Frazier, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177, *10 (D. Minn. 2006) (holding that 8 C.F.R. � 209.2 creates a nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate adjustment applications).
The plaintiffs' right to a timely adjudication, though not explicit in the regulation, is present in section 555(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires that "with due regard for the convenience and necessity of the parties or their representatives and within a reasonable time, each agency shall proceed to conclude a matter presented to it." See Haidari, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *11. To determine if a delay is unreasonable, courts examine the reasons for delay. For example, they look to whether USCIS asked for the FBI name check in a timely manner and whether USCIS failed to timely process the applications before requesting the name check and after receiving the information from the FBI. See Haidari, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *16-17; Singh v. Still, No. 06-2458, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16334, *13-14 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (reasoning that respondents failed to explain why it took two-and-a-half years to initiate a security check with the FBI, why no action was taken to follow up with the FBI until the mandamus suit was filed, and why it took so long to process plaintiff's initial fingerprints); Aboushaban v. Mueller, No. 06-1280, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81076, *14 (N.D. Cal. 2006) ("[t]he FBI's delay in processing plaintiff's name check remains largely unexplained, and the remainder of defendants' arguments do not adequately excuse the delays plaintiff encountered.").
2) USCIS has a nondiscretionary duty to process applications and petitions.
USCIS has the discretion to grant or deny the application, but this does not bear on the nondiscretionary duty to make a decision on the application or petition. See Razaq v. Poulos, No. 06-2461, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 770, *9-10 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (reasoning that the fact that there is no specific deadline in the statute or regulation does not change the ministerial duty to process the application). In addition, INA � 242(a)(2)(B)(ii), 8 U.S.C. �1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), does not strip the court of jurisdiction to hear mandamus actions because no "decision or action" has taken place within the meaning of the statutory language. See Haidari, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *13-14 (D. Minn. 2006) (reasoning that because plaintiffs have neither been denied nor granted relief, � 242(a)(2)(B) does not bar jurisdiction); Li Duan v. Zamberry, No. 06-1351, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12697, *6-7 (W.D. Pa. 2007) (finding that INA � 242(a)(2)(B) does not apply because the pace of the adjudication of applications is not the type of discretionary "action" contemplated by the statute). For more information and earlier case law addressing discretionary decisions after the REAL ID Act please see AILF Practice Advisory, "Federal Court Jurisdiction Over Discretionary Decisions After REAL ID: Mandamus, Other Affirmative Suits and Petitions for Review."
3) There is no other remedy available to plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs also have argued that waiting for security checks to be completed is not an adequate remedy. The fact that plaintiffs are waiting is the exact harm plaintiffs are seeking to remedy. See Singh, No. 06-2458, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16334 at *23-24 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ("waiting for an agency to act cannot logically be an adequate alternative to an order compelling the agency to act. . .") (citations omitted); Haidari, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *15 (D. Minn. 2006) (reasoning that waiting is not an adequate remedy because the question is whether plaintiffs have an adequate alternative remedy to the waiting itself).
Plaintiffs' Arguments
Plaintiffs have responded to USCIS with legal arguments summarized below. The case citations provide recent examples of cases where the courts have agreed with plaintiffs' arguments. For further discussion of the elements of a successful mandamus complaint, see AILF's Practice Advisory, "Mandamus Actions: Avoiding Dismissal and Proving the Case."
1) Plaintiffs have a clear right to have their adjustment applications and visa petitions adjudicated in a timely manner.
Plaintiffs maintain that the right to adjudication is derived from USCIS's mandatory duty to process the applications and the fact that plaintiffs are the intended beneficiaries of the applications. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (providing that the "applicant shall be notified of the decision of the director and, if the application is denied, the reasons for the denial"); Haidari v. Frazier, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177, *10 (D. Minn. 2006) (holding that 8 C.F.R. � 209.2 creates a nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate adjustment applications).
The plaintiffs' right to a timely adjudication, though not explicit in the regulation, is present in section 555(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires that "with due regard for the convenience and necessity of the parties or their representatives and within a reasonable time, each agency shall proceed to conclude a matter presented to it." See Haidari, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *11. To determine if a delay is unreasonable, courts examine the reasons for delay. For example, they look to whether USCIS asked for the FBI name check in a timely manner and whether USCIS failed to timely process the applications before requesting the name check and after receiving the information from the FBI. See Haidari, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *16-17; Singh v. Still, No. 06-2458, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16334, *13-14 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (reasoning that respondents failed to explain why it took two-and-a-half years to initiate a security check with the FBI, why no action was taken to follow up with the FBI until the mandamus suit was filed, and why it took so long to process plaintiff's initial fingerprints); Aboushaban v. Mueller, No. 06-1280, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81076, *14 (N.D. Cal. 2006) ("[t]he FBI's delay in processing plaintiff's name check remains largely unexplained, and the remainder of defendants' arguments do not adequately excuse the delays plaintiff encountered.").
2) USCIS has a nondiscretionary duty to process applications and petitions.
USCIS has the discretion to grant or deny the application, but this does not bear on the nondiscretionary duty to make a decision on the application or petition. See Razaq v. Poulos, No. 06-2461, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 770, *9-10 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (reasoning that the fact that there is no specific deadline in the statute or regulation does not change the ministerial duty to process the application). In addition, INA � 242(a)(2)(B)(ii), 8 U.S.C. �1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), does not strip the court of jurisdiction to hear mandamus actions because no "decision or action" has taken place within the meaning of the statutory language. See Haidari, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *13-14 (D. Minn. 2006) (reasoning that because plaintiffs have neither been denied nor granted relief, � 242(a)(2)(B) does not bar jurisdiction); Li Duan v. Zamberry, No. 06-1351, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12697, *6-7 (W.D. Pa. 2007) (finding that INA � 242(a)(2)(B) does not apply because the pace of the adjudication of applications is not the type of discretionary "action" contemplated by the statute). For more information and earlier case law addressing discretionary decisions after the REAL ID Act please see AILF Practice Advisory, "Federal Court Jurisdiction Over Discretionary Decisions After REAL ID: Mandamus, Other Affirmative Suits and Petitions for Review."
3) There is no other remedy available to plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs also have argued that waiting for security checks to be completed is not an adequate remedy. The fact that plaintiffs are waiting is the exact harm plaintiffs are seeking to remedy. See Singh, No. 06-2458, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16334 at *23-24 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ("waiting for an agency to act cannot logically be an adequate alternative to an order compelling the agency to act. . .") (citations omitted); Haidari, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *15 (D. Minn. 2006) (reasoning that waiting is not an adequate remedy because the question is whether plaintiffs have an adequate alternative remedy to the waiting itself).
hot compaq wallpaper.
gc28262
09-04 03:26 PM
Here is the taxes for Lingo service for VA.
Federal Taxes & Fees: 0.36
Universal Services: 4.64
State Taxes & Surcharges: 3.37
County/Local Taxes: 0.00
Presubscribed Inter-exchange Carrier Chrg: 0.00
Regulatory Recovery Fee for XXXXX 1.99
Emergency Services Fee for XXXXXX 1.99
---------------------------------------------------
Total Fees, Taxes & Surcharges: 12.35
Talked to lingo Customer Service now.
When existing customers change to the new Max plan, they have to sign up for a new 2 year contract.
Also have to wait till the next billing cycle for the plan to take effect.
Federal Taxes & Fees: 0.36
Universal Services: 4.64
State Taxes & Surcharges: 3.37
County/Local Taxes: 0.00
Presubscribed Inter-exchange Carrier Chrg: 0.00
Regulatory Recovery Fee for XXXXX 1.99
Emergency Services Fee for XXXXXX 1.99
---------------------------------------------------
Total Fees, Taxes & Surcharges: 12.35
Talked to lingo Customer Service now.
When existing customers change to the new Max plan, they have to sign up for a new 2 year contract.
Also have to wait till the next billing cycle for the plan to take effect.
more...
house compaq wallpaper windows 7
.jpg "compaq wallpaper windows 7")
god_bless_you
01-19 08:48 AM
http://www.irishlobbyusa.org./
Irish Lobbying for immigration reforms.. ILIR supports the Kennedy/McCain bill.
Immigrationvoice can touch base with them..
Irish Lobbying for immigration reforms.. ILIR supports the Kennedy/McCain bill.
Immigrationvoice can touch base with them..
tattoo compaq wallpaper windows 7
sravani
05-17 11:03 AM
who gets the EAD/AP attorney or applicant at his home address. Please tell me if anybody knows
Thanks
EAD and AP belongs to the applicant and Applicant gets them directly.
Thanks
EAD and AP belongs to the applicant and Applicant gets them directly.
more...
pictures tattoo wallpaper Compaq
xbeartai
07-11 10:18 AM
Thanks for your e-mail. Unfortunately, we cannot personally respond to
all
e-mails due to the volume we receive. However, within 24 hours, your
note
will be reviewed by a senior editor at the Observer for possible
action.
Often, these e-mails result in stories in the paper, so I appreciate
you
taking the time to write.
If you sent something that requires immediate attention, please call
the
Observer newsroom at (704) 358-5040.
Best regards,
Cindy Montgomery
Regional Editor
The Charlotte Observer
PO Box 30308
600 S. Tryon St.
Charlotte, NC 28230-0308
Fax: 704-358-5048
all
e-mails due to the volume we receive. However, within 24 hours, your
note
will be reviewed by a senior editor at the Observer for possible
action.
Often, these e-mails result in stories in the paper, so I appreciate
you
taking the time to write.
If you sent something that requires immediate attention, please call
the
Observer newsroom at (704) 358-5040.
Best regards,
Cindy Montgomery
Regional Editor
The Charlotte Observer
PO Box 30308
600 S. Tryon St.
Charlotte, NC 28230-0308
Fax: 704-358-5048
dresses compaq wallpaper widescreen.
girijas
09-09 12:58 PM
There have been threads and posts about IOs indicating that everyone will become current. The fact of the matter is - there is no substance/proof/backing - even from the lawyers regarding the validity of those statements. For all you know, this might have been started by groups/people who want us to become complacent.
So DO call.............else the bills stand a good chance of losing out.
And even assuming the rumors are true with a 0.00001% probability.........you don't really lose anything much by calling. But if you don't call, we still stand a chance (with 99.9999% probability) of losing out.
Honestly; this might be our last chance. If the next president is a Democrat, it is quite possible that illegals might get amnesty in huge numbers. Companies hiring H1s might get taxed at a higher rate. Irrespective of who comes to power, the next president could clamp down on legal immigration in the name of Change. Remember, the illegals (their legal relations) form a larger vote bank. Nothing else matters as far as politicians are concerned.
So DO call.............else the bills stand a good chance of losing out.
And even assuming the rumors are true with a 0.00001% probability.........you don't really lose anything much by calling. But if you don't call, we still stand a chance (with 99.9999% probability) of losing out.
Honestly; this might be our last chance. If the next president is a Democrat, it is quite possible that illegals might get amnesty in huge numbers. Companies hiring H1s might get taxed at a higher rate. Irrespective of who comes to power, the next president could clamp down on legal immigration in the name of Change. Remember, the illegals (their legal relations) form a larger vote bank. Nothing else matters as far as politicians are concerned.
more...
makeup compaq wallpaper windows 7
Macaca
07-22 08:27 AM
Lou Dobbs Tonight 03/28/2007 (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0703/28/ldt.01.html): "It's pretty remarkable. Four hundred thousand H1 visas each year."
Temporary Admissions of Nonimmigrants to the United States: 2005 (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/2005_NI_rpt.pdf) By ELIZABETH M. GRIECO | DHS, Jul 2006
Nonimmigrant visas allow foreign nationals to travel to a U.S. port of entry, such as an international airport, a seaport, or a land border crossing. However, they do not guarantee entry. At the port of entry, an immigration officer of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) authorizes a traveler’s admission into the United States and the period of stay (i.e., the length of time the bearer of a nonimmigrant visa is allowed to remain in the United States) for that visit. The initial authorized stay is noted in the DHS Form I-94 Form issued to the nonimmigrant by CBP.
Many visas are valid for several years, allowing those visa holders to enter the United States multiple times. Nonimmigrants on long-term visas, however, are still issued an authorized period of stay by CBP each time they are admitted.
TECS is the primary source for data collected from the Arrival-Departure Record, also known as DHS Form
I-942. Nonimmigrants arriving by air, land, or sea are required to complete Form I-94, with two important exceptions. Canadians who travel to the United States as tourists or on business generally do not need the I-94 Form. Also, certain Mexicans who have a nonresident alien Border Crossing Card, commonly known as a laser visa or a multiple-entry nonimmigrant visa, may not be required to complete the I-94 Form for entry. These exceptions are significant because Canadian and Mexican citizens make up the vast majority of all nonimmigrant admissions.
This Office of Immigration Statistics Annual Flow Report examines the number and characteristics of nonimmigrant admissions in 20051 recorded by the Treasury Enforcement Communications Systems (TECS) of the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
The data presented in this report are derived from the Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS) of the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Customs and Border Protection. TECS compiles and maintains information collected from nonimmigrants by DHS Form I-94, which asks for dates of arrival and departure as well as limited demographic information, such as name, sex, nationality, and date of birth.
I-94 Forms issued at air and sea ports of entry, in most cases, can be used for a single entry only. Each time a nonimmigrant enters the United States via air or sea, the arrival portion of the I-94 Form is collected and the information is entered into the data system. Conversely, each time a nonimmigrant leaves the United States via air or sea, the
departure portion is collected and the additional data is recorded into TECS.
By comparison, I-94 Forms issued at land border ports of entry, in most cases, can be used for multiple entries during an authorized period of admission. The arrival portion of the I-94 Form is collected and entered into the data system only at the time of initial form issuance and admission. Thus, while a nonimmigrant may enter the United States at a land border port of entry numerous times using the same I-94 Form, the arrival information recorded in TECS refers to the initial entry only. Also, a nonimmigrant who has been issued a multiple-entry I-94 and who leaves the United States via the land border is not required to surrender the departure portion of the form if the authorized period of admission is still valid and the nonimmigrant intends to return before the I-94 Form has expired.
The information from the departure portion of the form is recorded into TECS after the nonimmigrant surrenders the form. Although TECS records both arrival and departure data, the information presented in this report is based on arrival data only.
Many nonimmigrants, such as students, diplomats, and temporary workers, enter and leave the United States more than once each year, and the TECS system separately records each new issuance of an I-94 Form at arrival and each I-94 Form collected at departure. Since the arrival data are collected each time a new I-94 Form is issued, and an individual might enter more than once in a fiscal year, the count of admissions exceeds the number of individuals arriving.
In 2005, for example, there were 32 million I-94 admissions recorded by TECS, but only 26.9 million individuals entered the United States (see Table 2). Of those 26.9 million, 88 percent arrived once while 12 percent arrived two or more times during the year. This report uses TECS data to describe the number and characteristics of the 32 million I-94 admissions and not the 26.9 million individual nonimmigrants.
There is no limit on the total number of nonimmigrants admitted each year.
There are also limits on the number of petitions approved for initial employment for certain categories of temporary workers. For example, in 2005, high-skilled H-1B visas for certain first-time applicants were limited to 65,000. In general, there are few limitations on the number of immediate family members who can enter the country with nonimmigrant visa holders.
From How many H-1B visa workers? Counts vary (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=114543&postcount=737) VALLEY EMPLOYERS AMONG TOP USERS By Chris O'Brien (cobrien@mercurynews.com or (415) 298-0207) | Mercury News, 07/15/2007
A company that wants H-1B visas files an application with the U.S. Department of Labor. The Labor Department screens the applications, then passes them to the Department of Homeland Security, which includes the office of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Applications approved by the immigration service are then forwarded to the U.S. Department of State, which actually issues the visas.
There's a startling lack of publicly available data about the program, which makes it almost impossible to know which companies are getting the controversial visas and why. And much of the data that does exist is disputed by one side or another.
Oracle was issued 1,022 H-1B visas in calendar year 2006, a figure that includes renewals of previously issued visas. But Robert Hoffman, an Oracle spokesman, said his company could only confirm that it made 170 new H-1B hires in the federal government's fiscal year 2007, which runs from October to September.
The list is dominated by India-based outsourcing companies, such as Wipro and Infosys, which at No. 1 and No. 2 respectively received 3,143 and 3,125 new visas. The only Silicon Valley company on the list was Intel, ranked No. 13 with 613. Microsoft was fifth with 1,297.
But another list circulating on Capitol Hill told a somewhat different story. That list was also from the Homeland Security Department and included the number of new visas as well as the number of renewal visas.
According to that list, Oracle outranked Intel, receiving 1,022 visas in 2006. Intel received 828, as did Cisco; Yahoo received 347; and Hewlett-Packard received 333.
But Shotwell, the tech-industry lobbyist, said such tallies are misleading because companies often file multiple applications for a single person or large blanket applications for a number of positions they might not ultimately need because they want as many as possible before the cap is reached.
The federal government awarded 124,096 H-1B visas in the fiscal year ending October 2005, the most recent annual totals available. That includes renewed visas, which don't count against the annual cap.
From Characteristics of Specialty Occupation Workers (H-1B): Fiscal Year 2005 (http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/H1B_FY05_Characteristics.pdf) November 2006
Number of H1B petitions approved for initial employment is 116,927. (page 5)
The number of approved petitions exceeds the number of individual H-1B workers because more than one U.S. employer may file a petition on behalf of an individual H-1B worker. (page 5)
Blogged at All Reader Comments (http://app.businessweek.com/UserComments/combo_review?action=all&style=wide&productId=20045&pageIndex=5) for A Green Light on the Road to Green Cards (http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jul2007/db20070717_923080.htm?chan=search)
Temporary Admissions of Nonimmigrants to the United States: 2005 (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/2005_NI_rpt.pdf) By ELIZABETH M. GRIECO | DHS, Jul 2006
Nonimmigrant visas allow foreign nationals to travel to a U.S. port of entry, such as an international airport, a seaport, or a land border crossing. However, they do not guarantee entry. At the port of entry, an immigration officer of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) authorizes a traveler’s admission into the United States and the period of stay (i.e., the length of time the bearer of a nonimmigrant visa is allowed to remain in the United States) for that visit. The initial authorized stay is noted in the DHS Form I-94 Form issued to the nonimmigrant by CBP.
Many visas are valid for several years, allowing those visa holders to enter the United States multiple times. Nonimmigrants on long-term visas, however, are still issued an authorized period of stay by CBP each time they are admitted.
TECS is the primary source for data collected from the Arrival-Departure Record, also known as DHS Form
I-942. Nonimmigrants arriving by air, land, or sea are required to complete Form I-94, with two important exceptions. Canadians who travel to the United States as tourists or on business generally do not need the I-94 Form. Also, certain Mexicans who have a nonresident alien Border Crossing Card, commonly known as a laser visa or a multiple-entry nonimmigrant visa, may not be required to complete the I-94 Form for entry. These exceptions are significant because Canadian and Mexican citizens make up the vast majority of all nonimmigrant admissions.
This Office of Immigration Statistics Annual Flow Report examines the number and characteristics of nonimmigrant admissions in 20051 recorded by the Treasury Enforcement Communications Systems (TECS) of the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
The data presented in this report are derived from the Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS) of the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Customs and Border Protection. TECS compiles and maintains information collected from nonimmigrants by DHS Form I-94, which asks for dates of arrival and departure as well as limited demographic information, such as name, sex, nationality, and date of birth.
I-94 Forms issued at air and sea ports of entry, in most cases, can be used for a single entry only. Each time a nonimmigrant enters the United States via air or sea, the arrival portion of the I-94 Form is collected and the information is entered into the data system. Conversely, each time a nonimmigrant leaves the United States via air or sea, the
departure portion is collected and the additional data is recorded into TECS.
By comparison, I-94 Forms issued at land border ports of entry, in most cases, can be used for multiple entries during an authorized period of admission. The arrival portion of the I-94 Form is collected and entered into the data system only at the time of initial form issuance and admission. Thus, while a nonimmigrant may enter the United States at a land border port of entry numerous times using the same I-94 Form, the arrival information recorded in TECS refers to the initial entry only. Also, a nonimmigrant who has been issued a multiple-entry I-94 and who leaves the United States via the land border is not required to surrender the departure portion of the form if the authorized period of admission is still valid and the nonimmigrant intends to return before the I-94 Form has expired.
The information from the departure portion of the form is recorded into TECS after the nonimmigrant surrenders the form. Although TECS records both arrival and departure data, the information presented in this report is based on arrival data only.
Many nonimmigrants, such as students, diplomats, and temporary workers, enter and leave the United States more than once each year, and the TECS system separately records each new issuance of an I-94 Form at arrival and each I-94 Form collected at departure. Since the arrival data are collected each time a new I-94 Form is issued, and an individual might enter more than once in a fiscal year, the count of admissions exceeds the number of individuals arriving.
In 2005, for example, there were 32 million I-94 admissions recorded by TECS, but only 26.9 million individuals entered the United States (see Table 2). Of those 26.9 million, 88 percent arrived once while 12 percent arrived two or more times during the year. This report uses TECS data to describe the number and characteristics of the 32 million I-94 admissions and not the 26.9 million individual nonimmigrants.
There is no limit on the total number of nonimmigrants admitted each year.
There are also limits on the number of petitions approved for initial employment for certain categories of temporary workers. For example, in 2005, high-skilled H-1B visas for certain first-time applicants were limited to 65,000. In general, there are few limitations on the number of immediate family members who can enter the country with nonimmigrant visa holders.
From How many H-1B visa workers? Counts vary (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=114543&postcount=737) VALLEY EMPLOYERS AMONG TOP USERS By Chris O'Brien (cobrien@mercurynews.com or (415) 298-0207) | Mercury News, 07/15/2007
A company that wants H-1B visas files an application with the U.S. Department of Labor. The Labor Department screens the applications, then passes them to the Department of Homeland Security, which includes the office of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Applications approved by the immigration service are then forwarded to the U.S. Department of State, which actually issues the visas.
There's a startling lack of publicly available data about the program, which makes it almost impossible to know which companies are getting the controversial visas and why. And much of the data that does exist is disputed by one side or another.
Oracle was issued 1,022 H-1B visas in calendar year 2006, a figure that includes renewals of previously issued visas. But Robert Hoffman, an Oracle spokesman, said his company could only confirm that it made 170 new H-1B hires in the federal government's fiscal year 2007, which runs from October to September.
The list is dominated by India-based outsourcing companies, such as Wipro and Infosys, which at No. 1 and No. 2 respectively received 3,143 and 3,125 new visas. The only Silicon Valley company on the list was Intel, ranked No. 13 with 613. Microsoft was fifth with 1,297.
But another list circulating on Capitol Hill told a somewhat different story. That list was also from the Homeland Security Department and included the number of new visas as well as the number of renewal visas.
According to that list, Oracle outranked Intel, receiving 1,022 visas in 2006. Intel received 828, as did Cisco; Yahoo received 347; and Hewlett-Packard received 333.
But Shotwell, the tech-industry lobbyist, said such tallies are misleading because companies often file multiple applications for a single person or large blanket applications for a number of positions they might not ultimately need because they want as many as possible before the cap is reached.
The federal government awarded 124,096 H-1B visas in the fiscal year ending October 2005, the most recent annual totals available. That includes renewed visas, which don't count against the annual cap.
From Characteristics of Specialty Occupation Workers (H-1B): Fiscal Year 2005 (http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/H1B_FY05_Characteristics.pdf) November 2006
Number of H1B petitions approved for initial employment is 116,927. (page 5)
The number of approved petitions exceeds the number of individual H-1B workers because more than one U.S. employer may file a petition on behalf of an individual H-1B worker. (page 5)
Blogged at All Reader Comments (http://app.businessweek.com/UserComments/combo_review?action=all&style=wide&productId=20045&pageIndex=5) for A Green Light on the Road to Green Cards (http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jul2007/db20070717_923080.htm?chan=search)
girlfriend girlfriend compaq wallpapers.
wizkid732
08-16 12:50 PM
looks like we will be all alone :-)
Saw a picture of the flood victims in Pakistan seeking food, sure you understand :-)
I will wait this week and plead with ombudsman. Are you thinking of anything else for now?
Customer Service rep folks say ..Case is with an officer...Not sure, if that is any indication..All of us have to hope for the best.
Saw a picture of the flood victims in Pakistan seeking food, sure you understand :-)
I will wait this week and plead with ombudsman. Are you thinking of anything else for now?
Customer Service rep folks say ..Case is with an officer...Not sure, if that is any indication..All of us have to hope for the best.
hairstyles images Windows 7 ULTIMATE
simple1
06-14 02:54 PM
One of my friend (H1b) got into a job ( after passing labor market test - LCA - that no USC/GC could be found). in fortune 500 as direct employee after the job was vacant for more than a year.
However the same job was sent offshore after 8 months his tenure in that job. He was ok as he retained shares, signon bonus and severance.
All we see here is Indians competing against Indians in one form or other.
This is not affecting USC/GC.
How many times in this thread I have mentioned that I am getting replaced by one of these L-1B resource, I am a poor Oracle/DB developer who fortunately cannot be replaced by L-1B visa resources (as my skills is a common technical one). So once these violations impact your day to day life you look around for ways to stop this fraud. Its true that if I was a Nuero Surgeon in Phily or a Astro Scientist in Houston I wouldn't be interested in this violation :-) .... tomorrow let this scenario happen to you ... you would be first one to raise the alert.
Regarding 'getting burnt', I don't think there is bigger burn than loosing our jobs (which already is happening) and hope you know that there is something called 'anonymity'... ya lets see whos going to get 'burnt' here. We'll definetly keep you updated regarding the outcome.
However the same job was sent offshore after 8 months his tenure in that job. He was ok as he retained shares, signon bonus and severance.
All we see here is Indians competing against Indians in one form or other.
This is not affecting USC/GC.
How many times in this thread I have mentioned that I am getting replaced by one of these L-1B resource, I am a poor Oracle/DB developer who fortunately cannot be replaced by L-1B visa resources (as my skills is a common technical one). So once these violations impact your day to day life you look around for ways to stop this fraud. Its true that if I was a Nuero Surgeon in Phily or a Astro Scientist in Houston I wouldn't be interested in this violation :-) .... tomorrow let this scenario happen to you ... you would be first one to raise the alert.
Regarding 'getting burnt', I don't think there is bigger burn than loosing our jobs (which already is happening) and hope you know that there is something called 'anonymity'... ya lets see whos going to get 'burnt' here. We'll definetly keep you updated regarding the outcome.
ski_dude12
09-27 04:47 PM
Also, does anyone remember where the I-485 was mailed? NSC or TSC? From what I remember it was based on what state you lived in when I-485 was filed.
It was NSC for New York residents... Can someone confirm that please.
It was NSC for New York residents... Can someone confirm that please.
mchundi
01-01 02:54 PM
Good question. The bill is expected to be on the floor of the Senate and House for debate in Feb-06. Learning from S1932, it is my guess that the soonest bill could be law is 2-3 months. So we may be looking at something like April/May-06. But nothing is for sure at this time. It is possible that the debate may be dragged on till third quarter of 2006. We should start the activity to communicate with the law makers right now and continue to convey the right message if we want anything good to come out of the new bill.
The delay with S-1932 was due to other controvertial issues. As for the immigration provisions, i doubt if any law maker insisted on them being part of the bill. Most of the bickering was about oil drilling and patriot act. This time Patriot act will compete for senate time if it is not resolved by feb. Once the immigration bill is introduced, it should not take more than 2 weeks get it to vote and another week for conference committee.
My Q was even if some law is passed will the uscis wait till oct to implement any proposed changes.
I was curious as to how this works because it might be tough for me to stick with my current company for 1 1/2 years more to get portability.
Ofcourse we will try our best but somethings r not in our hands.
--MC
The delay with S-1932 was due to other controvertial issues. As for the immigration provisions, i doubt if any law maker insisted on them being part of the bill. Most of the bickering was about oil drilling and patriot act. This time Patriot act will compete for senate time if it is not resolved by feb. Once the immigration bill is introduced, it should not take more than 2 weeks get it to vote and another week for conference committee.
My Q was even if some law is passed will the uscis wait till oct to implement any proposed changes.
I was curious as to how this works because it might be tough for me to stick with my current company for 1 1/2 years more to get portability.
Ofcourse we will try our best but somethings r not in our hands.
--MC
No comments:
Post a Comment