nozerd
01-15 02:34 PM
The centers seem pretty spread out Geographically. Which part of the country do you live ?
wallpaper tribal tattoos for girls. tribal tattoos, lower back
Green.Tech
08-05 10:42 PM
HR policy says this....
"An employee who resigns before completing one year with G Inc from the date of obtaining the Green Card or during the application process will have to pay USD 7500 towards reimbursement of processing costs"
I am leaving them using AC21.... but I am paying this money...
I suppose its valid contract....
why mess-up you Labor......
Thanks for your comments. In your case, they are asking you to stay for at least a year after they begin your GC or else reimburse unlike other companies that say that you will have to reimburse no matter when you decide to leave the company.
I do understand the fact that there are contracts out there but my points are:
1) Can the company ask us to reimburse them for the labor cert fee (via a contract) - application and legal, especially since DOL requires the company to pay those dues?
2) Can the company ask us to reimburse them for ALL fee including application fee, which again is something that they are responsible for?
"An employee who resigns before completing one year with G Inc from the date of obtaining the Green Card or during the application process will have to pay USD 7500 towards reimbursement of processing costs"
I am leaving them using AC21.... but I am paying this money...
I suppose its valid contract....
why mess-up you Labor......
Thanks for your comments. In your case, they are asking you to stay for at least a year after they begin your GC or else reimburse unlike other companies that say that you will have to reimburse no matter when you decide to leave the company.
I do understand the fact that there are contracts out there but my points are:
1) Can the company ask us to reimburse them for the labor cert fee (via a contract) - application and legal, especially since DOL requires the company to pay those dues?
2) Can the company ask us to reimburse them for ALL fee including application fee, which again is something that they are responsible for?
kondur_007
09-22 09:48 AM
What if the employer showed XXX amount on the Labor Certification, and in the offer letter, but send an offer letter to the employee for YYY, where YYY < XXX? Does the employee is still obliged to for with the employer?
Your question is very short, but this is what I understand you are asking:
If GC is approved with XXX salary on the LC and offer letter during the GC process, but then employer only offers/pays YYY salary upon approval of GC.
As far as I can tell, this would be a problem on the part of employer and not the employee. For the most part, employee can leave that employer without any problems in future. what I do not know is, which one of the following option is better:
1. Never join the employer after getting GC as salary offerred after GC is lower than what was on LC.
2. Join the employer for a month or two and then leave giving the reason that "employer did not pay the salary offered in LC". This may be a safer option as you do prove your intention to join the employer and you get a few pay stubs proving that employer is not paying enough salary (not just othe offer letter showing YYY salary, but the hard proof of YYY salary by means of paystubs).
Also if the employer really does not have project, and can not really hire you at a salary offered on LC, and you have good terms with the employer, ask them to "fire" you rather than you leaving them. This way you will be very safe for future citizenship process.
Good Luck.
Your question is very short, but this is what I understand you are asking:
If GC is approved with XXX salary on the LC and offer letter during the GC process, but then employer only offers/pays YYY salary upon approval of GC.
As far as I can tell, this would be a problem on the part of employer and not the employee. For the most part, employee can leave that employer without any problems in future. what I do not know is, which one of the following option is better:
1. Never join the employer after getting GC as salary offerred after GC is lower than what was on LC.
2. Join the employer for a month or two and then leave giving the reason that "employer did not pay the salary offered in LC". This may be a safer option as you do prove your intention to join the employer and you get a few pay stubs proving that employer is not paying enough salary (not just othe offer letter showing YYY salary, but the hard proof of YYY salary by means of paystubs).
Also if the employer really does not have project, and can not really hire you at a salary offered on LC, and you have good terms with the employer, ask them to "fire" you rather than you leaving them. This way you will be very safe for future citizenship process.
Good Luck.
2011 tattoo designs for girls.
sathish_gopalan
07-05 04:21 PM
If you leave US for 2 or 3 years and get back through a new employer, does your I140 priority date still holds good. A friend of mine got his I140 approved, left to canada and got his citizenship. He intends to move back and want to know if he can still use his priority date. Thanks.
more...
reno_john
06-11 11:48 AM
I asked IV core on what version of immigration bill they support because I and other people wanted to know since there are so many amendments to the current immigration bill and Now I log in to see , the thread is missing, why, my question was straight forward, again I am asking them on what form of immigration bill they support. I highly doubt In what they are doing looks like they are working for the benefit of them self. Guys please don�t be ignorant and its your right to ask the question don�t be a dumb crowd but ask questions.
I am too in the same GC queue with I140 and I485 filed and pending, so don�t count me as anti � immigrant but also want to see the betterment of others too who are in GC process and will be effected due to the introduction of the new bill.
:mad:
I am too in the same GC queue with I140 and I485 filed and pending, so don�t count me as anti � immigrant but also want to see the betterment of others too who are in GC process and will be effected due to the introduction of the new bill.
:mad:
pitha
02-27 04:47 PM
It is worse than your estimates below because when green card is issued spouse and children are also counted in the quota unlike the h1 where spouse and children are not counted in the quota. Even if we assume each green card applicat has only one child, there would be 3 visa numbers used for each GC applicant. Going by that India has a demand for 150K GC as per the perm statistics but it gets only about 10000 per year. At this rate people from India who applied for GC in 06 and 07 would have to wait about 15 years and 30 years respectively to get the GC!!!!!!!!
About 25,000 PERM labors were approved in 2007 for Indian nationals. Assuming a 2.5:1 ratio of 'GC filed:Labor approved', implies that each year 62,500 GC are demanded by Indians under EB. Since only 10,000 are available (across all EB classes), this implies each year a backlog of 50,000 cases is created for Indians.
Since PD are essentially retrogressed from Nov. 2005, we can assume that since then another 100,000 Indians have joined the GC backlog. It can also be assumed that between 2001 and Nov. 2005 there must be another (atleast) 50,000 waiting for GC.
Assuming these numbers are correct, a person filing for labor today is looking to wait for atleast 15 years before getting a GC (150,000/10,000).
As for those wth PD prior to Nov. 2005 - well..... probably anywhere between 1 to 5 years .....
Comments on the analysis.........?
About 25,000 PERM labors were approved in 2007 for Indian nationals. Assuming a 2.5:1 ratio of 'GC filed:Labor approved', implies that each year 62,500 GC are demanded by Indians under EB. Since only 10,000 are available (across all EB classes), this implies each year a backlog of 50,000 cases is created for Indians.
Since PD are essentially retrogressed from Nov. 2005, we can assume that since then another 100,000 Indians have joined the GC backlog. It can also be assumed that between 2001 and Nov. 2005 there must be another (atleast) 50,000 waiting for GC.
Assuming these numbers are correct, a person filing for labor today is looking to wait for atleast 15 years before getting a GC (150,000/10,000).
As for those wth PD prior to Nov. 2005 - well..... probably anywhere between 1 to 5 years .....
Comments on the analysis.........?
more...
signin241
04-04 02:00 PM
I filed my 485 in August and got married later and my wife is on H4 right now. I'm on H1 as of now. I'm not using my EAD right now, so that my wife can maintain her H4 status. I'm planning her F1 processing from H4, so that once she is on F1 officially, I want to use EAD to change employers.
Is there any risk involved here and if so, please let me know
Thanks in Advance
Is there any risk involved here and if so, please let me know
Thanks in Advance
2010 tribal side tattoos for girls,
GCard_Dream
04-27 05:15 PM
I am not sure. May be it is. Details are still not out yet and I don't see the text of the bill on thomas. Hopefully more detail will emerge in next day or so and then we will know for sure.
http://www.swnebr.net/newspaper/cgi-bin/articles/articlearchiver.pl?160478
http://www.swnebr.net/newspaper/cgi-bin/articles/articlearchiver.pl?160478
more...
nixstor
04-19 10:52 AM
Thanks for the wonderful pointers that can enlighten people.
hair animal kanji tattoo,daisy
GCcomesoon
08-25 04:38 PM
Hi
My approval happened on April 24th , 2008 . I got the physical card on 08/03/08.
Here are the case details
Thanks
GCcomesoon
Priority date - 05/2003
140 approved - 10/2006 from TSC
485,131,765 RD-6/04/2007 at TSC, notices received - 06/07/2007
CA, EB2
Wife's case returned due to some error,send it again & received on 06/17/2007 as per Fedex
Wife's case RD- 7/10/2007
my case - I131 - approved - 7/24/07
spouse case - I131- approved- 09/12/07
EAD approved for spouse - 08/20/07
EAD approved - 10/25/2007 - for me
LUD in my case - 485, - 7/11/07, 11/02/2007,11/28/2007,11/29/2007
LUD in 485 case for spouse - 10/04/2007 ( after FP ), LUD - 11/14/2007,11/28/2007,11/29/2007
FP for spouse - 08/08/07 , I rescheduled it.
FP scheduled - 10/03/07 - Done
FP scheduled - 12/12/2007 -
Case approval for me (email ) - 04/24/08
FP( for 485 ) -05/17/08
Physical card- 08/03/08
Wife 's case is still pending & no updates.. ( raised a SR , would follow up next month )
My approval happened on April 24th , 2008 . I got the physical card on 08/03/08.
Here are the case details
Thanks
GCcomesoon
Priority date - 05/2003
140 approved - 10/2006 from TSC
485,131,765 RD-6/04/2007 at TSC, notices received - 06/07/2007
CA, EB2
Wife's case returned due to some error,send it again & received on 06/17/2007 as per Fedex
Wife's case RD- 7/10/2007
my case - I131 - approved - 7/24/07
spouse case - I131- approved- 09/12/07
EAD approved for spouse - 08/20/07
EAD approved - 10/25/2007 - for me
LUD in my case - 485, - 7/11/07, 11/02/2007,11/28/2007,11/29/2007
LUD in 485 case for spouse - 10/04/2007 ( after FP ), LUD - 11/14/2007,11/28/2007,11/29/2007
FP for spouse - 08/08/07 , I rescheduled it.
FP scheduled - 10/03/07 - Done
FP scheduled - 12/12/2007 -
Case approval for me (email ) - 04/24/08
FP( for 485 ) -05/17/08
Physical card- 08/03/08
Wife 's case is still pending & no updates.. ( raised a SR , would follow up next month )
more...
SlowRoasted
06-25 05:23 PM
did this poll get lost in that hacker attack? just wondering.
hot Using tattoo lettering styles
ABC of GC
06-08 06:30 AM
Its not abt H1-B abuse, its abt the way it was brought up. Instead of looking into his own house (USCIS and DOL) Sen.Durbin held Indian companies responsible and almost started bashing them. Little did he anticipate that they will come back in this way.
H1-B abuse is a different issue. Sen. Durbin should have looked into rulemaking part of the game than bashing players of the game.
When the US was instrumental in doing WTO negotiations during late 90's (BTW-your's truely grew up during that period witnessing this through newspaper articles - was an exact reversal of roles played by India and US then)they never realized that globalizing markets would lead to globalizing labor market also. Now, IT has become a virtual industry with a pretty much open labor market. Professionals making Rs.50000 ($1200) are competing with those making $5000 a month. US politicians made a classic judgement error in 90's. Now, protectionist measures are being brought in by the very same people who championed globalization for a decade.
The letter puts things in perspective for sen. Durbin. It seems to carry a veiled warning about backlash of these protectionist measures on the US companies doing business in India. Starting from McDonalds,subway,coke (now even Walmart) to Ford, GM, IBM, Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, Abott, J&J, JP Morgan, Bank of America and many more have huge business interests in India. The size of Indian market totals upto atleast 0.8 billion human individuals with need for housing, auto, computers, electronics, healthcare, finance, consumer products etc. Losing an inch of it can make an international co. nervous.
As far as Indian consumers go they now have options- British, German, Japanese, French and now even the Indian companies.
Durbin tried to scare a cat, unfortunately for him it turned out to be a big wild cat- aTiger.
Well Said
H1-B abuse is a different issue. Sen. Durbin should have looked into rulemaking part of the game than bashing players of the game.
When the US was instrumental in doing WTO negotiations during late 90's (BTW-your's truely grew up during that period witnessing this through newspaper articles - was an exact reversal of roles played by India and US then)they never realized that globalizing markets would lead to globalizing labor market also. Now, IT has become a virtual industry with a pretty much open labor market. Professionals making Rs.50000 ($1200) are competing with those making $5000 a month. US politicians made a classic judgement error in 90's. Now, protectionist measures are being brought in by the very same people who championed globalization for a decade.
The letter puts things in perspective for sen. Durbin. It seems to carry a veiled warning about backlash of these protectionist measures on the US companies doing business in India. Starting from McDonalds,subway,coke (now even Walmart) to Ford, GM, IBM, Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, Abott, J&J, JP Morgan, Bank of America and many more have huge business interests in India. The size of Indian market totals upto atleast 0.8 billion human individuals with need for housing, auto, computers, electronics, healthcare, finance, consumer products etc. Losing an inch of it can make an international co. nervous.
As far as Indian consumers go they now have options- British, German, Japanese, French and now even the Indian companies.
Durbin tried to scare a cat, unfortunately for him it turned out to be a big wild cat- aTiger.
Well Said
more...
house Free Tattoo Gallery
sam0407
07-18 12:55 PM
There's no need for you to be negative.
Obviously you have benefitted already from what's happened. Think about people who are stuck (just as you were up until recently) and want to 'try' to make things work for them too....
wish people were more understanding of others also. Why is it people forget what it was like for them when they were in same boat?
ps57002:
Do not take it in negative sense, This is just my thoughts..
1. Flower campaign served it purpose, over doing anything will give produce negative results
2. As other IV members suggested we should come-up with someother innovative ideas. You can ask IV members for ideas, I sure our fellow members will share their thoughts.
Again, I am strongly believe any more flower campaign at this moment will produce negative result (i.e it will annoy the recipient).
I had the same thoughts when our IV members planned to send thank you flowers
Obviously you have benefitted already from what's happened. Think about people who are stuck (just as you were up until recently) and want to 'try' to make things work for them too....
wish people were more understanding of others also. Why is it people forget what it was like for them when they were in same boat?
ps57002:
Do not take it in negative sense, This is just my thoughts..
1. Flower campaign served it purpose, over doing anything will give produce negative results
2. As other IV members suggested we should come-up with someother innovative ideas. You can ask IV members for ideas, I sure our fellow members will share their thoughts.
Again, I am strongly believe any more flower campaign at this moment will produce negative result (i.e it will annoy the recipient).
I had the same thoughts when our IV members planned to send thank you flowers
tattoo tribal side tattoos.
anindya1234
06-01 03:27 PM
By the way..my petition was not endorsed by IV when I first floated it...so it should not be treated as an official action/petition by/from IV
more...
pictures on side. tribal tattoos
mhathi
10-01 11:00 AM
Priority date needs to be current both at the time of filing 485, as well as at the time of approval. Hence, PD is very important even after filing. The issue I do not understand is how the applications are processed. Are they processed in the times only when PD is current, or are they processed regardless of PD but lie in pre-adjudicated status until the particular applications PD becomes current again (if retrogressed)?
dresses tribal tattoos for men on side
pappu
11-09 02:10 PM
Pappu,
Is this survey open to every one beyond donor forum.
Yes. It is open to everyone and is under 'Action Items for everyone' forum.
Is this survey open to every one beyond donor forum.
Yes. It is open to everyone and is under 'Action Items for everyone' forum.
more...
makeup tribal tattoos for girls. Young Girls Lower Back Tribal
LCtank
07-14 01:46 PM
This link didn't work for me either.
Nobody knows much about when Skil bill will be debated. Webfaxes are a means to influence lawmakers to bring this to the floor of the house. Independent analaysis by a lawfirm based on collection of information from various sources indicates the chance that some business backed bill for high skilled immigrants will be passed this year. There is a 45% chance that it will get passed early next year. You can view details on this link.
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7644/2582/1600/chart_alert7.11.2006.gif
Nobody knows much about when Skil bill will be debated. Webfaxes are a means to influence lawmakers to bring this to the floor of the house. Independent analaysis by a lawfirm based on collection of information from various sources indicates the chance that some business backed bill for high skilled immigrants will be passed this year. There is a 45% chance that it will get passed early next year. You can view details on this link.
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7644/2582/1600/chart_alert7.11.2006.gif
girlfriend Print Tribal Tattoos For Girls
bobbydalal
09-10 03:33 PM
Guys im an Eb3 applicant and my pd is 2007. I got a transfer notice of my I485 being transferred to USCIS-NBC lees summit ,mo . wHAT DOES THIS MEAN. i HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE SAME COMPANY FOR LAST 9 YEARS and had submitted all the tax returns at the time of I140 approval. Is there something i should worry about. pLEASE ADVISE.
hairstyles side tribal tattoo designs
martinvisalaw
04-26 04:25 PM
I agree with the posters who say that the employer is probably trying to frighten you. It is very difficult to restrict a person's right to work wherever they want - or to restrict an employer hiring whoever they want - especially in Texas. However, it is not really an immigration question. You or, ideally the client company, should see an employment lawyer here in Texas.
lkapildev
11-26 10:44 PM
I got my AP status online as Document Mailed to Applicant:
What does it mean?
Has any one got the AP after Document mailed to application status?
What does it mean?
Has any one got the AP after Document mailed to application status?
dontcareaboutGC
03-19 11:24 AM
Ignore this if this is a repost!
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security,
and International Law
Hearing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Government Perspectives
on Immigration Statistics
Testimony of Charles Oppenheim
Chief, Immigrant Control and Reporting Division
Visa Services Office
U.S. Department of State
June 6, 2007
2:00 p.m.
2141 Rayburn House Office Building
Chairman Lofgren, Ranking Member King, and distinguished members of
the Committee, it is a pleasure to be here this afternoon to answer
your questions and provide an overview of our immigrant visa control
and reporting program operated by the U.S. Department of State. The
Department of State is responsible for administering the provisions of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) related to the numerical
limitations on immigrant visa issuances. At the beginning of each
month, the Visa Office (VO) receives a report from each consular post
listing totals of documentarily-qualified immigrant visa applicants in
categories subject to numerical limitation. Cases are grouped in three
different categories: 1) foreign state chargeability, 2) preference,
and 3) priority date.
Foreign state chargeability for visa purposes refers to the fact that
an immigrant is chargeable to the numerical limitation for the foreign
state or dependent area in which the immigrant's place of birth is
located. Exceptions are provided for a child (unmarried and under 21
years of age) or spouse accompanying or following to join a principal
to prevent the separation of family members, as well as for an
applicant born in the United States or in a foreign state of which
neither parent was a native or resident. Alternate chargeability is
desirable when the visa cut-off date for the foreign state of a parent
or spouse is more advantageous than that of the applicant's foreign
state.
As established by the Immigration and Nationality Act, preference is
the visa category that can be assigned based on relationships to U.S.
citizens or legal permanent residents. Family-based immigration falls
under two basic categories: unlimited and limited. Preferences
established by law for the limited category are:
Family First Preference (F1): Unmarried sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their minor children, if any.
Family Second Preference (F2): Spouses, minor children, and unmarried
sons and daughters of lawful permanent residents.
Family Third Preference (F3): Married sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their spouses and minor children.
Family Fourth Preference (F4): Brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens
and their spouses and minor children provided the U.S. citizen is at
least 21 years of age.
The Priority Date is normally the date on which the petition to accord
the applicant immigrant status was filed, generally with U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). VO subdivides the annual
preference and foreign state limitations specified by the INA into
monthly allotments. The totals of documentarily-qualified applicants
which have been reported to VO are compared each month with the
numbers available for the next regular allotment. The determination of
how many numbers are available requires consideration of several
variables, including: past number use; estimates of future number use
and return rates; and estimates of USCIS demand based on cut-off date
movements. Once this consideration is completed, the cutoff dates are
established and numbers are allocated to reported applicants in order
of their priority dates, the oldest dates first.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy
all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is
considered "Current." For example: If the monthly allocation target is
10,000, and we only have 5,000 applicants, the category can be
"Current.� Whenever the total of documentarily-qualified applicants in
a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for
the particular month, the category is considered to be
"oversubscribed" and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
The cut-off date is the priority date of the first
documentarily-qualified applicant who could not be accommodated for a
visa number. For example, if the monthly target is 10,000 and we have
25,000 applicants, then we would need to establish a cut-off date so
that only 10,000 numbers would be allocated. In this case, the cut-off
would be the priority date of the 10,001st applicant.
Only persons with a priority date earlier than a cut-off date are
entitled to allotment of a visa number. The cut-off dates are the 1st,
8th, 15th, and 22nd of a month, since VO groups demand for numbers
under these dates. (Priority dates of the first through seventh of a
month are grouped under the 1st, the eighth through the 14th under the
8th, etc.) VO attempts to establish the cut-off dates for the
following month on or about the 8th of each month. The dates are
immediately transmitted to consular posts abroad and USCIS, and also
published in the Visa Bulletin and online at the website
www.travel.state.gov. Visa allotments for use during that month are
transmitted to consular posts. USCIS requests visa allotments for
adjustment of status cases only when all other case processing has
been completed. I am submitting the latest Visa Bulletin for the
record or you can click on: Visa Bulletin for June 2007.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE SYSTEM AND CLARIFICATION OF SOME
FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS:
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified
at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every
applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date
been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, visa allotments
are made only on the basis of the total applicants reported
�documentarily qualified� (or, theoretically ready for interview) each
month. Demand for visa numbers can fluctuate from one month to
another, with the inevitable impact on cut-off dates.
If an applicant is reported documentarily qualified but allocation of
a visa number is not possible because of a visa availability cut-off
date, the demand is recorded at VO and an allocation is made as soon
as the applicable cut-off date advances beyond the applicant's
priority date. There is no need for such applicant to be reported a
second time.
Visa numbers are always allotted for all documentarily-qualified
applicants with a priority date before the relevant cut-off date, as
long as the case had been reported to VO in time to be included in the
monthly calculation of visa availability. Failure of visa number
receipt by the overseas processing office could mean that the request
was not dispatched in time to reach VO for the monthly allocation
cycle, or that information on the request was incomplete or inaccurate
(e.g., incorrect priority date).
Allocations to Foreign Service posts outside the regular monthly cycle
are possible in emergency or exceptional cases, but only at the
request of the office processing the case. Note that, should
retrogression of a cut-off date be announced, VO can honor
extraordinary requests for additional numbers only if the applicant's
priority date is earlier than the retrogressed cut-off date. Not all
numbers allocated are actually used for visa issuance; some are
returned to VO and are reincorporated into the pool of numbers
available for later allocation during the fiscal year. The rate of
return of unused numbers may fluctuate from month to month, just as
demand may fluctuate. Lower returns mean fewer numbers available for
subsequent reallocation. Fluctuations can cause cut-off date movement
to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly
possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches
the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7 percent is a
cap, which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed.
Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The
country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the
annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This
limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled,
however. A portion of the numbers provided to the Family Second
preference category is exempt from this per-country cap. The American
Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (AC21) removed the
per-country limit in any calendar quarter in which overall applicant
demand for Employment-based visa numbers is less than the total of
such numbers available.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by
documentarily-qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds
the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation,
that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may
require the establishment of a cut-off date which is earlier than that
which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The
prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same
percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual
limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off
dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off
dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
The committee submitted several questions that fell outside of VO�s
area of work, therefore, I have provided in my written testimony today
the answers only to those questions that the Department of State can
answer. Thank you for this opportunity.
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security,
and International Law
Hearing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Government Perspectives
on Immigration Statistics
Testimony of Charles Oppenheim
Chief, Immigrant Control and Reporting Division
Visa Services Office
U.S. Department of State
June 6, 2007
2:00 p.m.
2141 Rayburn House Office Building
Chairman Lofgren, Ranking Member King, and distinguished members of
the Committee, it is a pleasure to be here this afternoon to answer
your questions and provide an overview of our immigrant visa control
and reporting program operated by the U.S. Department of State. The
Department of State is responsible for administering the provisions of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) related to the numerical
limitations on immigrant visa issuances. At the beginning of each
month, the Visa Office (VO) receives a report from each consular post
listing totals of documentarily-qualified immigrant visa applicants in
categories subject to numerical limitation. Cases are grouped in three
different categories: 1) foreign state chargeability, 2) preference,
and 3) priority date.
Foreign state chargeability for visa purposes refers to the fact that
an immigrant is chargeable to the numerical limitation for the foreign
state or dependent area in which the immigrant's place of birth is
located. Exceptions are provided for a child (unmarried and under 21
years of age) or spouse accompanying or following to join a principal
to prevent the separation of family members, as well as for an
applicant born in the United States or in a foreign state of which
neither parent was a native or resident. Alternate chargeability is
desirable when the visa cut-off date for the foreign state of a parent
or spouse is more advantageous than that of the applicant's foreign
state.
As established by the Immigration and Nationality Act, preference is
the visa category that can be assigned based on relationships to U.S.
citizens or legal permanent residents. Family-based immigration falls
under two basic categories: unlimited and limited. Preferences
established by law for the limited category are:
Family First Preference (F1): Unmarried sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their minor children, if any.
Family Second Preference (F2): Spouses, minor children, and unmarried
sons and daughters of lawful permanent residents.
Family Third Preference (F3): Married sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their spouses and minor children.
Family Fourth Preference (F4): Brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens
and their spouses and minor children provided the U.S. citizen is at
least 21 years of age.
The Priority Date is normally the date on which the petition to accord
the applicant immigrant status was filed, generally with U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). VO subdivides the annual
preference and foreign state limitations specified by the INA into
monthly allotments. The totals of documentarily-qualified applicants
which have been reported to VO are compared each month with the
numbers available for the next regular allotment. The determination of
how many numbers are available requires consideration of several
variables, including: past number use; estimates of future number use
and return rates; and estimates of USCIS demand based on cut-off date
movements. Once this consideration is completed, the cutoff dates are
established and numbers are allocated to reported applicants in order
of their priority dates, the oldest dates first.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy
all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is
considered "Current." For example: If the monthly allocation target is
10,000, and we only have 5,000 applicants, the category can be
"Current.� Whenever the total of documentarily-qualified applicants in
a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for
the particular month, the category is considered to be
"oversubscribed" and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
The cut-off date is the priority date of the first
documentarily-qualified applicant who could not be accommodated for a
visa number. For example, if the monthly target is 10,000 and we have
25,000 applicants, then we would need to establish a cut-off date so
that only 10,000 numbers would be allocated. In this case, the cut-off
would be the priority date of the 10,001st applicant.
Only persons with a priority date earlier than a cut-off date are
entitled to allotment of a visa number. The cut-off dates are the 1st,
8th, 15th, and 22nd of a month, since VO groups demand for numbers
under these dates. (Priority dates of the first through seventh of a
month are grouped under the 1st, the eighth through the 14th under the
8th, etc.) VO attempts to establish the cut-off dates for the
following month on or about the 8th of each month. The dates are
immediately transmitted to consular posts abroad and USCIS, and also
published in the Visa Bulletin and online at the website
www.travel.state.gov. Visa allotments for use during that month are
transmitted to consular posts. USCIS requests visa allotments for
adjustment of status cases only when all other case processing has
been completed. I am submitting the latest Visa Bulletin for the
record or you can click on: Visa Bulletin for June 2007.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE SYSTEM AND CLARIFICATION OF SOME
FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS:
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified
at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every
applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date
been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, visa allotments
are made only on the basis of the total applicants reported
�documentarily qualified� (or, theoretically ready for interview) each
month. Demand for visa numbers can fluctuate from one month to
another, with the inevitable impact on cut-off dates.
If an applicant is reported documentarily qualified but allocation of
a visa number is not possible because of a visa availability cut-off
date, the demand is recorded at VO and an allocation is made as soon
as the applicable cut-off date advances beyond the applicant's
priority date. There is no need for such applicant to be reported a
second time.
Visa numbers are always allotted for all documentarily-qualified
applicants with a priority date before the relevant cut-off date, as
long as the case had been reported to VO in time to be included in the
monthly calculation of visa availability. Failure of visa number
receipt by the overseas processing office could mean that the request
was not dispatched in time to reach VO for the monthly allocation
cycle, or that information on the request was incomplete or inaccurate
(e.g., incorrect priority date).
Allocations to Foreign Service posts outside the regular monthly cycle
are possible in emergency or exceptional cases, but only at the
request of the office processing the case. Note that, should
retrogression of a cut-off date be announced, VO can honor
extraordinary requests for additional numbers only if the applicant's
priority date is earlier than the retrogressed cut-off date. Not all
numbers allocated are actually used for visa issuance; some are
returned to VO and are reincorporated into the pool of numbers
available for later allocation during the fiscal year. The rate of
return of unused numbers may fluctuate from month to month, just as
demand may fluctuate. Lower returns mean fewer numbers available for
subsequent reallocation. Fluctuations can cause cut-off date movement
to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly
possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches
the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7 percent is a
cap, which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed.
Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The
country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the
annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This
limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled,
however. A portion of the numbers provided to the Family Second
preference category is exempt from this per-country cap. The American
Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (AC21) removed the
per-country limit in any calendar quarter in which overall applicant
demand for Employment-based visa numbers is less than the total of
such numbers available.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by
documentarily-qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds
the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation,
that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may
require the establishment of a cut-off date which is earlier than that
which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The
prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same
percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual
limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off
dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off
dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
The committee submitted several questions that fell outside of VO�s
area of work, therefore, I have provided in my written testimony today
the answers only to those questions that the Department of State can
answer. Thank you for this opportunity.
No comments:
Post a Comment