franklin
10-01 11:25 AM
What the you talking about? USCIS isn't efficient at processing? Are you crazy?
There are a whole bunch of people on the ROW thread thread who think they are the picture of efficiency - they deny the existence of wasted visas due to inefficiencies in processing.
There are a whole bunch of people on the ROW thread thread who think they are the picture of efficiency - they deny the existence of wasted visas due to inefficiencies in processing.
wallpaper love letters, part 1
karthiknv143
08-10 06:10 PM
Any updates from USCIS regarding lockbox & receipting dates?
mohanty99
07-17 11:13 PM
Given That All Dates Are Now Current And There Will Be Hundreds Of I-485 Filings By August 17, Will The Uscis Process Them In Order Of The Original Labor Cert Priority Date Or The Date Of Receipt Of The I-485 Filing Itself?
2011 Best and Most Funny Pakistani
wanna_immigrate
04-11 08:35 PM
How long it takes to get 140 approved in premium?
more...
p1234
09-13 06:46 PM
I want everybody to get their GCs. but now interfiling/porting is hurting out position in the queue.
If you are not aware, a good bunch of EB3s are now trying to interfile & port their PDs which are between 2001 - 2005 to EB2.
This will potentially put tens of thousands of people in the EB2 queue before most people in EB2 who are waiting.
These people were not eligible for EB2 when they filed their own labor.. so they should NOT BE ALLOWED TO PORT THEIR OLD PDs. Sure EB3 can Interfile .. but you will get a new PD ... the date you interfile.
If we just keep looking... there will be a huge retrogression in EB2. And its not like these EB3 people will get through with the interfiling/porting. Most of them will be issued RFEs. Their labor apps will be audited and their primary EB3 apps will be cancelled. Infact, 85% of interfiling will never successfully make it through. And its not like it will help the EB3 brothers. That queue will still be long... because they are not going to withdraw their EB3 apps.
Also, while they will not succeed in interfiling/porting, they still will have their apps with USCIS and USCIS will sit on them before eventually issuing NOID. Sad part is they will count these when giving numbers to DOS for setting visa bulletins.
This PD porting is the last "not so ethical & legal" thing after labor substitution.. that we need to Put a cork on.
If we don't act now... then we can all expect to stay in AOS for the next 5 years. This holds for both EB2 and EB3.
I want everybody to get their GCs. I also am OK with the wait.
But anything that threatens my position in the queue is not acceptable.
Are you July 07 filer who got the EAD out of turn? I bet you are.
And if you are, keep your loud mouth shut! Before you pontificate, look at people and others like you who got in and created a mess!
If you are not aware, a good bunch of EB3s are now trying to interfile & port their PDs which are between 2001 - 2005 to EB2.
This will potentially put tens of thousands of people in the EB2 queue before most people in EB2 who are waiting.
These people were not eligible for EB2 when they filed their own labor.. so they should NOT BE ALLOWED TO PORT THEIR OLD PDs. Sure EB3 can Interfile .. but you will get a new PD ... the date you interfile.
If we just keep looking... there will be a huge retrogression in EB2. And its not like these EB3 people will get through with the interfiling/porting. Most of them will be issued RFEs. Their labor apps will be audited and their primary EB3 apps will be cancelled. Infact, 85% of interfiling will never successfully make it through. And its not like it will help the EB3 brothers. That queue will still be long... because they are not going to withdraw their EB3 apps.
Also, while they will not succeed in interfiling/porting, they still will have their apps with USCIS and USCIS will sit on them before eventually issuing NOID. Sad part is they will count these when giving numbers to DOS for setting visa bulletins.
This PD porting is the last "not so ethical & legal" thing after labor substitution.. that we need to Put a cork on.
If we don't act now... then we can all expect to stay in AOS for the next 5 years. This holds for both EB2 and EB3.
I want everybody to get their GCs. I also am OK with the wait.
But anything that threatens my position in the queue is not acceptable.
Are you July 07 filer who got the EAD out of turn? I bet you are.
And if you are, keep your loud mouth shut! Before you pontificate, look at people and others like you who got in and created a mess!
reedandbamboo
09-13 07:38 PM
The USCIS!!!
more...
Canadian_Dream
06-01 08:18 PM
I re-read the section and I think your interpretation is correct. All I-140 filed after introduction and approved before enactment should stand clear from this provision. If there is an I-485 petition filed along with such an I-140 that is approved before enactment of this act, then it will qualify for an immigrant visa whenever one is available under the old law.
Again one needs to run this interpretation through a lawyer to be absolutely sure.
Hmm so I was quite worried about good old Section 502(d)(2) at first, but after re reading carefully, this may not be terrible. I (and others?) might have pressed the panic button a little too quickly.
As I read it now (and I am NOT a lawyer), any I-140 petition adjudicated after the effective date of this legislation (Oct 2008 seems to be the popular opinion) will be rejected if the I-140 petition has a filing date after May 15th 2007. If this *only* applies to adjudication of I-140s and NOT to I-485s, this means that you would have to have filed your I-140 after May 15th and have it still pending by Oct 2008 .... 14 months for folks filing in the near future. This is quite unlikely, as it takes only a month or so for premium processing, and around 6 months for non-premium.
Folks might get into trouble if they have a labor certification stuck in the BEC and it doesn't get approved for another 12 months or so...
Comments ?
- GS
(of course, this is all speculation, I realize there's a long way to go before this becomes law).
Again one needs to run this interpretation through a lawyer to be absolutely sure.
Hmm so I was quite worried about good old Section 502(d)(2) at first, but after re reading carefully, this may not be terrible. I (and others?) might have pressed the panic button a little too quickly.
As I read it now (and I am NOT a lawyer), any I-140 petition adjudicated after the effective date of this legislation (Oct 2008 seems to be the popular opinion) will be rejected if the I-140 petition has a filing date after May 15th 2007. If this *only* applies to adjudication of I-140s and NOT to I-485s, this means that you would have to have filed your I-140 after May 15th and have it still pending by Oct 2008 .... 14 months for folks filing in the near future. This is quite unlikely, as it takes only a month or so for premium processing, and around 6 months for non-premium.
Folks might get into trouble if they have a labor certification stuck in the BEC and it doesn't get approved for another 12 months or so...
Comments ?
- GS
(of course, this is all speculation, I realize there's a long way to go before this becomes law).
2010 Love Letter
coopheal
07-05 01:41 PM
I contacted WI senators office and told about the visa bulletin changes.
Also called WPR to highlight the injustice done to legal immigrants by changing the visa bulletin on the day USCIS was supposed accept the I-485.
Also called WPR to highlight the injustice done to legal immigrants by changing the visa bulletin on the day USCIS was supposed accept the I-485.
more...
yabadaba
08-27 01:05 PM
since this last month has been one of the most frustrating in terms of any movement from any standpoint...thought i d write another op ed
==================================================
Where is my Ellis Island?
America is more than a country. It is an idea. It is the idea of freedom, liberty and justice for all. It is the idea that an immigrant with the determination, skills and the ability to work hard can make it. He or she can single handedly change the course of their generations to come.
I first read Jeffery Archer's Kane and Abel when I was 13. One of the most powerful images that the book conjured up for me was the day young Abel Rosonovski after facing years of hardship and seeing the collapse of the Polish dynasty, manages to get to America. Archer describes is great detail how Abel looks at the Statue of Liberty with tears in his eyes. When he lands on Ellis Island there are two guards who make notations of everybody getting off the boat and following a medical exam he is welcomed into America. Not as a temporary worker, not given an H1B, not given a temporary asylum status, but is welcomed as a full fledged American Citizen into the United States of America.
Today, things are not the same. I agree that I did not have to endure years of civil war or ethnic strife, but my reason for moving to the US was just like every American's grandfather, great grandfather or great-great grandfather. In essence it was to ensure a better life for me and for my future generations. My great grandchild will someday talk about how her grandfather moved here, put himself through graduate school and tried to build a better life. Her story will be the same as every other American's.
However, today I saw a letter being circulated by the anti immigration groups asking their congressman to oppose a bill proposed by Rep. John Shadegg of Arizona. This bill provides relief to millions of us who are stuck in limbo because of the worst set of immigration policies for educated immigrants in the civilized world. What makes me rethink my American dream is not that restrictionists like Lou Dobbs are against this bill but because what is being circulated is plain lies.
They claim that persons on H1B does not pay taxes, bring in millions of family members and produce thousands of “anchor babies.” This is the same set of lies being touted by Tancredo and his creed. Under the H1-B visa we are not exempt from any taxes that are charged by the IRS. In fact most sensible and informed law-makers have agreed that this is almost discriminatory because under a work visa we cannot avail of any benefit that the social security program provides for.
The other thing that makes me question my decision of being in America is the anchor babies’ statement. This statement reeks of xenophobia. It goes against everything that this country stands for. It is a slap in the face for the drafters of the 14th amendment. If my baby is an anchor baby, then every single American is also an anchor baby. By calling American children of immigrants "anchor babies" these restrictionists have defiled the entire premise of America. In immigrant circles, where people understand the process of immigration, this is seen as the "maccaca" moment for organizations like Numbers USA.
Its time the restrictionists and the American public decide once and for all what they want from the immigrants. If you do not want us here, provide Tancredo and his creed with the tools to go ahead and build a mile high wall on the southern border, eliminate all temporary visa programs and close down any legal avenues for people to come here.
If you consider that we provide value, subsidize your taxes by paying into the Social Security program, are an important part of your community and that we help stimulate the economy through taxes and buying power, then provide Rep. John Shadegg with the power to pass the Skill Bill.
In any case end our misery and let us know what you want. This way we can go about our lives.
yabadaba
IV member
==================
published on Dec 20
http://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=7b1a82abac88e4509c386 03143688521
==========
==================================================
Where is my Ellis Island?
America is more than a country. It is an idea. It is the idea of freedom, liberty and justice for all. It is the idea that an immigrant with the determination, skills and the ability to work hard can make it. He or she can single handedly change the course of their generations to come.
I first read Jeffery Archer's Kane and Abel when I was 13. One of the most powerful images that the book conjured up for me was the day young Abel Rosonovski after facing years of hardship and seeing the collapse of the Polish dynasty, manages to get to America. Archer describes is great detail how Abel looks at the Statue of Liberty with tears in his eyes. When he lands on Ellis Island there are two guards who make notations of everybody getting off the boat and following a medical exam he is welcomed into America. Not as a temporary worker, not given an H1B, not given a temporary asylum status, but is welcomed as a full fledged American Citizen into the United States of America.
Today, things are not the same. I agree that I did not have to endure years of civil war or ethnic strife, but my reason for moving to the US was just like every American's grandfather, great grandfather or great-great grandfather. In essence it was to ensure a better life for me and for my future generations. My great grandchild will someday talk about how her grandfather moved here, put himself through graduate school and tried to build a better life. Her story will be the same as every other American's.
However, today I saw a letter being circulated by the anti immigration groups asking their congressman to oppose a bill proposed by Rep. John Shadegg of Arizona. This bill provides relief to millions of us who are stuck in limbo because of the worst set of immigration policies for educated immigrants in the civilized world. What makes me rethink my American dream is not that restrictionists like Lou Dobbs are against this bill but because what is being circulated is plain lies.
They claim that persons on H1B does not pay taxes, bring in millions of family members and produce thousands of “anchor babies.” This is the same set of lies being touted by Tancredo and his creed. Under the H1-B visa we are not exempt from any taxes that are charged by the IRS. In fact most sensible and informed law-makers have agreed that this is almost discriminatory because under a work visa we cannot avail of any benefit that the social security program provides for.
The other thing that makes me question my decision of being in America is the anchor babies’ statement. This statement reeks of xenophobia. It goes against everything that this country stands for. It is a slap in the face for the drafters of the 14th amendment. If my baby is an anchor baby, then every single American is also an anchor baby. By calling American children of immigrants "anchor babies" these restrictionists have defiled the entire premise of America. In immigrant circles, where people understand the process of immigration, this is seen as the "maccaca" moment for organizations like Numbers USA.
Its time the restrictionists and the American public decide once and for all what they want from the immigrants. If you do not want us here, provide Tancredo and his creed with the tools to go ahead and build a mile high wall on the southern border, eliminate all temporary visa programs and close down any legal avenues for people to come here.
If you consider that we provide value, subsidize your taxes by paying into the Social Security program, are an important part of your community and that we help stimulate the economy through taxes and buying power, then provide Rep. John Shadegg with the power to pass the Skill Bill.
In any case end our misery and let us know what you want. This way we can go about our lives.
yabadaba
IV member
==================
published on Dec 20
http://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=7b1a82abac88e4509c386 03143688521
==========
hair Funny Star Wars Love Letter
indianabacklog
07-28 10:32 PM
Age Out Issue for filing I-485: Gurus, please advise me on the age out issue of my son.
(1) Dates & Calculations effecting filing I_485: Here are the dates and the calculations I did which result in effective age of �21 yrs + 1 month + 1 day� thus making it Age-out issue for filing for I-485 for my son.
(A) Priority date : Nov, 2005
(B) I-140 receipt : 2/22/2006 I-140 approval : 3/22/2006
(C) I-140 pending period : One month (too fast where it was not a help!)
(I-140 was approved in my son�s 20th year � however, I learned that it is not of any help for filing his I-485)
(D) Applied for I-485 (for rest of family � not for son) (Thanks to IV) : First week of July 2007
(E) DOB of son : 3/30/1986
(F) Currant age : 21 yrs + 4 months (Currently on F1 and doing his under grad in US)
(G) Date to be considered for determining the age for filing I-485 : 6/1/2007
(since the monthly bulletin is released on 6/12/2007)
(H) Age as on above date (6/1/2007) : 21 yrs + 2 month + 1 day
(I) Benefit from CSPA :(I-140) pending days (C) : 1 month
(J) Effective age for filing I-485 during current window : (H) � (J) : 21 yrs + 1 month + 1 day
(2) Since, he aged out for filing for I-485 (also based on attorney�s calculation), his papers were not included and only papers for rest of the family were filed in July, 2007. Friends, is there any other interpretation of CSPA � which could be helpful in this scenario?
(3) Other Particulars (which could potentially offer any other solution / advice): I am from India and in US from sep 1998 (change of employer forced me to restart my GC process) and my son entered USA in Oct 1999 at his 13 � yrs and stayed continuously & studied in USA from 9th standard. Currently, he is in final yr of under graduate study and is on F1 visa from March 2007 (after completing 21 yrs) paying high (2.5 times the instate fee) international student fee.
(4) Can I do any thing in the current window when dates are current (until 8/17/07): Friends, if there is any way of filing his I-485, it will be of great help � since he could continue his graduate study at reasonable cost (at instate tuition fee). Are there any other options in this situation? Is there any possibility of I-485 getting receipted (if filed) � since he is supposed to have his PD frozen for his application for family based I-485 at parent�s PD (if applied with in one year of parent�s I-485?) (I am referring to a clause in CSPA � which states that the application will automatically be converted to family based I-485 if applied with in one year � Of course, these dates are not current now).
(5) I am not aware of how many others are affected with age-out issue in EB based cases. Can we come together through IV and identify potential action items? Can IV and immigration community help in addressing the age-out issue in bills proposed to be introduced (like DREAM / SKILL etc�) now on� (Particularly since the percentage of affected people may be very low with less voice that could be heard). I am thankful to IV & the core team for their extraordinary efforts and shall be contributing my part shortly.
Sorry for the long note � I thought the complexity of the issue needs it.
Thx GCVir
I am sorry to hear about another child aging out. Those not affected can not imagine the anguish it causes. I also had to start my green card a second time because my first I140 application was denied. I have tried every which way to find a way round this issue. Constantly posting every time another person posts on this situation. IV to this point do not seem to be motivated to address this. While the parents on here will eventually get their green cards, these adult children lose their path. In reality these children are the real victims of labor backlogs and retrogression and it would be useful to use these instances to illustrate the misery that results from the backlogs and waiting periods. I am not down playing the plight of spouses who have to wait to be able to work, since my husband has been waiting (not always patiently) for eight years, so do understand this side of the problem as much as anyone else.
Please IV see this issue for what it is and that is a very real human issue that is destroying families. It could be used to everyone's advantage and highlight the human side of the broken employment based immigration system.
(1) Dates & Calculations effecting filing I_485: Here are the dates and the calculations I did which result in effective age of �21 yrs + 1 month + 1 day� thus making it Age-out issue for filing for I-485 for my son.
(A) Priority date : Nov, 2005
(B) I-140 receipt : 2/22/2006 I-140 approval : 3/22/2006
(C) I-140 pending period : One month (too fast where it was not a help!)
(I-140 was approved in my son�s 20th year � however, I learned that it is not of any help for filing his I-485)
(D) Applied for I-485 (for rest of family � not for son) (Thanks to IV) : First week of July 2007
(E) DOB of son : 3/30/1986
(F) Currant age : 21 yrs + 4 months (Currently on F1 and doing his under grad in US)
(G) Date to be considered for determining the age for filing I-485 : 6/1/2007
(since the monthly bulletin is released on 6/12/2007)
(H) Age as on above date (6/1/2007) : 21 yrs + 2 month + 1 day
(I) Benefit from CSPA :(I-140) pending days (C) : 1 month
(J) Effective age for filing I-485 during current window : (H) � (J) : 21 yrs + 1 month + 1 day
(2) Since, he aged out for filing for I-485 (also based on attorney�s calculation), his papers were not included and only papers for rest of the family were filed in July, 2007. Friends, is there any other interpretation of CSPA � which could be helpful in this scenario?
(3) Other Particulars (which could potentially offer any other solution / advice): I am from India and in US from sep 1998 (change of employer forced me to restart my GC process) and my son entered USA in Oct 1999 at his 13 � yrs and stayed continuously & studied in USA from 9th standard. Currently, he is in final yr of under graduate study and is on F1 visa from March 2007 (after completing 21 yrs) paying high (2.5 times the instate fee) international student fee.
(4) Can I do any thing in the current window when dates are current (until 8/17/07): Friends, if there is any way of filing his I-485, it will be of great help � since he could continue his graduate study at reasonable cost (at instate tuition fee). Are there any other options in this situation? Is there any possibility of I-485 getting receipted (if filed) � since he is supposed to have his PD frozen for his application for family based I-485 at parent�s PD (if applied with in one year of parent�s I-485?) (I am referring to a clause in CSPA � which states that the application will automatically be converted to family based I-485 if applied with in one year � Of course, these dates are not current now).
(5) I am not aware of how many others are affected with age-out issue in EB based cases. Can we come together through IV and identify potential action items? Can IV and immigration community help in addressing the age-out issue in bills proposed to be introduced (like DREAM / SKILL etc�) now on� (Particularly since the percentage of affected people may be very low with less voice that could be heard). I am thankful to IV & the core team for their extraordinary efforts and shall be contributing my part shortly.
Sorry for the long note � I thought the complexity of the issue needs it.
Thx GCVir
I am sorry to hear about another child aging out. Those not affected can not imagine the anguish it causes. I also had to start my green card a second time because my first I140 application was denied. I have tried every which way to find a way round this issue. Constantly posting every time another person posts on this situation. IV to this point do not seem to be motivated to address this. While the parents on here will eventually get their green cards, these adult children lose their path. In reality these children are the real victims of labor backlogs and retrogression and it would be useful to use these instances to illustrate the misery that results from the backlogs and waiting periods. I am not down playing the plight of spouses who have to wait to be able to work, since my husband has been waiting (not always patiently) for eight years, so do understand this side of the problem as much as anyone else.
Please IV see this issue for what it is and that is a very real human issue that is destroying families. It could be used to everyone's advantage and highlight the human side of the broken employment based immigration system.
more...
qasleuth
03-12 08:05 PM
ok...I am trying really hard to understand what you are trying to convey. What is your concern ? People will stop visiting IV and go to other websites ?
No need to be over-dramatic (did not read any one calling you a traitor). People talk about going back to their home countries too (but I actually see a small fraction of people actually doing it).
I am not sure you understand the concept of an organization offering 'services' to its members. X man hours to produce ? what are you talking about ?
My friend it is not just 'information'. Information is money. All you are talking about is 'forums/discussion boards'. I have mentioned this before as well. IV is more than a discussion board and you can make no comparison to other tracker websites.
Here is some additional info about non-profit orgs. You SHOULD read about non-profit orgs in the below link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-profit
So your definition of support is 'monetary support' only?
I am sorry for being so critical, but then someone has to.
If the idea of monetary only threads is to affirm the show of support, than am i a traitor to the greater good of retrogressed non-immigrants? This is not the right way to go.
Donors here on this very thread have already started talking about people spilling over to sites like and also if members might float other immigration websites.
why are we doing this? Why are we creating differences?
What is the Donor only thread? is it a commodity, that took 'x' man hours to produce, that you are charging money for it?
It is information. period. and as every hour passes, more organisations are providing or striving to provide information free of cost.
Also, what are we discussing in these threads, that we have to be paid members to view it?
Have you even thought about this legally?
Usually, a non-for-proft org has a fund raiser or a money raiser drive or event.
How are you even justifying asking for money to view threads, which is nothing but information that you do not own and have not worked to get it.
Believe me, this is walking on a very thin line.
No need to be over-dramatic (did not read any one calling you a traitor). People talk about going back to their home countries too (but I actually see a small fraction of people actually doing it).
I am not sure you understand the concept of an organization offering 'services' to its members. X man hours to produce ? what are you talking about ?
My friend it is not just 'information'. Information is money. All you are talking about is 'forums/discussion boards'. I have mentioned this before as well. IV is more than a discussion board and you can make no comparison to other tracker websites.
Here is some additional info about non-profit orgs. You SHOULD read about non-profit orgs in the below link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-profit
So your definition of support is 'monetary support' only?
I am sorry for being so critical, but then someone has to.
If the idea of monetary only threads is to affirm the show of support, than am i a traitor to the greater good of retrogressed non-immigrants? This is not the right way to go.
Donors here on this very thread have already started talking about people spilling over to sites like and also if members might float other immigration websites.
why are we doing this? Why are we creating differences?
What is the Donor only thread? is it a commodity, that took 'x' man hours to produce, that you are charging money for it?
It is information. period. and as every hour passes, more organisations are providing or striving to provide information free of cost.
Also, what are we discussing in these threads, that we have to be paid members to view it?
Have you even thought about this legally?
Usually, a non-for-proft org has a fund raiser or a money raiser drive or event.
How are you even justifying asking for money to view threads, which is nothing but information that you do not own and have not worked to get it.
Believe me, this is walking on a very thin line.
hot Love Letter in Hindi
smuggymba
08-23 09:14 AM
Only EB2-NIW (National Interest Waiver) even currently requires 10 years of work experience in the relevant field at the time of filing this is the category that does not require labor and van be self filed. The exceptional ability refers to Non US Masters folks Bachelors + 5 Years, now looks like this is bachelors + 10 years. The memo is currently not implemented Smuggymba I believe you should push your case in premium processing, probably you are not impacted though as you have a US masters (MBA). But there is no guarantee that they will not review all cases at the time of 485 once again. This memo / revised guidelines are indeed extremely scary. Kartikiran I agree with your thoughts about the direction in which things are moving.
oh it hurts....I just believed Kate and Bluekayal and became happy and now back to scary feeling.
oh it hurts....I just believed Kate and Bluekayal and became happy and now back to scary feeling.
more...
house 15 Funny Facebook Fails
Desichakit
07-11 09:51 AM
This appears to be half the battle won for EB2 as it has to translated into actual approval. Also we must be mindfull of EB3 retrogression and must not lose sight of it in this Euphoria.
EB2-I-Jan08
EB2-I-Jan08
tattoo Love Letters
asdqwe2k
01-10 01:56 PM
May be yes....applying greencard is required to extend the H1...having said that one has to spend huge money in applying for GC...at the same time one can also stay out of US for an year and come back if required...
well the reasons are many...and all seems to be valid...
I agree having 1 crore is sort of middle class..especially with the real estate boom in Hyderabad..you won't get a two bedroom flat in a decent area unless you pay around 20 lakhs...
on a lighter note...1 crore is just simple....for the people over there...for example my father retired in early 2004 and spent his retirement money to buy a two bedroom apartment and a small piece of land (about 10 lakhs in total)...now the apartment itself costs about 11 lakhs and land costs about another 14 lakhs.........earning/saving of about 15 lakhs in 3 years....how many of us could do that ;)
when i came to US at first i thought i would go back to india if i have 1 crore, but when time goes by, i came to know that now a days in india people who have 1 Crore are considered as Middle Class,
Who said that 1 crore is middle class in India ???
That would mean 1 billion poor people in india according to this article, and that will include you...
http://www.rediff.com/money/2004/jul/14rich.htm
http://www.realestatetimes.in/index.php?title=india_developing_more_upmarket_apa rtment&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
http://www.sunmediaonline.com/indiachroniclejuly06/newsmakers.html
India�s millionaires on the rise
India�s millionaire population in 2005 shot up by 19.3 per cent over the past year, second only to South Korea�s 21.3 per cent on world charts. The World Wealth Report, released by Merrill Lynch and Capgemini, says India had 83,000 millionaires (people with more than $1 million or Rs 4.5 crore in net financial assets, excluding their residence and consumables).
The rate at which India is producing rich people is hardly surprising, says the report. It goes on: "Also according to the most recent Goldman Sachs projections, India has the potential to become the fourth largest economy by 2025 and the third largest by 2050, behind only the United States and China."
Worldwide, the number of millionaires swelled by half a million in 2005 and there were 8.7 million of them, more than New York's population.
On the top of the charts is the US with a millionaire population of 2.67 million, nearly a third of the global millionaire population. Germany, the UK, China, Canada, Australia, Brazil, and Russia, among others, each have more than 100,000 millionaires
well the reasons are many...and all seems to be valid...
I agree having 1 crore is sort of middle class..especially with the real estate boom in Hyderabad..you won't get a two bedroom flat in a decent area unless you pay around 20 lakhs...
on a lighter note...1 crore is just simple....for the people over there...for example my father retired in early 2004 and spent his retirement money to buy a two bedroom apartment and a small piece of land (about 10 lakhs in total)...now the apartment itself costs about 11 lakhs and land costs about another 14 lakhs.........earning/saving of about 15 lakhs in 3 years....how many of us could do that ;)
when i came to US at first i thought i would go back to india if i have 1 crore, but when time goes by, i came to know that now a days in india people who have 1 Crore are considered as Middle Class,
Who said that 1 crore is middle class in India ???
That would mean 1 billion poor people in india according to this article, and that will include you...
http://www.rediff.com/money/2004/jul/14rich.htm
http://www.realestatetimes.in/index.php?title=india_developing_more_upmarket_apa rtment&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
http://www.sunmediaonline.com/indiachroniclejuly06/newsmakers.html
India�s millionaires on the rise
India�s millionaire population in 2005 shot up by 19.3 per cent over the past year, second only to South Korea�s 21.3 per cent on world charts. The World Wealth Report, released by Merrill Lynch and Capgemini, says India had 83,000 millionaires (people with more than $1 million or Rs 4.5 crore in net financial assets, excluding their residence and consumables).
The rate at which India is producing rich people is hardly surprising, says the report. It goes on: "Also according to the most recent Goldman Sachs projections, India has the potential to become the fourth largest economy by 2025 and the third largest by 2050, behind only the United States and China."
Worldwide, the number of millionaires swelled by half a million in 2005 and there were 8.7 million of them, more than New York's population.
On the top of the charts is the US with a millionaire population of 2.67 million, nearly a third of the global millionaire population. Germany, the UK, China, Canada, Australia, Brazil, and Russia, among others, each have more than 100,000 millionaires
more...
pictures Love letter in Malayalam0
RaviG
06-25 03:10 PM
Since I am sure that my GC will take 5 to 10 years more. Meanwhile too many things will change that might make me go back home. So I decided to invest in home(India). I sold lot of stocks. Stopped contributing to 401K above employers match (I used to contribute full 15K). Deferred buying house until my 140 approved.
I am at a life stage where I have enough experience and tendency to take risks (married but no kids etc...). If I have flexibility of not working, I want to invest my time in a small startup. Working/investing a start-up means I might go out of status anytime. So I decided not to try any of those. Its a loss for me as well as for economy. If I accumulate enough money I might go home and try to do something like startup or small business. It would be good for US and me if they let me do it here.
In essence I am loosing the oppurtunity and by restricting my career US is loosing an oppurtunity to create more jobs.
I am at a life stage where I have enough experience and tendency to take risks (married but no kids etc...). If I have flexibility of not working, I want to invest my time in a small startup. Working/investing a start-up means I might go out of status anytime. So I decided not to try any of those. Its a loss for me as well as for economy. If I accumulate enough money I might go home and try to do something like startup or small business. It would be good for US and me if they let me do it here.
In essence I am loosing the oppurtunity and by restricting my career US is loosing an oppurtunity to create more jobs.
dresses The Anti-Love Letter
GC9180
12-10 09:06 PM
In Jan 2010 DOL will publish their data and that will make thing very clear. I think DOS is assuming around 10 -15 k Spill over visas that can be available to Eb2 India ( based on previous years ) and that is what it take them into Oct - Dec 2005 range. They don't factor in CIS processing time. But I think from pool of 40-50k pre adjudicated apps CIS can easily consume 10k visas. But if there are less labors and more spill over visas ( like 30 -40 k) then be ready for mini version of july fiasco.
If they are saying if spillover is used they would ensure eb2 I & C would have same PD dates. Since eb2 C is may 05 and for eb2 I to reach that date ( may 05) it would need at least 4k spillover visas...i think till then they would not a lot any spill over visas (1st 4k) to eb2 c .. and from that date onwards the spill over visas would be shared between I & C.
If they are saying if spillover is used they would ensure eb2 I & C would have same PD dates. Since eb2 C is may 05 and for eb2 I to reach that date ( may 05) it would need at least 4k spillover visas...i think till then they would not a lot any spill over visas (1st 4k) to eb2 c .. and from that date onwards the spill over visas would be shared between I & C.
more...
makeup Best and Most Funny Pakistani
waitforevergc
02-18 03:22 PM
please contribute with points...
stop this Eb2, Eb3 thing and let everyone get a chance to get GC.
stop this Eb2, Eb3 thing and let everyone get a chance to get GC.
girlfriend funny love letters. i love you
baburob2
03-15 06:25 PM
Overall no big progress w.r.t our title's though Brownback's comment on immigration numbers is good.
Senate Judiciary Committee Continues Slow Progress in Markup of Immigration Reform Legislation
Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 06031540 (posted Mar. 15, 2006)"
The Senate Judiciary Committee continued its consideration today of draft legislation on comprehensive immigration reform sponsored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter. The Committee officially took up the bill, known as the �Chairman�s Mark,� on March 2 but has made very slow progress to date.
The following is a very brief summary of the amendments that were addressed during today�s session. See our previous update on last week�s markup sessions. We will continue to update you as action on the bill continues.
1. The Committee passed by a voice vote a compromise amendment by Feingold that would preserve some level of judicial review over naturalization applications.
2. A Specter 2nd degree amendment to a Sessions amendment on evading inspection passed.
3. A Leahy amendment on security-related issues passed by voice vote.
4. A Kennedy amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s retroactive provisions was debated and deferred.
5. A Feinstein amendment to modify the provisions of the Mark relating to border security was deferred for future action.
6. A Durbin amendment to strike the Mark�s criminalization of unlawful status was once again deferred for future consideration. Feinstein attempted to offer a 2nd degree amendment that would provide aliens with a 60-day grace period for visa overstays before they are subject to criminal prosecution under INA � 275(a), but Specter would not allow it since Durbin�s underlying amendment was set aside.
7. A Durbin amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s smuggling provision so as not to criminalize humanitarian assistance was once again debated and deferred. Kyl spoke in opposition to the amendment. Cornyn had a second degree that Hatch thought was insufficient. Hatch, Schumer and Biden spoke in opposition to Cornyn�s 2nd degree. Cornyn was not convincing, but Kyl did some damage.
8. A Sessions amendment to affirm the inherent authority of state and local law enforcement personnel to enforce federal civil immigration laws during the normal course of carrying out their duties was discussed. Specter offered a 2nd degree that would limit the inherent authority of states and localities to the enforcement of the criminal provisions of the immigration laws. Sessions would only support the 2nd degree if the provisions of the Mark criminalizing unlawful presence remain intact. Thus, if the Durbin amendment to strike those provisions passes, Sessions wants to revisit the Specter 2nd degree. Specter�s 2nd degree passed by voice vote.
9. A Sessions amendment that would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide information to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) related to aliens who may have violated certain immigration laws passed by a voice vote. The broadly worded amendment would encompass visa overstayers, other civil violators, and even members of vulnerable populations such as asylum-seekers who are improperly documented but seeking relief. Leahy and Kennedy voted against the amendment and Leahy spoke in opposition to overloading the NCIC database with individuals who do not belong in it. A Specter 2nd degree amendment that would provide a procedure for requesting removal from the database and modify the group of individuals included in it passed by voice vote.
10. A Sessions amendment that would require at least one law enforcement agency in each state to enter into a � 287(g) cooperative enforcement agreement to enforce immigration laws against alien smugglers was considered. Sessions accepted a Coburn 2nd degree amendment that would clarify: (1) that such agreements would be purely voluntary, and (2) that the �287(g) enforcement authority would not be limited to alien smuggling. There was no quorum to vote on these, however, and they were set aside.
Part way through the markup, Specter attempted to jump to a debate on the issue of the undocumented population, noting that he has reiterated to Senate Majority Leader Frist that he (Specter) opposes bringing immigration reform to the Senate Floor before the Senate Judiciary Committee had completed its consideration of the Chairman�s Mark. Biden and Kennedy voiced their support of Specter�s desire to complete work in Committee. Kennedy added, �this issue is NOT going away, like some other issues,� and urged deferral of the Title VI discussion until tomorrow (Title VI contains the provisions dealing with the undocumented population). He added that we need to deal with ALL aspects of reform to have real, lasting border security�going forward with any of these components alone will fail.
Durbin said that, to defeat the House bill (H.R. 4437), the Committee needs to pass a strong bipartisan bill with the support of about 12 members. He feels the Committee should do an extra markup session on a day when there is no other Senate business. �We need to watch the House,� noted Durbin, adding: �They have a bill we need to fight at all costs. We need bipartisan support out of this Committee.�
Brownback stated that the Committee has started a process to create broad bipartisan support for good policy, and that this is the most significant legislation of the year. �We have serious problems with immigrant numbers,� he said. �We can�t live with these and need to change them. McCain/Kennedy would deal with this. How do we get the Mark to deal with these numbers? We need a way NOT to end up here again after 10 years. We can�t move too quickly.�
Cornyn described the process as akin to �digging out of a big hole,� noting that with enforcement done first, other issues would get simpler. He believes we need to impose circularity---not permanent immigration.
Coburn said that, like it or not, we have to deal with issue of the undocumented population. He urged the Committee to split the bill in two and do enforcement first, and work to reach consensus on other parts later in the year. �No one in the country trusts us on this issue because we haven�t enforced our existing laws,� he said.
Feinstein stated her concerns about the process, and also spoke out against comprehensive immigration reform and in favor of her more limited agricultural pilot program idea. She said she had met with Senator Craig (the sponsor of AgJobs) yesterday to see if they could work out their differences but there has been no resolution yet. She also expressed much frustration with Frist�s artificial timeline. She indicated her opposition to the House bill, and said that consensus was needed in the Committee (she believes the Committee has come to some consensus on the enforcement pieces but little else). She urged Specter to go back to Frist and ask for more time.
Sessions said we need to focus on enforcement now, and then have a national discussion later on the other elements of immigration reform. He believes Congress needs to focus on enforcement to build credibility with the public. �I�m not prepared to repeat 1986,� he said. �We should slow down.�
Specter repeatedly voiced his concern about �line-jumping,� arguing that the McCain/Kennedy bill would �leap frog� the current undocumented population over individuals who have been waiting in the backlogs. He also said that he�d prefer it if the legislation contained a path to citizenship but, as Chair, was trying to balance both sides.
In other hurdles to the Judiciary Committee�s completion of work on the bill, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Grassley, who is also a member of the Judiciary Committee, argued that the Finance Committee should have jurisdiction over the provisions of the Mark relating to the Social Security Act, adding that the IRS has raised serious concerns about some of these amendments. However, several other senators argued for consideration of these provisions in the Judiciary Committee. It is also possible that Grassley could exercise the Finance Committee�s authority by managing those amendments during floor debate.
The Committee disbanded about noon, due to a number of votes on the Senate Floor and the attendant low probability of maintaining a voting quorum in the Committee.
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=18835
Senate Judiciary Committee Continues Slow Progress in Markup of Immigration Reform Legislation
Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 06031540 (posted Mar. 15, 2006)"
The Senate Judiciary Committee continued its consideration today of draft legislation on comprehensive immigration reform sponsored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter. The Committee officially took up the bill, known as the �Chairman�s Mark,� on March 2 but has made very slow progress to date.
The following is a very brief summary of the amendments that were addressed during today�s session. See our previous update on last week�s markup sessions. We will continue to update you as action on the bill continues.
1. The Committee passed by a voice vote a compromise amendment by Feingold that would preserve some level of judicial review over naturalization applications.
2. A Specter 2nd degree amendment to a Sessions amendment on evading inspection passed.
3. A Leahy amendment on security-related issues passed by voice vote.
4. A Kennedy amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s retroactive provisions was debated and deferred.
5. A Feinstein amendment to modify the provisions of the Mark relating to border security was deferred for future action.
6. A Durbin amendment to strike the Mark�s criminalization of unlawful status was once again deferred for future consideration. Feinstein attempted to offer a 2nd degree amendment that would provide aliens with a 60-day grace period for visa overstays before they are subject to criminal prosecution under INA � 275(a), but Specter would not allow it since Durbin�s underlying amendment was set aside.
7. A Durbin amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s smuggling provision so as not to criminalize humanitarian assistance was once again debated and deferred. Kyl spoke in opposition to the amendment. Cornyn had a second degree that Hatch thought was insufficient. Hatch, Schumer and Biden spoke in opposition to Cornyn�s 2nd degree. Cornyn was not convincing, but Kyl did some damage.
8. A Sessions amendment to affirm the inherent authority of state and local law enforcement personnel to enforce federal civil immigration laws during the normal course of carrying out their duties was discussed. Specter offered a 2nd degree that would limit the inherent authority of states and localities to the enforcement of the criminal provisions of the immigration laws. Sessions would only support the 2nd degree if the provisions of the Mark criminalizing unlawful presence remain intact. Thus, if the Durbin amendment to strike those provisions passes, Sessions wants to revisit the Specter 2nd degree. Specter�s 2nd degree passed by voice vote.
9. A Sessions amendment that would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide information to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) related to aliens who may have violated certain immigration laws passed by a voice vote. The broadly worded amendment would encompass visa overstayers, other civil violators, and even members of vulnerable populations such as asylum-seekers who are improperly documented but seeking relief. Leahy and Kennedy voted against the amendment and Leahy spoke in opposition to overloading the NCIC database with individuals who do not belong in it. A Specter 2nd degree amendment that would provide a procedure for requesting removal from the database and modify the group of individuals included in it passed by voice vote.
10. A Sessions amendment that would require at least one law enforcement agency in each state to enter into a � 287(g) cooperative enforcement agreement to enforce immigration laws against alien smugglers was considered. Sessions accepted a Coburn 2nd degree amendment that would clarify: (1) that such agreements would be purely voluntary, and (2) that the �287(g) enforcement authority would not be limited to alien smuggling. There was no quorum to vote on these, however, and they were set aside.
Part way through the markup, Specter attempted to jump to a debate on the issue of the undocumented population, noting that he has reiterated to Senate Majority Leader Frist that he (Specter) opposes bringing immigration reform to the Senate Floor before the Senate Judiciary Committee had completed its consideration of the Chairman�s Mark. Biden and Kennedy voiced their support of Specter�s desire to complete work in Committee. Kennedy added, �this issue is NOT going away, like some other issues,� and urged deferral of the Title VI discussion until tomorrow (Title VI contains the provisions dealing with the undocumented population). He added that we need to deal with ALL aspects of reform to have real, lasting border security�going forward with any of these components alone will fail.
Durbin said that, to defeat the House bill (H.R. 4437), the Committee needs to pass a strong bipartisan bill with the support of about 12 members. He feels the Committee should do an extra markup session on a day when there is no other Senate business. �We need to watch the House,� noted Durbin, adding: �They have a bill we need to fight at all costs. We need bipartisan support out of this Committee.�
Brownback stated that the Committee has started a process to create broad bipartisan support for good policy, and that this is the most significant legislation of the year. �We have serious problems with immigrant numbers,� he said. �We can�t live with these and need to change them. McCain/Kennedy would deal with this. How do we get the Mark to deal with these numbers? We need a way NOT to end up here again after 10 years. We can�t move too quickly.�
Cornyn described the process as akin to �digging out of a big hole,� noting that with enforcement done first, other issues would get simpler. He believes we need to impose circularity---not permanent immigration.
Coburn said that, like it or not, we have to deal with issue of the undocumented population. He urged the Committee to split the bill in two and do enforcement first, and work to reach consensus on other parts later in the year. �No one in the country trusts us on this issue because we haven�t enforced our existing laws,� he said.
Feinstein stated her concerns about the process, and also spoke out against comprehensive immigration reform and in favor of her more limited agricultural pilot program idea. She said she had met with Senator Craig (the sponsor of AgJobs) yesterday to see if they could work out their differences but there has been no resolution yet. She also expressed much frustration with Frist�s artificial timeline. She indicated her opposition to the House bill, and said that consensus was needed in the Committee (she believes the Committee has come to some consensus on the enforcement pieces but little else). She urged Specter to go back to Frist and ask for more time.
Sessions said we need to focus on enforcement now, and then have a national discussion later on the other elements of immigration reform. He believes Congress needs to focus on enforcement to build credibility with the public. �I�m not prepared to repeat 1986,� he said. �We should slow down.�
Specter repeatedly voiced his concern about �line-jumping,� arguing that the McCain/Kennedy bill would �leap frog� the current undocumented population over individuals who have been waiting in the backlogs. He also said that he�d prefer it if the legislation contained a path to citizenship but, as Chair, was trying to balance both sides.
In other hurdles to the Judiciary Committee�s completion of work on the bill, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Grassley, who is also a member of the Judiciary Committee, argued that the Finance Committee should have jurisdiction over the provisions of the Mark relating to the Social Security Act, adding that the IRS has raised serious concerns about some of these amendments. However, several other senators argued for consideration of these provisions in the Judiciary Committee. It is also possible that Grassley could exercise the Finance Committee�s authority by managing those amendments during floor debate.
The Committee disbanded about noon, due to a number of votes on the Senate Floor and the attendant low probability of maintaining a voting quorum in the Committee.
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=18835
hairstyles love letter to a girl with the
singhsa3
04-30 04:33 PM
Apume, I have send u a private messgae
Do I have legal broadcasting rights of uploading this for public viewing?
Rather, is it legal to do this?
if not i can send it to your gmail...
Do I have legal broadcasting rights of uploading this for public viewing?
Rather, is it legal to do this?
if not i can send it to your gmail...
sunny1000
12-18 10:50 PM
My lawyer received it on Dec 16th - they said that they need at least 2 weeks to answer the RFE. They also mentioned that the RFE doesn''t ask for any specific paperwork , its like a Question-Answer Form.
a) Why do you need this guy
b) Can you find an american instead of this guy
c) How you benchmark performance in the company
etc...
Is this not the reason they (U.S government) have a process to issue certificate from labor department to prove that the company could not hire an American for which some of us had to wait 5 years!!! Talk about abuse of power by USCIS.....
a) Why do you need this guy
b) Can you find an american instead of this guy
c) How you benchmark performance in the company
etc...
Is this not the reason they (U.S government) have a process to issue certificate from labor department to prove that the company could not hire an American for which some of us had to wait 5 years!!! Talk about abuse of power by USCIS.....
billu
09-07 12:46 PM
With so many of us waiting for GCs for 5/10/15 years, makes me wonder what exactly is the motivation??what benefits/advantages does the GC bring ?one major advantage is that the spouse can work (which many of us already have -thanks to july 2007). So being on EAD or Green card-how is this different from h1b?what are some things one can do on GC that they were not able to do on h1b??i am trying to motivate myself for the long wait and need to reinforce that its indeed worth it..
No comments:
Post a Comment