EndlessWait
06-18 04:00 PM
Under Part 3.
What should one put for
1. Nonimmigrant Visa number
2. Date Visa Issued
3. Consulate Where Visa was Issued.
I'm currently on a valid H1 extension with a valid I-94. The visa on passport has expired and I had got an extension within US. Anybody any ideas????
What should one put for
1. Nonimmigrant Visa number
2. Date Visa Issued
3. Consulate Where Visa was Issued.
I'm currently on a valid H1 extension with a valid I-94. The visa on passport has expired and I had got an extension within US. Anybody any ideas????
wallpaper with UNICEF#39;s Tap Project
nozerd
11-17 11:44 AM
Do you agree with this statement
If Employment Based Immigration Reform happens, it will happen in Calander year 2007. This reform could be in any form CIR or SKIL. If there is no reform by January 2008 its not gonna happen.
Thanks
If Employment Based Immigration Reform happens, it will happen in Calander year 2007. This reform could be in any form CIR or SKIL. If there is no reform by January 2008 its not gonna happen.
Thanks
snathan
05-01 11:55 PM
I'm currently on H1 visa (stamped) which is valid thru August 09. I'm going outside of US and entering back in mid May. When I enter, I'll have 3 months left on my visa. Do you think there could be any problem with just a few month remaining on my visa? Do you know if there is a requirement such as you need to have at least "x" number of months remaining on your visa to enter? I do have H1 extension I-797 approval notice valid from Aug 2009 thru Aug 2012, but not stamped in the passport.
Anyone went thru a similar situation? was there any problem or extra questions asked at the POE?
Thanks.
pappusheth
Should not be an issue. Dont forget to give the approval notice to the IO. Otherwise you will be given only till Aug 2009.
Anyone went thru a similar situation? was there any problem or extra questions asked at the POE?
Thanks.
pappusheth
Should not be an issue. Dont forget to give the approval notice to the IO. Otherwise you will be given only till Aug 2009.
2011 Celebs like Selena Gomez,
softwareguy
09-08 12:47 PM
Well, this is nothing new, in State Governments so many times they mandate that only companies that listed in that state have right to big contracts. What small women owned, disadvantages, veteran owned companies do is provide a front to big operators like Accenture, IBM. At times then the small company hires a Senior Manager and finally it becomes all IBM operation from India or Phillipines.
On other times the State mandates all work be done inside the State. Then you have H1 and L1 visa holders. This is business as usual.
Actually it is quite a decent engagement practice. State owned companies get a piece of the big cake and get a chance to learn from big players and state gets the quality work at a fairly decent rate. So it is all win-win. At times they mandate "In State" workers only - so that it helps the local economy... that is where the Infosys & Wipros might hurt a bit, as the cost to put guys in NYC versus Ohio from Bangalore is identical but billing rate advantage between NYC and Ohio is vastly different and they might have hire locally.
On other times the State mandates all work be done inside the State. Then you have H1 and L1 visa holders. This is business as usual.
Actually it is quite a decent engagement practice. State owned companies get a piece of the big cake and get a chance to learn from big players and state gets the quality work at a fairly decent rate. So it is all win-win. At times they mandate "In State" workers only - so that it helps the local economy... that is where the Infosys & Wipros might hurt a bit, as the cost to put guys in NYC versus Ohio from Bangalore is identical but billing rate advantage between NYC and Ohio is vastly different and they might have hire locally.
more...
sanju
03-06 02:44 PM
Which bill? Passed where? More info please.
The greater danger in our lives is not that we set our aim too high and fail, but we set them too low, and still do.
.
The greater danger in our lives is not that we set our aim too high and fail, but we set them too low, and still do.
.
ilikekilo
04-20 04:57 PM
Hi Guys,
My experience with driver's license renewal in Ohio with EAD/expired-H1 was a pleasant surprise.
All I said was that I was a green card applicant, showed them my I-485 application receipt, and got a license valid for 4 years.
Smooth. What a surprise.
not sure what city you got in, but I was in Ohio for 7 yrs and never got 4 years, I got only until I94 or EAD exp date..mine was in cleveland...
My experience with driver's license renewal in Ohio with EAD/expired-H1 was a pleasant surprise.
All I said was that I was a green card applicant, showed them my I-485 application receipt, and got a license valid for 4 years.
Smooth. What a surprise.
not sure what city you got in, but I was in Ohio for 7 yrs and never got 4 years, I got only until I94 or EAD exp date..mine was in cleveland...
more...
pointlesswait
04-07 09:33 AM
i think ur employer/lawyer was retarded to send a check dated 2005..as far as i know.. check have a validity of 90 days..(atleast most of them do)
anyway..tough luck brother !
anyway..tough luck brother !
2010 The goal of the UNICEF Tap
fromnaija
12-03 04:09 PM
With due respect to Prashanthi, I don't think the OP aged out of his I-485. Since his parent submitted their and his I-485 in 2007 (that is before he turned 21), his application is protected under CSPA. In fact with respect to EB, once the I-485 is submitted and then the PD retrogresses, the child's age is locked in and the application will be approved whenever the PD becomes current again.
See page 3 of this document:
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/CSPA2_pub.pdf
Visa Availability Date Regression
If a visa availability date regresses, and an alien has already filed a Form I-485 based on an approved Form I-130 or Form I-140, the Service should retain the Form I-485 and note the visa availability date at the time the Form I-485 was filed. Once the visa number again becomes available for that preference category, determine whether the beneficiary is a “child” using the visa availability date marked on the Form I-485. If, however, an alien has not filed a Form I-485 prior to the visa availability date regressing, and then files a Form I-485 when the visa availability date again becomes current, the alien’s “age” should be determined using the subsequent visa availability date.
It's risky for the OP to go out of the US while his application is pending. However, it can be done if he has advance parole. He will have to return each year to renew his AP. If this is a risk you are willing to take, you could go but be aware of this.
See page 3 of this document:
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/CSPA2_pub.pdf
Visa Availability Date Regression
If a visa availability date regresses, and an alien has already filed a Form I-485 based on an approved Form I-130 or Form I-140, the Service should retain the Form I-485 and note the visa availability date at the time the Form I-485 was filed. Once the visa number again becomes available for that preference category, determine whether the beneficiary is a “child” using the visa availability date marked on the Form I-485. If, however, an alien has not filed a Form I-485 prior to the visa availability date regressing, and then files a Form I-485 when the visa availability date again becomes current, the alien’s “age” should be determined using the subsequent visa availability date.
It's risky for the OP to go out of the US while his application is pending. However, it can be done if he has advance parole. He will have to return each year to renew his AP. If this is a risk you are willing to take, you could go but be aware of this.
more...
blondhenge
05-22 09:25 AM
I am new here and I have few questions to IV core members.
Did we consider any other avenues find out is there any way out to influence DOS visa availability.
How did Nurses was able to accomodate their visa numbers without any bills are ammendments ( I know there is lot of demand for nurses)
you guys are doing a great job lobbying congressmen, but I think we should also consider finding out how current law if implemented properly can reduce the backlog and reduce retrogression.
for example we should make sure 245i case should not effect our visa numbers, I belive we can work these hurdles while we wait for current immigration debate to complete.
I called several senators last week and discussed with their immigration specialist, I got a feeling this debate is more about illegal aliens and about hispanic votes not many of them are considering legal aliens and issues.
The visas for nurses and schedule A was the result of a bill passed around May 2005 which recaptured unsued visa numbers and gave them only to schedule a.
Did we consider any other avenues find out is there any way out to influence DOS visa availability.
How did Nurses was able to accomodate their visa numbers without any bills are ammendments ( I know there is lot of demand for nurses)
you guys are doing a great job lobbying congressmen, but I think we should also consider finding out how current law if implemented properly can reduce the backlog and reduce retrogression.
for example we should make sure 245i case should not effect our visa numbers, I belive we can work these hurdles while we wait for current immigration debate to complete.
I called several senators last week and discussed with their immigration specialist, I got a feeling this debate is more about illegal aliens and about hispanic votes not many of them are considering legal aliens and issues.
The visas for nurses and schedule A was the result of a bill passed around May 2005 which recaptured unsued visa numbers and gave them only to schedule a.
hair but the UNICEF Tap Project
glus
02-19 01:54 PM
Hello, I'm wondering what steps I need to take in order to help my husband become a US resident (eventually a citizen but one step at a time). I have figured out that we need to fill out an I-130 but I keep seeing everyone talk about an I-485 and I'm curious if we need to use that one as well, and how many others???
Really quickly, our history: I'm a 19 year old US citizen by birth, and my husband is a 27 year old undocumented alien from Mexico. We just got married on Valentines day 2011 and I'm pregnant also which is why I would prefer to do this quickly as to prevent a possible deportation although he is an amazingly wonderful guy who's never had a run in with the law, it's just a constant concern of mine. =( He also has a 5 year old son from a previous marriage with an American woman (she cheated on him, and then divorced him) who we eventually would like to get custody for since his mother is a very bad person but that's another story.
I realize this is a complicated process that most people would suggest using a lawyer for, but I know there's people out there that have accomplished this without one and so that is my goal to do this on our own but I'm thinking that some advice from experienced individuals would benefit me greatly in this task. =) Any help you're willing to give would be greatly appreciated!! Thanks so much <3
hi,
Congrats on your marriage. If you are a U.S. Citizen and Husband entered the U.S. in a legal fashion (with a visa or any other LEGAL way) and can prove this, and if he has never been deported, or deported in absentia and has never committed a crime that would cause him inadmissible to the U.S, then you, the petitioner would file form I-130 for husband and at the same time he would file form I-485 to adjust status to a U.S. Permanent Resident. Both petitions would go together in one envelope to one location. Alternatively, you can file form I-130, wait for its approval, and once approved, your husband would need to file form I-485 to adjust status. I hope this clarifies a little bit? Good Luck.
Once again, if your husband has no criminal history and he entered U.S. legally, this is a straightforward case, assuming you can show the necessary income. Both form instructions explain how to do it and how to submit the applications.
Really quickly, our history: I'm a 19 year old US citizen by birth, and my husband is a 27 year old undocumented alien from Mexico. We just got married on Valentines day 2011 and I'm pregnant also which is why I would prefer to do this quickly as to prevent a possible deportation although he is an amazingly wonderful guy who's never had a run in with the law, it's just a constant concern of mine. =( He also has a 5 year old son from a previous marriage with an American woman (she cheated on him, and then divorced him) who we eventually would like to get custody for since his mother is a very bad person but that's another story.
I realize this is a complicated process that most people would suggest using a lawyer for, but I know there's people out there that have accomplished this without one and so that is my goal to do this on our own but I'm thinking that some advice from experienced individuals would benefit me greatly in this task. =) Any help you're willing to give would be greatly appreciated!! Thanks so much <3
hi,
Congrats on your marriage. If you are a U.S. Citizen and Husband entered the U.S. in a legal fashion (with a visa or any other LEGAL way) and can prove this, and if he has never been deported, or deported in absentia and has never committed a crime that would cause him inadmissible to the U.S, then you, the petitioner would file form I-130 for husband and at the same time he would file form I-485 to adjust status to a U.S. Permanent Resident. Both petitions would go together in one envelope to one location. Alternatively, you can file form I-130, wait for its approval, and once approved, your husband would need to file form I-485 to adjust status. I hope this clarifies a little bit? Good Luck.
Once again, if your husband has no criminal history and he entered U.S. legally, this is a straightforward case, assuming you can show the necessary income. Both form instructions explain how to do it and how to submit the applications.
more...
coopheal
04-12 07:17 PM
If you have an attorney represnted and you ahve signed a G325, you will not get the RFE your lawyer rather would get it...
This is correct. Only your attorney will get the RFE.
This is correct. Only your attorney will get the RFE.
hot selena gomez style clothes.
Blog Feeds
02-25 07:20 PM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJszefh-bFpNZS18HkexzQoGYcFt0B1cRFHJL8K67D9oVOu9s3ATQXj1NlHoXe2K-3Y05ax5sARrKzJaO2JD3hyphenhyphenAvY8RIV5bkzA6b2OUjx1pUSj1AbmUyuBO5-2Ez7zW_wLGvI9C6yZSE/s320/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJszefh-bFpNZS18HkexzQoGYcFt0B1cRFHJL8K67D9oVOu9s3ATQXj1NlHoXe2K-3Y05ax5sARrKzJaO2JD3hyphenhyphenAvY8RIV5bkzA6b2OUjx1pUSj1AbmUyuBO5-2Ez7zW_wLGvI9C6yZSE/s1600-h/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg)
By Eleanor Pelta, AILA First Vice President
The latest salvo in the war against H-1B workers and their employers (and this time, they�ve thrown L-1�s in just for fun,) is the Economic Policy Institute�s briefing paper by Ron Hira, released last week, which concludes that the practice of using H-1B and L-1 workers and then sending them back to their home countries is bad for the economy. While Hira�s findings are certainly headline-grabbing, the road that Hira takes to get there is filled with twists, turns and manipulations and simply lacks real data.
Hira starts with the premise that some employers use H-1B�s and L visas as a bridge to permanent residence, and some employers use those categories for temporary worker mobility. (His particular political bent is belied by his constant usage of the term �guest-worker status��a term that brings with it the politically charged connotations of the European guest worker programs for unskilled workers�for the practice of bringing H-1B�s and L�s in to the U.S. on a temporary basis.) After examining his �data,� he divides the world of employers into two broad categories:
� Bad guys (generally foreign employers, no surprise, or U.S. employers with off-shore companies in India) that bring in H-1B and L workers for temporary periods, exploit them, underpay them and send them home after they get training from the American workers whose jobs they will outsource when they return home
� Good guys (U.S. corporations �Hira uses the more genteel label, �firms with traditional business models�) that bring H-1B and L workers to the U.S., pay them adequate wages, and sponsor them for permanent residence, thereby effecting a knowledge transfer to American colleagues that is good for the economy
Hira�s tool, a statistic he calls �immigration yield,� is simply a comparison of H-1B and L usage and the number of PERM applications filed by the highest users of those visas. He essentially concludes that because the highest users of H-1B�s and L�s are Indian consulting companies, and these companies have only a minimal number of PERM�s certified, they are using H�s and L�s as cheap temporary labor. He is unable to explain away the high number PERM filings of one of the IT consulting companies, and so he addresses this anomaly by saying �part of the explanation might be that it is headquartered in the United States.�
There are too many things wrong with this analysis to list in this blog, but here are a just a few ways in which Hira�s study is problematic:
Hira�s clear implication is that companies that don�t sponsor H-1B�s and L�s for PERM are using these workers instead of more expensive American labor. He ignores that fact the H-1B program has rules in place requiring payment of the prevailing wage to these workers. But even worse, he has not presented any data whatsoever on the average wages paid to these workers. He also doesn�t address the expense of obtaining such visas. He simply concludes that because they are here temporarily, they are underpaid.
Hira makes the argument that companies who use H-1B and L workers as temporary workers generally use their U.S. operations as a training ground for these workers and then send then back to their home countries to do the job that was once located here. Again, this assertion is not supported by any real statistical data about, or serious review of, the U.S. activities of such workers, but rather by anecdotal evidence and quotes from news stories taken out of context.
With respect to the fact that the L-1B visa requires specialized knowledge and so would normally preclude entry to the U.S. for the purpose of gaining training, Hira cites and outdated OIG report that alleges that adjudicators will approve any L-1B petition, because the standards are so broad. Those of use in the field struggling with the 10 page RFE�s typically issued automatically on any specialized knowledge petition would certainly beg to differ with that point.
Hira clearly implies that American jobs are lost because of H-1B and L �guest workers,� but has no direct statistical evidence of such job loss.
The fact is that usage of H-1B and L visas varies with the needs of the employer. Some employers use these programs to rotate experienced, professional workers into the United States and then send the workers abroad to continue their careers. Some employers bring H-1B�s and L�s into the U.S. to rely on their skills on a permanent basis. Judging from the fraud statistics as well as DOL enforcement actions, the majority of employers who use H-1B workers pay these workers adequate wages and comply with all of the DOL rules regarding use of these workers, whether the employers bring them in for temporary purposes or not. By the same token, the minority of employers who seek to abuse H and L workers may well do so, whether they intend to sponsor them for permanent residence or not. Indeed, arguably, the potential for long-term abuse is much worse in the situation in which a real �bad guy� employer is sponsoring an employee for a green card, because of the inordinate length of time it takes for many H-1B and L workers to obtain permanent residency due to backlogs.
Hira does make that last point, and it is just about the only one we agree on. Congress needs to create a streamlined way for employers to access and retain in the U.S. foreign expertise and talent, without at 10-15 year wait for permanent residence. But our economy still needs the ability for business to nimbly move talent to the U.S. on a temporary basis when needed, or to rotate key personnel internationally. In a world where global mobility means increased competitiveness, Hira�s �statistics� simply don�t support elimination of these crucial capability.https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-6000198492670312275?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2010/02/epis-latest-study-of-h-1b-and-l-usage.html)
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJszefh-bFpNZS18HkexzQoGYcFt0B1cRFHJL8K67D9oVOu9s3ATQXj1NlHoXe2K-3Y05ax5sARrKzJaO2JD3hyphenhyphenAvY8RIV5bkzA6b2OUjx1pUSj1AbmUyuBO5-2Ez7zW_wLGvI9C6yZSE/s320/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJszefh-bFpNZS18HkexzQoGYcFt0B1cRFHJL8K67D9oVOu9s3ATQXj1NlHoXe2K-3Y05ax5sARrKzJaO2JD3hyphenhyphenAvY8RIV5bkzA6b2OUjx1pUSj1AbmUyuBO5-2Ez7zW_wLGvI9C6yZSE/s1600-h/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg)
By Eleanor Pelta, AILA First Vice President
The latest salvo in the war against H-1B workers and their employers (and this time, they�ve thrown L-1�s in just for fun,) is the Economic Policy Institute�s briefing paper by Ron Hira, released last week, which concludes that the practice of using H-1B and L-1 workers and then sending them back to their home countries is bad for the economy. While Hira�s findings are certainly headline-grabbing, the road that Hira takes to get there is filled with twists, turns and manipulations and simply lacks real data.
Hira starts with the premise that some employers use H-1B�s and L visas as a bridge to permanent residence, and some employers use those categories for temporary worker mobility. (His particular political bent is belied by his constant usage of the term �guest-worker status��a term that brings with it the politically charged connotations of the European guest worker programs for unskilled workers�for the practice of bringing H-1B�s and L�s in to the U.S. on a temporary basis.) After examining his �data,� he divides the world of employers into two broad categories:
� Bad guys (generally foreign employers, no surprise, or U.S. employers with off-shore companies in India) that bring in H-1B and L workers for temporary periods, exploit them, underpay them and send them home after they get training from the American workers whose jobs they will outsource when they return home
� Good guys (U.S. corporations �Hira uses the more genteel label, �firms with traditional business models�) that bring H-1B and L workers to the U.S., pay them adequate wages, and sponsor them for permanent residence, thereby effecting a knowledge transfer to American colleagues that is good for the economy
Hira�s tool, a statistic he calls �immigration yield,� is simply a comparison of H-1B and L usage and the number of PERM applications filed by the highest users of those visas. He essentially concludes that because the highest users of H-1B�s and L�s are Indian consulting companies, and these companies have only a minimal number of PERM�s certified, they are using H�s and L�s as cheap temporary labor. He is unable to explain away the high number PERM filings of one of the IT consulting companies, and so he addresses this anomaly by saying �part of the explanation might be that it is headquartered in the United States.�
There are too many things wrong with this analysis to list in this blog, but here are a just a few ways in which Hira�s study is problematic:
Hira�s clear implication is that companies that don�t sponsor H-1B�s and L�s for PERM are using these workers instead of more expensive American labor. He ignores that fact the H-1B program has rules in place requiring payment of the prevailing wage to these workers. But even worse, he has not presented any data whatsoever on the average wages paid to these workers. He also doesn�t address the expense of obtaining such visas. He simply concludes that because they are here temporarily, they are underpaid.
Hira makes the argument that companies who use H-1B and L workers as temporary workers generally use their U.S. operations as a training ground for these workers and then send then back to their home countries to do the job that was once located here. Again, this assertion is not supported by any real statistical data about, or serious review of, the U.S. activities of such workers, but rather by anecdotal evidence and quotes from news stories taken out of context.
With respect to the fact that the L-1B visa requires specialized knowledge and so would normally preclude entry to the U.S. for the purpose of gaining training, Hira cites and outdated OIG report that alleges that adjudicators will approve any L-1B petition, because the standards are so broad. Those of use in the field struggling with the 10 page RFE�s typically issued automatically on any specialized knowledge petition would certainly beg to differ with that point.
Hira clearly implies that American jobs are lost because of H-1B and L �guest workers,� but has no direct statistical evidence of such job loss.
The fact is that usage of H-1B and L visas varies with the needs of the employer. Some employers use these programs to rotate experienced, professional workers into the United States and then send the workers abroad to continue their careers. Some employers bring H-1B�s and L�s into the U.S. to rely on their skills on a permanent basis. Judging from the fraud statistics as well as DOL enforcement actions, the majority of employers who use H-1B workers pay these workers adequate wages and comply with all of the DOL rules regarding use of these workers, whether the employers bring them in for temporary purposes or not. By the same token, the minority of employers who seek to abuse H and L workers may well do so, whether they intend to sponsor them for permanent residence or not. Indeed, arguably, the potential for long-term abuse is much worse in the situation in which a real �bad guy� employer is sponsoring an employee for a green card, because of the inordinate length of time it takes for many H-1B and L workers to obtain permanent residency due to backlogs.
Hira does make that last point, and it is just about the only one we agree on. Congress needs to create a streamlined way for employers to access and retain in the U.S. foreign expertise and talent, without at 10-15 year wait for permanent residence. But our economy still needs the ability for business to nimbly move talent to the U.S. on a temporary basis when needed, or to rotate key personnel internationally. In a world where global mobility means increased competitiveness, Hira�s �statistics� simply don�t support elimination of these crucial capability.https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-6000198492670312275?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2010/02/epis-latest-study-of-h-1b-and-l-usage.html)
more...
house Selena Gomez for Celebrity Tap
maddipati1
01-08 07:54 PM
i went for stamping in india in Feb'09. Mine wasn't in PIMS. They said that my visa is issued but will get the PP with stamp after PIMS clearance and it might take upto 2 weeks. but luckily i got it in 3 days.
those whose I-797 was approved around the same time when PIMS was introduced ( i think Oct'07 ), should be careful about this.
i read somewhere that, they messed up initial data transfer during PIMS launch. so the I-797s that got approved around the same time are more likely to be missed. mine was approved exactly in the same month PIMS was implemented and surely it wasn't in PIMS.
funny story now ( but painful then )..
i was aware and prepared for this when i went for stamping. i was at the window of initial screening officer. he took my dox and verified in their system and started writing 'not in PIMS' on top of my app. i was looking at it and i said 'aah! is it not in PIMS?'. he was surprised ( that i knew about PIMS etc) and gave me a look. now, i told to myself 'dude! shut up' :D
minumum precaution u should take is, take the visa appointment on the first couple of days of ur visit, to have buffer for PIMS.
but, i read, there is another type of delay that's the nemsis of pink 221(g) or something like that. this is for people who work in sensitive industries like defense, biotech, chemical etc. that surely take a long time, coz they need clearance from washington.
those whose I-797 was approved around the same time when PIMS was introduced ( i think Oct'07 ), should be careful about this.
i read somewhere that, they messed up initial data transfer during PIMS launch. so the I-797s that got approved around the same time are more likely to be missed. mine was approved exactly in the same month PIMS was implemented and surely it wasn't in PIMS.
funny story now ( but painful then )..
i was aware and prepared for this when i went for stamping. i was at the window of initial screening officer. he took my dox and verified in their system and started writing 'not in PIMS' on top of my app. i was looking at it and i said 'aah! is it not in PIMS?'. he was surprised ( that i knew about PIMS etc) and gave me a look. now, i told to myself 'dude! shut up' :D
minumum precaution u should take is, take the visa appointment on the first couple of days of ur visit, to have buffer for PIMS.
but, i read, there is another type of delay that's the nemsis of pink 221(g) or something like that. this is for people who work in sensitive industries like defense, biotech, chemical etc. that surely take a long time, coz they need clearance from washington.
tattoo UNICEF#39;s Tap Project will help
delax
08-06 11:59 AM
It is EB2, labor approval date is my PD - No idea, why profile does not show up.
Wow! Another 2006 approval. Congrats!
Wow! Another 2006 approval. Congrats!
more...
pictures The Tap Project has partnered
spicy_guy
11-24 04:47 PM
I prefer in this order.
- WellsFargo Money Transfer Service
- SBI
- ICICI
- WellsFargo Money Transfer Service
- SBI
- ICICI
dresses Photo: Selena Gomez (WireImage
leo2606
12-13 08:02 PM
We are all waiting for next breaking news from you ramnadhan.
Visit another immigration site tomorrow and come back with another breaking news.
January 2008 Visa Bulletin and Predicament of Unmarried Indian EB-2
India has a tradition of family match-making marriage that more or less determines the timing of a marriage for a single person. When the EB visa numbers were open a few months ago, the unmarried single EB-2 worried about premature approval of their I-485 applications before they would have married and often talked about the way to delay approval of I-485 applications until they would marry. The January 2008 Visa Bulletin and the State Department prediction for the EB availability in coming months have removed such worry from these Indian professionals. However, in an unanticpated twist and irony of the development, they will instead face a different problem, to wit, their future spouses may not be able to apply for a following-to-join derivative EB immigrant visa benefits for a long time. Considering the amount of time the future spouse will have to wait to file for the immigrant benefits, it may be important for these EB-2 Indian professional to take at least two actions. These unmarried Indians have maintained a H-1B status to bring their future spouses in a H-4 visa status so that they are not separated after they marry. This strategy will become more real and critically important, meaning that they should keep staying on a H-1B status and not using EAD and AP. If they returned using AP, they may at some point of time, reinstate their H-1B status before their H-1B validity runs out. The other action which they should take is to file concurrent EB-2 and EB-3 I-140 petitions using the same EB-2 labor certification. Since the EB-3 is more favorable or at least will have a cut-off date rather than "unavailable," in certain situation they may maneuver the immigration rules that permit transfer of pending I-485 applications between EB-2 and EB-3 during the period when the visa numbers remain current for him/her. Such maneuver may at least allow the spouse to file I-485/EAD/AP. When EB-2 becomes more favorable, they may have to transfer the I-485 applications back to EB-2 petition. This maneuver is not a good option for everyone as it will require a log of juggling. However, some earlier priority date EB-2 Indians may dare to venture such juggling because of their unique circumstances that require filing of I-485 application for the spouse. It is something to think about and people should seek legal counsel.
I hope this info useful for our fellow members.
Thanks,
Ram
Visit another immigration site tomorrow and come back with another breaking news.
January 2008 Visa Bulletin and Predicament of Unmarried Indian EB-2
India has a tradition of family match-making marriage that more or less determines the timing of a marriage for a single person. When the EB visa numbers were open a few months ago, the unmarried single EB-2 worried about premature approval of their I-485 applications before they would have married and often talked about the way to delay approval of I-485 applications until they would marry. The January 2008 Visa Bulletin and the State Department prediction for the EB availability in coming months have removed such worry from these Indian professionals. However, in an unanticpated twist and irony of the development, they will instead face a different problem, to wit, their future spouses may not be able to apply for a following-to-join derivative EB immigrant visa benefits for a long time. Considering the amount of time the future spouse will have to wait to file for the immigrant benefits, it may be important for these EB-2 Indian professional to take at least two actions. These unmarried Indians have maintained a H-1B status to bring their future spouses in a H-4 visa status so that they are not separated after they marry. This strategy will become more real and critically important, meaning that they should keep staying on a H-1B status and not using EAD and AP. If they returned using AP, they may at some point of time, reinstate their H-1B status before their H-1B validity runs out. The other action which they should take is to file concurrent EB-2 and EB-3 I-140 petitions using the same EB-2 labor certification. Since the EB-3 is more favorable or at least will have a cut-off date rather than "unavailable," in certain situation they may maneuver the immigration rules that permit transfer of pending I-485 applications between EB-2 and EB-3 during the period when the visa numbers remain current for him/her. Such maneuver may at least allow the spouse to file I-485/EAD/AP. When EB-2 becomes more favorable, they may have to transfer the I-485 applications back to EB-2 petition. This maneuver is not a good option for everyone as it will require a log of juggling. However, some earlier priority date EB-2 Indians may dare to venture such juggling because of their unique circumstances that require filing of I-485 application for the spouse. It is something to think about and people should seek legal counsel.
I hope this info useful for our fellow members.
Thanks,
Ram
more...
makeup UNICEF Celebrity Tap: Selena
sjhugoose
February 20th, 2004, 07:15 AM
I don't know about the wide angle lenses, but I don't think that would help that much in the dof problem you have.
Use this DOF calculator for your camera:
http://dfleming.ameranet.com/dofjs.html
The Sony at 38mm 12 inches away at f8 give you a near of of 11.8 and a far of 12.1. At 28mm 12 inches away you can get a near of 11.7 and far of 12.3.
If you play a bit with the calculator there, you can get an idea of the dof you can achieve with or without the wide angle lenses.
Olga
Olga,
I don't mean to step on your toes here but I think you've missed something. The sony is a 38mm equivalent. I believe its actually a 9.7mm-48.5mm lens and these numbers should be used for calculating the DOF, unless the calculator says otherwise. In this case you can obtain the DOF that Daniel desires and it may actually be easier with a digicam than with an SLR based camera. AHHH I thinkI just suggested a digicam is better than a SLR.
Scott
Use this DOF calculator for your camera:
http://dfleming.ameranet.com/dofjs.html
The Sony at 38mm 12 inches away at f8 give you a near of of 11.8 and a far of 12.1. At 28mm 12 inches away you can get a near of 11.7 and far of 12.3.
If you play a bit with the calculator there, you can get an idea of the dof you can achieve with or without the wide angle lenses.
Olga
Olga,
I don't mean to step on your toes here but I think you've missed something. The sony is a 38mm equivalent. I believe its actually a 9.7mm-48.5mm lens and these numbers should be used for calculating the DOF, unless the calculator says otherwise. In this case you can obtain the DOF that Daniel desires and it may actually be easier with a digicam than with an SLR based camera. AHHH I thinkI just suggested a digicam is better than a SLR.
Scott
girlfriend Supporters of the UNICEF Tap
Blog Feeds
12-18 09:50 AM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
Last month I blogged about my convoluted math--trying to figure out the wait times for various countries, in various categories for Employment Based visas. The January Visa Bulletin was (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4597.html) just issued, with this explanation:
D. EXPLANATION OF THE NUMERICAL CONTROL SYSTEM AND CUT-DATE PROJECTIONS WHAT CAUSES THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CUT-OFF DATES?
The Visa Office (VO)subdivides the annual preference and foreign state limitations specified in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) into twelve monthly allotments. The totals of documentarily qualified applicants that have been reported to VO are compared each month with the numbers available for the next regular allotment 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 Employment Third preference monthly target is 3,000 and there are only 1,000 applicants, the category is considered "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 Employment Third preference monthly target is 3,000 and there are 8,000 applicants, a cut-off date would be established so that only 3,000 numbers would be used, and the cut-off date would be the priority date of the 3,001st applicant.
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become qualified at their own initiative and convenience and upon the completion of various processing requirements. Therefore, it is extremely important to remember that 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 qualified each month, and consideration of other variables. Demand for visa numbers can fluctuate from one month to another, with an inevitable impact on cut-off dates.
HOW IS THE PER-COUNTRY LIMIT CALCULATED?
Section 201 of the INA sets an annual minimum Family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000, while the worldwide annual level for Employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 202 sets the per-country limit for preference immigrants at 7% of the total annual Family-sponsored and Employment-based preference limits, i.e. a minimum of 25,620.
- The annual per-country limitation of 7% is a cap, meaning visa issuances to any single country may not exceed this figure. This limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled, however. The per-country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the visa numbers by applicants from only a few countries.
- INA Section 202(a)(5), added by the American Competitiveness Act in the 21st Century (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. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5)has occasionally allowed countries such as China-mainland born and India to utilize large amounts of Employment First and Second preference numbers which would have otherwise gone unused.
WHAT ARE THE PROJECTIONS FOR CUT-OFF DATE MOVEMENT IN THE FAMILY PREFERENCES?
Cut-off date movement in most categories continues to be greater than might ordinarily be expected, and this is anticipated to continue for at least the next few months. This is because fewer applicants are proceeding with final action on their cases at consular posts abroad, and the volume of CIS adjustment cases remains low. Once large numbers of applicants begin to have their cases brought to final action, cut-off date movements will necessarily slow or stop.
Moreover, in some categories cut-off date retrogression is a possibility. Therefore, readers should be aware that the recent rate of cut-off date advances will not continue indefinitely, but it is not possible to say at present how soon they will end.
WHY DID MOST EMPLOYMENT CUT-OFFS REMAIN UNCHANGED IN RECENT MONTHS?
Many of the categories were "unavailable" at the end of FY which resulted in excessive demand being received during October and November. Coupled with the fact that CIS Offices have been doing an excellent job of processing cases, this has had an impact on cut-off date movements. Some forward movement has begun for January as we enter the second quarter of the fiscal year.
WILL THERE BE ANY ADDITIONAL CUT-OFF DATES FOR FOREIGN STATES IN THE EMPLOYMENT FIRST OR SECOND PREFERENCE CATEGORIES?
At this time it is unlikely that there will be any cut-off dates in the Employment First preferences. It also appears unlikely that it will be necessary to establish a cut-off date other than those already in effect for the Second preference category. Cut-off dates apply to the China and India Second preference categories due to heavy demand, and each has the potential to become "unavailable" should demand cause the annual limit for that category to be reached.
INA Section 202(a)(5) provides that if total demand will be insufficient to use all available numbers in a particular employment preference category in a calendar quarter, then the unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limits. For example, if it is determined that based on the level of demand being received at that time there would be otherwise unused numbers in the Employment Second preference category, then numbers could be provided to oversubscribed countries without regard to per-country limitations. Should that occur, the same cut-off date would be applied to each country, since numbers must be provided strictly in priority date order regardless of chargeability. In this instance, greater number use by one country would indicate a higher rate of demand by applicants from that country with earlier priority dates.
Should Section 202(a)(5) be applied, the rate of number use in the Employment preference category would continue to be monitored to determine whether subsequent adjustments are needed in visa availability for oversubscribed countries. This action provides the best possible assurance that all available Employment preference numbers will be used, while still ensuring that numbers remain available for applicants from all other countries that have not yet reached their per-country limit.
WHAT ARE THE PROJECTIONS FOR CUT-OFF DATE MOVEMENT IN THE EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCES FOR THE REMAINDER OF FY-2010?
Based on current indications of demand, the best case scenarios for cut-off dates which will be reached by the end of FY-2010 are as follows:
Employment Second:
China: July through October 2005
India: February through early March 2005
If Section 202(a)(5)were to
apply: China and India: October through December 2005
Employment Third:
Worldwide: April through August 2005
China: June through September 2003
India: January through February 2002
Mexico: January through June 2004
Philippines: April through August 2005
Please be advised that the above date ranges are only estimates which
are subject to fluctuations in demand during the coming months. The actual
future cut-off dates cannot be guaranteed, and it is possible that some annual
limits could be reached prior to the end of the fiscal year.
So, there you have it. The "official" guesses for FY 2010! It would be terrific, however, if the Visa Bulletin would tell us, based upon its knowledge of pending cases, and estimates on time, how long a case would take in the given categories, if started today. When the Department of State releases THAT information, then perhaps Congress will sit up and take notice that we are facing a literal crisis in our employment based immigration program, and hurting ourselves as a result.https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-2329407886555470879?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/12/from-department-of-state-with-love-visa.html)
Last month I blogged about my convoluted math--trying to figure out the wait times for various countries, in various categories for Employment Based visas. The January Visa Bulletin was (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4597.html) just issued, with this explanation:
D. EXPLANATION OF THE NUMERICAL CONTROL SYSTEM AND CUT-DATE PROJECTIONS WHAT CAUSES THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CUT-OFF DATES?
The Visa Office (VO)subdivides the annual preference and foreign state limitations specified in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) into twelve monthly allotments. The totals of documentarily qualified applicants that have been reported to VO are compared each month with the numbers available for the next regular allotment 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 Employment Third preference monthly target is 3,000 and there are only 1,000 applicants, the category is considered "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 Employment Third preference monthly target is 3,000 and there are 8,000 applicants, a cut-off date would be established so that only 3,000 numbers would be used, and the cut-off date would be the priority date of the 3,001st applicant.
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become qualified at their own initiative and convenience and upon the completion of various processing requirements. Therefore, it is extremely important to remember that 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 qualified each month, and consideration of other variables. Demand for visa numbers can fluctuate from one month to another, with an inevitable impact on cut-off dates.
HOW IS THE PER-COUNTRY LIMIT CALCULATED?
Section 201 of the INA sets an annual minimum Family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000, while the worldwide annual level for Employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 202 sets the per-country limit for preference immigrants at 7% of the total annual Family-sponsored and Employment-based preference limits, i.e. a minimum of 25,620.
- The annual per-country limitation of 7% is a cap, meaning visa issuances to any single country may not exceed this figure. This limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled, however. The per-country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the visa numbers by applicants from only a few countries.
- INA Section 202(a)(5), added by the American Competitiveness Act in the 21st Century (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. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5)has occasionally allowed countries such as China-mainland born and India to utilize large amounts of Employment First and Second preference numbers which would have otherwise gone unused.
WHAT ARE THE PROJECTIONS FOR CUT-OFF DATE MOVEMENT IN THE FAMILY PREFERENCES?
Cut-off date movement in most categories continues to be greater than might ordinarily be expected, and this is anticipated to continue for at least the next few months. This is because fewer applicants are proceeding with final action on their cases at consular posts abroad, and the volume of CIS adjustment cases remains low. Once large numbers of applicants begin to have their cases brought to final action, cut-off date movements will necessarily slow or stop.
Moreover, in some categories cut-off date retrogression is a possibility. Therefore, readers should be aware that the recent rate of cut-off date advances will not continue indefinitely, but it is not possible to say at present how soon they will end.
WHY DID MOST EMPLOYMENT CUT-OFFS REMAIN UNCHANGED IN RECENT MONTHS?
Many of the categories were "unavailable" at the end of FY which resulted in excessive demand being received during October and November. Coupled with the fact that CIS Offices have been doing an excellent job of processing cases, this has had an impact on cut-off date movements. Some forward movement has begun for January as we enter the second quarter of the fiscal year.
WILL THERE BE ANY ADDITIONAL CUT-OFF DATES FOR FOREIGN STATES IN THE EMPLOYMENT FIRST OR SECOND PREFERENCE CATEGORIES?
At this time it is unlikely that there will be any cut-off dates in the Employment First preferences. It also appears unlikely that it will be necessary to establish a cut-off date other than those already in effect for the Second preference category. Cut-off dates apply to the China and India Second preference categories due to heavy demand, and each has the potential to become "unavailable" should demand cause the annual limit for that category to be reached.
INA Section 202(a)(5) provides that if total demand will be insufficient to use all available numbers in a particular employment preference category in a calendar quarter, then the unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limits. For example, if it is determined that based on the level of demand being received at that time there would be otherwise unused numbers in the Employment Second preference category, then numbers could be provided to oversubscribed countries without regard to per-country limitations. Should that occur, the same cut-off date would be applied to each country, since numbers must be provided strictly in priority date order regardless of chargeability. In this instance, greater number use by one country would indicate a higher rate of demand by applicants from that country with earlier priority dates.
Should Section 202(a)(5) be applied, the rate of number use in the Employment preference category would continue to be monitored to determine whether subsequent adjustments are needed in visa availability for oversubscribed countries. This action provides the best possible assurance that all available Employment preference numbers will be used, while still ensuring that numbers remain available for applicants from all other countries that have not yet reached their per-country limit.
WHAT ARE THE PROJECTIONS FOR CUT-OFF DATE MOVEMENT IN THE EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCES FOR THE REMAINDER OF FY-2010?
Based on current indications of demand, the best case scenarios for cut-off dates which will be reached by the end of FY-2010 are as follows:
Employment Second:
China: July through October 2005
India: February through early March 2005
If Section 202(a)(5)were to
apply: China and India: October through December 2005
Employment Third:
Worldwide: April through August 2005
China: June through September 2003
India: January through February 2002
Mexico: January through June 2004
Philippines: April through August 2005
Please be advised that the above date ranges are only estimates which
are subject to fluctuations in demand during the coming months. The actual
future cut-off dates cannot be guaranteed, and it is possible that some annual
limits could be reached prior to the end of the fiscal year.
So, there you have it. The "official" guesses for FY 2010! It would be terrific, however, if the Visa Bulletin would tell us, based upon its knowledge of pending cases, and estimates on time, how long a case would take in the given categories, if started today. When the Department of State releases THAT information, then perhaps Congress will sit up and take notice that we are facing a literal crisis in our employment based immigration program, and hurting ourselves as a result.https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-2329407886555470879?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/12/from-department-of-state-with-love-visa.html)
hairstyles the UNICEF Tap Project has
speddi
10-05 10:43 AM
Hi,
I am a July 2nd filer and I got my receipt notices, EADs and completed the FP too. I didnt get the AP yet but my wife's AP shows as approved. When I talked to an IO couple of days ago, she said my AP is approved but they didnt update the website. I called USCIS Customer Service today 3 to 4 (it seems they keep track of it) times and each gave me a different information. Sometimes they said they have Aug 17th as the receipt date but my receipt date is July 2nd(on the RN) and Aug 20th is the ND. So, I dont know what this Aug 17th date is and they say that is what they have in their systems as received date and I am still in the processing time. I am confused. According to my attorney, my wife's AP shudnt have been approved without my AP getting approved since I am the primary applicant.
Do I need to worry or just wait some more days? I am mainly worried that they have the wrong date as receipt date in their system and it might affect on future processing.
Thank you for any kind of input.
I am a July 2nd filer and I got my receipt notices, EADs and completed the FP too. I didnt get the AP yet but my wife's AP shows as approved. When I talked to an IO couple of days ago, she said my AP is approved but they didnt update the website. I called USCIS Customer Service today 3 to 4 (it seems they keep track of it) times and each gave me a different information. Sometimes they said they have Aug 17th as the receipt date but my receipt date is July 2nd(on the RN) and Aug 20th is the ND. So, I dont know what this Aug 17th date is and they say that is what they have in their systems as received date and I am still in the processing time. I am confused. According to my attorney, my wife's AP shudnt have been approved without my AP getting approved since I am the primary applicant.
Do I need to worry or just wait some more days? I am mainly worried that they have the wrong date as receipt date in their system and it might affect on future processing.
Thank you for any kind of input.
s.m.srinivas
03-31 01:58 PM
Hi All,
I had H1B of Company A. This H1B expires in this September 2009. In May 2008, I got a good offer from Company B, and they applied for "Transfer of my H1B". Since June 4th 2008, I started working for Company B with the receipt in Hand. Since From June 3rd 2008, till Feb 2009, my case was in pending status. On Feb 13th 2009, USCIS did put RFE for some documents about Company B. During that period, I had emergency to travel to India, so I did go to India for 3 weeks, returned back on March 12th with old employer (Company A's) VISA only, as it is still valid till sept 2009 & more over my case of transfering visa to Company B is still on Pending status. After I returned back, Company B did reply to RFE & I got a email from USCIS saying that they have received it on March 23rd 2009. On March 30th I received one more email from USCIS, saying that my H1B transfer is denied & the denial notice will have the reason as well as options for you. Still I am yet to receive the denial notice.
With these things on board I have following questions
Am I out of status?
Company A visa is valid till september 2009, so can I go back to Company A?
If Yes, then if I go back to Company A, can I apply for Extension from them freshly with premium processing or something
What is the chances that Company B appeal for the denial and get it stamped in these situation?
What are my other options?
Please do suggest me, as I believe as soon as I receive the notice formally to company B, I need to seize working and I will out of status with immediate effect. The time I have is to adjust things is between today & the day I receive the denial notice...
I had H1B of Company A. This H1B expires in this September 2009. In May 2008, I got a good offer from Company B, and they applied for "Transfer of my H1B". Since June 4th 2008, I started working for Company B with the receipt in Hand. Since From June 3rd 2008, till Feb 2009, my case was in pending status. On Feb 13th 2009, USCIS did put RFE for some documents about Company B. During that period, I had emergency to travel to India, so I did go to India for 3 weeks, returned back on March 12th with old employer (Company A's) VISA only, as it is still valid till sept 2009 & more over my case of transfering visa to Company B is still on Pending status. After I returned back, Company B did reply to RFE & I got a email from USCIS saying that they have received it on March 23rd 2009. On March 30th I received one more email from USCIS, saying that my H1B transfer is denied & the denial notice will have the reason as well as options for you. Still I am yet to receive the denial notice.
With these things on board I have following questions
Am I out of status?
Company A visa is valid till september 2009, so can I go back to Company A?
If Yes, then if I go back to Company A, can I apply for Extension from them freshly with premium processing or something
What is the chances that Company B appeal for the denial and get it stamped in these situation?
What are my other options?
Please do suggest me, as I believe as soon as I receive the notice formally to company B, I need to seize working and I will out of status with immediate effect. The time I have is to adjust things is between today & the day I receive the denial notice...
breddy2000
01-23 10:55 AM
The table shown below is intended to be a tool for customers to view our processing times. When applications and petitions are completed within our target timeframes, those timeframes will be shown (example: 3 months). If we are not meeting our target timeframes a date will be shown (example: April 16, 2008).
The processing dates shown below represent the receipt dates of petitions and applications currently being processed by the USCIS Service Center. If the receipt date shown on your receipt notice is prior to the processing date shown below, you may call USCIS Customer Service at 1-800-375-5283. We encourage you to check this page periodically before inquiring about your case. The processing dates are updated monthly.
USCIS received a significant increase in the number of applications and petitions filed last year. In July and August of 2007, nearly 2.5 million applications and petitions of all types were received. This compares to 1.2 million applications and petitions received in the same time period last year. In fiscal year 2007, USCIS received 1.4 million applications for naturalization; nearly double the volume received the year before. USCIS is working to improve processes and focus increased resources, including hiring approximately 1,500 new employees, to address this workload.
Last year's application surge did not impact USCIS offices evenly across the country. Although most offices have already processed cases received during the 2007 filing surge, a handful of offices will have a small percentage of their 2007 cases pending at the end of Fiscal Year 2008. That will result in processing times longer than the 10-12 month national average. USCIS will continue to shift resources to ensure that all local offices achieve the goal of five month processing times.
The processing dates shown below represent the receipt dates of petitions and applications currently being processed by the USCIS Service Center. If the receipt date shown on your receipt notice is prior to the processing date shown below, you may call USCIS Customer Service at 1-800-375-5283. We encourage you to check this page periodically before inquiring about your case. The processing dates are updated monthly.
USCIS received a significant increase in the number of applications and petitions filed last year. In July and August of 2007, nearly 2.5 million applications and petitions of all types were received. This compares to 1.2 million applications and petitions received in the same time period last year. In fiscal year 2007, USCIS received 1.4 million applications for naturalization; nearly double the volume received the year before. USCIS is working to improve processes and focus increased resources, including hiring approximately 1,500 new employees, to address this workload.
Last year's application surge did not impact USCIS offices evenly across the country. Although most offices have already processed cases received during the 2007 filing surge, a handful of offices will have a small percentage of their 2007 cases pending at the end of Fiscal Year 2008. That will result in processing times longer than the 10-12 month national average. USCIS will continue to shift resources to ensure that all local offices achieve the goal of five month processing times.
No comments:
Post a Comment