Page 39 of 100 FirstFirst ... 2937383940414989 ... LastLast
Results 951 to 975 of 2499

Thread: EB2-3 Predictions (Rather Calculations)

  1. #951
    Yes it's true..
    I was hoping this is false information..

    http://www.travel.state.gov/content/...ober-2015.html




    Quote Originally Posted by delguy View Post
    The new filing date is now moved back to 01-JUL-09


  2. #952
    That's not fair...

    Quote Originally Posted by NeelVohra View Post
    Visa Bulletin revised today. EB2-I acceptance date is now Jul09

  3. #953
    Yes it's true..
    I was hoping this is false information..

    http://www.travel.state.gov/content/...ober-2015.html




    Quote Originally Posted by delguy View Post
    The new filing date is now moved back to 01-JUL-09


  4. #954

    Sign the petition for the visa dates to be reverted back

    Quote Originally Posted by tatikonda View Post
    Yes it's true..
    I was hoping this is false information..

    http://www.travel.state.gov/content/...ober-2015.html


    Guys

    please sign the petition for the visa dates to be reverted back

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov//pe...nd-mental-loss

  5. #955
    Bummer ...so bad.. and disappointed

    Quote Originally Posted by tatikonda View Post
    Yes it's true..
    I was hoping this is false information..

    http://www.travel.state.gov/content/...ober-2015.html

  6. #956
    So disappointing to see the news.
    But be aware if they re-open the gates again, the history might repeat like 2007 making this new "Date for filing bulletin" also Unavailable for next few years.

    USCIS never said this date is going to available all the time.
    Last edited by EB2IndSep09; 09-25-2015 at 06:59 PM.

  7. #957
    Quote Originally Posted by EB2IndSep09 View Post
    So disappointing to see the news.
    But be aware if they re-open the gates again, the history might repeat like 2007 which would make this new Date for filing bulletin also Unavailable for next few years.

    USCIS never said this date is going to available all the time.
    2007 fiasco was different. That time USCIS had made everyone current and were inundated with at least 80,000 applications on 1st day itself. This time, even in the best case scenario, it would not be more than 20,000 applications. See when they moved the dates in 2012, majority of EB2I filers till April 30, 2010 got their EAD/AP. With these dates, EB2I filers with PD from May 1, 2010 to June 30, 2011 would have benefited along with EB3-EB2 porters. I don't think that number would be higher than 20,000. Even if you consider 25,000, it still not as high as 20007. With the dates moving back, now only porters who are upgrading from EB3-EB2 and a small number of people in EB2I who missed the boat in 2012 would benefit which is not a big load for USCIS to handle.

    I think there is something going on at USCIS. After they announced dates in early September, they had scheduled a teleconference on the same topic. But after few days, mysteriously ended up canceling it without giving a good reason. Now, we see the dates moving back again. So something must have transpired in those few days when they cancelled the teleconference. I think it is either due to political pressure or due to pressure from DHS for some reason. But what do I know?

    BTW, I am hearing that medicals now will be valid for 3 years. Awaiting confirmation on this.
    Last edited by Jonty Rhodes; 09-25-2015 at 07:11 PM.

  8. #958
    I am hearing that medicals now will be valid for 3 years but awaiting to confirm this information.

  9. #959
    http://blog.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2015...-2015-edition/

    Smells like an imminent law suit against USCIS.

  10. #960
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonty Rhodes View Post
    now only porters who are upgrading from EB3-EB2 and a small number of people in EB2I who missed the boat in 2012.

    BTW, I am hearing that medicals now will be valid for 3 years. Awaiting confirmation on this.[/B]
    Agree that 2007 fiasco is different but I believe there were some lessons learnt from them which were not followed. As they did not gauge the earlier part in the factor duo you mentioned and it looks like to me it would be a temporary adjustment and the dates would start moving rapidly in this "new type of" bulletin. That would be a relief if the medicals are valid for 3 years.

  11. #961
    Thanks for sharing this info,,,

    I strongly urge people to send mail to Greg and support him.
    Share this information as many places as you can.

    If USCIS thought this was going to end quietly, they obviously have not learned the lessons of 2007. Perhaps they thought that since they got DOS to issue a new Visa Bulletin before October came around, that somehow they were protected. But that is not the case. I firmly believe USCIS will reverse themselves – either by the order of a judge (email me at gsiskind@visalaw.com if you’re interested in participating in a potential suit) or as a response to overwhelming public pressure.



    Quote Originally Posted by Jonty Rhodes View Post
    http://blog.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2015...-2015-edition/

    Smells like an imminent law suit against USCIS.

  12. #962
    Quote Originally Posted by EB2IndSep09 View Post
    Agree that 2007 fiasco is different but I believe there were some lessons learnt from them which were not followed. As they did not gauge the earlier part in the factor duo you mentioned and it looks like to me it would be a temporary adjustment and the dates would start moving rapidly in this "new type of" bulletin. That would be a relief if the medicals are valid for 3 years.
    If the dates move again, that would be fine but who knows what USCIS is thinking. Regarding medicals, I am not sure if this is true or not. I would just take it as a rumor for now. Gosh, this USCIS guys are so sadistic.

  13. #963
    I don't know when EB2I and EB2I folks will wake up. Moving the acceptance date back to July 2009 amounts to little for most people since the dates have already been there (almost) and so very few people will be in a position to not have filed 485. This is clearly a move to keep people after these dates from filing. As I said - the whole idea of acceptance date is arbitrary and lacks any real logic. If there is logic - we haven't been told.

    It doesn't need a great forecaster to see that EB2 I is going to move at 3-5K visas a year and EB3 will be more or less similar - barring a miracle. So you can either sit back and take it on the chin ... or go ahead and seek justice against this discrimination based on country of birth.
    The purpose of this site is to improve clarity of GC process to help people plan their lives better. Use the info at your risk. None of this is legal advice.
    Please follow the Forum Rules and Guidelines as you participate or view the forum contents. | Forum Glossary

  14. #964
    Quote Originally Posted by tatikonda View Post
    Thanks for sharing this info,,,

    I strongly urge people to send mail to Greg and support him.
    Share this information as many places as you can.

    If USCIS thought this was going to end quietly, they obviously have not learned the lessons of 2007. Perhaps they thought that since they got DOS to issue a new Visa Bulletin before October came around, that somehow they were protected. But that is not the case. I firmly believe USCIS will reverse themselves – either by the order of a judge (email me at gsiskind@visalaw.com if you’re interested in participating in a potential suit) or as a response to overwhelming public pressure.
    I will email Greg tonight. As I have mentioned in one of my previous posts, fortunately I am right now in a situation where I am not desperate for a GC or EAD (it would be nice to have one though). But my lawyer advised me to finish medicals. My wife's quantiferon gold came back positive and we had to do a CXR on her with her being 16 weeks pregnant. I know that one CXR with shield on is not going to do any harm to the baby but just to make that now-uselss-exercise of getting a CXR on my pregnant wife worth, I will email him.

    One of my friend's wife took MMR vaccine and she was trying to get pregnant. Now, she can't get pregnant for 4 weeks to 3 months at least. Their dates are in early May, 2010 and they had a small hope that the dates may move forward.

    I think everyone affected by this should email Greg and be a plaintiff.

  15. #965
    Quote Originally Posted by qesehmk View Post
    I don't know when EB2I and EB2I folks will wake up. Moving the acceptance date back to July 2009 amounts to little for most people since the dates have already been there (almost) and so very few people will be in a position to not have filed 485. This is clearly a move to keep people after these dates from filing. As I said - the whole idea of acceptance date is arbitrary and lacks any real logic. If there is logic - we haven't been told.

    It doesn't need a great forecaster to see that EB2 I is going to move at 3-5K visas a year and EB3 will be more or less similar - barring a miracle. So you can either sit back and take it on the chin ... or go ahead and seek justice against this discrimination based on country of birth.
    Agree Q. I would not see this as a challenge. I would actually see this as an opportunity to do something for EB2I community and everyone who is affected by this should think the same way. USCIS may be goofing up many times but this is a big goof up and we should not let this opportunity go to extract our pound of flesh (or what was promised to us). In worst case scenario, we will loose the case but at least with the satisfaction that we challenged the injustice.

  16. #966
    First and foremost, I truly feel for those affected by the decision to publish a revised October VB.

    Having made a decision, it should have been honoured, irrespective of whether some of the dates were not really justified.

    In the context of the filing dates supposedly representing the dates that might be reached in 8-12 months, there should be no great surprise at which dates were revised and which were not. The revised dates are actually a better representation in that respect I'm sad to observe.

    I am still left a little puzzled by the decision. I'm sure that both DOS and USCIS (who seem to be the instigator) institutional memories are still fully aware of what happened in July 2007 and therefore what was likely to happen if a revised October VB was published. In many ways, it was far easier to let the October VB stand and pull the dates back in November.

    Despite that, the decision was made to publish a revised October VB, in the full knowledge of the firestorm it was likely to unleash.

    I can't help thinking there is a back story we are not fully aware of - something that USCIS felt was compelling enough to unleash both the fury of the community and the threat (and execution if necessary) of lawsuits challenging the decision.

    I certainly think that the only fair outcome is the restoration of the original filing dates for the October VB.

    The VB always made it clear that under normal circumstances, an I-485 could only be filed based on the final action cut off dates and that the ability to file an I-485 in October was a special case (not necessarily limited to October) "when USCIS determines that there are more immigrant visas available for the fiscal year than there are known applicants for such visas". The filing dates for I-485 were never going to be a permanent feature seen every month of the FY.

    I do agree with other posters, that if the dates are restored, it will likely be a long time before filing dates for the affected categories are seen again - possibly years in some cases.

    Let's hope the correct decision will prevail.
    Without an irritant, there can be no pearl.

  17. #967

    Sign the petition to revert Oct 2015 bulletin

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov//pe...nd-mental-loss

    Also if there are duplicate petitions out there please point them.

  18. #968
    Quote Originally Posted by eb2ODer View Post
    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov//pe...nd-mental-loss

    Also if there are duplicate petitions out there please point them.
    With all due respect to you, petitions are not going to take us anywhere. How many petitions have created any significant impact for legal immigration so far? I can't recall a single one. So while I am all for signing the petition, I don't think it will take us anywhere.

    In this particular case, we have very short time on our hands. If we have to do something, we have to do it quickly and by signing the petition, we will be left at the mercy of the WH staff to act upon it. If a lawsuit is going to be filed against USCIS, it has to be swift. In this scenario, you can make yourself heard in only 2 ways, a) If you have a very high level contact in administration as certain organization claims (no names here) who will listen to the problem and can create pressure on USCIS to correct it and b) File a lawsuit in the court of law with the help of a reputed immigration lawyer (someone like Greg Siskind or Ron Gotcher) against USCIS on this issue.

    Option A is good but again you are relying on an organization to talk to their high level contact in hope that the contact will in turn create pressure on the erring institution to bring some relief. But this can take long time depending on what that high level contact does and the process would be opaque.

    Option B is transparent and quick. Find a good lawyer, put together a case, get some stories, make a list of plaintiffs and file a case. Even in this case, results can take time but at least the process would be in public eye and won't be opaque.

    In my opinion, we should try all the routes. Try option A and B at the same time. Obviously, there is no harm in signing the petition so I will do that also. But I doubt it will take us anywhere.

    Again, nothing personal against you or any disrespect to you so please don't take my comments personally. I would strongly urge you to send an email to Greg Siskind on his email that you can get from his blog or from my earlier posts and add yourself in the growing list of potential plaintiffs. I did it this evening. Please spread the word. I will sign the petition also that you posted.

  19. #969
    Petitions may have some impact if 100k signatures in 1 month. President will give a reply within 60 days after 100k signatures reached. But most cases just he will give reply unless he has power to do something. 100k was reached in OPT case. We need to wait 1 more month what President reply will be

  20. #970
    Spec,

    Can AILA doing anything about it ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Spectator View Post
    First and foremost, I truly feel for those affected by the decision to publish a revised October VB.

    Having made a decision, it should have been honoured, irrespective of whether some of the dates were not really justified.

    In the context of the filing dates supposedly representing the dates that might be reached in 8-12 months, there should be no great surprise at which dates were revised and which were not. The revised dates are actually a better representation in that respect I'm sad to observe.

    I am still left a little puzzled by the decision. I'm sure that both DOS and USCIS (who seem to be the instigator) institutional memories are still fully aware of what happened in July 2007 and therefore what was likely to happen if a revised October VB was published. In many ways, it was far easier to let the October VB stand and pull the dates back in November.

    Despite that, the decision was made to publish a revised October VB, in the full knowledge of the firestorm it was likely to unleash.

    I can't help thinking there is a back story we are not fully aware of - something that USCIS felt was compelling enough to unleash both the fury of the community and the threat (and execution if necessary) of lawsuits challenging the decision.

    I certainly think that the only fair outcome is the restoration of the original filing dates for the October VB.

    The VB always made it clear that under normal circumstances, an I-485 could only be filed based on the final action cut off dates and that the ability to file an I-485 in October was a special case (not necessarily limited to October) "when USCIS determines that there are more immigrant visas available for the fiscal year than there are known applicants for such visas". The filing dates for I-485 were never going to be a permanent feature seen every month of the FY.

    I do agree with other posters, that if the dates are restored, it will likely be a long time before filing dates for the affected categories are seen again - possibly years in some cases.

    Let's hope the correct decision will prevail.

  21. #971
    Hi All,

    From AILA Website.
    No one seems to at least bothers to give a valid explanation.
    Please do not sit and fretting about it.. do something..

    write to Senators/ Greg Siskind/ AILA/FB/Tweets/USCIS and more..
    Please do not sit on this.

    http://www.aila.org/advo-media/press...ds-visa-timing



    Quote Originally Posted by tatikonda View Post
    Spec,

    Can AILA doing anything about it ?

  22. #972
    The numbers affected is not huge, the tweets wont cut it unless one can mobilize millions of tweets a day. Not sure what senators can do, only option seems to be a lawsuit.

    After all what is the basis of issuing a VB around 10th of every month for the upcoming month? Answer is simple, so that applicants get the paperwork ready and start filing by 1st. It is not that someone just released it with a typo, I am sure it is released by all due diligence. If still the USCIS changes it so late in the month, it is malicious and they fully know that it is going to cause financial losses to applicants. Therefore it is definitely a strong case for lawsuit. It may take months and years for an outcome to come, but they should not be let go off the hook easily and repeat this again.

  23. #973
    Quote Originally Posted by eb2ODer View Post
    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov//pe...nd-mental-loss

    Also if there are duplicate petitions out there please point them.
    This old petition: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...140-approval-4 has GOT ONLY 39K signatures while the affected people are of 180k size. Today is the last date to get 100k signatures.
    How do you expect the new petition will get 100k signatures when the affected people are of 20k and they are subset of that 180k.
    All are used to wait indefinitely and take what ever gets from the agencies.
    Last edited by YTeleven; 09-26-2015 at 01:57 PM.

  24. #974
    To all those who are interested, please fill in your details into database the Greg is compiling. To me doing whatever I can is surely a matter of karma. So I did mine.

    http://survey.constantcontact.com/su...tmibb/greeting

  25. #975
    An "error" by an exploitative agency should be exploited. It's not practical to try understand these guys through logical discourse. In any case, what is the use of "acceptance date" when you expect no one from the relevant category to file in? Applies both to EB2 and EB3. Probably these guys are just worried about mundane aspect of avoiding caseload for additional EAD.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 7 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 7 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •