a2006
07-05 03:21 PM
It is always an option for any one with in their org, but if his point is wrong, then IV core leadership should prove him that they are not sitting idle or moving very very slow.
Every one starting their own organization or asking to do so doesn't solve the purpose.
Why cant he start an initiative and take it to completion and show everybody that he can do something. IV is for everybody just complaining wouldn't take us far. :confused:
Every one starting their own organization or asking to do so doesn't solve the purpose.
Why cant he start an initiative and take it to completion and show everybody that he can do something. IV is for everybody just complaining wouldn't take us far. :confused:
wallpaper make muffins and cupcakes,
bsbawa10
02-07 02:52 PM
First of all I am really sorry for all this happening to you. Unfortunately, this is happening more and more since the anti-dowry laws have been made which are so ridiculous. Females get the credit of being innocence from our society even if they are not. All they need to do is be 1. somewhat beautiful, 2. sob in society and 3. be young and everybody on the earth thinks that they are "poor , innocent girl" ..even if they are perfect culprits.
farhad
08-20 02:13 AM
Unfortunately, there isn't a fast lane for nurses. If your PD is April 31, 2007, my advise to you is to monitor the monthly Visa Bulletin and once your PD becomes current, you will know that it is just a few months ahead. For now, with the current turn of events, without the fast lane for nurses, you are looking at two years of waiting.
tnx for the grade information
does it takes 2 years for I-140 to be approved?! my gush! or its included the CP? then can you tell me what is the diff between I-485 and CP? and which one is runnig faster?
tnx for the grade information
does it takes 2 years for I-140 to be approved?! my gush! or its included the CP? then can you tell me what is the diff between I-485 and CP? and which one is runnig faster?
2011 love muffins and cupcakes.
chintu25
03-09 10:42 AM
Good one ..itsnotfunny....but I will tell you that each one of us does wait with baited breath for the VB .
I am all for the FOIA drive and have promised some money as well. But lets just hope and pray that the VB brings some good news for some of us :)
I am all for the FOIA drive and have promised some money as well. But lets just hope and pray that the VB brings some good news for some of us :)
more...
NolaIndian32
07-11 10:37 AM
I second yabadaba's sentiment! :):):):):):):):):):):):)
wooohooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooo
wooohooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooo
smuggymba
08-12 01:08 PM
The impact to companies like Infy etc is ~5-10MM
If someone look at their last year Balance sheet, They spent appx 16MM on visas, now assuming H1 cost came to ~10MM (these companies do lot of business elsewhere )
that would translate to ~ 2500 filings (including extn, new etc)
this additional $2000 would result in additional $5MM cost if they decide to continue filing 2500
This would not be too huge to make a dent on these companies. yes they may increase their billing to client by $2-5
So who is ultimately paying it is the American companies who use offshoring companies.
This new law:
1.) won't stop Infy, TCS from operating in USA
2.) Won't create jobs for americans
3.) Won't increase the competitiveness of american employees
4.) Will increase offshoring
5.) Will make a small dent in the profits of Indian companies but they likely will cut down on expenses/bonuseses/initiatives
If someone look at their last year Balance sheet, They spent appx 16MM on visas, now assuming H1 cost came to ~10MM (these companies do lot of business elsewhere )
that would translate to ~ 2500 filings (including extn, new etc)
this additional $2000 would result in additional $5MM cost if they decide to continue filing 2500
This would not be too huge to make a dent on these companies. yes they may increase their billing to client by $2-5
So who is ultimately paying it is the American companies who use offshoring companies.
This new law:
1.) won't stop Infy, TCS from operating in USA
2.) Won't create jobs for americans
3.) Won't increase the competitiveness of american employees
4.) Will increase offshoring
5.) Will make a small dent in the profits of Indian companies but they likely will cut down on expenses/bonuseses/initiatives
more...
kumar1
03-13 02:08 PM
I never got any notification of any file transfer from NSC to TSC. I do not know if that happened or not.
Hi,
I can see that your 485 recipt date should be around 7/25/07 which is around mine.
Was your 485 transferred to TSC or NSC ? If so, did the Transfer notice have a different Receipt date ?
I am just trying to figure out when they may get to my case. My 485 Recipt date was 7/31/09 and then it was transferred to TSC and the transfer notice had a receipt date of 10/1/09. Not sure if they'd consider the Receipt date in the 485 Receipt or the 485 Transfer Notice.
The reason for my my anxiety is, I provided a change of Address (more than 200 miles) to USCIS and am wondering if I'd get a rfe.
Thanks
Hi,
I can see that your 485 recipt date should be around 7/25/07 which is around mine.
Was your 485 transferred to TSC or NSC ? If so, did the Transfer notice have a different Receipt date ?
I am just trying to figure out when they may get to my case. My 485 Recipt date was 7/31/09 and then it was transferred to TSC and the transfer notice had a receipt date of 10/1/09. Not sure if they'd consider the Receipt date in the 485 Receipt or the 485 Transfer Notice.
The reason for my my anxiety is, I provided a change of Address (more than 200 miles) to USCIS and am wondering if I'd get a rfe.
Thanks
2010 CUPCAKES, CAKES, MUFFINS
ilwaiting
07-06 12:19 PM
Lets call it "Re Revised Visa Bulletin". Non-Existent sentence.
What are they trying to do?
What are they trying to do?
more...
govindk
07-11 08:15 AM
it is really a good news for EB2-I :)
hair of muffins and cupcakes.
senthil1
10-03 04:40 PM
Increasing green card numbers will resolve this problem also. For example doubling the Visa numbers will not have much impact when CIS wastes a few hundred or a few thousand Visa numbers. If Annual cap is 300k then also CIS may waste 5k Visa numbers every year on average. But without increasing gc numbers even full utilization of 140k Visa will not have any impact Indian PD as demand is high.
Last year they "wasted" about 10K visa numbers. It is absolutely up to them. However congress has authorized 140k a year and there are huge backlogs for AOS and CP. So when you put that together, leaving about 10K unapproved is clearly not enforcing congressional mandates. The ombudsman blasted them for this in his report, then we had the VB fiasco. None of this sounds like great management of the benefits. There clearly is room for improvement.
We (us and our employers) as the recipients of the benefits are complaining about this, and it is perfectly legitimate.
If any visa numbers are left unused, I definitely think we ought to take up this issue with congressional leaders like Zoe Lofgren. Even just a visa recapture legislation alone would help us tremendously until 2009(about the earliest they might get back to this issue more fully).
Last year they "wasted" about 10K visa numbers. It is absolutely up to them. However congress has authorized 140k a year and there are huge backlogs for AOS and CP. So when you put that together, leaving about 10K unapproved is clearly not enforcing congressional mandates. The ombudsman blasted them for this in his report, then we had the VB fiasco. None of this sounds like great management of the benefits. There clearly is room for improvement.
We (us and our employers) as the recipients of the benefits are complaining about this, and it is perfectly legitimate.
If any visa numbers are left unused, I definitely think we ought to take up this issue with congressional leaders like Zoe Lofgren. Even just a visa recapture legislation alone would help us tremendously until 2009(about the earliest they might get back to this issue more fully).
more...
akhilmahajan
10-24 05:32 PM
Same with me, have been getting red dots. But red dots should not deter us.
People giving us Red Dots for our efforts means we are doing a good job in our efforts.
People who are lazy or just don't understand the magnitude of the problem, will do nothing except giving red dots.
So, lets keep on going with this campaign full steam.
GO I/WE GO.
People giving us Red Dots for our efforts means we are doing a good job in our efforts.
People who are lazy or just don't understand the magnitude of the problem, will do nothing except giving red dots.
So, lets keep on going with this campaign full steam.
GO I/WE GO.
hot 2010 of muffins and cupcakes.
Libra
09-10 02:10 PM
himu73, iqube00, desperatedesi for your contributions and efforts. And thanks Harivinder for your contribution and suggestion, IV is working on those banners.
more...
house of muffins and cupcakes
ragz4u
03-09 10:53 AM
Provides an exception for refugees and asylees in Document Fraud Exception!
tattoo Jumbo Muffin Pan
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...
pictures fun muffins and cupcakes!
sriharirag
07-13 05:57 PM
Did my part in contacting senator and congressman...did get positive feedback...don't know what they will do.
Thanks
Sri
Thanks
Sri
dresses I never make cupcakes. Muffins
zoooom
08-19 03:14 AM
Bump
more...
makeup muffins and cupcakes ?
bsbawa10
09-11 08:48 PM
Dear Freinds,
USCIS has proven again that they cannot calculate or count. Don't you think they should be presented with this calculator to help them calculate.
http://www.amazon.com/REALLY-CALCULATOR-AUTO-OFF-RUBBER-KEYPAD/dp/B000QOJYWA/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=office-products&qid=1221162014&sr=8-1
Also DOS has a knack for turning back the clock, don't you think they are in need of this clock.
http://www.amazon.com/American-Science-Surplus-BACKWARDS-RUNNING/dp/B000KDYQFM
What is your opinion?
My opinion is that USCIS does not deserve flowers or calculators. I am in a big favour of sending letters to them and to congress men with some information about what USCIS has been doing. I am also in favour of sending some pamphlets. I have already prepared some. Please see.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=288175&postcount=33
USCIS has proven again that they cannot calculate or count. Don't you think they should be presented with this calculator to help them calculate.
http://www.amazon.com/REALLY-CALCULATOR-AUTO-OFF-RUBBER-KEYPAD/dp/B000QOJYWA/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=office-products&qid=1221162014&sr=8-1
Also DOS has a knack for turning back the clock, don't you think they are in need of this clock.
http://www.amazon.com/American-Science-Surplus-BACKWARDS-RUNNING/dp/B000KDYQFM
What is your opinion?
My opinion is that USCIS does not deserve flowers or calculators. I am in a big favour of sending letters to them and to congress men with some information about what USCIS has been doing. I am also in favour of sending some pamphlets. I have already prepared some. Please see.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=288175&postcount=33
girlfriend both muffins and cupcakes.
vandanaverdia
09-12 01:18 AM
Great initiative... Hope some people come forth & contribute.
hairstyles Spooky Spider Cupcakes/Muffins
digital2k
08-08 09:43 PM
*
unseenguy
02-09 05:01 PM
To summarize the root causes now that we discussed:
1. Parental interference to control their own child even after marriage. This is cause no 1 of this kind of tensions.
2. Immaturity on the part of children, to let their parents control their feelings. (This is partly due to in arranged marriages, children are closer to parents than the spouse in initial years). This is no 2 issue. Children simply fail to understand they are no more part of their parents family. I honestly feel these people are not really ready for marriage or understand what marriage is.
3. Money transactions. One side expecting money from other side which is not really acceptable. I will elaborate this point a bit more.
4. In cases of couples settled in US/UK, parents know that couples are making a LOT more than by Indian standards. Hence to secure their own old age comfort, everyone tries to exert influence.
On no 3, let us separate our "legal" obligations from "moral".
Morally it is right to send money to parents, but legally it is not. As you can strive but, you wont be fair to either set of parents. Hence I believe "money" should not be sent to parents. Your parents should have planned their own future, including humanitarian needs. Only if your other half agrees, then only you should send money. Otherwise, it is your and your spouse's money.
If your parents needed monetary support then that they should have made clear to other parents at the time of marriage. Not after marriage. If its a love marriage, then the boy/girl should have clearly told this requirement to the other half.
1. Parental interference to control their own child even after marriage. This is cause no 1 of this kind of tensions.
2. Immaturity on the part of children, to let their parents control their feelings. (This is partly due to in arranged marriages, children are closer to parents than the spouse in initial years). This is no 2 issue. Children simply fail to understand they are no more part of their parents family. I honestly feel these people are not really ready for marriage or understand what marriage is.
3. Money transactions. One side expecting money from other side which is not really acceptable. I will elaborate this point a bit more.
4. In cases of couples settled in US/UK, parents know that couples are making a LOT more than by Indian standards. Hence to secure their own old age comfort, everyone tries to exert influence.
On no 3, let us separate our "legal" obligations from "moral".
Morally it is right to send money to parents, but legally it is not. As you can strive but, you wont be fair to either set of parents. Hence I believe "money" should not be sent to parents. Your parents should have planned their own future, including humanitarian needs. Only if your other half agrees, then only you should send money. Otherwise, it is your and your spouse's money.
If your parents needed monetary support then that they should have made clear to other parents at the time of marriage. Not after marriage. If its a love marriage, then the boy/girl should have clearly told this requirement to the other half.
john2255
07-20 04:35 PM
Kindly understand that
Yea- YES
Nay- NO
Not- Absent from voting.
Obama was absent from voting- A clever diplomacy.
Hilary Clinton- Nay(double talk)
Senators from California- both no ( Big Surprise)
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00266
Text of the amemdment.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r110:1:./temp/~r110xIKs1t:e32253:
Here is the Senators and their voting pattern.
Alabama: Sessions (R-AL), Nay Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Nay Pryor (D-AR), Nay
California: Boxer (D-CA), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Colorado: Allard (R-CO), Yea Salazar (D-CO), Nay
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Nay Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Nay Carper (D-DE), Nay
Florida: Martinez (R-FL), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Nay Obama (D-IL), Not Voting
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Not Voting Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), Nay Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Nay Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota: Coleman (R-MN), Yea Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Yea Lott (R-MS), Not Voting
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Yea McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea Tester (D-MT), Nay
Nebraska: Hagel (R-NE), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Yea Reid (D-NV), Nay
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea Sununu (R-NH), Yea
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Domenici (R-NM), Yea
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Yea Dole (R-NC), Yea
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Nay Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Ohio: Brown (D-OH), Nay Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Oregon: Smith (R-OR), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), Nay Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Nay Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Corker (R-TN), Yea
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Nay Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Virginia: Warner (R-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Nay
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Not Voting Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Wyoming: Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea
That means we have lost around 2,40,000 unused visas. I heard that there is a total amount of 3,00,000 unused employment visas of the previous years due to the great efficiency of USCIS. Out of this 61,000 is kept apart for Schedule A nurses and PT's and the remaining 2,40,000 thousand would have been divided amoung employment catagories if the amendment had passed,clearing lot of our backloggs.
REMEMBER, THE RECAPTURE OF UNUSED VISAS IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT PRIORITIES OF CORE AND THE DOOR IS SLAMMED ON OUR FACES AGAIN BY HYPOCRITES LIKE HILARY AND CALIFORNIA SENATORS.
Its the high time we convince the senators who said NAYS. Lets start SOME KIND OF CAMPAIN aiming these guys. I am sure that core's hands are there behind this amendment. Well done IV. Don't get dissappointed, keep trying for Skill bill or for similar amendments. Its really unfortunate that we lost a very very big chance. Lets do something immediately.
Following is the text of amendment.
`(ii) DISTRIBUTION OF VISAS.--The total number of visas made available under paragraph (1) from unused visas from fiscal years 1994, 1996 through 1998, 2001 through 2004, and 2006 shall be distributed as follows:
``(I) The total number of visas made available for immigrant workers who had petitions approved based on Schedule A, Group I under section 656.5 of title 20, Code of Federal Regulations, as promulgated by the Secretary of Labor shall be 61,000.
``(II) The visas remaining from the total made available under subclause (I) shall be allocated equally among employment-based immigrants with approved petitions under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 203(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (and their family members accompanying or following to join).''.
(b) H-1B Visa Availability.--Section 214(g)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(1)(A)) is amended--
(1) in clause (vi), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) by redesignating clause (vii) as clause (ix); and
(3) by inserting after clause (vi) the following:
``(vii) 65,000 in each of fiscal years 2004 through 2007;
``(viii) 115,000 in fiscal year 2008; and''.
Yea- YES
Nay- NO
Not- Absent from voting.
Obama was absent from voting- A clever diplomacy.
Hilary Clinton- Nay(double talk)
Senators from California- both no ( Big Surprise)
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00266
Text of the amemdment.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r110:1:./temp/~r110xIKs1t:e32253:
Here is the Senators and their voting pattern.
Alabama: Sessions (R-AL), Nay Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Nay Pryor (D-AR), Nay
California: Boxer (D-CA), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Colorado: Allard (R-CO), Yea Salazar (D-CO), Nay
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Nay Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Nay Carper (D-DE), Nay
Florida: Martinez (R-FL), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Nay Obama (D-IL), Not Voting
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Not Voting Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), Nay Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Nay Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota: Coleman (R-MN), Yea Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Yea Lott (R-MS), Not Voting
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Yea McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea Tester (D-MT), Nay
Nebraska: Hagel (R-NE), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Yea Reid (D-NV), Nay
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea Sununu (R-NH), Yea
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Domenici (R-NM), Yea
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Yea Dole (R-NC), Yea
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Nay Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Ohio: Brown (D-OH), Nay Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Oregon: Smith (R-OR), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), Nay Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Nay Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Corker (R-TN), Yea
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Nay Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Virginia: Warner (R-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Nay
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Not Voting Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Wyoming: Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea
That means we have lost around 2,40,000 unused visas. I heard that there is a total amount of 3,00,000 unused employment visas of the previous years due to the great efficiency of USCIS. Out of this 61,000 is kept apart for Schedule A nurses and PT's and the remaining 2,40,000 thousand would have been divided amoung employment catagories if the amendment had passed,clearing lot of our backloggs.
REMEMBER, THE RECAPTURE OF UNUSED VISAS IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT PRIORITIES OF CORE AND THE DOOR IS SLAMMED ON OUR FACES AGAIN BY HYPOCRITES LIKE HILARY AND CALIFORNIA SENATORS.
Its the high time we convince the senators who said NAYS. Lets start SOME KIND OF CAMPAIN aiming these guys. I am sure that core's hands are there behind this amendment. Well done IV. Don't get dissappointed, keep trying for Skill bill or for similar amendments. Its really unfortunate that we lost a very very big chance. Lets do something immediately.
Following is the text of amendment.
`(ii) DISTRIBUTION OF VISAS.--The total number of visas made available under paragraph (1) from unused visas from fiscal years 1994, 1996 through 1998, 2001 through 2004, and 2006 shall be distributed as follows:
``(I) The total number of visas made available for immigrant workers who had petitions approved based on Schedule A, Group I under section 656.5 of title 20, Code of Federal Regulations, as promulgated by the Secretary of Labor shall be 61,000.
``(II) The visas remaining from the total made available under subclause (I) shall be allocated equally among employment-based immigrants with approved petitions under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 203(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (and their family members accompanying or following to join).''.
(b) H-1B Visa Availability.--Section 214(g)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(1)(A)) is amended--
(1) in clause (vi), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) by redesignating clause (vii) as clause (ix); and
(3) by inserting after clause (vi) the following:
``(vii) 65,000 in each of fiscal years 2004 through 2007;
``(viii) 115,000 in fiscal year 2008; and''.
