由买买提看人间百态

boards

本页内容为未名空间相应帖子的节选和存档,一周内的贴子最多显示50字,超过一周显示500字 访问原贴
EB23版 - Unused Visa Numbers for EB-2s from India and China
相关主题
LIA 从移民律师协会获得的五月排期之最新消息看来5月就要倒退了
科普一下NIU为什么要推动3012?奥傻说5月倒退后一直到10月才进啊!?
我们是印度人的1/10.凭什么和他们捆绑?一位移民律师对中印EB2今年排期进展的分析
Important Update Affecting EB-2 Advancement坏消息:AILA得到奥本确认,EB3排期“可能”会在本财年中倒退
好消息还是坏消息,律师对老印五月预测好像开始保守了如果降级成功,又同时EB3排期后退,建议EB2收藏此文章
INA 203 (e) 到底是怎样说的USCIS 征求移民改革意见,怎么一个中国人也没有
NIU会员给国会议员请愿信模版OH law写这种comments是什么心态?
Visa Bulletin 更新了2011财年EB2应该是每季度一个跳跃吧
相关话题的讨论汇总
话题: eb2话题: india话题: china话题: visa话题: numbers
进入EB23版参与讨论
1 (共1页)
d******8
发帖数: 1972
1
http://www.usimmlaw.com/current_information.htm
India, China and the "Otherwise Unused" Employment Visas Numbers
Is the Visa Office Discriminating Against China?
(short answer is "no")
(This posting was prepared April 4, 2011, before publication of the May Visa Bulletin)
The State Department is about to start allocating more than 12,000 extra visa numbers to EB2 applicants. Most will go to applicants from India. The EB2 India date in the May Visa Bulletin will advance for the first time since September, 2010. EB2 India and China may continue to advance for the rest of the fiscal year - unlikely to pass December, 2006.
The back story
There are about 140,000 employment based visa numbers available for fiscal year 2011. Each independent country of the world is limited to no more than 7% of that total. There are five employment related preference classifications - with each allocated a certain percentage of the total. The second preference ("EB2") is allocated 28.6% of the total.
Visas are issued in Priority Date order
Visas numbers are made available in priority date order within preference classification without regard to country of changeability of the applicant. There is an exception for those countries which are expected to reach their 7% limitation within a fiscal year. Applicants from those countries are allocated visa numbers within preference categories.
So why is EB2 for India and China backlogged, while the rest of the world is Current?
India and China are both expected to reach their 7% limitation in fiscal 2011 based on the "reasonable estimates" of visa usage for the year the Visa Office is permitted to make by law. (INA 203(g)). In fact, India had already reached its 2011 EB2 allocation by April, 2011, and China is well on track to utilize its entire allocation in July. This means that India and China are limited to no more than 28.6 percent of their entire country limitation in EB2. Thus - even though the rest of the world is "current" the China and India EB2 cutoff dates are currently set to 2006 manage the approximately 2800 visas typically available under the EB2 annual limit for each country subject to the 7% limitation.
When it rains visa numbers ...
The law provides that if the total 140,000 employment based visa numbers are not used, then the extra visa numbers are to be utilized without regard to the 7 percent per country limitation.
The law also provides that unused visa numbers from EB4 and EB5 will add to the EB1 total - and unused EB1 visa numbers become available for EB2. Of course, visa numbers aren't "unused" until the fiscal year ends on September 30th - but the law provides that the Visa Office can allocate visa numbers during the year based on reasonable expectations of usage.
Because of a drop in overall employment demand, particularly in EB1, the Visa Office is currently estimating at least 12,000 extra visa numbers will be available for EB2 this year. And those 12,000 numbers can now be considered for potential allocation without regard to the EB2 per country limitation which otherwise affects India and China.
Where do the additional 12,000 EB2 numbers go?
By law, the extra 12,000 EB2 numbers are made available to the entire world in priority date order. INA 203(e). And they are allocated without regard to country of chargeability.
The "Current" EB2 availability for countries other than India or China indicates that the demand from those countries is met from the base 28.6% allocation - without need for extra numbers. This leaves all 12,000 extra visa numbers to be utilized by India and China.
By law, the 12,000 "otherwise unused" numbers which will be available for EB2 in 2011 are allocated in priority date order. The law provides that they are allocated without regard to the per country limits once the State Department determines that country has reached its EB2 limit.
There are at least 17,400 applicants who have filed, or who are ready to file EB2 adjustment of status applications and whose priority dates are in calendar year 2006. For the most part, these are applicants who filed adjustment of status applications in July or August 2007 when the visa bulletin reported EB2 as "current" for every country and whose adjustment of status applications could not be completed because of retrogression in the EB2 category for India and China. In addition, there are an unknown number of applicants with 2006 priority dates who have "upgraded" from EB3 to EB2 by filing new PERM applications and preference petitions. And there are an unknown number of applicants with approved EB2 petitions who do not have pending adjustment of status applications.
There are tens of thousands of additional applicants who have priority dates subsequent to 2006.
The 12,000 "otherwise unused" will be fully utilized by those with 2006 priority dates. Of the 17,400 presently "known" applicants, 13,200 are from India, and 4,200 are from China. We would therefore expect that about 75% of the applicants who would benefit would be from India. However, there are substantial numbers of Indian applicants whose priority dates are presently not current, but earlier than any China EB2 applicant whose priority date is available.
As of March, 2011, the EB2 priority date from China is July 8, 2006 and India is two months behind at May 8, 2006. The EB2 priority date for India will advance until either the 12,000 visa numbers are used, or until it becomes equal to the China EB2 date. The China and India EB2 dates will then advance together. In April (and for the next few months), India EB2 will be earlier than China EB2. We would therefore expect India to benefit from more than 75% of the extra 12,000 EB2 numbers because we believe more than 75% of those with the oldest EB2 priority dates are from India.
So is the Visa Office discriminating against China?
If more than 75% of the "otherwise unused" visa numbers were allocated to India instead of split between India and China, would it mean the Visa Office discriminating against China? Is it favoring India? The answer is that the Visa office is not discriminating against or favoring any country in allocating the "otherwise unused" numbers. It is following the law.
The law requires the "otherwise unused" visa numbers to be allocated in priority date order. There are more applicants from India than China with older priority dates. The applicants with the older priority dates will get the visa numbers first. That is the law. Those are the applicants who have waited the longest. Most of those are from India.
There are claims that this somehow violates the anti-discrimination provisions of the INA which provides that no person shall be discriminated against in their preference or priority classifications because of their country of birth (except for the per country limits which don't apply as to the "otherwise unused" numbers).
It clearly does not. The allocation of extra numbers is being done by the visa office without regard to a person's nationality or country of birth. The allocation is being made by "place in line" - priority date - as required by law. The people who have waited the longest go first. That is the law. To "split the baby" and give half the extra numbers to persons from one country and half to persons from another would violate the law.
Sharing the otherwise unused visa numbers equally between India and China would mean that someone from India with an older priority date would wait longer than an applicant from China - and that would violate the anti-discrimination provisions of the INA. Applicants from both those countries are discriminated against with regard to the 7% limitation, which takes into account country of origin. That is the law. But the law does not provide for extending that discrimination to the otherwise unused visa numbers which fall through to EB2.
Allocating the otherwise unused visa numbers by priority date and not by country is a requirement of the law - and it is not discriminatory.
d******8
发帖数: 1972
2
Please pay attention below section:
Because most of the 17,400 applicants were Indians (13,200) and the older
priority dates are from India, India will most likely get around 75 percent
of those numbers.
As emphasized by Jay Solomon, author of “EB-2 Story: India, China and the
“Otherwise Unused Employment Visa Numbers – Is the Visa Office
Discriminating Against China” published on AILA Infonet (Doc. No. 11040634)
and also available at http://www.usimmlaw.com/EB2Story.htm April 2011, there is no discrimination against China in US policy, since it is US law that visa numbers be accorded based on a person’s priority date or place in line, not on a person’s nationality or country of birth. Although it has a practical disproportionate effect on Indian applications, the law neither favors or penalizes any particular country.
d******8
发帖数: 1972
3
Because most of the 17,400 applicants were Indians (13,200) and the older
priority dates are from India, India will most likely get around 75 percent
of those numbers.
there is no discrimination against China in US policy
d******8
发帖数: 1972
4
大家快支持NIU,过了这个村,估计就没有这个店了。
j*e
发帖数: 1987
5
原帖http://www.usimmlaw.com/EB2Story.htm是指空口说胡话。“Allocating the otherwise unused visa numbers by priority date and not by country is a requirement of the law - and it is not discriminatory.
”哪一条法律这样讲?请他指出来?
有必要调查一下这个律师的背景。是否阿三在背后资助?或者跟DOS有一腿?
JAY I. SOLOMON
Suite 1350, 900 Circle 75 Parkway
Atlanta, Georgia 30339-3095
Telephone: 770/955-1055
Fax: 770/955-9303
Email: j******[email protected]
大家发email找他理论去。
j*e
发帖数: 1987
6
文中吐露实情了:"In fact, India had already reached its 2011 EB2 allocation
by April, 2011, and China is well on track to utilize its entire allocation
in July." 他哪里来的数据?有内线?
zg
发帖数: 113
7
He said following:
By law, the extra 12,000 EB2 numbers are made available to the entire world
in priority date order. INA 203(e). And they are allocated without regard
to country of chargeability.
As I remember, someone pointed out the law says "without regard to country
limit" instead of "without regard to contry of chargeability". The former
only means a county can get more than 7%; the later means the SO should be
shared by oversubscribed counties. SO by pd is not required by law, it is
chosen by Mr. O.
Can someone more familiar with the issue email or call this lawyer and let
him know the truth, assuming he is not working for or representing Indian
interest?

【在 j*e 的大作中提到】
: 原帖http://www.usimmlaw.com/EB2Story.htm是指空口说胡话。“Allocating the otherwise unused visa numbers by priority date and not by country is a requirement of the law - and it is not discriminatory.
: ”哪一条法律这样讲?请他指出来?
: 有必要调查一下这个律师的背景。是否阿三在背后资助?或者跟DOS有一腿?
: JAY I. SOLOMON
: Suite 1350, 900 Circle 75 Parkway
: Atlanta, Georgia 30339-3095
: Telephone: 770/955-1055
: Fax: 770/955-9303
: Email: j******[email protected]
: 大家发email找他理论去。

j*e
发帖数: 1987
8
他自己在文章第二段中说 PD order是有exception的,“There is an exception for
those countries which are expected to reach their 7% limitation within a
fiscal year. Applicants from those countries are allocated visa numbers
within preference categories. ”
他引用的203(e)原文在此http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-1083/0-0-0-1159.html
“ Order of Consideration. -
(1) Immigrant visas made available under subsection (a) or (b) shall be
issued to eligible immigrants in the order in which a petition in behalf of
each such immigrant is filed with the Attorney General (or in the case of
special immigrants under section 101(a)(27)(D) , with the Secretary of State
) as provided in section 204(a) . ”
其中 in the order 后面的一长串可以不用看,后面一串就是说按PD顺序,前面的主语
部分"Immigrant visas made available under subsection (a) or (b)"
那么这个"subsection (a) or (b)"又是什么呢?
大家看http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-1083.html,INA 203 (a)就是讲Family Based如何分类,INA 203(b)就是讲Employment Based 如何分类,其中INA 203(b)(1)就是EB-1,INA 203(b)(2)就是EB-2,....,INA 203(b)(5)就是EB-5.
所以他举的这条法律完全就是在讲general的情况,而他自己也说了,中印是例外,现
在剩余名额分配也是在中印间分,当然也是例外情况,怎么能又来引用针对general情
况的法律条文来对付我们呢?
zg
发帖数: 113
9
I searched some previous posts, you did a very nice job of analyzing INA.
How about you summarize/translate your post, and forward it to NIU guys.
Maybe they can ask the same AILA lawyer who handled our letter to Mr.O to
post your idea on the AILA website as a counter attack.

for
of
State

【在 j*e 的大作中提到】
: 他自己在文章第二段中说 PD order是有exception的,“There is an exception for
: those countries which are expected to reach their 7% limitation within a
: fiscal year. Applicants from those countries are allocated visa numbers
: within preference categories. ”
: 他引用的203(e)原文在此http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-1083/0-0-0-1159.html
: “ Order of Consideration. -
: (1) Immigrant visas made available under subsection (a) or (b) shall be
: issued to eligible immigrants in the order in which a petition in behalf of
: each such immigrant is filed with the Attorney General (or in the case of
: special immigrants under section 101(a)(27)(D) , with the Secretary of State

j*e
发帖数: 1987
10
我曾经pointed out the law says "without regard to country
INA 202 (a)(5) http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-1016.html
这是目前为止唯一一条阐述剩余名额分配的法律条文。
该律师在他自己的文中When it rains visa numbers ...一段也提到了这条,但是他很
狡猾的是,没有像奥本一样用这条来为PD order做辩解。因为他知道这条只讲到
regardless of Country Limit,没有讲regardless of country. 而去看看2010年4月
VB和2010年8月VB就知道(see http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_1770.html),奥本每次都引用202 (a) (5)来为他的PD order分spillover辩解。因为奥本知道用203 (e)来辩解更行不通。
world
regard
相关主题
INA 203 (e) 到底是怎样说的看来5月就要倒退了
NIU会员给国会议员请愿信模版奥傻说5月倒退后一直到10月才进啊!?
Visa Bulletin 更新了一位移民律师对中印EB2今年排期进展的分析
进入EB23版参与讨论
j*e
发帖数: 1987
11
我已经把我的研究结果和对法律的理解都公布在这儿了,大家都是硕士以上水平,应该
都能理解。有不理解或不同意见欢迎提出。
我希望大家根据这些理解,自己写信与这个律师去辩论。不要千篇一律,才能让他感受
到群众的压力。
他这篇发表在AILA website吗?我看到的只是在他自己website。

【在 zg 的大作中提到】
: I searched some previous posts, you did a very nice job of analyzing INA.
: How about you summarize/translate your post, and forward it to NIU guys.
: Maybe they can ask the same AILA lawyer who handled our letter to Mr.O to
: post your idea on the AILA website as a counter attack.
:
: for
: of
: State

zg
发帖数: 113
12
As you said:
202(a)(5) says "without regard to country limit", not "without regard to
county chargeability".
203(e) says PD order, but it is for normal number, not SO number.
So none of them can be used to conclude "law requires SO by PD".
Can you suggest NIU to post this on AILA website through the lawyer they
have in contact? I think any AILA lawyer can post there. It will remind the
solomon guy that there are other lawyers standing for Chinese and they are
watching what he was saying.

【在 j*e 的大作中提到】
: 我曾经pointed out the law says "without regard to country
: INA 202 (a)(5) http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-1016.html
: 这是目前为止唯一一条阐述剩余名额分配的法律条文。
: 该律师在他自己的文中When it rains visa numbers ...一段也提到了这条,但是他很
: 狡猾的是,没有像奥本一样用这条来为PD order做辩解。因为他知道这条只讲到
: regardless of Country Limit,没有讲regardless of country. 而去看看2010年4月
: VB和2010年8月VB就知道(see http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_1770.html),奥本每次都引用202 (a) (5)来为他的PD order分spillover辩解。因为奥本知道用203 (e)来辩解更行不通。
: world
: regard

d******8
发帖数: 1972
13
谢谢ZG and jwe辛苦工作。好人一定有好报。
zg
发帖数: 113
14
It was published at AILA website, 4/7/2011.
http://www.aila.org/RecentPosting/RecentPostingList.aspx
Kind of feel he is paving the road for coming May VB which might favor
Indian over Chinese.

【在 j*e 的大作中提到】
: 我已经把我的研究结果和对法律的理解都公布在这儿了,大家都是硕士以上水平,应该
: 都能理解。有不理解或不同意见欢迎提出。
: 我希望大家根据这些理解,自己写信与这个律师去辩论。不要千篇一律,才能让他感受
: 到群众的压力。
: 他这篇发表在AILA website吗?我看到的只是在他自己website。

zg
发帖数: 113
15
Thank you for bring it to everybody's attention.
Seems we need to fight Indian at several fronts, DOS, USCIS, now AILA.

【在 d******8 的大作中提到】
: 谢谢ZG and jwe辛苦工作。好人一定有好报。
b*******l
发帖数: 1737
16
那就是说有3000个名额是给CHINESE的?那是不是说就这12000的名额就能让中国人排期
到06年底?
麻烦大牛们给回答一下。

visa
of

【在 d******8 的大作中提到】
: http://www.usimmlaw.com/current_information.htm
: India, China and the "Otherwise Unused" Employment Visas Numbers
: Is the Visa Office Discriminating Against China?
: (short answer is "no")
: (This posting was prepared April 4, 2011, before publication of the May Visa Bulletin)
: The State Department is about to start allocating more than 12,000 extra visa numbers to EB2 applicants. Most will go to applicants from India. The EB2 India date in the May Visa Bulletin will advance for the first time since September, 2010. EB2 India and China may continue to advance for the rest of the fiscal year - unlikely to pass December, 2006.
: The back story
: There are about 140,000 employment based visa numbers available for fiscal year 2011. Each independent country of the world is limited to no more than 7% of that total. There are five employment related preference classifications - with each allocated a certain percentage of the total. The second preference ("EB2") is allocated 28.6% of the total.
: Visas are issued in Priority Date order
: Visas numbers are made available in priority date order within preference classification without regard to country of changeability of the applicant. There is an exception for those countries which are expected to reach their 7% limitation within a fiscal year. Applicants from those countries are allocated visa numbers within preference categories.

j*e
发帖数: 1987
17
我觉得这篇文章应该只代表该律师个人立场,不代表AILA的立场。

【在 zg 的大作中提到】
: Thank you for bring it to everybody's attention.
: Seems we need to fight Indian at several fronts, DOS, USCIS, now AILA.

zg
发帖数: 113
18
I did not mean fight with AILA. I mean fight at AILA.
That is why I suggest NIU to post our understanding of INA at AILA website
through their lawyer. We should let AILA lawyers know SO by PD which favors
Indian over Chinese is not required by law, but a choice of Mr.O.

【在 j*e 的大作中提到】
: 我觉得这篇文章应该只代表该律师个人立场,不代表AILA的立场。
j*e
发帖数: 1987
19
大家想想如何批驳他文章倒数第二段的最后一句。
“Applicants from both those countries are discriminated against with regard
to the 7% limitation, which takes into account country of origin. That is
the law. But the law does not provide for extending that discrimination to
the otherwise unused visa numbers which fall through to EB2.”
G******t
发帖数: 1782
20
不是法律歧视任何国家的人,
是法律在实践上只适用了PD
原则,而没有考虑国会移民
法的多样化精神。

regard
is
to

【在 j*e 的大作中提到】
: 大家想想如何批驳他文章倒数第二段的最后一句。
: “Applicants from both those countries are discriminated against with regard
: to the 7% limitation, which takes into account country of origin. That is
: the law. But the law does not provide for extending that discrimination to
: the otherwise unused visa numbers which fall through to EB2.”

相关主题
坏消息:AILA得到奥本确认,EB3排期“可能”会在本财年中倒退OH law写这种comments是什么心态?
如果降级成功,又同时EB3排期后退,建议EB2收藏此文章2011财年EB2应该是每季度一个跳跃吧
USCIS 征求移民改革意见,怎么一个中国人也没有谁能告诉我,老印是怎么push移民局的??
进入EB23版参与讨论
e*******7
发帖数: 2169
21
这不过是一个收阿三黑钱的家伙信口雌黄在AILA,我们需要一个给中国人办事的弄一篇
别的在AILA,内容从这个网站上弄点就够了,主要是要找一个律师能发文章。作用类似
于老将小将在军版占领舆论阵地一样。
w*****g
发帖数: 3922
22
我想请教,在AILA瞎说,对分配原则有什么影响呢?AILA也不是管分名额的啊。

【在 e*******7 的大作中提到】
: 这不过是一个收阿三黑钱的家伙信口雌黄在AILA,我们需要一个给中国人办事的弄一篇
: 别的在AILA,内容从这个网站上弄点就够了,主要是要找一个律师能发文章。作用类似
: 于老将小将在军版占领舆论阵地一样。

zg
发帖数: 113
23
舆论阵地
Make Mr.O more comfortable sticking to his "SO by PD" method.

【在 w*****g 的大作中提到】
: 我想请教,在AILA瞎说,对分配原则有什么影响呢?AILA也不是管分名额的啊。
zg
发帖数: 113
24
Imagine Mr.O received mail/email of NIU through an AILA lawyer, then this
lawyer posted the article at AILA website today.
He is supporting and arguing for Mr.O, trying to avoid any future inquiry
from any AILA lawyer regarding Mr.O's SO rule.

【在 w*****g 的大作中提到】
: 我想请教,在AILA瞎说,对分配原则有什么影响呢?AILA也不是管分名额的啊。
c********r
发帖数: 520
25
NIU的赶快找一个favor老中的律师发个文章, 道德舆论阵地一定要抢的
d******8
发帖数: 1972
26
原贴不全,现在补全了。
t********y
发帖数: 360
27
"In fact, India had already reached its 2011 EB2 allocation
by April, 2011, and China is well on track to utilize its entire allocation
in July."
每个国家自己的名额要quarterly分配,所以上半年排期推进慢,中印都指着unused
number,那么凭什么印度4月就把自己的用完了,而中国的要等到7月,两边都是有很多
人排队的,很明显,这样子在开始分unused number时,assign的排期里中国人就尽可
能的少了,至少从5月到7月,中国就一个也拿不到,因为自己的还没用完。
需要O正面回答为什么印度4月就把自己的用完了,而中国的要等到7月。这个就是最最明显的不公平,即使是最后还是中印按PD分leftover,那么至少开始分的时候,两国都得把自己本来的名额用完,这样可以最大限度的减少中国的损失。
NIU不是请了一个AILA的律师写质问信吗?那么中国这方的意见也需要POST到AILA去。这个文章必需反驳。
c********r
发帖数: 520
28
这个是关键! 每次都被黑, 这次至少发出声音。

allocation
最明显的不公平,即使是最后还是中印按PD分leftover,那么至少开始分的时候,两国
都得把自己本来的名额用完,这样可以最大限度的减少中国的损失。
。这个文章必需反驳。

【在 t********y 的大作中提到】
: "In fact, India had already reached its 2011 EB2 allocation
: by April, 2011, and China is well on track to utilize its entire allocation
: in July."
: 每个国家自己的名额要quarterly分配,所以上半年排期推进慢,中印都指着unused
: number,那么凭什么印度4月就把自己的用完了,而中国的要等到7月,两边都是有很多
: 人排队的,很明显,这样子在开始分unused number时,assign的排期里中国人就尽可
: 能的少了,至少从5月到7月,中国就一个也拿不到,因为自己的还没用完。
: 需要O正面回答为什么印度4月就把自己的用完了,而中国的要等到7月。这个就是最最明显的不公平,即使是最后还是中印按PD分leftover,那么至少开始分的时候,两国都得把自己本来的名额用完,这样可以最大限度的减少中国的损失。
: NIU不是请了一个AILA的律师写质问信吗?那么中国这方的意见也需要POST到AILA去。这个文章必需反驳。

t********y
发帖数: 360
29
是啊,一样都是两千八,为什么印度能比中国提前3个月用完?然后5月开始分大饼,只分印度不分中国,这不是赤果果的FAVOR印度是什么。
我们先不说按PD分,就说这个,他们能justify吗?
这个文章其实提供了证据 -- 白纸黑字说了印度比中国早3个月用完2800的limit,当两国都有backlog的时候。
这个问题扔到DOS和USCIS的脸上,看他们敢不敢回答!

【在 c********r 的大作中提到】
: 这个是关键! 每次都被黑, 这次至少发出声音。
:
: allocation
: 最明显的不公平,即使是最后还是中印按PD分leftover,那么至少开始分的时候,两国
: 都得把自己本来的名额用完,这样可以最大限度的减少中国的损失。
: 。这个文章必需反驳。

D*****0
发帖数: 196
30
我估计是阿三发现我们在闹评分的事而找律师公开造谣支持O的做法,我们也可以找律
师与他对顶。各位也可以写信质问他信口开河的按PD分的法律在哪里。
相关主题
我来做一些事情,但需要你们的帮助科普一下NIU为什么要推动3012?
Shusterman's Immigration Update :EB-2 Visa Availability我们是印度人的1/10.凭什么和他们捆绑?
LIA 从移民律师协会获得的五月排期之最新消息Important Update Affecting EB-2 Advancement
进入EB23版参与讨论
j**i
发帖数: 419
31
at least this is brought to more & more attention now.
I support - nao yi nao won't do us anything bad at this point. The more
people are aware of it, we get less chances of being blacked-handed.
Even if legally he is not wrong, we will get some
s****l
发帖数: 16457
32
这个“索罗门 ”是哪的姓?
y*******w
发帖数: 5917
33
米犹

【在 s****l 的大作中提到】
: 这个“索罗门 ”是哪的姓?
s****l
发帖数: 16457
34
这些毒瘤

【在 y*******w 的大作中提到】
: 米犹
w*l
发帖数: 2550
35
"Applicants from both those countries are discriminated against with regard
强调Diversity算是歧视吗?
有没有牛人从这点上,为什么diversity over PD, 引申一下?
regard
is
to
1 (共1页)
进入EB23版参与讨论
相关主题
2011财年EB2应该是每季度一个跳跃吧好消息还是坏消息,律师对老印五月预测好像开始保守了
谁能告诉我,老印是怎么push移民局的??INA 203 (e) 到底是怎样说的
我来做一些事情,但需要你们的帮助NIU会员给国会议员请愿信模版
Shusterman's Immigration Update :EB-2 Visa AvailabilityVisa Bulletin 更新了
LIA 从移民律师协会获得的五月排期之最新消息看来5月就要倒退了
科普一下NIU为什么要推动3012?奥傻说5月倒退后一直到10月才进啊!?
我们是印度人的1/10.凭什么和他们捆绑?一位移民律师对中印EB2今年排期进展的分析
Important Update Affecting EB-2 Advancement坏消息:AILA得到奥本确认,EB3排期“可能”会在本财年中倒退
相关话题的讨论汇总
话题: eb2话题: india话题: china话题: visa话题: numbers