GCOP
07-11 02:07 PM
How many applications are pending for EB-3 (I). ?
Currently the tunnel is closed at the end for EB-3 :mad: and the only way out I see is for us EB-3 folks to dig through. No one cares about EB-3 I folks. That's the way I see it.
Currently the tunnel is closed at the end for EB-3 :mad: and the only way out I see is for us EB-3 folks to dig through. No one cares about EB-3 I folks. That's the way I see it.
wallpaper miley cyrus haircut short 2011
lost_in_migration
08-15 04:24 PM
That was my day-dream while sitting @ office ;)
They should have continued down to EB3 w/ those dates..!
They should have continued down to EB3 w/ those dates..!
CADude
02-21 11:16 AM
YES and YES.
How does one "change" to EB2?. I have a PD of Oct 2003 EB3. Should i submit a new labor and if it is approved my category will be EB2 PD Oct 2003?. Should i also file another I-140?.
Not that i want to. just out of curiosity. thanks
How does one "change" to EB2?. I have a PD of Oct 2003 EB3. Should i submit a new labor and if it is approved my category will be EB2 PD Oct 2003?. Should i also file another I-140?.
Not that i want to. just out of curiosity. thanks
2011 miley cyrus 2011 haircut. Nicole+richie+haircut+2011
amitps
09-26 11:27 AM
Eilene Zimmerman
freelance journalist
v and f: 619.582.2192
ezimmerman@sbcglobal.net
IV Leaders and Core are working on it...but feel free to call her / email her.
freelance journalist
v and f: 619.582.2192
ezimmerman@sbcglobal.net
IV Leaders and Core are working on it...but feel free to call her / email her.
more...
kondur_007
04-10 10:28 AM
Does anyone have numbers for spillover last year category wise? I mean, last year how many EB4, EB5 and EB1 left out visas got spilled over to EB2? Thanks...
Here are the details for last year and years before:
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
Here are the details for last year and years before:
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
Hermione
09-26 11:12 AM
Macaca (love your handle, by the way) - wait. All the editor is going to do as a result of these requests is to yank two sentences about the rally out of the article. IV rally does not belong in this article, so all you are going get is LESS publicity. Yes, the article was not factiually correct, but it is not major mischaracterization. It's OK. I'd rather take a CNN article with a slightly incorrect mentioning, then no mentioning.
Just my $0.02
The email should have info so that recipient can verify that rally was for EB GC issues and not H1B issues.
Say rally was organized by IV.
Put link to IV so they can check IV agenda.
Put link to Washington Post/NY Times article that correctly reported the rally.
Just my $0.02
The email should have info so that recipient can verify that rally was for EB GC issues and not H1B issues.
Say rally was organized by IV.
Put link to IV so they can check IV agenda.
Put link to Washington Post/NY Times article that correctly reported the rally.
more...
evljeenyiss
07-14 12:15 AM
truthfully, Bluesun I think yours was modelled the best, you just need a better renderer/ lighting.
2010 Her hair style at the 2009
newbee7
07-05 12:58 AM
"Although USCIS stated in its 2006 Annual Report Response (at p. 8) that it provides detailed data to DOS, the tri-agency group identified gaps in USCIS’ data. Through these discussions, the Ombudsman learned that accounting and processing methods differ at the Nebraska and Texas Service Centers (where USCIS processes employment-based petitions)."
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOMB_Annual%20Report_2007.pdf
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOMB_Annual%20Report_2007.pdf
more...
ak_2006
04-08 09:35 AM
Please Participate in this...
hair miley cyrus 2011 haircut
puddonhead
08-10 02:25 PM
I think it will be a lot easier to focus out energies to port ourselves to EB2/EB1.
Most of us would have bachelors + 5 years. So EB2 shouldn't be any problem as long as you are willing to change jobs and the employer is willing to file for GC.
Personally, the next time I'm in a position to drive a hard bergain for a job negotiation (still difficult in the current economic environment) - I will try to shoot for a 1 year foreign assignment -> EB1 route. I still curse myself for letting go of one such opportunity in 2006 becuase I did not want to go to London.
So if anybody knows companies that have started filing for GCs again after the freeze of last year - please let us know.
I think that discussion will be far more productive than any wishful reinterpretation of the law.
Most of us would have bachelors + 5 years. So EB2 shouldn't be any problem as long as you are willing to change jobs and the employer is willing to file for GC.
Personally, the next time I'm in a position to drive a hard bergain for a job negotiation (still difficult in the current economic environment) - I will try to shoot for a 1 year foreign assignment -> EB1 route. I still curse myself for letting go of one such opportunity in 2006 becuase I did not want to go to London.
So if anybody knows companies that have started filing for GCs again after the freeze of last year - please let us know.
I think that discussion will be far more productive than any wishful reinterpretation of the law.
more...
xyzgc
12-10 08:22 PM
even if we could do population control, another thing we would need is a time machine to go back and implement the control with retroactive effect. is there anyone who has been working on a time machine? How is it coming? :D:D:D:D
I've a time machine. you want it?:D Its gonna cost you man:p
I've a time machine. you want it?:D Its gonna cost you man:p
hot Miley Cyrus short hair
alisa
01-27 09:25 AM
I am glad you posted this.
I will put the numbers in the excel spreadsheet and see what comes out.
But these might give more sensible results than the preposterous wait times that we were getting.
If the average depletion rate for India is 34K per annum, then the wait times would look a lot better I think.
I am assuming that these numbers include the dependents. So, if 34K adjustment of status were awareded, then, roughly speaking, there were 17K primary applicants, and 17K dependents? Am I correct?
Also, for the accumulation rate, when we say that 65K H-1 visas are given out annually, I am assuming that does not include the dependents. Am I right??
FISCAL ------ Employment ------- EB3
YEAR ----- Total ---- INDIA | Total --- India
2000 ----- 111,024 | 15888 | 51,711 | -5567 :IV FY 2000 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2000%20table%20V.pdf)
2001 ----- 186,536 | 41720 | 90,274 | 16405 :IV FY 2001 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2001%20table%20V.pdf)
2002 ----- 171,583 | 41919 | 87,574 | 17428 :IV FY 2002 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2002%20table%20V.pdf)
2003 ----- -83,020 | 20818 | 47,354 | 10680 :IV FY 2003 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2003%20table%20V.pdf)
2004 ----- 157,107 | 39496 | 88,114 | 19962 :IV FY 2004 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY04tableV.pdf)
2005 ----- 242,335 | 47160 |122,130 | 23399 :IV FY 2005 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY05tableV.pdf)
6 yr total - 951,605| 207001| 487,157| 93441
Annual Avg --------- 34500 | -------- 15574
If this trend would have continued. There should not be any MAJOR retrogression problem, but if you remember from the Nov 05 VB. The warning was very clear:
During FY due to anticipated heavy demand, the AC21 provisions are not expected to apply, and the amount of Employment numbers available to any single country will be subject to the 7% cap. It is anticipated that the addition of unused FY-2005 Family numbers and the remaining AC21 numbers to the 140,000 annual minimum will result in an FY-2006 annual Employment limit of 152,000. This will mean an Employment per-country limit for FY-2006 of approximately 10,650.
To illustrate the effect of the reduced per-county limitation during FY-2006 on the oversubscribed countries, it should be noted that during FY-2005 India used approximately 47,175 Employment numbers.
If you plug this number into your analysis the result might be a couple of years of advance for your predictions.
andy
I will put the numbers in the excel spreadsheet and see what comes out.
But these might give more sensible results than the preposterous wait times that we were getting.
If the average depletion rate for India is 34K per annum, then the wait times would look a lot better I think.
I am assuming that these numbers include the dependents. So, if 34K adjustment of status were awareded, then, roughly speaking, there were 17K primary applicants, and 17K dependents? Am I correct?
Also, for the accumulation rate, when we say that 65K H-1 visas are given out annually, I am assuming that does not include the dependents. Am I right??
FISCAL ------ Employment ------- EB3
YEAR ----- Total ---- INDIA | Total --- India
2000 ----- 111,024 | 15888 | 51,711 | -5567 :IV FY 2000 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2000%20table%20V.pdf)
2001 ----- 186,536 | 41720 | 90,274 | 16405 :IV FY 2001 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2001%20table%20V.pdf)
2002 ----- 171,583 | 41919 | 87,574 | 17428 :IV FY 2002 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2002%20table%20V.pdf)
2003 ----- -83,020 | 20818 | 47,354 | 10680 :IV FY 2003 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2003%20table%20V.pdf)
2004 ----- 157,107 | 39496 | 88,114 | 19962 :IV FY 2004 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY04tableV.pdf)
2005 ----- 242,335 | 47160 |122,130 | 23399 :IV FY 2005 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY05tableV.pdf)
6 yr total - 951,605| 207001| 487,157| 93441
Annual Avg --------- 34500 | -------- 15574
If this trend would have continued. There should not be any MAJOR retrogression problem, but if you remember from the Nov 05 VB. The warning was very clear:
During FY due to anticipated heavy demand, the AC21 provisions are not expected to apply, and the amount of Employment numbers available to any single country will be subject to the 7% cap. It is anticipated that the addition of unused FY-2005 Family numbers and the remaining AC21 numbers to the 140,000 annual minimum will result in an FY-2006 annual Employment limit of 152,000. This will mean an Employment per-country limit for FY-2006 of approximately 10,650.
To illustrate the effect of the reduced per-county limitation during FY-2006 on the oversubscribed countries, it should be noted that during FY-2005 India used approximately 47,175 Employment numbers.
If you plug this number into your analysis the result might be a couple of years of advance for your predictions.
andy
more...
house miley cyrus haircut 2011.
HV000
03-18 06:18 PM
Please see the last sentece which says "Thus, the same cut-off date for each country since the extra numbers must be made available in priority date order without regard to country".
When they use this spill over, only PD is imp not the country.
This will make prediction difficult since we do not know how many PDs are eligible in either country. Am i right?
When they use this spill over, only PD is imp not the country.
This will make prediction difficult since we do not know how many PDs are eligible in either country. Am i right?
tattoo miley cyrus hairstyles curly.
jsb
03-09 12:27 PM
This is horrible. Does not make much sense.
No significant, if any, movement, even though it is supposed be a new quarter?
No significant, if any, movement, even though it is supposed be a new quarter?
more...
pictures Miley Cyrus at 2011 GRAMMY
GCcomesoon
04-29 02:18 PM
Hi
As mentioned in my previous post
I got the approval email for my 485 filed in June - 2007.I guess my wife's case should be approved soon.So does that mean biometrics is needed in my case as the message which is commmon - Card production is not given which I guess is sent for most of the approved cases ?
Or has anyone updates after the approval message ?
Thanks
GCcomesoon
I called TSC yesterday & they said that biometrics notice has been requested ( which they said to me 1 month back too ) , Now till I get my biometrics done, I won't get the actual physical card.Keep in USCIS in mind, I wonder how much time this will take ??
Would appreciate if anyone could share any thoughts, any similar experiences?
Thanks
GCcomesoon
As mentioned in my previous post
I got the approval email for my 485 filed in June - 2007.I guess my wife's case should be approved soon.So does that mean biometrics is needed in my case as the message which is commmon - Card production is not given which I guess is sent for most of the approved cases ?
Or has anyone updates after the approval message ?
Thanks
GCcomesoon
I called TSC yesterday & they said that biometrics notice has been requested ( which they said to me 1 month back too ) , Now till I get my biometrics done, I won't get the actual physical card.Keep in USCIS in mind, I wonder how much time this will take ??
Would appreciate if anyone could share any thoughts, any similar experiences?
Thanks
GCcomesoon
dresses miley cyrus 2011 haircut.
ajthakur
07-14 06:09 PM
I know I acted irresponsibly. Under the circumstances I had to. The person employing me was trying to use me for (something) for which my conscience didnt allow. So the decision to quit was best. I can't write all the circumstances here. I knew I could get into problems with immigration department for my irrational yet moral decision to quit company before 180 days. I think this problem with USCIS is far more acceptable than doing something for your employer that your heart doesnt allow you to.
Of course, you know your problems best, but it was obviously irresponsible of you to quit before letting 180 days pass after applying for 485.
Here is the problem. The letter of employment you send to CIS must have a start date which will expose your violation of the 180 day rule. So unless you lie here, you are likely in in trouble. Your best bet is to suck it up and return to your sponsoring employer. That will ensure your case 100%. Any other option is risky.
Go to a knowledged attorney. Khanna, Murthy, Gotcher etc., are the names I know.
Of course, you know your problems best, but it was obviously irresponsible of you to quit before letting 180 days pass after applying for 485.
Here is the problem. The letter of employment you send to CIS must have a start date which will expose your violation of the 180 day rule. So unless you lie here, you are likely in in trouble. Your best bet is to suck it up and return to your sponsoring employer. That will ensure your case 100%. Any other option is risky.
Go to a knowledged attorney. Khanna, Murthy, Gotcher etc., are the names I know.
more...
makeup miley cyrus 2011 haircut. Mileys new haircut miley cyrus
espoir
01-18 10:20 PM
OK. What the inital poster stated is true. Per US Law one MUST carry all the immigration documents. My home is literally 4.5 miles away from US-Mexico border crossing and 30 miles west of Harlingen airport. I lived here since 2001 and as per my experience cops usually do not ask for immigration documents when stopped for routine traffic stops. Both the times when I was stopped, I was asked for DL and Insurance as usual per TX law. I normally do not carry my passport and other docs when I go to work (5.5 miles north to where I live), when shopping or when going out within 15 miles (north) of my home. Suresh was asked for PP by a police officer because he was in the airport.
I ALWAYS carry my passport and status verifying docs when I know I'm in the vicinity of exit points such as Greyhound terminal, Airport (even if I'm just dropping/picking up a friend at the Airport) or going out of town. Because I know there are NO excuses whatsoever for not carrying the docs if you are travelling north or south from US-Mexico border town.
But when in town I never had any trouble, and carrying the imigration docs as needed was never a problem for me. Trust me I sat on tables right next to Border Patrol Officers when I go out to lunch many times.
In fact at border towns (especially Mexican border), there is lot of vigilence at exit points whether you are citizen or not, you can be held for questioning. Its logical, since escaping into Mexico is literally matter of minutes for law-breakers.
Also, I do carry a copy of PP in my car, just in case. Nothing wrong in carrying copy of our PP (note: not US docs). Although whether to accept your explanation or not is completely upto the officer.
Few of my friends from north of Texas visited me did forget their immigration docs and passports(inspite of me cautioning them 100 times), they were held at checkpoints (50 miles north of the border) but were eventually let go after couple hours of verification process. Bottom line you may mostly get away for not carrying the documents at all times. But if they want to hold it against you, you have no case in your favor. Always be nice to them and 99% times you are treated respectfully.
I ALWAYS carry my passport and status verifying docs when I know I'm in the vicinity of exit points such as Greyhound terminal, Airport (even if I'm just dropping/picking up a friend at the Airport) or going out of town. Because I know there are NO excuses whatsoever for not carrying the docs if you are travelling north or south from US-Mexico border town.
But when in town I never had any trouble, and carrying the imigration docs as needed was never a problem for me. Trust me I sat on tables right next to Border Patrol Officers when I go out to lunch many times.
In fact at border towns (especially Mexican border), there is lot of vigilence at exit points whether you are citizen or not, you can be held for questioning. Its logical, since escaping into Mexico is literally matter of minutes for law-breakers.
Also, I do carry a copy of PP in my car, just in case. Nothing wrong in carrying copy of our PP (note: not US docs). Although whether to accept your explanation or not is completely upto the officer.
Few of my friends from north of Texas visited me did forget their immigration docs and passports(inspite of me cautioning them 100 times), they were held at checkpoints (50 miles north of the border) but were eventually let go after couple hours of verification process. Bottom line you may mostly get away for not carrying the documents at all times. But if they want to hold it against you, you have no case in your favor. Always be nice to them and 99% times you are treated respectfully.
girlfriend miley cyrus haircut short 2011. miley cyrus haircut short
DarkChild
02-16 03:25 AM
@ thirdworldman: WOW!
hairstyles miley cyrus haircut 2011
gauravster
05-26 05:40 PM
This border patrol authority applies 100 miles from International border. Guess what, most of US population is in that region, all of NJ, MA, most of CA, etc etc as all are within 100 miles from the border (including the sea border, which marks international maritime border). Though not normally done, Border Patrol can set up checkpoints anywhere in this region. I remember reading in depth of this ridiculous rule sometime back.
Found this when I googled. Borderpatrol seems to have the authority to do whatever they did within 100 miles off any international border. It falls under 8 CFR 287.1. Entire state of NH is within 100 miles of Canada.
http://www.usborderpatrol.com/Border_Patrol608_2.htm
Found this when I googled. Borderpatrol seems to have the authority to do whatever they did within 100 miles off any international border. It falls under 8 CFR 287.1. Entire state of NH is within 100 miles of Canada.
http://www.usborderpatrol.com/Border_Patrol608_2.htm
a_yaja
04-06 09:32 PM
well if the employer is not supporting you ..then maybe the IO does have the authority to refuse ?? (well assuming that these cases are correct ..then I guess we can assume that IO has recd instructions from his superiors) it is good to hear from Pappu that IV is ready to take up this issue ...but till someone comes foward ..can IV focus on other issues like recapture, removal of country limits etc (there is no shortage of issues where focus is needed)
To be denied entry, the visitor has to go through secondary inspection. That is the process. The CBP officer at the primary inspection does not have the authority to send some one home. Look at this link from Syracuse University that details this process:
http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/142/
Quotes from this page:
In a procedure known as Primary Inspections, the officers interview people appearing before them and check their documents. In addition, the documents are scanned into a computer to detect past immigration violations, criminal problems, and national security concerns. The entire process is very brief, averaging less than one minute per person to keep up with the crush of arriving travelers.
In Secondary, a new set of Inspectors have additional time and latitude to investigate whether a person's papers � and their reasons for coming to the U.S. � are legitimate and legal.
So whoever said that the CBP officer at the primary inspection called up employer and asked the employer if they cannot find US citizens is not telling the truth. Probably the guy started the rumor :D.
To be denied entry, the visitor has to go through secondary inspection. That is the process. The CBP officer at the primary inspection does not have the authority to send some one home. Look at this link from Syracuse University that details this process:
http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/142/
Quotes from this page:
In a procedure known as Primary Inspections, the officers interview people appearing before them and check their documents. In addition, the documents are scanned into a computer to detect past immigration violations, criminal problems, and national security concerns. The entire process is very brief, averaging less than one minute per person to keep up with the crush of arriving travelers.
In Secondary, a new set of Inspectors have additional time and latitude to investigate whether a person's papers � and their reasons for coming to the U.S. � are legitimate and legal.
So whoever said that the CBP officer at the primary inspection called up employer and asked the employer if they cannot find US citizens is not telling the truth. Probably the guy started the rumor :D.
swissgear
06-10 03:59 PM
sent...thanks
No comments:
Post a Comment