coopheal
07-09 07:15 PM
Yes I think flower campaign is our great success. Hopefully media and politicians will pay some attention to our issues.
wallpaper hair War of the Worlds tripod
bkn96
11-17 01:05 PM
Good suggestion, I didn't ask about EAD, I will check next time. But I guess evantually EAD would be revoked after I485 is denied. I think H1 is a backup plan if MTR denied and till appeal is decided..
I am sending letter CIS ombudsman shortly.
I am sending letter CIS ombudsman shortly.
appas123
08-17 07:10 AM
Friends, IV�ians and fellow sufferers,
Today we received our physical Green card; 63 years since my motherland got her freedom I got mine. Its been a long journey and I am glad that I can shut this chapter and go on to the next..
First of all let me tell you that the mail that you get the card is as incognito as they come. Its not in the USCIS envelope, looks almost like a credit card offer. Wife was almost going to shred it but felt the card and opened it :). Its actually green. With the date of birth mentioned a gazillion times. Magnetic strip, hologram and all that kind of jazzy stuff. I have no freaking clue where they got the picture from, its not what I submitted with the I485. It should be the one they took while finger printing in 2007.
Finally I popped the cork off a bottle of Champagne that I have been saving for this occasion and have taken more than a few morsel sips of the bubbly. (please pardon any excesses I might make in this post :D). Now I can chart out my career as I want to with no constraints to cap my potential. I can attain full self actualization in whatever I decide to do and also hopefully contribute more to society both here in my karma bhoomi and back in India my janma bhoomi.
If I may paraphrase Jawaharlal Nehru � when the world sleeps (its 12:45AM eastern); I awaken� !!
I have contributed both financially and with my time to IV. I will continue to do so. I wish all of you the very best and hope the ones waiting in get their GC soon. Keep the faith.
Smisachu,
I am happy for you. The process indeed takes an emotional toll on us. Thanks for the heads up about the type of mail. I will be careful to watch out for "credit card offer" type snail mails.
Today we received our physical Green card; 63 years since my motherland got her freedom I got mine. Its been a long journey and I am glad that I can shut this chapter and go on to the next..
First of all let me tell you that the mail that you get the card is as incognito as they come. Its not in the USCIS envelope, looks almost like a credit card offer. Wife was almost going to shred it but felt the card and opened it :). Its actually green. With the date of birth mentioned a gazillion times. Magnetic strip, hologram and all that kind of jazzy stuff. I have no freaking clue where they got the picture from, its not what I submitted with the I485. It should be the one they took while finger printing in 2007.
Finally I popped the cork off a bottle of Champagne that I have been saving for this occasion and have taken more than a few morsel sips of the bubbly. (please pardon any excesses I might make in this post :D). Now I can chart out my career as I want to with no constraints to cap my potential. I can attain full self actualization in whatever I decide to do and also hopefully contribute more to society both here in my karma bhoomi and back in India my janma bhoomi.
If I may paraphrase Jawaharlal Nehru � when the world sleeps (its 12:45AM eastern); I awaken� !!
I have contributed both financially and with my time to IV. I will continue to do so. I wish all of you the very best and hope the ones waiting in get their GC soon. Keep the faith.
Smisachu,
I am happy for you. The process indeed takes an emotional toll on us. Thanks for the heads up about the type of mail. I will be careful to watch out for "credit card offer" type snail mails.
2011 H.G. WELLS#39; THE. WAR OF
lotsofspace
01-26 08:51 PM
Its not true, plenty of non-white countries do not require a visa unlike India which has the worst visa policies in the world. Obviously most countries require a visa from Indians because India does the same needlessly. Its time the Indian govt revisited these primitive and ill conceived rules.
Do you think Russia and Japan have liberal visa requirements ?
Do you think Russia and Japan have liberal visa requirements ?
more...
fromnaija
08-20 12:27 PM
I checked my Vonage account which I have had for 3 years now - I was on a Premium unlimited plan for $24.99 I found out on logging in today. Changed to World plan just now for no charge. It's Awesome. Thanks to OP!
I just did same thing. Even though I don't call India, South Africa and Kenya arre also included and that's where I have friends.
I just did same thing. Even though I don't call India, South Africa and Kenya arre also included and that's where I have friends.
swadeshi
09-26 07:21 AM
Nothing, Zilch, Nada....My lawyer said that of the 40 applications they filed on July 2nd. they got RN for only 5 so..... Seems to be a very long wait
Our attorney sent about 50 applications and has only received abt 9 RN so far..now when we call him, he asks us to call the USCIS customer service!!
Our attorney sent about 50 applications and has only received abt 9 RN so far..now when we call him, he asks us to call the USCIS customer service!!
more...
pappu
03-31 12:55 PM
Thanks for the info....I believe it will be either Dec 2006 or Jan 2007
During the discussions on 1485 filing provisions we there were questions related to EB2, EB3 backlog numbers post 2007 july + Based on the recent information we got on pending numbers + our discussion on if EB2 will get current this year helps us understand how the last quarter will behave. This analysis is not official and is our own interpretation based on information we know. We do not wish to seek out specific information on visa bulletins. It has not been IV policy. VBkris has been involved with IV statistical analysis of data and has been in meetings with officials. He has come up with an explanation to this news and how it may play out for the last quarter. His interpretation makes sense to me and I have asked him to post on the forum.
During the discussions on 1485 filing provisions we there were questions related to EB2, EB3 backlog numbers post 2007 july + Based on the recent information we got on pending numbers + our discussion on if EB2 will get current this year helps us understand how the last quarter will behave. This analysis is not official and is our own interpretation based on information we know. We do not wish to seek out specific information on visa bulletins. It has not been IV policy. VBkris has been involved with IV statistical analysis of data and has been in meetings with officials. He has come up with an explanation to this news and how it may play out for the last quarter. His interpretation makes sense to me and I have asked him to post on the forum.
2010 the next scheduled alien
Raju
06-29 04:12 PM
This is like playing with people's minds. I really dont care at this point if I get my GC or not. I hope people who create this kind of havoc die a rotten death.:mad:
more...
anilkumar0902
08-18 10:44 AM
Just received those beautiful, long waited CARDS, checked for accuracy and 'm dancing....party time:D:D, It took 12 days from date of approval/CPO...
ya, these come with a 'pouch' for storage & pamplet 'Welcome to United States: A Guide for New Immigrants'
Awesome.
ya, these come with a 'pouch' for storage & pamplet 'Welcome to United States: A Guide for New Immigrants'
Awesome.
hair Old War of the Worlds Tripod
Bhargav Goswami
07-13 01:24 PM
I just watched clips that show how stridently "anti H1B" / "anti legal Indian Immigrant" Lou Dobbs is! We would be witihin our rights to boycott him and CNN.
more...
hoolahoous
08-19 03:40 PM
I got the CPO email first. In another days 6 days got welcome mail. Then the status changed back to post decision activity. 5 days from there, I got the cards. Even today the status says the same.
i never got CPO.
i never got CPO.
hot The Tazonian Dilemma
coopheal
11-13 11:23 AM
I am assuming they have a clerk who has been instructed to do this.
Lets not worry about it, lets keep sending the letters
If clerk is doing this as per instruction means, we are being noticed and that is precisely what we wanted anyways. I don�t think USCIS higher ups have any malicious intent. Whole issue may be due to lack of training of IOs.
Lets not worry about it, lets keep sending the letters
If clerk is doing this as per instruction means, we are being noticed and that is precisely what we wanted anyways. I don�t think USCIS higher ups have any malicious intent. Whole issue may be due to lack of training of IOs.
more...
house War of The Worlds (1953)
eb3_nepa
07-10 10:03 AM
Everyone makes a mistake. That does not mean they would not have any after effects. They will.
Congress have a bigger issue on their plate right now. That is Iraq. I am pretty sure Congress would take up this issue in near future. Make your voice heard to Congress. Then pray to God/Almighty.
PRECISELY My point. First it is IRAQ, then it will be the Presidential Elections then something else. The Government has NO time to question the USCIS and NO real motivation either.
Congress have a bigger issue on their plate right now. That is Iraq. I am pretty sure Congress would take up this issue in near future. Make your voice heard to Congress. Then pray to God/Almighty.
PRECISELY My point. First it is IRAQ, then it will be the Presidential Elections then something else. The Government has NO time to question the USCIS and NO real motivation either.
tattoo WAR OF THE WORLDS movie.
walking_dude
11-03 11:09 AM
Just 51? Only 51 members used AC21 or what?
What will it take the rest to participate? USCIS sending denials to your address? If this campaign fails there is no one to help you if this happens.
Send those letters ASAP
What will it take the rest to participate? USCIS sending denials to your address? If this campaign fails there is no one to help you if this happens.
Send those letters ASAP
more...
pictures war of the worlds alien. war
royus77
06-29 04:49 PM
On the flip side, if this is only a rumor, then USCIS/DOS won't comment at all.
Thanks,
Jayant
H1 quota will be over on day 1 also started as a rumor ..however USICS quickly jumped and clarified how they will handle the situation ..i hope the same this time also .
Only intresting thing is will they accept applications on day 1 and cover their skin ?...Then no body can question DOS/USICS as they always had a reason to defend themself....Guys what ever happens if you can file today thats fine else ..do use fedex same day service and make sure the application will reach b4 5 on monday
Thanks,
Jayant
H1 quota will be over on day 1 also started as a rumor ..however USICS quickly jumped and clarified how they will handle the situation ..i hope the same this time also .
Only intresting thing is will they accept applications on day 1 and cover their skin ?...Then no body can question DOS/USICS as they always had a reason to defend themself....Guys what ever happens if you can file today thats fine else ..do use fedex same day service and make sure the application will reach b4 5 on monday
dresses War of the Worlds: Mini
aadimanav
01-03 12:56 AM
Part 2 continued....
USCIS delays have become so excessive in this arena that many foreign nationals have sought relief in federal court. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA), which governs federal agency actions and decisions, requires that an agency resolve a matter presented to it within a "reasonable" time frame. See 8 U.S.C. 555(b). Using the APA, foreign nationals have argued that waiting for two or more years for a decision on an immigration application is "unreasonable" under the statute. The cases are divided, but a majority of courts have agreed that making a foreign national wait years and years just for a decision on his or her application is unreasonable. As a result, many judges have ordered the FBI and USCIS to complete pending name check cases within 60 or 90 days where a foreign national has been waiting for two or more years. Some judges have noted that security concerns are not to be taken lightly, but this only reinforces the fact that such issues should be resolved in a matter of weeks as opposed to years.
The success or failure of litigation in this arena ultimately turns on the court's reading of a jurisdiction-stripping provision embedded in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the Real ID Act of 2005. The INA precludes judicial review of any "decision or action" of the USCIS that is "specified [under INA] to be in the discretion" of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). In defending challenges to delayed applications, the U.S. Attorney's office has argued that the adjudication of a green card application, including the pace of adjudication, is committed to the sole discretion of the USCIS, because the INA specifies that a decision to approve or deny a green card application is within the discretion of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1255(a).
None of the circuit courts have ruled on this issue, but the relationship between USCIS delay and the role of the judiciary has become a "national judicial debate" at the district court level. See Saleem v. Keisler , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80044 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 26, 2007). Some courts have bought the government's argument, holding that a discretionary "action" includes every interim action taken along the way leading up to an ultimate decision on an application. See Safadi v. Howard , 466 F.Supp. 2d 696, 699 (E.D. Vir. 2006). Under this theory, a stalled name check is simply action along the way to a final decision. The majority of courts have rejected this reading of the statute, holding that USCIS' discretion only applies to the ultimate decision on an application, not the pace of its adjudication. As one court stated, "it would require Orwellian twisting of the word ["action"] to conclude that it means a failure to adjudicate." Saleem v. Keisler, supra. Similarly, U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell recognized that the INA grants discretion to the USCIS to grant or deny a green card application, but "national security does not require that it also have absolute discretion to delay such an application to Dickensian lengths." Cao v. Upchurch , 496 F.Supp. 2d 569, 574 (E.D. Pa 2007). Put simply, "there is a difference between the [USCIS'] discretion over how to resolve an application and the [USCIS'] discretion over whether it resolves an application." Singh v. Still , 470 F. Supp. 2d 1064, 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
The U.S. Attorney's office has also argued that the USCIS is not required to make a decision on green card or naturalization applications since the INA does not specify a time frame for the agency's decision. See Assadzadeh v. Mueller , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80915 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2007). The government's argument is based on Norton v. So. Utah Wilderness Alliance , 542 U.S. 55 (2004), where the U.S. Supreme Court held that a plaintiff can succeed in compelling an agency to act under the APA if and only if the action sought to be compelled is a "discrete action" that the agency is "legally required" to take. Under the government's theory, the USCIS cannot be compelled to act where its organic statute fails to require it to make a decision. But, under Norton , an agency's regulation with the force of law can create a legal duty. Arguably, the USCIS is legally required to act on applications presented to it, as its own regulations provide that it inform applicants of its decisions. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (green card applications); 8 C.F.R. 316.14(b)(1) (naturalization applications). Most judges in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania appear to accept this argument. For example, in Kaplan v. Chertoff , 481 F. Supp. 2d 370, 399 (E.D. Pa. 2007), Judge Eduardo Robreno held that the USCIS has a duty to adjudicate green card and naturalization applications, based, in part, on the agency's own regulations.
Once a court determines that its jurisdiction is not stripped under the INA, it usually faces little difficulty finding a cause of action under the APA. Of course, determining whether an agency has acted unreasonably is a fact-intensive inquiry, but the government's position does not look promising where the USCIS has failed to perform three distinct background checks for two or more years without any indication of special circumstances. See, e.g., Saleem v. Keisler, supra . The government has argued that flagging agency resources are to blame, but many courts find little sympathy for such posturing. In addressing the issue of agency resources, one court stated that the USCIS should take its complaints up with Congress. See Liang v. Attorney General , 07-cv-2349-CW (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2007). "The executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those duties have been met." Id . Even factoring in flagging appropriations, the court held that a two-and-a-half-year delay is unreasonable as a matter of law. Id .
With more than 340,000 cases in the name check backlog, it is not clear when some foreign nationals will ever have their cases resolved at the agency level. At least with the advantageous decisions handed down from the federal district courts, foreign nationals have the hope of going into court to request an expeditious resolution to their name checks. In the majority of situations, it appears that litigation is the only option, but at least an option exists.
Please email the author at gforney@wolfblock.com with questions about this article.
USCIS delays have become so excessive in this arena that many foreign nationals have sought relief in federal court. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA), which governs federal agency actions and decisions, requires that an agency resolve a matter presented to it within a "reasonable" time frame. See 8 U.S.C. 555(b). Using the APA, foreign nationals have argued that waiting for two or more years for a decision on an immigration application is "unreasonable" under the statute. The cases are divided, but a majority of courts have agreed that making a foreign national wait years and years just for a decision on his or her application is unreasonable. As a result, many judges have ordered the FBI and USCIS to complete pending name check cases within 60 or 90 days where a foreign national has been waiting for two or more years. Some judges have noted that security concerns are not to be taken lightly, but this only reinforces the fact that such issues should be resolved in a matter of weeks as opposed to years.
The success or failure of litigation in this arena ultimately turns on the court's reading of a jurisdiction-stripping provision embedded in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the Real ID Act of 2005. The INA precludes judicial review of any "decision or action" of the USCIS that is "specified [under INA] to be in the discretion" of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). In defending challenges to delayed applications, the U.S. Attorney's office has argued that the adjudication of a green card application, including the pace of adjudication, is committed to the sole discretion of the USCIS, because the INA specifies that a decision to approve or deny a green card application is within the discretion of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1255(a).
None of the circuit courts have ruled on this issue, but the relationship between USCIS delay and the role of the judiciary has become a "national judicial debate" at the district court level. See Saleem v. Keisler , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80044 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 26, 2007). Some courts have bought the government's argument, holding that a discretionary "action" includes every interim action taken along the way leading up to an ultimate decision on an application. See Safadi v. Howard , 466 F.Supp. 2d 696, 699 (E.D. Vir. 2006). Under this theory, a stalled name check is simply action along the way to a final decision. The majority of courts have rejected this reading of the statute, holding that USCIS' discretion only applies to the ultimate decision on an application, not the pace of its adjudication. As one court stated, "it would require Orwellian twisting of the word ["action"] to conclude that it means a failure to adjudicate." Saleem v. Keisler, supra. Similarly, U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell recognized that the INA grants discretion to the USCIS to grant or deny a green card application, but "national security does not require that it also have absolute discretion to delay such an application to Dickensian lengths." Cao v. Upchurch , 496 F.Supp. 2d 569, 574 (E.D. Pa 2007). Put simply, "there is a difference between the [USCIS'] discretion over how to resolve an application and the [USCIS'] discretion over whether it resolves an application." Singh v. Still , 470 F. Supp. 2d 1064, 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
The U.S. Attorney's office has also argued that the USCIS is not required to make a decision on green card or naturalization applications since the INA does not specify a time frame for the agency's decision. See Assadzadeh v. Mueller , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80915 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2007). The government's argument is based on Norton v. So. Utah Wilderness Alliance , 542 U.S. 55 (2004), where the U.S. Supreme Court held that a plaintiff can succeed in compelling an agency to act under the APA if and only if the action sought to be compelled is a "discrete action" that the agency is "legally required" to take. Under the government's theory, the USCIS cannot be compelled to act where its organic statute fails to require it to make a decision. But, under Norton , an agency's regulation with the force of law can create a legal duty. Arguably, the USCIS is legally required to act on applications presented to it, as its own regulations provide that it inform applicants of its decisions. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (green card applications); 8 C.F.R. 316.14(b)(1) (naturalization applications). Most judges in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania appear to accept this argument. For example, in Kaplan v. Chertoff , 481 F. Supp. 2d 370, 399 (E.D. Pa. 2007), Judge Eduardo Robreno held that the USCIS has a duty to adjudicate green card and naturalization applications, based, in part, on the agency's own regulations.
Once a court determines that its jurisdiction is not stripped under the INA, it usually faces little difficulty finding a cause of action under the APA. Of course, determining whether an agency has acted unreasonably is a fact-intensive inquiry, but the government's position does not look promising where the USCIS has failed to perform three distinct background checks for two or more years without any indication of special circumstances. See, e.g., Saleem v. Keisler, supra . The government has argued that flagging agency resources are to blame, but many courts find little sympathy for such posturing. In addressing the issue of agency resources, one court stated that the USCIS should take its complaints up with Congress. See Liang v. Attorney General , 07-cv-2349-CW (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2007). "The executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those duties have been met." Id . Even factoring in flagging appropriations, the court held that a two-and-a-half-year delay is unreasonable as a matter of law. Id .
With more than 340,000 cases in the name check backlog, it is not clear when some foreign nationals will ever have their cases resolved at the agency level. At least with the advantageous decisions handed down from the federal district courts, foreign nationals have the hope of going into court to request an expeditious resolution to their name checks. In the majority of situations, it appears that litigation is the only option, but at least an option exists.
Please email the author at gforney@wolfblock.com with questions about this article.
more...
makeup of quot;The War of the Worldsquot;
mrsr
06-27 04:44 PM
confirmed with two lawyers ( both says same can put tin number ) rest up to you
are you sure?
ITINs purpose is to ONLY put it when filing taxes. And all forms clearly ask for SSN# SO I dont think your lawyer is advising correctly.
ITIN cannot be used for anything other than filing taxes.
are you sure?
ITINs purpose is to ONLY put it when filing taxes. And all forms clearly ask for SSN# SO I dont think your lawyer is advising correctly.
ITIN cannot be used for anything other than filing taxes.
girlfriend updated War Of The Worlds,
milind70
05-06 01:12 PM
while we are on the topic, how long does it take to get a I-140 approval notice from TSC
approval notice can take anywhere from 7 to 30 days
approval notice can take anywhere from 7 to 30 days
hairstyles hairstyles War of the Worlds
syzygy
07-10 09:53 AM
I am sure Mrs Emillo will get lot of flowers tonight :)
I am telling you guys, the USCIS is gonna SERIOUSLY think "Lets keep screwing these guys and getting free stuff AND free publicity"
I am telling you guys, the USCIS is gonna SERIOUSLY think "Lets keep screwing these guys and getting free stuff AND free publicity"
sam_hoosier
03-25 11:17 AM
This is a real problem. I got a letter from a prospective employer, who wanted proof that I was legally eligible to work in the US (alongwith transcripts, previous employment letters etc.) prior to scheduling an interview.:cool:
I believe employers are seeing a lot of candidates on EAD, and for whatever reasons they dont think EAD is good enough and would like to weed those candidates out beforehand.
We need to fight back against this discrimination.:mad:
I believe employers are seeing a lot of candidates on EAD, and for whatever reasons they dont think EAD is good enough and would like to weed those candidates out beforehand.
We need to fight back against this discrimination.:mad:
rsharma
09-24 07:57 PM
Thanks Ramba for the analysis. Kudos to you to bring out the true fact regarding the spill over. I see you are belong to Eb3 ROW category but still you stood for the truth.
Lot of analysis. Here is my part. If DOS properly followed the INA as amended by AC21 act in 2000, EB2-I never retrogressed since year 2005. EB2 I might have been always �current�. EB3 including ROW might have been much worst situation than now. EB3-IN will always be in disaster state. Though it is unfair to (EB3) many, this is what the law. In later part of 1990s EB categories were retrogressed for IN, CH by about 2 years. When AC21 law passed in 2000, it did two very important things. One recapture of about 216,000 EB visas and it removed country quota in each EB category if excess visas available, in that category. That means it enforced horizontal spill over. In simple example, consider Mexico which is most subscribing country. Lets assume in a fiscal year, 40,000 Mexican are eligible for EB2 visa(and no other citizens in EB2), and millions of Mexican eligible for EB3 and in family based categories, still DOS should issue 40,000 EB2 visa to Mexicans irrespective of how much demand in other categories. Because of tons of backlogs in 485 (between 2000 and 2004), particularly in EB3, DOS issued about 185000 (out of 216000) to EB3. That�s why EB3 was current between 2000 and 2004. They simply ignored the EB2 demand by India and retrogressed in 2005, though total demand for EB2 less than the available pool of recaptured visas. Since the year 2007, they realized the mistake and now (since 2007) they are following correctly (though may not fair) the law. If they follow correctly the law, EB2-IN, Ch will become current soon. Till all EB2 become current, EB3 never see any spill over. Till EB3 �ROW become current, EB3 IN will not see any spill over. Till that point EB3-In will get only 2800 EB3 visas.
Lot of analysis. Here is my part. If DOS properly followed the INA as amended by AC21 act in 2000, EB2-I never retrogressed since year 2005. EB2 I might have been always �current�. EB3 including ROW might have been much worst situation than now. EB3-IN will always be in disaster state. Though it is unfair to (EB3) many, this is what the law. In later part of 1990s EB categories were retrogressed for IN, CH by about 2 years. When AC21 law passed in 2000, it did two very important things. One recapture of about 216,000 EB visas and it removed country quota in each EB category if excess visas available, in that category. That means it enforced horizontal spill over. In simple example, consider Mexico which is most subscribing country. Lets assume in a fiscal year, 40,000 Mexican are eligible for EB2 visa(and no other citizens in EB2), and millions of Mexican eligible for EB3 and in family based categories, still DOS should issue 40,000 EB2 visa to Mexicans irrespective of how much demand in other categories. Because of tons of backlogs in 485 (between 2000 and 2004), particularly in EB3, DOS issued about 185000 (out of 216000) to EB3. That�s why EB3 was current between 2000 and 2004. They simply ignored the EB2 demand by India and retrogressed in 2005, though total demand for EB2 less than the available pool of recaptured visas. Since the year 2007, they realized the mistake and now (since 2007) they are following correctly (though may not fair) the law. If they follow correctly the law, EB2-IN, Ch will become current soon. Till all EB2 become current, EB3 never see any spill over. Till EB3 �ROW become current, EB3 IN will not see any spill over. Till that point EB3-In will get only 2800 EB3 visas.