singhsa3
02-21 02:53 PM
Just one quick thing though:
Till date USCIS has supposedly received request for 2802 EB2 India visa (India Quota). So it could be assumed that at least 2802 cases are pending before 04/2004 (October and Nov 2007 Visa bulletin).
Assuming you are right then,
average visa issued for EB1 ROW+Non ROW over the last 5 years have been 26K,
Now assuming this year the demand would be close to average then. It leaves 14K for EB2
Implying 12/2003 dates movement is very likely as 14k>5k (your number)
Till date USCIS has supposedly received request for 2802 EB2 India visa (India Quota). So it could be assumed that at least 2802 cases are pending before 04/2004 (October and Nov 2007 Visa bulletin).
Assuming you are right then,
average visa issued for EB1 ROW+Non ROW over the last 5 years have been 26K,
Now assuming this year the demand would be close to average then. It leaves 14K for EB2
Implying 12/2003 dates movement is very likely as 14k>5k (your number)
wallpaper attitude quotes for girls to
kanaihya
09-26 10:03 AM
Just Sent an email to the CNN editor ..to educate himslef/ his staff regarding the rally.
thanks
thanks
.gif "Attitude Quotes For Girls.")
Cheran
11-11 02:13 PM
I am pasting a reply from my Fragomen Lawyer. Even though he screwed me royally, he was always on the money when it come to any prediction. So he says it will be another couple of years for 2003 EB3 Cases, I am going to take his word....
" Thank you for your e-mail. I regret that I do not have a basis to estimate whether your case will be approved in 2008/2009 as they are currently on October 1, 2001 for EB-3 cases from India. In the meantime I would say that the process could last approximately another two years before an immigrant visa becomes available under EB-3/India."
" Thank you for your e-mail. I regret that I do not have a basis to estimate whether your case will be approved in 2008/2009 as they are currently on October 1, 2001 for EB-3 cases from India. In the meantime I would say that the process could last approximately another two years before an immigrant visa becomes available under EB-3/India."
2011 attitude sayings and quotes.
ponnuswamyp
09-27 12:57 PM
I am worried bcoz, on my EAD card its written "NOT VALID FOR REENTRY TO U.S."
what does this mean?
Please advise.
Thanks
Mahesh
It means you can not use EAD as a travel document to reenter to U.S. You should have valid Visa for reentry.
what does this mean?
Please advise.
Thanks
Mahesh
It means you can not use EAD as a travel document to reenter to U.S. You should have valid Visa for reentry.
more...
snathan
11-13 01:28 AM
It not about law... it is about following the law...
If you want quick action shoot letters ALL AT THE SAME TIME.... Just decide the name and the address of recipients .... Attach the copy of the rule and write the letter .....
Just make enough noise so that they can not ignore this rule...
Count me in for this...
If you want quick action shoot letters ALL AT THE SAME TIME.... Just decide the name and the address of recipients .... Attach the copy of the rule and write the letter .....
Just make enough noise so that they can not ignore this rule...
Count me in for this...
rpulipati
09-26 10:56 AM
FYI, this url has subject of "error in the story":
http://money.cnn.com/services/speakup/speakup.html
Thanks
http://money.cnn.com/services/speakup/speakup.html
Thanks
more...
vin13
02-11 11:33 AM
The visa numbers reported as used for FY 2009 is 141,020 from http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09...ort_TableV.pdf
This was the response i got from Ron Gotcher.
"The employment based category is entitled to use the "unused" family based numbers from the previous year. Last year, the quota for EB was the base of 140,000, plus another 13,000 shifted over from FB. Unfortunately, the CIS failed once again to approve enough cases to use up the entire available quota."
If this is true, we have lost a lot of visas last year.
Now with aprox. 10,000 visas shifted from FB, we should hope they use about 150,000 (140,000 + 10,000) this year.
Is there a way to confirm this? We got to do something to resolve this problem
This was the response i got from Ron Gotcher.
"The employment based category is entitled to use the "unused" family based numbers from the previous year. Last year, the quota for EB was the base of 140,000, plus another 13,000 shifted over from FB. Unfortunately, the CIS failed once again to approve enough cases to use up the entire available quota."
If this is true, we have lost a lot of visas last year.
Now with aprox. 10,000 visas shifted from FB, we should hope they use about 150,000 (140,000 + 10,000) this year.
Is there a way to confirm this? We got to do something to resolve this problem
2010 Attitude Quotes For Girls.
ssingh92
02-14 12:30 AM
Dude;
This is called natural correction. Read other posts and you would realize that for last 10 yrs majority of these so called IT programmers didn't even go to proper engineering college. More than half of them weren't even qualified to do the jobs. And than most of them came here and sat on bench, even though their actual jobs were still being searched or finalized. This system was mis-used and abused. Now it's time to pay for it!
So thank God this is happening and hope USCIS does good job this time.
I totally agreed with you. This system has to be cleaned. If a system is being misused then the Gov will take some action. I also dont think they want to remove all Indians from US. I believe they will link this system with a new system similar to JRE and TOFFEL so that a police inspector from India can not come as PL/Sql programmer no matter who is hiring. I know my comment will hurt lot of people here.
This is called natural correction. Read other posts and you would realize that for last 10 yrs majority of these so called IT programmers didn't even go to proper engineering college. More than half of them weren't even qualified to do the jobs. And than most of them came here and sat on bench, even though their actual jobs were still being searched or finalized. This system was mis-used and abused. Now it's time to pay for it!
So thank God this is happening and hope USCIS does good job this time.
I totally agreed with you. This system has to be cleaned. If a system is being misused then the Gov will take some action. I also dont think they want to remove all Indians from US. I believe they will link this system with a new system similar to JRE and TOFFEL so that a police inspector from India can not come as PL/Sql programmer no matter who is hiring. I know my comment will hurt lot of people here.
more...
willwin
03-19 01:36 PM
Question on AOS processing based on PD/RD - Currently, EB2 INDIA is Dec 03. Assuming May 08 VB goes to Jan 03 (EB2 INDIA) , will the EB2 INDIA AOS applications with Feb - Dec 03 PDs still get processed??
Any chance of EB2 India moving forward to April 05 by October 2008??
Not only EB2, EB3 India also will move to April 2005, atleast for couple of months before this FY ends, to use the 140K numbers.
Any chance of EB2 India moving forward to April 05 by October 2008??
Not only EB2, EB3 India also will move to April 2005, atleast for couple of months before this FY ends, to use the 140K numbers.
hair cool attitude quotes for girls
makemygc
07-05 12:34 PM
Just my $0.02:
I understand the frustration for IV to gather funds when it has so many members. But it's possible that IV has that many members because it is a free site.
If this becomes a paid site, you might see the number of members dwindle, and that's not a good idea because even if members don't financially contribute to IV, they do offer their perspectives/opinions/feedback/critique and help others. Those who want to financially contribute to IV will do so whether IV is a free or a paid site.
IMHO, it would be a mistake to make IV a paid site thinking that this will force members to financially contribute. Sure IV forums helped a lot with finding information about I-485 applications, but people have been filing I-485s on their own even before IV was in existence. Which is not to say, IV has no value, but I hope you see where I am going with this....if members don't want to contribute, then they won't. They will go to other forums like they used to before IV was in existence...which will be a step down, but at least they are holding on to their $20 or howmuchever.
Before replying to this, please read my disclaimer below. I have to add it given the fact how hot-headed/short-tempered members have been in the last few days where they will flame someone just because their opinions differ.
Thanks,
Jayant
Disclaimer: These are my opinions. You don't have to agree with them. If you disagree, just ignore them. I am not interested in justifying myself about anything that you might have to say. I would, however, welcome a civil and a healthy discussion.
I agree with you 100%. We are so much divided community, lets not create another factor to divide this community further in paid and non-paid members.
Core, if you see this thread is not part of yor agenda, please close this immediately. This is just dividing us further. Plzzzzzzzz.
I understand the frustration for IV to gather funds when it has so many members. But it's possible that IV has that many members because it is a free site.
If this becomes a paid site, you might see the number of members dwindle, and that's not a good idea because even if members don't financially contribute to IV, they do offer their perspectives/opinions/feedback/critique and help others. Those who want to financially contribute to IV will do so whether IV is a free or a paid site.
IMHO, it would be a mistake to make IV a paid site thinking that this will force members to financially contribute. Sure IV forums helped a lot with finding information about I-485 applications, but people have been filing I-485s on their own even before IV was in existence. Which is not to say, IV has no value, but I hope you see where I am going with this....if members don't want to contribute, then they won't. They will go to other forums like they used to before IV was in existence...which will be a step down, but at least they are holding on to their $20 or howmuchever.
Before replying to this, please read my disclaimer below. I have to add it given the fact how hot-headed/short-tempered members have been in the last few days where they will flame someone just because their opinions differ.
Thanks,
Jayant
Disclaimer: These are my opinions. You don't have to agree with them. If you disagree, just ignore them. I am not interested in justifying myself about anything that you might have to say. I would, however, welcome a civil and a healthy discussion.
I agree with you 100%. We are so much divided community, lets not create another factor to divide this community further in paid and non-paid members.
Core, if you see this thread is not part of yor agenda, please close this immediately. This is just dividing us further. Plzzzzzzzz.
more...
feedfront
09-21 12:23 PM
Hi Guys,
I am in tough spot. I was laid off from my GC sponsoring employer (A) in 2008 and joined another employer B . I did not do a AC21 notification. My dates are current and now I received an RFE to provide employment letter from current employer. The exact words of RFE are as follows:
"Submit a letter of employment attesting to applicant's current employment. This letter should be written on the company's official letterhead, citing the date the applicant began working, if a permanent full time position, the position offered, the position the applicant is currently working and the salary offered. Include corroborating evidence such as recent pay stubs, income tax returns, with all W2s or other evidence as appropriate. "
Now I am not working for original GC employer. I don't have a problem providing above from my current employer B. But whether the EVL should also mention that I am not working for GC sponsoring employer and that my current employers job profile is in same classification as previous based on AC21. Do I mention about the AC21 also in the letter? My current employer's attorneys are not that great but my current employer only wants me to use their own attorney.
Now here is the situation:
I have a job offer from another employer (Employer C) and they are in the middle of doing a H-1 transfer. In fact by tomorrow they will file the H1 paperwork. Now I don't know whether I should provide the letter from my potential new employer C . In that case, I won't be able to provide W2 or pay stubs until I join them. I have an opportunity to use my own attorney here (like murthy, Ron Gothcer..)
OR
should I provide a letter from my current employer using their attorneys and whether or not I should mention about AC21 in the employment letter.
Also they sent the RFE to my previous employer's attorney even though my current employer's attorney had sent the new G-28 forms. Can my current attorney respond to the RFE or will the response get rejected because USCIS still has old attorney on file.
Thanks.
Don't worry too much, just follow the instructions and respond. Well, I will suggest to use your current employer and their attorney as paperword will be smooth, efficient and fast.
You can hold your H1 transfer for a week or two till you don't respond.
I think your attorney (whoever you pick to work on RFE) will definitely mention AC-21 to keep it issueless.
I have also switched my employer and not filed AC-21. I've been sent RFE and that's what my attorney will do (I assume). I had asked him before (after switching job) if I needed to file AC21 letter. He said it's not mandatory and added that it can be handled if any RFEs are issued. Well, I did not send AC21 because he was asking for fee and I did not want to DIY project on such important. He's my previous employer's attorney.
I think for these RFEs you don't need great attorney as case is not complex. I think anything will work as long as you've not misused any GC's requirements.
Good Luck!
I am in tough spot. I was laid off from my GC sponsoring employer (A) in 2008 and joined another employer B . I did not do a AC21 notification. My dates are current and now I received an RFE to provide employment letter from current employer. The exact words of RFE are as follows:
"Submit a letter of employment attesting to applicant's current employment. This letter should be written on the company's official letterhead, citing the date the applicant began working, if a permanent full time position, the position offered, the position the applicant is currently working and the salary offered. Include corroborating evidence such as recent pay stubs, income tax returns, with all W2s or other evidence as appropriate. "
Now I am not working for original GC employer. I don't have a problem providing above from my current employer B. But whether the EVL should also mention that I am not working for GC sponsoring employer and that my current employers job profile is in same classification as previous based on AC21. Do I mention about the AC21 also in the letter? My current employer's attorneys are not that great but my current employer only wants me to use their own attorney.
Now here is the situation:
I have a job offer from another employer (Employer C) and they are in the middle of doing a H-1 transfer. In fact by tomorrow they will file the H1 paperwork. Now I don't know whether I should provide the letter from my potential new employer C . In that case, I won't be able to provide W2 or pay stubs until I join them. I have an opportunity to use my own attorney here (like murthy, Ron Gothcer..)
OR
should I provide a letter from my current employer using their attorneys and whether or not I should mention about AC21 in the employment letter.
Also they sent the RFE to my previous employer's attorney even though my current employer's attorney had sent the new G-28 forms. Can my current attorney respond to the RFE or will the response get rejected because USCIS still has old attorney on file.
Thanks.
Don't worry too much, just follow the instructions and respond. Well, I will suggest to use your current employer and their attorney as paperword will be smooth, efficient and fast.
You can hold your H1 transfer for a week or two till you don't respond.
I think your attorney (whoever you pick to work on RFE) will definitely mention AC-21 to keep it issueless.
I have also switched my employer and not filed AC-21. I've been sent RFE and that's what my attorney will do (I assume). I had asked him before (after switching job) if I needed to file AC21 letter. He said it's not mandatory and added that it can be handled if any RFEs are issued. Well, I did not send AC21 because he was asking for fee and I did not want to DIY project on such important. He's my previous employer's attorney.
I think for these RFEs you don't need great attorney as case is not complex. I think anything will work as long as you've not misused any GC's requirements.
Good Luck!
hot attitude quotes for girls to
simple1
05-12 02:53 PM
http://www.geteducated.com/online-college-ratings-and-rankings/best-buy-lists/best-buy-mba-regional
http://www.geteducated.com/online-college-ratings-and-rankings/best-buy-lists/best-buy-online-masters-mba-aacsb
accreditation check
http://ope.ed.gov/accreditation/Search.aspx
http://www.geteducated.com/online-college-ratings-and-rankings/best-buy-lists/best-buy-online-masters-mba-aacsb
accreditation check
http://ope.ed.gov/accreditation/Search.aspx
more...
house girls attitude. quotes
champu
02-18 07:14 PM
Hello,
Is it true if you are in US for more than 5 years you get GC? It is too good to be true.
Any way which part of this bill says so? I am sorry for my ignorance.
Is it valid even if you came on F1 and started working ....
thanks in advance for answers.
How to convert from Legal to Illegal?;)
How about if I tell USCIS I am born here and never applied for Birth Certificate?
Is it true if you are in US for more than 5 years you get GC? It is too good to be true.
Any way which part of this bill says so? I am sorry for my ignorance.
Is it valid even if you came on F1 and started working ....
thanks in advance for answers.
How to convert from Legal to Illegal?;)
How about if I tell USCIS I am born here and never applied for Birth Certificate?
tattoo attitude quotes for girls for
immi_enthu
08-15 04:35 PM
yes but they will start processing the applications based on the receipt dates. so if a guy applied last year, he gets priority over last month's people. (that is assuming that his priority dates were current last year from him to apply!)
also they will need to do fingerprinting etc. and shall pass the FBI check before they get to final stage of adjudication. that would take 6 more months. so they should look at the bulletin at that time to see if they are eligible. dont get excited about these dates - they are not that helpful for the last month filers.
some people who applied in June may get approved if their PDs are current. July/ Aug filers unlikely
also they will need to do fingerprinting etc. and shall pass the FBI check before they get to final stage of adjudication. that would take 6 more months. so they should look at the bulletin at that time to see if they are eligible. dont get excited about these dates - they are not that helpful for the last month filers.
some people who applied in June may get approved if their PDs are current. July/ Aug filers unlikely
more...
pictures attitude quotes for girls for
alterego
07-13 09:28 AM
I don't agree. It will stay same or forward in small increments with new fiscal yr numbers available. I am saying so because EB2 I stayed for such long at 04/07 and everyone knows fewer LCs were filed/approved between 04 and 05.
Keep in mind two things. Many, quite possibly most of the July VB fiasco filed 485s have not been processed yet, Eb2 or EB3 India. There have been more recently (in the past couple of months) but still not most. A good number of those filers had earlier PDs.
The quarterly statutory quota for EB2 I or C is so puny (something like 700 visas) that any movement would almost entirely be dependent on the Eb1 and EB2ROW overflow. That is why I feel, once this next two months pass, we will see dates back in 2004 for EB2. Maybe not quite back in April, but sometime in the middle to later 2004. However we could see PDs move at a healthy clip for EB2 I and C next year. It will take most of next years overflow to clear up the EB2 backlog in my view.
Keep in mind two things. Many, quite possibly most of the July VB fiasco filed 485s have not been processed yet, Eb2 or EB3 India. There have been more recently (in the past couple of months) but still not most. A good number of those filers had earlier PDs.
The quarterly statutory quota for EB2 I or C is so puny (something like 700 visas) that any movement would almost entirely be dependent on the Eb1 and EB2ROW overflow. That is why I feel, once this next two months pass, we will see dates back in 2004 for EB2. Maybe not quite back in April, but sometime in the middle to later 2004. However we could see PDs move at a healthy clip for EB2 I and C next year. It will take most of next years overflow to clear up the EB2 backlog in my view.
dresses hairstyles quotes on attitude wallpapers. attitude quotes for girls for
bayarea07
09-10 02:22 PM
I do see some action now on http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/calendar.html
HR6020 is being presented right now
I dont think its the Right Link the link that you sent has lot of action going on but
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/calendar.html
has people moving all over the place and no action
HR6020 is being presented right now
I dont think its the Right Link the link that you sent has lot of action going on but
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/calendar.html
has people moving all over the place and no action
more...
makeup attitude quotes for girls to
Foster2007
07-09 04:42 PM
I agree 100%. They also issued green cards to ppl whose PD was not current in June. Even that is a violation of law.
girlfriend attitude quotes for girls for
prioritydate
12-22 12:51 AM
You should've thought about this that whole year that you were goofin' off! Why are you bringing this up at this late juncture, anyway? Your PD is Dec, 2004. What makes you your petition will trigger an RFE for not working during 2001? You raise a very perplexing and contradicting query...
I wasn't goofin off, by choice. I had no option but wait and pray that my employer would find a job for me. I had every reason to bother at his stage, because I invested so much time and money to file my GC. Natually, I am bothered because you never know what USCIS would ask; they are always ready to pull the carpet underneath you. What if IO ask me to prove that I am not out of status ? would I be able to show the proof? No! I can't...
I wasn't goofin off, by choice. I had no option but wait and pray that my employer would find a job for me. I had every reason to bother at his stage, because I invested so much time and money to file my GC. Natually, I am bothered because you never know what USCIS would ask; they are always ready to pull the carpet underneath you. What if IO ask me to prove that I am not out of status ? would I be able to show the proof? No! I can't...
hairstyles house Attitude Quotes Girls Like Us attitude quotes for girls for facebook.
guyfromsg
07-16 09:52 PM
We all know that people on H1 status pay federal,state and social security tax. So I checked IRS site and searched for H1B. They have couple of links that shows H1b should pay tax. My point is everyone knows IRS and they know how much they go after people who are not paying taxes. If we can point to IRS which itself states by way examples that H1B should pay tax then at least the fence sitters will not jump on their side. I doubt if hardcore NumberUSA supporter will believe this anyway but we need turn the fence sitters around which may be the majority.
Here is the first one:
I have an H-1B Visa and my husband has an F-1 Visa. We both lived in the United States all of last year and had income. What kind of form should we file? Do we file separate returns or a joint return?
Assuming both of you had these visas for all of last year, you are a resident alien. Your husband is a nonresident alien if he has not been in the United States as a student for more than 5 years. You and your husband can file a joint tax return on Form 1040, 1040A, or 1040EZ if he makes the choice to be treated as a resident for the entire year. See Nonresident Spouse Treated as a Resident in chapter 1. If your husband does not make this choice, you must file a separate return on Form 1040 or Form 1040A. Your husband must file Form 1040NR or 1040NR-EZ.
Here is an example where they use person on H1b as an example. I'm giving the link as the explanation is long. Just look at example 10
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=129428,00.html
Example 8.
Mr. Gerhard Schwarz was a citizen and resident of Germany just prior to his arrival in the United States. He arrived in the United States on 08-15-99 as a professor of physics on an H-1b visa. He intends to remain in the United States for two academic years, and does not intend to change his immigration status during that period before returning home. Determine his residency starting date.
What kind of federal income tax returns will he file for 1999 and 2000?
Here is the first one:
I have an H-1B Visa and my husband has an F-1 Visa. We both lived in the United States all of last year and had income. What kind of form should we file? Do we file separate returns or a joint return?
Assuming both of you had these visas for all of last year, you are a resident alien. Your husband is a nonresident alien if he has not been in the United States as a student for more than 5 years. You and your husband can file a joint tax return on Form 1040, 1040A, or 1040EZ if he makes the choice to be treated as a resident for the entire year. See Nonresident Spouse Treated as a Resident in chapter 1. If your husband does not make this choice, you must file a separate return on Form 1040 or Form 1040A. Your husband must file Form 1040NR or 1040NR-EZ.
Here is an example where they use person on H1b as an example. I'm giving the link as the explanation is long. Just look at example 10
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=129428,00.html
Example 8.
Mr. Gerhard Schwarz was a citizen and resident of Germany just prior to his arrival in the United States. He arrived in the United States on 08-15-99 as a professor of physics on an H-1b visa. He intends to remain in the United States for two academic years, and does not intend to change his immigration status during that period before returning home. Determine his residency starting date.
What kind of federal income tax returns will he file for 1999 and 2000?
imneedy
05-06 03:04 PM
They sent me a letter earlier asking for money to do the FOIA and asking for definition of Priority dates. I replied to that letter and recently I got response saying they have received my response and have all the answers for my FOIA request ( I believe they won't do anything unless they get money from me)
guy03062
11-11 07:49 PM
This is great find. I am not sure why IV leadership (as an advocacy group) is not pursuing this to USCIS leadership as they are in touch with them regularly for other issues. Are we missing something here?
Under the regulation No reference to Calendar year. It mentions explicitly calendar quarter.
Immigration and Nationality Act: Section ACT 202 - Numerical Limitation to any single foreign state under Sec. 202. [8 U.S.C. 1152]
(3) Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter.
(5) 2/ RULES FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS
(A) EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
(B) LIMITING FALL ACROSS FOR CERTAIN COUNTRIES SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION (e)- In the case of a foreign state or dependent area to which subsection (e) applies, if the total number of visas issued under section 203(b) exceeds the maximum number of visas that may be made available to immigrants of the state or area under section 203(b)consistent with subsection (e) (determined without regard to this paragraph),in applying subsection (e) all visas shall be deemed to have been required for the classes of aliens specified in section 203(b).
Under the regulation No reference to Calendar year. It mentions explicitly calendar quarter.
Immigration and Nationality Act: Section ACT 202 - Numerical Limitation to any single foreign state under Sec. 202. [8 U.S.C. 1152]
(3) Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter.
(5) 2/ RULES FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS
(A) EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
(B) LIMITING FALL ACROSS FOR CERTAIN COUNTRIES SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION (e)- In the case of a foreign state or dependent area to which subsection (e) applies, if the total number of visas issued under section 203(b) exceeds the maximum number of visas that may be made available to immigrants of the state or area under section 203(b)consistent with subsection (e) (determined without regard to this paragraph),in applying subsection (e) all visas shall be deemed to have been required for the classes of aliens specified in section 203(b).
