T*7
2 楼
人可能花了几年学会说话，学很多种的语言。语言的表达方式甚至是书写。真的要花一
辈子的时间学习怎么去说话。
前几天见朋友也同样见到了他家的孩子。孩子不错长得白净可爱的，不张嘴的时候真的
很可爱。但是我们热络起来，小孩子就开了话匣子。一些有的没的都跟你说。比如说家
里父母的关系啊，奶奶总是说啊之类的。虽然觉得童言无忌，但是看着孩子学的头头是
道的。我就有种莫名的担忧。其实孩子看起来很单纯没有别的想法，但是看着他说奶奶
怎么说妈妈，奶奶怎么说爷爷，爸爸怎么说奶奶的时候我稍微有点担心我朋友家里的家
庭教育了。
其实说话和家教有很大的关系。更多的是孩子在学习的时候对于家长是一种完全学习的
状态。他们就是看着什么就学什么。尤其是言语，就是在看的见也听得见的地方，学起
来更容易。这本来是个谨慎的事情，现在却成了不能传道受业解惑也的办法了。
人学语言很快，但实际上语言深层的东西又不能被剖析和解读，最后学了个表面，然后
也没有个什么好的结果。也不知道我们一代代传下去的到底是什么。
孩子后来走了，朋友让他说个再见。他就盯着我，说了句下次见就一溜烟的跑没了。要
是以前我得觉得这孩子这是什么家教。现在想想这就是这个时代孕育的孩子，自然就是
这个样子了。
所以学习说话简单，但是注意说什么很难。有些事情真的是客观影响主观的事情啊。
辈子的时间学习怎么去说话。
前几天见朋友也同样见到了他家的孩子。孩子不错长得白净可爱的，不张嘴的时候真的
很可爱。但是我们热络起来，小孩子就开了话匣子。一些有的没的都跟你说。比如说家
里父母的关系啊，奶奶总是说啊之类的。虽然觉得童言无忌，但是看着孩子学的头头是
道的。我就有种莫名的担忧。其实孩子看起来很单纯没有别的想法，但是看着他说奶奶
怎么说妈妈，奶奶怎么说爷爷，爸爸怎么说奶奶的时候我稍微有点担心我朋友家里的家
庭教育了。
其实说话和家教有很大的关系。更多的是孩子在学习的时候对于家长是一种完全学习的
状态。他们就是看着什么就学什么。尤其是言语，就是在看的见也听得见的地方，学起
来更容易。这本来是个谨慎的事情，现在却成了不能传道受业解惑也的办法了。
人学语言很快，但实际上语言深层的东西又不能被剖析和解读，最后学了个表面，然后
也没有个什么好的结果。也不知道我们一代代传下去的到底是什么。
孩子后来走了，朋友让他说个再见。他就盯着我，说了句下次见就一溜烟的跑没了。要
是以前我得觉得这孩子这是什么家教。现在想想这就是这个时代孕育的孩子，自然就是
这个样子了。
所以学习说话简单，但是注意说什么很难。有些事情真的是客观影响主观的事情啊。
j*5
3 楼
我的笔记本是TP T61，买了一年半不到，重装的winxp系统，平时也没有摔过，最近发
现word和某些程序运行超慢，但ppt，excel等运行很快，重新装了office也没有改观，
准备恢复系统，因为安了一个一键还原的程序，准备用以前的备份的镜像还原系统。我
的硬盘是80G，大概有5G左右是个隐藏分区，联想备份了一个vista恢复在里面，剩下的
我分了7G作为个人数据资料分区，其余60多G给了C盘
上周五晚上我开机进了winxp，后来重启想开机进一键还原，发现直接进到了一个叫
Grub4dos的地方，而不是ghost，于是想再进windows，发现每次都蓝屏无法进入。
后来试过dos下ghost启动，但是ghost找到的分区大小却很怪，于是决定格了C盘重装xp
，在安装盘提示是否格式化硬盘时，我发现安装程序只找到了一个分区，大小是35.8G,
我觉得不太对，于是退出安装，拆下硬盘，装到硬盘盒里，连到别的电脑上，windows
的硬盘管理和linux系统都只能找到一个35.8G的未格式化分区。
自己下载了runtime recovery，file scavenger， zero ass
现word和某些程序运行超慢，但ppt，excel等运行很快，重新装了office也没有改观，
准备恢复系统，因为安了一个一键还原的程序，准备用以前的备份的镜像还原系统。我
的硬盘是80G，大概有5G左右是个隐藏分区，联想备份了一个vista恢复在里面，剩下的
我分了7G作为个人数据资料分区，其余60多G给了C盘
上周五晚上我开机进了winxp，后来重启想开机进一键还原，发现直接进到了一个叫
Grub4dos的地方，而不是ghost，于是想再进windows，发现每次都蓝屏无法进入。
后来试过dos下ghost启动，但是ghost找到的分区大小却很怪，于是决定格了C盘重装xp
，在安装盘提示是否格式化硬盘时，我发现安装程序只找到了一个分区，大小是35.8G,
我觉得不太对，于是退出安装，拆下硬盘，装到硬盘盒里，连到别的电脑上，windows
的硬盘管理和linux系统都只能找到一个35.8G的未格式化分区。
自己下载了runtime recovery，file scavenger， zero ass
c*n
4 楼
想说件事情 心里堵堵的
学会计的 特别是硕士而且半路出家的 听到外国同学说小组作业的时候他们都不喜欢跟
中国人一起做 因为学习好的觉得中国人不干活或者能力很有限 特别是research方面
学习不好的就更不想跟中国人一起了因为他们巴结能力强的才能拿好成绩
唉 听的我心情那个低落 平心而论 这学期有3个小组作业有两个我做了应该的部分 另
外一个我还真的确实很执掌外国组员了
有种必须发奋图强的感觉 不能给国人丢脸阿
学会计的 特别是硕士而且半路出家的 听到外国同学说小组作业的时候他们都不喜欢跟
中国人一起做 因为学习好的觉得中国人不干活或者能力很有限 特别是research方面
学习不好的就更不想跟中国人一起了因为他们巴结能力强的才能拿好成绩
唉 听的我心情那个低落 平心而论 这学期有3个小组作业有两个我做了应该的部分 另
外一个我还真的确实很执掌外国组员了
有种必须发奋图强的感觉 不能给国人丢脸阿
w*g
5 楼
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=K4EWBYT9
【在 Q*K 的大作中提到】
: 贴出来，改改
: 不能就这么算了
【在 Q*K 的大作中提到】
: 贴出来，改改
: 不能就这么算了
f*6
6 楼
怎么差这么多呢？我上学的时候，美国同学很喜欢和中国学生组team.因为他们都知道
中国人很聪明，而且很用功。
中国人很聪明，而且很用功。
Q*K
7 楼
The file you are trying to access is temporarily unavailable. Please try
again later.
【在 w*****g 的大作中提到】
: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=K4EWBYT9
again later.
【在 w*****g 的大作中提到】
: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=K4EWBYT9
m*r
8 楼
不会吧，我最讨厌group project了
每次都要浪费更多的时间，cover别的懒人
individual的那种浪费时间少多了，成绩也更好
【在 c*******n 的大作中提到】
: 想说件事情 心里堵堵的
: 学会计的 特别是硕士而且半路出家的 听到外国同学说小组作业的时候他们都不喜欢跟
: 中国人一起做 因为学习好的觉得中国人不干活或者能力很有限 特别是research方面
: 学习不好的就更不想跟中国人一起了因为他们巴结能力强的才能拿好成绩
: 唉 听的我心情那个低落 平心而论 这学期有3个小组作业有两个我做了应该的部分 另
: 外一个我还真的确实很执掌外国组员了
: 有种必须发奋图强的感觉 不能给国人丢脸阿
每次都要浪费更多的时间，cover别的懒人
individual的那种浪费时间少多了，成绩也更好
【在 c*******n 的大作中提到】
: 想说件事情 心里堵堵的
: 学会计的 特别是硕士而且半路出家的 听到外国同学说小组作业的时候他们都不喜欢跟
: 中国人一起做 因为学习好的觉得中国人不干活或者能力很有限 特别是research方面
: 学习不好的就更不想跟中国人一起了因为他们巴结能力强的才能拿好成绩
: 唉 听的我心情那个低落 平心而论 这学期有3个小组作业有两个我做了应该的部分 另
: 外一个我还真的确实很执掌外国组员了
: 有种必须发奋图强的感觉 不能给国人丢脸阿
s*e
9 楼
Is it this one?
January 25, 2010
[Recipient Name]
[Street Address]
[City, ST ZIP Code]
Sub: Mismanagement Led to Disadvantage of China Employment-Based Second
Preference in FY 2009
Dear Congressman/Congresswoman/Senator XXX:
I am writing to express my grave concerns regarding severe mismanagement of
the crucial visa number allocation process under of the Immigration Visa
Control and Report Division. I understand the value of your time and thus do
not write you today to expend it unduly on matters not worthy of immediate
attention.
Numbers and facts show severe mismanagement by the Visa Office with regard
to the way visa numbers were assigned to documentarily qualified applicants
of China Employment-Based Second Preference (EB2) in FY 2009. Specifically,
I want to bring to your attention that the Visa Office applied INA ACT 202(e
) to China EB2 incorrectly. As a result, there were 2,182 visas wasted for
China EB2, and China EB2 was the only disadvantaged EB2 group in FY 2009.
China EB2 lost 2,182 in FY 2009 because the Visa Office applied INA 202 (e)
to China EB2 incorrectly
Based on the Report of the Visa Office 2009, there were 11,246 visas
assigned to China Family-Based Preference category and 11,192 visas to China
Employment-Based Preference category in FY 2009. The total visa number made
available to China in FY 2009 was 22,438.
However, it was stated in the August 2009 Visa Bulletin that the per-country
limit for FY 2009 was 25,620 (24,620 for China). Therefore, given the fact
that China EB2 had huge visa demand and significant backlog, there were 2,
182 visa numbers remaining in order for China to reach its annual per-
country limit in FY 2009.
The Visa Office confounded the meanings of oversubscribed country and
country at ceiling, and applied INA ACT 202 (e) to China EB2 incorrectly.
Please see Appendix B for more details. As a result, China EB2 lost 2,182
visa numbers which otherwise should have been made available to qualified
applicants of China EB2 in FY 2009.
China EB2 is the only disadvantaged group in FY 2009
The Visa Office has shown vast inconsistency in the way of allotting visa
numbers to different countries. The numbers and facts show that China EB2 as
a group is unfairly treated no matter what the explanations might be. This
unfortunate situation is due to the mismanagement of the visa number
allocation process by setting too early cut-off date on China EB2, which
makes China’s backlog situation much worse. As a matter of fact, China EB2
is the only disadvantaged EB2 group. Some key numbers are listed in Appendix
C for your reference.
Summary
Legal immigration remains a long and exhausting process for many immigrants
and their families. Many wait more than five years for immigration visa
numbers to be available to them while their lives hang in the balance. Thus,
it’s very important to have a fair and transparent visa number allocation
process.
Based on the information above, I believe that the current way of allocating
visas to China EB2 doesn’t follow the INA strictly. Actions need to be
taken immediately to make the corrections and to prevent more visa wastage.
Therefore, I respectfully expect your assistance to resolve this situation
in the following ways:
1. Compensate additional 2,182 visa numbers to China EB2 in FY 2010 and
advance cut-off date of China EB2 accordingly.
2. In FY 2010 and subsequent years the Visa Office should assign visa
numbers to China as close to the per-country limit as possible by all means,
such as but not limited to, assigning visa numbers unused by China Family-
Based Preference to China EB2 every quarter.
3. Discuss these matters with members of the subcommittee on Immigration
and members of the Committee on the Judiciary and explain to them the
necessity of urging the Visa Office to follow the INA strictly.
If you have any questions about this, please contact me by phone at [PHONE
NUMBER] or by e-mail at [YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS] or c*****[email protected]
Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
Sincerely yours,
[YOUR NAME], Resident of the [ __th] District in the State of [STATE]
[YOUR NAME], Resident in the State of [STATE]
[YOUR NAME], Resident of the [CITY, COUNTY, STATE]
A China EB2 applicant and Member of New Immigrants United
Appendix A
Provisions of the Law and Numerical Limitations on Immigrant Visas
Outlined below are the basic elements of the system applicable at present.
1. Numerically limited preferences
INA 201 sets an annual minimum family-based preference limit of 226,000. The
overall ceiling for the employment-based preference category is at least
140,000 which is divided into five categories and is expressed in
percentages of the annual limitation in INA 203(b).
2. Per-Country Limits
In addition to the overall limits, the INA 202 specifies a per-country limit
to preclude preemption of the annual numbers by one or more foreign states
and to avoid monopolization. The per-country limit is 7% of the combined
visa total available to family-based and employment-based preference
immigrants. The per-country limit is a cap, not a quota set aside for
individual countries, as not all the countries in the world, of course,
could reach 7% of the overall limit (7% of 366,000 is 25,620). The American
Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (AC21) removed the per-
country limit in any calendar quarter in which overall applicant demand for
Employment-Based visa numbers is less than the total of such numbers
available.
Appendix B
Why China EB2 lost 2,182 visas because the Visa Office
incorrectly applied INA 202 (e) in FY 2009?
An oversubscribed country is a country whose visa demand exceeds the per-
country limit. An country at ceiling is a country which the Visa Office
determines and allots total immigrant visas more than the per-country limit.
It is very clear that the definitions of oversubscribed country and country
at ceiling are different. And the prorating provisions of INA ACT 202 (e)
only apply to country at ceiling.
INA ACT 202 (e) Special Rules for Countries at Ceiling. - If it is
determined that the total number of immigrant visas made available under
subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 to natives of any single foreign
state or dependent area will exceed the numerical limitation specified
in subsection (a)(2) in any fiscal year, in determining the allotment of
immigrant visa numbers…
When Visa Office applies INA ACT 202(e) automatically to an oversubscribed
country, it indicates that the Visa Office has already determined to assign
visas more than the per-country limit, thus making that oversubscribed
country a country at ceiling. Actions such as cut-off date advancement need
to be taken to ensure visas usage till its per-country limit. On the other
hand, if for any reason the Visa Office does not assign visas more than the
per-country limit, that country is no longer a country at ceiling, and INA
ACT 202(e) does not apply to that country even though it is still an
oversubscribed country. Thus the prorating provisions don’t apply to the
categories of that country. The flowchart in the next page shows it in more
details.
In FY 2009, the total visa numbers assigned to China (22,438) didn’t reach
the annual per-country limit (24,620), therefore INA ACT 202(e) shouldn’t
have been applied to China EB2. As a result, China EB2 shouldn’t be limited
by the prorating provisions and should have used the unused visas from
China Family-Based Preference. But the Visa Office confounded the meanings
of oversubscribed country and country at ceiling, and applied INA ACT 202 (e
) to China EB2 incorrectly. As a result, in FY 2009 China EB2 lost 2,182
visa numbers that should have been made available.
Appendix C
China EB2 is the only disadvantaged group in FY 2009
The Visa Office has shown inconsistency in allotting visa numbers to
different countries under the authority granted by the INA. The following
table summarizes Family and Employment Preferences visa numbers made
available to some countries during Fiscal Year 2009.
Country Family Preference
(a) Employ. Preference
(b) Grand Total
(a)+(b) Comparison with the annual limit EB2
(c) EB2 visas assigned except spillover EB3
South Korea 1,688 14,212 15,900 < 25,620 4,991 4,991
China 11,246 11,192 22,438 < 24,620 3,046 2,803
India 12,956 19,945 32,901 > 25,620 10,124 2,803
Mexico 56,861 8,346 65,207 > 25,620 4,566
Philippines 15,277 8,387 23,664 < 25,620 5,540
Data are from Immigration Visas Issued and Adjustment of Status Subject to
numerical Limitations (by Foreign State Chargeability), Report of the Visa
Office 2009.
http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/statistics/statistics_459
According to the Visa Office’s statement that “the prorating of numbers
for an oversubscribed country follows the same percentages specified for the
division of the worldwide annual limitation among the preferences”, every
Employment-Based Preference of an oversubscribed country should be entitled
to 2,803. However, Mexico EB3 and Philippines EB3, both in oversubscribed
categories, received 4,566 and 5,540, which were 63% and 98% more than 2,803
, respectively. If the Visa Office is so keen on setting the 2,803 annual
limit on China EB2, the same criterion should also be applied to these
categories as well. Although we understand that it is hard to make visa
numbers available to be exactly 2,803, 63% and 98% more than 2,803 are
definitely unreasonable.
Moreover, the visa prorating provisions of INA ACT 202 (e) doesn’t apply to
South Korea since it is not a country at ceiling, therefore EB2 South Korea
could utilize the unused numbers from its family-based preference, which
resulted in 4,991 EB2 South Korea visas made available in FY 2009. Using the
same strategy, once the Visa Office decides not to assign visa numbers
unused by China Family-Based Preference to EB2 China, China is no longer a
country at ceiling and the prorating provisions of 202 (e) shouldn’t be
used to limit EB2 China visas to 2,803. Therefore, just like EB2 South Korea
, EB2 China should have used the unused visa numbers from China Family
Preference until the total visa numbers assigned reached the annual per-
country limit.
However, the total visas assigned to China Family-Based Preference during FY
2009 were 11,246, which were 4,574 less than the China Family limit of 15,
820 (7% of 226,000). This huge decline (4,574 is 29% of Family limit 15,820)
should have brought enough attention to the Visa Office for it to take
immediate action and assign those unused numbers to China Employment
Preference even if it was the last quarter or month of the fiscal year.
Therefore, in this situation, China EB2 should be set a cut-off date LATER
than EB2 India since EB2 India could only use spillover numbers while China
EB2 could use spillovers and the unused visa numbers from China Family
Preference.
But, referring to the visa bulletin for the last quarter of FY 2009, we know
that the Visa Office set the same cut-off date of India EB2 and China EB2.
It indicates that the Visa Office treated the 2,182 visas as spillovers and
assigned those numbers to EB2 of other countries. These numbers and facts
show that China EB2 as a group is being unfairly treated. As discussed in
Appendix B, that unfortunate situation is due to mismanagement of the visa
number allocation process by setting too early cut-off dates on China EB2
which makes China’s backlog situation much worse. As a matter of fact,
China EB2 is the only disadvantaged EB2 group.
January 25, 2010
[Recipient Name]
[Street Address]
[City, ST ZIP Code]
Sub: Mismanagement Led to Disadvantage of China Employment-Based Second
Preference in FY 2009
Dear Congressman/Congresswoman/Senator XXX:
I am writing to express my grave concerns regarding severe mismanagement of
the crucial visa number allocation process under of the Immigration Visa
Control and Report Division. I understand the value of your time and thus do
not write you today to expend it unduly on matters not worthy of immediate
attention.
Numbers and facts show severe mismanagement by the Visa Office with regard
to the way visa numbers were assigned to documentarily qualified applicants
of China Employment-Based Second Preference (EB2) in FY 2009. Specifically,
I want to bring to your attention that the Visa Office applied INA ACT 202(e
) to China EB2 incorrectly. As a result, there were 2,182 visas wasted for
China EB2, and China EB2 was the only disadvantaged EB2 group in FY 2009.
China EB2 lost 2,182 in FY 2009 because the Visa Office applied INA 202 (e)
to China EB2 incorrectly
Based on the Report of the Visa Office 2009, there were 11,246 visas
assigned to China Family-Based Preference category and 11,192 visas to China
Employment-Based Preference category in FY 2009. The total visa number made
available to China in FY 2009 was 22,438.
However, it was stated in the August 2009 Visa Bulletin that the per-country
limit for FY 2009 was 25,620 (24,620 for China). Therefore, given the fact
that China EB2 had huge visa demand and significant backlog, there were 2,
182 visa numbers remaining in order for China to reach its annual per-
country limit in FY 2009.
The Visa Office confounded the meanings of oversubscribed country and
country at ceiling, and applied INA ACT 202 (e) to China EB2 incorrectly.
Please see Appendix B for more details. As a result, China EB2 lost 2,182
visa numbers which otherwise should have been made available to qualified
applicants of China EB2 in FY 2009.
China EB2 is the only disadvantaged group in FY 2009
The Visa Office has shown vast inconsistency in the way of allotting visa
numbers to different countries. The numbers and facts show that China EB2 as
a group is unfairly treated no matter what the explanations might be. This
unfortunate situation is due to the mismanagement of the visa number
allocation process by setting too early cut-off date on China EB2, which
makes China’s backlog situation much worse. As a matter of fact, China EB2
is the only disadvantaged EB2 group. Some key numbers are listed in Appendix
C for your reference.
Summary
Legal immigration remains a long and exhausting process for many immigrants
and their families. Many wait more than five years for immigration visa
numbers to be available to them while their lives hang in the balance. Thus,
it’s very important to have a fair and transparent visa number allocation
process.
Based on the information above, I believe that the current way of allocating
visas to China EB2 doesn’t follow the INA strictly. Actions need to be
taken immediately to make the corrections and to prevent more visa wastage.
Therefore, I respectfully expect your assistance to resolve this situation
in the following ways:
1. Compensate additional 2,182 visa numbers to China EB2 in FY 2010 and
advance cut-off date of China EB2 accordingly.
2. In FY 2010 and subsequent years the Visa Office should assign visa
numbers to China as close to the per-country limit as possible by all means,
such as but not limited to, assigning visa numbers unused by China Family-
Based Preference to China EB2 every quarter.
3. Discuss these matters with members of the subcommittee on Immigration
and members of the Committee on the Judiciary and explain to them the
necessity of urging the Visa Office to follow the INA strictly.
If you have any questions about this, please contact me by phone at [PHONE
NUMBER] or by e-mail at [YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS] or c*****[email protected]
Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
Sincerely yours,
[YOUR NAME], Resident of the [ __th] District in the State of [STATE]
[YOUR NAME], Resident in the State of [STATE]
[YOUR NAME], Resident of the [CITY, COUNTY, STATE]
A China EB2 applicant and Member of New Immigrants United
Appendix A
Provisions of the Law and Numerical Limitations on Immigrant Visas
Outlined below are the basic elements of the system applicable at present.
1. Numerically limited preferences
INA 201 sets an annual minimum family-based preference limit of 226,000. The
overall ceiling for the employment-based preference category is at least
140,000 which is divided into five categories and is expressed in
percentages of the annual limitation in INA 203(b).
2. Per-Country Limits
In addition to the overall limits, the INA 202 specifies a per-country limit
to preclude preemption of the annual numbers by one or more foreign states
and to avoid monopolization. The per-country limit is 7% of the combined
visa total available to family-based and employment-based preference
immigrants. The per-country limit is a cap, not a quota set aside for
individual countries, as not all the countries in the world, of course,
could reach 7% of the overall limit (7% of 366,000 is 25,620). The American
Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (AC21) removed the per-
country limit in any calendar quarter in which overall applicant demand for
Employment-Based visa numbers is less than the total of such numbers
available.
Appendix B
Why China EB2 lost 2,182 visas because the Visa Office
incorrectly applied INA 202 (e) in FY 2009?
An oversubscribed country is a country whose visa demand exceeds the per-
country limit. An country at ceiling is a country which the Visa Office
determines and allots total immigrant visas more than the per-country limit.
It is very clear that the definitions of oversubscribed country and country
at ceiling are different. And the prorating provisions of INA ACT 202 (e)
only apply to country at ceiling.
INA ACT 202 (e) Special Rules for Countries at Ceiling. - If it is
determined that the total number of immigrant visas made available under
subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 to natives of any single foreign
state or dependent area will exceed the numerical limitation specified
in subsection (a)(2) in any fiscal year, in determining the allotment of
immigrant visa numbers…
When Visa Office applies INA ACT 202(e) automatically to an oversubscribed
country, it indicates that the Visa Office has already determined to assign
visas more than the per-country limit, thus making that oversubscribed
country a country at ceiling. Actions such as cut-off date advancement need
to be taken to ensure visas usage till its per-country limit. On the other
hand, if for any reason the Visa Office does not assign visas more than the
per-country limit, that country is no longer a country at ceiling, and INA
ACT 202(e) does not apply to that country even though it is still an
oversubscribed country. Thus the prorating provisions don’t apply to the
categories of that country. The flowchart in the next page shows it in more
details.
In FY 2009, the total visa numbers assigned to China (22,438) didn’t reach
the annual per-country limit (24,620), therefore INA ACT 202(e) shouldn’t
have been applied to China EB2. As a result, China EB2 shouldn’t be limited
by the prorating provisions and should have used the unused visas from
China Family-Based Preference. But the Visa Office confounded the meanings
of oversubscribed country and country at ceiling, and applied INA ACT 202 (e
) to China EB2 incorrectly. As a result, in FY 2009 China EB2 lost 2,182
visa numbers that should have been made available.
Appendix C
China EB2 is the only disadvantaged group in FY 2009
The Visa Office has shown inconsistency in allotting visa numbers to
different countries under the authority granted by the INA. The following
table summarizes Family and Employment Preferences visa numbers made
available to some countries during Fiscal Year 2009.
Country Family Preference
(a) Employ. Preference
(b) Grand Total
(a)+(b) Comparison with the annual limit EB2
(c) EB2 visas assigned except spillover EB3
South Korea 1,688 14,212 15,900 < 25,620 4,991 4,991
China 11,246 11,192 22,438 < 24,620 3,046 2,803
India 12,956 19,945 32,901 > 25,620 10,124 2,803
Mexico 56,861 8,346 65,207 > 25,620 4,566
Philippines 15,277 8,387 23,664 < 25,620 5,540
Data are from Immigration Visas Issued and Adjustment of Status Subject to
numerical Limitations (by Foreign State Chargeability), Report of the Visa
Office 2009.
http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/statistics/statistics_459
According to the Visa Office’s statement that “the prorating of numbers
for an oversubscribed country follows the same percentages specified for the
division of the worldwide annual limitation among the preferences”, every
Employment-Based Preference of an oversubscribed country should be entitled
to 2,803. However, Mexico EB3 and Philippines EB3, both in oversubscribed
categories, received 4,566 and 5,540, which were 63% and 98% more than 2,803
, respectively. If the Visa Office is so keen on setting the 2,803 annual
limit on China EB2, the same criterion should also be applied to these
categories as well. Although we understand that it is hard to make visa
numbers available to be exactly 2,803, 63% and 98% more than 2,803 are
definitely unreasonable.
Moreover, the visa prorating provisions of INA ACT 202 (e) doesn’t apply to
South Korea since it is not a country at ceiling, therefore EB2 South Korea
could utilize the unused numbers from its family-based preference, which
resulted in 4,991 EB2 South Korea visas made available in FY 2009. Using the
same strategy, once the Visa Office decides not to assign visa numbers
unused by China Family-Based Preference to EB2 China, China is no longer a
country at ceiling and the prorating provisions of 202 (e) shouldn’t be
used to limit EB2 China visas to 2,803. Therefore, just like EB2 South Korea
, EB2 China should have used the unused visa numbers from China Family
Preference until the total visa numbers assigned reached the annual per-
country limit.
However, the total visas assigned to China Family-Based Preference during FY
2009 were 11,246, which were 4,574 less than the China Family limit of 15,
820 (7% of 226,000). This huge decline (4,574 is 29% of Family limit 15,820)
should have brought enough attention to the Visa Office for it to take
immediate action and assign those unused numbers to China Employment
Preference even if it was the last quarter or month of the fiscal year.
Therefore, in this situation, China EB2 should be set a cut-off date LATER
than EB2 India since EB2 India could only use spillover numbers while China
EB2 could use spillovers and the unused visa numbers from China Family
Preference.
But, referring to the visa bulletin for the last quarter of FY 2009, we know
that the Visa Office set the same cut-off date of India EB2 and China EB2.
It indicates that the Visa Office treated the 2,182 visas as spillovers and
assigned those numbers to EB2 of other countries. These numbers and facts
show that China EB2 as a group is being unfairly treated. As discussed in
Appendix B, that unfortunate situation is due to mismanagement of the visa
number allocation process by setting too early cut-off dates on China EB2
which makes China’s backlog situation much worse. As a matter of fact,
China EB2 is the only disadvantaged EB2 group.
l*y
10 楼
me too....
【在 m********r 的大作中提到】
: 不会吧，我最讨厌group project了
: 每次都要浪费更多的时间，cover别的懒人
: individual的那种浪费时间少多了，成绩也更好
【在 m********r 的大作中提到】
: 不会吧，我最讨厌group project了
: 每次都要浪费更多的时间，cover别的懒人
: individual的那种浪费时间少多了，成绩也更好
w*g
11 楼
http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t/Wisconsin/31168655.html
【在 Q*K 的大作中提到】
: The file you are trying to access is temporarily unavailable. Please try
: again later.
【在 Q*K 的大作中提到】
: The file you are trying to access is temporarily unavailable. Please try
: again later.
l*z
12 楼
这个,主要靠你自己吧, 你自己在课堂上表现出色了 (比方说能回答难问题,能问有价值
的问题,英文也比较好),别人自然会来找你加入他们的group,或者和你一个group的人会
比较高兴.
的问题,英文也比较好),别人自然会来找你加入他们的group,或者和你一个group的人会
比较高兴.
w*g
13 楼
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=K4EWBYT9
try it again.
【在 Q*K 的大作中提到】
: The file you are trying to access is temporarily unavailable. Please try
: again later.
try it again.
【在 Q*K 的大作中提到】
: The file you are trying to access is temporarily unavailable. Please try
: again later.
t*f
14 楼
You'll have to learn to deal with it now. In school environment, maybe you
can cover other people's work to get a better team result. But in work
environment, all works are done in a team, there's no way you can help cover
others' work load.
Try some ways to get the team to work together on school projects. For
instance, schedule meetings every other day to sit together and work on your
allocated portion of the work. That way you'll know each person's status,
and offer help on the spot if needed. Try to lead the team in a n
acceptable manner. Learn to manage people is essential in your future
career as well.
can cover other people's work to get a better team result. But in work
environment, all works are done in a team, there's no way you can help cover
others' work load.
Try some ways to get the team to work together on school projects. For
instance, schedule meetings every other day to sit together and work on your
allocated portion of the work. That way you'll know each person's status,
and offer help on the spot if needed. Try to lead the team in a n
acceptable manner. Learn to manage people is essential in your future
career as well.
相关阅读
给本windows考试同学的友情提示(尤其是FAR)请问2011年的AUG和FAR的变化究竟是怎样的？非常感谢！！回赠大家对我的支持--E&Y2轮费城面试实记请教大家BEC CHAPTER 3的一道计算题 BECKER B3请问关于accounting/finance专用计算器今天考完AUDlczlcz分享的Wiely testbank有没有人装成功的？弱弱的问一句还有一个星期考AUD，做BECKER准确率只有60-70%，我怎么办？考完四门，给大家分享一些经验请问FAR9个章占考试比例各是多少谁用过Microsoft Excel Dynamics software？请问哪个州报cpa 比较快？手续比较简单？选校求助我的两个月Pass四门CPA考试的经验AUD--对Audit risk的理解急死了！far太难了！多久能拿到NTS（Your file for generation of NTS）PwC的申请状态NY cpa license application