chanduv23
11-06 09:44 AM
I was wondering if there are any plans for a recapture campaign ? my feeling is that we should concentrate on recapture at all times ..even if it is something in preparation i.e. do some homework now itself in anticipation ..the other point is keep talking about IV and get new members ..in the last 2 days ..I came across 2 people in various stages of immigration and they did not know about IV ..and they have joined now. I guess this is the most effective way to increase membership
well - we need money for lobbying and our funding drives are not going well. As nothing has happened on the legislative front, our members are not happy. But we must not give up.
WSe will do what we can. Please help reenergizing our base. It is very essential that we see a new generation of dedicated IV members.
well - we need money for lobbying and our funding drives are not going well. As nothing has happened on the legislative front, our members are not happy. But we must not give up.
WSe will do what we can. Please help reenergizing our base. It is very essential that we see a new generation of dedicated IV members.
wallpaper Lady+gaga+orn+this+way+
makemygc
07-09 09:57 PM
This is just a message to 2005/2006/2007 PD guys. Please don't think that some miracle will happen and dates will be current soon, it will take its own time. Mostly for EB2 & EB3June 2006- June 2007 guys, it will be like a lottery if the PD becomes current somewhere in 2007 Oct-Nov time. Right??
So life is not always easy. There are people waiting since 2002-03-04.
Don't think that life is not a FIFO always.
Why some of the guys became violent when I said, INDIA IS GREAT???
Guys.. do you know why I always feel like this???
As my parents,in laws and most of my relatives stay there. Not only mine, allmost all guys who are in the IV, they must have parents and relatives in India for sure. There is no other reason why I said India is great.
Someone asked me to pack up... YES, I will if nothing happens;however, I will be waiting to see the progress for sure. This is July. Let's have a look over OCT bulletin after 2 months and for sure dates will move atleast 4-6 months for EB2 guys and 1 year for EB3 guys. So wait, be patient, instead of doing all this.
Anyway, our turn will come sooner or later, so why to become impatient just seeing the JULY bulletin CURRENT and then "U".
Mainly this is the message for 2005-2006-2007 PD guys. Please don't take it otherwise.
I exactly know where your statements about 2005-2006-2007 coming from. Your basic assumptions is that 2005-2006-2007 guys are those who just came to US 2-3 yrs back and now want their GC asap whereas you are waiting in line for 6-7 years...right?
Ma'm with all due respect, that is not correct for most of the cases. There are several people who has to re-file their labor for several reasons (employer greedy, company overtaken, laid-off, company gone bankrupt etc etc.). That does not mean that 2005-2006-2007 guys are asking that they should get GC before 2001-2004 people. What most of the people need is an ability to file for AOS so that they can indepenedent of the clutches of their employers.
I'm sure if you widen your horizon, you will be able to understand the plight of all your brothers and sisters stuck in this retrogression.
So life is not always easy. There are people waiting since 2002-03-04.
Don't think that life is not a FIFO always.
Why some of the guys became violent when I said, INDIA IS GREAT???
Guys.. do you know why I always feel like this???
As my parents,in laws and most of my relatives stay there. Not only mine, allmost all guys who are in the IV, they must have parents and relatives in India for sure. There is no other reason why I said India is great.
Someone asked me to pack up... YES, I will if nothing happens;however, I will be waiting to see the progress for sure. This is July. Let's have a look over OCT bulletin after 2 months and for sure dates will move atleast 4-6 months for EB2 guys and 1 year for EB3 guys. So wait, be patient, instead of doing all this.
Anyway, our turn will come sooner or later, so why to become impatient just seeing the JULY bulletin CURRENT and then "U".
Mainly this is the message for 2005-2006-2007 PD guys. Please don't take it otherwise.
I exactly know where your statements about 2005-2006-2007 coming from. Your basic assumptions is that 2005-2006-2007 guys are those who just came to US 2-3 yrs back and now want their GC asap whereas you are waiting in line for 6-7 years...right?
Ma'm with all due respect, that is not correct for most of the cases. There are several people who has to re-file their labor for several reasons (employer greedy, company overtaken, laid-off, company gone bankrupt etc etc.). That does not mean that 2005-2006-2007 guys are asking that they should get GC before 2001-2004 people. What most of the people need is an ability to file for AOS so that they can indepenedent of the clutches of their employers.
I'm sure if you widen your horizon, you will be able to understand the plight of all your brothers and sisters stuck in this retrogression.
prinive
07-09 08:33 PM
he and his some of his staffs are member of IV. {shhhhh that is a secret}
How did he came to know about this, where as many big media heads are unaware of this........any idea?
How did he came to know about this, where as many big media heads are unaware of this........any idea?
2011 lady gaga born this way cd
abuddyz
01-05 06:31 PM
Appt. date: Dec 20th, 2007
Received the PP by express mail on Dec 21st, 2007
Mumbai Consulate did not interview husband and myself. An Indian gentleman called us to the counter and told us that the VO had approved our H1B renewals and that we would receive the PP by courier the following day.
This is really good news.. Can you please provide more details of your case?
- was it first H1/H4 stamping or renewal?
- do you have I140/I-485 application filed?
- did your employer do anything to inform the US consulate in advance about visa stamping?
thanks in advance,
Received the PP by express mail on Dec 21st, 2007
Mumbai Consulate did not interview husband and myself. An Indian gentleman called us to the counter and told us that the VO had approved our H1B renewals and that we would receive the PP by courier the following day.
This is really good news.. Can you please provide more details of your case?
- was it first H1/H4 stamping or renewal?
- do you have I140/I-485 application filed?
- did your employer do anything to inform the US consulate in advance about visa stamping?
thanks in advance,
more...
unseenguy
06-16 12:55 AM
Dude are you kidding me ... I am reporting a violation/fraud and I should hold my head down?? what kind of moral/ethical values you have.. I am keeping my head up (may be an inch or 2 higher than last 3 weeks) as my project manager and director (middle management ) fully supports me in this crusade. Most of the cases, upper management decides to replace all the local contractors with these outsourcing firms and once the contract is signed these companies dump all their L1 resources to projects and middle management who deals directly with the resources has minimal say in the process.
Let me ask you a simple question.. WHY ARE YOU SUPPORTING THIS FRAUDULANT ACTIVITY??? .... think for a minute and then decide whether to reply me back or not.. bye.
'Mileage for this complaint'.. in an economy when millions with eligibility are job less .. case regarding this fraud will have ZERO mileage! want to bet me on this .. come on dude.. come on. If you are on L1 visa talk to uer management and get it changed to something legally eligible to work on your project, instead trying to measure the mileage of L1 fraud, ICE/USCIS will measure that and we'll see whos head is going down here...
I am not supporting any fraud, but what I said is, if you find workplace discrimination and contact a career guide, they ask you to find another job. Most sincere career guides will not support lawsuits or retaliation against employer unless you are not in a position to find other work. Even read career sites for women and advice, even in cases of sexual harrassment, they ask the victim to move on as a sensible thing to do, because in the end the company will somehow make the victim lose her job. There have been 1000s of USC Vs USC cases. I am not supporting any fraud but what I am saying is retaliation leaves bad taste in the mouth and world is a small place. For larger good of your rest of career best thing to do is move on.
Only some crooked lawyer who wants money will tell you, you are doing the right thing.
Let me ask you a simple question.. WHY ARE YOU SUPPORTING THIS FRAUDULANT ACTIVITY??? .... think for a minute and then decide whether to reply me back or not.. bye.
'Mileage for this complaint'.. in an economy when millions with eligibility are job less .. case regarding this fraud will have ZERO mileage! want to bet me on this .. come on dude.. come on. If you are on L1 visa talk to uer management and get it changed to something legally eligible to work on your project, instead trying to measure the mileage of L1 fraud, ICE/USCIS will measure that and we'll see whos head is going down here...
I am not supporting any fraud, but what I said is, if you find workplace discrimination and contact a career guide, they ask you to find another job. Most sincere career guides will not support lawsuits or retaliation against employer unless you are not in a position to find other work. Even read career sites for women and advice, even in cases of sexual harrassment, they ask the victim to move on as a sensible thing to do, because in the end the company will somehow make the victim lose her job. There have been 1000s of USC Vs USC cases. I am not supporting any fraud but what I am saying is retaliation leaves bad taste in the mouth and world is a small place. For larger good of your rest of career best thing to do is move on.
Only some crooked lawyer who wants money will tell you, you are doing the right thing.
doshhar
09-24 11:30 PM
add me to the R.Williams list
buckeye98 - 2nd July/7:55am/ R.Williams /I140 -NCS/ NO RN NO CC, NO DATA IN SYSTEM
I am really frustrated now. Whats the use of my doing every effort to make sure my application reaches the first day. Why is USCIS receipting cases from August when so many july 2 filers are still waiting? Should we all send some inquiry into our cases together?
We should start contacting congress man/woman in our area and need to start escalating it. Do we have any other options?
buckeye98 - 2nd July/7:55am/ R.Williams /I140 -NCS/ NO RN NO CC, NO DATA IN SYSTEM
I am really frustrated now. Whats the use of my doing every effort to make sure my application reaches the first day. Why is USCIS receipting cases from August when so many july 2 filers are still waiting? Should we all send some inquiry into our cases together?
We should start contacting congress man/woman in our area and need to start escalating it. Do we have any other options?
more...
nilcritz
05-23 03:33 PM
Hi,
I do not have medical records to prove that I have taken some of the vaccination that is mandatory for the medical test. However, I do have taken those and my Doctor back in India has those records. Is there a way people know that these records in "any format" / a "specific format" can be faxed or fedexed here and can be used?
Any help will be highly apprciated.
- N
I do not have medical records to prove that I have taken some of the vaccination that is mandatory for the medical test. However, I do have taken those and my Doctor back in India has those records. Is there a way people know that these records in "any format" / a "specific format" can be faxed or fedexed here and can be used?
Any help will be highly apprciated.
- N
2010 BORN THIS WAY SPECIAL EDITION
meridiani.planum
01-05 10:13 PM
...trust me, there are very very few who would have bought a house with GC pending.,.
I also used to think so, but in reality many people waiting for GC have bought houses already (on an IV poll ~50% of some 500 respondents)
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=130
I also used to think so, but in reality many people waiting for GC have bought houses already (on an IV poll ~50% of some 500 respondents)
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=130
more...
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.
hair lady gaga born this way special edition amazon. Lady Gaga stepped out of her
factoryman
05-16 07:32 PM
:) I will make sure to ask the Attorney / firmto overnight it via FedEx on Jun 1. In the meanwhile, I am working on the check list of documents, vaccines list and take medical appointment. Already prepared I-485 filing documents way back in Aug 2005. Maybe the attorney will send a set of new forms, I don't know; I will complete in one day.
late last month my father passed away and I had to fly back to Australia to attend the funeral. My lawyer and I were already in the process of preparing my i485/ead/ap. They arrived at the service centre on may26 and I left the US shortly after midnight on the 27th ( talk about close). My lawyer told me that as long as I was present in the US the day that the Service centre recieved my applications, I was ok. I also had my L1 re-stamped in Sydney before returning. :)
So based on my experience, no you dont have to wait for reciept of filing, just must be in US when filled.
late last month my father passed away and I had to fly back to Australia to attend the funeral. My lawyer and I were already in the process of preparing my i485/ead/ap. They arrived at the service centre on may26 and I left the US shortly after midnight on the 27th ( talk about close). My lawyer told me that as long as I was present in the US the day that the Service centre recieved my applications, I was ok. I also had my L1 re-stamped in Sydney before returning. :)
So based on my experience, no you dont have to wait for reciept of filing, just must be in US when filled.
more...
Green_Print
07-11 03:28 AM
In such trying times its awesome to find individuals in the media willing to lend a receptive ear to the hardships faced by all of us and write a wonderful news article on it. Its even more significant especially because when people who should be listening to our concerns and who have the ability to address these issues have turned deaf ears.
She and other media personnel who have helped highlight this issue deserve at least a thank you note.
Just my thoughts.....
Dear Non-Indian Members,
When Xiyun Yang talked to me yesterday, I did mention that there are more Chinese and Pakistanis and people from other countries
She was very much interested in talking to them. ( I had mentioned this in my previous post, but would have got lost in the barrage of posts in the last few days)
I would suggest, that non-Indians, please contact Xiyun @
email:yangx@washpost.com
office phone: 202 334 6701
Also, please leave a comment on her article in the washington post and mention which country you belong and how this is also your issue, as much as everybody else
We definitely want to make this an universal issue and not just an Indian Issue
Anand Sharma
She and other media personnel who have helped highlight this issue deserve at least a thank you note.
Just my thoughts.....
Dear Non-Indian Members,
When Xiyun Yang talked to me yesterday, I did mention that there are more Chinese and Pakistanis and people from other countries
She was very much interested in talking to them. ( I had mentioned this in my previous post, but would have got lost in the barrage of posts in the last few days)
I would suggest, that non-Indians, please contact Xiyun @
email:yangx@washpost.com
office phone: 202 334 6701
Also, please leave a comment on her article in the washington post and mention which country you belong and how this is also your issue, as much as everybody else
We definitely want to make this an universal issue and not just an Indian Issue
Anand Sharma
hot Lady Gaga Born
anda007
07-11 10:12 AM
I AM ORDERING PIZZA and gourmet food from local restuarants every week to be delivered to Emilio Gonzalez
The delivery will be on the 15th July.
Anybody want to join
The delivery will be on the 15th July.
Anybody want to join
more...
house lady gaga born this way
admin
01-04 05:11 PM
I have filed my green card with her. But in all our discussions she has sided with my company's interest over mine. In fact in one of our FYI meetings, she said that getting the green card faster would not be good for companies as people would quit after that. So I am not sure whether she will take up the cause but we can try.
tattoo Lady Gaga - Born This Way
mbawa2574
09-26 11:11 AM
Mccain is good for us as long as he seperates himself from house republicans. Obama is good if he gets rid of that stupid durbin.
Though Mccain is business friendly. There are talks on CNBC and Wallstreet about rebuidling capital in this country and skilled immigration is part of it. I think Michele..I don't know last name wrote an article in Wall Street Journal Today supporting Legal Immigration , innovation and creating demand for housing in this country. It's the protectionist lobby which is screwing the country.
Though Mccain is business friendly. There are talks on CNBC and Wallstreet about rebuidling capital in this country and skilled immigration is part of it. I think Michele..I don't know last name wrote an article in Wall Street Journal Today supporting Legal Immigration , innovation and creating demand for housing in this country. It's the protectionist lobby which is screwing the country.
more...
pictures Lady Gaga - Born This Way
nish
07-07 09:22 AM
L1Fraud,
Any update on this?
Any update on this?
dresses lady gaga born this way
vg1778
10-02 01:45 PM
I didn't get the phone# for USCIS compaint dept. But some one(may be ashres11) posted one phone#18003238603 for DHS. I called that number and it turned out Inspector General office. As i reported earlier. He told me to call regular USCIS 800. I said it's useless. He took some note and asked to call this new number 877-246-8253.
E-mail :
cisombudsman.trends@dhs.gov
joint.intake@dhs.gov
Fax :
202-344-3390
I got the LIN# I-765 from congresswoman office per USCIS reply.
who is cisombudsman.trends@dhs.gov? Is this a name of some person or some department name?
E-mail :
cisombudsman.trends@dhs.gov
joint.intake@dhs.gov
Fax :
202-344-3390
I got the LIN# I-765 from congresswoman office per USCIS reply.
who is cisombudsman.trends@dhs.gov? Is this a name of some person or some department name?
more...
makeup hairstyles lady gaga born this
pappu
08-07 03:52 PM
First let me state that I need people like you to proceed and hence I will be happy to answer the points you rasied to the best of my ability:
We all agree that there is severe backlog. Only way the backlog will alleviate is by increasing visa numbers, which not going to happen any time sooner.
So some people (and I know around 10 of them) what they are doing is the following:
They got the chance to file their 485 last July , which is pending. They are now contacting several small desi consulting firms to file for their fresh labor in EB2 category. Once their labor is filled and new I-140 is approved, they plan to attach new I-140 to the original 485 and hence effectively convering to Eb2 category but with priority dates in 2002 and 2003 (because original I-140 had that priority). Worst, they would never join that desi consulting firm...
This how the system is being gamed. If I know 10 such cases, I am sure there must be thousand like that.Now you tell me , isn't that unfair to the people already in Eb2 line as well as the ones who do not know how to game the system
By the way: If any one is interested, I know of three such consulting firms that can do for you for a fee.
First: I appreciate that you have not lost your cool yet despite all the opposition and rude posts against you. Rollingflood on the other hand does not share those qualities with you well. We will not close the thread as long as the discussion remains civil.
While I personally do not support the lawsuit idea because it divides the community in two parts and there are better ways to help the community. You can try to help positively for the greater good for everyone or run a negative campaign that will help some but hurt others who are also like you and are genuinely following the law. I also think it will be expensive and may not have a lifeline. As IV members we need to all work together to fix the system. This was the basis of founding IV. The aim was never to look after our own selfish interests and hurt others who are like us. We never discriminated between different EB categories or country of chargeability. The intent of our fight is not to deny others their greencards and get ours first, but to allow everyone get their greencards. The intent is to have the system be efficient and work the way it was intended. IV core team has never made action items or ask lists in campaigns to suit their own selfish needs.
Now in this post you have raised a serious issue. If a fraud is going on, do collect evidence and file a complaint against it. If consulting companies are making money by gaming the system, drag those companies in your complaint. Help punish such people who are gaming the system. IV community will appreciate that.
There is some wisdom needed here to draw a line between selfishness and working with honest intentions to clean up the system.
We all agree that there is severe backlog. Only way the backlog will alleviate is by increasing visa numbers, which not going to happen any time sooner.
So some people (and I know around 10 of them) what they are doing is the following:
They got the chance to file their 485 last July , which is pending. They are now contacting several small desi consulting firms to file for their fresh labor in EB2 category. Once their labor is filled and new I-140 is approved, they plan to attach new I-140 to the original 485 and hence effectively convering to Eb2 category but with priority dates in 2002 and 2003 (because original I-140 had that priority). Worst, they would never join that desi consulting firm...
This how the system is being gamed. If I know 10 such cases, I am sure there must be thousand like that.Now you tell me , isn't that unfair to the people already in Eb2 line as well as the ones who do not know how to game the system
By the way: If any one is interested, I know of three such consulting firms that can do for you for a fee.
First: I appreciate that you have not lost your cool yet despite all the opposition and rude posts against you. Rollingflood on the other hand does not share those qualities with you well. We will not close the thread as long as the discussion remains civil.
While I personally do not support the lawsuit idea because it divides the community in two parts and there are better ways to help the community. You can try to help positively for the greater good for everyone or run a negative campaign that will help some but hurt others who are also like you and are genuinely following the law. I also think it will be expensive and may not have a lifeline. As IV members we need to all work together to fix the system. This was the basis of founding IV. The aim was never to look after our own selfish interests and hurt others who are like us. We never discriminated between different EB categories or country of chargeability. The intent of our fight is not to deny others their greencards and get ours first, but to allow everyone get their greencards. The intent is to have the system be efficient and work the way it was intended. IV core team has never made action items or ask lists in campaigns to suit their own selfish needs.
Now in this post you have raised a serious issue. If a fraud is going on, do collect evidence and file a complaint against it. If consulting companies are making money by gaming the system, drag those companies in your complaint. Help punish such people who are gaming the system. IV community will appreciate that.
There is some wisdom needed here to draw a line between selfishness and working with honest intentions to clean up the system.
girlfriend hair Lady Gaga - Born This Way
delhirocks
06-29 09:09 PM
just curious...
I like IPAs...Iam in seattle, they have this nice brewery (Pike Place Brewery), the head brewer over there, split open a new cask of this mild IPA, It had a nice bitter after taste. Kindoff like this whole fiasco (except the nice part)
I like IPAs...Iam in seattle, they have this nice brewery (Pike Place Brewery), the head brewer over there, split open a new cask of this mild IPA, It had a nice bitter after taste. Kindoff like this whole fiasco (except the nice part)
hairstyles Lady Gaga - Born This Way
gaz
04-01 10:01 AM
Perhaps a little over-generalized.
Non-Donors like me have contributed to advocacy days. You still think we are free loaders?
not to hijack the conversation - but at some point, IV needs to distinguish between a donor, a contributor and a freeloader.
e.g. donors get access to all threads, contributors specific threads for which they have contributed and freeloaders general threads only. i guess that means setting up contributions at the thread level - not sure if thats possible right now.
Non-Donors like me have contributed to advocacy days. You still think we are free loaders?
not to hijack the conversation - but at some point, IV needs to distinguish between a donor, a contributor and a freeloader.
e.g. donors get access to all threads, contributors specific threads for which they have contributed and freeloaders general threads only. i guess that means setting up contributions at the thread level - not sure if thats possible right now.
sanju
01-09 11:25 AM
What Mr. Aytes have proposed is too narrow. He is proposing that applicants whose application is pending due to Namecheck delay will not get the benefit for multi-year EAD. This is not what the current rule says. So asking for implementation of the current rule means asking for multi-year EAD for all I-485 applicants, not depending on whether or not Mr. Aytes is having a good/bad day.
There is already a standing rule since 2004-5. It is now 2008 and he has not implemented multi-year EAD rule. Given their past record, I would prefer that we not depend on their good heart for implementing this change.
One more thing, when thousands of people will write letters and something will get done, orgs like AILA and lawyers like Murthy will claim that they got it done for us :-), for our sake :-). Just wait and watch..... ;)
I think we should not mention the bellow point in the letter which we are going send to the president.
According to Mr. Aytes, USCIS is already working on it. Why to mention it in the letter?
That will rather give anti-skill-immigration crying babies one more thing to cry about.
Now what? Under the new filing fee schedule which took effect after July 29, 2007, issuance of EAD and Advance Parole for the post August 27, 2007 is "free, free, free" for the I-485 filers. Allegedly, the cost is incorporated in the I-485 filing fee of $1,020. The new regulation uses the term of "fee waiver" for EAD and Advance Parole for these I-485 filers. Now, you guessed it! Lo and Behold, the business calculation on EAD and Advance Parole has reversed. The DHS will lose a huge money by issuing single-year EAD and a separate Advance Prole document on a yearly basis over and over since they are free and they will have to keep producing it at no charge every year, which creates a huge workloads consuming its huge human resources and other production costs. This is particularly unacceptable to the agency under the predicted State Department Visa Bulletin for FY 2008 and in the future. Now, from the business standpoint, the DHS may make a huge money by issuing a multi-year EAD which will also function as a travel document. Ahah! No wonder why they are finally coming forward revealing their hidden agenda behind the new fee rule-making and EAD/Advance Parole reform business. Reportedly, Mr. Aytes of USCIS disclosed in a New York AILA conference that the USCIS was currently working on a single multi-year EAD card that will also replace the Advance Parole document. What a smart calculation it was in the new fee rule-making action
There is already a standing rule since 2004-5. It is now 2008 and he has not implemented multi-year EAD rule. Given their past record, I would prefer that we not depend on their good heart for implementing this change.
One more thing, when thousands of people will write letters and something will get done, orgs like AILA and lawyers like Murthy will claim that they got it done for us :-), for our sake :-). Just wait and watch..... ;)
I think we should not mention the bellow point in the letter which we are going send to the president.
According to Mr. Aytes, USCIS is already working on it. Why to mention it in the letter?
That will rather give anti-skill-immigration crying babies one more thing to cry about.
Now what? Under the new filing fee schedule which took effect after July 29, 2007, issuance of EAD and Advance Parole for the post August 27, 2007 is "free, free, free" for the I-485 filers. Allegedly, the cost is incorporated in the I-485 filing fee of $1,020. The new regulation uses the term of "fee waiver" for EAD and Advance Parole for these I-485 filers. Now, you guessed it! Lo and Behold, the business calculation on EAD and Advance Parole has reversed. The DHS will lose a huge money by issuing single-year EAD and a separate Advance Prole document on a yearly basis over and over since they are free and they will have to keep producing it at no charge every year, which creates a huge workloads consuming its huge human resources and other production costs. This is particularly unacceptable to the agency under the predicted State Department Visa Bulletin for FY 2008 and in the future. Now, from the business standpoint, the DHS may make a huge money by issuing a multi-year EAD which will also function as a travel document. Ahah! No wonder why they are finally coming forward revealing their hidden agenda behind the new fee rule-making and EAD/Advance Parole reform business. Reportedly, Mr. Aytes of USCIS disclosed in a New York AILA conference that the USCIS was currently working on a single multi-year EAD card that will also replace the Advance Parole document. What a smart calculation it was in the new fee rule-making action
sc3
08-22 11:09 AM
Anyone have any ideas on what EB3 Rest of World will be in the October Visa Bulletin. My Priority date is OCT 2005 EB3 Rest of World. Do you think I have a long wait?
I believe you wait will be predicated only by processing delays.
Like others have pointed out, it looks like that the numbers are being allocated in a different way from before. Does any one know of any article or discussion by a real attorney or some expert on what is going on?
USCIS may be using divide and silence tactics. One can already see the impact of EB2 being as good as current. They probably liked what they saw and are setting up to move back EB3 much more. At this rate EB3 will crawl to death. People will try to jump into EB2 and realignments/adjustments automatically will take place.All good for USCIS.
But, going back to my original question, what are the legal experts saying? Can any legal entity or any type of action force USCIS to explain what the heck is going on?
Yes, at least one immigration attorney disagrees with the current interpretation, however he feels that the laws, as written, gives USCIS/DOS the wiggle room to deflect any lawsuits. Since the law does not deny EB3 the numbers, I think we should start a letter campaign to bear upon USCIS/DOS to take a second look at the law and fine tune their interpretation.
We should also ask other immigration lawyers their thoughts (some who have online chat/discussion).
I believe you wait will be predicated only by processing delays.
Like others have pointed out, it looks like that the numbers are being allocated in a different way from before. Does any one know of any article or discussion by a real attorney or some expert on what is going on?
USCIS may be using divide and silence tactics. One can already see the impact of EB2 being as good as current. They probably liked what they saw and are setting up to move back EB3 much more. At this rate EB3 will crawl to death. People will try to jump into EB2 and realignments/adjustments automatically will take place.All good for USCIS.
But, going back to my original question, what are the legal experts saying? Can any legal entity or any type of action force USCIS to explain what the heck is going on?
Yes, at least one immigration attorney disagrees with the current interpretation, however he feels that the laws, as written, gives USCIS/DOS the wiggle room to deflect any lawsuits. Since the law does not deny EB3 the numbers, I think we should start a letter campaign to bear upon USCIS/DOS to take a second look at the law and fine tune their interpretation.
We should also ask other immigration lawyers their thoughts (some who have online chat/discussion).
No comments:
Post a Comment