aps
10-29 01:00 AM
One of the iv member, has stated that the I485 has been denied for his friend, upon withdrawl of 140 by his ex-employer. His ex-employer has informed USCIS, that the employee left the job on his own. Also, he quoted that "USCIS denied I485 because, ac21 can be used in case of layoffs only , not switching for jobs"
In your letter you are requesting to give RFE/NOID before denial, but the fundamental reason for denial is different in the above case. what is use of getting RFE/NOID, in that case?
thanks,
aps
From IV: IV commends the initiative taken by it's members nk2006, pd_recpaturing, ItsNotfunny and others. As these members have observed, we all know that any one who has filed for AOS/I-485 can potentially be hit with this issue, especially in the current job market situations. If you believe in the old adage prevention is better than cure, this is an action item you have to subscribe to. It will be only a matter of time the number of such denials is going to spike.
In recent weeks there has been a spate of I485 denials by USCIS in the AC21 cases. In most of these cases, the underlying I-140 has been revoked by previous employer. But AC21 regulations and related memo�s require that I485�s should not be denied based on that � provided I485 has been pending for more than 180 days and the applicant has changed to a new job that is same or similar. USCIS has been rejecting cases without even issuing a NOID � again required by AC21 regulations. So USCIS is not following AC21 regulations and related field memo�s for whatever the reasons.
Obviously this will have a very bad impact on us � in addition to tremendous amount of stress it can have very bad economic implications including loss of job. In the current economic conditions we cannot afford to lose the job change flexibility provided by AC21 regulations. IV has started a campaign to fight this.
After a brief campaign to write to Ombudsman, it has been decided to intensify this campaign and write to various officials in USCIS hierarchy. IV core members have been actively involved in coming up with a strategy and are actively supporting this effort. By sending large number of letters we can draw their attention to this issue and resolve as quickly as possible. There are other strategies that are being discussed and will be underway soon to tackle this issue. This is the first and the most important step up on which other steps depend.
I request all the members to start sending the following 4 letters. For your convenience the letters have been completely written including addresses to be sent � all you have to do is download following 4 google documents � add the date, your name and address � and send it to the address provided on each letter.
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dcqssdt7_1d3mzhr6c
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dcqssdt7_2fp3nrhvb
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dcqssdt7_3d8h2x7dr
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dcqssdt7_4fxnvq9tw
To reiterate: You have to send 4 letters � these letters can be downloaded at the above URL�s. Edit the document to add current date, name, address etc. and mail it (regular mail). After doing that, please update the poll so we know how many letters are being sent.
To get more background on this issue and see what has been done so far, please see these two threads: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=22052;
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21716
To achieve positive results we need to send these letters in large numbers - please send them today and let everyone else be aware of this effort. Thank you.
Request to core/web site admin: can you please add a link to this thread on the IV main page to get better coverage to this campaign - thanks.
In your letter you are requesting to give RFE/NOID before denial, but the fundamental reason for denial is different in the above case. what is use of getting RFE/NOID, in that case?
thanks,
aps
From IV: IV commends the initiative taken by it's members nk2006, pd_recpaturing, ItsNotfunny and others. As these members have observed, we all know that any one who has filed for AOS/I-485 can potentially be hit with this issue, especially in the current job market situations. If you believe in the old adage prevention is better than cure, this is an action item you have to subscribe to. It will be only a matter of time the number of such denials is going to spike.
In recent weeks there has been a spate of I485 denials by USCIS in the AC21 cases. In most of these cases, the underlying I-140 has been revoked by previous employer. But AC21 regulations and related memo�s require that I485�s should not be denied based on that � provided I485 has been pending for more than 180 days and the applicant has changed to a new job that is same or similar. USCIS has been rejecting cases without even issuing a NOID � again required by AC21 regulations. So USCIS is not following AC21 regulations and related field memo�s for whatever the reasons.
Obviously this will have a very bad impact on us � in addition to tremendous amount of stress it can have very bad economic implications including loss of job. In the current economic conditions we cannot afford to lose the job change flexibility provided by AC21 regulations. IV has started a campaign to fight this.
After a brief campaign to write to Ombudsman, it has been decided to intensify this campaign and write to various officials in USCIS hierarchy. IV core members have been actively involved in coming up with a strategy and are actively supporting this effort. By sending large number of letters we can draw their attention to this issue and resolve as quickly as possible. There are other strategies that are being discussed and will be underway soon to tackle this issue. This is the first and the most important step up on which other steps depend.
I request all the members to start sending the following 4 letters. For your convenience the letters have been completely written including addresses to be sent � all you have to do is download following 4 google documents � add the date, your name and address � and send it to the address provided on each letter.
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dcqssdt7_1d3mzhr6c
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dcqssdt7_2fp3nrhvb
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dcqssdt7_3d8h2x7dr
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dcqssdt7_4fxnvq9tw
To reiterate: You have to send 4 letters � these letters can be downloaded at the above URL�s. Edit the document to add current date, name, address etc. and mail it (regular mail). After doing that, please update the poll so we know how many letters are being sent.
To get more background on this issue and see what has been done so far, please see these two threads: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=22052;
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21716
To achieve positive results we need to send these letters in large numbers - please send them today and let everyone else be aware of this effort. Thank you.
Request to core/web site admin: can you please add a link to this thread on the IV main page to get better coverage to this campaign - thanks.
wallpaper A company named CEVA Logistics
Almond
08-09 06:50 PM
I called today to help a friend who has been stuck in namecheck status for almost a year and a half and spoke to an immigration officer who calmly explained to me that the name check isn't done only nationally but also "internationally" meaning, not only do they do a background check on you in the US, they also look you up in your country of origin. In all my time reading about this I have never heard her version before, so I had assumed the namecheck was only done at the national level. No wonder it's taking so long, with the FBI waiting for a response from those countries. :(
conchshell
07-09 09:13 PM
Please do not feel violated by what Smitha mentioned. If we claim that we follow Gandhi's path, than we must act on it. Smitha has her own way of thinking and even though we disagree, kindly respect her point of view. She has suffered as much as any of us has suffered in past days/months/years.
Smitha, I would like to remind you about an incident from India's freedom struggle. When M. K. Gandhi requested the nation to start burning the cloths that were made in Great Britain, most of the people felt that it was inappropriate. What can you achieve by burning your own cloths? But later on an entire nation saw the power behind civil disobedience. Even the people who were worst affected by Swadesi Movement (the cloth mill workers of Britain: who lost their jobs-bread-butter because of less demand) realized that this was done to support a just cause.
I would like to quote a poem by C. Rajagopalachari:
Victory is certain, O Mind!!
Away with false fear.
Devotion bears its fruit.
Shoulders we have, Broad and strong, And intelligence.
We can gather what we work for.
Unalterable law protects Our efforts unflagging.
Away then with fear and despondency!
So I urge you to be away then with false fear and despondency. Sending flowers is humane and certainly not illegal.
Smitha, I would like to remind you about an incident from India's freedom struggle. When M. K. Gandhi requested the nation to start burning the cloths that were made in Great Britain, most of the people felt that it was inappropriate. What can you achieve by burning your own cloths? But later on an entire nation saw the power behind civil disobedience. Even the people who were worst affected by Swadesi Movement (the cloth mill workers of Britain: who lost their jobs-bread-butter because of less demand) realized that this was done to support a just cause.
I would like to quote a poem by C. Rajagopalachari:
Victory is certain, O Mind!!
Away with false fear.
Devotion bears its fruit.
Shoulders we have, Broad and strong, And intelligence.
We can gather what we work for.
Unalterable law protects Our efforts unflagging.
Away then with fear and despondency!
So I urge you to be away then with false fear and despondency. Sending flowers is humane and certainly not illegal.
2011 Mission: Impossible Season 3
SunnySurya
08-07 11:09 AM
No, I just don't want people in Eb3 line to come as stand in front of me.
As a US Educated Master and originally EB2 filer. I think this is one of the most stupid action ever within the EB community. So you think we are not weak enough and want to divide us more?
As a US Educated Master and originally EB2 filer. I think this is one of the most stupid action ever within the EB community. So you think we are not weak enough and want to divide us more?
more...
DallasBlue
08-12 02:44 PM
http://www.ailf.org/lac/clearinghouse_mandamus.shtml
Plaintiffs' Arguments
Plaintiffs have responded to USCIS with legal arguments summarized below. The case citations provide recent examples of cases where the courts have agreed with plaintiffs' arguments. For further discussion of the elements of a successful mandamus complaint, see AILF's Practice Advisory, "Mandamus Actions: Avoiding Dismissal and Proving the Case."
1) Plaintiffs have a clear right to have their adjustment applications and visa petitions adjudicated in a timely manner.
Plaintiffs maintain that the right to adjudication is derived from USCIS's mandatory duty to process the applications and the fact that plaintiffs are the intended beneficiaries of the applications. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (providing that the "applicant shall be notified of the decision of the director and, if the application is denied, the reasons for the denial"); Haidari v. Frazier, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177, *10 (D. Minn. 2006) (holding that 8 C.F.R. � 209.2 creates a nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate adjustment applications).
The plaintiffs' right to a timely adjudication, though not explicit in the regulation, is present in section 555(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires that "with due regard for the convenience and necessity of the parties or their representatives and within a reasonable time, each agency shall proceed to conclude a matter presented to it." See Haidari, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *11. To determine if a delay is unreasonable, courts examine the reasons for delay. For example, they look to whether USCIS asked for the FBI name check in a timely manner and whether USCIS failed to timely process the applications before requesting the name check and after receiving the information from the FBI. See Haidari, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *16-17; Singh v. Still, No. 06-2458, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16334, *13-14 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (reasoning that respondents failed to explain why it took two-and-a-half years to initiate a security check with the FBI, why no action was taken to follow up with the FBI until the mandamus suit was filed, and why it took so long to process plaintiff's initial fingerprints); Aboushaban v. Mueller, No. 06-1280, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81076, *14 (N.D. Cal. 2006) ("[t]he FBI's delay in processing plaintiff's name check remains largely unexplained, and the remainder of defendants' arguments do not adequately excuse the delays plaintiff encountered.").
2) USCIS has a nondiscretionary duty to process applications and petitions.
USCIS has the discretion to grant or deny the application, but this does not bear on the nondiscretionary duty to make a decision on the application or petition. See Razaq v. Poulos, No. 06-2461, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 770, *9-10 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (reasoning that the fact that there is no specific deadline in the statute or regulation does not change the ministerial duty to process the application). In addition, INA � 242(a)(2)(B)(ii), 8 U.S.C. �1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), does not strip the court of jurisdiction to hear mandamus actions because no "decision or action" has taken place within the meaning of the statutory language. See Haidari, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *13-14 (D. Minn. 2006) (reasoning that because plaintiffs have neither been denied nor granted relief, � 242(a)(2)(B) does not bar jurisdiction); Li Duan v. Zamberry, No. 06-1351, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12697, *6-7 (W.D. Pa. 2007) (finding that INA � 242(a)(2)(B) does not apply because the pace of the adjudication of applications is not the type of discretionary "action" contemplated by the statute). For more information and earlier case law addressing discretionary decisions after the REAL ID Act please see AILF Practice Advisory, "Federal Court Jurisdiction Over Discretionary Decisions After REAL ID: Mandamus, Other Affirmative Suits and Petitions for Review."
3) There is no other remedy available to plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs also have argued that waiting for security checks to be completed is not an adequate remedy. The fact that plaintiffs are waiting is the exact harm plaintiffs are seeking to remedy. See Singh, No. 06-2458, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16334 at *23-24 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ("waiting for an agency to act cannot logically be an adequate alternative to an order compelling the agency to act. . .") (citations omitted); Haidari, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *15 (D. Minn. 2006) (reasoning that waiting is not an adequate remedy because the question is whether plaintiffs have an adequate alternative remedy to the waiting itself).
Plaintiffs' Arguments
Plaintiffs have responded to USCIS with legal arguments summarized below. The case citations provide recent examples of cases where the courts have agreed with plaintiffs' arguments. For further discussion of the elements of a successful mandamus complaint, see AILF's Practice Advisory, "Mandamus Actions: Avoiding Dismissal and Proving the Case."
1) Plaintiffs have a clear right to have their adjustment applications and visa petitions adjudicated in a timely manner.
Plaintiffs maintain that the right to adjudication is derived from USCIS's mandatory duty to process the applications and the fact that plaintiffs are the intended beneficiaries of the applications. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (providing that the "applicant shall be notified of the decision of the director and, if the application is denied, the reasons for the denial"); Haidari v. Frazier, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177, *10 (D. Minn. 2006) (holding that 8 C.F.R. � 209.2 creates a nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate adjustment applications).
The plaintiffs' right to a timely adjudication, though not explicit in the regulation, is present in section 555(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires that "with due regard for the convenience and necessity of the parties or their representatives and within a reasonable time, each agency shall proceed to conclude a matter presented to it." See Haidari, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *11. To determine if a delay is unreasonable, courts examine the reasons for delay. For example, they look to whether USCIS asked for the FBI name check in a timely manner and whether USCIS failed to timely process the applications before requesting the name check and after receiving the information from the FBI. See Haidari, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *16-17; Singh v. Still, No. 06-2458, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16334, *13-14 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (reasoning that respondents failed to explain why it took two-and-a-half years to initiate a security check with the FBI, why no action was taken to follow up with the FBI until the mandamus suit was filed, and why it took so long to process plaintiff's initial fingerprints); Aboushaban v. Mueller, No. 06-1280, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81076, *14 (N.D. Cal. 2006) ("[t]he FBI's delay in processing plaintiff's name check remains largely unexplained, and the remainder of defendants' arguments do not adequately excuse the delays plaintiff encountered.").
2) USCIS has a nondiscretionary duty to process applications and petitions.
USCIS has the discretion to grant or deny the application, but this does not bear on the nondiscretionary duty to make a decision on the application or petition. See Razaq v. Poulos, No. 06-2461, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 770, *9-10 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (reasoning that the fact that there is no specific deadline in the statute or regulation does not change the ministerial duty to process the application). In addition, INA � 242(a)(2)(B)(ii), 8 U.S.C. �1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), does not strip the court of jurisdiction to hear mandamus actions because no "decision or action" has taken place within the meaning of the statutory language. See Haidari, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *13-14 (D. Minn. 2006) (reasoning that because plaintiffs have neither been denied nor granted relief, � 242(a)(2)(B) does not bar jurisdiction); Li Duan v. Zamberry, No. 06-1351, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12697, *6-7 (W.D. Pa. 2007) (finding that INA � 242(a)(2)(B) does not apply because the pace of the adjudication of applications is not the type of discretionary "action" contemplated by the statute). For more information and earlier case law addressing discretionary decisions after the REAL ID Act please see AILF Practice Advisory, "Federal Court Jurisdiction Over Discretionary Decisions After REAL ID: Mandamus, Other Affirmative Suits and Petitions for Review."
3) There is no other remedy available to plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs also have argued that waiting for security checks to be completed is not an adequate remedy. The fact that plaintiffs are waiting is the exact harm plaintiffs are seeking to remedy. See Singh, No. 06-2458, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16334 at *23-24 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ("waiting for an agency to act cannot logically be an adequate alternative to an order compelling the agency to act. . .") (citations omitted); Haidari, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *15 (D. Minn. 2006) (reasoning that waiting is not an adequate remedy because the question is whether plaintiffs have an adequate alternative remedy to the waiting itself).
lenova
09-26 02:40 PM
I disagree with Mallu , name checks do not affect only a few , if it was so the staggering 440K people wouldnt be there , more interestinly I am seeing that only Indians are being subjected to this name check crap , everyone else seems to be doing just fine
more...
gvenkat
01-24 08:27 PM
all this is because of the stupid indian government.. they dont have treaties with any other country in the world... that is called visa reciprocation.
All tom, dick and harry to enter india needs a visa and hence all countries dont have that treaty...
the 2 countries tat dont need visas are St.Kitts and Nevis and jamaica....LOL
All tom, dick and harry to enter india needs a visa and hence all countries dont have that treaty...
the 2 countries tat dont need visas are St.Kitts and Nevis and jamaica....LOL
2010 DOWNLOAD COMPLETED! woohoo. freaking awesome. ready wear my 3d glasses. not
letstalklc
09-04 01:19 PM
All,
Lingo came up with the same plan....here is the link below....
https://www.lingo.com/shop/promotions/helloworldmax.jsp
I am not sure how to navigate from LINGO.COM, but the link gives the info...share if any body has exp. with this company....
Lingo came up with the same plan....here is the link below....
https://www.lingo.com/shop/promotions/helloworldmax.jsp
I am not sure how to navigate from LINGO.COM, but the link gives the info...share if any body has exp. with this company....
more...
dontcareanymore
01-05 10:12 PM
First off, interesting thought. I thought about this a lot. A lot of my friends are citizens now. Most of them came at the same time I did or even after I came. They were at the right place at right time and did not languish in SWA & BEC like I did and did not wait in 485 queue for years like I am now.
It may be difficult to sell the idea of 10 year presence , but I believe the following may be palatable :
Consider the 140 approval date or I485 filing date towards calculation of the 5 years of residency requirement instead of GC approval date. You are technically approved to be a resident when 140 is approved. You are ONLY WAITING to be status adjusted for lack of numbers.
having said that I have NO expectation that we can achieve this. Think about it, we can't get simple things about GC done and aim for Citizenship :)
reminds me a famous quote about , some one who can't climb to the roof aiming for moon. (I sound pessimistic, but I am damn deserved to be one :)
Edit : I have not been active on this site for a while, but I just realized, I became infamous while I was away
It may be difficult to sell the idea of 10 year presence , but I believe the following may be palatable :
Consider the 140 approval date or I485 filing date towards calculation of the 5 years of residency requirement instead of GC approval date. You are technically approved to be a resident when 140 is approved. You are ONLY WAITING to be status adjusted for lack of numbers.
having said that I have NO expectation that we can achieve this. Think about it, we can't get simple things about GC done and aim for Citizenship :)
reminds me a famous quote about , some one who can't climb to the roof aiming for moon. (I sound pessimistic, but I am damn deserved to be one :)
Edit : I have not been active on this site for a while, but I just realized, I became infamous while I was away
hair in Mission: Impossible
reddymjm
08-07 03:51 PM
Lets say some miracle happens and EB3 becomes current and EB2 backlogged,
all these calling Us and Lawsuit guys will be the first one to port their PD.
all these calling Us and Lawsuit guys will be the first one to port their PD.
more...
rodnyb
04-01 12:32 PM
Teddy, I agree some of your data. Mine would be (90% confidence level)
EB1 (16K this year, conservative based 12K-24K possibility)
EB5 (8K, has been consistent)
EB2 ROW (10K, last year only 9K, and EB2 ROW has been consistent)
EB2 I/C 6K
Total 40K
EB3 porting 6K, ppl missed the 07/2007 w PD b/4 07/2007, 1K
EB2 I/C inventory at the beginning of Oct. 2010 (since we calculated based on normal EN2 I/C 6K, 5800 exactly). 34K. DOS show 32K while CIS inventory showed 34.8K, and we should have some approvals for ppl filing who missed 07/07 w PD b/4 07/07
So it looks like it can just clear all 07/2007. WOW.
I am sure DOS and CIS have better communication now, and they should.
The Million Dollar question will be
1. DOS will have to release some visa number early, if they don't want to waste visa, considering CIS can only approve (say 8K per month even with pre-adjudicated cases)
THAT IS WHY THEY WERE SAYING MAY. And the EB1 trend takes some time for them to declare it, mostly EB1 India bodyship crack down from late 2001.
2. DOS/CIS will consider those in approvals
a. There will be new filings EB1 EB2 ROW, EB1 I/C who missed 07/2007 w/ PD b/4 07/07. BUT processing time is about 4 months, so they could and must file in May to get it approved be end of Sept 2011 (fiscal year end of 2011). THAT IS WHY THEY WERE SAYING MAY as well.
b. After May, they will have good idea of 2a (EB1 EB2 ROW, EB2 I/C) total approvals this year. So in June July Aug. they will approve (EB1, EB2 ROW, EB2 I/C) who filed before end of May, and ALL REST NUMBERS (ALMOST CERTAIN FOR DOS/CIS at that time), AND START EB2 I/C SPILLOVER, maybe divided by 3 MONTHS, or FRONT LOAD
c. AUGUST, CRITICAL MONTH. HOPEFULLY they still have some numbers left, and DOS has to consider if CIS can approve enough to usa all visa numbers (NO WASTE please). SO they may give some buffer, HOPEFULLY say 9/8/2007. REMEMBER, they learned lesson, so no CURRENT. ALSO, they can take in applicants and don't have to approve in AUGUST.
I would say PD for EB2/I in SPET/2011 would be
100% pass 05/31/2007
80% pass 06/30/2007
50% pass 07/31/2007
30% pass 08/31/2007
0 pass 09/31/2007
AS FOR FREELOADER THINGS, I have no idea I was banned for posting (just b/c I said one fact before? There is another blog out there?)
ALSO, all visitors ARE NOT FREELODERS, for god's sake, they may click your ads, ask good questions, write good analysis, share good information (they spend the one most valuable thing in life in those forum, and those time they cannot take back!). IT is a community, there are issues, as all communities, the MOST important thing is to grow and unite, not divide and conquer.
HAVE a great weekend, and keep the hope. GOOD luck for those warriors in DC!!!! THANKS
I believe that we will get 14-15K from EB2 ROW, EB1 = 12K (currently) + 6K (Minimum), regular cap I/C 6K. Eb2 row usage is down to 60%.
Total Numbers = 14 + 18 + 6 = 38K.
Now total demand is not just 34K demand data we also have porting and new filings especially from May - Jul 2007. My assumption of porting has been 6K out of which 2K have been approved.
So really its almost an exact match till Jul - Aug 2007. We should wait for the May bulletin thing to come true firts I believe VDLRAO gave a great calculation for that.
EB1 (16K this year, conservative based 12K-24K possibility)
EB5 (8K, has been consistent)
EB2 ROW (10K, last year only 9K, and EB2 ROW has been consistent)
EB2 I/C 6K
Total 40K
EB3 porting 6K, ppl missed the 07/2007 w PD b/4 07/2007, 1K
EB2 I/C inventory at the beginning of Oct. 2010 (since we calculated based on normal EN2 I/C 6K, 5800 exactly). 34K. DOS show 32K while CIS inventory showed 34.8K, and we should have some approvals for ppl filing who missed 07/07 w PD b/4 07/07
So it looks like it can just clear all 07/2007. WOW.
I am sure DOS and CIS have better communication now, and they should.
The Million Dollar question will be
1. DOS will have to release some visa number early, if they don't want to waste visa, considering CIS can only approve (say 8K per month even with pre-adjudicated cases)
THAT IS WHY THEY WERE SAYING MAY. And the EB1 trend takes some time for them to declare it, mostly EB1 India bodyship crack down from late 2001.
2. DOS/CIS will consider those in approvals
a. There will be new filings EB1 EB2 ROW, EB1 I/C who missed 07/2007 w/ PD b/4 07/07. BUT processing time is about 4 months, so they could and must file in May to get it approved be end of Sept 2011 (fiscal year end of 2011). THAT IS WHY THEY WERE SAYING MAY as well.
b. After May, they will have good idea of 2a (EB1 EB2 ROW, EB2 I/C) total approvals this year. So in June July Aug. they will approve (EB1, EB2 ROW, EB2 I/C) who filed before end of May, and ALL REST NUMBERS (ALMOST CERTAIN FOR DOS/CIS at that time), AND START EB2 I/C SPILLOVER, maybe divided by 3 MONTHS, or FRONT LOAD
c. AUGUST, CRITICAL MONTH. HOPEFULLY they still have some numbers left, and DOS has to consider if CIS can approve enough to usa all visa numbers (NO WASTE please). SO they may give some buffer, HOPEFULLY say 9/8/2007. REMEMBER, they learned lesson, so no CURRENT. ALSO, they can take in applicants and don't have to approve in AUGUST.
I would say PD for EB2/I in SPET/2011 would be
100% pass 05/31/2007
80% pass 06/30/2007
50% pass 07/31/2007
30% pass 08/31/2007
0 pass 09/31/2007
AS FOR FREELOADER THINGS, I have no idea I was banned for posting (just b/c I said one fact before? There is another blog out there?)
ALSO, all visitors ARE NOT FREELODERS, for god's sake, they may click your ads, ask good questions, write good analysis, share good information (they spend the one most valuable thing in life in those forum, and those time they cannot take back!). IT is a community, there are issues, as all communities, the MOST important thing is to grow and unite, not divide and conquer.
HAVE a great weekend, and keep the hope. GOOD luck for those warriors in DC!!!! THANKS
I believe that we will get 14-15K from EB2 ROW, EB1 = 12K (currently) + 6K (Minimum), regular cap I/C 6K. Eb2 row usage is down to 60%.
Total Numbers = 14 + 18 + 6 = 38K.
Now total demand is not just 34K demand data we also have porting and new filings especially from May - Jul 2007. My assumption of porting has been 6K out of which 2K have been approved.
So really its almost an exact match till Jul - Aug 2007. We should wait for the May bulletin thing to come true firts I believe VDLRAO gave a great calculation for that.
hot Mission Impossible movie,
royus77
06-25 10:35 PM
So you mean that EB2 petitioners are not required to file affidavit of support (either I 134 or I 864) at all for their spouse who are on H4 visa....
Any employment based petitions . You can send that as a supporting document but not mandatory .It wont comes under " initial evidence"
Any employment based petitions . You can send that as a supporting document but not mandatory .It wont comes under " initial evidence"
more...
house Cruise Mission Impossible
whitecollarslave
03-25 05:38 PM
yes, that is our line of logic and understanding. But seeing the number of experiences what we are having in real world, this does not seem to be applying. You are rightaway asked about your work status and they insist till you give them "specific" word - either "GC" or "Citizenship" or "EAD"... If this would have been the real way ( I and all of us wishes that) the these recruiting guys may not dare to insist till you spit the speific word out and that is before interviewing. In my experience, I always had verbal conversation. I have never been sent an email or letter by any company yet regarding their refusal not to even interview me based on EAD. Verbally 5 companies have starightaway told me "they are not considering me as I do not have green card yet - EAD is not enough". My thinking is that they do this because somehow some law may be covering them, we do not know that but they know that, perhaps..:confused:
I understand your frustration. I have heard similar things from employers about hiring people on H-1B.
Are you just assuming or have you actually tried to find out if there is indeed some law which allows employers to not consider a candidate solely based on the fact that he/she has an EAD as opposed to a green card? I can certainly understand that you don't want to get involved in a lawsuit and pay lawyer fees when you can easily find another job. But its not that difficult to contact OSC.
Having said that, I do understand that the employer can find a number of reasons to not hire somebody and all that would be legal. But here we have a case where you have 5 companies who have refused to consider you solely based on your immigration status. Somebody earlier has this in writing from Capital One.
I urge you and anybody else who has gone through this to find out more about this by calling the OSC's hotline. (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc/htm/engperliwdiss.htm) If I were in your situation, I would at least want to find out what my rights are, what is discriminatory and what is allowed by law. Call them and simply explain that you believe that you were not considered eligible for a job because you have an EAD card as opposed to a Green Card.
I understand your frustration. I have heard similar things from employers about hiring people on H-1B.
Are you just assuming or have you actually tried to find out if there is indeed some law which allows employers to not consider a candidate solely based on the fact that he/she has an EAD as opposed to a green card? I can certainly understand that you don't want to get involved in a lawsuit and pay lawyer fees when you can easily find another job. But its not that difficult to contact OSC.
Having said that, I do understand that the employer can find a number of reasons to not hire somebody and all that would be legal. But here we have a case where you have 5 companies who have refused to consider you solely based on your immigration status. Somebody earlier has this in writing from Capital One.
I urge you and anybody else who has gone through this to find out more about this by calling the OSC's hotline. (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc/htm/engperliwdiss.htm) If I were in your situation, I would at least want to find out what my rights are, what is discriminatory and what is allowed by law. Call them and simply explain that you believe that you were not considered eligible for a job because you have an EAD card as opposed to a Green Card.
tattoo in Mission Impossible have
godbless
01-21 01:56 AM
I had both a valid visa stamped on my passport and AP. But my wife did not have a stamped visa so I showed her AP and my h1. The immigration inspector said that you both have to use AP to enter. I argued with him a little that I can use my h1 when it is valid but he did not agree and said that I am trying to do a fraud. Well I did not argue much and let him stamp my I 94 with a parole stamp till 01/26/2007. I have now filed for my extension.
more...
pictures quot;mission impossible 2quot;,
diyashil
07-10 10:39 AM
Smita,
There is no harm in fighting for your rights.
we all are law abiding individuals who pay taxes like any other citizens.
We are only trying to highlight our plight as they say
"Only a squeaky wheel gets a grease."
No can deport or arrest you by taking out a rally.
Wake up guys. Lets get together and be unified as only then can we be heard.
We all are well educated peaople and we don't need to be treated like slaves.
There is no harm in fighting for your rights.
we all are law abiding individuals who pay taxes like any other citizens.
We are only trying to highlight our plight as they say
"Only a squeaky wheel gets a grease."
No can deport or arrest you by taking out a rally.
Wake up guys. Lets get together and be unified as only then can we be heard.
We all are well educated peaople and we don't need to be treated like slaves.
dresses 1 Mission: Impossible
drona
07-09 07:08 PM
At this moment it is on the USCIS front page.
The message no longer appears on USCIS portal now.
I think they are reading our portals:)
The message no longer appears on USCIS portal now.
I think they are reading our portals:)
more...
makeup Mission Impossible
sheela
11-06 07:15 PM
If they were submitted on 8/30/ and it's not cleared yet and your derivatives are cleared then more than likely you are stucked, there is some probability that you might be cleared in few weeks depending on number of hits generated against your name and avaialibility of the documents needed to be refered by fbi to clear you. However you dont need to worry much because now a days fbi seems to getting work lot faster then it used to. Also since july fbi has increased the fees that they charge USCIS to do the check which has increased the staff at NNCP and so the efficiency. I would suggest for you to wait 60 days and try again. Hopefully you have good news. I have been waiting 35 months.
Nishant81
Thanks for your input. I wish it happen sooner than late.
After filing I-485 one single thing which gives butter-flies is NC. Just a Look at your and CAdude posting shows how terrible is NC and how difficult it is for those unlucky ones to bear this uncertainty. God bless all !!!
Nishant81
Thanks for your input. I wish it happen sooner than late.
After filing I-485 one single thing which gives butter-flies is NC. Just a Look at your and CAdude posting shows how terrible is NC and how difficult it is for those unlucky ones to bear this uncertainty. God bless all !!!
girlfriend Mission Impossible and the
pakrish
08-17 11:17 AM
It's tough to tell. According to processing times on usics.gov, I-90 takes 3.5 months in Nebraska service center. But the form is supposed to be mailed to Phoenix and I could not find any times for the Phoenix office. Since it's a simple correction, I'm hoping a 2-3 week turnaround time but be prepared for a 3+ month wait. If you need to travel, it's better to get an I-551 stamp in your passport so you can travel regardless.
Thanks Rams75 so I guess I need to get an INFOPASS to get the I-155 stamp on passport?
Thanks Rams75 so I guess I need to get an INFOPASS to get the I-155 stamp on passport?
hairstyles Mission: Impossible - Ghost
kushaljn
01-04 02:06 AM
Did anyone who was given that yellow form and asked that he/she would receive an email get email from the consulate.
Was any one successfully receive a visa stamp after being referred to PIMS system?
What is the time line for such visa stamps?
Was any one successfully receive a visa stamp after being referred to PIMS system?
What is the time line for such visa stamps?
Macaca
07-15 08:43 AM
LOU DOBBS TONIGHT
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...28/ldt.01.html
DOBBS: It's pretty remarkable. Two million people legally admitted to the United States each year. Four hundred thousand H1 visas each year. Nine hundred thousand other employment visas each year. Six hundred thousand student visas issued each year. Four hundred fifty-five thousand temporary employment transfers granted.
In addition, over 700,000 legal citizens. In addition, a million permanent residents. My gosh, what in the world are you folks talking about?
1 para from How many H-1B visa workers? Counts vary (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=114543&postcount=737) VALLEY EMPLOYERS AMONG TOP USERS By Chris O'Brien (cobrien@mercurynews.com or (415) 298-0207) Mercury News, 07/15/2007
The federal government awarded 124,096 H-1B visas in the fiscal year ending October 2005, the most recent annual totals available. That includes renewed visas, which don't count against the annual cap. It doesn't include the 20,312 applications the government turned down.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...28/ldt.01.html
DOBBS: It's pretty remarkable. Two million people legally admitted to the United States each year. Four hundred thousand H1 visas each year. Nine hundred thousand other employment visas each year. Six hundred thousand student visas issued each year. Four hundred fifty-five thousand temporary employment transfers granted.
In addition, over 700,000 legal citizens. In addition, a million permanent residents. My gosh, what in the world are you folks talking about?
1 para from How many H-1B visa workers? Counts vary (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=114543&postcount=737) VALLEY EMPLOYERS AMONG TOP USERS By Chris O'Brien (cobrien@mercurynews.com or (415) 298-0207) Mercury News, 07/15/2007
The federal government awarded 124,096 H-1B visas in the fiscal year ending October 2005, the most recent annual totals available. That includes renewed visas, which don't count against the annual cap. It doesn't include the 20,312 applications the government turned down.
WaldenPond
02-22 08:16 PM
JUDICIARY
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
CongressDailyPM
Specter And Frist Eyeing Each Other's Immigration Efforts
Signaling that the immigration issue faces a tough fight, the Senate Judiciary Committee is planning to produce a wide-ranging bill, while Senate leaders are poised to write their own legislation. A senior GOP leadership aide said Majority Leader Frist is operating on "two tracks" on immigration, waiting to see what the Judiciary panel produces "while being ready to act in lieu thereof to meet member interest of action on this bill."Judiciary Chairman Specter sounded confident that his panel would produce a bill that would wind up on the Senate floor. "The idea of having a leadership bill ... has been abandoned," he said last week. His panel will begin marking up immigration legislation March 2. A chairman's mark expected to be introduced this week will resemble the mark Specter circulated last year, which borrows components from various immigration proposals. It included the border security provisions in the plan introduced by Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., as well as the guestworker plan introduced by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.
Specter has characterized the mark as a "starting point" for debate.
Frist has told colleagues he wants to begin floor debate in late March, likely March 27. Senate aides said whether the bill will be written by the committee or leadership depends on how the Judiciary Committee markup goes. "If the committee keeps the bill solid, and if it gets it done on time, Frist won't need to introduce anything," one GOP aide said.
Frist, while touring immigration detention centers Tuesday in Long Beach and Los Angeles, said he opposes giving illegal workers amnesty, but said it was too soon for him to take a position on a guestworker program, which is likely to be the most contentious component of an immigration bill and has divided Republicans. The House passed legislation last year toughening border security and requiring companies to verify the legal status of their employees. Unlike the House bill, the Senate bill is widely expected to include some version of a guestworker program. The program included in the Kennedy-McCain bill would allow illegal workers to join a temporary guestworker program, after which they could be eligible for permanent citizenship if they meet criteria and pay a fine. Under the Cornyn-Kyl plan, guestworkers ultimately would have to return to their home countries.-- by Emily Heil
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
CongressDailyPM
Specter And Frist Eyeing Each Other's Immigration Efforts
Signaling that the immigration issue faces a tough fight, the Senate Judiciary Committee is planning to produce a wide-ranging bill, while Senate leaders are poised to write their own legislation. A senior GOP leadership aide said Majority Leader Frist is operating on "two tracks" on immigration, waiting to see what the Judiciary panel produces "while being ready to act in lieu thereof to meet member interest of action on this bill."Judiciary Chairman Specter sounded confident that his panel would produce a bill that would wind up on the Senate floor. "The idea of having a leadership bill ... has been abandoned," he said last week. His panel will begin marking up immigration legislation March 2. A chairman's mark expected to be introduced this week will resemble the mark Specter circulated last year, which borrows components from various immigration proposals. It included the border security provisions in the plan introduced by Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., as well as the guestworker plan introduced by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.
Specter has characterized the mark as a "starting point" for debate.
Frist has told colleagues he wants to begin floor debate in late March, likely March 27. Senate aides said whether the bill will be written by the committee or leadership depends on how the Judiciary Committee markup goes. "If the committee keeps the bill solid, and if it gets it done on time, Frist won't need to introduce anything," one GOP aide said.
Frist, while touring immigration detention centers Tuesday in Long Beach and Los Angeles, said he opposes giving illegal workers amnesty, but said it was too soon for him to take a position on a guestworker program, which is likely to be the most contentious component of an immigration bill and has divided Republicans. The House passed legislation last year toughening border security and requiring companies to verify the legal status of their employees. Unlike the House bill, the Senate bill is widely expected to include some version of a guestworker program. The program included in the Kennedy-McCain bill would allow illegal workers to join a temporary guestworker program, after which they could be eligible for permanent citizenship if they meet criteria and pay a fine. Under the Cornyn-Kyl plan, guestworkers ultimately would have to return to their home countries.-- by Emily Heil
No comments:
Post a Comment