485Mbe4001
07-06 01:39 PM
The article suggests that people in the namecheck hole were granted GC's which is WRONG. Most are still languishing with no reprive.
When they say 25k or 60k GCs were approved, i am sure they would have stuck to the per country caps and the security clearance.
When they say 25k or 60k GCs were approved, i am sure they would have stuck to the per country caps and the security clearance.
wallpaper ANIME GIRL THINKING
ramaonline
06-01 04:02 PM
In such cases you need not worry - as the law only kicks in sometime in oct 08 - again the language is not certain until the time the president signs it - More changes are possible in the house if the senate passes it - The conference committee may again change the text
Alien
04-25 01:01 PM
So what happens to people who already have a PD based on the labor(LC) date?
I dont want to go a step back in the line just cuz someone who had been lethargic all his life just woke up on his last day of his 6th year and goes "Ohh you know what I think I might be interested in a GC" ,when I had planned or had the *intent* to apply for a GC a few years before by applying for LC.
I dont want to go a step back in the line just cuz someone who had been lethargic all his life just woke up on his last day of his 6th year and goes "Ohh you know what I think I might be interested in a GC" ,when I had planned or had the *intent* to apply for a GC a few years before by applying for LC.
2011 I met a girl who laughs like
Sachin_Stock
08-23 09:49 AM
Does it mean the eligibility criteria/job requirement for EB2 is changed from Bachelors + 5 years of experience to Bachelors + 10 years of experience?
Read the definition of EB-2, and its sub-classification for Advanced Degree, Exception abilities and National Interest Waiver.
Read the definition of EB-2, and its sub-classification for Advanced Degree, Exception abilities and National Interest Waiver.
more...
rajeev_74
04-25 05:33 PM
Tell me, in any of the bills that came in 2005, PACE, CIR. Dream Act etc., or later, IS there even one mention or a discussion of changing the PD? Let's discuss more on how to bring out more into the open, the issues the H1 visa holders are facing from their small time employers in applying for permanent residence, backlog issues and how redtape is destroying these young men's goals, about lack of visa numbers.
Why there is even a provision in the last Senate bill, for illegals to SELF petition for GC, if employer doen't apply in 2 years. Let's discuss about a similar provision for H1 visa holders who are legally working here, paying taxes. Let's discuss even more important issue.
Why should we pay, SS Tax and Medicare if we are temporary workers. Let them START collecting once I-485 is applied.
This last point will resonate well with all It will be picked up easily; you will see the panic flying in the leven when a simple mention of it is made.
These are the practical things we need to discuss. Not a theoritical PD definition, on which we have no locus standi.
I have to respectfully disagree with you on that...just because it was never brought up doesn't mean it should never be taken up. I think you core members know better...if this does not sound practial...End of discussion.
Thanks
Why there is even a provision in the last Senate bill, for illegals to SELF petition for GC, if employer doen't apply in 2 years. Let's discuss about a similar provision for H1 visa holders who are legally working here, paying taxes. Let's discuss even more important issue.
Why should we pay, SS Tax and Medicare if we are temporary workers. Let them START collecting once I-485 is applied.
This last point will resonate well with all It will be picked up easily; you will see the panic flying in the leven when a simple mention of it is made.
These are the practical things we need to discuss. Not a theoritical PD definition, on which we have no locus standi.
I have to respectfully disagree with you on that...just because it was never brought up doesn't mean it should never be taken up. I think you core members know better...if this does not sound practial...End of discussion.
Thanks
ggyro
07-22 11:46 AM
As far as I know the amendment is still a part of the Defense bill.
Sen Cornyn introduced it as an amendment to another bill on 19th (I dont remember the bill) in addition to the Defense bill and strictly speaking the motion to attach the amendment was rejected on the basis that it did not belong in that particular bill and not the amendment.
Texas Members - Would it possible to find out if Sen. Cornyn is planning to introduce the amendment again later this year?
Clearly, he has to work with Sen.Dick Durbin to gain support among the Democrats.
Sen Cornyn introduced it as an amendment to another bill on 19th (I dont remember the bill) in addition to the Defense bill and strictly speaking the motion to attach the amendment was rejected on the basis that it did not belong in that particular bill and not the amendment.
Texas Members - Would it possible to find out if Sen. Cornyn is planning to introduce the amendment again later this year?
Clearly, he has to work with Sen.Dick Durbin to gain support among the Democrats.
more...
lskreddy
04-30 03:55 PM
Jeez, they are done. I am freaking dumbstruck for the sheer lack of substance in the discussion. Gosh, what a waste of tax-payers money!!
2010 happy anime girl.
mrajatish
03-15 11:32 AM
Any ideas on when this hearing is?
more...
mirage
04-01 02:33 PM
Guys don�t presume you don�t have rights for this and that. late in spring of 2005 I had a meeting with my state�s senator and he took all my details and wrote to Backlog Center in Philadelphia. After 2 months his office called me and send me the correspondence they got from BEC. They had description about my file etc. my labor was cleared in a month after that. Apparently BECs informed his office about the approval too, and to my surprize they called me up again and told me the news. They are public office they are answerable to us, we need to ask�Mirage,
I think what Dard-E-Disco is pointing out is that, we are foreigners (Not citizens of the USA), therefore our rights are not the same as a US citizen.
We could create rallies, voice our concerns on this forum, write letters to congressmen and senators, etc etc etc, and that is fine, but we don't have any right to really ask particularly USCIS about their internal workings. I would assume that even US citizens are able to do what you are saying. There are certain levels of confidentiality specially in government that they will never share with anyone.
I think the same is true in your country.
How do think would your people or governmnet react if a foreigner in your country start to question your immigation policy.
Think about that.
I think what Dard-E-Disco is pointing out is that, we are foreigners (Not citizens of the USA), therefore our rights are not the same as a US citizen.
We could create rallies, voice our concerns on this forum, write letters to congressmen and senators, etc etc etc, and that is fine, but we don't have any right to really ask particularly USCIS about their internal workings. I would assume that even US citizens are able to do what you are saying. There are certain levels of confidentiality specially in government that they will never share with anyone.
I think the same is true in your country.
How do think would your people or governmnet react if a foreigner in your country start to question your immigation policy.
Think about that.
hair weird. happy anime girl
desi485
11-14 05:36 PM
It's call reseach topic.. We have to find some USCIS support documents for each case. We need some earlier USCIS decisions for each senarios/theories.
RG provided few supporting CIS rules in earlier post and seems logical. But not sure if RG or RK is right.
It's confusing indeed.
One of IV members 'lazycis' (he is a knowledgable & senior member) also mentioned this, which exactly matches with what RG said:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=301999&postcount=16
so I am sure there are some provisions. I hope 'lazycis' will provide some more info if he sees this post.
Edit: Chandu - please click this link to read on RG's forums. (http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6461)
RG provided few supporting CIS rules in earlier post and seems logical. But not sure if RG or RK is right.
It's confusing indeed.
One of IV members 'lazycis' (he is a knowledgable & senior member) also mentioned this, which exactly matches with what RG said:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=301999&postcount=16
so I am sure there are some provisions. I hope 'lazycis' will provide some more info if he sees this post.
Edit: Chandu - please click this link to read on RG's forums. (http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6461)
more...
akhilmahajan
09-14 08:31 AM
ya Milind- I did contribute.
Danny, put the transaction details on there. Like the time and the transaction number.
Danny, put the transaction details on there. Like the time and the transaction number.
hot Seems like me, with one slight
ItIsNotFunny
10-21 11:06 AM
Issue/Background:
It seems USCIS is not following AC21 regulations in some cases � especially when underlying I140 is revoked by previous employer � and are incorrectly denying I485 applications. As we know, AC21 regulations and related guidelines, provide some relief and allow job changes without affecting the I485 application. As per these rules if the employee changes employment after 180 days of submitting I485 application, there is no need to redo I140 even-if old employer revokes the old I140.
In recent days USCIS seems to be denying lot of I485 applications � ignoring their own AC21 regulations. A few of IV volunteers (pd_recapturing, gc4me, chanduv et al) have started an effort to address this. You can get more info on this, at this thread: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21716.
This issue can affect a lot of us and it negates all the flexibility/relief that we acquired by getting EAD�s and advantages we got thru recent admin reform.
What needs to be done:
After some initial discussions and planning (thanks to pd-capturing, chandu, et al) it is decided to write letters to Ombudsman and service center heads to point out this and request them to correct it ASAP. Please participate and send letters. To succeed we need to send it in thousands.
Pasting the letter and the addresses below.
More info: (thanks to gc4me for addresses and letter template):
======================
Everyone please send the letter/email to 3 persons.
1. Ombudsman
2. Director, NSC
3. Director, TSC
======================
Ombudsman:
cisombudsman@dhs.gov
Mailing Address:
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
ATTN: Recommendations
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
=======================
Nebraska Service Center
Director: Gerard Heinauer
General Correspondence (Inquiries) (Sending applications or petitions to this address will delay their processing)
USCIS NSC
P.O. Box 82521
Lincoln, NE 68501-2521
NOTE: If using overnight delivery by any private service provider, send your package to:
USCIS
Nebraska Service Center
850 S Street
P.O. Box (Insert Correct P.O. Box Number)
Lincoln, NE 68508
Be sure to include the appropriate P.O. Box number on the shipping label.
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Suite 7000
Washington, DC 20529
or email: USCIS-COMPLAINT@DHS.GOV
=====================
Director: David Roark
General
Correspondence:
USCIS TSC
PO Box 851488
Mesquite, TX 75185-1488
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Ste 7000, Washington, DC 20529
============================
Letter
============================
Date: Today()
To
Mr. Michael Timothy Dougherty
The Ombudsman
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Re: Issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines
Dear Sir,
This is to bring your attention to the issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines.
The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) allows for a change of employer on any I-485 Adjustment of Status Application that has been pending for 180 days or more, without the need to file a new I-140 petition, provided the applicant�s new employment is in a similar/same occupation.
According to the Memo released by William R Yates on August 4th 2003, the original I-140 is valid if it is approvable and form I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days. (Attached for your reference is the memo dated August 4th 2003 from William R Yates and the follow-up memo dated May 12th 2005 with relevant sections highlighted).
Due to unreasonable delays caused by retrogression, many candidates have lawfully changed employers in accordance with the AC21 statute. Even though there is no requirement that USCIS be notified after a job change, some applicants have done so to prove that they are in compliance with this regulation. If the previous employer has withdrawn the previously approved I-140, AC21 guidelines state that if the applicant has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the applicant be sent an NOID (Notice of Intent to Deny) to deny the I-485 application or a RFE (Request for Evidence) . If the response to the NOID/RFE is timely and indicates that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, USCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485.
Over the past few months, a disturbing pattern has emerged with cases where the applicant has changed employers. USCIS has started to deny I-485applications where the underlying I-140 has been withdrawn by the previous employer without issuing an NOID or RFE. Even those applicants who have notified USCIS of change in employers have had their I-485 denied.
After the denial of I-485, the applicant has to file a MTR (Motion to reconsider) with USCIS to re-open the case. In addition to the financial burden of filing and legal fees, the applicant has to stop working because of the denial of the I-485 until the case is re-opened. This could be anywhere from a month to a few months. Needless to say, employers are unwilling to keep the job position open for such a long period and the applicant in most cases is looking at potential loss of employment. The applicant who has followed the law to the fullest extent is unfairly punished on account of USCIS not following the AC21 provisions.
This is a request for you to intervene to ensure that the AC21 regulations are followed when adjudicating an I-485 application. If the applicant notifies USCIS of a change in employment under AC21, this should be added the applicant�s physical file and electronic records. If there is no such notification and the previous employer withdraws the I-140, the applicant should be issued a NOID/RFE instead of denying the I-485 application.
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact.
Thank you in advance for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Thanks,
Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone Number
Guys,
This is one of the most serious issue we are facing in current time. Lay offs are happening left and right and on top of that employers learned that AC21 is giving troubles, they started squeezing more (I myself is partially victim of that).
We need sincere efforts sending emails to ombudsman. This will not take more than 5 minutes as NK2006 put efforts on even giving you the email template.
I sincerely urge everyone to send emails to addresses NK2006 mentioned above and even request your collegues, spouse to do so. We need volume to show our presence.
One more request, please take one more minute and make sure that you post here that you sent emails. This will give us real picture and give others motivation too!
I sent my emails (actually twice ;)).
It seems USCIS is not following AC21 regulations in some cases � especially when underlying I140 is revoked by previous employer � and are incorrectly denying I485 applications. As we know, AC21 regulations and related guidelines, provide some relief and allow job changes without affecting the I485 application. As per these rules if the employee changes employment after 180 days of submitting I485 application, there is no need to redo I140 even-if old employer revokes the old I140.
In recent days USCIS seems to be denying lot of I485 applications � ignoring their own AC21 regulations. A few of IV volunteers (pd_recapturing, gc4me, chanduv et al) have started an effort to address this. You can get more info on this, at this thread: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21716.
This issue can affect a lot of us and it negates all the flexibility/relief that we acquired by getting EAD�s and advantages we got thru recent admin reform.
What needs to be done:
After some initial discussions and planning (thanks to pd-capturing, chandu, et al) it is decided to write letters to Ombudsman and service center heads to point out this and request them to correct it ASAP. Please participate and send letters. To succeed we need to send it in thousands.
Pasting the letter and the addresses below.
More info: (thanks to gc4me for addresses and letter template):
======================
Everyone please send the letter/email to 3 persons.
1. Ombudsman
2. Director, NSC
3. Director, TSC
======================
Ombudsman:
cisombudsman@dhs.gov
Mailing Address:
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
ATTN: Recommendations
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
=======================
Nebraska Service Center
Director: Gerard Heinauer
General Correspondence (Inquiries) (Sending applications or petitions to this address will delay their processing)
USCIS NSC
P.O. Box 82521
Lincoln, NE 68501-2521
NOTE: If using overnight delivery by any private service provider, send your package to:
USCIS
Nebraska Service Center
850 S Street
P.O. Box (Insert Correct P.O. Box Number)
Lincoln, NE 68508
Be sure to include the appropriate P.O. Box number on the shipping label.
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Suite 7000
Washington, DC 20529
or email: USCIS-COMPLAINT@DHS.GOV
=====================
Director: David Roark
General
Correspondence:
USCIS TSC
PO Box 851488
Mesquite, TX 75185-1488
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Ste 7000, Washington, DC 20529
============================
Letter
============================
Date: Today()
To
Mr. Michael Timothy Dougherty
The Ombudsman
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Re: Issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines
Dear Sir,
This is to bring your attention to the issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines.
The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) allows for a change of employer on any I-485 Adjustment of Status Application that has been pending for 180 days or more, without the need to file a new I-140 petition, provided the applicant�s new employment is in a similar/same occupation.
According to the Memo released by William R Yates on August 4th 2003, the original I-140 is valid if it is approvable and form I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days. (Attached for your reference is the memo dated August 4th 2003 from William R Yates and the follow-up memo dated May 12th 2005 with relevant sections highlighted).
Due to unreasonable delays caused by retrogression, many candidates have lawfully changed employers in accordance with the AC21 statute. Even though there is no requirement that USCIS be notified after a job change, some applicants have done so to prove that they are in compliance with this regulation. If the previous employer has withdrawn the previously approved I-140, AC21 guidelines state that if the applicant has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the applicant be sent an NOID (Notice of Intent to Deny) to deny the I-485 application or a RFE (Request for Evidence) . If the response to the NOID/RFE is timely and indicates that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, USCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485.
Over the past few months, a disturbing pattern has emerged with cases where the applicant has changed employers. USCIS has started to deny I-485applications where the underlying I-140 has been withdrawn by the previous employer without issuing an NOID or RFE. Even those applicants who have notified USCIS of change in employers have had their I-485 denied.
After the denial of I-485, the applicant has to file a MTR (Motion to reconsider) with USCIS to re-open the case. In addition to the financial burden of filing and legal fees, the applicant has to stop working because of the denial of the I-485 until the case is re-opened. This could be anywhere from a month to a few months. Needless to say, employers are unwilling to keep the job position open for such a long period and the applicant in most cases is looking at potential loss of employment. The applicant who has followed the law to the fullest extent is unfairly punished on account of USCIS not following the AC21 provisions.
This is a request for you to intervene to ensure that the AC21 regulations are followed when adjudicating an I-485 application. If the applicant notifies USCIS of a change in employment under AC21, this should be added the applicant�s physical file and electronic records. If there is no such notification and the previous employer withdraws the I-140, the applicant should be issued a NOID/RFE instead of denying the I-485 application.
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact.
Thank you in advance for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Thanks,
Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone Number
Guys,
This is one of the most serious issue we are facing in current time. Lay offs are happening left and right and on top of that employers learned that AC21 is giving troubles, they started squeezing more (I myself is partially victim of that).
We need sincere efforts sending emails to ombudsman. This will not take more than 5 minutes as NK2006 put efforts on even giving you the email template.
I sincerely urge everyone to send emails to addresses NK2006 mentioned above and even request your collegues, spouse to do so. We need volume to show our presence.
One more request, please take one more minute and make sure that you post here that you sent emails. This will give us real picture and give others motivation too!
I sent my emails (actually twice ;)).
more...
house clad anime girlsso here
makemygc
07-06 01:09 PM
Thats what he is saying.. he is an expensive lawyer...
and about crap---who the hell are you to decide... if you dont like then just ignore the post...
I'm sure he is an expensive lawyer....care to expose his name?
What happened to his prediction on 12:15AM stuff in your last post. Can you please ask him?
and about crap---who the hell are you to decide... if you dont like then just ignore the post...
I'm sure he is an expensive lawyer....care to expose his name?
What happened to his prediction on 12:15AM stuff in your last post. Can you please ask him?
tattoo romantic anime girl and
vkannan
03-12 11:20 PM
Its not a rumor. This is real. Coming to think abt it, he had filed a labor in 2000/2001 time period and had abandoned it when he switched companies. I am wondering if USCIS takes the oldest one an applicant had ever filed.
There you go.....See thinking does help;-).....anyway seriously dude......do you think USCIS go that level to go pick up your friends abandoned labor.....and do the PD Porting without your friend asking for it.....I will be damned...if this is true.....
There you go.....See thinking does help;-).....anyway seriously dude......do you think USCIS go that level to go pick up your friends abandoned labor.....and do the PD Porting without your friend asking for it.....I will be damned...if this is true.....
more...
pictures pictures Anime Girl quot
she81
08-13 04:48 PM
I am exactly in the same situation. Sometimes I feel that I should just dump the EB3 application (PD: 12/04) and start a brand new EB2. Maybe the EB2 PD of say 12/08 will end up to be better than EB3 12/04.
I believe everyone is thinking in the same direction... but if and only if we're able to come out of the blackhole called I-140.
I believe everyone is thinking in the same direction... but if and only if we're able to come out of the blackhole called I-140.
dresses Girl number 2, Otomiya Haine
pakrish
07-15 03:29 PM
sent $10 using BOA bill pay keep up the great work
more...
makeup 2010 Happy Anime Girl - anime,
diptam
08-11 11:53 PM
Agree with you 100% - But Once you start a thread with assertive words peoples start relying on you.... I also posted lots of conversations between myself and USCIS but i was never assertive.
Anyway - this argument will go on forever.
Can we request SriKondoJi/likes not to post anything with strong Affirmative words unless they have some kind of confirmations beyond the general Public's assumption ??
Thanks
Hello,
I think this is high time for us to control our emotions and live with realities. Often times, the customer service representatives don't have up-to-date information of USCIS's policies, decisions, and announcements, and we should not take their response as granted. For example, If you call a service center 5 times a day and ask a same question, you will get five different answers. In fact, Srikondoji mentioned what he had heard from NSC customer service staff. So, we can blame neither Srikondoji, nor customer service staff, but only USCIS.:)
Regards,
IK
Anyway - this argument will go on forever.
Can we request SriKondoJi/likes not to post anything with strong Affirmative words unless they have some kind of confirmations beyond the general Public's assumption ??
Thanks
Hello,
I think this is high time for us to control our emotions and live with realities. Often times, the customer service representatives don't have up-to-date information of USCIS's policies, decisions, and announcements, and we should not take their response as granted. For example, If you call a service center 5 times a day and ask a same question, you will get five different answers. In fact, Srikondoji mentioned what he had heard from NSC customer service staff. So, we can blame neither Srikondoji, nor customer service staff, but only USCIS.:)
Regards,
IK
girlfriend Clipart » Anime » Happy Anime
MDix
08-22 10:39 PM
I am not sure whether this applies to Master degree holder or not. Because memo says
Aliens of Exceptional Ability under section 203(b)(2) INA.
Aliens of Exceptional Ability under section 203(b)(2) INA.
hairstyles Happy Anime Girl - anime, girl
485Mbe4001
03-06 10:07 PM
Hi,
i had sent you a PM last week, did you get it?
thx
Hi pappu (admn)
i work for an indian media/newspaper here in southern california, and trying to get an interview done for IV, which can be published subsequently, basically aiming our cause and goals and achievements and to create more awareness/publicity campaign about GC logjam.
Can you write me your contact number and suitable time for this, it will be a telephonic interview.
best
i had sent you a PM last week, did you get it?
thx
Hi pappu (admn)
i work for an indian media/newspaper here in southern california, and trying to get an interview done for IV, which can be published subsequently, basically aiming our cause and goals and achievements and to create more awareness/publicity campaign about GC logjam.
Can you write me your contact number and suitable time for this, it will be a telephonic interview.
best
Libra
09-10 04:46 PM
thanks for contribution.
contribute $100 - Google Order #466330497623100
contribute $100 - Google Order #466330497623100
gc_kaavaali
07-11 11:45 AM
I don't think so. Eventhough they make U in september bulletin. They have to move dates in October bulletin because of new visa numbers.
I can understand the excitement. I am also in EB2 2005 PD. But the fact is that, this seems like a temporary movement only...i don't think dates can stay at 2006, going by simple math.
PPl can give me those red marks, but i think dates will retrogress again by Oct.
I can understand the excitement. I am also in EB2 2005 PD. But the fact is that, this seems like a temporary movement only...i don't think dates can stay at 2006, going by simple math.
PPl can give me those red marks, but i think dates will retrogress again by Oct.
No comments:
Post a Comment