solaris27
07-12 08:33 AM
http://www.immigration-law.com/
Even though the USCIS will accelerate processing of some of these cases, these I-485 waiters and their family members may want to take care of following three relief within this month:
I-140 Premium Processing: The first condition of present limited I-140 premium processing is the unavailability of the visa numbers for you. If your H-1B six-year limit will reach within the next two months and one-year increment extension is not available in your situation, please make it sure that you file the premium processing of I-140 petition before the end of July, 2008 for the three reasons: (1) Without the approval of I-140 petition, I-485 cannot be adjudicated. Since the premium processing will not be available from August 1, 2008, you should not fail to file premium processing services. (2) If the circumstances are such that you may have to change employment using approved I-140 petition, approval of I-140 petition by premium processing will be particularly critical. (3) As explained below, approval of I-140 is one condition for the H-1B three-year increment extension. If such extension is critical for you, you should seek premium processing services as quickly as possible within this month.
104(c) Three-Year H-1B Extension Petition: If you filed I-140 and I-485 concurrently during the period of July 2007 Visa Bulletin fiasco, some of you may have obtained the I-140 petition and are just waiting for the adjudication of I-485 application. Again, some of you who fit this description may not be eligible for one-year increment H-1B extension because of specific situation in each case. You may then have to file the three-year increment H-1B petition within this month as the 104(c) petition can be filed only during the visa number is not available for you.
Two-Year EAD Extension Application: If your EAD will expire within the next four months (120 days), you should file the EAD application within this month since the first condition for the two-year EAD is unavailability of visa number for the applicant.
The foregoing actions will be particularly important for the late I-485 receipt date filers. Since the USCIS is likely to adjudicate the I-485 applications in processing queue which is generally determined by the date of receipt of I-485 applications, the later the filing date is, the longer the adjudication will take in general, and the earlier the filing date is, the shorter the adjudication will take unless some issues are involved. Good luck.
Even though the USCIS will accelerate processing of some of these cases, these I-485 waiters and their family members may want to take care of following three relief within this month:
I-140 Premium Processing: The first condition of present limited I-140 premium processing is the unavailability of the visa numbers for you. If your H-1B six-year limit will reach within the next two months and one-year increment extension is not available in your situation, please make it sure that you file the premium processing of I-140 petition before the end of July, 2008 for the three reasons: (1) Without the approval of I-140 petition, I-485 cannot be adjudicated. Since the premium processing will not be available from August 1, 2008, you should not fail to file premium processing services. (2) If the circumstances are such that you may have to change employment using approved I-140 petition, approval of I-140 petition by premium processing will be particularly critical. (3) As explained below, approval of I-140 is one condition for the H-1B three-year increment extension. If such extension is critical for you, you should seek premium processing services as quickly as possible within this month.
104(c) Three-Year H-1B Extension Petition: If you filed I-140 and I-485 concurrently during the period of July 2007 Visa Bulletin fiasco, some of you may have obtained the I-140 petition and are just waiting for the adjudication of I-485 application. Again, some of you who fit this description may not be eligible for one-year increment H-1B extension because of specific situation in each case. You may then have to file the three-year increment H-1B petition within this month as the 104(c) petition can be filed only during the visa number is not available for you.
Two-Year EAD Extension Application: If your EAD will expire within the next four months (120 days), you should file the EAD application within this month since the first condition for the two-year EAD is unavailability of visa number for the applicant.
The foregoing actions will be particularly important for the late I-485 receipt date filers. Since the USCIS is likely to adjudicate the I-485 applications in processing queue which is generally determined by the date of receipt of I-485 applications, the later the filing date is, the longer the adjudication will take in general, and the earlier the filing date is, the shorter the adjudication will take unless some issues are involved. Good luck.
wallpaper Comic Marvel Wallpapers
perm2gc
12-29 02:42 PM
It good to see some activity on the thread..Please carry on the advertising..we are near to our goal ..
Thks for all who have spent their valuable time on posting about IV.
Thks for all who have spent their valuable time on posting about IV.
mail2me_Ds
09-17 03:03 PM
When they issue RFE, does the case status online shows Card/Document production?. My status changed to Card/Document production 10 days ago and I did not receive any document or card yet. And the level 2 officer said that my application is still pending?. So I am confused with the online status.
2011 2011 Comics Wallpaper (249190)
Ramba
07-09 07:44 PM
I came across this law about the departmental control of numerical limitations, and I'd appreciate it if you all could post your interpretations of the same.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
I feel that they did not violate any clause. Till June 30 which is end of third quarter, they are authorized to approve (3*27%*140K) 113,400. However they approved only 66,400 till May 31. That yields about 47,000 for June alone(10%+any number not used in previous months). The reamining visas are eligible for Jul 1, which is 13,000. Put together June and July1, it comes 60,000. Therefore they did not violate any law. This makes only 126,000. The remaining number was splitted for Consular processing.
my 2 cents...
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
I feel that they did not violate any clause. Till June 30 which is end of third quarter, they are authorized to approve (3*27%*140K) 113,400. However they approved only 66,400 till May 31. That yields about 47,000 for June alone(10%+any number not used in previous months). The reamining visas are eligible for Jul 1, which is 13,000. Put together June and July1, it comes 60,000. Therefore they did not violate any law. This makes only 126,000. The remaining number was splitted for Consular processing.
my 2 cents...
more...
logiclife
04-23 05:29 PM
Everyone, calm down.
Gautam: We understand that you are not an IV member and you attended a public event and asked the congressman a question and got a dissatisfactory answer to your question.
It was a public event and it was well within your rights to ask your question. Fine.
Here is the issue with your questions and expectation and also with expectation of other members who have been thoroughly dissatisfied on Saturday:
1). Need to temper expectations, lawmakers are not really experts in Immigration law or any law...they set policy...they dont practice law everyday...
Firstly, your question is such that it is beyond congressman's capacity to answer. You asked about the non-immigrant intent tied to the student visa and you said that it doesnt make sense to have that non-immigrant intent on student visas and its prevent you from getting a degree from your school where you are getting/got admission.
You have to realize that these are highly technical issues and no Congressman or Senator....NONE...not even Ted Kennedy, not even John McCain (they have spent good part of this decade coming up with comprehensive bill last year) would understand deeply technical legal issues like "Non Immigrant Intent" in the law and the bills. NOT EVEN JOHN CORNYN who has spend huge time on skilled immigration and whose previous bill actually has stuff to remove the non-immigrant intent from student visa adjudication in consulates. Lawmakers work at policy level and THEIR STAFF works the details. The kind of question you asked was something that you can get answers on from a staff member. And not just any staff member, it has to the the JUDICIARY COUNSEL of the congressman or the Senator. Otherwise, they would not know the different between H1 and F1 and the difference between GC quota (140,000) and H1 Quota (65,000).
Congress passes thousands of bills each year. Each day in session, Congressmen vote on over a dozen bills. For each bill they vote, they get a 5-10 line brief description. So never expect lawmakers to know your issues in that great details.
2). Need to have a polite tone.
This point I am making is not just pertinent to you (Gautam), but to everyone. When you are dealing with a lawmaker so closely involved with a 700-page bill of which 98% is dealing with sparing the lives of 11 million illegals who are living in fear of deportation, prison, raids and separation from their children, you have to be VERY VERY CAREFUL when asking for things like "I am not getting GC therefore, I cant get promotion", "I am making only 80K and with GC I can make 120K", "I cannot go to Ivy league school for next 2 years"... Not that these arent legit issues. They are. But when a person sees questions from the undocumented community, some of them were breaking into tears when asking questions...your questions and your tone has to be very careful. I dont know if anyone stayed thru the end. I and Pratik were there till the end and we talked to Congressman after the crowd dispersed and there were just some reporters, organizers etc at around 7:45 PM. Some questions towards the end,...people were breaking into tears when asking..."my son cannot go to school anywhere next year when he grads from highschool"..."When are the raids going to stop"...etc. These guys are plucked from their homes and workplace and their Kids actually end up on the streets as it recently happened in New Bedford, Massachussetts. Kids were unable to go home (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/03/07/children_stranded_after_immigration_raid/)beause their parents didnt come from work (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/03/07/350_are_held_in_immigration_raid/)and there wasnt anyone from social services notified about the parents being picked up by Immigration enforcement.
In the environment, when children possibly become homeless/lost/kidnapped because their parents are in jail suddenly, (read news articles on raids in New Bedford Massachussets (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/03/07/children_stranded_after_immigration_raid/)), IF YOU DONT HAVE A VERY SOFT AND POLITE TONE and a very compelling story, your point is going to backfire and you will risk looking like RICH SPOILED AND PRIVILEGED KIDS who ALREADY HAVE LEGAL STATUS and ALREADY HAVE PATH TO CITIZENSHIP and are yelling on top of their lungs to speed that up.
Your case is legit, not doubt, but WHEN IN CONTRAST with undocumented, you run the risk of looking like snobs and elitists. That's just how it is. And lawmakers dont exactly get goosebumps when you name-drop words like "Harvard", "Stanford" and "Berkeley" and "U Penn". Its not like they are going to go weak on their knees when you say "I went to harvard and how dare you dont get me a Greencard. I will go back to India/China". It doesnt really make a difference to them. They have people WORKING FOR THEM in their staff who went to Ivy league schools.
And frankly, Gautam, your tone of asking the question was..."what are you doing about this...you dont understand what you are losing , you will lose us to India and China and France"....is THE WRONG TONE. It was nowhere near polite or calm. It was pretty "WTF" attitude like you said we should all use, and IT WONT WORK. If shouting out, yelling, soundbites and rhetoric would have worked, we would have gotten the job done a long time ago.
Merits of the issue and argument is one thing...no matter how strong your point is YOU HAVE TO be POLITE and be FRIENDLY and ask nicely. Otherwise you will really get nothing back from your lawmakers.
Its not like you are going to threaten to vote against them. YOU HAVE NO VOTING power for next 15 years.
Gautam: We understand that you are not an IV member and you attended a public event and asked the congressman a question and got a dissatisfactory answer to your question.
It was a public event and it was well within your rights to ask your question. Fine.
Here is the issue with your questions and expectation and also with expectation of other members who have been thoroughly dissatisfied on Saturday:
1). Need to temper expectations, lawmakers are not really experts in Immigration law or any law...they set policy...they dont practice law everyday...
Firstly, your question is such that it is beyond congressman's capacity to answer. You asked about the non-immigrant intent tied to the student visa and you said that it doesnt make sense to have that non-immigrant intent on student visas and its prevent you from getting a degree from your school where you are getting/got admission.
You have to realize that these are highly technical issues and no Congressman or Senator....NONE...not even Ted Kennedy, not even John McCain (they have spent good part of this decade coming up with comprehensive bill last year) would understand deeply technical legal issues like "Non Immigrant Intent" in the law and the bills. NOT EVEN JOHN CORNYN who has spend huge time on skilled immigration and whose previous bill actually has stuff to remove the non-immigrant intent from student visa adjudication in consulates. Lawmakers work at policy level and THEIR STAFF works the details. The kind of question you asked was something that you can get answers on from a staff member. And not just any staff member, it has to the the JUDICIARY COUNSEL of the congressman or the Senator. Otherwise, they would not know the different between H1 and F1 and the difference between GC quota (140,000) and H1 Quota (65,000).
Congress passes thousands of bills each year. Each day in session, Congressmen vote on over a dozen bills. For each bill they vote, they get a 5-10 line brief description. So never expect lawmakers to know your issues in that great details.
2). Need to have a polite tone.
This point I am making is not just pertinent to you (Gautam), but to everyone. When you are dealing with a lawmaker so closely involved with a 700-page bill of which 98% is dealing with sparing the lives of 11 million illegals who are living in fear of deportation, prison, raids and separation from their children, you have to be VERY VERY CAREFUL when asking for things like "I am not getting GC therefore, I cant get promotion", "I am making only 80K and with GC I can make 120K", "I cannot go to Ivy league school for next 2 years"... Not that these arent legit issues. They are. But when a person sees questions from the undocumented community, some of them were breaking into tears when asking questions...your questions and your tone has to be very careful. I dont know if anyone stayed thru the end. I and Pratik were there till the end and we talked to Congressman after the crowd dispersed and there were just some reporters, organizers etc at around 7:45 PM. Some questions towards the end,...people were breaking into tears when asking..."my son cannot go to school anywhere next year when he grads from highschool"..."When are the raids going to stop"...etc. These guys are plucked from their homes and workplace and their Kids actually end up on the streets as it recently happened in New Bedford, Massachussetts. Kids were unable to go home (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/03/07/children_stranded_after_immigration_raid/)beause their parents didnt come from work (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/03/07/350_are_held_in_immigration_raid/)and there wasnt anyone from social services notified about the parents being picked up by Immigration enforcement.
In the environment, when children possibly become homeless/lost/kidnapped because their parents are in jail suddenly, (read news articles on raids in New Bedford Massachussets (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/03/07/children_stranded_after_immigration_raid/)), IF YOU DONT HAVE A VERY SOFT AND POLITE TONE and a very compelling story, your point is going to backfire and you will risk looking like RICH SPOILED AND PRIVILEGED KIDS who ALREADY HAVE LEGAL STATUS and ALREADY HAVE PATH TO CITIZENSHIP and are yelling on top of their lungs to speed that up.
Your case is legit, not doubt, but WHEN IN CONTRAST with undocumented, you run the risk of looking like snobs and elitists. That's just how it is. And lawmakers dont exactly get goosebumps when you name-drop words like "Harvard", "Stanford" and "Berkeley" and "U Penn". Its not like they are going to go weak on their knees when you say "I went to harvard and how dare you dont get me a Greencard. I will go back to India/China". It doesnt really make a difference to them. They have people WORKING FOR THEM in their staff who went to Ivy league schools.
And frankly, Gautam, your tone of asking the question was..."what are you doing about this...you dont understand what you are losing , you will lose us to India and China and France"....is THE WRONG TONE. It was nowhere near polite or calm. It was pretty "WTF" attitude like you said we should all use, and IT WONT WORK. If shouting out, yelling, soundbites and rhetoric would have worked, we would have gotten the job done a long time ago.
Merits of the issue and argument is one thing...no matter how strong your point is YOU HAVE TO be POLITE and be FRIENDLY and ask nicely. Otherwise you will really get nothing back from your lawmakers.
Its not like you are going to threaten to vote against them. YOU HAVE NO VOTING power for next 15 years.
nixstor
07-04 08:56 PM
Excellent analysis but it does have flaws
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
We all understand this and what you are saying, But What is in law is more important than OB's recommendations. First of all the office of OB might not have recommended to pass on any name checks. It might have advised to some how expedite them. More over, I dont think that they take the annual report seriously. We know how many times DOS officials and USCIS officials testify before congress. Why don't they tell congress that in order to clear backlogs
a) They need FBI to expedite name checks (they might have testified about this)
b) They need to recapture visa numbers (AFAIK, they never did this because your case is not pending unless you filed for AOS/485. We are not a part of the back log)
Their biggest problem now is if all of us file for 485, we will continue to be the back log for ever on the back of USCIS for ages to come unless recapture occurs. What ever be the number 200K or 700K, they simply dont want it.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
I am sure you might have read this from murthy's website (http://www.murthy.com/news/n_dosebn.html) or not, but DOS/CA/VO officials shared this piece with them. As per the above article, final quarter quota should not open until Jul 2nd. I understand that agencies can implement and interpret certain stuff, but you cannot interpret and implement one thing on Jun 13th and another on Jul 2nd. If its written into law, that the quarterly allocation is a must, USCIS is in violation and DOS/CA/VO as well for not policing them of visa number usage.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Understood, if they can clear 60K cases in 18 days, I doubt they will have any issues clearing them in 90 days. It goes back to the point of us becoming the biggest hump on USCIS
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories “current” for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories “current” ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of “current” there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making “current” for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as “current” in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
I think we all agree that there was no need to make every category current given that we know how many will become eligible for 485 filing. How ever, The OB's office will be pretty pissed if they use him as the trump card. Also, I got the annual report from OB's office in email on Jun 12th 07. VB came out on 14th? What you are saying is USCIS has worked over night to analyze OB's report or they had access to OB's report 15-20 days ahead. Everything points to me that there was a lack of communication between the two agencies on an issue with huge stakes.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
We need to do both as the success is not guaranteed in either situation. I do not know if AILF will win the law suit. On the other side, Senators like Kennedy who control immigration issues will not give a damn in the current situation. If the issue gets to a point where USCIS & DOS officials testify before congress, the root problem will be solved. If we just win the lawsuit and get in, USCIS is only going to sulk us for 10 years in the name of security check.In the end, We should be able to portray the whole situation as if USCIS has been put in a ugly predicament to utilize visa numbers under the arcane laws. Bashing DOS & USCIS left and right now is not of any use in the long run.
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
We all understand this and what you are saying, But What is in law is more important than OB's recommendations. First of all the office of OB might not have recommended to pass on any name checks. It might have advised to some how expedite them. More over, I dont think that they take the annual report seriously. We know how many times DOS officials and USCIS officials testify before congress. Why don't they tell congress that in order to clear backlogs
a) They need FBI to expedite name checks (they might have testified about this)
b) They need to recapture visa numbers (AFAIK, they never did this because your case is not pending unless you filed for AOS/485. We are not a part of the back log)
Their biggest problem now is if all of us file for 485, we will continue to be the back log for ever on the back of USCIS for ages to come unless recapture occurs. What ever be the number 200K or 700K, they simply dont want it.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
I am sure you might have read this from murthy's website (http://www.murthy.com/news/n_dosebn.html) or not, but DOS/CA/VO officials shared this piece with them. As per the above article, final quarter quota should not open until Jul 2nd. I understand that agencies can implement and interpret certain stuff, but you cannot interpret and implement one thing on Jun 13th and another on Jul 2nd. If its written into law, that the quarterly allocation is a must, USCIS is in violation and DOS/CA/VO as well for not policing them of visa number usage.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Understood, if they can clear 60K cases in 18 days, I doubt they will have any issues clearing them in 90 days. It goes back to the point of us becoming the biggest hump on USCIS
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories “current” for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories “current” ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of “current” there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making “current” for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as “current” in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
I think we all agree that there was no need to make every category current given that we know how many will become eligible for 485 filing. How ever, The OB's office will be pretty pissed if they use him as the trump card. Also, I got the annual report from OB's office in email on Jun 12th 07. VB came out on 14th? What you are saying is USCIS has worked over night to analyze OB's report or they had access to OB's report 15-20 days ahead. Everything points to me that there was a lack of communication between the two agencies on an issue with huge stakes.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
We need to do both as the success is not guaranteed in either situation. I do not know if AILF will win the law suit. On the other side, Senators like Kennedy who control immigration issues will not give a damn in the current situation. If the issue gets to a point where USCIS & DOS officials testify before congress, the root problem will be solved. If we just win the lawsuit and get in, USCIS is only going to sulk us for 10 years in the name of security check.In the end, We should be able to portray the whole situation as if USCIS has been put in a ugly predicament to utilize visa numbers under the arcane laws. Bashing DOS & USCIS left and right now is not of any use in the long run.
more...
Jaime
09-10 04:32 PM
We love the U.S. We won't allow bad immigration policy to continue to hurt our country with a self-inflicted Reverse Brain Drain. Already 100,000 of us highly-skilled immigrants have left in frustration! We won't allow this to continue!!! We are going to stop this madness, AND IT ALL STARTS IN WASHINGTON ON THE 18th!!!! This is not only for ourselves, we are doing this for America!!!!!!!!!!!!
2010 comic wallpaper. comic
alex99
10-29 08:57 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^
more...
AMITAT007
10-03 03:08 AM
I am on L1A visa with Company A & the I-94 was valid till September 10, 2007.
Company B has filed my H1B on April 20, 2007 & I received I797 notice dated May 17, 2007 with change of status from Oct 1, 2007.
In the meantime, Company A has filed an extention of status of L1A from September 10, 2007 on June 8, 2007. For which I received the I797 notice dated June 28, 2007.
I have few question
1. What is my status from Oct 1, 2007, as I did not joined the company B. I am not in a position to leave Company A till Nov 15, 2007. As the I797 for L1 extention was of the latter date, whether the law of last action will be applicable here & I can work for Company A on L1 till Nov 15, 2007
2. If I can work on L1, whether my H1B approval get cancelled automatically. Whether the company B have to file I129 & I539 for me.
3. If I am out of status what should I do. Do i have go back to my native country immediately & leave to idea to work in USA for ever or there is any other way.
Company B has filed my H1B on April 20, 2007 & I received I797 notice dated May 17, 2007 with change of status from Oct 1, 2007.
In the meantime, Company A has filed an extention of status of L1A from September 10, 2007 on June 8, 2007. For which I received the I797 notice dated June 28, 2007.
I have few question
1. What is my status from Oct 1, 2007, as I did not joined the company B. I am not in a position to leave Company A till Nov 15, 2007. As the I797 for L1 extention was of the latter date, whether the law of last action will be applicable here & I can work for Company A on L1 till Nov 15, 2007
2. If I can work on L1, whether my H1B approval get cancelled automatically. Whether the company B have to file I129 & I539 for me.
3. If I am out of status what should I do. Do i have go back to my native country immediately & leave to idea to work in USA for ever or there is any other way.
hair Superman Wallpapers | Comic
hpandey
07-11 01:59 PM
Thanks. Any input in this tough time is really appreciated. All I am trying to get is , any clue , any information to see the light at the end of this Long Dark Tunnel of EB-3.
Currently the tunnel is closed at the end for EB-3 :mad: and the only way out I see is for us EB-3 folks to dig through. No one cares about EB-3 I folks. That's the way I see it.
Currently the tunnel is closed at the end for EB-3 :mad: and the only way out I see is for us EB-3 folks to dig through. No one cares about EB-3 I folks. That's the way I see it.
more...
waitin_toolong
10-03 01:52 PM
that is the only ption to continue L status..but remember u can not use h1b ..and u have to apply again for h1b in next year quota....
wrong there, once counted against cap she is exempt for 6 years. she can use this approval if working for same employe get it stamped and enter on H1 any time. Or apply for COS with any other employer sponsoring H1.
To answer the original questions only two options.
1) depart and reeneter using L1
2) apply for COS (but a long process)
wrong there, once counted against cap she is exempt for 6 years. she can use this approval if working for same employe get it stamped and enter on H1 any time. Or apply for COS with any other employer sponsoring H1.
To answer the original questions only two options.
1) depart and reeneter using L1
2) apply for COS (but a long process)
hot comic wallpapers.
StarSun
03-08 10:27 PM
Please let me know who wants to travel .. i can book a ticket for you ... please reply with your details i will contact you
Please contact vin13 through private message. He is coordinating our air miles donation effort.
Please contact vin13 through private message. He is coordinating our air miles donation effort.
more...
house Batman Comic Wallpaper
iv_only_hope
02-21 04:17 PM
Thats true. There will be supply of more 485s to the pool but that will be from EB1 and EB2 row which are always current. I guess you could reduce the 140k/year based on those numbers but since these cats are always current does it suggest there is not much demand?
tattoo dc comics wallpaper. wallpaper
vagish
04-02 03:22 PM
this is not the new trend, back in year 2000 to 2003 , when massive layoffs were going on , it has been prevelant since then. Also if this illegal , how about people who got laid off in those years and never went bak home sitting on bench for a year, if you start to fish around, you will find lots and lots of people
had trouble in maintaining their status in the past.
Fake resume is the fact which has been there for so many years, be it for masters or for just B.E graduates.
thanks
had trouble in maintaining their status in the past.
Fake resume is the fact which has been there for so many years, be it for masters or for just B.E graduates.
thanks
more...
pictures About Comic Colbert wallpaper
gc_kaavaali
12-10 05:33 PM
I am sorry to ask you...i think you need to get SSN inorder to work...if u allowed to work on what bases you pay tax...
Hi friends,
I need your help!!!
I'm here at California with L-2 visa. I can stay legally in US but i can not get a SSN number, i can work too.But For a driver license they ask for SSN. Do i still get the Driver License or no?
Thank you very much...
Hi friends,
I need your help!!!
I'm here at California with L-2 visa. I can stay legally in US but i can not get a SSN number, i can work too.But For a driver license they ask for SSN. Do i still get the Driver License or no?
Thank you very much...
dresses Punisher Wallpapers | Comic
ramus
07-05 03:58 PM
Thank you.. IV appreciate your help.. I wish we get more new members like you.
Hi,
I joined for recurring $50 per month. I will ask all my friends to do the same.
I believe IV is the only forum/organazation concerned about our cause. Everybody else thinks immigration issue is just about illegal aliens. IV highlights the real issue, legal immigration.
dupedinjuly
Hi,
I joined for recurring $50 per month. I will ask all my friends to do the same.
I believe IV is the only forum/organazation concerned about our cause. Everybody else thinks immigration issue is just about illegal aliens. IV highlights the real issue, legal immigration.
dupedinjuly
more...
makeup More Comics wallpaper.
catchupvijay
06-11 02:01 PM
Thanks!
girlfriend Marvel Comics wallpapers
psaxena
05-27 05:33 PM
I am really laughing.... very true, there are a lot of dumbs on this forum
The guy at Kino's was probably a dumb high school dropout and you have proved to be his match by posting it here....
The guy at Kino's was probably a dumb high school dropout and you have proved to be his match by posting it here....
hairstyles Spawn Comics Wallpaper
nozerd
01-27 10:47 AM
I went back and reread the July 2001 Bulletin.
How difficult would it be to lobby for extending the same logic for removing per country cap ? I am sure removing 7% cap would definitely help.
Also since EB3 World has a cut off does it mean that no visas will be left from the world pool which can be recaptured ?
How difficult would it be to lobby for extending the same logic for removing per country cap ? I am sure removing 7% cap would definitely help.
Also since EB3 World has a cut off does it mean that no visas will be left from the world pool which can be recaptured ?
chanduv23
12-27 04:36 AM
I liked NW/KLM too. Absolutely no hassles. I hear that NY-Dubai non-stop flight through Emirates is also good, though it is slightly expensive.
London - transit visa needed definitely for inter/intra-airport transfers.
Paris - did not ask for transit visa last when I travelled.
Frankfurt was approving transit visas within the airport for gate transfers last time I visited. Situation might have changed now.
Has anybody travelled through Toronto-New Delhi through Air Canada? This would be a trip over the north pole during the Xmas :D
Thnx for the info. I am travelling JFK - Dubai - Chennai tomorrow in the NY - Dubai non stop. I did apply for a transit visa because I may step out of the airport, but as such, I was told, if I am not stepping out of the airport, there is no need for a transit visa.
NWA , I would say, must be used as the last resort. The flight is lousy and the staff is bad. But then no transit visa issues.
London - transit visa needed definitely for inter/intra-airport transfers.
Paris - did not ask for transit visa last when I travelled.
Frankfurt was approving transit visas within the airport for gate transfers last time I visited. Situation might have changed now.
Has anybody travelled through Toronto-New Delhi through Air Canada? This would be a trip over the north pole during the Xmas :D
Thnx for the info. I am travelling JFK - Dubai - Chennai tomorrow in the NY - Dubai non stop. I did apply for a transit visa because I may step out of the airport, but as such, I was told, if I am not stepping out of the airport, there is no need for a transit visa.
NWA , I would say, must be used as the last resort. The flight is lousy and the staff is bad. But then no transit visa issues.
paskal
12-27 12:17 AM
it would be useful to all if people who have traveled could let us know their experience transiting through different airports, also we should compile a detailed list of the airports that have some transit visa requirements.