pappu
06-22 03:16 PM
My lawyer said u cannot have 2 485 petitions with USCIS.
My Lawyer's response - You should be aware that you cannot file two I-485 applications. If you file individually, there is no option to file as a dependent UNLESS the pending I-485 is withdrawn.
Awaiting reponse from my wifes lawyer.
ask the lawyer about specific issues that can happen if multiple filing is done.
My Lawyer's response - You should be aware that you cannot file two I-485 applications. If you file individually, there is no option to file as a dependent UNLESS the pending I-485 is withdrawn.
Awaiting reponse from my wifes lawyer.
ask the lawyer about specific issues that can happen if multiple filing is done.
wallpaper %IMG_DESC_1%
chanduv23
09-29 11:00 AM
In my opinion, Sen Durbin's stance on EB immigrants would be the cause of concern and like we all know Sen Durbin will make calls on these issues if Sen. Obama becomes the President. Lets see how it unfolds.
RanchCharm
11-07 10:33 AM
I just prepared all the letters and posted in regular mail.
Hope it will reduce some trouble for our immigration community.
Thanks IV and others.
-Nachi
Hope it will reduce some trouble for our immigration community.
Thanks IV and others.
-Nachi
2011 %IMG_DESC_2%
godbless
05-04 12:06 PM
Should your address showing up on your w2 and pay stub be matching with the address of your parent company that filed your LC for Permanent Residence? My parent company that filed for my GC is in MI and so my Labor was also filed from there and currently I am working in IL and have been filing tax return for the state of IL for the last 3 years. The addres that shows up on my pay stub and w2 is for the state of IL. As my I485 is already filed so would it matter at the time of adudication of I485 about this address issue?
Any thots gurus!!
Any thots gurus!!
more...
inderman
10-15 06:02 PM
Called one more time using the POJ method to NSC... This was probably the most fruitful call to NSC in the last 7-8 odd times i have called them.
Someone called Terry answered the call... Hats off to this lady...If there is a way i would want to recommend this lady for a promotion and make her the project manager for all the rest of the IOs who answer the call!!!
My case PD is 1/15/05, filed at TSC, transferred to NSC in Mar 08, applied AC 21 in Aug 08 and did biometrics in Feb 09.
Information i received on my case from this call:
1. This lady got my receipt#, checked details and history on my case, let me know that the case is preadjudicated (she defined preadjudication before that)
2. and then, told me that the case is NOT in storage area.
3. She mentioned that preadjudicated cases are held in an area called exams area and my case is currently on its way from exams area back to the officer who had preadjudicated my case earlier in Oct 2008.
4. She then checked my wife's file to see if that is also with my case just to make sure that file is not lost etc and confirmed that both files are together.
5. She also mentioned that nothing else needs to be done right now for my case as it is already on its way back to IO.
Thanks to know that there is atleast one person at NSC who understands what we are going thru' and is willing to atleast provide some details...
Someone called Terry answered the call... Hats off to this lady...If there is a way i would want to recommend this lady for a promotion and make her the project manager for all the rest of the IOs who answer the call!!!
My case PD is 1/15/05, filed at TSC, transferred to NSC in Mar 08, applied AC 21 in Aug 08 and did biometrics in Feb 09.
Information i received on my case from this call:
1. This lady got my receipt#, checked details and history on my case, let me know that the case is preadjudicated (she defined preadjudication before that)
2. and then, told me that the case is NOT in storage area.
3. She mentioned that preadjudicated cases are held in an area called exams area and my case is currently on its way from exams area back to the officer who had preadjudicated my case earlier in Oct 2008.
4. She then checked my wife's file to see if that is also with my case just to make sure that file is not lost etc and confirmed that both files are together.
5. She also mentioned that nothing else needs to be done right now for my case as it is already on its way back to IO.
Thanks to know that there is atleast one person at NSC who understands what we are going thru' and is willing to atleast provide some details...
jcrajput
10-10 09:55 AM
Do we suppose to send I-130 with I-485 application? I have re-filed for my self and my wife for I-485 based on approved I-140 EB2 Employment. Please let me know.
My application filed on July 2 was rejected (NSC->CSS) saying missing I-140 I797 approval even though it was attached.
Thanks a lot.
My application filed on July 2 was rejected (NSC->CSS) saying missing I-140 I797 approval even though it was attached.
Thanks a lot.
more...
aachoo
11-23 03:51 PM
You've already made one short term decision- home prices are rising let me cash in!! Note, I said home prices and not home values.
Dont make another short term decision- everyone is walking away, let me do the same. No more debt- wow!!
As others have said on this forum, there is no reason to exclude yourself from the legions of "fools" who caused the mortgage crisis.
-a
Dont make another short term decision- everyone is walking away, let me do the same. No more debt- wow!!
As others have said on this forum, there is no reason to exclude yourself from the legions of "fools" who caused the mortgage crisis.
-a
2010 %IMG_DESC_3%
Nil
04-08 10:49 PM
Thanks for your support of the idea.
i do not think IV core is on a vacation.
From what i gather, this idea was tried with lawmakers before.
But to change citizenship laws is far more difficult than changing the quota cap of a (GC) process.
Never-the-less, we should not give up.
Say, in the bargain for citizenship after 10 yrs of Legal & crime-free stay we get GC instead, still a deal.
Can we have a plan of action as a consensus?
i do not think IV core is on a vacation.
From what i gather, this idea was tried with lawmakers before.
But to change citizenship laws is far more difficult than changing the quota cap of a (GC) process.
Never-the-less, we should not give up.
Say, in the bargain for citizenship after 10 yrs of Legal & crime-free stay we get GC instead, still a deal.
Can we have a plan of action as a consensus?
more...
anotherone
01-30 10:58 AM
now ford, gm, capitalone and I'll post mine when i hear about the explanation from legal.
i dont know if u can sue without much written proof, or if they refused to interview you. but if you do have an interview etc., and some written proof, we may have something
a class action lawsuit ? if a lawsuit is expensive i am sure there are some lawyers who take on cases either probono or we all pool in our money and do something...
i dont know if u can sue without much written proof, or if they refused to interview you. but if you do have an interview etc., and some written proof, we may have something
a class action lawsuit ? if a lawsuit is expensive i am sure there are some lawyers who take on cases either probono or we all pool in our money and do something...
hair %IMG_DESC_4%
sanjay02
08-21 08:13 PM
Its 011-91 , Dont dial 911 (just kidding!!) :)
more...
madhuvj
08-21 01:49 PM
Just because some one said, VDLRAO predicts right, he has become a Psycic Guru here. Please stop this. Every one keeps saying , he predicts everything right. Did he predict, EB2 with PD2006 will be processed before EB2 with PD 2003. Come on Guys, Give me a break and stop this rubbish. What did he predict and on what basis. I dont have anything personal here, I appreciate him, taking efforts to come up with some number based on the calculation. But Please stop spreading this on every forum that He predicts right.
hot %IMG_DESC_5%
gc_on_demand
03-31 12:24 PM
Visa allocation chief mentioned in AILA comment that USCIS knows visa usage pattern. Which means that they know pending I 140 for EB1 in pipeline and they also know that average time to get approve new I 140 is X months ( 4 months ) so they know if person files in May 2011 chances are rare that he/she can get GC from 2011 quota.I am not saying is that applicant can't get it but when u look at I 485 complexity and add scrutinity on EB1 I 140 its more than 4 months to get GC from start to finish without any RFE.
That is why they are so confident to release quota now. which may bring date so much forward so that can attract new cases and move back dates to certain point in time. Specially this is how DOS does for all family based CP cases. When they think they have 10k visas coming they move dates to cover 15k out of which 12k may reply on time and they always have control to retrogress dates if they run out of visas.
Big question is how far they want to go and get new cases. If they don't go upto Mid 2008 in next 1 year , Eb2 will loose some visas to EB3 and dates for EB2 will be "C" , if they go with some calculated guess and usage pattern + buffer they should go well into early 2009 with in next 1 year.
That is why they are so confident to release quota now. which may bring date so much forward so that can attract new cases and move back dates to certain point in time. Specially this is how DOS does for all family based CP cases. When they think they have 10k visas coming they move dates to cover 15k out of which 12k may reply on time and they always have control to retrogress dates if they run out of visas.
Big question is how far they want to go and get new cases. If they don't go upto Mid 2008 in next 1 year , Eb2 will loose some visas to EB3 and dates for EB2 will be "C" , if they go with some calculated guess and usage pattern + buffer they should go well into early 2009 with in next 1 year.
more...
house %IMG_DESC_17%
gc_check
01-30 09:55 AM
Hmmm - not sure because, if the job requires that someone must have security clearance - the job must clearly mention that someone with security clearance is needed. What is the point in hiring a citizen without security clearance (unless they want you to get clearance aftewr hiring)
Non discriminatory postings look like this
(1) Authorized to work in US for any employer
(2) Requires a security clearance
One cannot specifically say - I don't want EAD or GC or I want only Citizens.
Desi3933 and other knowledgable folks out here - please write your comments. I hope I am not worng.
Agree, One must not specifically say - "I don't want EAD or GC or I want only Citizens" and they need to specify the reason like you had mentioned. But you never know, the Dice and other job posting sites, just post what ever the client submits. With premium accounts, you manage the posting and I do not think, these sites control the contents. I also surfed the company website, and looks like they do have some federal clients and based on VA. It looks more like a clerical error than intentional posting. May be, an email to the HR of the company, with supporting links that does not encourage such posting legally will educate / prevent such posting in future. Any other members with in depth knowledge on this.. post your comment. Also job websites like Dice / Monster, etc...should ensure Quality of posting rather than having a disclaimer :)
Non discriminatory postings look like this
(1) Authorized to work in US for any employer
(2) Requires a security clearance
One cannot specifically say - I don't want EAD or GC or I want only Citizens.
Desi3933 and other knowledgable folks out here - please write your comments. I hope I am not worng.
Agree, One must not specifically say - "I don't want EAD or GC or I want only Citizens" and they need to specify the reason like you had mentioned. But you never know, the Dice and other job posting sites, just post what ever the client submits. With premium accounts, you manage the posting and I do not think, these sites control the contents. I also surfed the company website, and looks like they do have some federal clients and based on VA. It looks more like a clerical error than intentional posting. May be, an email to the HR of the company, with supporting links that does not encourage such posting legally will educate / prevent such posting in future. Any other members with in depth knowledge on this.. post your comment. Also job websites like Dice / Monster, etc...should ensure Quality of posting rather than having a disclaimer :)
tattoo %IMG_DESC_6%
pappu
08-04 06:43 PM
FBI Name Check
Copyright � Triceiver.com
All applicants for immigration benefits must undergo background security checks, and one of them is the FBI name check. It is conducted by the FBI National Name Check Program Section (NNCPS). Since 2003, many green card (I-485) and naturalization applications have been significantly delayed by this process, sometimes by several years! More importantly, immigrants affected by this processing delay are often left in complete darkness. USCIS has adopted a policy that it will not release any information regarding name checks to applicants. Similarly, the FBI has practically shut down all email and phone communications previously available to immigrants.
How FBI name check works?
FBI name check, in short, is to compare a person's name against the Central Records System and see if there is a matching record. However, this seemingly simple process can be quite complicated in some cases.
1. The Central Records System (CRS) is huge
The CRS contains all information which the FBI has acquired during many years of law enforcement activities. It has numerous administrative, applicant, criminal, personnel, and other types of files, related to not only individuals, but companies and foreign intelligence matters also. Certain records are stored in the FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C., while others are maintained by field offices across the United States.
When a name check request is received, the FBI conducts a search of the individual's name in the CRS' General Indices. In addition to the person's full name, the FBI will also use different combinations and variations of the same name.
The General Indices have two types of entries according to the FBI:
A "main" entry - an entry that carries the name corresponding with the subject of a file contained in the CRS. A main file name thus refers to an individual who is the subject of an FBI investigaton.
A "reference" entry - an entry, sometimes called a "cross-reference," that generally only mentions or references an individual, organization, etc., contained in a document located in another "main" file. So a reference is someone whose name only appears in an investigation.
The FBI name check will search both "main" files and "reference" files. In comparison, the FBI Privacy Act request searches main files only. The Privacy Act request is sometimes referred to as FOIPA request, Freedom of Information and Privacy Act. So when an I-485 filer receives a "No Record" letter from the FBI in response to their FOIPA request, it only means that his or her name doesn't match any "main" entry.
During a name search, the FBI first checks the person's name electronically against the Universal Index contained in a database called Automated Case Support (ACS) system. For most people (68% according to the FBI), the results come back with "No Record" within 48 hours, meaning that their name checks are considered cleared. If there is a match, called a "hit," an agent must manually review the file or entry. This secondary name search usually identifies additional people as having "No Record." According to the FBI, about 10% of name check requests must go through yet a third level of review, during which the matching record must be retrieved from the source. But there is a problem:
2. Not all records are digitized and many are still paper documents
If the matching record has a digital copy in the ACS, it can be reviewed quickly. Otherwise paper documents must be transported to the reviewer from one of the FBI field offices which are located all over the country. This could cause significant delays. The name check result after this review will be forwarded to the requesting agency such as the USCIS.
3. Sheer volume of name check requests from multiple agencies
Although the name check itself could take a long time in some cases, it is not the bottle neck. The more serious problem is the time it takes for an analyst to actually get to a case after a "hit," due to backlogs. This is probably the No.1 reason for a lot of cases that are stuck in FBI name checks.
The FBI name check backlog may have several causes, and one of them is the sheer volume of requests. In addition to USCIS, many other Federal agencies, congressional committees, as well as state and local law enforcement agencies, all request name checks as part of their background investigation or clearance processes. According to Michael Cannon, Section Chief of NNCP, the FBI processed 3.7 million name checks in 2005, compared to about 2.5 million/year before September 11, 2001. In 2006, the USCIS alone sends more than 27,700 requests on a weekly basis.
Moreover, it is not clear how strictly the FBI follows the order of first-in, first-out. It is particular difficult to find out exactly how the FBI would queue cases that have returned with potential matching records. From the simple fact that some name-check cases can be pending for several years, and not all of them are that complicated, the FBI's queuing method may need a review of its own.
4. Lengthy name check process and national security
Although conducting name checks is an essential step in identifying national security and public safety concerns, the current process may not achieve its intended objectives. The reason is that in almost all cases, a person whose name check is pending is currently present in the United States. So the lengthy process actually extends an individual's stay in the US. If it takes years to come to a conclusion that the person is indeed a security threat, what will happen during those years? In this sense, timely processing of name checks is not only a relief to legal immigrants, but a must for national security reasons.
5. It is difficult to expedite FBI name checks
In 2007, the USCIS established new policies on expediting FBI name checks and the criteria are very limited. The USCIS may demand expedited handling only if the case involves military deployment, age-out or sunset provisions, loss of certain benefits, or other compelling reasons such as critical medical conditions. It specifically stated that Writ of Mandamus (WOM) - a lawsuit forcing the government to act quickly after an unreasonable delay - would no longer qualify as one.
Writing to Senators, Congressmen, or even the First Lady, have not shown as much success as many were hoping for. In fact, most Congressional inquires are now simply coming back with "case pending" responses. Some offices have stated that they will no longer contact the FBI for cases pending less than a year, citing an increasing number of letters asking for assistance. However, for most poeple, contacting congressional representives is one of very few channels still available to receive any information regarding their pending cases.
6. The name check situation may get even worse, before it improves
According to the USCIS Ombudsman, there is a staggering 329,160 FBI name check cases pending as of May 2007. Among them, 211,341 (64%) have been pending more than 90 days and approximately 32 percent (106,738) pending more than one year. Now with the biggest fee increase in decades, taking effect July 30th, 2007, The USCIS has proposed to allocate more funds toward the name check process. And the FBI indicated that additional funding would allow them to add more staff to speed up the process and reduce backlogs. Many are skeptical, but we certainly hope that they will achieve some of the goals this time.
Copyright � Triceiver.com
All applicants for immigration benefits must undergo background security checks, and one of them is the FBI name check. It is conducted by the FBI National Name Check Program Section (NNCPS). Since 2003, many green card (I-485) and naturalization applications have been significantly delayed by this process, sometimes by several years! More importantly, immigrants affected by this processing delay are often left in complete darkness. USCIS has adopted a policy that it will not release any information regarding name checks to applicants. Similarly, the FBI has practically shut down all email and phone communications previously available to immigrants.
How FBI name check works?
FBI name check, in short, is to compare a person's name against the Central Records System and see if there is a matching record. However, this seemingly simple process can be quite complicated in some cases.
1. The Central Records System (CRS) is huge
The CRS contains all information which the FBI has acquired during many years of law enforcement activities. It has numerous administrative, applicant, criminal, personnel, and other types of files, related to not only individuals, but companies and foreign intelligence matters also. Certain records are stored in the FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C., while others are maintained by field offices across the United States.
When a name check request is received, the FBI conducts a search of the individual's name in the CRS' General Indices. In addition to the person's full name, the FBI will also use different combinations and variations of the same name.
The General Indices have two types of entries according to the FBI:
A "main" entry - an entry that carries the name corresponding with the subject of a file contained in the CRS. A main file name thus refers to an individual who is the subject of an FBI investigaton.
A "reference" entry - an entry, sometimes called a "cross-reference," that generally only mentions or references an individual, organization, etc., contained in a document located in another "main" file. So a reference is someone whose name only appears in an investigation.
The FBI name check will search both "main" files and "reference" files. In comparison, the FBI Privacy Act request searches main files only. The Privacy Act request is sometimes referred to as FOIPA request, Freedom of Information and Privacy Act. So when an I-485 filer receives a "No Record" letter from the FBI in response to their FOIPA request, it only means that his or her name doesn't match any "main" entry.
During a name search, the FBI first checks the person's name electronically against the Universal Index contained in a database called Automated Case Support (ACS) system. For most people (68% according to the FBI), the results come back with "No Record" within 48 hours, meaning that their name checks are considered cleared. If there is a match, called a "hit," an agent must manually review the file or entry. This secondary name search usually identifies additional people as having "No Record." According to the FBI, about 10% of name check requests must go through yet a third level of review, during which the matching record must be retrieved from the source. But there is a problem:
2. Not all records are digitized and many are still paper documents
If the matching record has a digital copy in the ACS, it can be reviewed quickly. Otherwise paper documents must be transported to the reviewer from one of the FBI field offices which are located all over the country. This could cause significant delays. The name check result after this review will be forwarded to the requesting agency such as the USCIS.
3. Sheer volume of name check requests from multiple agencies
Although the name check itself could take a long time in some cases, it is not the bottle neck. The more serious problem is the time it takes for an analyst to actually get to a case after a "hit," due to backlogs. This is probably the No.1 reason for a lot of cases that are stuck in FBI name checks.
The FBI name check backlog may have several causes, and one of them is the sheer volume of requests. In addition to USCIS, many other Federal agencies, congressional committees, as well as state and local law enforcement agencies, all request name checks as part of their background investigation or clearance processes. According to Michael Cannon, Section Chief of NNCP, the FBI processed 3.7 million name checks in 2005, compared to about 2.5 million/year before September 11, 2001. In 2006, the USCIS alone sends more than 27,700 requests on a weekly basis.
Moreover, it is not clear how strictly the FBI follows the order of first-in, first-out. It is particular difficult to find out exactly how the FBI would queue cases that have returned with potential matching records. From the simple fact that some name-check cases can be pending for several years, and not all of them are that complicated, the FBI's queuing method may need a review of its own.
4. Lengthy name check process and national security
Although conducting name checks is an essential step in identifying national security and public safety concerns, the current process may not achieve its intended objectives. The reason is that in almost all cases, a person whose name check is pending is currently present in the United States. So the lengthy process actually extends an individual's stay in the US. If it takes years to come to a conclusion that the person is indeed a security threat, what will happen during those years? In this sense, timely processing of name checks is not only a relief to legal immigrants, but a must for national security reasons.
5. It is difficult to expedite FBI name checks
In 2007, the USCIS established new policies on expediting FBI name checks and the criteria are very limited. The USCIS may demand expedited handling only if the case involves military deployment, age-out or sunset provisions, loss of certain benefits, or other compelling reasons such as critical medical conditions. It specifically stated that Writ of Mandamus (WOM) - a lawsuit forcing the government to act quickly after an unreasonable delay - would no longer qualify as one.
Writing to Senators, Congressmen, or even the First Lady, have not shown as much success as many were hoping for. In fact, most Congressional inquires are now simply coming back with "case pending" responses. Some offices have stated that they will no longer contact the FBI for cases pending less than a year, citing an increasing number of letters asking for assistance. However, for most poeple, contacting congressional representives is one of very few channels still available to receive any information regarding their pending cases.
6. The name check situation may get even worse, before it improves
According to the USCIS Ombudsman, there is a staggering 329,160 FBI name check cases pending as of May 2007. Among them, 211,341 (64%) have been pending more than 90 days and approximately 32 percent (106,738) pending more than one year. Now with the biggest fee increase in decades, taking effect July 30th, 2007, The USCIS has proposed to allocate more funds toward the name check process. And the FBI indicated that additional funding would allow them to add more staff to speed up the process and reduce backlogs. Many are skeptical, but we certainly hope that they will achieve some of the goals this time.
more...
pictures %IMG_DESC_7%
ondreaming
01-11 01:54 PM
This article on today�s Washington Times about the Boehner vs Blunt race to succeed the former House majority leader, gives some hints on both the people and the organizations pushing the inimmigration issues in the Congress: Immigration vote stirs concern about Boehner
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060111-121934-8017r.htm
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060111-121934-8017r.htm
dresses %IMG_DESC_12%
bingl
08-12 08:42 PM
Finally got the CPO emails/texts today morning for both me and my wife.
Came to USA in 1996 on H1. Masters (F1) from 1999-2000.
All GC applications in EB2. Nationality : India.
Applied in Mid 2001 : company (think $15B!!!) went kaput.
Applied in Mid 2003 : I quit in mid-2005 - while labor pending.
Applied Nov 22, 2005 : Approved Aug 11, 2010.
Labor applied via PERM - approved in about 4 months.
I-140 applied soon after - approved in about 4 months.
I-485 applied during the July-August 2007.
Receipt Date: Aug 16, 2007
Notice Date: Oct 1, 2007
At NSC.
Quit in mid-2008 with 485/EAD, sent AC21.
Got RFE in Sep 2008 (missed the 2008 boat).
485 LUD stuck at 10/29/2008 forever until today.
Opened a SR on Aug 5th.
Took an infopass on Aug 6th - all I could get was, "your application is with an
Immigration Officer since Aug 2nd". Nothing else!
Don't know if either had an effect.
Didn't do anything beyond the above two.
I think anything that's helpful for anyone based on dates/apps/process/procedures are all listed above. Now for a bit of something in my mind. No particular theme but general rambling....if you so indulge..please continue. Else Have a good day and happy life. And thanks IV.
It has been a long journey for sure. A lot of my friends who came to
USA in 1996 are now citizens. I have NO regrets at all. I took my own
path. Sometimes I used to think that if I had done the GC process
in 1998/1999 instead of quitting my full time job to do full time masters,
I might've gotten GC sooner. OR what if I had stuck with the 2003 application,
sure, it would've taken longer to get even the Labor cleared but I would
have gotten GC in probably 2007 - and worst case 2008. And heck, I would
have made an additional $150K (since the company got acquired by "as big
as it gets" tech company). OR what if I had chosen a very safe choice out
of masters [believe it or not, I got 12 offers back in 2000 - but then heck,
every body else got 12 offers as well]. OH btw, the full time masters ended
up costing me about $45K in credit card loans. So yeah...no point in contemplating
all the "coulda woulda shoulda"s in life.
As Nike says: Just do it.
I strongly believe it was because of the masters that I got the first 2000/2001 company, I got into the next job - and because of it to the next one and because
of that to the current one - where I am extremely happy and think
will over time come out very well off too.
At all times, I never compromised on my job. Took the job which offered
me the most challenge and allowed me to learn as much as possible while
working the smartest folks around. That I think was a great benefit - all
along - since that component of life (work) never bothered me. And was never
afraid of taking (apparent) risks either. To me they were calculated risks.
The 2002 company I joined, it was a small startup - I was employee number 20-something and was the only H1-B until we had about 150+ employees.
When I quit it was 450+ folks and was about 750+ when it was acquired.
The company I joined in 2008 (via AC21), was and still is a startup. When
I joined we were 8 employees and still now, remain lean-and-mean but
kicking some serious ass. (if I say so myself..pardon me). :)
The biggest hiccup as I think of it now was that my wife was not able
to work from 2003-2007. But the EAD in mid-2007 finally solved that
problem. Oh, I never hesitated traveling either : travel to Africa (three
countries) one year, and to Europe (three countries) one year and
Asia (two countries other than India) in one year.
Also purchased a home in 2009 (it was very tempting during the
2004-2006 times...but waited out for good).
So yeah...H1-B/EAD/AP are all handicaps - only if you convince yourself so.
A couple of times I had contemplated Canadian PR or really
moving there or to somewhere in Europe (and even Aus PR).
But pursued nothing mostly because I was lazy.
But all along my wife fully supported in everything I (we) did.
Be it change of jobs, other big decisions..what not.
So thankful to god for that.
Just a bit to go back in the way back machine.
Long ago, labor was the bottle-neck. Then 485, then something else.
Things repeat - old is new, new is old...repeat.
There were times when there was no online checking, no sms, no email notifications.
Six year h1-cap was strongly enforced. no concurrent 140/485. No one year extension of h1. No 3 year extenstions of h1 after 140. No 2 year EADs. No AC21. No priority date porting. I can go on....but a lot of stuff happened...happens.
If there is one thing I learned wrt immigration, it is do things ASAP. Never postpone anything at all. As much as possible get first in the queue.
A general piece of advice: Never reject an option you don't have. [this is more to do with folks who say, "I am only in year 1 in h1..I don't know if I need gc..let me see after 2-3 years.." - guess what einstein, it is easy to give up your gc after you get it, then to get it when you desperately need it.]
Good luck and all the best to those who are waiting.
EB2-IC seems in pretty good shape as far as I can tell.
EB3-folks need some serious legislative help - please consider contributing a fraction of what you send for your immigration-lawyers and get something done. support IV.
And finally: Be Happy!
Peace.
My ND is also 1 oct and lying at NSC . Hopefully it will be my turn soon
Came to USA in 1996 on H1. Masters (F1) from 1999-2000.
All GC applications in EB2. Nationality : India.
Applied in Mid 2001 : company (think $15B!!!) went kaput.
Applied in Mid 2003 : I quit in mid-2005 - while labor pending.
Applied Nov 22, 2005 : Approved Aug 11, 2010.
Labor applied via PERM - approved in about 4 months.
I-140 applied soon after - approved in about 4 months.
I-485 applied during the July-August 2007.
Receipt Date: Aug 16, 2007
Notice Date: Oct 1, 2007
At NSC.
Quit in mid-2008 with 485/EAD, sent AC21.
Got RFE in Sep 2008 (missed the 2008 boat).
485 LUD stuck at 10/29/2008 forever until today.
Opened a SR on Aug 5th.
Took an infopass on Aug 6th - all I could get was, "your application is with an
Immigration Officer since Aug 2nd". Nothing else!
Don't know if either had an effect.
Didn't do anything beyond the above two.
I think anything that's helpful for anyone based on dates/apps/process/procedures are all listed above. Now for a bit of something in my mind. No particular theme but general rambling....if you so indulge..please continue. Else Have a good day and happy life. And thanks IV.
It has been a long journey for sure. A lot of my friends who came to
USA in 1996 are now citizens. I have NO regrets at all. I took my own
path. Sometimes I used to think that if I had done the GC process
in 1998/1999 instead of quitting my full time job to do full time masters,
I might've gotten GC sooner. OR what if I had stuck with the 2003 application,
sure, it would've taken longer to get even the Labor cleared but I would
have gotten GC in probably 2007 - and worst case 2008. And heck, I would
have made an additional $150K (since the company got acquired by "as big
as it gets" tech company). OR what if I had chosen a very safe choice out
of masters [believe it or not, I got 12 offers back in 2000 - but then heck,
every body else got 12 offers as well]. OH btw, the full time masters ended
up costing me about $45K in credit card loans. So yeah...no point in contemplating
all the "coulda woulda shoulda"s in life.
As Nike says: Just do it.
I strongly believe it was because of the masters that I got the first 2000/2001 company, I got into the next job - and because of it to the next one and because
of that to the current one - where I am extremely happy and think
will over time come out very well off too.
At all times, I never compromised on my job. Took the job which offered
me the most challenge and allowed me to learn as much as possible while
working the smartest folks around. That I think was a great benefit - all
along - since that component of life (work) never bothered me. And was never
afraid of taking (apparent) risks either. To me they were calculated risks.
The 2002 company I joined, it was a small startup - I was employee number 20-something and was the only H1-B until we had about 150+ employees.
When I quit it was 450+ folks and was about 750+ when it was acquired.
The company I joined in 2008 (via AC21), was and still is a startup. When
I joined we were 8 employees and still now, remain lean-and-mean but
kicking some serious ass. (if I say so myself..pardon me). :)
The biggest hiccup as I think of it now was that my wife was not able
to work from 2003-2007. But the EAD in mid-2007 finally solved that
problem. Oh, I never hesitated traveling either : travel to Africa (three
countries) one year, and to Europe (three countries) one year and
Asia (two countries other than India) in one year.
Also purchased a home in 2009 (it was very tempting during the
2004-2006 times...but waited out for good).
So yeah...H1-B/EAD/AP are all handicaps - only if you convince yourself so.
A couple of times I had contemplated Canadian PR or really
moving there or to somewhere in Europe (and even Aus PR).
But pursued nothing mostly because I was lazy.
But all along my wife fully supported in everything I (we) did.
Be it change of jobs, other big decisions..what not.
So thankful to god for that.
Just a bit to go back in the way back machine.
Long ago, labor was the bottle-neck. Then 485, then something else.
Things repeat - old is new, new is old...repeat.
There were times when there was no online checking, no sms, no email notifications.
Six year h1-cap was strongly enforced. no concurrent 140/485. No one year extension of h1. No 3 year extenstions of h1 after 140. No 2 year EADs. No AC21. No priority date porting. I can go on....but a lot of stuff happened...happens.
If there is one thing I learned wrt immigration, it is do things ASAP. Never postpone anything at all. As much as possible get first in the queue.
A general piece of advice: Never reject an option you don't have. [this is more to do with folks who say, "I am only in year 1 in h1..I don't know if I need gc..let me see after 2-3 years.." - guess what einstein, it is easy to give up your gc after you get it, then to get it when you desperately need it.]
Good luck and all the best to those who are waiting.
EB2-IC seems in pretty good shape as far as I can tell.
EB3-folks need some serious legislative help - please consider contributing a fraction of what you send for your immigration-lawyers and get something done. support IV.
And finally: Be Happy!
Peace.
My ND is also 1 oct and lying at NSC . Hopefully it will be my turn soon
more...
makeup %IMG_DESC_9%
gc_chahiye
06-29 06:15 PM
My $0.02. This could be a pre-emptive measure on the part of AILA. There must have been some talk at the state department of mid-month regression. This might be a strategy to scotch that. Raise a ruckus and send a message that we are prepared to file a law suit. Who knows? We are mere pawns in this grand game. Whatever happens, I hope people keep some perspective and not lose sleep over this.
- Sri
yeah right. scare the state-department with a lawsuit.
guys, this is the government we are talking about. A lawsuit is not going to deter them. AILA will settle, the government will investigate and some poor sod somewhere will be fired. Life will then go-on with us hanging on in limbo.
Whatever happens, I hope people keep some perspective and not lose sleep over this.
good advice. Since we cant control whats happening, might as well take our mind off it, and wait and see what happens.
- Sri
yeah right. scare the state-department with a lawsuit.
guys, this is the government we are talking about. A lawsuit is not going to deter them. AILA will settle, the government will investigate and some poor sod somewhere will be fired. Life will then go-on with us hanging on in limbo.
Whatever happens, I hope people keep some perspective and not lose sleep over this.
good advice. Since we cant control whats happening, might as well take our mind off it, and wait and see what happens.
girlfriend %IMG_DESC_14%
optimystic
08-21 08:30 PM
I think the division of Eb2 and EB3 will be over when oct VB comes. Mostly Eb3 will go back 2003 or 2004 and Eb3 date may be 2002. At that time there will be unity.
The current visa bulletin says EB3 PDs may go back to the level that was in June 08 visa bulletin or worser. So it is very likely that EB3 will be anywhere between Apr 2001 to Nov 2001. Personally I would be happy if it remained at least beyond May 2001.
I dont see EB3 moving to 2002 unless USCIS wants to agressively move it forward, so that they can continue their unfair trend of procesing some out of order low hanging fruit cases in EB3 category, just because they are sitting on the top of their applications pile, even if they had much later PDs. Just like they are doing with EB2
What will unite people is to fight against the common pain point... *Unfair advantage given to out of order applicants* , whether it be EB2 or EB3, who are much later in the queue, but some how are on the top of application piles, and easily accessible to IOs- who are making DOS move the PDs, just so that they can clear of their tables by approving these cases, rather than trying to access applications in FIFO and follow a fair process.
The whole EB2-EB3 divide arose out of this unfair practice of USCIS. Which just on their whim move PDs forward , be it EB3 or EB2. It just happened, that EB2 date has been moved more aggressively, probably because there is less backlog there. But looking at all the EB2 people still waiting with 2003, 2004 PDs while 2006 are getting approvals, indicates that the real problem is USCIS not doing due diligence to identify the right cases to be processed next and get the exact count of such cases.
Just asking them to recapture visa numbers or cyring foul against wasted numbers etc will still not solve the problem unless we also FORCE them to follow FIFO and process cases FAIRLY. And do their due diligence to spend some time and put their application piles in proper order. Otherwise USCIS will continue to use these recaptured visas and use them to approve FU***&G Out of Order cases and manipulate & play the system to achieve that by jumping around the PD up/down/'U' and what not, just so because it is *convenient* for them to do so.
The current visa bulletin says EB3 PDs may go back to the level that was in June 08 visa bulletin or worser. So it is very likely that EB3 will be anywhere between Apr 2001 to Nov 2001. Personally I would be happy if it remained at least beyond May 2001.
I dont see EB3 moving to 2002 unless USCIS wants to agressively move it forward, so that they can continue their unfair trend of procesing some out of order low hanging fruit cases in EB3 category, just because they are sitting on the top of their applications pile, even if they had much later PDs. Just like they are doing with EB2
What will unite people is to fight against the common pain point... *Unfair advantage given to out of order applicants* , whether it be EB2 or EB3, who are much later in the queue, but some how are on the top of application piles, and easily accessible to IOs- who are making DOS move the PDs, just so that they can clear of their tables by approving these cases, rather than trying to access applications in FIFO and follow a fair process.
The whole EB2-EB3 divide arose out of this unfair practice of USCIS. Which just on their whim move PDs forward , be it EB3 or EB2. It just happened, that EB2 date has been moved more aggressively, probably because there is less backlog there. But looking at all the EB2 people still waiting with 2003, 2004 PDs while 2006 are getting approvals, indicates that the real problem is USCIS not doing due diligence to identify the right cases to be processed next and get the exact count of such cases.
Just asking them to recapture visa numbers or cyring foul against wasted numbers etc will still not solve the problem unless we also FORCE them to follow FIFO and process cases FAIRLY. And do their due diligence to spend some time and put their application piles in proper order. Otherwise USCIS will continue to use these recaptured visas and use them to approve FU***&G Out of Order cases and manipulate & play the system to achieve that by jumping around the PD up/down/'U' and what not, just so because it is *convenient* for them to do so.
hairstyles %IMG_DESC_11%
bobopotato
05-22 08:20 AM
Would anyone be able to advise if I can travel out of the country after I've filed the 485 if I have an approved I-797 approval notice (for H-1B) but old H-1B stamp in pp has already expired?
If I travel out and then get the H-1B visa stamp at an outside consulate, I would be able to travel back in, but would I have considered have abandoned the 485 application? (since I travelled out without a valid H-1B stamp in pp)??
Can I travel out even before my AP arrives? Or does having an AP make a difference? I would prefer to stay on H-1B status since you never know what happens to the 140/485 application.
Thanks for the help guys.
If I travel out and then get the H-1B visa stamp at an outside consulate, I would be able to travel back in, but would I have considered have abandoned the 485 application? (since I travelled out without a valid H-1B stamp in pp)??
Can I travel out even before my AP arrives? Or does having an AP make a difference? I would prefer to stay on H-1B status since you never know what happens to the 140/485 application.
Thanks for the help guys.
anura
04-06 08:20 AM
GC_ASP: "This is seems to be completely different from what they claimed "substantial" before..."
Two weeks is substantial considering that in May EB2I movement is supposed to 0 days. :)
On a more serious note, Shusterman had to adjust the statement because everyone is going to question their credibility when the VB comes out and if it is only 2 weeks and not the 'years' that they claimed. Shusterman is just another person who spoke too much too early.
Two weeks is substantial considering that in May EB2I movement is supposed to 0 days. :)
On a more serious note, Shusterman had to adjust the statement because everyone is going to question their credibility when the VB comes out and if it is only 2 weeks and not the 'years' that they claimed. Shusterman is just another person who spoke too much too early.
lazycis
09-27 05:58 PM
Thanks, this is good information.
Do you know if WOM can be filed only when the PD is current. After reading this article i feel so.
PD has no effect on filing a civil action as visa bulleting is changing every month. My friend in Oregon got I-485 approval after filing Wom even though his PD is not current on the latest visa bulletin.
Do you know if WOM can be filed only when the PD is current. After reading this article i feel so.
PD has no effect on filing a civil action as visa bulleting is changing every month. My friend in Oregon got I-485 approval after filing Wom even though his PD is not current on the latest visa bulletin.