gsc999
04-23 10:44 AM
This meeting was a success since IV was able to display support for the bill and also then follow up after the meeting. IV core members worked hard to make this event a success and we are happy to report this.
Many thanks to gsc999 for bringing a banner and wearing IV T shirt
---
Pappu, thank you for your kind words. I just had the T-shirt. Canadian_Dream brought the banner. Canadian_dream has been a very active member behind the scenes. Both of us coordinated this effort so that we could share the work. Next time we promise to be better prepared.
Go Northern California Group, Go IV!
Many thanks to gsc999 for bringing a banner and wearing IV T shirt
---
Pappu, thank you for your kind words. I just had the T-shirt. Canadian_Dream brought the banner. Canadian_dream has been a very active member behind the scenes. Both of us coordinated this effort so that we could share the work. Next time we promise to be better prepared.
Go Northern California Group, Go IV!
wallpaper troll on Anthony Weiner
gc_peshwa
06-13 12:49 AM
done...and recommended to friends already.
GCOP
07-11 01:07 PM
Thanks for your post. Is there any chance for any or Significant movement like this in EB-3. Now it's about time for EB-3 to move ahead. We have been trying for Bills every year, without any luck. Why is it so difficult for any movement in EB-3, which is stuck in 2001 and not moving ahead. It is really frustrating. EB-3 I is really suffering the most. Is there any solution for that ?
____________________
Phone calls to CHC Members
Written Letters to President & IV
Attended DC Rally
Contributed to IV
PD: October 2003, EB-3
source: www.immigration-law.com
07/11/2008: Indian EB-2 Visa Number in Visa Bulletin August 2008 and Anticipated Expedited Adjudication of Their I-485 Applications to Prevent EB 2008 Visa Number Waste
The movement of the EB-2 visa numbers for Indians is indeed a very good news in that it sounds that the USCIS intends to take out the visa numbers for them before the end of September 2008 as best as they can and attempt to adjudicate the applications before the new fiscal year starts on October 1, 2008. Obviously, there must be a large number of EB-2 cases which were filed during the July 2007 Visa Bulletin fiasco whose priority date is June 1, 2006 or earlier date. It appears that the USCIS has been working hard to get these cases ready for adjudication while their visa numbers are availalbe so that the agency prevents the visa number for FY 2008 from being wasted. Please stay tuned to this web site for this remarkable turn of the events.
____________________
Phone calls to CHC Members
Written Letters to President & IV
Attended DC Rally
Contributed to IV
PD: October 2003, EB-3
source: www.immigration-law.com
07/11/2008: Indian EB-2 Visa Number in Visa Bulletin August 2008 and Anticipated Expedited Adjudication of Their I-485 Applications to Prevent EB 2008 Visa Number Waste
The movement of the EB-2 visa numbers for Indians is indeed a very good news in that it sounds that the USCIS intends to take out the visa numbers for them before the end of September 2008 as best as they can and attempt to adjudicate the applications before the new fiscal year starts on October 1, 2008. Obviously, there must be a large number of EB-2 cases which were filed during the July 2007 Visa Bulletin fiasco whose priority date is June 1, 2006 or earlier date. It appears that the USCIS has been working hard to get these cases ready for adjudication while their visa numbers are availalbe so that the agency prevents the visa number for FY 2008 from being wasted. Please stay tuned to this web site for this remarkable turn of the events.
2011 Anthony Weiner, an “engorged
javadeveloper
01-30 12:15 PM
have you submitted the new G-28 form when you changed employers?
You can go back to your original GC sponsoring employer also right?
You can go back to your original GC sponsoring employer also right?
more...
mhathi
03-03 04:51 PM
You need an option: My home buying decision is independent of green card process.
Novice
07-15 12:31 PM
I have an AP and my Priority date is current. What will happend to my AP when my 485 is approved and I am out of country?
more...
pbuckeye
02-12 08:54 AM
Folks,
lets put the "you said .. I said" aside and just evaluate the definition of "assigned" and "used" visa numbers.
- correct me if I am wrong but I think Ron implies - "some numbers are assigned but then not used. These numbers still show up as used in the data report (since they were assigned)".
We have established that there is no document to support this but can we find out if this assumption can be true?
lets put the "you said .. I said" aside and just evaluate the definition of "assigned" and "used" visa numbers.
- correct me if I am wrong but I think Ron implies - "some numbers are assigned but then not used. These numbers still show up as used in the data report (since they were assigned)".
We have established that there is no document to support this but can we find out if this assumption can be true?
2010 Anthony Weiner is just the
coopheal
03-20 08:43 AM
I agree with you man. These screwed up desi consulting firms sell LCs like it is walmart. And people who work for them don't care about the position offered or their qualifications. They just want to have multiple LCs and I-140s and then cut the line when it is convenient.
Don�t do character assassination of EB3 applicants. EB3s who now have qualifications/job for EB2 should definitely try to convert over to EB2. EB3s don�t listen to people like these. It�s the same mentality which opposes eliminating country limits; more over its same mentality which opposes EB reforms. Grow up��
Trying to stop an EB3 person who spent more time than you in GC queue and has qualification for EB2 is just insane.
Don�t do character assassination of EB3 applicants. EB3s who now have qualifications/job for EB2 should definitely try to convert over to EB2. EB3s don�t listen to people like these. It�s the same mentality which opposes eliminating country limits; more over its same mentality which opposes EB reforms. Grow up��
Trying to stop an EB3 person who spent more time than you in GC queue and has qualification for EB2 is just insane.
more...
mallu
04-24 09:34 PM
Hi
After long haul of almost 5 years , today I got the approval email for my 485 filed in June - 2007.I guess my wife's case should be approved soon.Last when spoke to TCS IO , I was told that biometrics is needed in my case but still they can approve & later send me the notice. I guess only after that I might get the physical card.
Had anyone experienced this scenario ?
Anyways I want to thank everyone on this forum,immigration portals, folks & every other support that I have got in this long process.
I will always be there for everyone on this forum or in any other way I can help to every legal immigrant who is waiting for the Green Card.
Thanks a lot
Priority date - 05/2003
140 approved - 10/2006 from TSC
485,131,765 RD-6/04/2007 at TSC, notices received - 06/07/2007
CA, EB2
Wife's case returned due to some error,send it again & received on 06/17/2007 as per Fedex
Wife's case RD- 7/10/2007
I131,I765 approved for both -Nov 2007
I485 approval mail - 04/24/08 - Myself
Waiting for spouse approval, physical Cards
Congrats ! Good to know that TSC is picking up India EB2 cases for approval ( whatever be the random order they have ).
After long haul of almost 5 years , today I got the approval email for my 485 filed in June - 2007.I guess my wife's case should be approved soon.Last when spoke to TCS IO , I was told that biometrics is needed in my case but still they can approve & later send me the notice. I guess only after that I might get the physical card.
Had anyone experienced this scenario ?
Anyways I want to thank everyone on this forum,immigration portals, folks & every other support that I have got in this long process.
I will always be there for everyone on this forum or in any other way I can help to every legal immigrant who is waiting for the Green Card.
Thanks a lot
Priority date - 05/2003
140 approved - 10/2006 from TSC
485,131,765 RD-6/04/2007 at TSC, notices received - 06/07/2007
CA, EB2
Wife's case returned due to some error,send it again & received on 06/17/2007 as per Fedex
Wife's case RD- 7/10/2007
I131,I765 approved for both -Nov 2007
I485 approval mail - 04/24/08 - Myself
Waiting for spouse approval, physical Cards
Congrats ! Good to know that TSC is picking up India EB2 cases for approval ( whatever be the random order they have ).
hair weiner exposed.jpg
boreal
04-22 01:54 PM
Decipher and GSC999 have totally contradictory opinions . Not sure whom to believe here .:D . There seems to have been 2 sets of opinons here of the members who attended the rally.
Oh well!! Some things are going on in the background too and i was one of those ppl that shifted from the first group (disappointed) to the second group (optimistic) after talking with Aman. So, if you are not sure which group you are falling into, try calling someone in the core group.
Oh well!! Some things are going on in the background too and i was one of those ppl that shifted from the first group (disappointed) to the second group (optimistic) after talking with Aman. So, if you are not sure which group you are falling into, try calling someone in the core group.
more...
new_horizon
06-10 04:08 PM
Done
hot Anthony Weiner (D_NY)
syedajmal
03-09 11:26 PM
We do have a lot of discussions and a lot of great ideas that come by, but one thing we seem to lack is the same Enthusiasm and direction we used to see from the Core. Right to me it looks like it has been a while since I have heard from them (except for hearing from Pappu but with no action item) on what is their plan and what is happening.
I don't mean to criticize them as the whole awakening and this forum is a result of their awakening. But they seem to be missing or at least haven't seen any updates. I am probably not one of the highest contributors, but for me to further contribute in the future I need to see hope in the activities here And I don't see that now.
I also don't wanna come up with fresh ideas, since we already have quite a few suggestions tabled by the core on which we need an update and also from other members.
We need leadership and action. Not more members or $$$. With leadership I think the rest will follow.
I don't mean to criticize them as the whole awakening and this forum is a result of their awakening. But they seem to be missing or at least haven't seen any updates. I am probably not one of the highest contributors, but for me to further contribute in the future I need to see hope in the activities here And I don't see that now.
I also don't wanna come up with fresh ideas, since we already have quite a few suggestions tabled by the core on which we need an update and also from other members.
We need leadership and action. Not more members or $$$. With leadership I think the rest will follow.
more...
house The Monday Morning Meatloaf
sh2005
07-13 04:42 PM
I wasn't going to jump in the debate on what was Murthy's intention when she published that letter. But I can't help noting something odd in the posts where some are claiming she will try to take credit later on for making this "big development" happen. We don't even know what this big development is!! All we have is a posting by the Core Group and couple of attorneys' websites' speculation. I am hoping it's will be a big positive development for us when it is announced, but right now we are counting our chickens before they are hatched and denouncing someone's intention based on speculations and guesses!
tattoo sunni, Anthony+weiner
psam
06-11 12:15 AM
This amendment treats foreign workers like slaves.
When we need you, we take you in. But when there are layoffs, you are supposed to pack your bags and leave? Even if you are the best performer in your group?
Layoffs happen at respectable companies like Microsoft as well. And Microsoft indeed has hired some of the brightest brains from all over the world. Why should families of these people take all the heat of layoff?
I wish that next Microsoft, Apple, Google happens outside of U.S.
When we need you, we take you in. But when there are layoffs, you are supposed to pack your bags and leave? Even if you are the best performer in your group?
Layoffs happen at respectable companies like Microsoft as well. And Microsoft indeed has hired some of the brightest brains from all over the world. Why should families of these people take all the heat of layoff?
I wish that next Microsoft, Apple, Google happens outside of U.S.
more...
pictures sunni, Anthony+weiner
java98
08-12 07:41 PM
I complete agree with your ideas and effort.
Please count me in.
God Bless you all
Please count me in.
God Bless you all
dresses Where Anthony Weiner got his
luckylavs
04-10 06:20 PM
Any idea//
more...
makeup Anthony Weiner: VICTIM.
moonrah
07-02 10:23 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again - I don't see how the per country limit is unfair! It was set up so that immigrants from ALL nations would have EQUAL opportunity to immigrate to the U.S. and to prevent any one (or two) countries from monopolizing the visa numbers. Getting rid of the per country limit would most certainly lead to immigration from a limited number of sources (countries) and thus jeopardize the diversity of the immigration process. Getting rid of it would be like robbing Peter to pay Paul because those countries who are severely retrogressed now would only see limited benefits and those who are not all that retrogressed would fall backwards - is that fair!? It seems these forms are dominated by "certain" groups who have their own agenda and don't really care about ROW! It makes me feel uncomfortable being an IV member from ROW!
Whatever you are saying is true for Family based categories. Employement category is defined to have skilled immigrants to help US businesses, that is why it is called employment based category. Let me explain you what you are saying. You are saying that I will ask compnay A to wait for five years to give promotion to person X, because quotas for his country are not available, and until he gets his green card he can not get promotion, instead give promotion to person Y which is less qualified but can get green card next month since his country has quotas available. Now does it make sense for company A to give promotion to less qualified person just because person X can not get his green card? Company won't do that and will end up sponsoring another qualified person. Or let me explain you in different way. If certain company has need for specific skill for long term and provided that there are not enough citizens to do that job, in this case company has to sponsor an immigrant, but since the requirement is for long term, company doesn't want him to be on immigrant visa for long term because sponsoring immigrant visa means money and more liability. In this case, even though company has much better match from a country whose immigrant visa are not available for many years, company might end up taking immigrant who is less qualified for the job. And company might say that, we can not take you since you won't be able to get green card for many years. If company does that then it would be an discrimination, but company doesn't have any choice.
Initially, it would have been good idea to have country limits because nobody was anticipating this kind of backlogs. But in current situation it doesn't make sense to keep it like that way. Goverment understands it, but they don't want to do anything because this has become political issue because of groups which represent illegal immigrants. With time goverment and companies have to be practicle and change policies or laws. This has been happening and it should happen, particularly when it doesn't make sense. For goverment diversity is important but for company getting job done is more important. And primary purpose of EB category is to get things done.
Whatever you are saying is true for Family based categories. Employement category is defined to have skilled immigrants to help US businesses, that is why it is called employment based category. Let me explain you what you are saying. You are saying that I will ask compnay A to wait for five years to give promotion to person X, because quotas for his country are not available, and until he gets his green card he can not get promotion, instead give promotion to person Y which is less qualified but can get green card next month since his country has quotas available. Now does it make sense for company A to give promotion to less qualified person just because person X can not get his green card? Company won't do that and will end up sponsoring another qualified person. Or let me explain you in different way. If certain company has need for specific skill for long term and provided that there are not enough citizens to do that job, in this case company has to sponsor an immigrant, but since the requirement is for long term, company doesn't want him to be on immigrant visa for long term because sponsoring immigrant visa means money and more liability. In this case, even though company has much better match from a country whose immigrant visa are not available for many years, company might end up taking immigrant who is less qualified for the job. And company might say that, we can not take you since you won't be able to get green card for many years. If company does that then it would be an discrimination, but company doesn't have any choice.
Initially, it would have been good idea to have country limits because nobody was anticipating this kind of backlogs. But in current situation it doesn't make sense to keep it like that way. Goverment understands it, but they don't want to do anything because this has become political issue because of groups which represent illegal immigrants. With time goverment and companies have to be practicle and change policies or laws. This has been happening and it should happen, particularly when it doesn't make sense. For goverment diversity is important but for company getting job done is more important. And primary purpose of EB category is to get things done.
girlfriend story about Anthony Weiner
kutra
03-06 10:06 AM
btw you are paranoid ..how can someone else do this for you ??
>So long as singhsa3's not pledging that I and my wife will buy our house #2 and house #3 only because USCIS gives us green cards
dude, i was being funny. which part of the smiley didn't you get?
why are you so scared :-D ..what happens if media watches the poll and how is this dirty linen ...it is a valid point ..and the main point is legal people have to wait for years and years to get the stupid card (and in the meanwhile keep on paying the lawyers fees) ..this is not dirty linen ...if you are not convinced then stay out of the way.
really I dont see any other options after the letter campaign ...unless some one else has a better idea !!
I have been resisting to get dragged into this, but I have to post! Not only are you incapable of understanding humor, but you are totally incompetent in understanding plain English.
I never wrote dirty linen is "writing the fact that we have to wait for years and years" or "having the poll" either. singhsa3 is trying his best to make a case that all of us who are "waiting for years and years" have the potential to buy houses, and therefore give us GCs. Dirty linen is when people like me and Pegasus503 offer our contrasting views (and get red-dotted by immature posters who cannot have a civil debate) AND the media thinks these IV folks are not even in agreement on this subject. This to me would be detrimental to singhsa3's efforts and thus I wrote let's not bicker/argue/wash dirty linen about whether we agree with singhsa3's idea or not.
As far as your advice "if you are not convinced then stay out of the way", take a cold shower, dude. I was the first to delete my post and asked others to do the same so this would benefit singhsa3's campaign. If your miniscule brain cannot fathom my posts, ignore them and help singhsa3 out instead. And yes, while you are growing up, do resist the urge to add those red-dots......that's not getting you your green card any faster.
>So long as singhsa3's not pledging that I and my wife will buy our house #2 and house #3 only because USCIS gives us green cards
dude, i was being funny. which part of the smiley didn't you get?
why are you so scared :-D ..what happens if media watches the poll and how is this dirty linen ...it is a valid point ..and the main point is legal people have to wait for years and years to get the stupid card (and in the meanwhile keep on paying the lawyers fees) ..this is not dirty linen ...if you are not convinced then stay out of the way.
really I dont see any other options after the letter campaign ...unless some one else has a better idea !!
I have been resisting to get dragged into this, but I have to post! Not only are you incapable of understanding humor, but you are totally incompetent in understanding plain English.
I never wrote dirty linen is "writing the fact that we have to wait for years and years" or "having the poll" either. singhsa3 is trying his best to make a case that all of us who are "waiting for years and years" have the potential to buy houses, and therefore give us GCs. Dirty linen is when people like me and Pegasus503 offer our contrasting views (and get red-dotted by immature posters who cannot have a civil debate) AND the media thinks these IV folks are not even in agreement on this subject. This to me would be detrimental to singhsa3's efforts and thus I wrote let's not bicker/argue/wash dirty linen about whether we agree with singhsa3's idea or not.
As far as your advice "if you are not convinced then stay out of the way", take a cold shower, dude. I was the first to delete my post and asked others to do the same so this would benefit singhsa3's campaign. If your miniscule brain cannot fathom my posts, ignore them and help singhsa3 out instead. And yes, while you are growing up, do resist the urge to add those red-dots......that's not getting you your green card any faster.
hairstyles Anthony Weiner resigned today
unitednations
12-21 10:48 PM
This is from Murthy chat.
Question: If in the past I have been out of H1B status for 6 months (I-94 not expired), is this going to hurt my GC (or any new petitions to change / extend / adjust status)?
Answer: A person who fails to maintain status for over 180 days may have a problem obtaining the approval of the I-485, which allows a maximum of 180 days for one to be out of status under Section 245(k) of the INA, unless the person is covered under 245(i) of the INA. Sometimes, though, the fault of the employer in not paying the salary while the person is considered an employee may not pose a problem but at other times it may pose a problem. Not having pay stubs will certainly adversely impact the ability to obtain an extension or change of status from the USCIS. Jun-20-2005.
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
I had written about this in the past. When I went for local office interview; he had requested all w2's and tax returns from my initial entry shown on g-325( LAST ADDRESS OUTSIDE USA FOR MORE THEN ONE YEAR) which was 1999.
It said prove that you maintained status on each entry.
Now: i didn't have any issues but I was pretty upset that officer was going way outside the law and testing periods that he wasn't supposed to. My date of last entry before filing 485 was December 2002 and he was requesting 1999-2006.
I did inform him that he wasn't supposed to ask for this as it was outside the law. However; what I gathered is that although 245k does have some significant protection for everyone; uscis tries to go other ways in catching/snagging you. Another link was provided in this link where a person listed an employer on his g-325a but he was on bench and never got paid. USCIS was trying to deny his 485 due to fraud. Fraud overrules 24k any time.
Therefore; uscis uses many different avenues to get at other aspects; especially to get you to lie, cover up, mislead in things you don't need to but inadvertently do because you think it is problematic when it really wasn't.
The feeling i got from my interview is that is what he was exactly trying to do.
Question: If in the past I have been out of H1B status for 6 months (I-94 not expired), is this going to hurt my GC (or any new petitions to change / extend / adjust status)?
Answer: A person who fails to maintain status for over 180 days may have a problem obtaining the approval of the I-485, which allows a maximum of 180 days for one to be out of status under Section 245(k) of the INA, unless the person is covered under 245(i) of the INA. Sometimes, though, the fault of the employer in not paying the salary while the person is considered an employee may not pose a problem but at other times it may pose a problem. Not having pay stubs will certainly adversely impact the ability to obtain an extension or change of status from the USCIS. Jun-20-2005.
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
I had written about this in the past. When I went for local office interview; he had requested all w2's and tax returns from my initial entry shown on g-325( LAST ADDRESS OUTSIDE USA FOR MORE THEN ONE YEAR) which was 1999.
It said prove that you maintained status on each entry.
Now: i didn't have any issues but I was pretty upset that officer was going way outside the law and testing periods that he wasn't supposed to. My date of last entry before filing 485 was December 2002 and he was requesting 1999-2006.
I did inform him that he wasn't supposed to ask for this as it was outside the law. However; what I gathered is that although 245k does have some significant protection for everyone; uscis tries to go other ways in catching/snagging you. Another link was provided in this link where a person listed an employer on his g-325a but he was on bench and never got paid. USCIS was trying to deny his 485 due to fraud. Fraud overrules 24k any time.
Therefore; uscis uses many different avenues to get at other aspects; especially to get you to lie, cover up, mislead in things you don't need to but inadvertently do because you think it is problematic when it really wasn't.
The feeling i got from my interview is that is what he was exactly trying to do.
bkarnik
07-25 06:46 PM
Thanks a lot, please keep us posted about the outcome, even if we have one percent of hope, there is no harm trying that.
Guys,
This argument is not new. I had started a thread a while back http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=556&highlight=bkarnik
which met with essentially the same reply from the IV moderators. My underlying issue is that the term "EAD" or anything remotely similar does not even appear in the INA unless I missed it and if so, I would really appreciate it if someone show me where it is.
Anyways, I sent the following email to my lawyer, the entire chain with names deleted is reproduced here for your reading pleasure. This exchange highlights the apathy with which the legal community (at least my lawyer) view the issue and their knowledge of the law.... enjoy.. :(
From: Attorney
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 4:57 PM
To: Bkarnik
Subject: RE: Question..
I see your point. You should contact the American Immigration Lawyers Association with your question. If the issue has not already been addressed by this organization, I'm sure they will readily champion your cause.
-----Original Message-----
From: Bkarnik
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 6:49 AM
To: attorney
Subject: Question..
Dear Attorney:
Thank you for your time and the quick turnaround. However, the question still remains. If you notice in the link sent by you below, the USCIS refers to the US 8 CFR 274a.12(a) and (c) According to the USCIS, the CFR is the interpretation made by the agencies of the INA as passed and amended by Congress. The INA itself does not seem to have any clause relating to EAD for employment based categories because I believe the Congress never foresaw a situation where it will take up to 5-6 years for the process to complete.
I know that the USCIS has on many occasions by using the Federal Register or by Memorandums modified the CFR or changed the regulations governing the validity of the EAD, and I am wondering if something similar can be achieved in this case, wherein an appeal is made to the USCIS to change the rules governing eligibility for issuing an EAD.
Thanks once again.
Bkarnik.
-----Original Message-----
From: AttorneySent: Monday, April 17, 2006 4:57 PM
To: Bkarnik
Subject: RE: Question..
Hello BKarnik,
Your argument is sound, however, U.S. Immigration does indeed adjudicate
I-765 EAD applications based upon eligibility for filing. Please click this
link: http://uscis.gov/graphics/formsfee/forms/i-765.htm. It will take you to the USCIS web site where you can download form I-765. Included with the form is an instruction sheet. In the section entitled "Eligibility Categories", U.S. Immigration spells out the categories for which form I-765 may be filed. For example, under the "Foreign Students" title, you can see that an F-1 OPT student is eligible to obtain EAD work authorization pursuant to subsection (c)(3)(i). Your eligibility for EAD work authorization will fall under the "EAD Applicants Who Have Filed for Adjustment of Status" title under subsection (c)(9). Unfortunately, there is no eligibility category for I-140 IVP applicants or for IVP approval notice holders.
I hope this answers your questions.
Attorney
________________________________
From: Bkarnik
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 2:16 PM
To: Attorney
Subject: Question..
Dear Attorney:
I had a question for you (actually, it is a series of sub questions).
However, this has nothing to with my employer or my GC, so if you feel that replying to this question will take up an inordinate amount of time or of you think that this is something that is worthwhile in pursuing, please let me know what your charges will be and I will let you know if I can afford them :)) With that out of the way, here goes:
The question is about getting an EAD before filing the I-485. I was perusing the INA as posted on the USCIS website. I did not find any applicable law that directs the USCIS when it can issue EADs. It is quite likely that I missed the section as I am not a student of laws as you are.
If so, can you let me know where to find it? As you know, the EAD issue is mentioned in the US 8 CFR sec. 274a. Now, the USCIS website explains that the CFR thus: The general provisions of laws enacted by Congress are interpreted and implemented by regulations issued by various agencies.
These
regulations apply the law to daily situations. Thus, the CFR is the interpretation of the law by the USCIS for application in daily life.
If
that is the case, what prevents the USCIS from issuing EADs upon the approval of Form I-140? Especially, since as you very well know, the Form I-140 is an application made by the employer to the USCIS to petition for an alien worker to become a permanent resident in the United States.
Therefore,
the form requires the employer to fill in all the pertinent information about the alien and his dependents. An approval of the Form I-140 indicates (at least to me) that the USCIS has agreed with the employee that the labor certification is good and the alien is approvable as a permanent employee.
I guess that is one of the reasons, the USCIS allows concurrent filing of the I-140/I-485.
With the current retrogression concurrent filing of I-140/I-485 is not possible, if the USCIS were to be agreeable to issue EADs to persons with approved I-140 it would make life a lot easier for all while at the same time not impacting the green card process itself. All we are asking is that the EAD be issued after I-140 approval, because it does not make sense to tell an employer that the alien is approved for permanent employment, but at the same time asking the employer to keep the employee in a H1B (i.e.
temporary status) at no fault of the employer/employee. Can you let me know if my argument is flawed? If not, do you think we have a way by which we can ask the USCIS for its interpretation or opinion on the issue? If we can, and you are willing to take the matter, can you let me know your fees?
I know that you are very busy, and may not be able to take on the matter even if you find merit in it. In that case, would know of a competent person willing to take it up?
Thank you for your time and patience,
Sincerely,
Bkarnik
Guys,
This argument is not new. I had started a thread a while back http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=556&highlight=bkarnik
which met with essentially the same reply from the IV moderators. My underlying issue is that the term "EAD" or anything remotely similar does not even appear in the INA unless I missed it and if so, I would really appreciate it if someone show me where it is.
Anyways, I sent the following email to my lawyer, the entire chain with names deleted is reproduced here for your reading pleasure. This exchange highlights the apathy with which the legal community (at least my lawyer) view the issue and their knowledge of the law.... enjoy.. :(
From: Attorney
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 4:57 PM
To: Bkarnik
Subject: RE: Question..
I see your point. You should contact the American Immigration Lawyers Association with your question. If the issue has not already been addressed by this organization, I'm sure they will readily champion your cause.
-----Original Message-----
From: Bkarnik
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 6:49 AM
To: attorney
Subject: Question..
Dear Attorney:
Thank you for your time and the quick turnaround. However, the question still remains. If you notice in the link sent by you below, the USCIS refers to the US 8 CFR 274a.12(a) and (c) According to the USCIS, the CFR is the interpretation made by the agencies of the INA as passed and amended by Congress. The INA itself does not seem to have any clause relating to EAD for employment based categories because I believe the Congress never foresaw a situation where it will take up to 5-6 years for the process to complete.
I know that the USCIS has on many occasions by using the Federal Register or by Memorandums modified the CFR or changed the regulations governing the validity of the EAD, and I am wondering if something similar can be achieved in this case, wherein an appeal is made to the USCIS to change the rules governing eligibility for issuing an EAD.
Thanks once again.
Bkarnik.
-----Original Message-----
From: AttorneySent: Monday, April 17, 2006 4:57 PM
To: Bkarnik
Subject: RE: Question..
Hello BKarnik,
Your argument is sound, however, U.S. Immigration does indeed adjudicate
I-765 EAD applications based upon eligibility for filing. Please click this
link: http://uscis.gov/graphics/formsfee/forms/i-765.htm. It will take you to the USCIS web site where you can download form I-765. Included with the form is an instruction sheet. In the section entitled "Eligibility Categories", U.S. Immigration spells out the categories for which form I-765 may be filed. For example, under the "Foreign Students" title, you can see that an F-1 OPT student is eligible to obtain EAD work authorization pursuant to subsection (c)(3)(i). Your eligibility for EAD work authorization will fall under the "EAD Applicants Who Have Filed for Adjustment of Status" title under subsection (c)(9). Unfortunately, there is no eligibility category for I-140 IVP applicants or for IVP approval notice holders.
I hope this answers your questions.
Attorney
________________________________
From: Bkarnik
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 2:16 PM
To: Attorney
Subject: Question..
Dear Attorney:
I had a question for you (actually, it is a series of sub questions).
However, this has nothing to with my employer or my GC, so if you feel that replying to this question will take up an inordinate amount of time or of you think that this is something that is worthwhile in pursuing, please let me know what your charges will be and I will let you know if I can afford them :)) With that out of the way, here goes:
The question is about getting an EAD before filing the I-485. I was perusing the INA as posted on the USCIS website. I did not find any applicable law that directs the USCIS when it can issue EADs. It is quite likely that I missed the section as I am not a student of laws as you are.
If so, can you let me know where to find it? As you know, the EAD issue is mentioned in the US 8 CFR sec. 274a. Now, the USCIS website explains that the CFR thus: The general provisions of laws enacted by Congress are interpreted and implemented by regulations issued by various agencies.
These
regulations apply the law to daily situations. Thus, the CFR is the interpretation of the law by the USCIS for application in daily life.
If
that is the case, what prevents the USCIS from issuing EADs upon the approval of Form I-140? Especially, since as you very well know, the Form I-140 is an application made by the employer to the USCIS to petition for an alien worker to become a permanent resident in the United States.
Therefore,
the form requires the employer to fill in all the pertinent information about the alien and his dependents. An approval of the Form I-140 indicates (at least to me) that the USCIS has agreed with the employee that the labor certification is good and the alien is approvable as a permanent employee.
I guess that is one of the reasons, the USCIS allows concurrent filing of the I-140/I-485.
With the current retrogression concurrent filing of I-140/I-485 is not possible, if the USCIS were to be agreeable to issue EADs to persons with approved I-140 it would make life a lot easier for all while at the same time not impacting the green card process itself. All we are asking is that the EAD be issued after I-140 approval, because it does not make sense to tell an employer that the alien is approved for permanent employment, but at the same time asking the employer to keep the employee in a H1B (i.e.
temporary status) at no fault of the employer/employee. Can you let me know if my argument is flawed? If not, do you think we have a way by which we can ask the USCIS for its interpretation or opinion on the issue? If we can, and you are willing to take the matter, can you let me know your fees?
I know that you are very busy, and may not be able to take on the matter even if you find merit in it. In that case, would know of a competent person willing to take it up?
Thank you for your time and patience,
Sincerely,
Bkarnik
addsf345
12-10 03:31 PM
With all the porting nonsense going on eb2 will move backward and eb3 will inch forward slowly. We might end up with eb2 and eb3 in 2002. congrats to all the people who ported, the only thing you accomplished is you made sure eb2 does not progress (it does not mean you have have moved forward by porting, it just means that you have made sure you have prevented original eb2 guys from getting green card), the people who ported wont gain any benefit but they will make it worse for everyone, they have to file a second i140 which will take at least another 1 year to clear and after 1 year when the ported 140's clear the eb2 will go back to 2002. You have also accomplished another great feat, DOL is going to make it impossible to file eb2 in IT jobs so even genuine people are screwed. Before people start giving red dots and justifying there porting I have an message for you, your behavior is no different from the people who did labor substitution, the end result was DOL ended labor substitution and the result of all this porting is DOL has made it impossible to get eb2 even for genuine cases. Just because others are doing it does not mean you can do it, obviously it is wrong therefore dol removed labor substitution and now dol is making it impossible to get eb2 for IT jobs even for genuine cases. 90 % of people doing this porting are desi consulting employees, they wine and complain about desi consulting companies as blood suckers (justifiably) but they themselves are bloodsuckers on the EB2 community by doing this eb3 to eb2 porting.
stop crying, our real problem is unfair country quota & retrogression. Help IV fight for our common goals.
I can't help but think about this story after reading your post.
A fox, upon failing to find a way to reach grapes hanging high up on a vine, retreated and said: "The grapes are sour anyway!" The moral is stated as "It is easy to despise what you cannot get". ;)
stop crying, our real problem is unfair country quota & retrogression. Help IV fight for our common goals.
I can't help but think about this story after reading your post.
A fox, upon failing to find a way to reach grapes hanging high up on a vine, retreated and said: "The grapes are sour anyway!" The moral is stated as "It is easy to despise what you cannot get". ;)
