Wendyzhu77
07-24 12:48 PM
I think this post is purposely composed to scare people. As a matter of fact, any 485 "might" be rejected if it is not properly filed, which has always been true for years. If you case is rejected, of course you will need to refile. So, it is absolutely normal that "some" July 2 filers "might" need to file again. Literally, this sentence is correct, but the auther intentionally uses it to imply that "ALL" will be rejected. As a matter of fact, "every day", some 485 filers will need to refile their 485 sometime later.
Continuing on this forum with more generic title
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10383
Per Greg Siskind -- July 2nd filers might have to file again, as all July 2nd application were rejected. Check out the link below as well as the comment section for the blog
Greg Siskind is reporting the following about July2nd rejection here
http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2007/07/faqs-part-1.html
part of above post --
USCIS did not state how cases filed and rejected on the 2nd are to be handled other than to say that properly filed applications would be accepted. This presumably covers the many cases filed after the second that were held, but it doesn�t explain what will happen to the cases received earlier. We hope USCIS will issue special instructions to issue July 2nd receipt dates to those who are able to document they attempted to file. We presume some folks are still waiting on their July 2nd cases to be returned and are debating refiling new cases rather than waiting. Unfortunately, there is a risk of not getting the package back before August 17th and some people will need to refile without proof of the earlier filing. Hopefully, again, USCIS will institute a process for such individuals to avoid being penalized.
USCIS has not announced any details yet on how it will determine which cases get 2007 visa numbers that might still be available. We also don�t know yet how cases will be processed that are not in the batch of cases that get green card numbers this year. For those who will have to get numbers in future years, applications should be worked by the order of the priority date. So applicants with labor certifications approved some time back, for example, should go before people in the same category with later priority dates.
For individuals filing cases not requiring a labor certification (such as Schedule A cases and national interest waivers), the priority date is the date of filing. Because there may be hundreds of thousands of applications received between July 2nd and August 17th with many of these cases not requiring a labor certification, the date during this six week period a case is filed could make a big difference in terms of when a case will complete processing. And, again, getting that July 2nd priority date for those who filed early and were rejected could make a big difference in when their cases are ultimately processed through to completion.
Continuing on this forum with more generic title
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10383
Per Greg Siskind -- July 2nd filers might have to file again, as all July 2nd application were rejected. Check out the link below as well as the comment section for the blog
Greg Siskind is reporting the following about July2nd rejection here
http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2007/07/faqs-part-1.html
part of above post --
USCIS did not state how cases filed and rejected on the 2nd are to be handled other than to say that properly filed applications would be accepted. This presumably covers the many cases filed after the second that were held, but it doesn�t explain what will happen to the cases received earlier. We hope USCIS will issue special instructions to issue July 2nd receipt dates to those who are able to document they attempted to file. We presume some folks are still waiting on their July 2nd cases to be returned and are debating refiling new cases rather than waiting. Unfortunately, there is a risk of not getting the package back before August 17th and some people will need to refile without proof of the earlier filing. Hopefully, again, USCIS will institute a process for such individuals to avoid being penalized.
USCIS has not announced any details yet on how it will determine which cases get 2007 visa numbers that might still be available. We also don�t know yet how cases will be processed that are not in the batch of cases that get green card numbers this year. For those who will have to get numbers in future years, applications should be worked by the order of the priority date. So applicants with labor certifications approved some time back, for example, should go before people in the same category with later priority dates.
For individuals filing cases not requiring a labor certification (such as Schedule A cases and national interest waivers), the priority date is the date of filing. Because there may be hundreds of thousands of applications received between July 2nd and August 17th with many of these cases not requiring a labor certification, the date during this six week period a case is filed could make a big difference in terms of when a case will complete processing. And, again, getting that July 2nd priority date for those who filed early and were rejected could make a big difference in when their cases are ultimately processed through to completion.
wallpaper Anacondas
CSPAvictim
07-09 06:30 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.
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.
crazyghoda
01-30 02:42 PM
Ok.......
So if I am understanding this correctly, the time from when I entered US on AP (Dec 08 till today), I am considered out of status? From what I understood it is ok to not be working while on AOS having entered on AP.
It is my fault. I should have explained it better.
The immigration laws are very confusion. Entry on AP is legal entry and it is ok, but it is not considered as lawful entry for I-485 approval process ONLY. For last lawful entry, USCIS looks for last entry on non-immigrant visa.
Hope that helps.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
So if I am understanding this correctly, the time from when I entered US on AP (Dec 08 till today), I am considered out of status? From what I understood it is ok to not be working while on AOS having entered on AP.
It is my fault. I should have explained it better.
The immigration laws are very confusion. Entry on AP is legal entry and it is ok, but it is not considered as lawful entry for I-485 approval process ONLY. For last lawful entry, USCIS looks for last entry on non-immigrant visa.
Hope that helps.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
2011 Anaconda Snake Images Jun 1,
alex99
10-28 06:46 PM
Please participate in the Poll
more...
Daisy
10-25 02:15 PM
My EB3 India PD: March 2003
June filer
June filer
ItIsNotFunny
09-19 09:46 AM
Legal Immigrants Rally
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...76080420003555
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...20059427058009
http://picasaweb.google.com/raghumoh...lyWashingtonDC
Happy viewing, Foward to your friends n family
--
Regards,
Raghu
I wish atleast one of the links could work.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...76080420003555
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...20059427058009
http://picasaweb.google.com/raghumoh...lyWashingtonDC
Happy viewing, Foward to your friends n family
--
Regards,
Raghu
I wish atleast one of the links could work.
more...
sats123
12-28 12:57 PM
I had similar problem with United last year. I was flying thruogh Malaysian airlines and United charged me for extra 20 LBs. But it was checked in till India.
Both of the flights were on the same itinerary and were booked through Thai. United was asking for money for international part of the travel because he said that Thai would charge United for the extra weight if United checked in the luggage all the way to Bangkok, which isn't really true because Thai did allow 70 LB then. I am not sure what the regulation is now.
I think you are right that the guy was probably ignorant and didn't really care becasue I wasn't flying United after LA anyways.
Both of the flights were on the same itinerary and were booked through Thai. United was asking for money for international part of the travel because he said that Thai would charge United for the extra weight if United checked in the luggage all the way to Bangkok, which isn't really true because Thai did allow 70 LB then. I am not sure what the regulation is now.
I think you are right that the guy was probably ignorant and didn't really care becasue I wasn't flying United after LA anyways.
2010 World Biggest Anaconda Stuck
hopefulgc
10-15 04:35 PM
^^
This is exactly what we need. Let us get going on this people.
Nixstor, a suggestion ... maybe add a poll to this so we can track how many have sent this letter.
IV has been working with officials in DHS (not USCIS) to find the exact number of AOS applications pending sorted by priority date, per country, per category.
Even though the need for requested information is clear and DHS officials agreed to push USCIS for such information, they clearly told IV to demonstrate the need by filing FOIA requests. A request from IV is already pending, but the more the number of requests, the more prioritized this request will become. There are approximately 65,000 FOIA requests pending in Track2 of USCIS queue.
FOIA can be filed with USCIS either by using G-639 or by writing a simple letter. Our request will not fit the G-639 format and a simple notarized letter will do. I am attaching a sample document that members can download from Megaupload (http://www.megaupload.com/?d=ERDT5F3P) or Google docs (http://docs.google.com/View?docid=ddkc5z3x_1f5nvp5gm) and replace the fictitious John Doe information with theirs and mail out the letter to the address in the letter.
If you are really information hungry, this is your chance to get it.
(1) Download attachment
(2) Replace John Doe information with yours & print it
(3) Notarize it and mail it
This is exactly what we need. Let us get going on this people.
Nixstor, a suggestion ... maybe add a poll to this so we can track how many have sent this letter.
IV has been working with officials in DHS (not USCIS) to find the exact number of AOS applications pending sorted by priority date, per country, per category.
Even though the need for requested information is clear and DHS officials agreed to push USCIS for such information, they clearly told IV to demonstrate the need by filing FOIA requests. A request from IV is already pending, but the more the number of requests, the more prioritized this request will become. There are approximately 65,000 FOIA requests pending in Track2 of USCIS queue.
FOIA can be filed with USCIS either by using G-639 or by writing a simple letter. Our request will not fit the G-639 format and a simple notarized letter will do. I am attaching a sample document that members can download from Megaupload (http://www.megaupload.com/?d=ERDT5F3P) or Google docs (http://docs.google.com/View?docid=ddkc5z3x_1f5nvp5gm) and replace the fictitious John Doe information with theirs and mail out the letter to the address in the letter.
If you are really information hungry, this is your chance to get it.
(1) Download attachment
(2) Replace John Doe information with yours & print it
(3) Notarize it and mail it
more...
sw33t
01-19 02:39 PM
Presenting copies of your documents to government officials is not PERSONAL use. You could argue that.
Its a matter of interpretation. Cops are not lawyers and neither am I. Arguing simply makes matters worse. None the less, you can argue as much as you want but if the cop has one on his mind and you have another, it certainly doesn't help your situation.
Its a matter of interpretation. Cops are not lawyers and neither am I. Arguing simply makes matters worse. None the less, you can argue as much as you want but if the cop has one on his mind and you have another, it certainly doesn't help your situation.
hair almost the world#39;s longest
signifer123
02-16 06:20 AM
Yeah that scared the crap out of me...good luck beating him anyone, dang thats how mine was gonna look.
more...
saro28
07-12 06:48 PM
Same boat as you! Legally in this country for more than 11 years! Hope they approve on time. Debating whether to extend the EAD or wait for the card
understandably so.. but I am now current after a looooong time. EB3 Dec 2001 PD. I can finally file the AOS for my wife who has been on H4 for the last 2 yrs... excellent!
understandably so.. but I am now current after a looooong time. EB3 Dec 2001 PD. I can finally file the AOS for my wife who has been on H4 for the last 2 yrs... excellent!
hot Crocodile Vs Anaconda.
vansree
07-13 06:29 PM
I talked to her related my case complexity - Border revoking my visa - She just wants money. She cannot provide any clear details, any expectations.
Just to be part of the cloud and claim something she did, actually apart from the web site, she wont even talk to you once take up the case. Some of her colleagues or assistants talk.
She just want to get money ... Being Indian, I can say she is typical person for money. Highly C** mind...
if it is trouble some, she wont even reply!
Just to be part of the cloud and claim something she did, actually apart from the web site, she wont even talk to you once take up the case. Some of her colleagues or assistants talk.
She just want to get money ... Being Indian, I can say she is typical person for money. Highly C** mind...
if it is trouble some, she wont even reply!
more...
house Green Anaconda – Biggest in
delax
07-13 08:19 AM
This is just a stunt. WHy did she wait allthese days to write this letter. Now when everything falls in place by others efforts, she wants people to think it is because her effort all these things are happening. I hate murthy or your murfhy.
GCBy3000,
Your criticism of Murthy is noted as you are entitled to speak your mind. But let me ask you a simple question:
Did you exhort your lawyer to send a letter to Secretary Chertoff or the USCIS Director? OR
Did your lawyer send a letter on his own, exhorting the Secretary and the USCIS Director to correct this wrong?
I know the Mahatma would have asked himself the same questions before hurling allegations.
Whatever maybe the intentions of Murthy, this letter is certainly going to help not harm our case.
AND YES - For full disclosure, I am a client of Murthy and have been so for more than five years.
GCBy3000,
Your criticism of Murthy is noted as you are entitled to speak your mind. But let me ask you a simple question:
Did you exhort your lawyer to send a letter to Secretary Chertoff or the USCIS Director? OR
Did your lawyer send a letter on his own, exhorting the Secretary and the USCIS Director to correct this wrong?
I know the Mahatma would have asked himself the same questions before hurling allegations.
Whatever maybe the intentions of Murthy, this letter is certainly going to help not harm our case.
AND YES - For full disclosure, I am a client of Murthy and have been so for more than five years.
tattoo BIGGEST ANACONDA OVER 320lbs!
ita
09-10 12:33 PM
You can post. Just type the messages on the left hand side panel.
Got it. Thank you.
Got it. Thank you.
more...
pictures HOW TO SURVIVE AN ANACONDA
gc_on_demand
08-10 04:01 PM
10th is almost over and I thought we had this trend that when USCIS wants to maintain status quo they publish bulletin early in the month and if the bulletin is delayed there is strong probablity that there will be some positive movement
I have seen same trend for last two years. Reason was simple for last two years as they want to see demand for current month and then predict cutoff date for next month. But I don't see that same thing will happen again. As DOS must know remaining of visa # for fiscal year and also since USCIS has pre adjudicated at least 140k cases they should not take long time to calculate cutoff date.
Their job is piece of cake now. But I was wondering that since till last month it was really game of guess for VO so he was not following Mid month date ( generally 15th or around ) to release data. But now he has clear picture in mind so he may wait till Mid month which is Friday to release data.
I have seen same trend for last two years. Reason was simple for last two years as they want to see demand for current month and then predict cutoff date for next month. But I don't see that same thing will happen again. As DOS must know remaining of visa # for fiscal year and also since USCIS has pre adjudicated at least 140k cases they should not take long time to calculate cutoff date.
Their job is piece of cake now. But I was wondering that since till last month it was really game of guess for VO so he was not following Mid month date ( generally 15th or around ) to release data. But now he has clear picture in mind so he may wait till Mid month which is Friday to release data.
dresses the world#39;s largest snake,
moonrah
07-02 12:54 PM
IV core has not put this priority, that must be some good reasons behind that. It will help other communities to know the reasons, so that efforts are not diversified and all can work toward one single efforts. IV core please?
more...
makeup Biggest+anaconda+pictures
at0474
12-21 07:56 PM
lazycis,
According to 245(k), does it mean that "unauthorized stay" (or stay with expired I-94) of more than 1 year is wiped out if a nonimmigrant went out of the country, entered back with a new I-94 and maintained legal status ever since? He/she should not have any problems in adjusting status with 485?
I like your insight into immigration policies and the way you express them.
Thanks.
According to 245(k), does it mean that "unauthorized stay" (or stay with expired I-94) of more than 1 year is wiped out if a nonimmigrant went out of the country, entered back with a new I-94 and maintained legal status ever since? He/she should not have any problems in adjusting status with 485?
I like your insight into immigration policies and the way you express them.
Thanks.
girlfriend ANACONDA, common name for a
sanju
01-09 01:21 PM
Can you please share with me PM some of these companies as I am lookin for a h1b sponsorer for someone i know who has done masters here.... and is fresher... not that he wants to put fake.... he is ready to get a entry level salary and state that he graduated out of school and is a fresher..... just that he wants someone to do his h1b...
Sure, no problem, you can call this number (202) 224-2152 and ask for Dick Durbin. Speak to him and explain him the whole situation, he maybe able to arrange to file h1b for you, sorry I meant your "someone". :rolleyes:
.
Sure, no problem, you can call this number (202) 224-2152 and ask for Dick Durbin. Speak to him and explain him the whole situation, he maybe able to arrange to file h1b for you, sorry I meant your "someone". :rolleyes:
.
hairstyles The longest snake in the world
sriramkalyan
06-08 11:21 AM
I am doing MS in Technology Management from Howee School of Technology Management at Stevens Institute of Technology!!
Similar ones are offered at Penn State, Rutgers, MIT .. totally on Web.
Similar ones are offered at Penn State, Rutgers, MIT .. totally on Web.
wc_user
10-13 12:13 PM
Hi,
The response to my RFE reached USCIS on 10/12 at 9 am and I haven't got any online status update as of now - 10/13 1 pm EST. Should I be worried or does it generally take them some time to update their records. Just want to make sure that the RFE reached USCIS since the due date for RFE response is coming up soon.
Thanks.
The response to my RFE reached USCIS on 10/12 at 9 am and I haven't got any online status update as of now - 10/13 1 pm EST. Should I be worried or does it generally take them some time to update their records. Just want to make sure that the RFE reached USCIS since the due date for RFE response is coming up soon.
Thanks.
joydiptac
05-14 02:24 PM
Hi,
I am planning to start my Online MBA from Univ of Nebraska (UNL). This is AACSB certified.
Also the price point is really sweet. 17K only + Books. Business Week placed it 4th overall part time.
The Best Part-Time Business Schools: University of Nebraska - BusinessWeek (http://images.businessweek.com/ss/09/11/1105_best_part_time_business_schools/7.htm)
-That is what got me interested in the first place.
Plus it is not a "** State University" but a "University of **" which means it should have better profs.
Anyhow anyone has any pros and cons to share about this one?
n'
Joy
I am planning to start my Online MBA from Univ of Nebraska (UNL). This is AACSB certified.
Also the price point is really sweet. 17K only + Books. Business Week placed it 4th overall part time.
The Best Part-Time Business Schools: University of Nebraska - BusinessWeek (http://images.businessweek.com/ss/09/11/1105_best_part_time_business_schools/7.htm)
-That is what got me interested in the first place.
Plus it is not a "** State University" but a "University of **" which means it should have better profs.
Anyhow anyone has any pros and cons to share about this one?
n'
Joy
