Alabaman
10-20 09:48 AM
You all have to look at this strategically. We all know at this stage of the election that Obama will likely win. We also know that congress is currently controlled by Democrats. If we have both congress and white house being controlled by democrats, then it is likely that we will have more things accomplished than if we have one party holding to one and another party holding to the other.
Forget the election rhetoric, Obama is not against legal immigrants (neither is McCain). At this stage, we have to look at the big picture which I just highlighted. What we should be working for right now (well I know we are not partisan) is for more democrats to win seats at the congressional and senate level so that bills that are pushed forward we have a better chance of passing and hopefully the ones that favor us and eliminate this backlog too.
So please you all should support Rick Norriega for TX senate (and all Democrat senatorial and congressional candidates) You can check out his immigration plan here http://www.ricknoriega.com/assets/img/immigration_plan.pdf
What say you??
Forget the election rhetoric, Obama is not against legal immigrants (neither is McCain). At this stage, we have to look at the big picture which I just highlighted. What we should be working for right now (well I know we are not partisan) is for more democrats to win seats at the congressional and senate level so that bills that are pushed forward we have a better chance of passing and hopefully the ones that favor us and eliminate this backlog too.
So please you all should support Rick Norriega for TX senate (and all Democrat senatorial and congressional candidates) You can check out his immigration plan here http://www.ricknoriega.com/assets/img/immigration_plan.pdf
What say you??
wallpaper Cristiano Ronaldo Vs Lionel
sanjay
04-09 03:35 PM
No change. Wohi purani kahaani. Old wine in new bottle.
Would start looking for June now. But, won't expect any thing good until August 2010.
Would start looking for June now. But, won't expect any thing good until August 2010.
manishcp
09-26 10:00 AM
All IV memeber show your support.
2011 messi vs ronaldo.
onemorecame
10-18 12:15 PM
any one else.. who got any update after filling RFE?
I got soft LUD on Oct 12.... nothing after that :confused:
I got soft LUD on Oct 12.... nothing after that :confused:
more...
apahilaj
04-23 06:43 PM
All,
Opened my email this morning to see the card production ordered email (time stamp in my inbox reads 2:15 am PST 4/23/08); the approval date was 4/23/08.
Been in meetings all day so not even a chance to call anyone about it.
Yay!
Good luck to all my fellow sufferers!
Googler
Does that mean that we won't get any inside news from Mr. Oppenheimer (if I spelled his name correctly) any more..?:) Just kidding.
Enjoy your freedom. Congratulations!
Opened my email this morning to see the card production ordered email (time stamp in my inbox reads 2:15 am PST 4/23/08); the approval date was 4/23/08.
Been in meetings all day so not even a chance to call anyone about it.
Yay!
Good luck to all my fellow sufferers!
Googler
Does that mean that we won't get any inside news from Mr. Oppenheimer (if I spelled his name correctly) any more..?:) Just kidding.
Enjoy your freedom. Congratulations!
immigrant2007
09-10 12:42 PM
I thinkThis year will be good for EB3.
With 700 per queter going to EB2I and EB2C, this means that EB2I will go only upto few months by Jul-2011 before the spill kicks IN.
Once the spill over kicks in EB2 will move by atmost Jul-2007 (as there are won't be any 485 filed for India / China post 2007. Even if they are it is unlikely that they will be processed in 1 or 2 months). So I expect EB3 to use most of the spill over this year.
CATCH: IF USCIS allows filing of 485 for POST 2007 FIASCO then the above doesn't hold true.
With 700 per queter going to EB2I and EB2C, this means that EB2I will go only upto few months by Jul-2011 before the spill kicks IN.
Once the spill over kicks in EB2 will move by atmost Jul-2007 (as there are won't be any 485 filed for India / China post 2007. Even if they are it is unlikely that they will be processed in 1 or 2 months). So I expect EB3 to use most of the spill over this year.
CATCH: IF USCIS allows filing of 485 for POST 2007 FIASCO then the above doesn't hold true.
more...
sam_hoosier
12-05 04:52 PM
There is clear guidance in that H1-B petitioner seeking extension does not have to be the same employer that had filed (and approved) the I-140. Once you have an approved 140, anyone can extend your H1 for 3 years
Where can I find that documentation ?
Where can I find that documentation ?
2010 messi vs ronaldo.
gc28262
03-11 07:49 AM
For me, I am like everyone else on the forum. I want my GC now :D
The point I am making is we are all enthusiastic members willing to do whatever is needed to achieve our goals. However if our actions cause more hardship for us, I am against it.
We need to pursue our interests at the right time. IV core has counsel to advise them regarding strategy and timing. We should make use of that resources for deciding the right timing.
I believe whoever opposes immigration in this country are racists. This country being made up of immigrants, nobody has the moral right to oppose immigration. unfortunately we have a populist, immature president in the office. Anti-immigrants are taking advantage of that. Mr Change is interested in millions of prospective votes from illegal immigrants only. Despite being Harvard educated, he doesn't have any sympathy for us.
The point I am making is we are all enthusiastic members willing to do whatever is needed to achieve our goals. However if our actions cause more hardship for us, I am against it.
We need to pursue our interests at the right time. IV core has counsel to advise them regarding strategy and timing. We should make use of that resources for deciding the right timing.
I believe whoever opposes immigration in this country are racists. This country being made up of immigrants, nobody has the moral right to oppose immigration. unfortunately we have a populist, immature president in the office. Anti-immigrants are taking advantage of that. Mr Change is interested in millions of prospective votes from illegal immigrants only. Despite being Harvard educated, he doesn't have any sympathy for us.
more...
sri1309
03-30 03:09 PM
Number USA is ready to kill our bill. If we introduce at time nothing is going to happen . Even it may kill CIR and that is what Anti wants.. This guy is encouraging people to push for recapture which will die soon. Why he didnot update profile. Even if he is good member he should pledge 25 $.
Did you read undocumented guys are trying to push their cause and by putting legals aside, which the goverment seems to be hearing. What makes you feel we must wait.. Just because you cannot contribute anything except for yourself. .People waiting for close to 10 years are usually in a position to create value and they are tied to this backlogs. We know EB2 is going at some pace.. How much time do you think is needed for EB2 to be in bin, into the same state as EB3 is in, right now.
Did you read undocumented guys are trying to push their cause and by putting legals aside, which the goverment seems to be hearing. What makes you feel we must wait.. Just because you cannot contribute anything except for yourself. .People waiting for close to 10 years are usually in a position to create value and they are tied to this backlogs. We know EB2 is going at some pace.. How much time do you think is needed for EB2 to be in bin, into the same state as EB3 is in, right now.
hair Ronaldo vs. Messi
glus
07-28 09:31 AM
If you see the letter and spirit of clause in the said notification, an employment letter is not required and adjudicator has to send RFE if he feels required. File with latest paystubs. If RFE sent to you , then again file latest paystub to show that you was in employment with that employer from the date of filing 485 petition and for at least another 6-7 months further to that date.
Please don't spread incorrect statements. An employment letter is part of initial evidence and one of the most important things in the whole employment=based cases. Paystubs only show that you work, but they don't show what you do. I485 can't be approved without CURRENT employment verification letter. In fact, people whose I485 are pending for a long time (2-3 years) very often receive a RFE for an updated (current) employment letter since the original letter sent with application is simply too old. That is a fact, and not rumor. If you don't believe, review I485 instructions which say that employment letter must be there as initial evidence.
Please don't spread incorrect statements. An employment letter is part of initial evidence and one of the most important things in the whole employment=based cases. Paystubs only show that you work, but they don't show what you do. I485 can't be approved without CURRENT employment verification letter. In fact, people whose I485 are pending for a long time (2-3 years) very often receive a RFE for an updated (current) employment letter since the original letter sent with application is simply too old. That is a fact, and not rumor. If you don't believe, review I485 instructions which say that employment letter must be there as initial evidence.
more...
nixstor
07-04 09:25 PM
nixstor,
First, with out name check cleared by FBI, no 485 will be approved. Assiging visa number to a 485 appliction initally, nothing to do with name check. If the applicant is threat to the security of the country, his/her 485 will be denied and they will take back the already assigned number. Both are two different issues.
Another myth: USCIS processed 60,000 485 in June. It is wrong. They processed 60,000 485 over the period of 6 months to 5 years. And they just approved in June, based on earlier processing.
Well, Thats what I have said before as well. Its like setting the order card flag to "yes" on 60K cases with older PD's. I do not know from where Jay Solomon got the tip off about lapse of name checks, unless they are trying to make this a big issue through all possible means. There have been stories flying around that they by passed on security checks, which I thought your original post conveyed. Most of the 485's they approved have been the one's with PD's from 2003 and 2004 initially. If there are a few from the pile that were of later PD's, I don't think its a big issue. The lack of communication and implementation/interpretation at their whims and fancies has resulted in the situation at hand for every one involved in the chain. I am very very positive that the OB's office has nothing do with this and USCIS is not worried about the postmortem conducted by OB.
First, with out name check cleared by FBI, no 485 will be approved. Assiging visa number to a 485 appliction initally, nothing to do with name check. If the applicant is threat to the security of the country, his/her 485 will be denied and they will take back the already assigned number. Both are two different issues.
Another myth: USCIS processed 60,000 485 in June. It is wrong. They processed 60,000 485 over the period of 6 months to 5 years. And they just approved in June, based on earlier processing.
Well, Thats what I have said before as well. Its like setting the order card flag to "yes" on 60K cases with older PD's. I do not know from where Jay Solomon got the tip off about lapse of name checks, unless they are trying to make this a big issue through all possible means. There have been stories flying around that they by passed on security checks, which I thought your original post conveyed. Most of the 485's they approved have been the one's with PD's from 2003 and 2004 initially. If there are a few from the pile that were of later PD's, I don't think its a big issue. The lack of communication and implementation/interpretation at their whims and fancies has resulted in the situation at hand for every one involved in the chain. I am very very positive that the OB's office has nothing do with this and USCIS is not worried about the postmortem conducted by OB.
hot MessiVsC.Ronaldo
axp817
05-26 07:12 PM
Entire state of NH is within 100 miles of Canada.
No it isn't. :p
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=keene,+nh+to+colebrook,+nh&sll=44.531759,-71.30127&sspn=1.969612,4.921875&ie=UTF8&ll=43.893934,-71.806641&spn=1.991056,4.921875&z=8&saddr=keene,+nh&daddr=colebrook,+nh
The White mountain area probably is within a 100 miles of Canada though.
Jokes aside,
I read a similar rant on IV a few years ago, that was when I learned about this rule/law/requirement (immigrants required to carry immigration documents on them).
These days, I don't ever leave home without my EAD card, if I am going anywhere within driving distance of where I live. If I fly, I usually carry my passport as well (not sure if that is any good since I am on AOS exclusively, but I do).
No it isn't. :p
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=keene,+nh+to+colebrook,+nh&sll=44.531759,-71.30127&sspn=1.969612,4.921875&ie=UTF8&ll=43.893934,-71.806641&spn=1.991056,4.921875&z=8&saddr=keene,+nh&daddr=colebrook,+nh
The White mountain area probably is within a 100 miles of Canada though.
Jokes aside,
I read a similar rant on IV a few years ago, that was when I learned about this rule/law/requirement (immigrants required to carry immigration documents on them).
These days, I don't ever leave home without my EAD card, if I am going anywhere within driving distance of where I live. If I fly, I usually carry my passport as well (not sure if that is any good since I am on AOS exclusively, but I do).
more...
house messi vs ronaldo 2011. ronaldo
truthinspector
04-08 07:10 AM
I don't understand the IO calling Client part. What if (like most of us do) the person was traveling on a weekend? Is the client supposed to be on call for the IO?Besides, even if it is so, answering NO to that question implies fraud on behalf of the Client too.
I know a person who was sent back; IO called the end client to verify his employment and asked if they could hire american worker instead, when the employer said they could, IO sent him back. I think they are only going after H1's working for smaller consulting companies.
You may write it off as a rumor, so be it, but IV needs to step in and take necessary action.
I know a person who was sent back; IO called the end client to verify his employment and asked if they could hire american worker instead, when the employer said they could, IO sent him back. I think they are only going after H1's working for smaller consulting companies.
You may write it off as a rumor, so be it, but IV needs to step in and take necessary action.
tattoo lionel messi vs ronaldo.
alterego
07-04 08:31 PM
Everyone blaming CIS/DOS needs to understand some basics behind this mess. Before going to conclude anything, first, one should read all the ombudsman reports for last 3 or 4 years. Former INS or current USCIS’s functions and operations were not questionable and not known to public till ombudsman office was established. Ombudsman has helped customers and keep helping to improve efficiency of CIS. Ombudsman main concern (or goal) have been over the 4 years are
1. Primarily reducing backlogs in any application type particularly 485 and timely approval of any application.
2. Abolish the need for interim benefits like EAD, AP etc. If they approve 485 in 6 months, then most of us do not require EAD and AP.
3. Reduce the wastage of EB visas, as unused EB visas can not be carried over to next year (use it or lose it). Since 1992, about 200,000 EB visas were lost permanently. In 2003 alone, they issued only 64,000 EB visas and lost 88,000.
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Now lets come to July Visa bulletin mess.
Because of tight holding of visa cutoff dates for EB3 and EB2 for the first 8 months of 2007 (From Oct 2006 to May 2007) USCIS approved only 66,000 485s. For the next 4 months they have about 60K to 70K numbers available. If they approve the pending 485s with slower speed or old cut off dates, there is a potential estimated loss of 40,000 EB visas by Sep 2007. Thats why, based on ombudsman recommendation, DOS moved considerably the cut off date for June. When they took inventory in May, there are about 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications were pending due to non-availability of visa numbers. The “documentarily qualified 485 applications” mean the application filed long time back and processed by USCIS and cleared the FBI name and criminal check, and found eligible for green card. Apart from 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications, there is thousands of 485 applications (documentarily not yet qualified) pending due to name check. When DOS checked with USCIS they found only 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications (in all EB categories put together) are pending. However, the available visas are more than 40,000 (60to 70K). Then they made with out consulting properly with USCIS they made “current” for all EB categories. This is how they determine “current” or “over-subscribed” and how they establish cutoff dates.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered “Current.”
Whenever the total of documentarily qualified applicants in a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for the particular month, the category is considered to be “oversubscribed” and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories “current” for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories “current” ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of “current” there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making “current” for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as “current” in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
Excellent analysis and reccomendations. I feel that a visa number should be assigned at the point of 485 filing. If there is a problem it can be returned to the pool. That will be the least disruptive way to allot numbers in a timely fashion. In the end, that is likely to be the change that will come out of this.
This way, it will offer prospective applicants a more clear viewpoint of what they are up against when they consider their immigration options. i.e if you know you will have to wait 10 yrs to file an AOS even if you have an approved immigrant petition ala the family based immigrants, your plans would be different. You might not feel the wait worthwhile or even if you do, you do it fully aware of the consequences, 10 yrs exploitative employer on h1b etc.
If you notice, the level of hubris and cry is less in family based immigration even though the waits are longer. Atleast they know before they apply!
Your last point about a visa recapture is on the money. It is the least disruptive and easiest of the possible changes for current EB applicants in the current hostile atmosphere. It comes across as a rectification of USCIS inefficiency rather than a request for more immigration, which the public has clearly rejected at this time. If we can get 100-150K visas recaptured, this will greatly help EVERYONE in the EB queue for various reasons. It will buy us the 1-2 yrs needed before immigration is seriously addressed again. It will help those waiting to file 485 to file, those in 485 to have a hope to get out etc. It will help heavily retrogressed countries to keep getting more visas than the annual caps etc. I think that is something everyone can agree on as well.
1. Primarily reducing backlogs in any application type particularly 485 and timely approval of any application.
2. Abolish the need for interim benefits like EAD, AP etc. If they approve 485 in 6 months, then most of us do not require EAD and AP.
3. Reduce the wastage of EB visas, as unused EB visas can not be carried over to next year (use it or lose it). Since 1992, about 200,000 EB visas were lost permanently. In 2003 alone, they issued only 64,000 EB visas and lost 88,000.
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Now lets come to July Visa bulletin mess.
Because of tight holding of visa cutoff dates for EB3 and EB2 for the first 8 months of 2007 (From Oct 2006 to May 2007) USCIS approved only 66,000 485s. For the next 4 months they have about 60K to 70K numbers available. If they approve the pending 485s with slower speed or old cut off dates, there is a potential estimated loss of 40,000 EB visas by Sep 2007. Thats why, based on ombudsman recommendation, DOS moved considerably the cut off date for June. When they took inventory in May, there are about 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications were pending due to non-availability of visa numbers. The “documentarily qualified 485 applications” mean the application filed long time back and processed by USCIS and cleared the FBI name and criminal check, and found eligible for green card. Apart from 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications, there is thousands of 485 applications (documentarily not yet qualified) pending due to name check. When DOS checked with USCIS they found only 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications (in all EB categories put together) are pending. However, the available visas are more than 40,000 (60to 70K). Then they made with out consulting properly with USCIS they made “current” for all EB categories. This is how they determine “current” or “over-subscribed” and how they establish cutoff dates.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered “Current.”
Whenever the total of documentarily qualified applicants in a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for the particular month, the category is considered to be “oversubscribed” and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories “current” for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories “current” ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of “current” there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making “current” for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as “current” in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
Excellent analysis and reccomendations. I feel that a visa number should be assigned at the point of 485 filing. If there is a problem it can be returned to the pool. That will be the least disruptive way to allot numbers in a timely fashion. In the end, that is likely to be the change that will come out of this.
This way, it will offer prospective applicants a more clear viewpoint of what they are up against when they consider their immigration options. i.e if you know you will have to wait 10 yrs to file an AOS even if you have an approved immigrant petition ala the family based immigrants, your plans would be different. You might not feel the wait worthwhile or even if you do, you do it fully aware of the consequences, 10 yrs exploitative employer on h1b etc.
If you notice, the level of hubris and cry is less in family based immigration even though the waits are longer. Atleast they know before they apply!
Your last point about a visa recapture is on the money. It is the least disruptive and easiest of the possible changes for current EB applicants in the current hostile atmosphere. It comes across as a rectification of USCIS inefficiency rather than a request for more immigration, which the public has clearly rejected at this time. If we can get 100-150K visas recaptured, this will greatly help EVERYONE in the EB queue for various reasons. It will buy us the 1-2 yrs needed before immigration is seriously addressed again. It will help those waiting to file 485 to file, those in 485 to have a hope to get out etc. It will help heavily retrogressed countries to keep getting more visas than the annual caps etc. I think that is something everyone can agree on as well.
more...
pictures lionel messi vs ronaldo.
gsc999
07-03 03:55 PM
Here is my $99 by paypal.
Amount: $99.00 USD
Transaction ID: 5DB90775US5552631
Amount: $99.00 USD
Transaction ID: 5DB90775US5552631
dresses messi vs c ronaldo webmasel.
mallu
07-07 09:07 PM
Today I have received my GC approval email. Dependants approval is awaited. I am in this country from Jan 2001. Good luck to all.
No LUD till final approval. Last LUD on I-485 on August 2007 on finger print day. Last week I did call Nebraska by POJ method and speak with IO. She told me my file is off the shelf and in line for adjudication. I think EAD filing on June last week did the trick. (file taken from the USCIS's never ending shelf).
The USCIS shelf looks like : http://www.usaimmigrationattorney.com/NationalRecordsCenter.html
No LUD till final approval. Last LUD on I-485 on August 2007 on finger print day. Last week I did call Nebraska by POJ method and speak with IO. She told me my file is off the shelf and in line for adjudication. I think EAD filing on June last week did the trick. (file taken from the USCIS's never ending shelf).
The USCIS shelf looks like : http://www.usaimmigrationattorney.com/NationalRecordsCenter.html
more...
makeup messi vs ronaldo wallpaper.
frostrated
09-10 02:54 PM
My PD is March 2010 EB2 so i'm not even in this race yet but help me in understanding one thing.
Was EB3 current in July 2007? If yes, I'm assuming atleast 95% EB3 folks have EAD and their spouse can work. The really big problem in post 2007 EB3.
Since dates were current in July 2007, Eb2 and Eb3 can atleast enjoy EAD/spouse working benefits. Why do ppl complain when they have EAD etc whose PD is before 2007.
smuggymba
what happened to your earlier PD. I think it was in mid 2004 or so, correct?
Was EB3 current in July 2007? If yes, I'm assuming atleast 95% EB3 folks have EAD and their spouse can work. The really big problem in post 2007 EB3.
Since dates were current in July 2007, Eb2 and Eb3 can atleast enjoy EAD/spouse working benefits. Why do ppl complain when they have EAD etc whose PD is before 2007.
smuggymba
what happened to your earlier PD. I think it was in mid 2004 or so, correct?
girlfriend lionel messi vs ronaldo.
nogreen4decade
07-15 01:36 PM
I think you are in. Good Luck!
Mine is 3/21/06. So close...yet seems like so far :(
Mine is 03/20/2006. I know what you mean by so close, yet so far! I am going to complete 11 years in US soon :(.:mad::mad::mad::mad:
Mine is 3/21/06. So close...yet seems like so far :(
Mine is 03/20/2006. I know what you mean by so close, yet so far! I am going to complete 11 years in US soon :(.:mad::mad::mad::mad:
hairstyles Messi vs Ronaldo
piperwarrior
07-16 09:42 PM
I am just re-posting something that I had posted elsewhere. I really think that we have to be professional and mature in our response. Does anyone know how one can go about writing an op-ed in the New York Times?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think IV should write a letter to the New York Times refuting the claims of NumbersUSA. This should be in response to the article that the New York Times published regarding NumbersUSA's influence on the immigration bill.
Clearly, this is a task for IV (advocacy, lobbying, public opinion, etc.). The response needs to be succint, cogent and factual, without getting into any rhetoric about the value immigrants provide. Facts will discredit NumbersUSA...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think IV should write a letter to the New York Times refuting the claims of NumbersUSA. This should be in response to the article that the New York Times published regarding NumbersUSA's influence on the immigration bill.
Clearly, this is a task for IV (advocacy, lobbying, public opinion, etc.). The response needs to be succint, cogent and factual, without getting into any rhetoric about the value immigrants provide. Facts will discredit NumbersUSA...
Roger Binny
10-10 01:35 PM
Just to avoid all this , You can say I'm a US citizen and move on. They cannot ask for any verification can they?
That is the riskiest and BS advice one can give on forums, specially in these.
Yes,exactly same including me my friends were asked for passport, we didn't know that we need to carry each one faced around 20-30 mins of interview.
That is the riskiest and BS advice one can give on forums, specially in these.
Yes,exactly same including me my friends were asked for passport, we didn't know that we need to carry each one faced around 20-30 mins of interview.
willgetgc2005
03-20 07:26 PM
We're definitely pursuing this problem also through our lobbyist, but for now given the drastic changes in the Comprehensive Immigration Bills, all the effort is going into that. Once that cools down a bit, we will concentrate on the procedural issues like FBI name check as we do realize that a large number of us are likely to get stuck there.
Admin,
Thanks for taking this into account. Including me many are affected by name check.How will this affect all eventually? As an example, consider this.
Let us say your PD becomes current in 2006 and u are waiting for name check.Name check is not cleared in 2006. So the yearly quota which was available to you could not be used because of name check. So the visa in 2006 is not used up, even though it was available.That is one precious Visa number was not used up and got lost in the yearly quota system. Then
in 2007, you get in line ahead of candidates whose PD becomes current in 2007.
So in effect all of us loose.
Admin,
Thanks for taking this into account. Including me many are affected by name check.How will this affect all eventually? As an example, consider this.
Let us say your PD becomes current in 2006 and u are waiting for name check.Name check is not cleared in 2006. So the yearly quota which was available to you could not be used because of name check. So the visa in 2006 is not used up, even though it was available.That is one precious Visa number was not used up and got lost in the yearly quota system. Then
in 2007, you get in line ahead of candidates whose PD becomes current in 2007.
So in effect all of us loose.
