varshadas
01-30 10:43 AM
I will send the flyer statements that I think we can put tonight. Like I said, I am not very creative, but I will put my ideas out there. Thanks Sanjay for finding out the EBC details. I like the 30 mins 500 dollars. We can pool in some money from our side and do a 30 mins program. I think it will be still worth it.
Did you guys distribute flyers at Metropark?
Thanks,
Varsha
Did you guys distribute flyers at Metropark?
Thanks,
Varsha
wallpaper Pulpit athe pulpit rock,
BlueSunD
03-07 12:08 AM
I guess it is kind of hard to try to complete an image that satisfies the mental picture that we have of it. Mostly, because of time, right now I have a lot to do too. But I won�t quit no matter what.... I guess that, either I love too much to work on 3D, or I like to suffer and don�t sleep :krazy: Anyway, good luck to everyone!
Geez Grinch! That�s really cool! I hadn�t reloaded this page until I posted... and I didn�t want to double post :)
Anyway, it�s really neat! Congratulations, the texturing is really nice!
Geez Grinch! That�s really cool! I hadn�t reloaded this page until I posted... and I didn�t want to double post :)
Anyway, it�s really neat! Congratulations, the texturing is really nice!
payur
01-16 09:12 PM
Contributing $20/month
Scheduled $20
Good luck and best wishes.
Success!!!
Scheduled $20
Good luck and best wishes.
Success!!!
2011 pulpit, rock stavanger
map_boiler
07-05 12:26 PM
I just contributed my first $100.00. Go IV!
more...
memyselfandus
04-09 09:32 AM
Details below
ss1026
08-17 09:58 AM
It Is Too Bad For Eb 3 , Why This Injustice With Eb 3 ?
I guess this simply the demand supply equation. I might in realty be the other way with regards to the number of EB-3 approvals. I remember reading that EB-3 India got quite a few visas in June and July of this year. I dont remember the exact numbers but I am sure they exceeded the 7% per country limit. Anyone remember the exact number of approvals for EB-3 India
EB-3 India Feb 05
I guess this simply the demand supply equation. I might in realty be the other way with regards to the number of EB-3 approvals. I remember reading that EB-3 India got quite a few visas in June and July of this year. I dont remember the exact numbers but I am sure they exceeded the 7% per country limit. Anyone remember the exact number of approvals for EB-3 India
EB-3 India Feb 05
more...
pitha
06-12 02:17 PM
So what is your point, you say only CIR can bring any relief to eb immigrants and no other bill like skil will be considered, but cir will not gives us any relief at all, so you would prefer a cir without any relief for us rather than not having any bill?
all this talk about cantwell amendment, what does cantwell amendment offer us, it offers us nothing that we dont already have. Canwell amendment is the best amednment we have so far, that should give you an idea of the pathetic situation we are in. Please start opposing this bill. If not, can somebody enlighten me what is the "good stuff" i am missing in this bill.
Pitha (Shree)
I see what you are thinking, but EB3india is correct. In CIR or never.
I agree with him that we need to get a new stratergy to handle this.
I do not know why IV core has not spoken after this bill died. When CIR came to the Senate floor with all these restrictions, Logiclife mentioned something
like we should become illegals.
He must have been kidding but one could see the fact that the illegals were the ones who were getting the benefits.
I want to hear a similar statement from them, let us see........
all this talk about cantwell amendment, what does cantwell amendment offer us, it offers us nothing that we dont already have. Canwell amendment is the best amednment we have so far, that should give you an idea of the pathetic situation we are in. Please start opposing this bill. If not, can somebody enlighten me what is the "good stuff" i am missing in this bill.
Pitha (Shree)
I see what you are thinking, but EB3india is correct. In CIR or never.
I agree with him that we need to get a new stratergy to handle this.
I do not know why IV core has not spoken after this bill died. When CIR came to the Senate floor with all these restrictions, Logiclife mentioned something
like we should become illegals.
He must have been kidding but one could see the fact that the illegals were the ones who were getting the benefits.
I want to hear a similar statement from them, let us see........
2010 pulpit rock Norge,
meridiani.planum
08-07 02:38 AM
Hi Sachug22,
Some of the data you specified does not add up well. For example 2006 India, EB-total is 17,358 but 3,156+3,720+3,006 adds upto 9882.
Any idea?
Type 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
EB1-All 41,672 34,168 14,453 31,291 64,731 36,960 26,697
EB2-All 42,550 44,316 15,406 32,534 42,597 21,911 44,162
EB3-All 85,847 88,002 46,415 85,969 129,070 89,922 85,030
EB-All 179,195 174,968 82,137 155,330 246,878 159,081 155,889
EB1-I 3,543 2,820 1,266 2,998 6,336 3,156 2,855
EB2-I 21,355 21,310 8,536 16,262 16,687 3,720 6,203
EB3-I 16,339 17,354 10,647 19,889 23,250 3,006 17,795
EB-I 41,720 41,919 20,818 39,496 47,160 17,358 26,853
Thanks
that difference in numbers between total(EB) and total-india-GC for 2006 is because of a special provision of 50k visas made for schedule-A (nurses). Folks from Philippines and India took a big chunk of those visas. There was a lot of discussion of that on IV, because those 50k were recaptured visa numbers, which instead of being put into the general pool, were all given to schedule-A.
Some of the data you specified does not add up well. For example 2006 India, EB-total is 17,358 but 3,156+3,720+3,006 adds upto 9882.
Any idea?
Type 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
EB1-All 41,672 34,168 14,453 31,291 64,731 36,960 26,697
EB2-All 42,550 44,316 15,406 32,534 42,597 21,911 44,162
EB3-All 85,847 88,002 46,415 85,969 129,070 89,922 85,030
EB-All 179,195 174,968 82,137 155,330 246,878 159,081 155,889
EB1-I 3,543 2,820 1,266 2,998 6,336 3,156 2,855
EB2-I 21,355 21,310 8,536 16,262 16,687 3,720 6,203
EB3-I 16,339 17,354 10,647 19,889 23,250 3,006 17,795
EB-I 41,720 41,919 20,818 39,496 47,160 17,358 26,853
Thanks
that difference in numbers between total(EB) and total-india-GC for 2006 is because of a special provision of 50k visas made for schedule-A (nurses). Folks from Philippines and India took a big chunk of those visas. There was a lot of discussion of that on IV, because those 50k were recaptured visa numbers, which instead of being put into the general pool, were all given to schedule-A.
more...
alex99
11-05 03:58 PM
Bump
hair Pulpit Rock
gc_chahiye
08-15 04:02 PM
everyone was expecting them to go U
EB1 has cutoff?? for the first time in recent memory?
EB1 has cutoff?? for the first time in recent memory?
more...
drirshad
07-04 09:35 PM
immigration-law.com
07/04/2007: Status and Issues Involving July 2007 485 Fiasco
* The AILF work on the lawsuit appears to be in progress without any hurdles. It has reported that enough candidates have come forward to participate in the lawsuit as the plaintiffs and it does not need any more candidates to move forward for the lawsuit. Some of other people are likely to be covered as members of the class action regardless of their actual participation in the lawsuit. People should send "THANK YOU" to the AILF Legal Action Center leaders and the attorneys who are actually working on this case. Some contribution to the AILF may be more than appropriate. Please visit the AILF site to learn how they can send in contribution.
#
# We have been asked by the readers to report the alleged conspiracy theory. We declined to do it. However, people may want to know potential issues that should be answered and explored. We will discuss these issues on following hypotehtical premises:
* Presumption of Facts: (1) The I-485 applications have been experiencing a tremendous backlog lately. (2) The causes for the backlog have been known to be delays in the security checks. Some of these applicants have sought a relief in federal courts in the form of mandamus actions. (3) Allegedly, the USCIS pull together local and Service Center employees and pull out pending I-485 cases which were older than six months in backlog, working overtime and during the weekend right before July 1, 2007. This is an assumption at this point. (4) As evidenced by the revised Visa Bulletin, apparently these employees contacted "en mass" the DOS to request the visa numbers for these pending I-485 cases, which the DOS reported in the release of the revised VB turned out exceeding 60,000. (5) The rule requires that the USCIS approves I-485 cases "prior to" to contacting and requesting a visa number. (6) The current USCIS policy and procedure also require that I-485 applications be adjudicated and approved "only after" the completion of clearance of the security checks.
* Issue I: Hypothetically, what happens if the USCIS takes out the visa number before they obtain the security clearace?
o Answer I: Obviously it would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: It will constitue a serious security lapse, compromising the homeland security.
* Issue II: Hypothetically, what hppens if the USCIS requests and takes out the visa numbers prior to adjudication and approval of the pending I-485 applications?
o Answer I: It is evident that the USCIS would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: There could be two probable consequences affecting the backlog I-485 applicants and the new July Visa Bulletin eligible I-485 applicants, shoud the hypothetical facts develop. (1) The backlog I-485 applicants who have been issued I-485 approval notices should not be affected by the fiasco, albeit the potential revocation of the I-485 approvals. In most cases, revocation of the approved I-485 requires the time-consuming immigration court proceedings, assuming that the USCIS has a sufficient cause of action which may be questionable in this case. (2) The backlog I-485 applicants who have yet to receive the approval notice and the USCIS has yet to adjudicate and approve the application might be vulnerable in that the USCIS might be required to return the visa numbers for these cases as there was an error. Hypothetically, these numbers could be returned to the State Department and based on these returned number, the State Department might be required to revise the July Visa Bulletin again.
07/04/2007: Status and Issues Involving July 2007 485 Fiasco
* The AILF work on the lawsuit appears to be in progress without any hurdles. It has reported that enough candidates have come forward to participate in the lawsuit as the plaintiffs and it does not need any more candidates to move forward for the lawsuit. Some of other people are likely to be covered as members of the class action regardless of their actual participation in the lawsuit. People should send "THANK YOU" to the AILF Legal Action Center leaders and the attorneys who are actually working on this case. Some contribution to the AILF may be more than appropriate. Please visit the AILF site to learn how they can send in contribution.
#
# We have been asked by the readers to report the alleged conspiracy theory. We declined to do it. However, people may want to know potential issues that should be answered and explored. We will discuss these issues on following hypotehtical premises:
* Presumption of Facts: (1) The I-485 applications have been experiencing a tremendous backlog lately. (2) The causes for the backlog have been known to be delays in the security checks. Some of these applicants have sought a relief in federal courts in the form of mandamus actions. (3) Allegedly, the USCIS pull together local and Service Center employees and pull out pending I-485 cases which were older than six months in backlog, working overtime and during the weekend right before July 1, 2007. This is an assumption at this point. (4) As evidenced by the revised Visa Bulletin, apparently these employees contacted "en mass" the DOS to request the visa numbers for these pending I-485 cases, which the DOS reported in the release of the revised VB turned out exceeding 60,000. (5) The rule requires that the USCIS approves I-485 cases "prior to" to contacting and requesting a visa number. (6) The current USCIS policy and procedure also require that I-485 applications be adjudicated and approved "only after" the completion of clearance of the security checks.
* Issue I: Hypothetically, what happens if the USCIS takes out the visa number before they obtain the security clearace?
o Answer I: Obviously it would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: It will constitue a serious security lapse, compromising the homeland security.
* Issue II: Hypothetically, what hppens if the USCIS requests and takes out the visa numbers prior to adjudication and approval of the pending I-485 applications?
o Answer I: It is evident that the USCIS would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: There could be two probable consequences affecting the backlog I-485 applicants and the new July Visa Bulletin eligible I-485 applicants, shoud the hypothetical facts develop. (1) The backlog I-485 applicants who have been issued I-485 approval notices should not be affected by the fiasco, albeit the potential revocation of the I-485 approvals. In most cases, revocation of the approved I-485 requires the time-consuming immigration court proceedings, assuming that the USCIS has a sufficient cause of action which may be questionable in this case. (2) The backlog I-485 applicants who have yet to receive the approval notice and the USCIS has yet to adjudicate and approve the application might be vulnerable in that the USCIS might be required to return the visa numbers for these cases as there was an error. Hypothetically, these numbers could be returned to the State Department and based on these returned number, the State Department might be required to revise the July Visa Bulletin again.
hot Preikestolen (pulpit rock)
paula
03-21 05:44 PM
EB3
Labor PD - 6/2/2004
Labor cleared - February 2007
485 filed - August 17
140 cleared - September 2007
EAD card - November 2007
AP - December 2007
485 pending.
Labor PD - 6/2/2004
Labor cleared - February 2007
485 filed - August 17
140 cleared - September 2007
EAD card - November 2007
AP - December 2007
485 pending.
more...
house Stavanger Trip - Feet @ Pulpit Rock. Couldn#39;t wait to snap this one!
jsb
01-22 11:47 AM
Nice definition for happiness for American, Japenese , So what about definition of happiness for Indian , Is it GC ? :):)
No, people with all personalities exist every where. I just took two typical cases. Does Warren Buffet care about car or home he has? His happiness lies in multiplying his wealth (bank account), not in expensive cars/homes. Wealth, big homes, GC, etc. have nothing to do with peace of mind. The moment we get our GC, our happiness level will go up momentarily, and then after a while we'll find things to be unhappy again.
Case in question above, where a GC seeker gets up at 5am in a nicely furnished home, and gets to work, is entirely his choosing for happiness with material things. He knowingly choose to sacrifice his peace of mind for more material wealth.
We always pay in some form for any happiness we seek.
No, people with all personalities exist every where. I just took two typical cases. Does Warren Buffet care about car or home he has? His happiness lies in multiplying his wealth (bank account), not in expensive cars/homes. Wealth, big homes, GC, etc. have nothing to do with peace of mind. The moment we get our GC, our happiness level will go up momentarily, and then after a while we'll find things to be unhappy again.
Case in question above, where a GC seeker gets up at 5am in a nicely furnished home, and gets to work, is entirely his choosing for happiness with material things. He knowingly choose to sacrifice his peace of mind for more material wealth.
We always pay in some form for any happiness we seek.
tattoo Pulpit Rock, Pulpit Rock
GC_dd
06-11 11:56 AM
done
more...
pictures pulpit rock, stavanger,
alterego
09-10 06:15 PM
Actually even the Brits. have a rule in their immigration process stating that if you have spent a total of 10 yrs in that country, that alone is a basis for a PR card there. Citizenship is another 1 yr after that(there is currently some debate about making it 2 mainly over spousal PR cards). This rule is based on the premise that if you have been part of the society for that length of time then you have contributed sufficiently to warrant peership. So by this score, many of those who posted that they have been here since earlier than 1999 would have been eligible even absent the employers assistance.
Given that we have been tax paying, law abiding and patiently waiting through a bureaucratic system that has to date not approved 500K visas that they could have, we have a legitimate grouse to any fair minded person. We have contributed tremendously through our purchasing power and in many other ways to this economy.
As it stands however the system is mainly screwing EB India. Ideally they should start up a Country caps for H1b visas also. Only then will the foolishness of per country quotas for EMPLOYMENT BASED immigration be fully apparent. I see potentially another example of this "managed overflow" system at work here.
It seems likely on the Oct. VB that EB3 ROW would have been afforded a much more generous PD than EB2I. Based on the USCIS's assertion that henceforth spillover will be horizontal before vertical, the presumption can then be that EB3ROW would basically be limited to 28% of 140K, on that basis and recent retrogression for EB3ROW, those numbers should be used up rapidly. I'll bet that this will not happen. A whole lot of "managing" is going on.
Given that we have been tax paying, law abiding and patiently waiting through a bureaucratic system that has to date not approved 500K visas that they could have, we have a legitimate grouse to any fair minded person. We have contributed tremendously through our purchasing power and in many other ways to this economy.
As it stands however the system is mainly screwing EB India. Ideally they should start up a Country caps for H1b visas also. Only then will the foolishness of per country quotas for EMPLOYMENT BASED immigration be fully apparent. I see potentially another example of this "managed overflow" system at work here.
It seems likely on the Oct. VB that EB3 ROW would have been afforded a much more generous PD than EB2I. Based on the USCIS's assertion that henceforth spillover will be horizontal before vertical, the presumption can then be that EB3ROW would basically be limited to 28% of 140K, on that basis and recent retrogression for EB3ROW, those numbers should be used up rapidly. I'll bet that this will not happen. A whole lot of "managing" is going on.
dresses rock Preikestolen+pulpit+
uma_vishi
07-14 11:03 PM
Hi All,
here is my situation.I'm working in USA on L1B visa which is about to complete 5 years in sep 2010.my company A (employer and client )want to apply for L1A. Also another company B is filing H1B. now to make my stay here without going to india for the time being is this possible.
1) can both the companies apply for two different visa for a single person.
2) what are the pros and cons.
3) for conversion of L1B to L1A , is petition enough to stay in USA or do i need to go get the stamping.
also H1b start time is OCt and my petition expires in sep 2009 but i'm having I-94 till Nov 2011.
now how to manage one month time without going out of this country.
can anybody please help me with this.
Thanks in Advance.
here is my situation.I'm working in USA on L1B visa which is about to complete 5 years in sep 2010.my company A (employer and client )want to apply for L1A. Also another company B is filing H1B. now to make my stay here without going to india for the time being is this possible.
1) can both the companies apply for two different visa for a single person.
2) what are the pros and cons.
3) for conversion of L1B to L1A , is petition enough to stay in USA or do i need to go get the stamping.
also H1b start time is OCt and my petition expires in sep 2009 but i'm having I-94 till Nov 2011.
now how to manage one month time without going out of this country.
can anybody please help me with this.
Thanks in Advance.
more...
makeup The Pulpit Rock - Stavanger
eb3_nepa
07-02 09:38 AM
YOU PEOPLE understand first what i kept in the reply. I did not blame IV for doing other efforts..I am talking about facts about USCIS..So dont make fool us or yourself as IV or any other organization will not be able to attack USCIS..Bcoz USCIS is monarch..
I have to agree with Bheemi. I fully support IV, but even IV has its limits and NOONE can fight the USCIS. AILA/AILF can TRYYY and that is all that they can do.
I have to agree with Bheemi. I fully support IV, but even IV has its limits and NOONE can fight the USCIS. AILA/AILF can TRYYY and that is all that they can do.
girlfriend the famous Pulpit Rock,
walker15
09-10 03:11 PM
HR6020 is being presented right now and final voting is going on, HR5882 might come next for discussion.
hairstyles The Pulpit Rock
Jbpvisa
07-12 11:01 PM
http://www.murthy.com/chertoff_murthy.html
July 12, 2007
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Michael Chertoff, Esq.
Secretary
Department of Homeland Security
RE: USCIS Decision to Reject I-485 Filings
Dear Mr. Chertoff:
It was a pleasure and an honor to meet with you and to share my views during your panel discussion at the Harvard Worldwide Congress June 15, 2007 in Washington, D.C. I understand and appreciate that the responsibility vested in you as the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is no simple task. We applaud your service to our nation. After meeting with you personally and speaking with you, I am more convinced than ever that you will do the right thing for our country and for the people you serve, both in terms of securing our nation and in being the leader of the DHS, with over 20 federal agencies reporting to you, including the USCIS.
Purpose of this Letter
I am writing to you at this time to address recent actions by the USCIS to refuse to accept I-485 adjustment of status filing during July 2007 that are having significant impact upon the reliability of the legal immigration system in this country, as well as impacting legal foreign nationals and the many U.S. businesses that rely upon the work they perform.
USCIS Decision Contradicts its Long Standing Procedure
In contradiction of its own long standing policy and procedure, we understand that the USCIS, through its Director Gonzalez, contacted the U.S. Department of State (DOS) and requested or required the DOS to issue a �revised� Visa Bulletin on July 2, 2007. The USCIS then used the revised Bulletin to refuse to accept I-485 filings. This decision deprives thousands of foreign nationals, and their families, of the rights and privileges that are attendant to the I-485 filing.
These Highly Skilled Professionals Followed All the Rules and Believe in the American Dream
These professionals and their employers have played by our established immigration laws and rules. The vast majority of these thousands of potential applicants has a U.S. employer corporation, university or other business as a sponsor for permanent resident status. The exceptions from an employer are for those who are considered of �extraordinary ability� or whose work is in our �national interest.� Many of these applicants have completed their Bachelor�s, Master�s and/or PhD programs from U.S. universities. They believe in the opportunities of this great nation and strive to achieve the American Dream by following all the rules, working hard, paying taxes, and striving to do the right thing. They believe in this country, and rely upon our systems, our government, and our processes. Unfortunately, on July 2, 2007, we let them down. The USCIS abandoned its own system and long standing practices. This happened through manipulation of the use of visa numbers, insisting upon the issuance of a "revised visa bulletin," and instituting the USCIS policy of rejecting every employment-based I-485 that could have been filed during the month of July 2007.
USCIS Decision Denies Substantive and Procedural Rights to Highly Skilled Workers and Their Employers - Many of Whom Have Already Suffered and Will Suffer Further Harm/ Injury
Not only does the USCIS' action harm the individuals and employers involved, it undermines the reliability of our entire employment-based immigration system. The unexpected decision of the USCIS to refuse to accept any I-485 filings denies both substantive and procedural due process rights to would be applicants across the U.S. All of these applicants are employment based (EB) applicants who are primarily highly skilled professionals or experienced workers, that the U.S. seeks in high demand areas, including: science, technology, medicine, research, business, academia, and education.
The harm in not accepting the filings in July 2007 goes beyond mere delay. In reliance upon the July Visa Bulletin, starting in mid-June 2007, these applicants took the steps necessary to prepare their filings and made decisions in reliance upon the USCIS accepting their filings during July 2007. In order to be present in the U.S., as required for these filings, many applicants and their families canceled travel plans abroad or arranged to return to the U.S. on short notice missing family weddings and other important life events. They undertook medical examinations and paid for the required tests which must accompany the I-485 filings. (The USCIS had refused to waive this requirement even temporarily.) They hired lawyers to process their paperwork; they arranged to obtain documents from abroad on an expedited basis, involving foreign lawyers and foreign governments, all at a significant cost. They made employment and other strategic immigration related decisions to be able to process their I-485s for them and their families. Some canceled visa appointments at the consulates, or withdrew other immigration filings, all in reliance upon the USCIS accepting I-485 filings during July 2007.
The applicants and their employers lose the rights and privileges that accompany the filing of the I-485. These include eligibility for the Employment Authorization Document (EAD) and Advanced Parole (AP), thus eliminating the need for the individuals and their employers to make the filings necessary to maintain a non-immigrant, temporary status. These same ancillary benefits also apply to dependant family members. Most importantly, those that have not filed I-485s are not eligible for "portability" benefits under the �American Competitiveness in the Twenty First Century Act� of Oct. 2000 or �AC21� as it is sometimes referred to. This ineligibility for AC21 portability forces career stagnation. This is to the detriment of the individual as well as their sponsoring employer. Under AC21 portability, employers can promote and/or relocate employees to positions that are the same or similar job classifications as the positions for which they were initially sponsored. Individuals can utilize these provisions for career advancement, and for entrepreneurship. Given that the green card process often spans many years, AC21 portability allows the necessary flexibility to permit the case to continue, to accommodate changes in the sponsoring employer's needs as well as opportunities that are specific to the beneficiary.
The list of stories of individuals and families harmed by the USCIS decision is endless. We have for example, many spouses who will now be separated potentially for years on end, as one received a green card during the USCIS' June "rush," while the other is now ineligible to file.
The USCIS decision also created a burden on U.S. employers. Further delays in the green card process mean that, at best, U.S. employers have to continue to file temporary petitions to keep their workforce in the U.S. legally; at worst, it jeopardizes the availability of this needed highly educated and skilled workforce.
USCIS Motive is to Collect Millions of Additional Filing Fees
Many are baffled by the USCIS decision to reject I-485 filings in July, and its use of the �revised� Visa Bulletin as an excuse. The suspected motive is the collection of the substantially higher filing fees that will be generated after July 27, 2007. This entire incident sends the wrong message about our government, our policies and our legal system reeking of greed and inconsistency. Even the appearance of such impropriety undermines our system.
.................
continue
July 12, 2007
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Michael Chertoff, Esq.
Secretary
Department of Homeland Security
RE: USCIS Decision to Reject I-485 Filings
Dear Mr. Chertoff:
It was a pleasure and an honor to meet with you and to share my views during your panel discussion at the Harvard Worldwide Congress June 15, 2007 in Washington, D.C. I understand and appreciate that the responsibility vested in you as the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is no simple task. We applaud your service to our nation. After meeting with you personally and speaking with you, I am more convinced than ever that you will do the right thing for our country and for the people you serve, both in terms of securing our nation and in being the leader of the DHS, with over 20 federal agencies reporting to you, including the USCIS.
Purpose of this Letter
I am writing to you at this time to address recent actions by the USCIS to refuse to accept I-485 adjustment of status filing during July 2007 that are having significant impact upon the reliability of the legal immigration system in this country, as well as impacting legal foreign nationals and the many U.S. businesses that rely upon the work they perform.
USCIS Decision Contradicts its Long Standing Procedure
In contradiction of its own long standing policy and procedure, we understand that the USCIS, through its Director Gonzalez, contacted the U.S. Department of State (DOS) and requested or required the DOS to issue a �revised� Visa Bulletin on July 2, 2007. The USCIS then used the revised Bulletin to refuse to accept I-485 filings. This decision deprives thousands of foreign nationals, and their families, of the rights and privileges that are attendant to the I-485 filing.
These Highly Skilled Professionals Followed All the Rules and Believe in the American Dream
These professionals and their employers have played by our established immigration laws and rules. The vast majority of these thousands of potential applicants has a U.S. employer corporation, university or other business as a sponsor for permanent resident status. The exceptions from an employer are for those who are considered of �extraordinary ability� or whose work is in our �national interest.� Many of these applicants have completed their Bachelor�s, Master�s and/or PhD programs from U.S. universities. They believe in the opportunities of this great nation and strive to achieve the American Dream by following all the rules, working hard, paying taxes, and striving to do the right thing. They believe in this country, and rely upon our systems, our government, and our processes. Unfortunately, on July 2, 2007, we let them down. The USCIS abandoned its own system and long standing practices. This happened through manipulation of the use of visa numbers, insisting upon the issuance of a "revised visa bulletin," and instituting the USCIS policy of rejecting every employment-based I-485 that could have been filed during the month of July 2007.
USCIS Decision Denies Substantive and Procedural Rights to Highly Skilled Workers and Their Employers - Many of Whom Have Already Suffered and Will Suffer Further Harm/ Injury
Not only does the USCIS' action harm the individuals and employers involved, it undermines the reliability of our entire employment-based immigration system. The unexpected decision of the USCIS to refuse to accept any I-485 filings denies both substantive and procedural due process rights to would be applicants across the U.S. All of these applicants are employment based (EB) applicants who are primarily highly skilled professionals or experienced workers, that the U.S. seeks in high demand areas, including: science, technology, medicine, research, business, academia, and education.
The harm in not accepting the filings in July 2007 goes beyond mere delay. In reliance upon the July Visa Bulletin, starting in mid-June 2007, these applicants took the steps necessary to prepare their filings and made decisions in reliance upon the USCIS accepting their filings during July 2007. In order to be present in the U.S., as required for these filings, many applicants and their families canceled travel plans abroad or arranged to return to the U.S. on short notice missing family weddings and other important life events. They undertook medical examinations and paid for the required tests which must accompany the I-485 filings. (The USCIS had refused to waive this requirement even temporarily.) They hired lawyers to process their paperwork; they arranged to obtain documents from abroad on an expedited basis, involving foreign lawyers and foreign governments, all at a significant cost. They made employment and other strategic immigration related decisions to be able to process their I-485s for them and their families. Some canceled visa appointments at the consulates, or withdrew other immigration filings, all in reliance upon the USCIS accepting I-485 filings during July 2007.
The applicants and their employers lose the rights and privileges that accompany the filing of the I-485. These include eligibility for the Employment Authorization Document (EAD) and Advanced Parole (AP), thus eliminating the need for the individuals and their employers to make the filings necessary to maintain a non-immigrant, temporary status. These same ancillary benefits also apply to dependant family members. Most importantly, those that have not filed I-485s are not eligible for "portability" benefits under the �American Competitiveness in the Twenty First Century Act� of Oct. 2000 or �AC21� as it is sometimes referred to. This ineligibility for AC21 portability forces career stagnation. This is to the detriment of the individual as well as their sponsoring employer. Under AC21 portability, employers can promote and/or relocate employees to positions that are the same or similar job classifications as the positions for which they were initially sponsored. Individuals can utilize these provisions for career advancement, and for entrepreneurship. Given that the green card process often spans many years, AC21 portability allows the necessary flexibility to permit the case to continue, to accommodate changes in the sponsoring employer's needs as well as opportunities that are specific to the beneficiary.
The list of stories of individuals and families harmed by the USCIS decision is endless. We have for example, many spouses who will now be separated potentially for years on end, as one received a green card during the USCIS' June "rush," while the other is now ineligible to file.
The USCIS decision also created a burden on U.S. employers. Further delays in the green card process mean that, at best, U.S. employers have to continue to file temporary petitions to keep their workforce in the U.S. legally; at worst, it jeopardizes the availability of this needed highly educated and skilled workforce.
USCIS Motive is to Collect Millions of Additional Filing Fees
Many are baffled by the USCIS decision to reject I-485 filings in July, and its use of the �revised� Visa Bulletin as an excuse. The suspected motive is the collection of the substantially higher filing fees that will be generated after July 27, 2007. This entire incident sends the wrong message about our government, our policies and our legal system reeking of greed and inconsistency. Even the appearance of such impropriety undermines our system.
.................
continue
greyhair
02-12 01:56 PM
This whole thread is about what Ron Gotcher published. I didn't start this thread. I am only contributing my view that based on available information some things make sense and some dont. The things that do make some sense is wastage of visa numbers in 2010. We have some facts to support the "theory" but not enough.
What doesn't make sense is Ron's assertion that USCIS wasted 13K EB visas in 2009. Facts simply don't support that.
Does this help? (Again this is my view... don't want to push it onto others)
I disagree. This thread is not about some immigration lawyer. This thread is about visa numbers wasted due to USCIS inefficiency. That's what the title of the thread says. Why do I or anybody else care about some immigration lawyer? Why is he/she relevant if its specifically proven with facts that there is no wastage of visa number. You continue to advertise the name of the immigration lawyer. The reason I say this is because in my experience immigration lawyers comment on these issues as if they have direct access to USCIS Director or god. Even after disproving the visa wastage theory with facts you still continue to over analyze immigration body shop instead of discussing the issue. I am just wondering, why would you that? Are you that immigration lawyer or employee of his law firm? Just curious.
What doesn't make sense is Ron's assertion that USCIS wasted 13K EB visas in 2009. Facts simply don't support that.
Does this help? (Again this is my view... don't want to push it onto others)
I disagree. This thread is not about some immigration lawyer. This thread is about visa numbers wasted due to USCIS inefficiency. That's what the title of the thread says. Why do I or anybody else care about some immigration lawyer? Why is he/she relevant if its specifically proven with facts that there is no wastage of visa number. You continue to advertise the name of the immigration lawyer. The reason I say this is because in my experience immigration lawyers comment on these issues as if they have direct access to USCIS Director or god. Even after disproving the visa wastage theory with facts you still continue to over analyze immigration body shop instead of discussing the issue. I am just wondering, why would you that? Are you that immigration lawyer or employee of his law firm? Just curious.
Jaime
09-10 01:36 PM
Your spouse gets an H1-B him/herself for a higher-paying job than yours, but the job is in another city - Your spouse cannot get the job, because you are not allowed to move. The only option is to split the family up or reject the job offer and supplemental income.
