roseball
06-28 08:27 PM
June 28, 2007
USCIS: RUMORS OF EARLY VISA RETROGRESSION
Late Wednesday, rumors emerged that the USCIS may attempt to retrogress the July immigrant visa numbers early in July and reject I- 485 (adjustment of status) applications filed early in the month. USCIS has taken such action already with respect to the �other worker� visa category involving non-professional workers.
Visa availability is based on the U.S. Department of State Visa Bulletin, which is published monthly, not on a rolling basis. If USCIS cuts off visa numbers in mid-month, this would be a clear violation of Federal law and agency policy. If the USCIS were to take this arbitrary action, it would cause significant problems for applicants and employers alike.
If USCIS cuts off applications on a certain date in early July, this will most likely occur without advance warning. In that case, not all applications will be accepted for processing. Be aware that that USCIS will reject an application unless it contains certain minimum supporting documents. For I-485 applications, minimum documents include a completed medical examination and birth certificates (or secondary evidence of birth, which must meet specific USCIS requirements). Applications for dependent spouses must include a marriage certificate. We strongly recommend that I-485 applicants obtain these and other requested documents as soon as possible. Until further notice, please do not plan to travel internationally during the month of July.
We will work as hard and as diligently as possible to get I-485 applications filed quickly. This will require active cooperation by all applicants to obtain needed documents. Again, please understand that the proposed USCIS action is just rumor at this point, but if the USCIS takes such action, it will likely be without warning. Further, it is possible that there could be retroactive rejections of applications once filed. Unfortunately, this is all we know at this time. We do not know when and if any such actions will occur; we will also not know immediately which, if any, cases are rejected once they have been submitted.
The attorneys at XXXXX are shocked and disappointed that the government could take such ill-thought and arbitrary steps and we will work to fight any illegal action by the USCIS. We are continuing to monitor the USCIS� actions and will provide updates as they become available
USCIS: RUMORS OF EARLY VISA RETROGRESSION
Late Wednesday, rumors emerged that the USCIS may attempt to retrogress the July immigrant visa numbers early in July and reject I- 485 (adjustment of status) applications filed early in the month. USCIS has taken such action already with respect to the �other worker� visa category involving non-professional workers.
Visa availability is based on the U.S. Department of State Visa Bulletin, which is published monthly, not on a rolling basis. If USCIS cuts off visa numbers in mid-month, this would be a clear violation of Federal law and agency policy. If the USCIS were to take this arbitrary action, it would cause significant problems for applicants and employers alike.
If USCIS cuts off applications on a certain date in early July, this will most likely occur without advance warning. In that case, not all applications will be accepted for processing. Be aware that that USCIS will reject an application unless it contains certain minimum supporting documents. For I-485 applications, minimum documents include a completed medical examination and birth certificates (or secondary evidence of birth, which must meet specific USCIS requirements). Applications for dependent spouses must include a marriage certificate. We strongly recommend that I-485 applicants obtain these and other requested documents as soon as possible. Until further notice, please do not plan to travel internationally during the month of July.
We will work as hard and as diligently as possible to get I-485 applications filed quickly. This will require active cooperation by all applicants to obtain needed documents. Again, please understand that the proposed USCIS action is just rumor at this point, but if the USCIS takes such action, it will likely be without warning. Further, it is possible that there could be retroactive rejections of applications once filed. Unfortunately, this is all we know at this time. We do not know when and if any such actions will occur; we will also not know immediately which, if any, cases are rejected once they have been submitted.
The attorneys at XXXXX are shocked and disappointed that the government could take such ill-thought and arbitrary steps and we will work to fight any illegal action by the USCIS. We are continuing to monitor the USCIS� actions and will provide updates as they become available
wallpaper vector : goldfish cartoon
chiragmodi
09-28 07:18 PM
Is it mendetory to file AC21 if your job title and duties are identical in your new job???
Thanks.
Thanks.
deepakjain
01-22 04:26 PM
Then please pack your bags and leave the country in the next flight..
Good Answer, it is easier said then done. Anyone who has been working here without any issues at work place why should he/she leave because of delay in getting GC. Yes we definitely have an uncertain future but that should not stop people like us for staying here, buying house, cars and living a decent life here in US.
Getting a GC is part of my employment process for staying here for a longer duration without any visa hassles, this should not stop atleast any Indian to live life to the fullest here in US.
Good Answer, it is easier said then done. Anyone who has been working here without any issues at work place why should he/she leave because of delay in getting GC. Yes we definitely have an uncertain future but that should not stop people like us for staying here, buying house, cars and living a decent life here in US.
Getting a GC is part of my employment process for staying here for a longer duration without any visa hassles, this should not stop atleast any Indian to live life to the fullest here in US.
2011 Cartoon: Crisis (medium) by
luncheSpecials
02-15 04:38 PM
I totally blame bodyshoppers for the mess
more...
mpadapa
07-23 12:02 PM
vdlrao, I looked at the DHS data there seems to be lot of discrepancy in the EB and FB numbers shown in that document and the DOS statistics (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/statistics/statistics_1476.html)
But if you look at the last page where they discuss the EB limits, the document self contradicts. For example they say 2007 EB limit is 147,148 but based on their Table 2 (page 3) the EB limit comes out to 143,771 ( 140K + (226K - 222,229)). Also they have a foot note saying that DOS sets the EB/FB limits.
I've a spreadsheet which has the calculated EB limit for FY (2003-2007), the numbers I arrived at is very close to those reported in the September bulletins. If U wanna take a look at it, please PM u'r email ID, I can send it to U.
mpadapa, I am getting 31,100 unused Family Based Visas for 2007 fiscal year from
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/LPR_FR_2007.pdf
.
DHS bulletin is not updated correctly like Employment Based AC21 VISAS? Please let me know.
But if you look at the last page where they discuss the EB limits, the document self contradicts. For example they say 2007 EB limit is 147,148 but based on their Table 2 (page 3) the EB limit comes out to 143,771 ( 140K + (226K - 222,229)). Also they have a foot note saying that DOS sets the EB/FB limits.
I've a spreadsheet which has the calculated EB limit for FY (2003-2007), the numbers I arrived at is very close to those reported in the September bulletins. If U wanna take a look at it, please PM u'r email ID, I can send it to U.
mpadapa, I am getting 31,100 unused Family Based Visas for 2007 fiscal year from
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/LPR_FR_2007.pdf
.
DHS bulletin is not updated correctly like Employment Based AC21 VISAS? Please let me know.
chanduv23
09-04 08:06 AM
Please stop this unnecessary useless discussion here. And I am not "_truefacts". Folks, just like how u do IT or medicine, for politicians - politics is a career. They do whatever they can to be in power and in developing countries like India where unfortunately, corrpution still exists. Corrpution exists everywhere in different forms. Don't we all pay for EAD and AP every year because our country is retrogressed? Don't we all pay for MTR when we do everything based on law?
One has to accpept the reality and live with it and try to bring about the change within one's parameters.
People can argue just for the sake of arguements - but the reality is that we are all in it together. If there is an issue that affects all of us, it affects all of us - period. We can argue and counter argue but unless we all get on the same page and understand that there needs to be a solution rather than trask talk, things are not going to change for us.
Lets concentrate on what we are in this organization for.
One has to accpept the reality and live with it and try to bring about the change within one's parameters.
People can argue just for the sake of arguements - but the reality is that we are all in it together. If there is an issue that affects all of us, it affects all of us - period. We can argue and counter argue but unless we all get on the same page and understand that there needs to be a solution rather than trask talk, things are not going to change for us.
Lets concentrate on what we are in this organization for.
more...
_TrueFacts
09-04 01:43 PM
May he rest in peace...
Shree..don't worry God will give him due treatment..
Shree..don't worry God will give him due treatment..
2010 Cartoon drawing little
lazycis
02-13 09:06 AM
I agree that quota system is cumbersome. It would've been much easier just to have one bucket. But I fail to see how it is discriminatory when every coutry gets an equal piece of the pie. It is a classic supply and demand issue, but it's not a discrimination. Consider also the fact that GC is a grace not a right. "Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?"
more...
drirshad
08-08 04:47 PM
I am one of the July 2nd filer, EB2 India, PD is April 2005 filed 485 at NSC but got a receipt# starting with WAC. First I-485 receipt notice was send me with RD 07/02/2007. I again got the second I-485 transfer notice in September with RD 09/26/2007 saying my case has been transferred back to NSC office as they have jurisdiction over it.
Called IO today says as my application receipt# starts with WAC it will processed by the CSC processing dates that is stuck at May 2006 rather than the NSC processing dates that is at 10th August 2007 making my 485 eligible for processing.
Is this information from IO valid, what can be done to come out of this problems. Looks like there has been some TSC approvals for WAC receipts but no news on NSC.
Called IO today says as my application receipt# starts with WAC it will processed by the CSC processing dates that is stuck at May 2006 rather than the NSC processing dates that is at 10th August 2007 making my 485 eligible for processing.
Is this information from IO valid, what can be done to come out of this problems. Looks like there has been some TSC approvals for WAC receipts but no news on NSC.
hair goldfish cartoon. goldfish
breddy2000
09-04 12:45 PM
so now you are a free loader and got a reason for that. Nice try. Try something else..it didnt work out. :cool:
No point in agruing with fools like you.....
No point in agruing with fools like you.....
more...
santb1975
02-13 04:16 PM
This is my first post which was not positive. I am backing up :). I am proud to be part of IV. I beleive in this cause.
Buck up :) We all go through it. I never take it personally. I would definitely be happy if more and more members come forward and help, instead of "missing in action" when needed most.
We would be really happy if new members come up and take initiatives (i am now keeping my messages positive :) ) , more active members, more strength.
participation is contigeous, all we need is some self motivators and self starters to kindle the fire.
Buck up :) We all go through it. I never take it personally. I would definitely be happy if more and more members come forward and help, instead of "missing in action" when needed most.
We would be really happy if new members come up and take initiatives (i am now keeping my messages positive :) ) , more active members, more strength.
participation is contigeous, all we need is some self motivators and self starters to kindle the fire.
hot cute goldfish cartoon.
EndlessWait
12-15 09:32 PM
Can we ask Congressman Barney Frank(House Financial Services Committee Chairman) and Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren to look at this. Can IV get an appointment with them.
Immediate GC for pending EB applicants, if they buy house.
Immediate GC for pending EB applicants, if they buy house.
more...
house Adobe Illustrator Cartoon
kuhelica2000
02-13 02:01 PM
Grupak, I am not suggesting any single country is monopolizing the foreign worker pool. Employment laws in the US are fairly non-discriminatory except the diversity in workplace or "Affarmative Action" component which prefers a minority when two candidates possess the same skills.
My comment was on someone suggesting moving ahead without the ROW participation since they only comprise 20% of the membership pool.
I don't understand this logic. We are talking about employment based GC.
Lets be clear that we are talking about people who are employed in the US and their employers have sponsored their green cards (except the EB2-NIW, EB1_EA). These people are employed because of their skill at jobs not their national origin.
Are you suggesting that somehow people of some countries have monopolized the foreign worker pool by born in the same country and NOT because of their skill.
Since we are talking about a privilege and benefit that comes from being employed in the US, you are actually suggesting that US employers should consider country of birth and not just skill in the employment.
Tell me how did the Chinese, Indian, Mexican and Filipino workers unfairly monopolized the foreign worker pool. As far as I am aware, these countries have large populations and a lot of Science and Engineering graduates happen to be from these countries.
The country cap makes sense in family based immigration system when extended beyond the immediate family members. IV is not for FB GC issues.
Again, employment in the US is based on skill not country of birth. The foreign workers are here because they are needed, and US will benefit by keeping these skilled workers long term. What IV is doing benefits all employment based GC.
My comment was on someone suggesting moving ahead without the ROW participation since they only comprise 20% of the membership pool.
I don't understand this logic. We are talking about employment based GC.
Lets be clear that we are talking about people who are employed in the US and their employers have sponsored their green cards (except the EB2-NIW, EB1_EA). These people are employed because of their skill at jobs not their national origin.
Are you suggesting that somehow people of some countries have monopolized the foreign worker pool by born in the same country and NOT because of their skill.
Since we are talking about a privilege and benefit that comes from being employed in the US, you are actually suggesting that US employers should consider country of birth and not just skill in the employment.
Tell me how did the Chinese, Indian, Mexican and Filipino workers unfairly monopolized the foreign worker pool. As far as I am aware, these countries have large populations and a lot of Science and Engineering graduates happen to be from these countries.
The country cap makes sense in family based immigration system when extended beyond the immediate family members. IV is not for FB GC issues.
Again, employment in the US is based on skill not country of birth. The foreign workers are here because they are needed, and US will benefit by keeping these skilled workers long term. What IV is doing benefits all employment based GC.
tattoo dead goldfish cartoon. a
GCwaitforever
02-14 01:13 PM
"Another aspect of the present misconduct relates to the agency's failure to fulfill a statutory duty. The INS has a statutory obligation to issue visas to qualified applicants to the full extent of the annual quota limits established by Congress. 6 The legislative history of the Immigration & Naturalization Act indicates that this duty has not been left to agency discretion, see S.Rep. No. 748, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. reprinted in (1965) U.S.Code Cong. & [*39] Ad.News, pp. 3328, 3337-38, but is obligatory upon the agency. "
Encouraging precedent for the law suit. Excellent.
Encouraging precedent for the law suit. Excellent.
more...
pictures makeup Goldfish Cartoon
chanduv23
02-13 06:27 PM
hopefulgc - please dedicate some time and update your first post with more information on lawsuit, you may want to quote lazycis 's posts and other information.
A lot of people may not be very knowledgable and may backoff when they see the word "lawsuit".
Those who are saying YES on the poll - it is assumed that you will not backoff - if you have not yet updated your profile on IV - please update your complete profile - this will show that you can be counted on.
A lot of people may not be very knowledgable and may backoff when they see the word "lawsuit".
Those who are saying YES on the poll - it is assumed that you will not backoff - if you have not yet updated your profile on IV - please update your complete profile - this will show that you can be counted on.
dresses Cute Cartoon Goldfish Cell
sertasheep
07-03 04:42 PM
We have the following stories compiled so far;
New Jersey Member Stories (http://www.mydatabus.com/public/immigrationvoice/NJ_Stories_V5.pdf)
Disclaimer:This is a PDF. Please use your discretion and caution in scanning it for viruses.
Please note that we need all the extra help, and require your diligent set of eyes and ears.
In addition to that, you can also publish your story here as a post along with your Name and bio details like in the above document.
New Jersey Member Stories (http://www.mydatabus.com/public/immigrationvoice/NJ_Stories_V5.pdf)
Disclaimer:This is a PDF. Please use your discretion and caution in scanning it for viruses.
Please note that we need all the extra help, and require your diligent set of eyes and ears.
In addition to that, you can also publish your story here as a post along with your Name and bio details like in the above document.
more...
makeup goldfish cartoon.
boreal
07-21 05:31 PM
For 2007 we had an availability of 226,000 Family Based Visas. But the issued visas in 2007 in Family Based are 194,900 visas. That means there are 226,000 MINUS 194,900 = 31100. These 31,100
unused Family Based Visas have been made available for 2008 Employment Based Visas of 140,000. And USCIS has 28,795 unused VISAS of American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act of 2000 (AC21).
Sorry, silly question. Does this mean that these 32k visas are available to the EB2 I/C folks in Aug/Sep?
unused Family Based Visas have been made available for 2008 Employment Based Visas of 140,000. And USCIS has 28,795 unused VISAS of American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act of 2000 (AC21).
Sorry, silly question. Does this mean that these 32k visas are available to the EB2 I/C folks in Aug/Sep?
girlfriend goldfish cartoon pictures.
samay
07-30 04:22 PM
Hi,
1) My I-485(EB2-India) application file has two I-140 receipts (both of these are EB2) one of these I-140 is approved and the other was denied and a Motion to Reopen has been filed for this. How will the two EB2 I-140s affect my I-485 application?
2) I got a RFE for my I-1485 on June 17th 2008, asking for a I-140 approval notice. As we do not have a physical approval (never received the approval, may be lost in mail) notice my current attorney responded to the I-485 RFE and included the first I-140 receipt notice and also a copy of the approval email received from USCIS. The attorney also included the details of the second I-140 i.e the Motion to Reopen (I-290B) notice. Is the approach a good one?
3) My attorney also requested to consider the approved I-140 for adjucating the I-485 for me and my wife since the approved I-140 was filed and approved before filing the I-1485 and also we were married before the I-485 was filed. Will USCIS consider this request?
4) Also, will USCIS have a copy of my I-140 approval notice and will they use that and consider my I-485 case?
5) Will a Infopass appointment help in anyways?
My PERM labor was approved in May 2006 and my priority date is current for August 2008. The I-485 RFE response was received by USCIS on July 16th 2008 and my I-485 processing has resumed. I was wondering if USCIS will consider my approved I-140 for processing my I-485. Also, any other suggestions you could give me would be appreciated.
I am a little confused - Were two separate I-140 applications filed for you. If not why was a motion to reopen filed by your attorney if you received an approval notice. I am wondering why your attorney did not just inform the USCIS that they issued two receipts for the same case. As far as I can tell right now you should wait for the processing of your case. On another note even though your priority date is current your service center might not be processing cases with your filing date.
1) My I-485(EB2-India) application file has two I-140 receipts (both of these are EB2) one of these I-140 is approved and the other was denied and a Motion to Reopen has been filed for this. How will the two EB2 I-140s affect my I-485 application?
2) I got a RFE for my I-1485 on June 17th 2008, asking for a I-140 approval notice. As we do not have a physical approval (never received the approval, may be lost in mail) notice my current attorney responded to the I-485 RFE and included the first I-140 receipt notice and also a copy of the approval email received from USCIS. The attorney also included the details of the second I-140 i.e the Motion to Reopen (I-290B) notice. Is the approach a good one?
3) My attorney also requested to consider the approved I-140 for adjucating the I-485 for me and my wife since the approved I-140 was filed and approved before filing the I-1485 and also we were married before the I-485 was filed. Will USCIS consider this request?
4) Also, will USCIS have a copy of my I-140 approval notice and will they use that and consider my I-485 case?
5) Will a Infopass appointment help in anyways?
My PERM labor was approved in May 2006 and my priority date is current for August 2008. The I-485 RFE response was received by USCIS on July 16th 2008 and my I-485 processing has resumed. I was wondering if USCIS will consider my approved I-140 for processing my I-485. Also, any other suggestions you could give me would be appreciated.
I am a little confused - Were two separate I-140 applications filed for you. If not why was a motion to reopen filed by your attorney if you received an approval notice. I am wondering why your attorney did not just inform the USCIS that they issued two receipts for the same case. As far as I can tell right now you should wait for the processing of your case. On another note even though your priority date is current your service center might not be processing cases with your filing date.
hairstyles Angry Goldfish Cartoon
eagerr2i
08-30 01:43 PM
You are right on the mark. Need to be physically present 2 years of the next 5 years for your immigration status to be alive in Canada,
illusions
05-11 04:34 PM
Kodi,
From the bottom of your heart can you tell the forum that there was no discrimination against Tamils in Sri Lanka after its independence from Great Britain.
venetian, you could say that the Tamils in SL were just as a much discriminated in SL as the Muslims in India.
There is no such Genocide happening in SL as some claim. As a matter of fact the LTTE ethnically cleansed the Muslims from the NE of the country in the 90's, yet the Muslims in SL didn't bare arms against the LTTE.
Mind you the civil war in SL is against the LTTE, not the Tamils.
From the bottom of your heart can you tell the forum that there was no discrimination against Tamils in Sri Lanka after its independence from Great Britain.
venetian, you could say that the Tamils in SL were just as a much discriminated in SL as the Muslims in India.
There is no such Genocide happening in SL as some claim. As a matter of fact the LTTE ethnically cleansed the Muslims from the NE of the country in the 90's, yet the Muslims in SL didn't bare arms against the LTTE.
Mind you the civil war in SL is against the LTTE, not the Tamils.
manderson
02-13 11:30 AM
If I am not mistaken I believe Rajiv Khanna already filed such a lawsuit some years ago and lost.
Which makes me agree with walking_dude. With the new NC>180 rule, we can get pretty good momentum by recapturing lost visas and if possible by also increasing country caps and a increase of EB visas from 2009 onwards.
Which makes me agree with walking_dude. With the new NC>180 rule, we can get pretty good momentum by recapturing lost visas and if possible by also increasing country caps and a increase of EB visas from 2009 onwards.
No comments:
Post a Comment