gandhig
03-17 12:45 PM
EB3 - PD Nov 2004
EAD - July 2007; FP done
Masters degree from US but employer filed under EB3
EAD - July 2007; FP done
Masters degree from US but employer filed under EB3
wallpaper volleyball clipart to
sanju
02-03 12:13 PM
I spoke to Congresswoman Zoe Logfren's staff few days, back and they specifically pointed out on the country quota issue. I'm sure lot of lawmakers are aware about this issue, I wan to give it a try, guys who think it is an unfair system, please PM me, this is my own initiative so no there is no arguement on whether IV supports this or not...
I did want to PM you, but thought of posting it on the open forum. So here is what I have to say.
You are a total jerk because you do not understand, and you do not want to understand that your actions could annoy people and harm the effort. There is a time for everything. Just because we are all feeling the fear of the shrinking economy, doesn't mean that we have to do something, which may even harm the entire effort. Waiting for the right moment is better than doing wrong things at the wrong time and failing.
.
I did want to PM you, but thought of posting it on the open forum. So here is what I have to say.
You are a total jerk because you do not understand, and you do not want to understand that your actions could annoy people and harm the effort. There is a time for everything. Just because we are all feeling the fear of the shrinking economy, doesn't mean that we have to do something, which may even harm the entire effort. Waiting for the right moment is better than doing wrong things at the wrong time and failing.
.
johnwright03
07-01 09:38 AM
06/30/2007: Potential EB Visa Number Exhaution in July and Probable Actions of State Department or USCIS
* By now, people understand that the sources of potential action by the State Department or USCIS are predicated on the two important facts. One was the information from a government source that there were only about 40,000 numbers left for the entire EB visa numbers for the FY 2007 which ends on September 30, 2007. The second important fact was that reportedly the USCIS alone had far more than 40,000 I-485 applications in the backlog queue that were reportedly ready for approval. Considering the fact that the immigrant visa numbers are consumed by the approval of I-485 applications by the USCIS and the approval of immigant visa applications in the consular processing by visa posts througout the world, 40,000 visa numbers could be fairly quickly exhausted in early July 2007. This prediction was exacerbated by the information that the USCIS was apparently picking up the pace of I-485 adjudications lately.
* Obviously the State Department has been in communication with the USCIS and was well aware of the situation. Sources reported that the State Department might revise the July Visa Bulletin either Monday or Tuesday to reflect the situation. However, it is unclear at this point whether this will occur on Monday or Tuesday or, for that matter, some time soon, particulary considering the ongoing uproar in the nation. Assuming that the EB immigrant visa number will be exhausted before the end of July, from the government perspectives, they may have two options to handle this matter. One is the State Department revises the Visa Bulletin based on the newly developed facts and predictions. The other option is that the State Department does not take any action of revising the Visa Bulletin but just notify the USCIS when the visa numbers for certain categories are exhausted. The initial sources of rumor was the former possibility. However, as updated by the AILA afterwards, it might or might not happen.
* Whether the State Department revises the July visa bulletin or not, the fact will remain that 40,000 numbers could indeed be run out in a fairly short period of time in July. It is too obvious that under the statute, when the visa numbers are exhausted, the USCIS will not be able to approve any I-485 applications, and for that reason, the USCIS may wrongly reject the incoming I-485 applications or return I-485 applications which were received after the date when the visa number is exhausted. This happened for the "other worker" category in June when the priority date was current in June for certain other workers. The issue of legality of such action of the USCIS is rooted in the required distinction of the USCIS statutory mandates between its job of adjudication of 485 applications "already in the pipeline" and its job of "accepting new 485 applications." Arguably, when the visa number runs out, there is no question about that the USCIS should not and cannot adjudicate and approve any 485 applications. But there is no legal basis that the USCIS should not and cannot "accept" new 485 applications when the cases fall within the cut-off date of the monthly visa bulletin. If the State Department attempts to revise the July Visa Bulletin, probably they are doing it to overcome the predicament of the USCIS that will face in rejecting the new 485 applications. The problem is the State Department's own legal problem or authority to revise the published Visa Bulletin. Accordingly, either USCIS or State Department will be liable for either abuse of power or arbitrary act depending on who acts. The AILF is planning to sue the USCIS for rejecting "other worker" new 485 applications in June probably on ultra vires or other statutory authority grounds. Should the same thing happen in July, the AILF intends to extend its lawsuit to cover the July 2007 485 applicants, probably in the form of class action. What happens if the State Department revises the Visa Bulletin and the USCIS rejects the new applications based on the new Visa Bulletin? Strictly speaking, there may be no cause of action against the USCIS in that it followed the State Department's Visa Bulletin for the month of July. In this case, probably the lawsuit will have to be directed to the State Department for violation of law in revising the visa bulletin. We will soon find out.
* Where does this leave to the July 485 applicants? Fact remains that all likelihood, the annual limit may reach fairly early in July and they should file their cases before the visa posts and the USCIS exhaust all the numbers. They have to do this probably for the two reasons. One is that should the government take the second option of rejecting new cases after reaching the limit just as we experienced in the other worker cases, those who filed the I-485 application before that date will not be affected. Those who files the application after the date of exhaution and receive rejection of the 485 applications may be entitled to sue the USCIS either in a class action or individually. Secondly, if the government takes the first option of the State Department revising the July Visa Bulletin, they will have to sue the State Department and for that purpose, they should have filed I-485 applications within July 2007. Otherwise, they may have a standing to sue the State Department.
* For the foregoing reasons, we urge the July 485 filers to file the applications as soon as possible. At the same time, we urge the State Department and the USCIS not to take any actions to avoid the lawsuits. They should keep accepting I-485 applications even after the enhaution of the FY 2007 numbers, even though they will not be able to adjudicate these applications until the visa numbers become current again. Again, the agencies should distinguish the requirement for adjudication of 485 applications and the requirement for acceptance of new applications. These are two separate things.
* By now, people understand that the sources of potential action by the State Department or USCIS are predicated on the two important facts. One was the information from a government source that there were only about 40,000 numbers left for the entire EB visa numbers for the FY 2007 which ends on September 30, 2007. The second important fact was that reportedly the USCIS alone had far more than 40,000 I-485 applications in the backlog queue that were reportedly ready for approval. Considering the fact that the immigrant visa numbers are consumed by the approval of I-485 applications by the USCIS and the approval of immigant visa applications in the consular processing by visa posts througout the world, 40,000 visa numbers could be fairly quickly exhausted in early July 2007. This prediction was exacerbated by the information that the USCIS was apparently picking up the pace of I-485 adjudications lately.
* Obviously the State Department has been in communication with the USCIS and was well aware of the situation. Sources reported that the State Department might revise the July Visa Bulletin either Monday or Tuesday to reflect the situation. However, it is unclear at this point whether this will occur on Monday or Tuesday or, for that matter, some time soon, particulary considering the ongoing uproar in the nation. Assuming that the EB immigrant visa number will be exhausted before the end of July, from the government perspectives, they may have two options to handle this matter. One is the State Department revises the Visa Bulletin based on the newly developed facts and predictions. The other option is that the State Department does not take any action of revising the Visa Bulletin but just notify the USCIS when the visa numbers for certain categories are exhausted. The initial sources of rumor was the former possibility. However, as updated by the AILA afterwards, it might or might not happen.
* Whether the State Department revises the July visa bulletin or not, the fact will remain that 40,000 numbers could indeed be run out in a fairly short period of time in July. It is too obvious that under the statute, when the visa numbers are exhausted, the USCIS will not be able to approve any I-485 applications, and for that reason, the USCIS may wrongly reject the incoming I-485 applications or return I-485 applications which were received after the date when the visa number is exhausted. This happened for the "other worker" category in June when the priority date was current in June for certain other workers. The issue of legality of such action of the USCIS is rooted in the required distinction of the USCIS statutory mandates between its job of adjudication of 485 applications "already in the pipeline" and its job of "accepting new 485 applications." Arguably, when the visa number runs out, there is no question about that the USCIS should not and cannot adjudicate and approve any 485 applications. But there is no legal basis that the USCIS should not and cannot "accept" new 485 applications when the cases fall within the cut-off date of the monthly visa bulletin. If the State Department attempts to revise the July Visa Bulletin, probably they are doing it to overcome the predicament of the USCIS that will face in rejecting the new 485 applications. The problem is the State Department's own legal problem or authority to revise the published Visa Bulletin. Accordingly, either USCIS or State Department will be liable for either abuse of power or arbitrary act depending on who acts. The AILF is planning to sue the USCIS for rejecting "other worker" new 485 applications in June probably on ultra vires or other statutory authority grounds. Should the same thing happen in July, the AILF intends to extend its lawsuit to cover the July 2007 485 applicants, probably in the form of class action. What happens if the State Department revises the Visa Bulletin and the USCIS rejects the new applications based on the new Visa Bulletin? Strictly speaking, there may be no cause of action against the USCIS in that it followed the State Department's Visa Bulletin for the month of July. In this case, probably the lawsuit will have to be directed to the State Department for violation of law in revising the visa bulletin. We will soon find out.
* Where does this leave to the July 485 applicants? Fact remains that all likelihood, the annual limit may reach fairly early in July and they should file their cases before the visa posts and the USCIS exhaust all the numbers. They have to do this probably for the two reasons. One is that should the government take the second option of rejecting new cases after reaching the limit just as we experienced in the other worker cases, those who filed the I-485 application before that date will not be affected. Those who files the application after the date of exhaution and receive rejection of the 485 applications may be entitled to sue the USCIS either in a class action or individually. Secondly, if the government takes the first option of the State Department revising the July Visa Bulletin, they will have to sue the State Department and for that purpose, they should have filed I-485 applications within July 2007. Otherwise, they may have a standing to sue the State Department.
* For the foregoing reasons, we urge the July 485 filers to file the applications as soon as possible. At the same time, we urge the State Department and the USCIS not to take any actions to avoid the lawsuits. They should keep accepting I-485 applications even after the enhaution of the FY 2007 numbers, even though they will not be able to adjudicate these applications until the visa numbers become current again. Again, the agencies should distinguish the requirement for adjudication of 485 applications and the requirement for acceptance of new applications. These are two separate things.
2011 border volleyball clipart
ajthakur
07-14 06:41 PM
You are correct. I joined the new employer on H1 B transfer. I didnt use AC21(ead)to work for my new employer.
Nowhere in this post, do I see the fact that the OP used AC21 when he moved in August 2007.
Does not AC21 come in when you have used EAD to move instead of a H1 transfer?
In my understanding, by doing a H1 transfer rather than invoking AC21, the OP preserved the status of the original petition unless the employer revoked the I140 for fraud. If that's the case, shouldn't the RFE be worded differently?
If that's not the case, all the OP has to do is craft a response to the RFE with an Employment Verification Letter from his current employer attesting to the similar nature of job etc.. and move forward.
Either way, an attorney would be the safest bet..
Nowhere in this post, do I see the fact that the OP used AC21 when he moved in August 2007.
Does not AC21 come in when you have used EAD to move instead of a H1 transfer?
In my understanding, by doing a H1 transfer rather than invoking AC21, the OP preserved the status of the original petition unless the employer revoked the I140 for fraud. If that's the case, shouldn't the RFE be worded differently?
If that's not the case, all the OP has to do is craft a response to the RFE with an Employment Verification Letter from his current employer attesting to the similar nature of job etc.. and move forward.
Either way, an attorney would be the safest bet..
more...
qplearn
11-24 11:02 AM
Ok. This is new to me. Can someone confirm if this is true? Is there any link that supports this?
--------
I guess Employer cannot revoke I-140 after 180 days - You may want to check with Immigration Specialist/lawyer
Yes this is correct. If you have an approved I-140 and your I-485 is pending for 180 days, the employer cannot revoke your I-140 unless there is fraud in getting the I-140. If you have done joint filing of the two, if you get your I-140 within 6 months of the joint filing, you can change employers immediately after that. Of course, you can't just go to any employer; it has a to be a similar job.
--------
I guess Employer cannot revoke I-140 after 180 days - You may want to check with Immigration Specialist/lawyer
Yes this is correct. If you have an approved I-140 and your I-485 is pending for 180 days, the employer cannot revoke your I-140 unless there is fraud in getting the I-140. If you have done joint filing of the two, if you get your I-140 within 6 months of the joint filing, you can change employers immediately after that. Of course, you can't just go to any employer; it has a to be a similar job.
nozerd
01-27 11:40 AM
Well Alisa,
Do you think its fair to discriminate someone based on their country of birth with all else being equal ?
Do you think its fair to discriminate someone based on their country of birth with all else being equal ?
more...
gc_eb2_waiter
09-26 10:32 AM
Dear Editor,
Good Morning.
I would like to bring a mistake in this article to your attention. My wife and myself( along with my father who is visiting US) marched to Capitol Hill to improve the efficiency in Green Card processing by fixing administrative delays and increasing per-country quota. But not for increase in H1-B visas.
Please update this column with the correct information.
Thanks
Sree
Good Morning.
I would like to bring a mistake in this article to your attention. My wife and myself( along with my father who is visiting US) marched to Capitol Hill to improve the efficiency in Green Card processing by fixing administrative delays and increasing per-country quota. But not for increase in H1-B visas.
Please update this column with the correct information.
Thanks
Sree
2010 Sand+volleyball+clipart
morpheus
07-24 10:21 AM
I believe you are overlooking three very important facts.
1. The USCIS main priority at the moment is to reduce backlogs. Unfortunately retrogression works in their favor because it reduces the processing they have to do. Your proposal would increase the processing by forcing them to accept 485 filings and building up a backlog.
2. The USCIS administrator would not be allowed to make a decision like this without input from Congress. It's radically different from concurrent processing, which is a minor administrative change. With AC21, filing 485 without a visa number would allow people to change jobs etc, so it is in the realm of political decisions, not administrative.
3. The USCIS can't even manage to get premium I140 processing (planned since 2002), multi-year EAD's (overdue for years now) or issue regulations on AC21 (due since 2000). Even Congress can barely get them to act!
1. The USCIS main priority at the moment is to reduce backlogs. Unfortunately retrogression works in their favor because it reduces the processing they have to do. Your proposal would increase the processing by forcing them to accept 485 filings and building up a backlog.
2. The USCIS administrator would not be allowed to make a decision like this without input from Congress. It's radically different from concurrent processing, which is a minor administrative change. With AC21, filing 485 without a visa number would allow people to change jobs etc, so it is in the realm of political decisions, not administrative.
3. The USCIS can't even manage to get premium I140 processing (planned since 2002), multi-year EAD's (overdue for years now) or issue regulations on AC21 (due since 2000). Even Congress can barely get them to act!
more...
vine93
11-12 02:36 PM
Vin13
Thanks for nice draft. I can take initiatives at my state.
Thanks for nice draft. I can take initiatives at my state.
hair Competition volleyball logo
Jaime
09-10 12:15 PM
You have contributed 1000s of dollars to Social Security and if you don't fight for it, anti-immigrants will kick you out of the U.S. by frustrating you to the limit, and your Social Security money will go to fund Lou Dobb's retirement and that of others, except yours!
more...
GCBy3000
07-13 07:37 PM
I dont see any problem if we align with like minded orgs. If we allow today Murthy to take credit, then we are mis-directing our fellow immigrants who would be comng down the years here. They all believe Murthy is for immigrants and fall in their trap.
So let us all be clear in selecting our friends or foe keeping our goals and vision for future immigrants. I am OK if we dont get anything, but I dont want to lose anything.
All,
Discrediting attorney Murthy does not serve our purpose.
If she is doing something good, that is generating more pressure on USCIS, then let's stop criticizing her.
Though she is taking the step a few days late, it is a step in right direction and lets support and thank her...
Everyone has their motives...What matters is the end product...
So let us all be clear in selecting our friends or foe keeping our goals and vision for future immigrants. I am OK if we dont get anything, but I dont want to lose anything.
All,
Discrediting attorney Murthy does not serve our purpose.
If she is doing something good, that is generating more pressure on USCIS, then let's stop criticizing her.
Though she is taking the step a few days late, it is a step in right direction and lets support and thank her...
Everyone has their motives...What matters is the end product...
hot About girls-playing-volleyball
actaccord
02-07 03:58 PM
donate 25000 Hilton points (accumulated for future vacation use but this is more important :-) ) , worth one night stay close to DC (10miles) or two night stay (25 miles from DC). This stay can be shared by 2 or 3 ppls. Also, I can take care of picking you from hotel to DC and back to hotel.
more...
house border sign in hand volleyball
lotsofspace
02-21 03:33 PM
When was the last time DOS moved the dates based on calculations and pending applications ??
I know this gives a lot of 2003/2004 EB2 India folks a ray of hope. Hang on to it :)
Of course since there is nothing better to do, we can crunch the numbers and make predictions about when the dates move to what etc. :):) Nothing wrong with it. Gives us some fodder to munch on.
The folks in the line for a while know, how better these predictions have been in the past.
Keep your numbers coming :D
I know this gives a lot of 2003/2004 EB2 India folks a ray of hope. Hang on to it :)
Of course since there is nothing better to do, we can crunch the numbers and make predictions about when the dates move to what etc. :):) Nothing wrong with it. Gives us some fodder to munch on.
The folks in the line for a while know, how better these predictions have been in the past.
Keep your numbers coming :D
tattoo Volleyball Clip Art and the
leoindiano
03-09 01:33 PM
USCIS got amnesia...
So, looking at the bulletin, you will wonder, what USCIS was doin in February and March?
It is the same #@%#@^ng dates,,,,
So, looking at the bulletin, you will wonder, what USCIS was doin in February and March?
It is the same #@%#@^ng dates,,,,
more...
pictures Award volleyball clip art
humdesi
03-19 07:09 PM
Any chance of EB2 India moving forward to April 05 by October 2008??
NO, no way.
There are tens of thousands of EB2 India applicants from 2000 to 2002. Add labor substituters, EB2 converters, and you'll be lucky to see EB-2 India at even Dec 2002. Most likely within a few weeks of Apr, all EB-2 India visas will get used up. Keep in mind the new EB-2 numbers are from EB-1 India flowover. So it's going to last even less time than Oct-Nov last year.
NO, no way.
There are tens of thousands of EB2 India applicants from 2000 to 2002. Add labor substituters, EB2 converters, and you'll be lucky to see EB-2 India at even Dec 2002. Most likely within a few weeks of Apr, all EB-2 India visas will get used up. Keep in mind the new EB-2 numbers are from EB-1 India flowover. So it's going to last even less time than Oct-Nov last year.
dresses for people playing
bigboy007
07-18 11:59 AM
I think next time any one of us talks to USCIS, we should ask this question as to "Whether they have generated any rejection notices for apps received on July 2 2007 and have they mailed them".....my attorney says so far they have not received any rejection notices for apps filed on July 2 2007.
he said no when i asked the same reg. Rejections.
he said no when i asked the same reg. Rejections.
more...
makeup Stick Figure Volleyball Icon
GCard_Dream
01-17 02:18 PM
anurakt,
The intent of the message is appropriate but the presentation isn't. I know core team is very frustrated with the lack to contribution and it's perfectly understandable but language like this will only turn more people off and that won't help anyone.
I agree with the post earlier that may be you should just delete your post for the good of the community and I am sure you know that.
The intent of the message is appropriate but the presentation isn't. I know core team is very frustrated with the lack to contribution and it's perfectly understandable but language like this will only turn more people off and that won't help anyone.
I agree with the post earlier that may be you should just delete your post for the good of the community and I am sure you know that.
girlfriend Eruptingvolleyball clipart
GreenLantern
02-14 05:21 PM
Well I gave this a shot last night, and I have realized that I suck at 3D.
I might try again later, but i'm going to collapse in my own defeat for a while.
I might try again later, but i'm going to collapse in my own defeat for a while.
hairstyles +girl+playing+volleyball
sertasheep
07-04 01:24 AM
Hello Veeru,
Your questions not frivolous. We will keep members updated on our course of action.
More than anything else, we require our members to stand by us, and create awareness in the community.
Thank you for your patience, and faith in us.
On behalf of Core IV team
I have great respect for some of the core members i know. They have done lot of work to make this forum successful. But i always think that you can increase participation if you make things more clear and take comments in a positive way.
I am sure many guest members or other frequent visitors to IV website get the impression that there is always a fund drive for something or the other on the IV Website homepage and there is always a target amount which never seems to be met.
I understand that there are expenses to maintain the website etc, but here we are talking about fund drive for lawsuit. Sometimes I wonder what will happen if you can not collect $5000 so will you wait to file a lawsuit until you collect $5000? May it will be too late then. What if you collect only say $4000? How do you decide these arbitrary numbers?
Are you planning for a separate litigation from that of AILF? How will you complement the effort by AILF with money?
Hey, who am I to ask these questions! These are some of the questions on behalf of hundreds of members who need to know more to actively participate to make it a success. There is no reason you should take it in a negative way.
Veeru
I will sleep less stupid tonight!!
Your questions not frivolous. We will keep members updated on our course of action.
More than anything else, we require our members to stand by us, and create awareness in the community.
Thank you for your patience, and faith in us.
On behalf of Core IV team
I have great respect for some of the core members i know. They have done lot of work to make this forum successful. But i always think that you can increase participation if you make things more clear and take comments in a positive way.
I am sure many guest members or other frequent visitors to IV website get the impression that there is always a fund drive for something or the other on the IV Website homepage and there is always a target amount which never seems to be met.
I understand that there are expenses to maintain the website etc, but here we are talking about fund drive for lawsuit. Sometimes I wonder what will happen if you can not collect $5000 so will you wait to file a lawsuit until you collect $5000? May it will be too late then. What if you collect only say $4000? How do you decide these arbitrary numbers?
Are you planning for a separate litigation from that of AILF? How will you complement the effort by AILF with money?
Hey, who am I to ask these questions! These are some of the questions on behalf of hundreds of members who need to know more to actively participate to make it a success. There is no reason you should take it in a negative way.
Veeru
I will sleep less stupid tonight!!
delax
07-13 11:17 AM
Was she sleeping all this while. Why did it take her 2 weeks to respond to the events that occured ? Looks like everyone wants a piggy back ride.:D
We know your selfish intentions !!:eek:
And has your lawyer sent a letter - if not, why is he/she still waiting to do so. Did you exhort her to do so. Will you exclude yourself from any AILF lawsuit benefit.
You are missing the forest for the trees friend - Its not one agianst the other. Focus on the objective.
We know your selfish intentions !!:eek:
And has your lawyer sent a letter - if not, why is he/she still waiting to do so. Did you exhort her to do so. Will you exclude yourself from any AILF lawsuit benefit.
You are missing the forest for the trees friend - Its not one agianst the other. Focus on the objective.
Dhundhun
06-28 11:55 PM
Thank you Dhundhun.
For some reason I thought the difference between Welcome Email and Card Ordered email is only couple of days.
One of my friend's family got GC (friend's wife and son - approx 3 weeks after mail). But his medical records were lost in USCIS - got RFE to produce medical records. His GC got delayed by 6 months.
So looking at the way things are going on, have patience - now it may take some time, but it will come.
Just you have to see, what that RFE is for.
For some reason I thought the difference between Welcome Email and Card Ordered email is only couple of days.
One of my friend's family got GC (friend's wife and son - approx 3 weeks after mail). But his medical records were lost in USCIS - got RFE to produce medical records. His GC got delayed by 6 months.
So looking at the way things are going on, have patience - now it may take some time, but it will come.
Just you have to see, what that RFE is for.
0 comments:
Post a Comment