diptam
08-11 04:14 PM
I've made some date changes to the NSC letter - rest are all absolutely same. It's good to know that this letter does NOT need to be signed by Employer. Lets wake up friends !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
From,
ABC XYZ
Address:
To,
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
Department of Homeland Security
Attention: Case Problems
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Dear Mr. Ombudsman:
Re: I-140 processing delays at NSC for Apr - June 2007 non-concurrent petitioners
I submitted an I-140 petition for an employment based green card to NSC during the May 07. I have been waiting for more than a year now and still there have been no updates on my case. While the processing times on USCIS website shows that NSC is processing cases filed around Mar 22nd 2007, we have been consistently observing (on multiple tracker websites online and from friends who recently received their Approvals) that NSC has been processing & approving cases filed post August-September 2007 and some as recent as this year. While people like us are still waiting, people who applied recently are getting approval notices. This fact can be confirmed by Ombudsman's office requesting NSC to provide with the receipt dates for all the I-140 cases approved in the last few months. It's only fair that people who filed earlier are given preference following the FIFO policy of USCIS.
This delay in processing and ignoring our cases at the expense of recently filed cases is causing us undue hardship. Some of members who are in similar situation who contacted NSC have received responses that our cases will not be picked for processing until our priority dates are current. But there are several hundred cases like mine, who have an earlier approved I-140 and have filed a new I-140 petition (based on a new PERM labor) after we joined a new employer and were intending to port our old priority date which is current per the latest visa bulletin. At the same time, NSC has been approving I-140 petitions and whose PD's are not current.
Also some of the members, who contacted NSC, have received responses like "We are waiting for FBI name check to clear before we can process I-140 petition". It is clearly known that there is no need for FBI name check for processing I-140 petitions. Also, now that there is a new memo stating that if FBI name check has been pending over 180 days, then I-485 can be conditionally approved without having to wait for clearance from FBI. In spite of this memo, NSC has been consistently ignoring our petitions.
Some of members who have contacted USCIS Ombudsman regarding this delay have received responses from the Ombudsman's office stating that they are aware of the delays in processing I-140 petitions. But till date, we have not seen any action on part of USCIS to address this issue in-spite of many members raising this issue during Ombudsman's conference calls and sending letters to your office.
Lack of I-140 processing for non-concurrent filers has prevented us from receiving some of the interim benefits (EAD/AP valid for 2 years, possibility of using AC21 in these uncertain economic conditions) that come with an I-140 approval. This has resulted in us applying for EAD/AP's multiple times and paying for expenses associated with it.
I seek your assistance in investigating in this matter with NSC and impress upon the center to complete processing I-140 petitions for the non-concurrently filed cases during Apr-June 2007. I also urge you to request USCIS to re-instate the premium processing service for all categories of I-140 petitions with no pre-conditions to qualify.
Please feel free to contact me if you need additional information. I would appreciate your response and assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
ABC XYZ
Phone : -
Email : -
Address: -
Your employer does not need to sign the letter. You can sign the letter. On section 12 of the form 7001 mention " please see the attached letter" and then include the letter to be mailed to Ombudsman's office.
From,
ABC XYZ
Address:
To,
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
Department of Homeland Security
Attention: Case Problems
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Dear Mr. Ombudsman:
Re: I-140 processing delays at NSC for Apr - June 2007 non-concurrent petitioners
I submitted an I-140 petition for an employment based green card to NSC during the May 07. I have been waiting for more than a year now and still there have been no updates on my case. While the processing times on USCIS website shows that NSC is processing cases filed around Mar 22nd 2007, we have been consistently observing (on multiple tracker websites online and from friends who recently received their Approvals) that NSC has been processing & approving cases filed post August-September 2007 and some as recent as this year. While people like us are still waiting, people who applied recently are getting approval notices. This fact can be confirmed by Ombudsman's office requesting NSC to provide with the receipt dates for all the I-140 cases approved in the last few months. It's only fair that people who filed earlier are given preference following the FIFO policy of USCIS.
This delay in processing and ignoring our cases at the expense of recently filed cases is causing us undue hardship. Some of members who are in similar situation who contacted NSC have received responses that our cases will not be picked for processing until our priority dates are current. But there are several hundred cases like mine, who have an earlier approved I-140 and have filed a new I-140 petition (based on a new PERM labor) after we joined a new employer and were intending to port our old priority date which is current per the latest visa bulletin. At the same time, NSC has been approving I-140 petitions and whose PD's are not current.
Also some of the members, who contacted NSC, have received responses like "We are waiting for FBI name check to clear before we can process I-140 petition". It is clearly known that there is no need for FBI name check for processing I-140 petitions. Also, now that there is a new memo stating that if FBI name check has been pending over 180 days, then I-485 can be conditionally approved without having to wait for clearance from FBI. In spite of this memo, NSC has been consistently ignoring our petitions.
Some of members who have contacted USCIS Ombudsman regarding this delay have received responses from the Ombudsman's office stating that they are aware of the delays in processing I-140 petitions. But till date, we have not seen any action on part of USCIS to address this issue in-spite of many members raising this issue during Ombudsman's conference calls and sending letters to your office.
Lack of I-140 processing for non-concurrent filers has prevented us from receiving some of the interim benefits (EAD/AP valid for 2 years, possibility of using AC21 in these uncertain economic conditions) that come with an I-140 approval. This has resulted in us applying for EAD/AP's multiple times and paying for expenses associated with it.
I seek your assistance in investigating in this matter with NSC and impress upon the center to complete processing I-140 petitions for the non-concurrently filed cases during Apr-June 2007. I also urge you to request USCIS to re-instate the premium processing service for all categories of I-140 petitions with no pre-conditions to qualify.
Please feel free to contact me if you need additional information. I would appreciate your response and assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
ABC XYZ
Phone : -
Email : -
Address: -
Your employer does not need to sign the letter. You can sign the letter. On section 12 of the form 7001 mention " please see the attached letter" and then include the letter to be mailed to Ombudsman's office.
wallpaper Dallas Mavericks VS LA Lakers
chandsri81
04-27 06:53 AM
Thank you! I have sent them my I-140 and 485 and also past and present EADs to show that this is something that needs to be renewed every 2 years.
Keeping my fingers crossed now..
Keeping my fingers crossed now..
rajeev_74
04-25 08:32 AM
Does it make sense to request for first arrival date to be considered as the priority date for immigration purposes? Just a thought!!!
2011 Playoffs – Dallas Mavericks vs
snowshoe
05-04 12:27 PM
Hi,
I came across this page (yet another pixel ad page) which states that it will be donating part of the proceeds to IV.
Check it out:
http://www.indian-million-dollar-homepage.com/
I came across this page (yet another pixel ad page) which states that it will be donating part of the proceeds to IV.
Check it out:
http://www.indian-million-dollar-homepage.com/
more...
jojet
03-04 02:33 PM
HI GUYS,
me and my spouse filed 1485 in july 2007 with a received date of 10/07/07.
we donot see anychanges online other than the case received and pending notice.
is there a way we can find the status of our case.if name check is cleared,any further finger printing as we only did once in 2007.ours is eb3.any input highly appreciated.
me and my spouse filed 1485 in july 2007 with a received date of 10/07/07.
we donot see anychanges online other than the case received and pending notice.
is there a way we can find the status of our case.if name check is cleared,any further finger printing as we only did once in 2007.ours is eb3.any input highly appreciated.
Green.Tech
06-19 02:12 PM
If the economy is holding up like it does, other issues including immigration may get put on the backburner. This is the time to stand up and make our voices heard. Please step up and contribute for the massive lobbying that we (you and I) need to do to get these action items taken care of.
Don't think that other guys are contributing and this will be taken care of by iteself since I have other channels where my money is flowing into, and that I will contribute later if one of the bills get to the house floor etc. This is the time your help is needed the most. Each and every penny that you contribute matters.
It's high time we all see the big picture and stand up for ourselves because you know why...No one else is looking out for us but IV (us)!
Don't think that other guys are contributing and this will be taken care of by iteself since I have other channels where my money is flowing into, and that I will contribute later if one of the bills get to the house floor etc. This is the time your help is needed the most. Each and every penny that you contribute matters.
It's high time we all see the big picture and stand up for ourselves because you know why...No one else is looking out for us but IV (us)!
more...
addsf345
11-13 03:42 PM
found answer on Ron Gotcher's website: ONE CAN CONTUNUE WORKING ON EAD (http://immigration-information.com/forums/showpost.php?p=25197&postcount=3) according to this post.
This contradicts with the fact that many reported on IV. Ron says that one can continue employment on EAD. EAD stays valid atleast till the legally allowed time to file for an appeal, and once you file appeal, it stays active till it adjudicated.
However many ppl reported that they had to leave job due to 485 revocation. What is the truth???? Any one?
This contradicts with the fact that many reported on IV. Ron says that one can continue employment on EAD. EAD stays valid atleast till the legally allowed time to file for an appeal, and once you file appeal, it stays active till it adjudicated.
However many ppl reported that they had to leave job due to 485 revocation. What is the truth???? Any one?
2010 Playoffs, Lakers vs. Mavs
chanduv23
10-17 10:31 AM
pd_recap and nk2006 - thanks for the initiatives - we will keep improving this effort in every possible way.
Those who invoked AC21 - those who plan to invoke and those who do not plan to invoke must all work towards this. Who knows? A lot of people will be forced to invoke AC21 in future in this economy.
So please take this seriously.
Those who invoked AC21 - those who plan to invoke and those who do not plan to invoke must all work towards this. Who knows? A lot of people will be forced to invoke AC21 in future in this economy.
So please take this seriously.
more...
Libra
09-11 09:54 PM
thank you desi_unlucky, you'll be lucky soon :-)
hair Mavericks Vs Lakers Series
pstvak
09-11 08:16 PM
I support this great org. Difficult to travel from WA with famliy and kid.
Contributed 100$. Google Order #204480874815294
Regards
Contributed 100$. Google Order #204480874815294
Regards
more...
carbon
07-20 03:27 PM
I thought Grassley is against skilled immigration!
He voted Yea!
He voted Yea!
hot Vs Lakers 2011 PlayOffs
gccube
07-19 02:29 AM
I personally believe that PD is more significant than the RD but it makes sense to me that RD may take precedence if the PD is current (as suggested by some members of the forum).
But if we think that at all times RD is the order they process them what would happen in this scenario
1. A guy with 2001 PD filed later and was 750,000 th guy in the queue of AOS applications.
2. After accepting all the apps USCIS retrogressed the dates to 2002 Jan. That means that USCIS is asking for AOS apps which satisfy this PD. That means that a visa no is available as of that date for adjudication so the first new application received(after they are retrogressed) will be 750,001 th application.
3. If RD is the only processing order at all times then 750,001th application will not be sent to an officer for review until all other 750,000 th applications with a better RD are processed.
4. Assuming that this takes 3 years (for example) then they are accepting an application today which they are not going to even look at in the next three years and this is not making sense to me.
5. If they are accepting the 750,001 th application because that application qualifies for a visa no then that should be processed before the other applications(barring for special cases FBi name check issues, RFEs etc). This means PD comes into picture when there is retrogression. So then they have to apply the same rule for the I-485 applications which are pending with them. They some how have to order them on the PD and I assume this should not be rocket science for them as that data is part of our AOS applications.
Thanks everyone for your inputs.
But if we think that at all times RD is the order they process them what would happen in this scenario
1. A guy with 2001 PD filed later and was 750,000 th guy in the queue of AOS applications.
2. After accepting all the apps USCIS retrogressed the dates to 2002 Jan. That means that USCIS is asking for AOS apps which satisfy this PD. That means that a visa no is available as of that date for adjudication so the first new application received(after they are retrogressed) will be 750,001 th application.
3. If RD is the only processing order at all times then 750,001th application will not be sent to an officer for review until all other 750,000 th applications with a better RD are processed.
4. Assuming that this takes 3 years (for example) then they are accepting an application today which they are not going to even look at in the next three years and this is not making sense to me.
5. If they are accepting the 750,001 th application because that application qualifies for a visa no then that should be processed before the other applications(barring for special cases FBi name check issues, RFEs etc). This means PD comes into picture when there is retrogression. So then they have to apply the same rule for the I-485 applications which are pending with them. They some how have to order them on the PD and I assume this should not be rocket science for them as that data is part of our AOS applications.
Thanks everyone for your inputs.
more...
house Lakers vs Mavericks liveLakers
chanduv23
05-15 07:39 AM
There was a campaign on wrongful denial in AC21 , there was also letter campaign not sure what happened after that ? It was IV action item too... What was the conclusion ? should we all suffer even if it is a training issue, if they act such nice on letters , then why they act as if there is no form and if AC21 is for real aliens from a real alien world.
Bigboy - those were good enough to help us reach Ombudsman's office and the result of those campaigns was that the Ombudsman's office now have a page on their website addressing this issue. Not sure how much it is helping though but as such, if anyone is having case problems, they have to contact the Ombudsman because their office is officially supposed into case problems and am sure - they have their liason at the service centers who may monitor such decisions at an individual case level.
Not quite sure why these things are continuing to happen.
Bigboy - those were good enough to help us reach Ombudsman's office and the result of those campaigns was that the Ombudsman's office now have a page on their website addressing this issue. Not sure how much it is helping though but as such, if anyone is having case problems, they have to contact the Ombudsman because their office is officially supposed into case problems and am sure - they have their liason at the service centers who may monitor such decisions at an individual case level.
Not quite sure why these things are continuing to happen.
tattoo Lakers-vs-Mavs-2011-NBA-
aviko21
09-15 11:50 AM
I just mailed more than 30 people at the chicago tribune and the suntimes. Hope it amounts to something..
Lets march on
-------------------------
contributed $200
Lets march on
-------------------------
contributed $200
more...
pictures Mavericks.vs.Lakers.part1.rar
god_bless_you
03-08 10:18 AM
check here for live web cast
http://judiciary.senate.gov/webcast/judiciary03082006-0930.ram
link is not working!!
http://judiciary.senate.gov/webcast/judiciary03082006-0930.ram
link is not working!!
dresses Lakers. The Mavs beat the
gcisadawg
02-09 12:47 AM
Did I even say this? What are you saying? Go see a shrink :D
Read first what I said.
OOPS! mea culpa! It is a case of bad negation! It should have read as "How come it is not 'stupid' when a girl spends husband's money to support her parents?"
Read first what I said.
OOPS! mea culpa! It is a case of bad negation! It should have read as "How come it is not 'stupid' when a girl spends husband's money to support her parents?"
more...
makeup Dallas Mavericks vs.
MDix
08-22 10:39 PM
I am not sure whether this applies to Master degree holder or not. Because memo says
Aliens of Exceptional Ability under section 203(b)(2) INA.
Aliens of Exceptional Ability under section 203(b)(2) INA.
girlfriend Live :Dallas Mavericks vs Los
GCard_Dream
07-06 05:31 PM
Can someone explain what "Temporary Restrain Order" would do if it were successful. It sounds to me that the lawsuit is asking the court to temporarily invalidate the July visa bulletin so that USCIS will be forced to accept the applications. Is this a reasonable understanding? Any lawyers here?
hairstyles Mavericks vs Lakers
jonty_11
07-23 04:56 PM
please provide more detail, Eb category, PD, Country of Birth...
kumar4875
09-07 02:47 PM
came to USA in jan 1999
started GC process in sept 2002 after 2001 recession
hanged on the small employer to keep the priority date
I140 is denied becuase he is irregular with the tax returns etc. during jul2008.$15000 drained.:mad:
applied with another employer in dec2008 in EB3 as he denied to file in Eb2.
thinking about relocating to India now.
started GC process in sept 2002 after 2001 recession
hanged on the small employer to keep the priority date
I140 is denied becuase he is irregular with the tax returns etc. during jul2008.$15000 drained.:mad:
applied with another employer in dec2008 in EB3 as he denied to file in Eb2.
thinking about relocating to India now.
WillIBLucky
12-19 07:16 AM
There are many people who have contributed and will be contributing again. But can I know how would more money would have helped convincing Senator Sessions to say "Yes" for the bill??
I am not sure if more money would have passed the bill in Lame Duck session without Senator Session approving it. Also, the lawyers ask only for the service they render to you. They dont ask money for keeping your application with them and unable to process because of retrogression.
You may want to get in touch with core members if you have questions. They are very prompt in answering questions.Such posts will only create roadblocks to the momentum created on the forum by some of our members. It is time to help rather than ask. We have seen in the lameduck session how close we came to getting the bill passed. If IV was not there, even this much was not possible. We give thousands of dollars to our lawyers, can't we simply give 20 dollars to IV without asking questions and believing in this cause?
I am not sure if more money would have passed the bill in Lame Duck session without Senator Session approving it. Also, the lawyers ask only for the service they render to you. They dont ask money for keeping your application with them and unable to process because of retrogression.
You may want to get in touch with core members if you have questions. They are very prompt in answering questions.Such posts will only create roadblocks to the momentum created on the forum by some of our members. It is time to help rather than ask. We have seen in the lameduck session how close we came to getting the bill passed. If IV was not there, even this much was not possible. We give thousands of dollars to our lawyers, can't we simply give 20 dollars to IV without asking questions and believing in this cause?
No comments:
Post a Comment