conchshell
08-14 06:51 PM
Guys good news from my side. Just got most awaited Card production Ordered emails for my wife and my son. I have not received the email for myself though. When I checked the status on Case Status Online site, I found that 485 for all three of us have been approved.
My priority date was Oct 2004 at NSC. Came to US in Feb 2000, so almost 8.5 years of waiting is finally finally over. I hope that NSC picks up the pace and approve all the people who are current.
Trust me!! I am not going anywhere. I will enjoy my green but at the same time will always work relentlessly to get the immigration reforms. I also prey from God almighty that all my friends/family members stuck in EB2/EB3 will also get their GC ASAP.
Wish you all the best, even though I have crossed the fence towards the greener pasture, I am always there to lend you a hand and help you climb up and jump across the fence.
My priority date was Oct 2004 at NSC. Came to US in Feb 2000, so almost 8.5 years of waiting is finally finally over. I hope that NSC picks up the pace and approve all the people who are current.
Trust me!! I am not going anywhere. I will enjoy my green but at the same time will always work relentlessly to get the immigration reforms. I also prey from God almighty that all my friends/family members stuck in EB2/EB3 will also get their GC ASAP.
Wish you all the best, even though I have crossed the fence towards the greener pasture, I am always there to lend you a hand and help you climb up and jump across the fence.
wallpaper Fractal Blue Abstract Mobile
rick_rajvanshi
07-06 05:41 PM
7/06/2007: Temporary Restraining Order of July Visa Bulletin Lawsuit Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois as Separate from AILF Class Action
* On July 6, 2007, the attorneys of Azulay, Horn & Seiden lawfirm filed this lawsuit individually in Illinois.
* On July 6, 2007, the attorneys of Azulay, Horn & Seiden lawfirm filed this lawsuit individually in Illinois.
tabletpc
09-10 02:33 PM
How is that DOL website does not have this information...???
2011 wallpapers mobile. wallpaper
diptam
07-06 12:40 PM
I dont want another flurry of emails by explaining no-nonsense "conspiracy theory" behind all this (Hint - The day CIR failed , AILF came up with this 95%-98% truth in their websites and the day 2nd CIR resurrection attempt was being discussed is June 13th which is the July Bulletin release Date)
Our only option is to expose USCIS wrongdoings ( I mean all Kind of Wrongdoings ) via Media and at the end of the day show your GUTS to support AILA lawsuit by providing our real names etc... ( incase they need)
Nothing else is going to help.
We didn't do anything wrong , so lets fight for Justice.
They are not coming clean on this...first they said they used up 60K visas, now they are saying they worked over wkend to use 25K VISAS... Its a big scandal....Just to prevent us from filing...
Our only option is to expose USCIS wrongdoings ( I mean all Kind of Wrongdoings ) via Media and at the end of the day show your GUTS to support AILA lawsuit by providing our real names etc... ( incase they need)
Nothing else is going to help.
We didn't do anything wrong , so lets fight for Justice.
They are not coming clean on this...first they said they used up 60K visas, now they are saying they worked over wkend to use 25K VISAS... Its a big scandal....Just to prevent us from filing...
more...
vik352
08-13 05:05 PM
EB2 requires Masters or 5 years of experience. For those waiting in the queue for more than 5 years should automatically qualify for EB2 because they have 5 years of experience. I dont care the fine wording that says the job needs Masters or 5 years of experience. We should push lawmakers for this option to reduce the huge backlog. What do others think of this option and start a campaign for it?
she81
04-30 02:08 PM
I believe the 140 backlog is artificial. They processed only 2k cases in one month. How come they finished all EADs in 3 months for all June/July filers? There is something more to all this than meets the eye.
Bootmline is they want to make it hard for us one way or the other. Btw, I had just come out of BEC and got stuck with 140 now.
Bootmline is they want to make it hard for us one way or the other. Btw, I had just come out of BEC and got stuck with 140 now.
more...
rajuseattle
08-13 04:52 PM
My only hope is somehow either the senate or the house version of employment based lost visa caoture bill gets into law, either FY2009 or FY2010.
If nothing happens to this effects we are royally screwed , until USCIS and DoL changed their interpretation for the spillover VISA numbers falling into EB-3 bucket we had some hope of catching up with some backlog, but now it seems PD will be stuck around 2001/2002.
I dont know why USCIS /DoL allowed the labor substitutions when they knew majority of the times Labor substitute option was abused by Desi consultants to get Green Cards. Thanks god they stopped this malpractice a year ago and now heavily scritinizing the pending LC applications for I-140 else the genuine folks like me who were the victims of DoL BEC and USCIS backlog would have suffered more.
I am also of the opinion similar to IV member "malagcpahije" and this is probably my last post in the IV as I dont see IV is a united organization, thier is a huge split between different factions of the employment based visa applicants and only relief we are going to get is from US policy makers, in this bad economy noone is willing to even talk about pro-immigration bills. Going to Washington DC will not serve any purpose other than watching those world famous museums and white house.
I am really feeling sad for leaving IV, all the best for the folks who still have faith in IV and its core team.
rajuseattle.....
If nothing happens to this effects we are royally screwed , until USCIS and DoL changed their interpretation for the spillover VISA numbers falling into EB-3 bucket we had some hope of catching up with some backlog, but now it seems PD will be stuck around 2001/2002.
I dont know why USCIS /DoL allowed the labor substitutions when they knew majority of the times Labor substitute option was abused by Desi consultants to get Green Cards. Thanks god they stopped this malpractice a year ago and now heavily scritinizing the pending LC applications for I-140 else the genuine folks like me who were the victims of DoL BEC and USCIS backlog would have suffered more.
I am also of the opinion similar to IV member "malagcpahije" and this is probably my last post in the IV as I dont see IV is a united organization, thier is a huge split between different factions of the employment based visa applicants and only relief we are going to get is from US policy makers, in this bad economy noone is willing to even talk about pro-immigration bills. Going to Washington DC will not serve any purpose other than watching those world famous museums and white house.
I am really feeling sad for leaving IV, all the best for the folks who still have faith in IV and its core team.
rajuseattle.....
2010 download mobile wallpaper.
485Mbe4001
08-13 05:14 PM
Thank you. you are one of the very few, i commend you on your post and support.
The last couple of VBs have brought out the worst amongst us, so much for together we stand, after reading the posts, it was more like 'you stand while i climb over you' :)
I started a thread couple of weeks back. It met an untimely death because of lack of participation from people. Just to revive your memory :
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20406
Today we are here almost on the verge of disintegration as an organization. And this is because we always believed in our minds that we are nothing but a bunch of opportunists coming together for our individual cause of getting a GC. What we see today is an outcome of what we always believed. Soon EB2 will disappear, and EB3 will be left alone fighting for their GC's. And at some point of time they will also go away, all that's left will be "guests" using IV as a discussion forum. May be what I suggested can be termed as "Quixotic" but unless we aim high, we will never reach high.
Guys, I am an EB2 with PD in 2004, but I will always stand together with you, no matter what. A GC for myself alone will never satisfy me, because number of my friends, my family members are in EB3, and I am not mean enough to celebrate for myself when majority of my friends and family members are sad.
The last couple of VBs have brought out the worst amongst us, so much for together we stand, after reading the posts, it was more like 'you stand while i climb over you' :)
I started a thread couple of weeks back. It met an untimely death because of lack of participation from people. Just to revive your memory :
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20406
Today we are here almost on the verge of disintegration as an organization. And this is because we always believed in our minds that we are nothing but a bunch of opportunists coming together for our individual cause of getting a GC. What we see today is an outcome of what we always believed. Soon EB2 will disappear, and EB3 will be left alone fighting for their GC's. And at some point of time they will also go away, all that's left will be "guests" using IV as a discussion forum. May be what I suggested can be termed as "Quixotic" but unless we aim high, we will never reach high.
Guys, I am an EB2 with PD in 2004, but I will always stand together with you, no matter what. A GC for myself alone will never satisfy me, because number of my friends, my family members are in EB3, and I am not mean enough to celebrate for myself when majority of my friends and family members are sad.
more...
forgerator
09-27 10:21 PM
I think the longest wait I have ever seen is of my friend who entered the US in 1992. He did his Bachelors, then did some work on OPT, then did his Masters, then did some work on OPT, then tried to do PhD but couldnt finish it in , got a fulltime offer, worked on H1 then on extensions and finally got laid off in 2008 before his 485 could be filed. He had enough of it and finally said goodbye to US and left :) So that's 16yrs!
hair mobile wallpaper Funny Mobile
gccube
07-18 05:11 PM
Consider I-485 Processing as a 2 Door Room. Front Door is for people who's PD has been current for the given month and can apply & Back Door is for Adjudicating People who are already applied & still current for that month.
The size of the room depends on what date they retrogress it to. If Cutoff date is say 2002, there are few people in that room who would be ready for adjudication. Instead if cutoff date is say 2006, there will be a huge number of people in the room.
As long as you stay in that room for more month (be current), the more chance you have of getting adjudicated fast, but also depends on how many people are ahead of you per RD.
Assuming that the date is retrogressed from 'C' to 2000 Jan, they start accepting the AOS apps with that PD and then do we assume that they are also working on them or say they donot work on it until the receipt date becomes current.
If the answer to the question above is 'NO' (that is the receipt date has to become current to adjudicate an AOS app, ofcourse PD has to be current too) then why is that USCIS accepting apps with a specified PD cut off date. In this case I am not looking at the people who are already in the room but am wondering why they are letting more people into the room, particularly when there is no room.
If the answer to the question above it 'YES', that means PD does play a significant role in the AOS adjudication process when there is retrogression, in my opinion.
The size of the room depends on what date they retrogress it to. If Cutoff date is say 2002, there are few people in that room who would be ready for adjudication. Instead if cutoff date is say 2006, there will be a huge number of people in the room.
As long as you stay in that room for more month (be current), the more chance you have of getting adjudicated fast, but also depends on how many people are ahead of you per RD.
Assuming that the date is retrogressed from 'C' to 2000 Jan, they start accepting the AOS apps with that PD and then do we assume that they are also working on them or say they donot work on it until the receipt date becomes current.
If the answer to the question above is 'NO' (that is the receipt date has to become current to adjudicate an AOS app, ofcourse PD has to be current too) then why is that USCIS accepting apps with a specified PD cut off date. In this case I am not looking at the people who are already in the room but am wondering why they are letting more people into the room, particularly when there is no room.
If the answer to the question above it 'YES', that means PD does play a significant role in the AOS adjudication process when there is retrogression, in my opinion.
more...
lordoftherings
06-20 10:27 AM
I was wondering which center my PERM app will go? Atlanta or Chicago? My co is detroit based. I am just filing now, so if it goes to chicago, there is a chance that I can file my I-140 before 1st October deadline (assuming the new CIR becomes law) .
any clues?
lotr
any clues?
lotr
hot wallpaper mobile phone.
rp0lol
07-11 11:59 AM
I read this in another thread... May be USCIS wants to collect more money for EAD renewals by moving eb2 date and issuing 1yr approval.
===========================
Will applicants get a two-year EAD when they file an I-765 with their I-485 adjustment of status application?
Generally no. Initial EAD filings will generally receive an EAD that is valid for one- year because they are usually submitted with the Form I-485 that can only be filed when there is an immigrant visa number immediately available to the individual. Applicants are only eligible for a two-year EAD if their immigrant visa availability date retrogresses (i.e., when actual demand for visa numbers exceeds forecasted supply) after the Form I-485 is filed. If an immigrant visa number is available, USCIS will grant the one-year EAD.
How will USCIS decide whether to issue an EAD valid for one or two years?
USCIS will decide whether to renew an EAD for either a one or two-year validity period based on the most recent Department of State Visa Bulletin. If an applicant�s visa number has retrogressed and is unavailable, USCIS may issue a renewal EAD valid for two years. USCIS will continue to issue the EAD in one-year increments when the Department of State Visa Bulletin shows an employment-based preference category is current as a whole or the applicant�s priority date is current.
==================
===========================
Will applicants get a two-year EAD when they file an I-765 with their I-485 adjustment of status application?
Generally no. Initial EAD filings will generally receive an EAD that is valid for one- year because they are usually submitted with the Form I-485 that can only be filed when there is an immigrant visa number immediately available to the individual. Applicants are only eligible for a two-year EAD if their immigrant visa availability date retrogresses (i.e., when actual demand for visa numbers exceeds forecasted supply) after the Form I-485 is filed. If an immigrant visa number is available, USCIS will grant the one-year EAD.
How will USCIS decide whether to issue an EAD valid for one or two years?
USCIS will decide whether to renew an EAD for either a one or two-year validity period based on the most recent Department of State Visa Bulletin. If an applicant�s visa number has retrogressed and is unavailable, USCIS may issue a renewal EAD valid for two years. USCIS will continue to issue the EAD in one-year increments when the Department of State Visa Bulletin shows an employment-based preference category is current as a whole or the applicant�s priority date is current.
==================
more...
house 580 Mobile Wallpaper
Macaca
09-12 04:04 PM
Michael Abramowitz: abramowitz@washpost.com *
Joel Achenbach: achenbachj@washpost.com *
N.C. Aizenman (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/n.c.+aizenman/): Aizenmann@washpost.com *
Lori Aratani (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/lori+aratani/)
Peter Baker: bakerp@washpost.com *
Daniel J. Balz: balzd@washpost.com *
Stephen Barr
Jeff Birnbaum (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/jeffrey+h.+birnbaum/)
William Branigin
David S. Broder: davidbroder@washpost.com *
Karin Brulliard: Brulliardk@washpost.com *
Ruben Castaneda
Chris Cillizza (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/chris+cillizza)
Andrew Cockburn
Donald B. Cofman
Pamela Constable: Constablep@washpost.com *
Tim Craig: Craigt@washpost.com *
Jessica Dawson
Daniela Deane
Virgil Dickson
E. J. Dionne Jr.: postchat@aol.com (doesn't work)
Anthony Faiola: 104704.3367@compuserve.com, faiolaa@washpost.com *
Rachel Dry
Darryl Fears: fearsd@washpost.com *
Marc Fisher: marcfisher@washpost.com *
Michael A. Fletcher (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/michael+a.+fletcher/)
Manuel Roig-Franzia
Dan Froomkin (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/dan+froomkin/)
Sonya Geis
Christy Goodman: goodmanc@washpost.com *
Annie Gowen
George W. Grayson
Hamil R. Harris: harrish@washpost.com *
Jim Hoagland jimhoagland@washpost.com *
Deborah Howell: atombudsman@washpost.com 202-334-7582 (doesn't work)
Spencer Hsu: hsus@washpost.com *
David Ignatius: davidignatius@washpost.com *
S Mitra Kalita: kalitam@washpost.com *
Paul Kane
Cecilia Kang
Charles Krauthammer: letters@charleskrauthammer.com *
Howard Kurtz: kurtzh@washpost.com *
Ernesto Londo�o
Sebastian Mallaby: smallaby@cfr.org *
Tammi Marcoullier
Raymond McCaffrey
Dana Milbank: milbankd@washpost.com *
Mariana Minaya
Nick Miroff: Miroffn@washpost.com *
David Montgomery: montgomery@washpost.com *
Lisa de Moraes
Sylvia Moreno: morenos@washpost.com *
Dan Morse
Jonathan Mummolo
Robert D. Novak (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/robert+d.+novak/)
Amy Orndorff
Eugene Robinson eugenerobinson@washpost.com *
Manuel Roig-Franzia
Candace Rondeaux
Robert J. Samuelson: writersgrp@washpost.com *
Marcela Sanchez: desdewash@washpost.com *
Brigid Schulte: schulteb@washpost.com *
Delphine Schrank
Ian Shapira
Michael D. Shear shearm@washpost.com *
Robin Shulman: shulmanr@washpost.com *
Sandhya Somashekhar: Somashekhars@washpost.com *
Miranda S. Spivack
Bill Turque: turqueb@washpost.com *
Jose Antonio Vargas
Theresa Vargas: vargast@waspost.com *
Daniel de Vise
William Wan
Jonathan Weisman: Weismanj@washpost.com *
Eric Weiss (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/eric+m.+weiss/)
Ovetta Wiggins (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/ovetta+wiggins/)
George F. Will georgewill@washpost.com *
Krissah Williams: williamsk@washpost.com *
Elizabeth Williamson (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/elizabeth+williamson/)
Robin Wright: wrightr@washpost.com *
Xiyun Yang: yangx@washpost.com * (doesn't work)
Joel Achenbach: achenbachj@washpost.com *
N.C. Aizenman (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/n.c.+aizenman/): Aizenmann@washpost.com *
Lori Aratani (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/lori+aratani/)
Peter Baker: bakerp@washpost.com *
Daniel J. Balz: balzd@washpost.com *
Stephen Barr
Jeff Birnbaum (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/jeffrey+h.+birnbaum/)
William Branigin
David S. Broder: davidbroder@washpost.com *
Karin Brulliard: Brulliardk@washpost.com *
Ruben Castaneda
Chris Cillizza (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/chris+cillizza)
Andrew Cockburn
Donald B. Cofman
Pamela Constable: Constablep@washpost.com *
Tim Craig: Craigt@washpost.com *
Jessica Dawson
Daniela Deane
Virgil Dickson
E. J. Dionne Jr.: postchat@aol.com (doesn't work)
Anthony Faiola: 104704.3367@compuserve.com, faiolaa@washpost.com *
Rachel Dry
Darryl Fears: fearsd@washpost.com *
Marc Fisher: marcfisher@washpost.com *
Michael A. Fletcher (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/michael+a.+fletcher/)
Manuel Roig-Franzia
Dan Froomkin (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/dan+froomkin/)
Sonya Geis
Christy Goodman: goodmanc@washpost.com *
Annie Gowen
George W. Grayson
Hamil R. Harris: harrish@washpost.com *
Jim Hoagland jimhoagland@washpost.com *
Deborah Howell: atombudsman@washpost.com 202-334-7582 (doesn't work)
Spencer Hsu: hsus@washpost.com *
David Ignatius: davidignatius@washpost.com *
S Mitra Kalita: kalitam@washpost.com *
Paul Kane
Cecilia Kang
Charles Krauthammer: letters@charleskrauthammer.com *
Howard Kurtz: kurtzh@washpost.com *
Ernesto Londo�o
Sebastian Mallaby: smallaby@cfr.org *
Tammi Marcoullier
Raymond McCaffrey
Dana Milbank: milbankd@washpost.com *
Mariana Minaya
Nick Miroff: Miroffn@washpost.com *
David Montgomery: montgomery@washpost.com *
Lisa de Moraes
Sylvia Moreno: morenos@washpost.com *
Dan Morse
Jonathan Mummolo
Robert D. Novak (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/robert+d.+novak/)
Amy Orndorff
Eugene Robinson eugenerobinson@washpost.com *
Manuel Roig-Franzia
Candace Rondeaux
Robert J. Samuelson: writersgrp@washpost.com *
Marcela Sanchez: desdewash@washpost.com *
Brigid Schulte: schulteb@washpost.com *
Delphine Schrank
Ian Shapira
Michael D. Shear shearm@washpost.com *
Robin Shulman: shulmanr@washpost.com *
Sandhya Somashekhar: Somashekhars@washpost.com *
Miranda S. Spivack
Bill Turque: turqueb@washpost.com *
Jose Antonio Vargas
Theresa Vargas: vargast@waspost.com *
Daniel de Vise
William Wan
Jonathan Weisman: Weismanj@washpost.com *
Eric Weiss (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/eric+m.+weiss/)
Ovetta Wiggins (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/ovetta+wiggins/)
George F. Will georgewill@washpost.com *
Krissah Williams: williamsk@washpost.com *
Elizabeth Williamson (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/elizabeth+williamson/)
Robin Wright: wrightr@washpost.com *
Xiyun Yang: yangx@washpost.com * (doesn't work)
tattoo mobile wallpaper 240x320
Canadian_Dream
06-02 07:27 PM
Effective date is next fiscal year or the one following it. If you read both the sections it cleary says that.
(Read the word approved and an "or" preceding it).
or approved at the time of the effective date of this section, shall be treated as if such provision remained effective and an approved petition may serve as the basis for issuance of an immigrant visa.
In my opinion this clearly means that if you have an approved I-140 before the effective date you should be ok. All pending I-140 on the effective date which is 15 months away are most likely have to refile. That leads to two scenarios:
1. Approved I-140 with a pending I-485, these petitions will be elegible for immigrant visa whenever one is avialable, this is very clearly mentioned.
2. Approved I-140 without I-485. No clear indication of how these cases will be treaed. They MIGHT have to refile as well.
============
(d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—
32
33 (1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), the amendments
34 made by this section shall take effect on the first day of the
35 fiscal year subsequent to the fiscal year of enactment, unless
36 such date is less than 270 days after the date of enactment, in
37 which case the amendments shall take effect on the first day of
38 the following fiscal year.
39
40 (2) PENDING AND APPROVED PETITIONS AND APPLICATIONS.—Petitions
41 for an employment-based visa filed for classification under
42 section 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Immigration and Nationality
43 Act (as such provisions existed prior to the enactment of this
44 section) that were filed prior to the date of the introduction of
265
1 the [Insert title of Act] and were pending or approved at the
2 time of the effective date of this section, shall be treated as if
3 such provision remained effective and an approved petition may
4 serve as the basis for issuance of an immigrant visa. Aliens with
5 applications for a labor certification pursuant to section
6 212(a)(5)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act shall
7 preserve the immigrant visa priority date accorded by the date
8 of filing of such labor certification application.
9
The original word is "enactment date", which would be the date the bill is signed into law. The effective date will be oct, 2008.
So people who didn't get their 140 through before the president signs the bill would be screwed?
(Read the word approved and an "or" preceding it).
or approved at the time of the effective date of this section, shall be treated as if such provision remained effective and an approved petition may serve as the basis for issuance of an immigrant visa.
In my opinion this clearly means that if you have an approved I-140 before the effective date you should be ok. All pending I-140 on the effective date which is 15 months away are most likely have to refile. That leads to two scenarios:
1. Approved I-140 with a pending I-485, these petitions will be elegible for immigrant visa whenever one is avialable, this is very clearly mentioned.
2. Approved I-140 without I-485. No clear indication of how these cases will be treaed. They MIGHT have to refile as well.
============
(d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—
32
33 (1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), the amendments
34 made by this section shall take effect on the first day of the
35 fiscal year subsequent to the fiscal year of enactment, unless
36 such date is less than 270 days after the date of enactment, in
37 which case the amendments shall take effect on the first day of
38 the following fiscal year.
39
40 (2) PENDING AND APPROVED PETITIONS AND APPLICATIONS.—Petitions
41 for an employment-based visa filed for classification under
42 section 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Immigration and Nationality
43 Act (as such provisions existed prior to the enactment of this
44 section) that were filed prior to the date of the introduction of
265
1 the [Insert title of Act] and were pending or approved at the
2 time of the effective date of this section, shall be treated as if
3 such provision remained effective and an approved petition may
4 serve as the basis for issuance of an immigrant visa. Aliens with
5 applications for a labor certification pursuant to section
6 212(a)(5)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act shall
7 preserve the immigrant visa priority date accorded by the date
8 of filing of such labor certification application.
9
The original word is "enactment date", which would be the date the bill is signed into law. The effective date will be oct, 2008.
So people who didn't get their 140 through before the president signs the bill would be screwed?
more...
pictures creative mobile wallpapers
pd_recapturing
11-24 05:21 PM
I left my GC sponser employer 3 months ago and joined new employer on EAD. I spoke to the new company's attorney to file H1B after 2 months of joining. She said that since I have completed 6 years of my H1B so it does not matter if I am on H1B or on EAD as none of them will provide safety net if something goes wrong on 485. Suddenly, after 15 days, I got an email from my Lawyers's office saying that my new company has given permission to them to apply a H1B extn for me and asked me to send the required docs. I am not sure what prompted them to apply my H1B as I had already given up H1B thing and was happy with EAD. I dont know, it might be something to do with charging fee from my new employer or something. Bottomline is no one knows about it and may be even USCIS might not have this scenario in their rule book.
One more thing, in one of the conversations with my new attorney, she mentioned that I can still work on EAD if 485 gets denied because of AC21 reason and MTR has been sent. She said, unless, 485 is denied because of some criminal reason, u can continue working during the MTR period. so another twist??
One more thing, in one of the conversations with my new attorney, she mentioned that I can still work on EAD if 485 gets denied because of AC21 reason and MTR has been sent. She said, unless, 485 is denied because of some criminal reason, u can continue working during the MTR period. so another twist??
dresses Mobile Wallpapers of Love
fshah
07-06 07:22 AM
Dugg, posted comments and e-mailed it to my friends. Thanks.
more...
makeup Mobile Wallpaper Collection
HawaldarNaik
02-23 01:23 PM
people,
i just returned from an infopass meeting... the guy i talked to said that they recently have a directive from the DHS/USCIS that they want to separate the legal stuff from the illegal stuff and hence they are planning to adjudicate a record number of EB apps in the next quarter or two... does anyone else concur? is this true or were my ears just ringing in that meeting?
--shark
Jai HO....JAI HOOOOOOOOO....JAI HOOOOOOOOOOOOOO......
i just returned from an infopass meeting... the guy i talked to said that they recently have a directive from the DHS/USCIS that they want to separate the legal stuff from the illegal stuff and hence they are planning to adjudicate a record number of EB apps in the next quarter or two... does anyone else concur? is this true or were my ears just ringing in that meeting?
--shark
Jai HO....JAI HOOOOOOOOO....JAI HOOOOOOOOOOOOOO......
girlfriend 550 Mobile Wallpaper
lonedesi
08-04 04:15 PM
Letter to be sent for an I-140 petition pending at NSC:
From,
First Name, Last Name
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 June - August 2007 non-concurrent petitioners
I submitted an I-140 petition for an employment based green card to NSC during the July 07. I have been waiting for little 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 August 3 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 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 July 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,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please post a comment on this thread so that we can track how many members actually participated in this campaign.
From,
First Name, Last Name
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 June - August 2007 non-concurrent petitioners
I submitted an I-140 petition for an employment based green card to NSC during the July 07. I have been waiting for little 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 August 3 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 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 July 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,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please post a comment on this thread so that we can track how many members actually participated in this campaign.
hairstyles hd wallpapers for mobile
vkannan
02-23 08:27 PM
Lost Until Death!
~GCA
:) Good one Buddy
~GCA
:) Good one Buddy
nixstor
04-30 03:16 PM
Who is this rep from Chicago? Is that Guiterrez. Ripping apart King's argument.
cjain
08-12 04:28 PM
i thing this will have the opposite impact...these companies will not file because it will become cost prohibitive....so the question is ...where will the money really come from?
No comments:
Post a Comment