raj_vagc_oct02
01-13 04:13 PM
Hi All,
I'm new to immigration Voice. I've read abt this in immigration portal and understand that a group of people are leading this. I wish them all the best and i extend my full support. Also i heard that this group is collecting funds. Can someone please point me where would i contribute.
Thanks
RAJ
SWA: Virginia
SWA Receipt Date (Priority Date): October 31,2002
EB2 - RIR
Forwarded to Philadelphia Regional DOL on June 22, 2004
BEC Case Number: P-04282-*****
45 Day Letter Received and Replied : Feb 2005
I'm new to immigration Voice. I've read abt this in immigration portal and understand that a group of people are leading this. I wish them all the best and i extend my full support. Also i heard that this group is collecting funds. Can someone please point me where would i contribute.
Thanks
RAJ
SWA: Virginia
SWA Receipt Date (Priority Date): October 31,2002
EB2 - RIR
Forwarded to Philadelphia Regional DOL on June 22, 2004
BEC Case Number: P-04282-*****
45 Day Letter Received and Replied : Feb 2005
wallpaper 1997 mitsubishi eclipse gst
admin
03-02 12:52 PM
it`s not working
One needs Realplayer to listen to the hearings. But even then I only get a high pitched sound.
One needs Realplayer to listen to the hearings. But even then I only get a high pitched sound.
villamonte6100
04-02 01:15 PM
respecting policies and law is one thing.
lack of a good implementation plan and improvement over a number of years is another thing.
We can't just poke around an established government agency because we feel they are not doing their job properly.
What do you (You refers to people who think above, not one in particular) say about the people who filed lawsuit and got the 180 day Name check rule to implementation faster? Not that I am proposing lawsuits, just an example to disprove what you said.
I am trying to figure out what you guys are trying to say. If you guys think that CIS will give you the GC on the day they will feel like and you are cool with it, Why even hopping around boards either for information or anything. Just follow the processing times and see whether number has been called or not. 99% of the crowd thinks here that we can get a better policy by making our voice heard. I dont see rational and logic between what you are saying and what you are doing, unless you are smartly drawing a wedge or trying to scare away people saying that you are not a citizen, you will get busted.
You are entitlted to your opinion and you are free to do and think what you want.. Remember, we are in America.
I can understard D-E-D's frustration.
I don't think there's much to say. That's what we say in Australia when things just keep on going around and around and around.
lack of a good implementation plan and improvement over a number of years is another thing.
We can't just poke around an established government agency because we feel they are not doing their job properly.
What do you (You refers to people who think above, not one in particular) say about the people who filed lawsuit and got the 180 day Name check rule to implementation faster? Not that I am proposing lawsuits, just an example to disprove what you said.
I am trying to figure out what you guys are trying to say. If you guys think that CIS will give you the GC on the day they will feel like and you are cool with it, Why even hopping around boards either for information or anything. Just follow the processing times and see whether number has been called or not. 99% of the crowd thinks here that we can get a better policy by making our voice heard. I dont see rational and logic between what you are saying and what you are doing, unless you are smartly drawing a wedge or trying to scare away people saying that you are not a citizen, you will get busted.
You are entitlted to your opinion and you are free to do and think what you want.. Remember, we are in America.
I can understard D-E-D's frustration.
I don't think there's much to say. That's what we say in Australia when things just keep on going around and around and around.
2011 97 MITSUBISHI ECLIPSE SPYDER
indio0617
03-09 12:28 PM
Guys a little confused.
How does removing the cap from Schedule A, benefit the rest of us?
Nurses from India, Phi also eat up EB3 numbers beyond their alloted .... My understanding is that they will not compete for any eB3 numbers after this...
How does removing the cap from Schedule A, benefit the rest of us?
Nurses from India, Phi also eat up EB3 numbers beyond their alloted .... My understanding is that they will not compete for any eB3 numbers after this...
more...
gcisadawg
02-10 08:30 PM
I think, gcisadawg, the problem is the structure of the indian society. This is true with westerners too but as much true.
An Indian/asian guy has to earn because he is perceived to be a bread winner. Unless he is properly settled he is not eligible for marriage.
On the other hand, if a girl is not career-oriented she can still get good husbands depending on her personality and so on.
And such girls invariably forfeit the right to send money to their parents. In such cases, one should not expect girl's parents to give her a share in their property. Its all clean.
You have Indian house wives (many of them) but you have fewer house husbands. Even if your wife works, it is supplementary income and not the main.
This is a complex equation and husbands and wives must understand the social structure we live in and adjust with each other.
Well, couple of my friends are "house husbands" now...they got laid off and their wives are still working! :D
Agreed, it is all situation based. As long as one is not forced, a couple can talk between themselves and come to an amicable solution.
An Indian/asian guy has to earn because he is perceived to be a bread winner. Unless he is properly settled he is not eligible for marriage.
On the other hand, if a girl is not career-oriented she can still get good husbands depending on her personality and so on.
And such girls invariably forfeit the right to send money to their parents. In such cases, one should not expect girl's parents to give her a share in their property. Its all clean.
You have Indian house wives (many of them) but you have fewer house husbands. Even if your wife works, it is supplementary income and not the main.
This is a complex equation and husbands and wives must understand the social structure we live in and adjust with each other.
Well, couple of my friends are "house husbands" now...they got laid off and their wives are still working! :D
Agreed, it is all situation based. As long as one is not forced, a couple can talk between themselves and come to an amicable solution.
nlssubbu
07-24 06:42 PM
If they are such smart to calculate numbers like you said, which is theoritically possible, they would not be creating mess like this for years.
Yes, it is easy for them to know how many applications are filed and from which country and how many are in which category etc etc. Based on visa numbers availability, they could very well process the applications are request the visa numbers from DHS. When USCIS handles all the 485 processing, then how come DHS is responsible for moving the dates in VB. It is insane and ridiculous for DHS to have this functionality when they do not have any idea on 485 apps with USCIS. They are scewing up immigrants deliberately without transparency between them.
As I already stated, it is proven beyond the point that DOL and USCIS has only the ability to count the numbers. They do not even know exactly how much labor is pending by country. The same is true for I140 as well.
There is confusion even about how the count works. When your name is struck at FBI name check, it is not counted as backlog itself by USCIS anymore :( [I vaguely remember someone posting this quoting some reference from USCIS memo regarding reduction of processing times].
This is why in many cases you see the sudden forward movement in PD followed by heavy retrogression. Historically those who got approved when the PD is moved forward are always lucky.
Thanks
Yes, it is easy for them to know how many applications are filed and from which country and how many are in which category etc etc. Based on visa numbers availability, they could very well process the applications are request the visa numbers from DHS. When USCIS handles all the 485 processing, then how come DHS is responsible for moving the dates in VB. It is insane and ridiculous for DHS to have this functionality when they do not have any idea on 485 apps with USCIS. They are scewing up immigrants deliberately without transparency between them.
As I already stated, it is proven beyond the point that DOL and USCIS has only the ability to count the numbers. They do not even know exactly how much labor is pending by country. The same is true for I140 as well.
There is confusion even about how the count works. When your name is struck at FBI name check, it is not counted as backlog itself by USCIS anymore :( [I vaguely remember someone posting this quoting some reference from USCIS memo regarding reduction of processing times].
This is why in many cases you see the sudden forward movement in PD followed by heavy retrogression. Historically those who got approved when the PD is moved forward are always lucky.
Thanks
more...
jhokimi
04-26 12:46 PM
Filed in RIR DC on 04/28/2004. No 45 day letter yet!
Anyone else from DC in the same case?
Anyone else from DC in the same case?
2010 2008 Mitsubishi Eclipse Spyder
alterego
07-06 02:00 PM
I think they have to be current when they get an appointment or something like that. I am pretty sure that they accounted those 18k as CP numbers
Definitely not when you get the appointment. I am 100% certain of that. There have been cases of people going for the consular appointment and not getting it as dates retrogressed.
Only possibility is that the cases up to May were the 66K for 485s PLUS 18K for CP throughout the year until may. Right now noone wanting to get into the system will go for CP.
Definitely not when you get the appointment. I am 100% certain of that. There have been cases of people going for the consular appointment and not getting it as dates retrogressed.
Only possibility is that the cases up to May were the 66K for 485s PLUS 18K for CP throughout the year until may. Right now noone wanting to get into the system will go for CP.
more...
mxh72c
07-11 07:26 AM
This bulletin does prove that very few labor certificaions were done in 2005, due to move to PERM.
hair 1997 Mitsubishi Eclipse Spyder
panky72
06-25 04:08 PM
Loosing my investments
Since I am sure that my GC will take 5 to 10 years more. Meanwhile too many things will change that might make me go back home. So I decided to invest in home(India). I sold lot of stocks. Stopped contributing to 401K above employers match (I used to contribute full 15K). Deferred buying house until my 140 approved.
I am at a life stage where I have enough experience and tendency to take risks (married but no kids etc...). If I have flexibility of not working, I want to invest my time in a small startup. Working/investing a start-up means I might go out of status anytime. So I decided not to try any of those. Its a loss for me as well as for economy. If I accumulate enough money I might go home and try to do something like startup or small business. It would be good for US and me if they let me do it here.
In essence I am loosing the oppurtunity and by restricting my career US is loosing an oppurtunity to create more jobs.
Why is loosing such a loosely used word?. Guys, it is losing not loosing. Lose and loose have different meanings.
One more guy who is "loosing" things:D
Since I am sure that my GC will take 5 to 10 years more. Meanwhile too many things will change that might make me go back home. So I decided to invest in home(India). I sold lot of stocks. Stopped contributing to 401K above employers match (I used to contribute full 15K). Deferred buying house until my 140 approved.
I am at a life stage where I have enough experience and tendency to take risks (married but no kids etc...). If I have flexibility of not working, I want to invest my time in a small startup. Working/investing a start-up means I might go out of status anytime. So I decided not to try any of those. Its a loss for me as well as for economy. If I accumulate enough money I might go home and try to do something like startup or small business. It would be good for US and me if they let me do it here.
In essence I am loosing the oppurtunity and by restricting my career US is loosing an oppurtunity to create more jobs.
Why is loosing such a loosely used word?. Guys, it is losing not loosing. Lose and loose have different meanings.
One more guy who is "loosing" things:D
more...
roseball
08-23 09:49 AM
AFAIK, this memo only applies to those I-140 petitions which do NOT require a labor certification approval. It does NOT apply to EB-2 Advanced degree holder petitions which require a certified labor and BS + 5 yrs or MS + 0 yrs of experience.
Though, for now, most of us who are filing in EB-2 Advanced degree holder category have nothing to worry, this definitely looks like a targeted approach where they are coming after everybody, one category at a time. So its just a matter of time it seems when they come up with something which targets everyone...
As per Matthew Oh's blog, this will be adopted on Sep 3rd.
Though, for now, most of us who are filing in EB-2 Advanced degree holder category have nothing to worry, this definitely looks like a targeted approach where they are coming after everybody, one category at a time. So its just a matter of time it seems when they come up with something which targets everyone...
As per Matthew Oh's blog, this will be adopted on Sep 3rd.
hot *1997 Mitsubishi Eclipse GS-T
mallu
10-01 01:54 PM
Instead of wasting visa numbers , they should allocate to those who cleared namecheck and all other processing. Agreed, this might allow a person who started PERM in 2007 to get gc in hand in 2007 itself compared to a person with PD 2001 EB2 , applied I-485 in 2003 and stuck in name check. But it is better than wasting the visa numbers.
more...
house 1997 Mitsubishi Eclipse Spyder
skv
06-18 10:27 AM
Good Morning guys,
So we all should be fine to file I-485 up until end of September guys, before the retro kicks off ?
So we all should be fine to file I-485 up until end of September guys, before the retro kicks off ?
tattoo 1997 Mitsubishi Eclipse Spyder
Keeme
03-06 07:23 PM
Could you explain this point. Why would lesser number of FB visas be issued in a bad economy ?
Does economy state has any relation to FB visas ?
For pre-adjudication, visa availability or the chances of PD becoming current is not necessary. They can pre-adjudicate based on receipt date.
My guess:
Probably they are processing all employment based applications right away so that they can prepare for CIR 2009. I guess Obama will take CIR this year itself as he has a very high approval rating and lot of goodwill now.
Number of immigrants allowed each year since 1900s. You would see big drop at/after every recessions/depression. Reports says there is already big drop in illegel migration at Mexico border. Govt offiials of any country would do anything and everything they can to control unemployment figures.
Does economy state has any relation to FB visas ?
For pre-adjudication, visa availability or the chances of PD becoming current is not necessary. They can pre-adjudicate based on receipt date.
My guess:
Probably they are processing all employment based applications right away so that they can prepare for CIR 2009. I guess Obama will take CIR this year itself as he has a very high approval rating and lot of goodwill now.
Number of immigrants allowed each year since 1900s. You would see big drop at/after every recessions/depression. Reports says there is already big drop in illegel migration at Mexico border. Govt offiials of any country would do anything and everything they can to control unemployment figures.
more...
pictures 97 MITSUBISHI ECLIPSE SPYDER
mw_immi
01-07 01:43 PM
I have pending 485, used Bank of America for my home loan. No problems whatsoever. And, I know loads of people who have bought homes while on H1B or pending 140/485. I believe 2009-2011 will probably be the best time to buy a home. If you can afford it and if you have job security, then you must buy one (rent it if you dont want to live). The aprs available currently is unbelievable (of course, good credit history and the amount you put down will decide mainly).
Did you have unexpired H1B / I-94? In my case I am on EAD / pending I-485 / AOS (expired H1 / I-94) & BOA didn't approve.
Do you know any one who didn't have H1B / I-94 but got loan from BOA based on AOS?
Did you have unexpired H1B / I-94? In my case I am on EAD / pending I-485 / AOS (expired H1 / I-94) & BOA didn't approve.
Do you know any one who didn't have H1B / I-94 but got loan from BOA based on AOS?
dresses 1997 Mitsubishi Eclipse
sanju
03-12 03:57 PM
Great! Someone should give you an award for motivation
For your information, i have contributed to IV monetarily. It just does not show up on the handle for some reason i do not know.
So you are looking for motivation? Your post do not indicate that you are looking for motivation. There are those who are undecided or who cannot find enough energy/motivation to do something, and those people need motivation. You don't fall in that category. You are pretty much convinced that you don't belong here. Now you are just spoiling the environment to make sure that others all leave looking at you and mad-dog bickering. And one need not be a rocket scientist to figure that out. Its obvious. There goes your flag for "award for motivation". What's next, you need a shoulder to cry?
.
For your information, i have contributed to IV monetarily. It just does not show up on the handle for some reason i do not know.
So you are looking for motivation? Your post do not indicate that you are looking for motivation. There are those who are undecided or who cannot find enough energy/motivation to do something, and those people need motivation. You don't fall in that category. You are pretty much convinced that you don't belong here. Now you are just spoiling the environment to make sure that others all leave looking at you and mad-dog bickering. And one need not be a rocket scientist to figure that out. Its obvious. There goes your flag for "award for motivation". What's next, you need a shoulder to cry?
.
more...
makeup 1997 Mitsubishi Eclipse Spyder
ItIsNotFunny
10-21 11:06 AM
Issue/Background:
It seems USCIS is not following AC21 regulations in some cases � especially when underlying I140 is revoked by previous employer � and are incorrectly denying I485 applications. As we know, AC21 regulations and related guidelines, provide some relief and allow job changes without affecting the I485 application. As per these rules if the employee changes employment after 180 days of submitting I485 application, there is no need to redo I140 even-if old employer revokes the old I140.
In recent days USCIS seems to be denying lot of I485 applications � ignoring their own AC21 regulations. A few of IV volunteers (pd_recapturing, gc4me, chanduv et al) have started an effort to address this. You can get more info on this, at this thread: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21716.
This issue can affect a lot of us and it negates all the flexibility/relief that we acquired by getting EAD�s and advantages we got thru recent admin reform.
What needs to be done:
After some initial discussions and planning (thanks to pd-capturing, chandu, et al) it is decided to write letters to Ombudsman and service center heads to point out this and request them to correct it ASAP. Please participate and send letters. To succeed we need to send it in thousands.
Pasting the letter and the addresses below.
More info: (thanks to gc4me for addresses and letter template):
======================
Everyone please send the letter/email to 3 persons.
1. Ombudsman
2. Director, NSC
3. Director, TSC
======================
Ombudsman:
cisombudsman@dhs.gov
Mailing Address:
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
ATTN: Recommendations
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
=======================
Nebraska Service Center
Director: Gerard Heinauer
General Correspondence (Inquiries) (Sending applications or petitions to this address will delay their processing)
USCIS NSC
P.O. Box 82521
Lincoln, NE 68501-2521
NOTE: If using overnight delivery by any private service provider, send your package to:
USCIS
Nebraska Service Center
850 S Street
P.O. Box (Insert Correct P.O. Box Number)
Lincoln, NE 68508
Be sure to include the appropriate P.O. Box number on the shipping label.
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Suite 7000
Washington, DC 20529
or email: USCIS-COMPLAINT@DHS.GOV
=====================
Director: David Roark
General
Correspondence:
USCIS TSC
PO Box 851488
Mesquite, TX 75185-1488
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Ste 7000, Washington, DC 20529
============================
Letter
============================
Date: Today()
To
Mr. Michael Timothy Dougherty
The Ombudsman
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Re: Issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines
Dear Sir,
This is to bring your attention to the issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines.
The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) allows for a change of employer on any I-485 Adjustment of Status Application that has been pending for 180 days or more, without the need to file a new I-140 petition, provided the applicant�s new employment is in a similar/same occupation.
According to the Memo released by William R Yates on August 4th 2003, the original I-140 is valid if it is approvable and form I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days. (Attached for your reference is the memo dated August 4th 2003 from William R Yates and the follow-up memo dated May 12th 2005 with relevant sections highlighted).
Due to unreasonable delays caused by retrogression, many candidates have lawfully changed employers in accordance with the AC21 statute. Even though there is no requirement that USCIS be notified after a job change, some applicants have done so to prove that they are in compliance with this regulation. If the previous employer has withdrawn the previously approved I-140, AC21 guidelines state that if the applicant has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the applicant be sent an NOID (Notice of Intent to Deny) to deny the I-485 application or a RFE (Request for Evidence) . If the response to the NOID/RFE is timely and indicates that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, USCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485.
Over the past few months, a disturbing pattern has emerged with cases where the applicant has changed employers. USCIS has started to deny I-485applications where the underlying I-140 has been withdrawn by the previous employer without issuing an NOID or RFE. Even those applicants who have notified USCIS of change in employers have had their I-485 denied.
After the denial of I-485, the applicant has to file a MTR (Motion to reconsider) with USCIS to re-open the case. In addition to the financial burden of filing and legal fees, the applicant has to stop working because of the denial of the I-485 until the case is re-opened. This could be anywhere from a month to a few months. Needless to say, employers are unwilling to keep the job position open for such a long period and the applicant in most cases is looking at potential loss of employment. The applicant who has followed the law to the fullest extent is unfairly punished on account of USCIS not following the AC21 provisions.
This is a request for you to intervene to ensure that the AC21 regulations are followed when adjudicating an I-485 application. If the applicant notifies USCIS of a change in employment under AC21, this should be added the applicant�s physical file and electronic records. If there is no such notification and the previous employer withdraws the I-140, the applicant should be issued a NOID/RFE instead of denying the I-485 application.
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact.
Thank you in advance for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Thanks,
Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone Number
Guys,
This is one of the most serious issue we are facing in current time. Lay offs are happening left and right and on top of that employers learned that AC21 is giving troubles, they started squeezing more (I myself is partially victim of that).
We need sincere efforts sending emails to ombudsman. This will not take more than 5 minutes as NK2006 put efforts on even giving you the email template.
I sincerely urge everyone to send emails to addresses NK2006 mentioned above and even request your collegues, spouse to do so. We need volume to show our presence.
One more request, please take one more minute and make sure that you post here that you sent emails. This will give us real picture and give others motivation too!
I sent my emails (actually twice ;)).
It seems USCIS is not following AC21 regulations in some cases � especially when underlying I140 is revoked by previous employer � and are incorrectly denying I485 applications. As we know, AC21 regulations and related guidelines, provide some relief and allow job changes without affecting the I485 application. As per these rules if the employee changes employment after 180 days of submitting I485 application, there is no need to redo I140 even-if old employer revokes the old I140.
In recent days USCIS seems to be denying lot of I485 applications � ignoring their own AC21 regulations. A few of IV volunteers (pd_recapturing, gc4me, chanduv et al) have started an effort to address this. You can get more info on this, at this thread: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21716.
This issue can affect a lot of us and it negates all the flexibility/relief that we acquired by getting EAD�s and advantages we got thru recent admin reform.
What needs to be done:
After some initial discussions and planning (thanks to pd-capturing, chandu, et al) it is decided to write letters to Ombudsman and service center heads to point out this and request them to correct it ASAP. Please participate and send letters. To succeed we need to send it in thousands.
Pasting the letter and the addresses below.
More info: (thanks to gc4me for addresses and letter template):
======================
Everyone please send the letter/email to 3 persons.
1. Ombudsman
2. Director, NSC
3. Director, TSC
======================
Ombudsman:
cisombudsman@dhs.gov
Mailing Address:
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
ATTN: Recommendations
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
=======================
Nebraska Service Center
Director: Gerard Heinauer
General Correspondence (Inquiries) (Sending applications or petitions to this address will delay their processing)
USCIS NSC
P.O. Box 82521
Lincoln, NE 68501-2521
NOTE: If using overnight delivery by any private service provider, send your package to:
USCIS
Nebraska Service Center
850 S Street
P.O. Box (Insert Correct P.O. Box Number)
Lincoln, NE 68508
Be sure to include the appropriate P.O. Box number on the shipping label.
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Suite 7000
Washington, DC 20529
or email: USCIS-COMPLAINT@DHS.GOV
=====================
Director: David Roark
General
Correspondence:
USCIS TSC
PO Box 851488
Mesquite, TX 75185-1488
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Ste 7000, Washington, DC 20529
============================
Letter
============================
Date: Today()
To
Mr. Michael Timothy Dougherty
The Ombudsman
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Re: Issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines
Dear Sir,
This is to bring your attention to the issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines.
The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) allows for a change of employer on any I-485 Adjustment of Status Application that has been pending for 180 days or more, without the need to file a new I-140 petition, provided the applicant�s new employment is in a similar/same occupation.
According to the Memo released by William R Yates on August 4th 2003, the original I-140 is valid if it is approvable and form I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days. (Attached for your reference is the memo dated August 4th 2003 from William R Yates and the follow-up memo dated May 12th 2005 with relevant sections highlighted).
Due to unreasonable delays caused by retrogression, many candidates have lawfully changed employers in accordance with the AC21 statute. Even though there is no requirement that USCIS be notified after a job change, some applicants have done so to prove that they are in compliance with this regulation. If the previous employer has withdrawn the previously approved I-140, AC21 guidelines state that if the applicant has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the applicant be sent an NOID (Notice of Intent to Deny) to deny the I-485 application or a RFE (Request for Evidence) . If the response to the NOID/RFE is timely and indicates that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, USCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485.
Over the past few months, a disturbing pattern has emerged with cases where the applicant has changed employers. USCIS has started to deny I-485applications where the underlying I-140 has been withdrawn by the previous employer without issuing an NOID or RFE. Even those applicants who have notified USCIS of change in employers have had their I-485 denied.
After the denial of I-485, the applicant has to file a MTR (Motion to reconsider) with USCIS to re-open the case. In addition to the financial burden of filing and legal fees, the applicant has to stop working because of the denial of the I-485 until the case is re-opened. This could be anywhere from a month to a few months. Needless to say, employers are unwilling to keep the job position open for such a long period and the applicant in most cases is looking at potential loss of employment. The applicant who has followed the law to the fullest extent is unfairly punished on account of USCIS not following the AC21 provisions.
This is a request for you to intervene to ensure that the AC21 regulations are followed when adjudicating an I-485 application. If the applicant notifies USCIS of a change in employment under AC21, this should be added the applicant�s physical file and electronic records. If there is no such notification and the previous employer withdraws the I-140, the applicant should be issued a NOID/RFE instead of denying the I-485 application.
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact.
Thank you in advance for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Thanks,
Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone Number
Guys,
This is one of the most serious issue we are facing in current time. Lay offs are happening left and right and on top of that employers learned that AC21 is giving troubles, they started squeezing more (I myself is partially victim of that).
We need sincere efforts sending emails to ombudsman. This will not take more than 5 minutes as NK2006 put efforts on even giving you the email template.
I sincerely urge everyone to send emails to addresses NK2006 mentioned above and even request your collegues, spouse to do so. We need volume to show our presence.
One more request, please take one more minute and make sure that you post here that you sent emails. This will give us real picture and give others motivation too!
I sent my emails (actually twice ;)).
girlfriend 1997 Mitsubishi Eclipse Spyder
Hemants
09-10 06:51 PM
Placed a google order for $100 .
-Hemant
-Hemant
hairstyles 1997 Mitsubishi Eclipse Spyder
Blessing&Lifeisbeautiful
07-29 06:29 PM
hi all,
i also have been ff this blog but have not been sharing much bcoz i dont see a lot of sched a bloggers in here.anyway.please read the hammond law group about an amendment that apparently passed the senate to allocate the unused visa from 2001 till 2004 in which 50% will go to sched a workers.one of the bloggers mentioned so.cant verify the authenticity of such but it certainly lifts my dampen spirit.it is the bill that was introduced by senators hutchison and schumer.i am happy to see the support of the IV members towards the mission of this organization.it has been a great source of info for me.MY PD is oct 2006 and have been separated from my wife for over ayear now and our lil girl is growing up without the presence of her mother.it is very heartbreaking,not to mention my life without her.hope all our sufferings will end soon.
Welcome to our thread and thanks for joining.
i also have been ff this blog but have not been sharing much bcoz i dont see a lot of sched a bloggers in here.anyway.please read the hammond law group about an amendment that apparently passed the senate to allocate the unused visa from 2001 till 2004 in which 50% will go to sched a workers.one of the bloggers mentioned so.cant verify the authenticity of such but it certainly lifts my dampen spirit.it is the bill that was introduced by senators hutchison and schumer.i am happy to see the support of the IV members towards the mission of this organization.it has been a great source of info for me.MY PD is oct 2006 and have been separated from my wife for over ayear now and our lil girl is growing up without the presence of her mother.it is very heartbreaking,not to mention my life without her.hope all our sufferings will end soon.
Welcome to our thread and thanks for joining.
dvb123
09-13 06:35 PM
Sec. 42. 53 Priority date of individual applicants.
(a) Preference applicant . The priority date of a preference visa applicant under INA 203 (a) or (b) shall be the filing date of the approved petition that accorded preference status.
(b) Former Western Hemisphere applicant with priority date prior to January 1, 1977 . Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, an alien who, prior to January 1, 1977, was subject to the numerical limitation specified in section 21(e) of the Act of October 3, 1965, and who was registered as a Western Hemisphere immigrant with a priority date prior to January 1, 1977, shall retain that priority date as a preference immigrant upon approval of a petition according status under INA 203 (a) or (b) .
(c) Derivative priority date for spouse or child of principal alien . A spouse or child of a principal alien acquired prior to the principal alien's admission shall be entitled to the priority date of the principal alien, whether or not named in the immigrant visa application of the principal alien. A child born of a marriage which existed at the time of a principal alien's admission to the United States is considered to have been acquired prior to the principal alien's admission. Sec. 42. 53 Priority date of individual applicants.
(a) Preference applicant . The priority date of a preference visa applicant under INA 203 (a) or (b) shall be the filing date of the approved petition that accorded preference status.
(b) Former Western Hemisphere applicant with priority date prior to January 1, 1977 . Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, an alien who, prior to January 1, 1977, was subject to the numerical limitation specified in section 21(e) of the Act of October 3, 1965, and who was registered as a Western Hemisphere immigrant with a priority date prior to January 1, 1977, shall retain that priority date as a preference immigrant upon approval of a petition according status under INA 203 (a) or (b) .
(c) Derivative priority date for spouse or child of principal alien . A spouse or child of a principal alien acquired prior to the principal alien's admission shall be entitled to the priority date of the principal alien, whether or not named in the immigrant visa application of the principal alien. A child born of a marriage which existed at the time of a principal alien's admission to the United States is considered to have been acquired prior to the principal alien's admission.
(a) Preference applicant . The priority date of a preference visa applicant under INA 203 (a) or (b) shall be the filing date of the approved petition that accorded preference status.
(b) Former Western Hemisphere applicant with priority date prior to January 1, 1977 . Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, an alien who, prior to January 1, 1977, was subject to the numerical limitation specified in section 21(e) of the Act of October 3, 1965, and who was registered as a Western Hemisphere immigrant with a priority date prior to January 1, 1977, shall retain that priority date as a preference immigrant upon approval of a petition according status under INA 203 (a) or (b) .
(c) Derivative priority date for spouse or child of principal alien . A spouse or child of a principal alien acquired prior to the principal alien's admission shall be entitled to the priority date of the principal alien, whether or not named in the immigrant visa application of the principal alien. A child born of a marriage which existed at the time of a principal alien's admission to the United States is considered to have been acquired prior to the principal alien's admission. Sec. 42. 53 Priority date of individual applicants.
(a) Preference applicant . The priority date of a preference visa applicant under INA 203 (a) or (b) shall be the filing date of the approved petition that accorded preference status.
(b) Former Western Hemisphere applicant with priority date prior to January 1, 1977 . Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, an alien who, prior to January 1, 1977, was subject to the numerical limitation specified in section 21(e) of the Act of October 3, 1965, and who was registered as a Western Hemisphere immigrant with a priority date prior to January 1, 1977, shall retain that priority date as a preference immigrant upon approval of a petition according status under INA 203 (a) or (b) .
(c) Derivative priority date for spouse or child of principal alien . A spouse or child of a principal alien acquired prior to the principal alien's admission shall be entitled to the priority date of the principal alien, whether or not named in the immigrant visa application of the principal alien. A child born of a marriage which existed at the time of a principal alien's admission to the United States is considered to have been acquired prior to the principal alien's admission.
haddi_No1
06-26 10:52 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/25/AR2008062501945.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Building a Wall Against Talent
By George F. Will
Thursday, June 26, 2008; A19
PALO ALTO, Calif. -- Fifty years ago, Jack Kilby, who grew up in Great Bend, Kan., took the electrical engineering knowledge he acquired as an undergraduate at the University of Illinois and as a graduate student at the University of Wisconsin to Dallas, to Texas Instruments, where he helped invent the modern world as we routinely experience and manipulate it. Working with improvised equipment, he created the first electronic circuit in which all the components fit on a single piece of semiconductor material half the size of a paper clip.
On Sept. 12, 1958, he demonstrated this microchip, which was enormous, not micro, by today's standards. Whereas one transistor was put in a silicon chip 50 years ago, today a billion transistors can occupy the same "silicon real estate." In 1982 Kilby was inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame, where he is properly honored with the likes of Henry Ford and Thomas Edison.
If you seek his monument, come to Silicon Valley, an incubator of the semiconductor industry. If you seek (redundant) evidence of the federal government's refusal to do the creative minimum -- to get out of the way of wealth creation -- come here and hear the talk about the perverse national policy of expelling talented people.
Modernity means the multiplication of dependencies on things utterly mysterious to those who are dependent -- things such as semiconductors, which control the functioning of almost everything from cellphones to computers to cars. "The semiconductor," says a wit who manufactures them, "is the OPEC of functionality, except it has no cartel power." Semiconductors are, like oil, indispensable to the functioning of many things that are indispensable. Regarding oil imports, Americans agonize about a dependence they cannot immediately reduce. Yet their nation's policy is the compulsory expulsion or exclusion of talents crucial to the creativity of the semiconductor industry that powers the thriving portion of our bifurcated economy. While much of the economy sputters, exports are surging, and the semiconductor industry is America's second-largest exporter, close behind the auto industry in total exports and the civilian aircraft industry in net exports.
The semiconductor industry's problem is entangled with a subject about which the loquacious presidential candidates are reluctant to talk -- immigration, specifically that of highly educated people. Concerning whom, U.S. policy should be: A nation cannot have too many such people, so send us your PhDs yearning to be free.
Instead, U.S. policy is: As soon as U.S. institutions of higher education have awarded you a PhD, equipping you to add vast value to the economy, get out. Go home. Or to Europe, which is responding to America's folly with "blue cards" to expedite acceptance of the immigrants America is spurning.
Two-thirds of doctoral candidates in science and engineering in U.S. universities are foreign-born. But only 140,000 employment-based green cards are available annually, and 1 million educated professionals are waiting -- often five or more years -- for cards. Congress could quickly add a zero to the number available, thereby boosting the U.S. economy and complicating matters for America's competitors.
Suppose a foreign government had a policy of sending workers to America to be trained in a sophisticated and highly remunerative skill at American taxpayers' expense, and then forced these workers to go home and compete against American companies. That is what we are doing because we are too generic in defining the immigrant pool.
Barack Obama and other Democrats are theatrically indignant about U.S. companies that locate operations outside the country. But one reason Microsoft opened a software development center in Vancouver is that Canadian immigration laws allow Microsoft to recruit skilled people it could not retain under U.S. immigration restrictions. Mr. Change We Can Believe In is not advocating the simple change -- that added zero -- and neither is Mr. Straight Talk.
John McCain's campaign Web site has a spare statement on "immigration reform" that says nothing about increasing America's intake of highly educated immigrants. Obama's site says only: "Where we can bring in more foreign-born workers with the skills our economy needs, we should." "Where we can"? We can now.
Solutions to some problems are complex; removing barriers to educated immigrants is not. It is, however, politically difficult, partly because this reform is being held hostage by factions -- principally the Congressional Hispanic Caucus -- insisting on "comprehensive" immigration reform that satisfies their demands. Unfortunately, on this issue no one is advocating change we can believe in, so America continues to risk losing the value added by foreign-born Jack Kilbys.
georgewill@washpost.com
Building a Wall Against Talent
By George F. Will
Thursday, June 26, 2008; A19
PALO ALTO, Calif. -- Fifty years ago, Jack Kilby, who grew up in Great Bend, Kan., took the electrical engineering knowledge he acquired as an undergraduate at the University of Illinois and as a graduate student at the University of Wisconsin to Dallas, to Texas Instruments, where he helped invent the modern world as we routinely experience and manipulate it. Working with improvised equipment, he created the first electronic circuit in which all the components fit on a single piece of semiconductor material half the size of a paper clip.
On Sept. 12, 1958, he demonstrated this microchip, which was enormous, not micro, by today's standards. Whereas one transistor was put in a silicon chip 50 years ago, today a billion transistors can occupy the same "silicon real estate." In 1982 Kilby was inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame, where he is properly honored with the likes of Henry Ford and Thomas Edison.
If you seek his monument, come to Silicon Valley, an incubator of the semiconductor industry. If you seek (redundant) evidence of the federal government's refusal to do the creative minimum -- to get out of the way of wealth creation -- come here and hear the talk about the perverse national policy of expelling talented people.
Modernity means the multiplication of dependencies on things utterly mysterious to those who are dependent -- things such as semiconductors, which control the functioning of almost everything from cellphones to computers to cars. "The semiconductor," says a wit who manufactures them, "is the OPEC of functionality, except it has no cartel power." Semiconductors are, like oil, indispensable to the functioning of many things that are indispensable. Regarding oil imports, Americans agonize about a dependence they cannot immediately reduce. Yet their nation's policy is the compulsory expulsion or exclusion of talents crucial to the creativity of the semiconductor industry that powers the thriving portion of our bifurcated economy. While much of the economy sputters, exports are surging, and the semiconductor industry is America's second-largest exporter, close behind the auto industry in total exports and the civilian aircraft industry in net exports.
The semiconductor industry's problem is entangled with a subject about which the loquacious presidential candidates are reluctant to talk -- immigration, specifically that of highly educated people. Concerning whom, U.S. policy should be: A nation cannot have too many such people, so send us your PhDs yearning to be free.
Instead, U.S. policy is: As soon as U.S. institutions of higher education have awarded you a PhD, equipping you to add vast value to the economy, get out. Go home. Or to Europe, which is responding to America's folly with "blue cards" to expedite acceptance of the immigrants America is spurning.
Two-thirds of doctoral candidates in science and engineering in U.S. universities are foreign-born. But only 140,000 employment-based green cards are available annually, and 1 million educated professionals are waiting -- often five or more years -- for cards. Congress could quickly add a zero to the number available, thereby boosting the U.S. economy and complicating matters for America's competitors.
Suppose a foreign government had a policy of sending workers to America to be trained in a sophisticated and highly remunerative skill at American taxpayers' expense, and then forced these workers to go home and compete against American companies. That is what we are doing because we are too generic in defining the immigrant pool.
Barack Obama and other Democrats are theatrically indignant about U.S. companies that locate operations outside the country. But one reason Microsoft opened a software development center in Vancouver is that Canadian immigration laws allow Microsoft to recruit skilled people it could not retain under U.S. immigration restrictions. Mr. Change We Can Believe In is not advocating the simple change -- that added zero -- and neither is Mr. Straight Talk.
John McCain's campaign Web site has a spare statement on "immigration reform" that says nothing about increasing America's intake of highly educated immigrants. Obama's site says only: "Where we can bring in more foreign-born workers with the skills our economy needs, we should." "Where we can"? We can now.
Solutions to some problems are complex; removing barriers to educated immigrants is not. It is, however, politically difficult, partly because this reform is being held hostage by factions -- principally the Congressional Hispanic Caucus -- insisting on "comprehensive" immigration reform that satisfies their demands. Unfortunately, on this issue no one is advocating change we can believe in, so America continues to risk losing the value added by foreign-born Jack Kilbys.
georgewill@washpost.com
No comments:
Post a Comment