jaihind
06-29 06:20 PM
Clearly the USCIS and the DOS have absolutely no clue as to how to manage the visa regime.
On top of that these smart asses think they are answerable to none - since this is just a matter of 'to be' immigrants.
Now the class action suit proposed by AILF will surely shock them from their oblivion and bring them down to REAL world.
All said and done...anyway the gates will open in Oct 2007 !!! Guys and Gals...go enjoy your week end !!!
On top of that these smart asses think they are answerable to none - since this is just a matter of 'to be' immigrants.
Now the class action suit proposed by AILF will surely shock them from their oblivion and bring them down to REAL world.
All said and done...anyway the gates will open in Oct 2007 !!! Guys and Gals...go enjoy your week end !!!
wallpaper Kristen Stewart – Wallpapers
gccovet
10-30 09:10 AM
done my part.
GCCovet.
GCCovet.
whitecollarslave
01-11 03:08 PM
I dont know too much about the conflict but the first post on the site says this:
Immigration Voice is starting a massive campaign to make it easier for immigrants and those on non-immigrant visas (H-1Bs, L-1s, F-4 students) to get green cards --- furthering the displacement of skilled American workers (programmers, engineers, scientists, etc.)
So, I'm passing along this suggestion from another group:
Please read the email below, and I ask you to cut/paste their letter text, and then
customize it (which is to say reverse engineer it) asking them to CLOSE
the door, not open it wide. We must act NOW to counteract their
campaign.
So thats just somebody's interpretation of letter campaign. Perhaps one of the enthusiasts over here should post something over there differentiating the goals of the letter campaign from illegal immigration along with all the arguments posted here and explain that their interpretation is incorrect.
Immigration Voice is starting a massive campaign to make it easier for immigrants and those on non-immigrant visas (H-1Bs, L-1s, F-4 students) to get green cards --- furthering the displacement of skilled American workers (programmers, engineers, scientists, etc.)
So, I'm passing along this suggestion from another group:
Please read the email below, and I ask you to cut/paste their letter text, and then
customize it (which is to say reverse engineer it) asking them to CLOSE
the door, not open it wide. We must act NOW to counteract their
campaign.
So thats just somebody's interpretation of letter campaign. Perhaps one of the enthusiasts over here should post something over there differentiating the goals of the letter campaign from illegal immigration along with all the arguments posted here and explain that their interpretation is incorrect.
2011 kristen stewart wallpapers.
beautifulMind
09-23 04:19 PM
They give away 140k per year . Shouldn't we get get GC in the next 2 years because of horizontal spill over??
Total worldwide 233k
Total worldwide 233k
more...
Libra
09-15 09:58 AM
Congrats Chandu!!!
Mine is somewhat similar
09/10/2010 - CPO emails for self and wife (Friday)
........
Mine is somewhat similar
09/10/2010 - CPO emails for self and wife (Friday)
........
krish2006
04-05 02:15 PM
Krish,
If you would like we can interpret it differently....
The demand data published by DOS for October 2010 show 13,125 prior to 2007 and for April 2011 it is 13,200 which means increase of 75 only + approved cases( since PD did not move)
Assuming all cases approved from Oct-2010 till March 2011 are porting, means 233*6=1,398.
In this case total porting is only 1,398+75 = 1,473
In reality we don't really know how many of the approved cases(1,398) are ported.
Yes. I agree This is also one way to look at total ported numbers. (Basically it cannot exceed this number. 1,473 serves as upper ceiling)
At least this analysis serves how much porting really is taking place than coming up with assumptions.
If you would like we can interpret it differently....
The demand data published by DOS for October 2010 show 13,125 prior to 2007 and for April 2011 it is 13,200 which means increase of 75 only + approved cases( since PD did not move)
Assuming all cases approved from Oct-2010 till March 2011 are porting, means 233*6=1,398.
In this case total porting is only 1,398+75 = 1,473
In reality we don't really know how many of the approved cases(1,398) are ported.
Yes. I agree This is also one way to look at total ported numbers. (Basically it cannot exceed this number. 1,473 serves as upper ceiling)
At least this analysis serves how much porting really is taking place than coming up with assumptions.
more...
GLIX
02-12 03:48 PM
:confused: I have been advised by my lawyer to not apply for h1b extension anymore. I am now on my 8th year. I had my finger printing done December 2006. I also got my EAD valid for 1 year and also have my advanced parole just in case I will have a need to travel. What is your advice? My My 7th year H1B extension expires next month in March, 2007
2010 Kristen-Stewart-Wallpaper
gc_check
06-29 07:13 PM
I dont know why everybody started to spit on ohio law firm. They just pointed out some news that they got from AILA, right? Lets hope its just a rumor and USCIS doesn't proceed with this revised thing. I am pretty sure that wont happen. Dont worry guys, but dont blame everything on ohio firm. I saw this on several other law firms too.
Before IV, immigration-law used to be the website to get consolidated information related to immigration news, Also most of the updates posted are based on the AILA updates/alerts. It is not fair to get mad at this site, just because he has posts/news that are not liked by vast majority of folks like us. I wish to see the VB dates current, but ��. we all know now, what is real... Retrogression and waiting...
Before IV, immigration-law used to be the website to get consolidated information related to immigration news, Also most of the updates posted are based on the AILA updates/alerts. It is not fair to get mad at this site, just because he has posts/news that are not liked by vast majority of folks like us. I wish to see the VB dates current, but ��. we all know now, what is real... Retrogression and waiting...
more...
Canadian_Dream
11-25 01:07 PM
sledge_hammer
Your posts are enlightening and breath of fresh air in an otherwise non-nonsensical forum discussion. Although people would want to, but talk about ethics and moral is not forbidden, not yet at least.
The very people tossing aside ethics are the ones who used good faith based credit system. Now suddenly it is all Capitalism, Greed, Bank's and Lender's fault. Whatever happen to personal responsibility ?
All those suggesting foreclosure are forgetting one thing: The pendulum has shifted and the same capitalism that supported the reckless credit is now going to choke it off. You don't want to be on the wrong side twice !!!! The thing about free markets is they adjust to new realities long before people do.Before you know it the easy walking away (or foreclosure) might become the biggest mistake while buying house might be distant second.
In the meanwhile please don't shoot the messenger aka sledge_hammer. If you read his posts he has given the best advice with a good dose of much needed reality and sound language. If you are hostile towards him you are simply in denial. The longer you stay there the harder it will be to cope with the new realities.
Punjabi77, good luck to you buddy. This will pass too, don't ruin everything for $20K. You will earn it back but you can't undo foreclosure and whatever comes with it in terms of personal memory, your credit and things in future that you can't foresee now. Do the right thing it will only make you stronger and someday you will be able to tell your kid that you did the right thing in the face of adversity and eventually not only survived it but thrived out of it.
Your posts are enlightening and breath of fresh air in an otherwise non-nonsensical forum discussion. Although people would want to, but talk about ethics and moral is not forbidden, not yet at least.
The very people tossing aside ethics are the ones who used good faith based credit system. Now suddenly it is all Capitalism, Greed, Bank's and Lender's fault. Whatever happen to personal responsibility ?
All those suggesting foreclosure are forgetting one thing: The pendulum has shifted and the same capitalism that supported the reckless credit is now going to choke it off. You don't want to be on the wrong side twice !!!! The thing about free markets is they adjust to new realities long before people do.Before you know it the easy walking away (or foreclosure) might become the biggest mistake while buying house might be distant second.
In the meanwhile please don't shoot the messenger aka sledge_hammer. If you read his posts he has given the best advice with a good dose of much needed reality and sound language. If you are hostile towards him you are simply in denial. The longer you stay there the harder it will be to cope with the new realities.
Punjabi77, good luck to you buddy. This will pass too, don't ruin everything for $20K. You will earn it back but you can't undo foreclosure and whatever comes with it in terms of personal memory, your credit and things in future that you can't foresee now. Do the right thing it will only make you stronger and someday you will be able to tell your kid that you did the right thing in the face of adversity and eventually not only survived it but thrived out of it.
hair kristen stewart wallpapers
ChainReaction
05-25 09:55 AM
All you said is correct, except for you don't need Hepatitis B if you are over 16. No, there are no more tests involved, unless your tb is positive. If you tb is positive you need to do chestX-ray. I know that because I was just doing the tests for myself. Varicella must be taken twice 30 days apart. Same applies to MMR.
I hope this helps. If you go to a good doctor, he will give you a complete list of things that you need to do before coming on the medical exam.
G
My immigration doctor told me that if i had chickenpox in childhood i do not need the varicella vaccine? Which i did at age 5. Please, let me know if anyone else was told the same , i will be going back to him on Wednesday for the physical exam. I don't want to get a RFE on that.
I hope this helps. If you go to a good doctor, he will give you a complete list of things that you need to do before coming on the medical exam.
G
My immigration doctor told me that if i had chickenpox in childhood i do not need the varicella vaccine? Which i did at age 5. Please, let me know if anyone else was told the same , i will be going back to him on Wednesday for the physical exam. I don't want to get a RFE on that.
more...
suriajay12
03-10 06:20 PM
Excellent idea JBR. Why don't you create a letter template and put it in IV. If we have the facility to sign electronically, it will be nice. Later, it can be sent electronically to all Congress Members. Let us try to create a slogan for our campaign. Any IV member can shed their ideas on this.
Is PAPPU or any IV Core members following this thread?. PAPPU we need your involvement in this and make this as another IV campaign immediately...
I'm in. Anything that has action has my support..
No point in waiting till economy improves and shit like that. Houses, jobs, Social securtity .. Project all the points in which you can improve the crisis. We can ALL also write to firms like REMAX and other reality firms to tell them we are 500 thousand here, ready to buy houses.. stupid idea.. but better than doing nothing..
Is PAPPU or any IV Core members following this thread?. PAPPU we need your involvement in this and make this as another IV campaign immediately...
I'm in. Anything that has action has my support..
No point in waiting till economy improves and shit like that. Houses, jobs, Social securtity .. Project all the points in which you can improve the crisis. We can ALL also write to firms like REMAX and other reality firms to tell them we are 500 thousand here, ready to buy houses.. stupid idea.. but better than doing nothing..
hot makeup Kristen-stewart-mobile-
amsgc
11-04 12:09 AM
Good one, thanks.
check out my blog on AC21
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/blog.php?b=12
check out my blog on AC21
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/blog.php?b=12
more...
house images 2010 Kristen Stewart
gcnirvana
06-20 02:59 PM
This is the number in red on your visa stamp in ur passport. Mine is 8-digits long. Even if ur visa stamp has expired you've to provide that number.
Hope this helps!
Hi,
I am filing up form 485 and on Part 3 Section - Processing Information, there is a question asking for Nonimmigrant Visa Number.
Any clue about this?
Thanks in advance,
Kalpen
Hope this helps!
Hi,
I am filing up form 485 and on Part 3 Section - Processing Information, there is a question asking for Nonimmigrant Visa Number.
Any clue about this?
Thanks in advance,
Kalpen
tattoo Kristen Stewart Latest
BharatPremi
03-18 08:50 AM
Hi Guys,
I have a concurrent filed application (140 still pending) dated back to Oct 2004 and another I-485 application from July, 2007 from different labor but a recently approved 140. My current EAD & AP is based on the first 485 (Oct 2004) which are due for renewal in next 4 months. Now I want my EAD/AP to be based on July 2007 I-485 (second one) since underlying 140 is approved. Here is my dilema:
1. When I renew EAD/AP should I check that its renewal or initial application option.
2. How can I make sure (atleast try) the new EAD/AP will not be tied to old 485 but the new one (will send the new 485 receipt & 140 approval notice).
Thanks for any suggestions/thoughts you might have.
Thanks
There is no concept of "multiple EAD and AP" assigned to single person as far as I know. So it does not matter what " you want" what matter is "what USCIS wants". And so far what I have heard (From professional and wellknown lawyers), multiple 485 filings is the last thing you want to even think about because USCIS does not like it and at the end of the day what matters is "What USCIS wants" so talk about that to lawyers as well so down the road you would not end up any delay or problem by USCIS due to multiple filings.
I have a concurrent filed application (140 still pending) dated back to Oct 2004 and another I-485 application from July, 2007 from different labor but a recently approved 140. My current EAD & AP is based on the first 485 (Oct 2004) which are due for renewal in next 4 months. Now I want my EAD/AP to be based on July 2007 I-485 (second one) since underlying 140 is approved. Here is my dilema:
1. When I renew EAD/AP should I check that its renewal or initial application option.
2. How can I make sure (atleast try) the new EAD/AP will not be tied to old 485 but the new one (will send the new 485 receipt & 140 approval notice).
Thanks for any suggestions/thoughts you might have.
Thanks
There is no concept of "multiple EAD and AP" assigned to single person as far as I know. So it does not matter what " you want" what matter is "what USCIS wants". And so far what I have heard (From professional and wellknown lawyers), multiple 485 filings is the last thing you want to even think about because USCIS does not like it and at the end of the day what matters is "What USCIS wants" so talk about that to lawyers as well so down the road you would not end up any delay or problem by USCIS due to multiple filings.
more...
pictures girlfriend kristen stewart wallpapers latest wallpapers of kristen stewart.
shreekhand
09-12 10:52 AM
wait for atleast 4 (6 is better still) months to figure out if it is in the "stuck in NC" status !
but it is pending with FBI since Aug 1st. Looks like they also check for fragmented names.
This is my opinion, not an advise. Use it at your own risk.
but it is pending with FBI since Aug 1st. Looks like they also check for fragmented names.
This is my opinion, not an advise. Use it at your own risk.
dresses Kristen Stewart Latest 2011
whitecollarslave
04-10 04:38 PM
FYI...
Thank you for contacting the ACLU of Virginia. You recently wrote us concerning persons, who are lawfully present in the U.S., being denied employment opportunities on the basis of their lawful legal status. Please refer any person who is having this problem to the ACLU of Virginia.
Thank you for contacting the ACLU of Virginia. You recently wrote us concerning persons, who are lawfully present in the U.S., being denied employment opportunities on the basis of their lawful legal status. Please refer any person who is having this problem to the ACLU of Virginia.
more...
makeup 2010 Kristen Stewart iPhone
aadimanav
01-03 12:56 AM
Part 2 continued....
USCIS delays have become so excessive in this arena that many foreign nationals have sought relief in federal court. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA), which governs federal agency actions and decisions, requires that an agency resolve a matter presented to it within a "reasonable" time frame. See 8 U.S.C. 555(b). Using the APA, foreign nationals have argued that waiting for two or more years for a decision on an immigration application is "unreasonable" under the statute. The cases are divided, but a majority of courts have agreed that making a foreign national wait years and years just for a decision on his or her application is unreasonable. As a result, many judges have ordered the FBI and USCIS to complete pending name check cases within 60 or 90 days where a foreign national has been waiting for two or more years. Some judges have noted that security concerns are not to be taken lightly, but this only reinforces the fact that such issues should be resolved in a matter of weeks as opposed to years.
The success or failure of litigation in this arena ultimately turns on the court's reading of a jurisdiction-stripping provision embedded in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the Real ID Act of 2005. The INA precludes judicial review of any "decision or action" of the USCIS that is "specified [under INA] to be in the discretion" of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). In defending challenges to delayed applications, the U.S. Attorney's office has argued that the adjudication of a green card application, including the pace of adjudication, is committed to the sole discretion of the USCIS, because the INA specifies that a decision to approve or deny a green card application is within the discretion of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1255(a).
None of the circuit courts have ruled on this issue, but the relationship between USCIS delay and the role of the judiciary has become a "national judicial debate" at the district court level. See Saleem v. Keisler , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80044 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 26, 2007). Some courts have bought the government's argument, holding that a discretionary "action" includes every interim action taken along the way leading up to an ultimate decision on an application. See Safadi v. Howard , 466 F.Supp. 2d 696, 699 (E.D. Vir. 2006). Under this theory, a stalled name check is simply action along the way to a final decision. The majority of courts have rejected this reading of the statute, holding that USCIS' discretion only applies to the ultimate decision on an application, not the pace of its adjudication. As one court stated, "it would require Orwellian twisting of the word ["action"] to conclude that it means a failure to adjudicate." Saleem v. Keisler, supra. Similarly, U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell recognized that the INA grants discretion to the USCIS to grant or deny a green card application, but "national security does not require that it also have absolute discretion to delay such an application to Dickensian lengths." Cao v. Upchurch , 496 F.Supp. 2d 569, 574 (E.D. Pa 2007). Put simply, "there is a difference between the [USCIS'] discretion over how to resolve an application and the [USCIS'] discretion over whether it resolves an application." Singh v. Still , 470 F. Supp. 2d 1064, 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
The U.S. Attorney's office has also argued that the USCIS is not required to make a decision on green card or naturalization applications since the INA does not specify a time frame for the agency's decision. See Assadzadeh v. Mueller , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80915 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2007). The government's argument is based on Norton v. So. Utah Wilderness Alliance , 542 U.S. 55 (2004), where the U.S. Supreme Court held that a plaintiff can succeed in compelling an agency to act under the APA if and only if the action sought to be compelled is a "discrete action" that the agency is "legally required" to take. Under the government's theory, the USCIS cannot be compelled to act where its organic statute fails to require it to make a decision. But, under Norton , an agency's regulation with the force of law can create a legal duty. Arguably, the USCIS is legally required to act on applications presented to it, as its own regulations provide that it inform applicants of its decisions. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (green card applications); 8 C.F.R. 316.14(b)(1) (naturalization applications). Most judges in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania appear to accept this argument. For example, in Kaplan v. Chertoff , 481 F. Supp. 2d 370, 399 (E.D. Pa. 2007), Judge Eduardo Robreno held that the USCIS has a duty to adjudicate green card and naturalization applications, based, in part, on the agency's own regulations.
Once a court determines that its jurisdiction is not stripped under the INA, it usually faces little difficulty finding a cause of action under the APA. Of course, determining whether an agency has acted unreasonably is a fact-intensive inquiry, but the government's position does not look promising where the USCIS has failed to perform three distinct background checks for two or more years without any indication of special circumstances. See, e.g., Saleem v. Keisler, supra . The government has argued that flagging agency resources are to blame, but many courts find little sympathy for such posturing. In addressing the issue of agency resources, one court stated that the USCIS should take its complaints up with Congress. See Liang v. Attorney General , 07-cv-2349-CW (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2007). "The executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those duties have been met." Id . Even factoring in flagging appropriations, the court held that a two-and-a-half-year delay is unreasonable as a matter of law. Id .
With more than 340,000 cases in the name check backlog, it is not clear when some foreign nationals will ever have their cases resolved at the agency level. At least with the advantageous decisions handed down from the federal district courts, foreign nationals have the hope of going into court to request an expeditious resolution to their name checks. In the majority of situations, it appears that litigation is the only option, but at least an option exists.
Please email the author at gforney@wolfblock.com with questions about this article.
USCIS delays have become so excessive in this arena that many foreign nationals have sought relief in federal court. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA), which governs federal agency actions and decisions, requires that an agency resolve a matter presented to it within a "reasonable" time frame. See 8 U.S.C. 555(b). Using the APA, foreign nationals have argued that waiting for two or more years for a decision on an immigration application is "unreasonable" under the statute. The cases are divided, but a majority of courts have agreed that making a foreign national wait years and years just for a decision on his or her application is unreasonable. As a result, many judges have ordered the FBI and USCIS to complete pending name check cases within 60 or 90 days where a foreign national has been waiting for two or more years. Some judges have noted that security concerns are not to be taken lightly, but this only reinforces the fact that such issues should be resolved in a matter of weeks as opposed to years.
The success or failure of litigation in this arena ultimately turns on the court's reading of a jurisdiction-stripping provision embedded in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the Real ID Act of 2005. The INA precludes judicial review of any "decision or action" of the USCIS that is "specified [under INA] to be in the discretion" of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). In defending challenges to delayed applications, the U.S. Attorney's office has argued that the adjudication of a green card application, including the pace of adjudication, is committed to the sole discretion of the USCIS, because the INA specifies that a decision to approve or deny a green card application is within the discretion of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1255(a).
None of the circuit courts have ruled on this issue, but the relationship between USCIS delay and the role of the judiciary has become a "national judicial debate" at the district court level. See Saleem v. Keisler , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80044 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 26, 2007). Some courts have bought the government's argument, holding that a discretionary "action" includes every interim action taken along the way leading up to an ultimate decision on an application. See Safadi v. Howard , 466 F.Supp. 2d 696, 699 (E.D. Vir. 2006). Under this theory, a stalled name check is simply action along the way to a final decision. The majority of courts have rejected this reading of the statute, holding that USCIS' discretion only applies to the ultimate decision on an application, not the pace of its adjudication. As one court stated, "it would require Orwellian twisting of the word ["action"] to conclude that it means a failure to adjudicate." Saleem v. Keisler, supra. Similarly, U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell recognized that the INA grants discretion to the USCIS to grant or deny a green card application, but "national security does not require that it also have absolute discretion to delay such an application to Dickensian lengths." Cao v. Upchurch , 496 F.Supp. 2d 569, 574 (E.D. Pa 2007). Put simply, "there is a difference between the [USCIS'] discretion over how to resolve an application and the [USCIS'] discretion over whether it resolves an application." Singh v. Still , 470 F. Supp. 2d 1064, 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
The U.S. Attorney's office has also argued that the USCIS is not required to make a decision on green card or naturalization applications since the INA does not specify a time frame for the agency's decision. See Assadzadeh v. Mueller , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80915 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2007). The government's argument is based on Norton v. So. Utah Wilderness Alliance , 542 U.S. 55 (2004), where the U.S. Supreme Court held that a plaintiff can succeed in compelling an agency to act under the APA if and only if the action sought to be compelled is a "discrete action" that the agency is "legally required" to take. Under the government's theory, the USCIS cannot be compelled to act where its organic statute fails to require it to make a decision. But, under Norton , an agency's regulation with the force of law can create a legal duty. Arguably, the USCIS is legally required to act on applications presented to it, as its own regulations provide that it inform applicants of its decisions. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (green card applications); 8 C.F.R. 316.14(b)(1) (naturalization applications). Most judges in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania appear to accept this argument. For example, in Kaplan v. Chertoff , 481 F. Supp. 2d 370, 399 (E.D. Pa. 2007), Judge Eduardo Robreno held that the USCIS has a duty to adjudicate green card and naturalization applications, based, in part, on the agency's own regulations.
Once a court determines that its jurisdiction is not stripped under the INA, it usually faces little difficulty finding a cause of action under the APA. Of course, determining whether an agency has acted unreasonably is a fact-intensive inquiry, but the government's position does not look promising where the USCIS has failed to perform three distinct background checks for two or more years without any indication of special circumstances. See, e.g., Saleem v. Keisler, supra . The government has argued that flagging agency resources are to blame, but many courts find little sympathy for such posturing. In addressing the issue of agency resources, one court stated that the USCIS should take its complaints up with Congress. See Liang v. Attorney General , 07-cv-2349-CW (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2007). "The executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those duties have been met." Id . Even factoring in flagging appropriations, the court held that a two-and-a-half-year delay is unreasonable as a matter of law. Id .
With more than 340,000 cases in the name check backlog, it is not clear when some foreign nationals will ever have their cases resolved at the agency level. At least with the advantageous decisions handed down from the federal district courts, foreign nationals have the hope of going into court to request an expeditious resolution to their name checks. In the majority of situations, it appears that litigation is the only option, but at least an option exists.
Please email the author at gforney@wolfblock.com with questions about this article.
girlfriend Kristen Stewart Wallpaper
rockstart
08-12 11:38 AM
Update:
CPO 8/4
Decsion 8/5
Welcome Letter 8/9
PDA (Post Decision Activity) Text and Online Status change: 8/11
Soft LUD 8/12 today.
CPO 8/4
Decsion 8/5
Welcome Letter 8/9
PDA (Post Decision Activity) Text and Online Status change: 8/11
Soft LUD 8/12 today.
hairstyles kristen stewart wallpapers hot
buaya00
09-11 04:51 PM
Looks like the HR has adjourned till Sep 22 without HR5882 being discussed. Are they putting it off for later this year or next?
Just noticed they updated the next session date to 15 sep and not 22 Sep.
Just noticed they updated the next session date to 15 sep and not 22 Sep.
aristotle
05-22 06:32 PM
If you can restart ur app in Eb2, you should be fine dates wise. Unless CIR messes it up.
Approximately 2 months for PERM and then you can file 140+485 concurrently.
All the best!
Company A applied for my GC in Oct 2002. I received I140 and left the company on good terms and joined company B. company A promised that when my date becomes current they will authorize my 485. Now that my date is current, the company A is saying they cannot give me an employment letter because they are not doing well financially. The company has not more than 3-4 employees and they had been suffering losses for last few years. Now even if they have good intentions for me, they are unable to file for me.
What options do I have now? restart GC process with company B and utilize my priority date?
Please help. For a day I was excited about my date getting current but after al there was no reason for me to be happy.
thanks,
Kapil
Approximately 2 months for PERM and then you can file 140+485 concurrently.
All the best!
Company A applied for my GC in Oct 2002. I received I140 and left the company on good terms and joined company B. company A promised that when my date becomes current they will authorize my 485. Now that my date is current, the company A is saying they cannot give me an employment letter because they are not doing well financially. The company has not more than 3-4 employees and they had been suffering losses for last few years. Now even if they have good intentions for me, they are unable to file for me.
What options do I have now? restart GC process with company B and utilize my priority date?
Please help. For a day I was excited about my date getting current but after al there was no reason for me to be happy.
thanks,
Kapil
GCKaMaara
11-18 11:16 AM
This is a very good news. Kudos GC4Me, PD_Recapturing, ItIsNotFunny, NK2006, AkhilMahajan.... everyone.
I received a phone call (WOW!) from a sweet lady from CIS Ombudsman's office. I sent letters to his office and in the letter I mentioned my cell #. Anyway she wants a real person who got deniel. I told her that my friend got deniel (IVens are my fried). Anyway, she sent an email too after I asked her to give her info so that my friend can send her his case details. Unfortunately, the email I received shortly after the conversation, looks like general and does not have her ID. Please PM me if you like to hera more about the phone call.
==================
Thank you for your correspondence to the Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman (CIS Ombudsman).
We greatly appreciate your comments regarding issues concerning the American Competitiveness Act in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) processing at the service centers. As we have received several inquiries such as yours, we are currently discussing these issues with USCIS and reviewing their policies and procedures regarding adjudication of these petitions.
If you have evidence of a specific I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status case that you feel was erroneously denied due to USCIS not adhering to AC21 guidelines, we kindly ask that you please immediately forward us a case problem request, including a copy of your denial notice, detailed information as to the reasons for the immediate denial, and, if appropriate, evidence that you have submitted a Motion to Reopen or Reconsider.
Instructions for completing a DHS Form 7001 (case problem) can be found on our website: http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/programs/editorial_0497.shtm#10.
Please submit your case problem and supporting documents via email to cisombudsman@dhs.gov or via facsimile to 202-357-0042 with the subject AC21 Evidence of Immediate Denial.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
CIS Ombudsman
(cmp)
I received a phone call (WOW!) from a sweet lady from CIS Ombudsman's office. I sent letters to his office and in the letter I mentioned my cell #. Anyway she wants a real person who got deniel. I told her that my friend got deniel (IVens are my fried). Anyway, she sent an email too after I asked her to give her info so that my friend can send her his case details. Unfortunately, the email I received shortly after the conversation, looks like general and does not have her ID. Please PM me if you like to hera more about the phone call.
==================
Thank you for your correspondence to the Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman (CIS Ombudsman).
We greatly appreciate your comments regarding issues concerning the American Competitiveness Act in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) processing at the service centers. As we have received several inquiries such as yours, we are currently discussing these issues with USCIS and reviewing their policies and procedures regarding adjudication of these petitions.
If you have evidence of a specific I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status case that you feel was erroneously denied due to USCIS not adhering to AC21 guidelines, we kindly ask that you please immediately forward us a case problem request, including a copy of your denial notice, detailed information as to the reasons for the immediate denial, and, if appropriate, evidence that you have submitted a Motion to Reopen or Reconsider.
Instructions for completing a DHS Form 7001 (case problem) can be found on our website: http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/programs/editorial_0497.shtm#10.
Please submit your case problem and supporting documents via email to cisombudsman@dhs.gov or via facsimile to 202-357-0042 with the subject AC21 Evidence of Immediate Denial.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
CIS Ombudsman
(cmp)
No comments:
Post a Comment