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.
guy03062
03-08 09:47 AM
Please keep posting!
santa123
07-05 03:25 PM
mbawa2574 for IV president. Anyone?
Dude if you do not like something, why don't you start your own aggressive organization. You do not do squat on IV and only whined.
ganguteli for IV President and Public relations:D:D
Anyone? why not?
Dude if you do not like something, why don't you start your own aggressive organization. You do not do squat on IV and only whined.
ganguteli for IV President and Public relations:D:D
Anyone? why not?
rahul98
07-20 04:35 PM
Maybe some has asked this question before...why was this not posted on IV ? It would have helped to have everyone's focus on this rather than the youtube and thank you cards campaign.
Rahul
Rahul
more...
nirav_patel
07-15 03:34 PM
just sent by billpay
shreekhand
07-18 12:14 AM
Guys...all applications are pre-adjudicated irrespective of whether a PD is current according to the receipt date.
Once receipted they go on the shelf and are given for adjudication to an adjudicator as in a fairly FIFO manner.
Let's not confuse this with those who were pre-adjudicated and then placed on the shelf for lack of visa number availability. Most of the petitions approved in June were from this shelf.
As a rule they don't jump and take the "PD current" ones even if they are submitted late.
Again I also read this from a question posed to the "I-485 Production Line Supervisor" in an open house document posted by an organization.
Once receipted they go on the shelf and are given for adjudication to an adjudicator as in a fairly FIFO manner.
Let's not confuse this with those who were pre-adjudicated and then placed on the shelf for lack of visa number availability. Most of the petitions approved in June were from this shelf.
As a rule they don't jump and take the "PD current" ones even if they are submitted late.
Again I also read this from a question posed to the "I-485 Production Line Supervisor" in an open house document posted by an organization.
more...
gg10004
03-17 11:38 PM
Just a question. Why would you file jointly if your wife doesn't work (i.e. doesn't have SSN)?
--- if you really meant to ask---
Simple answer - More standard deduction with one more dependant as wife
IRS made it mandatory to use SSN because illegal immigrants use ITIN to file taxes. This affected the legal immigrants also where ITIN is used in case of dependants who dont have work visa. If you are not legally eligible to work, you dont get SSN.
The two options left for legal immigrants are -
File separate returns one for self with ssn and another for wife using ITIN and calim one stimulus rebate for 600$
but then you get single standard deduction and your AGI is more that affects your federal and state tax.
If you do the math, its better to file a joint return and forego the stimulus rebate.
There is a catch too, if wife later gets EAD and thus SSN, you can ammend your tax return and claim the stimuls rebate
--- if you really meant to ask---
Simple answer - More standard deduction with one more dependant as wife
IRS made it mandatory to use SSN because illegal immigrants use ITIN to file taxes. This affected the legal immigrants also where ITIN is used in case of dependants who dont have work visa. If you are not legally eligible to work, you dont get SSN.
The two options left for legal immigrants are -
File separate returns one for self with ssn and another for wife using ITIN and calim one stimulus rebate for 600$
but then you get single standard deduction and your AGI is more that affects your federal and state tax.
If you do the math, its better to file a joint return and forego the stimulus rebate.
There is a catch too, if wife later gets EAD and thus SSN, you can ammend your tax return and claim the stimuls rebate
ragz4u
03-09 11:57 AM
is it over now? All I get is buzzzzz
Yes it is, the hearing is now scheduled for next Wed
Yes it is, the hearing is now scheduled for next Wed
more...
raysaikat
01-06 09:50 PM
...I do have a point and that is not to let someone throw in unsubstantiated statistics to bring bad name to some Indian universities....
How come observations made over years on 100's to 1000's of students are "unsubstantiated"? Of course you may want not to believe me; that is your prerogative, and so is writing my own experience mine.
How come observations made over years on 100's to 1000's of students are "unsubstantiated"? Of course you may want not to believe me; that is your prerogative, and so is writing my own experience mine.
makemygc
10-25 11:59 PM
I've sent the mails and strongly encourage everyone to come out and take an early action before this gets worse. Even if you are not affected right now, support the cause to make sure that you will not be affected in the future.
Also, just wanted to point out some notes that letter says that Yates memo is attached, so if you are blindly copy and pasting make sure that you attach the Memo to your email or a copy to your letter.
I would suggest OP to add the copy of yates memo and the follow up memo to the posting.
Thanks
MakeMyGC
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
Also, just wanted to point out some notes that letter says that Yates memo is attached, so if you are blindly copy and pasting make sure that you attach the Memo to your email or a copy to your letter.
I would suggest OP to add the copy of yates memo and the follow up memo to the posting.
Thanks
MakeMyGC
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
more...
lazycis
12-01 02:32 PM
Do you mean the district court asks cis to compensate candidate??? I have never heard this - wondering!!! Don't think its true!
If a party wins a case, the court may order a losing party to compensate all expenses associated with the suit. The relevant law is "Equal Access to Justice Act" (EAJA). However, if government changes position and reverses the denial/acts on an application/MTR before court rules in your favor, it's not possible to recover court-related expenses. Court filing fee in federal civil cases is $350 so the bulk of all expenses is usually attorney's fees.
If a party wins a case, the court may order a losing party to compensate all expenses associated with the suit. The relevant law is "Equal Access to Justice Act" (EAJA). However, if government changes position and reverses the denial/acts on an application/MTR before court rules in your favor, it's not possible to recover court-related expenses. Court filing fee in federal civil cases is $350 so the bulk of all expenses is usually attorney's fees.
YesGC_NoGC
02-12 12:11 PM
PD Dec 2004 from DBEC
more...
harivenkat
08-12 11:23 AM
this seems to me ... the master stroke in using documented as weapon towards undocumented ...eventually getting rid of both weapon and the target ....
tnite
02-08 11:15 AM
A Person cannot Travel before the AP gets Approved.If you do, means Abandoning your GC forever. Please be careful before you advise anyone on these critical issues.
If the person is on H1b, then he/she can travel without AP as long as they have an unexpired H1B visa and carry with them the I1485 receipt.
AP has nothing to do with your AOS processing. AP like EAD is for our convenience and has no bearing on the AOS process.
The only time it has is if someone uses the EAD /AP , then they are no longer on H1B.
As far as leaving the country without AP and then getting it mailed , there are mixed opinions (not facts). Some think it will come back to haunt you later and others think it is of no consequence.
I personally had a family member do this back in Oct but will keep this board updated if and when they have an issue.
This is just my opinion and take it with a grain of salt.
If the person is on H1b, then he/she can travel without AP as long as they have an unexpired H1B visa and carry with them the I1485 receipt.
AP has nothing to do with your AOS processing. AP like EAD is for our convenience and has no bearing on the AOS process.
The only time it has is if someone uses the EAD /AP , then they are no longer on H1B.
As far as leaving the country without AP and then getting it mailed , there are mixed opinions (not facts). Some think it will come back to haunt you later and others think it is of no consequence.
I personally had a family member do this back in Oct but will keep this board updated if and when they have an issue.
This is just my opinion and take it with a grain of salt.
more...
gk_2000
08-24 02:17 PM
First be clear whats your point and then enlighten us how this supports it
One of my points: "loopholes" are NOT what we are here to fight against. Now, is the rest of your reply relevant?
And anyone who irritates you is a troll. So be it. This troll is there to prevent nonsensical ideas
Please let me know how this so called multinational executives are getting compensated. Whats the stock/option given to these executives. The available information shows only three days of extended stay and one week of car which they need to share with other executives. Fortunately the extended stay suites come with attached rest room. Otherwise they need to share with other multinational executives. There would be long queue in front of the shared room and eventual back log...
Yeap...we are very envious about this. Let it be. I am not going to post anything on this any more and feeding the troll.
Yeah, I was so envious about that designation, that I have to leave it risking by giving 2 months of advance notice(policy of the company to give 2 months notice) and finding an employer who could file my H1 and suffering 1 yr of constant followups with the company to get my pay and PF and so on. And forgot to mention, that if 2 months notice is not given we are asked to sign an agreement to pay back close to 10 grand.
Is this how a multinational executive gets treated who are fortunately qualified for the EB1 category and company projects you as most valuable employee for business development who would be sponsoring you EB1.
All this will feed the anti's and true trolls. Why don't we focus on our objectives?
If the company really feels the need , they may as well recruit someone locally who might be much more qualified without going through all of those hassles. All this is done as part and parcel of exploiting the system and its employees.
Luckily we have a choice whether to stay or not and move on to a different status like H1.
Don't we?
One of my points: "loopholes" are NOT what we are here to fight against. Now, is the rest of your reply relevant?
And anyone who irritates you is a troll. So be it. This troll is there to prevent nonsensical ideas
Please let me know how this so called multinational executives are getting compensated. Whats the stock/option given to these executives. The available information shows only three days of extended stay and one week of car which they need to share with other executives. Fortunately the extended stay suites come with attached rest room. Otherwise they need to share with other multinational executives. There would be long queue in front of the shared room and eventual back log...
Yeap...we are very envious about this. Let it be. I am not going to post anything on this any more and feeding the troll.
Yeah, I was so envious about that designation, that I have to leave it risking by giving 2 months of advance notice(policy of the company to give 2 months notice) and finding an employer who could file my H1 and suffering 1 yr of constant followups with the company to get my pay and PF and so on. And forgot to mention, that if 2 months notice is not given we are asked to sign an agreement to pay back close to 10 grand.
Is this how a multinational executive gets treated who are fortunately qualified for the EB1 category and company projects you as most valuable employee for business development who would be sponsoring you EB1.
All this will feed the anti's and true trolls. Why don't we focus on our objectives?
If the company really feels the need , they may as well recruit someone locally who might be much more qualified without going through all of those hassles. All this is done as part and parcel of exploiting the system and its employees.
Luckily we have a choice whether to stay or not and move on to a different status like H1.
Don't we?
qplearn
11-20 09:58 PM
Work in progress; . Nice job; Sent you a PM.
more...
Progressive
07-13 04:27 PM
count me in. I am from LA county live in Torrance
nixstor
03-07 09:51 PM
Labor approved when I checked the website this afternoon. was in process last week too.
Oct 04, VA EB2 RIR
Oct 04, VA EB2 RIR
rpchalasani
06-04 11:09 AM
I Contributed $ 100.00 Now.
Receipt # 4674-1281-7879-3812
Thanks,
Receipt # 4674-1281-7879-3812
Thanks,
ind_game
05-14 03:55 PM
Sorry about the pain. if you haven't noticed, I think aftr your previous employer revoked the I-140, they went ahead and updated that to 'denied' status and apparently the date did not change. so the same day that your 140 was approved now shows as denied. Bring that to their notice and they may see their mistake.
Good luck.
Not sure how the GUI interface for USCIS looks like.........atleast there would be a history of updates for each petition like received, approved, revoked along with dates and notes, just like we do updates to our threads in this forum..........I mean that is bare minimum
But my online status of I-140 still says this........Not that I have to rely on this.......
__________________________________________________ ________________________
Receipt Number: LINXXXXXXXXXXX
Application Type: I140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER
Current Status: Approval notice sent.
On September 4, 2007, we mailed you a notice that we have approved this I140 IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER. Please follow any instructions on the notice. If you move before you receive the notice, call customer service.
__________________________________________________ ________________________
Good luck.
Not sure how the GUI interface for USCIS looks like.........atleast there would be a history of updates for each petition like received, approved, revoked along with dates and notes, just like we do updates to our threads in this forum..........I mean that is bare minimum
But my online status of I-140 still says this........Not that I have to rely on this.......
__________________________________________________ ________________________
Receipt Number: LINXXXXXXXXXXX
Application Type: I140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER
Current Status: Approval notice sent.
On September 4, 2007, we mailed you a notice that we have approved this I140 IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER. Please follow any instructions on the notice. If you move before you receive the notice, call customer service.
__________________________________________________ ________________________
yoda
09-13 04:24 PM
Sent to Mass High Tech and Fareed Zakaria @ Newsweek.
No comments:
Post a Comment