GCSOON-Ihope
11-05 01:37 PM
Hello Guys, Count me on!
I live in Los Angeles Co.
PD 01/2002
EB3 World
485 filed in 08/2004 and stuck in Name Check ever since...
I live in Los Angeles Co.
PD 01/2002
EB3 World
485 filed in 08/2004 and stuck in Name Check ever since...
wallpaper images 2010 selena gomez short
SGP
04-21 05:45 PM
Hi: Does anyone have update on how long is it taking to get PERM approvals now days? I have applied for my 2nd labor under EB3 at end of March 2011.
Replies are always appreciated. many thanks in advance.
Replies are always appreciated. many thanks in advance.
GCDream
07-06 07:27 AM
Jugged it
2011 selena gomez short hairstyles
immi_twinges
07-20 02:16 PM
1. Threads concerned with the Action Items and Legislative matters should be separated from the usual GC related questionnaire
If you look at the website you find a bunch of new threads related to 485 filing. Most of them bear answers in previous threads. People dont want to search..but that okay..they can form new threads if they are very desperate for the answers.
But at the same time due to the flood of these messages we are missing important notices and action items like this one.If we separate them somehow it will be helpful.
2. Lets have an organized tracking of 485s. Lets separate them by Visa category , country, PD or RD.
ex: Eb3 country: India
PD 2001: RD:...? LUD: ...?
PD:2004:
EB3 : China...
...
..
Lets have an option of adding friends approx dates who are not immigration voice members. This way we can have rough estimate about what happening. Lets not make threads for each category.
This way may be we have a very good track of the visas than USCIS...heheheh:D
I guess most of the 1v members are s/w engineers...i am not...orelse i would have volunteered to do this...
Anybody here ...who can spare some of their valuable time???
Lets do more brainstorming
If you look at the website you find a bunch of new threads related to 485 filing. Most of them bear answers in previous threads. People dont want to search..but that okay..they can form new threads if they are very desperate for the answers.
But at the same time due to the flood of these messages we are missing important notices and action items like this one.If we separate them somehow it will be helpful.
2. Lets have an organized tracking of 485s. Lets separate them by Visa category , country, PD or RD.
ex: Eb3 country: India
PD 2001: RD:...? LUD: ...?
PD:2004:
EB3 : China...
...
..
Lets have an option of adding friends approx dates who are not immigration voice members. This way we can have rough estimate about what happening. Lets not make threads for each category.
This way may be we have a very good track of the visas than USCIS...heheheh:D
I guess most of the 1v members are s/w engineers...i am not...orelse i would have volunteered to do this...
Anybody here ...who can spare some of their valuable time???
Lets do more brainstorming
more...
vin13
03-12 03:20 PM
With all due respect to the selfless hard work of IV core, I concur with ItIsNotFunny. There are many members who feel this way. IV core should be more open to members. I feel a cloud of secrecy always surrounding IV. Of course they cannot be public about all their activities, but more needs to be done on this front. You will see more members actively participating if core is more open.
I totally agree to this. Everytime i try to bring this point across all that is being asked is go contribue some money. I have contributed money before and i will contribute lot more if i know what it is getting used for.
There are several of my friends who are not actively looking at IV site. I am sure they will contribute money if they know the initiative IV is currently working on.
I totally agree to this. Everytime i try to bring this point across all that is being asked is go contribue some money. I have contributed money before and i will contribute lot more if i know what it is getting used for.
There are several of my friends who are not actively looking at IV site. I am sure they will contribute money if they know the initiative IV is currently working on.
pappu
08-08 10:20 AM
Everyone,
I have recieved only one op-ed from yabadaba . Several people had promised. This is a reminder to everyone and anyone new on this forum.
For those who want to know what an op-ed is pls visit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Op-Ed
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Op-Ed
thanks
I have recieved only one op-ed from yabadaba . Several people had promised. This is a reminder to everyone and anyone new on this forum.
For those who want to know what an op-ed is pls visit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Op-Ed
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Op-Ed
thanks
more...
pbojja
09-11 10:58 PM
when do we all send it? should we wait for oct 2nd?
Also is it a crime to send such letters in bulk to a govt agency?(kinda spamm?)
Lets get it started this week end ..our goal should be getting follwoing answers from CIS and DOS ..
Dear DOS,
On what basis dates are moved to PD 2006 for India and China during Aug and September ? Is there a memorandum which justifies this move ?
Dear USCIS,
1> On what basis you are processing the applications ? Receipt Date,Notice Date or Priority Date ? How can you justify approving 2006 cases
2> How many 485 applications are pending for India and China , year wise ? Why is it so difficult to publish ? why are we in dark and guessing things ?
3>What the customer service is for ? your 1-800 number information is so use less ...Why can not they even inform us about our Priority date or Name Check cleareance ? And the service tickets are next to useless
Dear TSC and NSC ...
1> How come your processing dates are going back wards ? How can you justify that ?
Can some one please post the addresses ? I will send the books including letters this week end .
Dont worry about spam ..we have every right to express our selfs ...we are in free country as they say
Also is it a crime to send such letters in bulk to a govt agency?(kinda spamm?)
Lets get it started this week end ..our goal should be getting follwoing answers from CIS and DOS ..
Dear DOS,
On what basis dates are moved to PD 2006 for India and China during Aug and September ? Is there a memorandum which justifies this move ?
Dear USCIS,
1> On what basis you are processing the applications ? Receipt Date,Notice Date or Priority Date ? How can you justify approving 2006 cases
2> How many 485 applications are pending for India and China , year wise ? Why is it so difficult to publish ? why are we in dark and guessing things ?
3>What the customer service is for ? your 1-800 number information is so use less ...Why can not they even inform us about our Priority date or Name Check cleareance ? And the service tickets are next to useless
Dear TSC and NSC ...
1> How come your processing dates are going back wards ? How can you justify that ?
Can some one please post the addresses ? I will send the books including letters this week end .
Dont worry about spam ..we have every right to express our selfs ...we are in free country as they say
2010 selena gomez hairstyles 2010.
lonedesi
08-06 08:24 AM
Raydon, thanks for expressing your situation. But I still feel we are not requesting TSC to expedite our cases. All we are asking his, please do justice to us and follow the FIFO for the I-140 petitions. TSC has been consistently approving cases filed in recently and just continuing to ignore our cases. If you can explain your attorney, I am sure he will understand. Or atleast have him, fill out form 7001 on your behalf and send his own letter explaining the situation to Ombudsman's office.
I understand that I-140 is employer petition, but it ulitmately belongs to you. So you need to do whatever you can do some how convince your employer or attorney to assist you one time. I-485 is your petition, and you do not need any consent, if you need to send a letter to Ombudsman's office. So please try your best and see if you can mail the form & letter to Ombudsman's office.
lonedesi,
Much as I'd like to participate in this campaign, it's the employer's signature that I can't guarantee. My employer is a big and prestigious (supposedly) company and will not want to sign this petition or do anything against the counsel of the attorney. The attorney is not gaining anything by expedited processing of the I-140 and won't support this either. He's an AILA member too, if that's of any significance.
If this is worthless without the employer's signature, then I'm unable to participate in this campaign, though it is a worthy effort.I would urge all members who can get the employer's consent to definitely participate and wake up the USCIS from it's slumber.They need a big kick up their you-know-where, especially the TSC.
I understand that I-140 is employer petition, but it ulitmately belongs to you. So you need to do whatever you can do some how convince your employer or attorney to assist you one time. I-485 is your petition, and you do not need any consent, if you need to send a letter to Ombudsman's office. So please try your best and see if you can mail the form & letter to Ombudsman's office.
lonedesi,
Much as I'd like to participate in this campaign, it's the employer's signature that I can't guarantee. My employer is a big and prestigious (supposedly) company and will not want to sign this petition or do anything against the counsel of the attorney. The attorney is not gaining anything by expedited processing of the I-140 and won't support this either. He's an AILA member too, if that's of any significance.
If this is worthless without the employer's signature, then I'm unable to participate in this campaign, though it is a worthy effort.I would urge all members who can get the employer's consent to definitely participate and wake up the USCIS from it's slumber.They need a big kick up their you-know-where, especially the TSC.
more...
mango_man
06-11 04:53 PM
Anybody wants Indian mangoes?
hair selena gomez hairstyles updos. selena gomez hairstyles updos.
RN_Usa
07-31 11:41 AM
Sens. Schumer and Hutchison have offered the Bridge amendment. It has a chance to pass, although the battle may be tough.
The amendment is "on the floor" and could be acted on this afternoon.
S.AMDT.2448 Amends: H.R.2638 , S.AMDT.2383 Sponsor: Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] (submitted 7/25/2007) (proposed 7/25/2007)
UPDATE: The amendment has been withdrawn but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is permanently withdrawn. The issue seems to be whether or not the leaders will allow any amendments that touch immigration be offered on this bill.
Pray for this bill to PASS.
this is from http://hammondlawgroup.blogspot.com/
The amendment is "on the floor" and could be acted on this afternoon.
S.AMDT.2448 Amends: H.R.2638 , S.AMDT.2383 Sponsor: Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] (submitted 7/25/2007) (proposed 7/25/2007)
UPDATE: The amendment has been withdrawn but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is permanently withdrawn. The issue seems to be whether or not the leaders will allow any amendments that touch immigration be offered on this bill.
Pray for this bill to PASS.
this is from http://hammondlawgroup.blogspot.com/
more...
newbee7
07-05 11:48 PM
Guys...digg this one religously..
For the first time one article connects our needs to what Americans are interested in; Homeland security.
For the first time one article connects our needs to what Americans are interested in; Homeland security.
hot selena gomez short hairstyles
apt29
06-11 01:06 PM
If you do not mind, have you donated to IV?
It is not a big deal dude...if not for this immigration system, we could be making even more..think about $80-$100/hr if you are an independent contractor. This a minimum for a decent contract with vendor directly.
And if you have ~100-200K for investments, with some experience and any luck..you could be making another 100K out of it from trading and active investing in other areas. That comes to ~250-300K minimum. There are no bounds when life is free and in this great country. Unfortunately, things have turned discriminative and our potentials are being restricted(atleast for non-EAD guys) and you have to be prepared for getting outright kicked out of this country.
It is not a big deal dude...if not for this immigration system, we could be making even more..think about $80-$100/hr if you are an independent contractor. This a minimum for a decent contract with vendor directly.
And if you have ~100-200K for investments, with some experience and any luck..you could be making another 100K out of it from trading and active investing in other areas. That comes to ~250-300K minimum. There are no bounds when life is free and in this great country. Unfortunately, things have turned discriminative and our potentials are being restricted(atleast for non-EAD guys) and you have to be prepared for getting outright kicked out of this country.
more...
house tattoo selena gomez short
for_gc
08-13 05:18 PM
Good interpreation there bro', too good to be true.
Doesn't help us any. The spillover numbers will go to the country which is most retrogressed. So, if Mexico EB3 goes back to April 2001 and stays there and there are any spillover numbers they will first go to Mexico.
Doesn't help us any. The spillover numbers will go to the country which is most retrogressed. So, if Mexico EB3 goes back to April 2001 and stays there and there are any spillover numbers they will first go to Mexico.
tattoo Selena Gomez Hair Styles
ind_game
05-15 09:50 PM
Hi! I have some questions:
1. Do you have a lawyer when you filed the first MTR or did you do it by yourself?
2. Did you submit a copy of the I-140 approval and the AC21 memo during MTR?
Thanks.
1. Yes, I have been having an attorney all the way thru the two MTRs
2. Yes, I-140 approval copy was present in my first MTR. My first MTR did not have AC 21 memo. AC21 memo (2003 Yates Memo) was present in my second MTR when we filed it. Of course, I-140 approval copy was there in the second MTR.
1. Do you have a lawyer when you filed the first MTR or did you do it by yourself?
2. Did you submit a copy of the I-140 approval and the AC21 memo during MTR?
Thanks.
1. Yes, I have been having an attorney all the way thru the two MTRs
2. Yes, I-140 approval copy was present in my first MTR. My first MTR did not have AC 21 memo. AC21 memo (2003 Yates Memo) was present in my second MTR when we filed it. Of course, I-140 approval copy was there in the second MTR.
more...
pictures Gomez Medium Haircuts 2010
kaisersose
06-10 12:04 PM
One word answer:
Y2K
So AC21 and visa recapture happened without anyone trying for it.
They increased quota of H1B, did AC21 because it was a market demand.
Now the economy is down, there are elections, jobless rate is high............ so think why will they increase h1B quota or greencard quota? What is the incentive for government?
I have always held that asking for quota increase is a bad idea and will not happen.
Visa recapture is the best bet and even that appears to be a hassle as there are many factions opposing it.
Y2K
So AC21 and visa recapture happened without anyone trying for it.
They increased quota of H1B, did AC21 because it was a market demand.
Now the economy is down, there are elections, jobless rate is high............ so think why will they increase h1B quota or greencard quota? What is the incentive for government?
I have always held that asking for quota increase is a bad idea and will not happen.
Visa recapture is the best bet and even that appears to be a hassle as there are many factions opposing it.
dresses hair Selena Gomez Hairstyles 2009-2010 selena gomez hairstyles 2010. selena
neverbefore
09-13 05:57 PM
I want everybody to get their GCs. but now interfiling/porting is hurting out position in the queue.
If you are not aware, a good bunch of EB3s are now trying to interfile & port their PDs which are between 2001 - 2005 to EB2.
This will potentially put tens of thousands of people in the EB2 queue before most people in EB2 who are waiting.
These people were not eligible for EB2 when they filed their own labor.. so they should NOT BE ALLOWED TO PORT THEIR OLD PDs. Sure EB3 can Interfile .. but you will get a new PD ... the date you interfile.
If we just keep looking... there will be a huge retrogression in EB2. And its not like these EB3 people will get through with the interfiling/porting. Most of them will be issued RFEs. Their labor apps will be audited and their primary EB3 apps will be cancelled. Infact, 85% of interfiling will never successfully make it through. And its not like it will help the EB3 brothers. That queue will still be long... because they are not going to withdraw their EB3 apps.
Also, while they will not succeed in interfiling/porting, they still will have their apps with USCIS and USCIS will sit on them before eventually issuing NOID. Sad part is they will count these when giving numbers to DOS for setting visa bulletins.
This PD porting is the last "not so ethical & legal" thing after labor substitution.. that we need to Put a cork on.
If we don't act now... then we can all expect to stay in AOS for the next 5 years. This holds for both EB2 and EB3.
I want everybody to get their GCs. I also am OK with the wait.
But anything that threatens my position in the queue is not acceptable.
Cannot fault your argument mate. Much as I am for unity, I see your point. There have been several mentions of 2006 and later PDs being processed before some of their predecessors. This situation is not too different from that. I also agree with what you said about the illegals jumping queue.
I just don't see why USCIS cannot have a queue number system wherein the latest token number lets you know where they are at in processing of applications. This weird system of cut-off dates, in my humble opinion, only serves to complicate and confound.
If you are not aware, a good bunch of EB3s are now trying to interfile & port their PDs which are between 2001 - 2005 to EB2.
This will potentially put tens of thousands of people in the EB2 queue before most people in EB2 who are waiting.
These people were not eligible for EB2 when they filed their own labor.. so they should NOT BE ALLOWED TO PORT THEIR OLD PDs. Sure EB3 can Interfile .. but you will get a new PD ... the date you interfile.
If we just keep looking... there will be a huge retrogression in EB2. And its not like these EB3 people will get through with the interfiling/porting. Most of them will be issued RFEs. Their labor apps will be audited and their primary EB3 apps will be cancelled. Infact, 85% of interfiling will never successfully make it through. And its not like it will help the EB3 brothers. That queue will still be long... because they are not going to withdraw their EB3 apps.
Also, while they will not succeed in interfiling/porting, they still will have their apps with USCIS and USCIS will sit on them before eventually issuing NOID. Sad part is they will count these when giving numbers to DOS for setting visa bulletins.
This PD porting is the last "not so ethical & legal" thing after labor substitution.. that we need to Put a cork on.
If we don't act now... then we can all expect to stay in AOS for the next 5 years. This holds for both EB2 and EB3.
I want everybody to get their GCs. I also am OK with the wait.
But anything that threatens my position in the queue is not acceptable.
Cannot fault your argument mate. Much as I am for unity, I see your point. There have been several mentions of 2006 and later PDs being processed before some of their predecessors. This situation is not too different from that. I also agree with what you said about the illegals jumping queue.
I just don't see why USCIS cannot have a queue number system wherein the latest token number lets you know where they are at in processing of applications. This weird system of cut-off dates, in my humble opinion, only serves to complicate and confound.
more...
makeup selena gomez short hairstyles
desi3933
08-04 04:07 PM
What is wrong with bonded to 1 job type ? You file AC21 but job type should be similar. You cannot become a company's Vice president if your labor was for Programmer, why are you picking on things ?
If one is lucky enough to get a job of company vice-president then I am sure, in that case, company can do another I-140 and get PD ported.
BTW, I am yet to see any such cases where someone is offered job offer for vice president whereas he/she is working as Programmer.
The guy sitting next to my cubicle is here more than 7 years, he's waiting for his 140, he's stuck with my employer while he wants to move since he has a 3 years degree than a masters, He was considered a EB-3 I. Don't you think he wants to know how many decades it will take for his dates to get current ?
If it doesn't apply on you doesn't mean these are not facts...
I wish that he (guy in next cubicle) gets I-140 approved soon.
>> He was considered a EB-3 I. Don't you think he wants to know how many decades it will take for his dates to get current?
If his qualifications does not match with EB-2 job qualification, there is nothing much can be done in that case.
I am sure that many people would like to know when their PD is going to be current, but this can not be answered by anyone. Visa Bulletin dates depends on various input factors and they keep changing every month.
The PD uncertainty is, obviously, a part of GC process and kinda unknown factor.
If one is lucky enough to get a job of company vice-president then I am sure, in that case, company can do another I-140 and get PD ported.
BTW, I am yet to see any such cases where someone is offered job offer for vice president whereas he/she is working as Programmer.
The guy sitting next to my cubicle is here more than 7 years, he's waiting for his 140, he's stuck with my employer while he wants to move since he has a 3 years degree than a masters, He was considered a EB-3 I. Don't you think he wants to know how many decades it will take for his dates to get current ?
If it doesn't apply on you doesn't mean these are not facts...
I wish that he (guy in next cubicle) gets I-140 approved soon.
>> He was considered a EB-3 I. Don't you think he wants to know how many decades it will take for his dates to get current?
If his qualifications does not match with EB-2 job qualification, there is nothing much can be done in that case.
I am sure that many people would like to know when their PD is going to be current, but this can not be answered by anyone. Visa Bulletin dates depends on various input factors and they keep changing every month.
The PD uncertainty is, obviously, a part of GC process and kinda unknown factor.
girlfriend selena gomez hairstyles 2010.
sc3
09-14 11:17 AM
I want everybody to get their GCs. but now interfiling/porting is hurting out position in the queue.
No you dont. You just want your own GC. If possible, hand delivered by the President of USA after he washes your feet.
If you are not aware, a good bunch of EB3s are now trying to interfile & port their PDs which are between 2001 - 2005 to EB2.
This will potentially put tens of thousands of people in the EB2 queue before most people in EB2 who are waiting.
These people were not eligible for EB2 when they filed their own labor.. so they should NOT BE ALLOWED TO PORT THEIR OLD PDs. Sure EB3 can Interfile .. but you will get a new PD ... the date you interfile.
Well sure. Lets just burn the law books, which grants the PD to an applicant after I-140 is approved.
This PD porting is the last "not so ethical & legal" thing after labor substitution.. that we need to Put a cork on.
On you are so wrong. PD porting is legal, and there is nothing unethical about it. The only thing we need to put a cork on is to your brain, which, along with the surrounding matter, currently is in the part which expels bodily waste.
No you dont. You just want your own GC. If possible, hand delivered by the President of USA after he washes your feet.
If you are not aware, a good bunch of EB3s are now trying to interfile & port their PDs which are between 2001 - 2005 to EB2.
This will potentially put tens of thousands of people in the EB2 queue before most people in EB2 who are waiting.
These people were not eligible for EB2 when they filed their own labor.. so they should NOT BE ALLOWED TO PORT THEIR OLD PDs. Sure EB3 can Interfile .. but you will get a new PD ... the date you interfile.
Well sure. Lets just burn the law books, which grants the PD to an applicant after I-140 is approved.
This PD porting is the last "not so ethical & legal" thing after labor substitution.. that we need to Put a cork on.
On you are so wrong. PD porting is legal, and there is nothing unethical about it. The only thing we need to put a cork on is to your brain, which, along with the surrounding matter, currently is in the part which expels bodily waste.
hairstyles selena gomez updo hair. selena
ksrk
09-10 05:57 PM
Considering 7% country quota and 26.7% EB2 quota of 140k, we get 2800 visa for EB2 annually. For first month this number comes out to be 234. Considering 1.2 dependents this means 106 families get GC under EB2.
I am sure they have more than 106 cases before the cutoff of 1 April 2003. This may also include people delayed by background checks.
Hi Sachug22,
I think the calculation is made this way...
Total EB2 numbers = 28.6% of total number = 40040 (for all countries)
Available each quarter = 10010
However, per country allocation can't exceed 7% (of total number allowed per quarter, not of the 28.6%) - limits to 2450 <-- each for India and China.
Applying 7% of 28.6% of one quarter of 140000 (as you did) is severely restrictive (not that 2450 is a great number per quarter for the first and second quaters of the fiscal year).
Either way, your point might still hold that there are enough folks waiting (with PD prior to April '03) to account for these in October '08.
[In the hope that some analysis like this might release the pressure set upon by the latest announcement...]
I am sure they have more than 106 cases before the cutoff of 1 April 2003. This may also include people delayed by background checks.
Hi Sachug22,
I think the calculation is made this way...
Total EB2 numbers = 28.6% of total number = 40040 (for all countries)
Available each quarter = 10010
However, per country allocation can't exceed 7% (of total number allowed per quarter, not of the 28.6%) - limits to 2450 <-- each for India and China.
Applying 7% of 28.6% of one quarter of 140000 (as you did) is severely restrictive (not that 2450 is a great number per quarter for the first and second quaters of the fiscal year).
Either way, your point might still hold that there are enough folks waiting (with PD prior to April '03) to account for these in October '08.
[In the hope that some analysis like this might release the pressure set upon by the latest announcement...]
lahiribaba
07-06 01:51 AM
Instead of hiring a full time lobbyist why dont we hire a full time manager who will contact IV members and drive funding drives , organize campaigns , send and spam USCIS with emails flowers and faxes and keep it moving. Heck may be we can even offshore and outsource it. Take a look at YourManInIndia (http://www.yourmaninindia.com/) . At 7$ per hour this wont take much. Lets take the help of our brothers and sisters in Inda to get GC .. let them help us while we help them..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But we're never gonna survive, unless...
We get a little crazy
No we're never gonna survive, unless...
We are a little...
Crazy...crazy...crazy...
~~~~~~~ Seal ~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But we're never gonna survive, unless...
We get a little crazy
No we're never gonna survive, unless...
We are a little...
Crazy...crazy...crazy...
~~~~~~~ Seal ~~~~~~~~~~
nk2006
10-16 04:29 PM
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: Ombudsman
======================
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
=======================
============================
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
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: Ombudsman
======================
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
=======================
============================
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
No comments:
Post a Comment