gcisadawg
03-09 06:40 PM
I am tired of words "Something is Cooking". All I care now is cooked food - whatever is cooking.
u bet! :D
u bet! :D
wallpaper love nevershoutnever album
Legal_In_A_Limbo
03-20 09:13 AM
Can any one share with me the AC-21 offer letter + Employer verification format?
I am planning to send in my paper work for AC-21 and is doing by myself. I will really appreciate oif some one can guide me with that.
I am planning to send in my paper work for AC-21 and is doing by myself. I will really appreciate oif some one can guide me with that.
ajthakur
07-14 06:54 PM
So whether you receive RFE, NOID depends on adjudicator instead of USCIS rules.
Yes. However, on the flip side, if the 140 withdrawel letter was dated within 180 days of 485 pending, your 485 will be denied no matter what RFE or NOID. Few good adjudicaters may send RFE in stead of NOID/direct denial.
Yes. However, on the flip side, if the 140 withdrawel letter was dated within 180 days of 485 pending, your 485 will be denied no matter what RFE or NOID. Few good adjudicaters may send RFE in stead of NOID/direct denial.
2011 love nevershoutnever album
abhijitp
07-28 02:02 AM
Copying from the reply I posted here:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=133404#post133404
I consulted a high profile ($200 per 15 minutes) lawyer to discuss this issue. 1) He told me that he would re-submit the AOS. The comparison to the medical clearance requirement, according to him, was pointless, as they are two different things. If USCIS issues a statement they will not reject solely based on the EVL, then we can assume that is the truth. Their statement on Medical clearance cannot be interpreted to say they won't reject on the basis of another missing requirement, say the EVL.
2) Filing two AOS packets can indeed also cause confusion, but it is a smaller risk according to him, and should be mitigated by a covering letter that says you are re-submitting to provide the XYZ document that was missed from the first packet.
Based on this info, I have asked my lawyer to get a confirmation from the USCIS on the document that he missed in my case-- the EVL. If USCIS okays that, we do not resubmit. If they don't do that within a week, I will try to re-submit... not going to be easy considering my lawyer may not be in agreement... but that is what would be the correct way out of this, according to the second opinion I got today.
Thanks
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=133404#post133404
I consulted a high profile ($200 per 15 minutes) lawyer to discuss this issue. 1) He told me that he would re-submit the AOS. The comparison to the medical clearance requirement, according to him, was pointless, as they are two different things. If USCIS issues a statement they will not reject solely based on the EVL, then we can assume that is the truth. Their statement on Medical clearance cannot be interpreted to say they won't reject on the basis of another missing requirement, say the EVL.
2) Filing two AOS packets can indeed also cause confusion, but it is a smaller risk according to him, and should be mitigated by a covering letter that says you are re-submitting to provide the XYZ document that was missed from the first packet.
Based on this info, I have asked my lawyer to get a confirmation from the USCIS on the document that he missed in my case-- the EVL. If USCIS okays that, we do not resubmit. If they don't do that within a week, I will try to re-submit... not going to be easy considering my lawyer may not be in agreement... but that is what would be the correct way out of this, according to the second opinion I got today.
Thanks
more...
sat0207
04-27 03:16 PM
from USCIS website check this link http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/public...ecks_42506.pdf
ak27
01-03 11:35 AM
Hello Everyone,
Wish all of you very happy new year. So far, we have only six members on group. If I may have missed anyone, please send me an email ajay1857@gmail.com.
NJ chapter must be largest... Let us make it..
Thank you..
Wish all of you very happy new year. So far, we have only six members on group. If I may have missed anyone, please send me an email ajay1857@gmail.com.
NJ chapter must be largest... Let us make it..
Thank you..
more...
jonty_11
12-13 10:39 AM
It would work even great if IV could post this on the homepage, and send emails to all members to send faxes to USCIS on say Dec 18th, at 12 noon EST.
Or are we on our own for this effort, which would mean the only way people will know about this effort is via this thread....At least we should open a new thread with a specific name so that it becomes obvious waht the purpose of that thread is.
Or are we on our own for this effort, which would mean the only way people will know about this effort is via this thread....At least we should open a new thread with a specific name so that it becomes obvious waht the purpose of that thread is.
2010 love nevershoutnever album
RNGC
02-19 01:42 PM
Read this carefully before you comment here:
"fingerprints for information relating to criminal, national security, or other law enforcement actions that would render the alien ineligible for adjustment of status under this section".
This is just to verify if the guys is in database for any criminal activity. ofcourse they will not give an illegal guy a GC if they have his record in database for criminal activity in US. This is just a formal requirement to keep illegal law brokers out because there are thousands illegals who came here from southern border and have committed crimes. There are some even in the America's Top 10 Wanted list. My uncles(came illegally here) went through all criminal checks by FBI for breaking any law,when Reagan gave amnesty for >5 years. Same criminal checks were done on illegals when Clinton helped legalalization of illegals. Fingerprints, etc are just for other criminal history check not to check if the person crossed the border illegally, ofcouse he did and broke the law: that's the whole point for him being illegal.
In fact >5year rule has been a standard to give immigration to illegals as is clear by Reagan amnesty. If 5 year rule is not for illegals, then what do you think is there in this bill for 11 million illegals. Itn't that logical. Infact main purpose of this bill is to fix illegal immigrants not legals. If you think >5 years rule is just for legals, you need to read history books, read text carefully and be more logical: not blinded by desire to get your own GC if you are here >5years.
Either way: I never said we should oppose the 5 year requirement. I just said that rules for "Legal <5 years" should be easier than rules for "illegal>5" years and please don't propagate false rumors here that this bill is just for legals in a blind desire for your own GC.
So what if illegals are also covered in this! Illegals are kind of people suffering from their employers because they don't have any paperwork! We, are slightly better, we have paper work and still suffer at the hands of our employers, so we know their plight...So, I would say illegals also have to be considered. I DO NOT SUPPORT ILLEGALS. But they are human beings too and are living in the dark.....
My take on ilegals is:
1. Build a huge prison and put all of them in there and feed them rest of their life.
OR
2. Arrest all of them and deport them their home country
IF 1 or 2 is not possible, better give them green card as long as they have not committed any crime and legalize them so no one takes advantage of them...we have had one round of slavery in this country and its consequence is still felt, lets not have another round of slavery with illegals.
"fingerprints for information relating to criminal, national security, or other law enforcement actions that would render the alien ineligible for adjustment of status under this section".
This is just to verify if the guys is in database for any criminal activity. ofcourse they will not give an illegal guy a GC if they have his record in database for criminal activity in US. This is just a formal requirement to keep illegal law brokers out because there are thousands illegals who came here from southern border and have committed crimes. There are some even in the America's Top 10 Wanted list. My uncles(came illegally here) went through all criminal checks by FBI for breaking any law,when Reagan gave amnesty for >5 years. Same criminal checks were done on illegals when Clinton helped legalalization of illegals. Fingerprints, etc are just for other criminal history check not to check if the person crossed the border illegally, ofcouse he did and broke the law: that's the whole point for him being illegal.
In fact >5year rule has been a standard to give immigration to illegals as is clear by Reagan amnesty. If 5 year rule is not for illegals, then what do you think is there in this bill for 11 million illegals. Itn't that logical. Infact main purpose of this bill is to fix illegal immigrants not legals. If you think >5 years rule is just for legals, you need to read history books, read text carefully and be more logical: not blinded by desire to get your own GC if you are here >5years.
Either way: I never said we should oppose the 5 year requirement. I just said that rules for "Legal <5 years" should be easier than rules for "illegal>5" years and please don't propagate false rumors here that this bill is just for legals in a blind desire for your own GC.
So what if illegals are also covered in this! Illegals are kind of people suffering from their employers because they don't have any paperwork! We, are slightly better, we have paper work and still suffer at the hands of our employers, so we know their plight...So, I would say illegals also have to be considered. I DO NOT SUPPORT ILLEGALS. But they are human beings too and are living in the dark.....
My take on ilegals is:
1. Build a huge prison and put all of them in there and feed them rest of their life.
OR
2. Arrest all of them and deport them their home country
IF 1 or 2 is not possible, better give them green card as long as they have not committed any crime and legalize them so no one takes advantage of them...we have had one round of slavery in this country and its consequence is still felt, lets not have another round of slavery with illegals.
more...
h1bmajdoor
07-13 09:47 PM
Well said GCBY3000. Since something is going to happen, she wants to project herself as though she put in some effort. A few months back when I made a phone appointment with her, she was not at all helpfull. All she kept saying was, we can do it for you for so many $$$. It was all about money, money and money. I honestly doubt her intentions.
this whole US immigration system is to screw you and make them happy and rich. The thinking of US is zero-sum. For them to be rich and happy, they have to screw someone. They screwed slaves for hundreds of years. Now your turn.
You know what the sailors used to say to the slaves on the journey from Africa? "Land of the free".
And why did the africans not rebel? Firstly because they sold other africans into slavery. Secondly no africans brought back news of the situation from america to africa.
Both these tricks are used on h1bs from india. Sadly, one of the major accomplices in this are Indian companies.
this whole US immigration system is to screw you and make them happy and rich. The thinking of US is zero-sum. For them to be rich and happy, they have to screw someone. They screwed slaves for hundreds of years. Now your turn.
You know what the sailors used to say to the slaves on the journey from Africa? "Land of the free".
And why did the africans not rebel? Firstly because they sold other africans into slavery. Secondly no africans brought back news of the situation from america to africa.
Both these tricks are used on h1bs from india. Sadly, one of the major accomplices in this are Indian companies.
hair love nevershoutnever album
jonty_11
07-09 06:36 PM
I came across this law about the departmental control of numerical limitations, and I'd appreciate it if you all could post your interpretations of the same.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
text in bold has a GREY area....'plus remaining balance from previous months.'
They can always say the additional approvals were left over from previous months...
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
text in bold has a GREY area....'plus remaining balance from previous months.'
They can always say the additional approvals were left over from previous months...
more...
spulapa
08-10 01:53 PM
lets do something about it....!!
We need a lot of support from different members irrespective what category they are from.
We need a lot of support from different members irrespective what category they are from.
hot Weapon i album what from
rock
06-22 10:54 PM
When you get 485 approval you will not need EAD or AP :D
It's OK to file for EAD and AP yourself, I did it 4 times but you need I-485 receipt notice and I-140 receipt and then approval notice to do that. So if you are wiling to wait till your lawyer get notices (it could be months for those who are filing in July) and your employer and lawyer will provide you a copy of all notices - it's fine to file yourself.
Hi voldemar,
I am also in the similar but not exact situation. Recently I changed the employer. My new employer is going to file I-140 and I-485 using the Labor substitution.I also want to file EAD and AP but the company attorney is saying it is safer to file the EAD and AP once the I-140 is approved. Can any one please answer this is true or not? Should I wait for I-140 to be approved or should I try convince the attorney to file EAD and AP also along with I-140 and I-485. I have one more question which is if We do not file the EAD and AP along with the I-485 and once the priority dates are retrogessed. Can we file EAD and AP even though the priority dates are not current and our I-485 is pending?
I would appreciate the answers and any official links if available.
Thanks
It's OK to file for EAD and AP yourself, I did it 4 times but you need I-485 receipt notice and I-140 receipt and then approval notice to do that. So if you are wiling to wait till your lawyer get notices (it could be months for those who are filing in July) and your employer and lawyer will provide you a copy of all notices - it's fine to file yourself.
Hi voldemar,
I am also in the similar but not exact situation. Recently I changed the employer. My new employer is going to file I-140 and I-485 using the Labor substitution.I also want to file EAD and AP but the company attorney is saying it is safer to file the EAD and AP once the I-140 is approved. Can any one please answer this is true or not? Should I wait for I-140 to be approved or should I try convince the attorney to file EAD and AP also along with I-140 and I-485. I have one more question which is if We do not file the EAD and AP along with the I-485 and once the priority dates are retrogessed. Can we file EAD and AP even though the priority dates are not current and our I-485 is pending?
I would appreciate the answers and any official links if available.
Thanks
more...
house What+is+love+album+cover
alterego
07-04 08:31 PM
Everyone blaming CIS/DOS needs to understand some basics behind this mess. Before going to conclude anything, first, one should read all the ombudsman reports for last 3 or 4 years. Former INS or current USCIS’s functions and operations were not questionable and not known to public till ombudsman office was established. Ombudsman has helped customers and keep helping to improve efficiency of CIS. Ombudsman main concern (or goal) have been over the 4 years are
1. Primarily reducing backlogs in any application type particularly 485 and timely approval of any application.
2. Abolish the need for interim benefits like EAD, AP etc. If they approve 485 in 6 months, then most of us do not require EAD and AP.
3. Reduce the wastage of EB visas, as unused EB visas can not be carried over to next year (use it or lose it). Since 1992, about 200,000 EB visas were lost permanently. In 2003 alone, they issued only 64,000 EB visas and lost 88,000.
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Now lets come to July Visa bulletin mess.
Because of tight holding of visa cutoff dates for EB3 and EB2 for the first 8 months of 2007 (From Oct 2006 to May 2007) USCIS approved only 66,000 485s. For the next 4 months they have about 60K to 70K numbers available. If they approve the pending 485s with slower speed or old cut off dates, there is a potential estimated loss of 40,000 EB visas by Sep 2007. Thats why, based on ombudsman recommendation, DOS moved considerably the cut off date for June. When they took inventory in May, there are about 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications were pending due to non-availability of visa numbers. The “documentarily qualified 485 applications” mean the application filed long time back and processed by USCIS and cleared the FBI name and criminal check, and found eligible for green card. Apart from 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications, there is thousands of 485 applications (documentarily not yet qualified) pending due to name check. When DOS checked with USCIS they found only 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications (in all EB categories put together) are pending. However, the available visas are more than 40,000 (60to 70K). Then they made with out consulting properly with USCIS they made “current” for all EB categories. This is how they determine “current” or “over-subscribed” and how they establish cutoff dates.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered “Current.”
Whenever the total of documentarily qualified applicants in a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for the particular month, the category is considered to be “oversubscribed” and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories “current” for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories “current” ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of “current” there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making “current” for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as “current” in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
Excellent analysis and reccomendations. I feel that a visa number should be assigned at the point of 485 filing. If there is a problem it can be returned to the pool. That will be the least disruptive way to allot numbers in a timely fashion. In the end, that is likely to be the change that will come out of this.
This way, it will offer prospective applicants a more clear viewpoint of what they are up against when they consider their immigration options. i.e if you know you will have to wait 10 yrs to file an AOS even if you have an approved immigrant petition ala the family based immigrants, your plans would be different. You might not feel the wait worthwhile or even if you do, you do it fully aware of the consequences, 10 yrs exploitative employer on h1b etc.
If you notice, the level of hubris and cry is less in family based immigration even though the waits are longer. Atleast they know before they apply!
Your last point about a visa recapture is on the money. It is the least disruptive and easiest of the possible changes for current EB applicants in the current hostile atmosphere. It comes across as a rectification of USCIS inefficiency rather than a request for more immigration, which the public has clearly rejected at this time. If we can get 100-150K visas recaptured, this will greatly help EVERYONE in the EB queue for various reasons. It will buy us the 1-2 yrs needed before immigration is seriously addressed again. It will help those waiting to file 485 to file, those in 485 to have a hope to get out etc. It will help heavily retrogressed countries to keep getting more visas than the annual caps etc. I think that is something everyone can agree on as well.
1. Primarily reducing backlogs in any application type particularly 485 and timely approval of any application.
2. Abolish the need for interim benefits like EAD, AP etc. If they approve 485 in 6 months, then most of us do not require EAD and AP.
3. Reduce the wastage of EB visas, as unused EB visas can not be carried over to next year (use it or lose it). Since 1992, about 200,000 EB visas were lost permanently. In 2003 alone, they issued only 64,000 EB visas and lost 88,000.
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Now lets come to July Visa bulletin mess.
Because of tight holding of visa cutoff dates for EB3 and EB2 for the first 8 months of 2007 (From Oct 2006 to May 2007) USCIS approved only 66,000 485s. For the next 4 months they have about 60K to 70K numbers available. If they approve the pending 485s with slower speed or old cut off dates, there is a potential estimated loss of 40,000 EB visas by Sep 2007. Thats why, based on ombudsman recommendation, DOS moved considerably the cut off date for June. When they took inventory in May, there are about 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications were pending due to non-availability of visa numbers. The “documentarily qualified 485 applications” mean the application filed long time back and processed by USCIS and cleared the FBI name and criminal check, and found eligible for green card. Apart from 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications, there is thousands of 485 applications (documentarily not yet qualified) pending due to name check. When DOS checked with USCIS they found only 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications (in all EB categories put together) are pending. However, the available visas are more than 40,000 (60to 70K). Then they made with out consulting properly with USCIS they made “current” for all EB categories. This is how they determine “current” or “over-subscribed” and how they establish cutoff dates.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered “Current.”
Whenever the total of documentarily qualified applicants in a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for the particular month, the category is considered to be “oversubscribed” and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories “current” for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories “current” ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of “current” there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making “current” for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as “current” in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
Excellent analysis and reccomendations. I feel that a visa number should be assigned at the point of 485 filing. If there is a problem it can be returned to the pool. That will be the least disruptive way to allot numbers in a timely fashion. In the end, that is likely to be the change that will come out of this.
This way, it will offer prospective applicants a more clear viewpoint of what they are up against when they consider their immigration options. i.e if you know you will have to wait 10 yrs to file an AOS even if you have an approved immigrant petition ala the family based immigrants, your plans would be different. You might not feel the wait worthwhile or even if you do, you do it fully aware of the consequences, 10 yrs exploitative employer on h1b etc.
If you notice, the level of hubris and cry is less in family based immigration even though the waits are longer. Atleast they know before they apply!
Your last point about a visa recapture is on the money. It is the least disruptive and easiest of the possible changes for current EB applicants in the current hostile atmosphere. It comes across as a rectification of USCIS inefficiency rather than a request for more immigration, which the public has clearly rejected at this time. If we can get 100-150K visas recaptured, this will greatly help EVERYONE in the EB queue for various reasons. It will buy us the 1-2 yrs needed before immigration is seriously addressed again. It will help those waiting to file 485 to file, those in 485 to have a hope to get out etc. It will help heavily retrogressed countries to keep getting more visas than the annual caps etc. I think that is something everyone can agree on as well.
tattoo NEVER SHOUT NEVER ALBUM COVER
Libra
09-10 12:09 PM
no, not those people, but my guess many people who are working for desi companies like me defenitely feel this way.
SO LET'S GO TO DC.
Are you saying that whoever is happy in their job without a GC is in a closet or jail?
SO LET'S GO TO DC.
Are you saying that whoever is happy in their job without a GC is in a closet or jail?
more...
pictures What+is+love+album+cover+
yabadaba
07-13 05:13 AM
yep ..thats what shes done/trying to do..claim credit for her "hard hitting" letter.
dresses love nevershoutnever album
amitjoey
03-23 10:27 AM
There are people from northern california going to DC. Please join IV's NOR CAL group and you will get in touch with all of them
more...
makeup love nevershoutnever album
sanju_dba
09-09 01:20 PM
did any one did math...
EB1 - all current
|
|
\/
EB2 - World current
|
|
\/
EB2 - India / China
|
| ( When above EB2 India/China gets current 2-3years? )
\/
EB3 All
|
|
\/
EB3 I/C ( When EB1 , EB2 is Current , all visa numbers will flood to EB3 right ? so may be in 4-5 years EB3 may get current ? )
EB1 - all current
|
|
\/
EB2 - World current
|
|
\/
EB2 - India / China
|
| ( When above EB2 India/China gets current 2-3years? )
\/
EB3 All
|
|
\/
EB3 I/C ( When EB1 , EB2 is Current , all visa numbers will flood to EB3 right ? so may be in 4-5 years EB3 may get current ? )
girlfriend new album, What Is Love,
imh1b
11-12 04:03 PM
Did you see that whoever is crying for spillover is EB2 India. or EB3 ROW. He has his priority date pretty close to cutoff dates in bulletin. So they think by doing spillover their greencard will come few months earlier. This is a selfish thinking. IV should not help such people. They do not care about us. They only care about getting their own greencard. I will oppose this campaign and send letters against this campiagn to whoever you are sending. This campiagn does no help to EB3 India. I am sure many EB2 ROW will oppose you and send letters against your letters. You are trying to delay EB2 ROW greencards by taking from their quota. Even Chinese will oppose you because there are too many Indians blocking the system for everyone.
IV should spend money for EB3 India rather then EB2 India who are already in advantage.
IV should spend money for EB3 India rather then EB2 India who are already in advantage.
hairstyles love nevershoutnever album
walking_dude
11-03 11:16 AM
We need more IV members to send FOIA request. Just 100-200 is insufficient. We need at least 1000 FOIA requests in queue to make our case.
If you haven't, send ASAP. If you have get your friends, relatives, coworkers, neighbors etc to send the requests as well. Anyone can send it, it's not limited to 485 applicants.
If you haven't, send ASAP. If you have get your friends, relatives, coworkers, neighbors etc to send the requests as well. Anyone can send it, it's not limited to 485 applicants.
feedfront
10-27 12:25 PM
Just few more days..
vin13
03-09 01:45 PM
I cannot express my anguish.
I can understand the anguish. When you are really close and the bulletin does not move.
I can understand the anguish. When you are really close and the bulletin does not move.
