Mouns
04-30 04:47 PM
"To maximize visa number usage while working off its backlog, USCIS has adopted a production strategy that focuses on completing cases where visas are immediately available and on working cases to the point just short of approval (pre-adjudication) where visas will be available in the coming months. Pre-adjudication includes completing all required background checks and resolving all eligibility issues except for visa availability. This allows for immediate approval and visa number allocation as visas become available for pre-adjudicated cases."
does it mean that if your EB3 (I) , your I485- file is not going to be looked at for the next several years?
Yes I believe that's what it means... If you date is not current or not about to become current in the next months, then your case would be unlikely to be adjucated...
does it mean that if your EB3 (I) , your I485- file is not going to be looked at for the next several years?
Yes I believe that's what it means... If you date is not current or not about to become current in the next months, then your case would be unlikely to be adjucated...
wallpaper Math Blaster: Rated quot;Mquot; For
nk2006
10-24 03:05 PM
Seems like there are more such cases - there is a news item on this topic yesterday on www.immigration-law.com with the title "10/23/2008: Increasing Customer Reports of Denial of AC-21 Ported I-485 Applications Without NOID by USCIS Upon Petitioner's Withdrawal of Approved I-140 Petitions"
Seems like they too dont know whether its related to untrained USCIS staff's mistake or some other issue.
Seems like they too dont know whether its related to untrained USCIS staff's mistake or some other issue.
punjabi
08-02 06:22 PM
I am sorry for posting in here, but I was wondering if someone actually went in person to the Houston Consulate to get their passport renewed. Also, do we need to have any reason to attend in person at the Consulate such as emergency, etc.
....
It is better to appear in person because of the two reasons:
1. Avoid any chances of losing/delaying the mail.
2. If any extra document is needed, you will come to know right away and you can ask your questions/doubts at the same time.
I went in person to the SFO Office and got my passport next day.
Punjabi
....
It is better to appear in person because of the two reasons:
1. Avoid any chances of losing/delaying the mail.
2. If any extra document is needed, you will come to know right away and you can ask your questions/doubts at the same time.
I went in person to the SFO Office and got my passport next day.
Punjabi
2011 Math Blaster: Rated quot;Mquot; For
akhilmahajan
07-16 11:01 AM
Total So far 1970.00. We are Well short of our target of 2000.00. Let's Go Guys. $5 to IV = Hope for GC.
COME ON FOLKS HELP IV HELP YOURSELF.
COME ON FOLKS HELP IV HELP YOURSELF.
more...
rkotamurthy
02-02 06:33 PM
Pappu,
I can organize weekly Conf. call, but I would need some initial input from IV Core Team about its activities. I also need to understand what were SoCal chapter targets and if any progress has been made. Maybe 485Mb4001 or Amit can guide on this?
I can organize weekly Conf. call, but I would need some initial input from IV Core Team about its activities. I also need to understand what were SoCal chapter targets and if any progress has been made. Maybe 485Mb4001 or Amit can guide on this?
plassey
08-10 04:06 PM
A freind of mine called. He did NOT hear such thing from NSC. He even refefrenced this discussion
I have talked to a representative and he very patiently explained me about the mess.
He clearly and very clearly told me that they have a deadline to send all receipts for June end and July 2nd filers by friday (tomorrow) or worst case monday.
He mentioned that they are working hard to meet this deadline.
Hope this clears the anxiety.
This is true for NSC only.
I have talked to a representative and he very patiently explained me about the mess.
He clearly and very clearly told me that they have a deadline to send all receipts for June end and July 2nd filers by friday (tomorrow) or worst case monday.
He mentioned that they are working hard to meet this deadline.
Hope this clears the anxiety.
This is true for NSC only.
more...
reddymjm
09-22 09:06 PM
can do both....
2010 Cool Math for Kids
mbartosik
06-23 10:43 AM
I've already entered details into http://www.trackins.com
Data was:
PD 12/19/2002
Approved EB3 RIR 6/14/2006
received copy today
Originally NY DOL
Philly BEC
That was 1272 days
Here is a little good news for most....
I had estimated that I would get my approval around beginning Sept, but I got it about 6 weeks earlier. I had been tracking estimating etc., also I had asked a paralegal about whether her customers were being processed in order or if people were disappearing into black holes (as a few appear to a trackins.com). None of her customers were in black holes.
Currently it does appear that Nov and Dec 2002 are being processed at Philly BEC, and in general it does seem to be advancing in date order, with a few approvals now being a few months behind (oldest approval recieved in Dec 2006 was Aug 2002) so the spread was Aug 2002 to Dec 2002 being processed in June 2006. This is based on info at trackins.com and my paralegal's customers.
Also from trackins.com it appears that most 45 day letters have been issued.
They made a public commitment (and in court) to have data entry done by end of June 2006 (i.e. next week). So anyone who has not received a 45 day letter by the end of July should be banging on their door. They appear to be close to all data entry done, so that estimate looks to have been credible. Thus their estimate of all applications processed for Sept 2007 gains some credibility.
Also I based my estimate of when I'd get my LC partly on their estimates of when they'd finish LC processing.
Data was:
PD 12/19/2002
Approved EB3 RIR 6/14/2006
received copy today
Originally NY DOL
Philly BEC
That was 1272 days
Here is a little good news for most....
I had estimated that I would get my approval around beginning Sept, but I got it about 6 weeks earlier. I had been tracking estimating etc., also I had asked a paralegal about whether her customers were being processed in order or if people were disappearing into black holes (as a few appear to a trackins.com). None of her customers were in black holes.
Currently it does appear that Nov and Dec 2002 are being processed at Philly BEC, and in general it does seem to be advancing in date order, with a few approvals now being a few months behind (oldest approval recieved in Dec 2006 was Aug 2002) so the spread was Aug 2002 to Dec 2002 being processed in June 2006. This is based on info at trackins.com and my paralegal's customers.
Also from trackins.com it appears that most 45 day letters have been issued.
They made a public commitment (and in court) to have data entry done by end of June 2006 (i.e. next week). So anyone who has not received a 45 day letter by the end of July should be banging on their door. They appear to be close to all data entry done, so that estimate looks to have been credible. Thus their estimate of all applications processed for Sept 2007 gains some credibility.
Also I based my estimate of when I'd get my LC partly on their estimates of when they'd finish LC processing.
more...
desixp
09-10 11:36 AM
Just now contributed $100.
Google Order #616922884201935
Google Order #616922884201935
hair time-for-math-2-1023x705.
singhsa3
09-11 05:10 PM
See http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=15443
more...
bidhanc
03-11 10:51 AM
I guess it's not a VERY GOOD IDEA THEN.
In all the docs that I went thru I could not see a difference between
"I-140 approved/I-485 pending and porting" and "I-140/I-485 pending and porting" (most docs refer to the latter).
I am guessing when it comes to "porting", both are the same in the eyes of USCIS??
(What I mean to ask is there any leniency with an approved I-140 and then trying to port?)
Anyone see otherwise?
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/AC21Intrm122705.pdf
as per this document, you can port to yourself. (Question #8)
But below are the reasons why I am backing off of opening an LLC on spouse name and porting to that.
http://murthyforum.atinfopop.com/4/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1024039761&f=4654000912&m=8231099851
also google 'UntanglingSkein_BIB_15jan07.pdf"
http://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/UntanglingSkein_BIB_15jan07.pdf
"This suggests, fairly clearly, that any communication to the USCIS per the Cronin Memo that the adjustment applicant intends to become self-employed is likely to trigger an RFE to inquire into the legitimacy of this arrangement. Legitimacy in this context is likely to be gauged by the concrete steps the beneficiary has taken in furtherance of the self-employment arrangement, understanding that only full-time and permanent employment will suffice for immigration purposes. Such steps would include the completion of legal and corporate formalities, the securing of financing, the purchase or lease of business premises and equipment,the development of a detailed business plan, the hiring of employees, and any other measures typically taken in the establishment of a business. Vague aspirational statements, however ambitious, about future plans to develop a business are unlikely, in the absence of tangible proof, to be accepted as probative of the requisite legitimacy of the self-employer and job offer."
Also, one relevant footnote in the document -
"At the AILA National Conference in 2003, a USCIS officer indicated that an attempt to invoke �106(c) in a selfemployment context is likely to raise �a big red flag� for an adjudicator, and that self-employment may be viewed as �an easy alternative� for aliens who are unable to find employment to sustain their adjustment-of-status applications. Schorr & Yale-Loehr, supra note 2, at 499. It should also be noted that the Memos view the possibility of an adjustment applicant becoming a public charge (and thus being inadmissible under INA �212(a)(4)) as being �a relevant inquiry� and that an RFE requesting information about a self-employment arrangement is likely to probe whether or not the applicant has sufficient financial resources to avoid becoming such a public charge."
In all the docs that I went thru I could not see a difference between
"I-140 approved/I-485 pending and porting" and "I-140/I-485 pending and porting" (most docs refer to the latter).
I am guessing when it comes to "porting", both are the same in the eyes of USCIS??
(What I mean to ask is there any leniency with an approved I-140 and then trying to port?)
Anyone see otherwise?
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/AC21Intrm122705.pdf
as per this document, you can port to yourself. (Question #8)
But below are the reasons why I am backing off of opening an LLC on spouse name and porting to that.
http://murthyforum.atinfopop.com/4/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1024039761&f=4654000912&m=8231099851
also google 'UntanglingSkein_BIB_15jan07.pdf"
http://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/UntanglingSkein_BIB_15jan07.pdf
"This suggests, fairly clearly, that any communication to the USCIS per the Cronin Memo that the adjustment applicant intends to become self-employed is likely to trigger an RFE to inquire into the legitimacy of this arrangement. Legitimacy in this context is likely to be gauged by the concrete steps the beneficiary has taken in furtherance of the self-employment arrangement, understanding that only full-time and permanent employment will suffice for immigration purposes. Such steps would include the completion of legal and corporate formalities, the securing of financing, the purchase or lease of business premises and equipment,the development of a detailed business plan, the hiring of employees, and any other measures typically taken in the establishment of a business. Vague aspirational statements, however ambitious, about future plans to develop a business are unlikely, in the absence of tangible proof, to be accepted as probative of the requisite legitimacy of the self-employer and job offer."
Also, one relevant footnote in the document -
"At the AILA National Conference in 2003, a USCIS officer indicated that an attempt to invoke �106(c) in a selfemployment context is likely to raise �a big red flag� for an adjudicator, and that self-employment may be viewed as �an easy alternative� for aliens who are unable to find employment to sustain their adjustment-of-status applications. Schorr & Yale-Loehr, supra note 2, at 499. It should also be noted that the Memos view the possibility of an adjustment applicant becoming a public charge (and thus being inadmissible under INA �212(a)(4)) as being �a relevant inquiry� and that an RFE requesting information about a self-employment arrangement is likely to probe whether or not the applicant has sufficient financial resources to avoid becoming such a public charge."
hot Good Board Games for Math
ragz4u
03-09 08:34 AM
They are debating whether the current 2000 border troops should be increased to 2400
more...
house Comparison of Results for Math
gccube
07-19 03:29 PM
You forgot that there were another 150,000 applications in this example with RD prior to PersonB and it is very likely that many of them could have the PD of April, 2003. Therefore, PersonB will still not get it even though he/she has an older Priority date!!
I think that after this stampede of application filings in June/July/August, USCIS needs to sort them by PD first otherwise people with older priority dates will suffer simply due to the volume of applications filed!!
If a person with PD 2003 May applies for AOS only in Oct 2007. If the above said statement is true then when are they going to work on this new application they got. If they are not going to work on it until the RD becomes current why are they even accepting the case.
I think that after this stampede of application filings in June/July/August, USCIS needs to sort them by PD first otherwise people with older priority dates will suffer simply due to the volume of applications filed!!
If a person with PD 2003 May applies for AOS only in Oct 2007. If the above said statement is true then when are they going to work on this new application they got. If they are not going to work on it until the RD becomes current why are they even accepting the case.
tattoo Integrated Center for Math and
cse_us
03-04 02:37 PM
Thanks.
Any one else with recent RFEs/LUDs on their I-485 ? Pl post.
Mine is a NSC-CSC-NSC 485, july 2nd filer, with Apr 2007 EB2 Priority.
I got Hard and soft LUDs on 2/5/09 and 2/10/09 resp.
Hard LUD says, my case is now pending. (before it was 'this case has been transfered ...).
No idea wht the soft LUD means, might be no RFE.
BTW, I used EAD and also filed AC21 thru my lawyer.
Regards.
Any one else with recent RFEs/LUDs on their I-485 ? Pl post.
Mine is a NSC-CSC-NSC 485, july 2nd filer, with Apr 2007 EB2 Priority.
I got Hard and soft LUDs on 2/5/09 and 2/10/09 resp.
Hard LUD says, my case is now pending. (before it was 'this case has been transfered ...).
No idea wht the soft LUD means, might be no RFE.
BTW, I used EAD and also filed AC21 thru my lawyer.
Regards.
more...
pictures Solutions for Math Bowl 2004
globaldesi
04-18 10:54 AM
Just got my 140 approved...no confirmation from the employer yet but received email from CRIS saying they mailed the approval on April 15. Looks like the published processing times are being adhered to.
dresses for math exit level
Devils_Advocate
07-06 03:58 PM
Actually i think you guys have misconstrued Teli's comment, he didn't make that quote himself, he just quoted what one of the ugliest Anti Indian said to us on his blog today
Life of an I.T. Grunt (http://itgrunt.com/)
BTW TunnelRats blog was pulled off from the servers for his shit langauge against Indians;)
He is now using an offshored server!
Life of an I.T. Grunt (http://itgrunt.com/)
BTW TunnelRats blog was pulled off from the servers for his shit langauge against Indians;)
He is now using an offshored server!
more...
makeup Essential Strategies for Math
qualified_trash
04-11 02:36 PM
In the larger scheme of things, we 350k do not matter and do not have the political clout of the 11 million illegals.
:D
So I do not think anything can happen by involving the media etc. in our cause. Getting a lobbying firm and lawyers to help is a much better way and will in the long run be more effective IMO. To this effect, I intend to contribute to Immigration Voice effort to hire a lobbying firm.
Dear "colleagues in faith" :-), there is only one way to change the things with this immigration trap - we have to win the public opinion!
Currently 350,000 highly qualified professionals working for this country are in a legal limbo which continues for years. Our current legal status is that of slaves. Yes, slaves! Nowadays it takes anywhere between 5 - 10 years from applying to receiving of a GC. We cannot change our employers within this period, the members of our families cannot work (at least legally) and our spouses lose their professional carrier; if our kids get in college they are treated as "aliens" (full tuition, no student loans, no scholarship); the loans we get are with higher interest rate (for "protection"); at the borders we are treated as "intruders" etc.
The average Americans are honest hardworking people. If they are aware of the immigration problems faced by 350,000 hardworking professionals in this country, they will raise their voice and will help for resolving of this issue. They just need to know that. I believe that in addition to talking to senators etc., we have to find ways our issues to reach the media - newspapers, magazines and so on. An article in Times may lead to a lot of positive changes in the immigration system.
:D
So I do not think anything can happen by involving the media etc. in our cause. Getting a lobbying firm and lawyers to help is a much better way and will in the long run be more effective IMO. To this effect, I intend to contribute to Immigration Voice effort to hire a lobbying firm.
Dear "colleagues in faith" :-), there is only one way to change the things with this immigration trap - we have to win the public opinion!
Currently 350,000 highly qualified professionals working for this country are in a legal limbo which continues for years. Our current legal status is that of slaves. Yes, slaves! Nowadays it takes anywhere between 5 - 10 years from applying to receiving of a GC. We cannot change our employers within this period, the members of our families cannot work (at least legally) and our spouses lose their professional carrier; if our kids get in college they are treated as "aliens" (full tuition, no student loans, no scholarship); the loans we get are with higher interest rate (for "protection"); at the borders we are treated as "intruders" etc.
The average Americans are honest hardworking people. If they are aware of the immigration problems faced by 350,000 hardworking professionals in this country, they will raise their voice and will help for resolving of this issue. They just need to know that. I believe that in addition to talking to senators etc., we have to find ways our issues to reach the media - newspapers, magazines and so on. An article in Times may lead to a lot of positive changes in the immigration system.
girlfriend Math puzzle quilt for math
chisinau
11-18 08:27 AM
Hi!
I have the opportunity to receive Canadian Permanent Residence. But for the US my PD is Sept.2006 in EB3, schedule "A"(which does not exists anymore :-). The question is: Will I be able to pass the interwiev succesfully and receive the GC, when my PD is current? Or it is impossible after receiving Canadian PR? I mean is it possible to have both Canadian PR and US GC at the same time? If now, please suggest how should I act in this situation?
Thanx for you opinions!
I have the opportunity to receive Canadian Permanent Residence. But for the US my PD is Sept.2006 in EB3, schedule "A"(which does not exists anymore :-). The question is: Will I be able to pass the interwiev succesfully and receive the GC, when my PD is current? Or it is impossible after receiving Canadian PR? I mean is it possible to have both Canadian PR and US GC at the same time? If now, please suggest how should I act in this situation?
Thanx for you opinions!
hairstyles Indiana Academy for Math
addsf345
11-20 03:38 PM
Some benefits can be revoked automatically (I-140, I-485), some can be revoked only after determination is made by USCIS and a beneficiary is notified and has an opportunity to respond. EAD is one of the latter.
See e.g., 8 CFR Part 205 titled "Revocation of approval of petitions". It has two sections: 205.1 Automatic revocation and 205.2 Revocation on notice.
http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/PDFgate.cgi?WAISdocID=203798478322+8+2+0&WAISaction=retrieve
EAD is not listed in Sec. 205.1. Moreover, 8 CFR �274a.12(c) specifically lists reasons for automatic revocation. I-485 denial is not listed as such a reason. Therefore, EAD remains valid even after I-485 denial untill it expires or until USCIS director revokes it. I do not see any basis for a different legal interpretation.
See also this court of appeals (8th Cir.) decision where the court says that automatic revocation occurs only if a specific condition specified in the laws and regs is met:
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/399/399.F3d.891.04-1132.html
"The district court thought that her adoptive father's petition for immediate relative status was automatically revoked when Taylor reached age 21, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. � 205.1(a)(3)(i)(F), but the record does not appear to support that conclusion. The automatic revocation occurs only if the alien reaches age 21 before commencing her journey to the United States (which Taylor did not) or if the alien reaches age 21 before a decision on a pending application for adjustment of status becomes final (and there is no evidence in the record that Taylor ever applied for adjustment of status). See 8 C.F.R. � 205.1(a)(3). Thus, it is possible that the petition for immediate relative status was not revoked when Taylor reached age 21, but rather � if the 1984 visa petition was "currently valid" as of her 21st birthday � automatically converted to an approved petition for classification as an unmarried daughter of a citizen of the United States, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. � 204.2(i)(2). See 8 U.S.C. � 1153(a)(1). In that case, Taylor may have been legally present throughout her time in the United States."
Thank you 'lazycis' for reconfirming this. Just 2 weeks back I used to think that keep working on H1B is lot safer than using EAD :o
See e.g., 8 CFR Part 205 titled "Revocation of approval of petitions". It has two sections: 205.1 Automatic revocation and 205.2 Revocation on notice.
http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/PDFgate.cgi?WAISdocID=203798478322+8+2+0&WAISaction=retrieve
EAD is not listed in Sec. 205.1. Moreover, 8 CFR �274a.12(c) specifically lists reasons for automatic revocation. I-485 denial is not listed as such a reason. Therefore, EAD remains valid even after I-485 denial untill it expires or until USCIS director revokes it. I do not see any basis for a different legal interpretation.
See also this court of appeals (8th Cir.) decision where the court says that automatic revocation occurs only if a specific condition specified in the laws and regs is met:
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/399/399.F3d.891.04-1132.html
"The district court thought that her adoptive father's petition for immediate relative status was automatically revoked when Taylor reached age 21, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. � 205.1(a)(3)(i)(F), but the record does not appear to support that conclusion. The automatic revocation occurs only if the alien reaches age 21 before commencing her journey to the United States (which Taylor did not) or if the alien reaches age 21 before a decision on a pending application for adjustment of status becomes final (and there is no evidence in the record that Taylor ever applied for adjustment of status). See 8 C.F.R. � 205.1(a)(3). Thus, it is possible that the petition for immediate relative status was not revoked when Taylor reached age 21, but rather � if the 1984 visa petition was "currently valid" as of her 21st birthday � automatically converted to an approved petition for classification as an unmarried daughter of a citizen of the United States, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. � 204.2(i)(2). See 8 U.S.C. � 1153(a)(1). In that case, Taylor may have been legally present throughout her time in the United States."
Thank you 'lazycis' for reconfirming this. Just 2 weeks back I used to think that keep working on H1B is lot safer than using EAD :o
ash0210
06-02 06:40 PM
I agree with you "Astronomical tution fee" for childern, pay Mortgage, renewel of EAD/AP's..so on & on...
In a situation like us..I contribute IV with my limitations (every month!) + involving myself in web faxes plus..Calling Senators / Congressmans etc..
For those of you continually pushing for donations having a son in college on an F1 makes it impossible for me to donate since the tuition fees are astronomical.
In a situation like us..I contribute IV with my limitations (every month!) + involving myself in web faxes plus..Calling Senators / Congressmans etc..
For those of you continually pushing for donations having a son in college on an F1 makes it impossible for me to donate since the tuition fees are astronomical.
reddog
03-12 11:08 AM
This is SO wrong. I strongly disagree on this new initiative.
Desperation does not necessarily have to be shown.
Desperation does not necessarily have to be shown.
No comments:
Post a Comment