baburob2
03-16 11:23 AM
oops.
wallpaper Marvel Heroes
gctoget
07-16 11:53 AM
nice to see good activity on the forum. Please hold on from holding any rally until you hear from IV core. We have some good synergy amongst or members in So Cal, lets plan a meeting in the coming weeks and decide on an action plan. I would encourage you to start thinking about ideas/specific actions we can take. I have a few ideas and would share it on our so cal email distribution list. Who can take the initiative to organize this meeting? Twinbrothers? any one else? Pls P.M me.
Hi,
I have made a list of all SoCal members. It is coming upto 50. Please give us instructions on arranging a rally in LA, SanDiego or Orange county ASAP.
Hi,
I have made a list of all SoCal members. It is coming upto 50. Please give us instructions on arranging a rally in LA, SanDiego or Orange county ASAP.
skv
06-18 10:27 AM
Good Morning guys,
So we all should be fine to file I-485 up until end of September guys, before the retro kicks off ?
So we all should be fine to file I-485 up until end of September guys, before the retro kicks off ?
2011 400 Marvel Wallpapers Pack
matreen
07-15 03:00 PM
Contributed 25 dollars via bill pay...
How do I contribute online - i would like to transfer one time payment for this tread to IV....
Please advice how do I do online transfer?
Good work guys...lets move on.
M
How do I contribute online - i would like to transfer one time payment for this tread to IV....
Please advice how do I do online transfer?
Good work guys...lets move on.
M
more...
newbee7
07-05 12:16 PM
We must try to aviod the I485/ EAD language though.
satyasaich
03-15 04:08 PM
Interesting Summary
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=18831
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=18831
more...
eb3_nepa
03-08 02:25 PM
Sorry,
any mention to any guest working program? I think that if they agree in this point we can see any improuvement on the backlog and "never ending story" in the Green Card process.
beppenyc, any particular reason that ur interested in the guest worker program?
any mention to any guest working program? I think that if they agree in this point we can see any improuvement on the backlog and "never ending story" in the Green Card process.
beppenyc, any particular reason that ur interested in the guest worker program?
2010 Marvel Heroes Wallpaper
reddymjm
03-03 11:13 AM
Not much movement.
EB2-I : 15 August 2004
Eb3-I : Either U or 15 Jan 2002.
Thank's
MDix
Definetly more movement than this. U - not so soon for EB3. It might be mid 2002.
EB2-I : 15 August 2004
Eb3-I : Either U or 15 Jan 2002.
Thank's
MDix
Definetly more movement than this. U - not so soon for EB3. It might be mid 2002.
more...
makemygc
10-25 11:59 PM
I've sent the mails and strongly encourage everyone to come out and take an early action before this gets worse. Even if you are not affected right now, support the cause to make sure that you will not be affected in the future.
Also, just wanted to point out some notes that letter says that Yates memo is attached, so if you are blindly copy and pasting make sure that you attach the Memo to your email or a copy to your letter.
I would suggest OP to add the copy of yates memo and the follow up memo to the posting.
Thanks
MakeMyGC
Issue/Background:
It seems USCIS is not following AC21 regulations in some cases � especially when underlying I140 is revoked by previous employer � and are incorrectly denying I485 applications. As we know, AC21 regulations and related guidelines, provide some relief and allow job changes without affecting the I485 application. As per these rules if the employee changes employment after 180 days of submitting I485 application, there is no need to redo I140 even-if old employer revokes the old I140.
In recent days USCIS seems to be denying lot of I485 applications � ignoring their own AC21 regulations. A few of IV volunteers (pd_recapturing, gc4me, chanduv et al) have started an effort to address this. You can get more info on this, at this thread: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21716.
This issue can affect a lot of us and it negates all the flexibility/relief that we acquired by getting EAD�s and advantages we got thru recent admin reform.
What needs to be done:
After some initial discussions and planning (thanks to pd-capturing, chandu, et al) it is decided to write letters to Ombudsman and service center heads to point out this and request them to correct it ASAP. Please participate and send letters. To succeed we need to send it in thousands.
Pasting the letter and the addresses below.
More info: (thanks to gc4me for addresses and letter template):
======================
Everyone please send the letter/email to 3 persons.
1. Ombudsman
2. Director, NSC
3. Director, TSC
======================
Ombudsman:
cisombudsman@dhs.gov
Mailing Address:
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
ATTN: Recommendations
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
=======================
Nebraska Service Center
Director: Gerard Heinauer
General Correspondence (Inquiries) (Sending applications or petitions to this address will delay their processing)
USCIS NSC
P.O. Box 82521
Lincoln, NE 68501-2521
NOTE: If using overnight delivery by any private service provider, send your package to:
USCIS
Nebraska Service Center
850 S Street
P.O. Box (Insert Correct P.O. Box Number)
Lincoln, NE 68508
Be sure to include the appropriate P.O. Box number on the shipping label.
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Suite 7000
Washington, DC 20529
or email: USCIS-COMPLAINT@DHS.GOV
=====================
Director: David Roark
General
Correspondence:
USCIS TSC
PO Box 851488
Mesquite, TX 75185-1488
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Ste 7000, Washington, DC 20529
============================
Letter
============================
Date: Today()
To
Mr. Michael Timothy Dougherty
The Ombudsman
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Re: Issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines
Dear Sir,
This is to bring your attention to the issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines.
The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) allows for a change of employer on any I-485 Adjustment of Status Application that has been pending for 180 days or more, without the need to file a new I-140 petition, provided the applicant�s new employment is in a similar/same occupation.
According to the Memo released by William R Yates on August 4th 2003, the original I-140 is valid if it is approvable and form I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days. (Attached for your reference is the memo dated August 4th 2003 from William R Yates and the follow-up memo dated May 12th 2005 with relevant sections highlighted).
Due to unreasonable delays caused by retrogression, many candidates have lawfully changed employers in accordance with the AC21 statute. Even though there is no requirement that USCIS be notified after a job change, some applicants have done so to prove that they are in compliance with this regulation. If the previous employer has withdrawn the previously approved I-140, AC21 guidelines state that if the applicant has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the applicant be sent an NOID (Notice of Intent to Deny) to deny the I-485 application or a RFE (Request for Evidence) . If the response to the NOID/RFE is timely and indicates that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, USCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485.
Over the past few months, a disturbing pattern has emerged with cases where the applicant has changed employers. USCIS has started to deny I-485applications where the underlying I-140 has been withdrawn by the previous employer without issuing an NOID or RFE. Even those applicants who have notified USCIS of change in employers have had their I-485 denied.
After the denial of I-485, the applicant has to file a MTR (Motion to reconsider) with USCIS to re-open the case. In addition to the financial burden of filing and legal fees, the applicant has to stop working because of the denial of the I-485 until the case is re-opened. This could be anywhere from a month to a few months. Needless to say, employers are unwilling to keep the job position open for such a long period and the applicant in most cases is looking at potential loss of employment. The applicant who has followed the law to the fullest extent is unfairly punished on account of USCIS not following the AC21 provisions.
This is a request for you to intervene to ensure that the AC21 regulations are followed when adjudicating an I-485 application. If the applicant notifies USCIS of a change in employment under AC21, this should be added the applicant�s physical file and electronic records. If there is no such notification and the previous employer withdraws the I-140, the applicant should be issued a NOID/RFE instead of denying the I-485 application.
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact.
Thank you in advance for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Thanks,
Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone Number
Also, just wanted to point out some notes that letter says that Yates memo is attached, so if you are blindly copy and pasting make sure that you attach the Memo to your email or a copy to your letter.
I would suggest OP to add the copy of yates memo and the follow up memo to the posting.
Thanks
MakeMyGC
Issue/Background:
It seems USCIS is not following AC21 regulations in some cases � especially when underlying I140 is revoked by previous employer � and are incorrectly denying I485 applications. As we know, AC21 regulations and related guidelines, provide some relief and allow job changes without affecting the I485 application. As per these rules if the employee changes employment after 180 days of submitting I485 application, there is no need to redo I140 even-if old employer revokes the old I140.
In recent days USCIS seems to be denying lot of I485 applications � ignoring their own AC21 regulations. A few of IV volunteers (pd_recapturing, gc4me, chanduv et al) have started an effort to address this. You can get more info on this, at this thread: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21716.
This issue can affect a lot of us and it negates all the flexibility/relief that we acquired by getting EAD�s and advantages we got thru recent admin reform.
What needs to be done:
After some initial discussions and planning (thanks to pd-capturing, chandu, et al) it is decided to write letters to Ombudsman and service center heads to point out this and request them to correct it ASAP. Please participate and send letters. To succeed we need to send it in thousands.
Pasting the letter and the addresses below.
More info: (thanks to gc4me for addresses and letter template):
======================
Everyone please send the letter/email to 3 persons.
1. Ombudsman
2. Director, NSC
3. Director, TSC
======================
Ombudsman:
cisombudsman@dhs.gov
Mailing Address:
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
ATTN: Recommendations
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
=======================
Nebraska Service Center
Director: Gerard Heinauer
General Correspondence (Inquiries) (Sending applications or petitions to this address will delay their processing)
USCIS NSC
P.O. Box 82521
Lincoln, NE 68501-2521
NOTE: If using overnight delivery by any private service provider, send your package to:
USCIS
Nebraska Service Center
850 S Street
P.O. Box (Insert Correct P.O. Box Number)
Lincoln, NE 68508
Be sure to include the appropriate P.O. Box number on the shipping label.
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Suite 7000
Washington, DC 20529
or email: USCIS-COMPLAINT@DHS.GOV
=====================
Director: David Roark
General
Correspondence:
USCIS TSC
PO Box 851488
Mesquite, TX 75185-1488
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Ste 7000, Washington, DC 20529
============================
Letter
============================
Date: Today()
To
Mr. Michael Timothy Dougherty
The Ombudsman
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Re: Issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines
Dear Sir,
This is to bring your attention to the issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines.
The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) allows for a change of employer on any I-485 Adjustment of Status Application that has been pending for 180 days or more, without the need to file a new I-140 petition, provided the applicant�s new employment is in a similar/same occupation.
According to the Memo released by William R Yates on August 4th 2003, the original I-140 is valid if it is approvable and form I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days. (Attached for your reference is the memo dated August 4th 2003 from William R Yates and the follow-up memo dated May 12th 2005 with relevant sections highlighted).
Due to unreasonable delays caused by retrogression, many candidates have lawfully changed employers in accordance with the AC21 statute. Even though there is no requirement that USCIS be notified after a job change, some applicants have done so to prove that they are in compliance with this regulation. If the previous employer has withdrawn the previously approved I-140, AC21 guidelines state that if the applicant has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the applicant be sent an NOID (Notice of Intent to Deny) to deny the I-485 application or a RFE (Request for Evidence) . If the response to the NOID/RFE is timely and indicates that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, USCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485.
Over the past few months, a disturbing pattern has emerged with cases where the applicant has changed employers. USCIS has started to deny I-485applications where the underlying I-140 has been withdrawn by the previous employer without issuing an NOID or RFE. Even those applicants who have notified USCIS of change in employers have had their I-485 denied.
After the denial of I-485, the applicant has to file a MTR (Motion to reconsider) with USCIS to re-open the case. In addition to the financial burden of filing and legal fees, the applicant has to stop working because of the denial of the I-485 until the case is re-opened. This could be anywhere from a month to a few months. Needless to say, employers are unwilling to keep the job position open for such a long period and the applicant in most cases is looking at potential loss of employment. The applicant who has followed the law to the fullest extent is unfairly punished on account of USCIS not following the AC21 provisions.
This is a request for you to intervene to ensure that the AC21 regulations are followed when adjudicating an I-485 application. If the applicant notifies USCIS of a change in employment under AC21, this should be added the applicant�s physical file and electronic records. If there is no such notification and the previous employer withdraws the I-140, the applicant should be issued a NOID/RFE instead of denying the I-485 application.
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact.
Thank you in advance for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Thanks,
Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone Number
hair marvel heroes wallpaper
diptam
06-10 10:27 PM
[QUOTE=dilbert_cal]Guys/Gals - Those of you who are planning to file your 140 and/or 485 and are worried about the future consequences, please stop worrying about the bill and first of all get your 140 and/or 485 filed.
Now, when you are done with it , please help IV to ensure that the current bill has enough amendments to make our future secure.
QUOTE]
Why only guys from May 16th 2007 to Oct 2008 are selectively victimized -
My 140 is filed just on May 16th - what is my Sin ??
Now, when you are done with it , please help IV to ensure that the current bill has enough amendments to make our future secure.
QUOTE]
Why only guys from May 16th 2007 to Oct 2008 are selectively victimized -
My 140 is filed just on May 16th - what is my Sin ??
more...
ind_game
05-18 10:52 AM
I had another LUD on 05/18/2009 my I-485 case. Not sure what they are looking for in my file.
hot Marvel Comics characters!
jindhal
04-30 02:11 PM
Does anyone else have the same problem. The webcast is erroring out.. saying page not found .
more...
house marvel heroes wallpaper.
sj2273
08-04 05:00 PM
I have seen some really well written letters from CORE before. If core can help us - we will all put in our two cents and can come up with a really good letter rather than rush in one!
My email address is sj2273@yahoo.com and I am in!
But does the core believe in this. They obviously know more about dealing with senate and house and other influential parties.
Core members: Do you think mass mailing will get any attention. And do you think mass mailing everymonth to a selected group of people will work at all.
I believe that persistence without causing any annoyance works. But thats just my thought. I would like know yours! thanks for reading.
My email address is sj2273@yahoo.com and I am in!
But does the core believe in this. They obviously know more about dealing with senate and house and other influential parties.
Core members: Do you think mass mailing will get any attention. And do you think mass mailing everymonth to a selected group of people will work at all.
I believe that persistence without causing any annoyance works. But thats just my thought. I would like know yours! thanks for reading.
tattoo Marvel and DC Collections
laksmi
01-07 03:56 PM
Work on H1 even after using AP
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=14154
Thanks
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=14154
Thanks
more...
pictures marvel heroes wallpaper. dc
sam2006
07-19 12:53 AM
thank you :)
Signed up mothly contribution from july.
Atleast with the current visa bullettin change has eased the worry of a lot of people if not all. Also get the satisfaction that we are doing something to improve our situation.
Signed up mothly contribution from july.
Atleast with the current visa bullettin change has eased the worry of a lot of people if not all. Also get the satisfaction that we are doing something to improve our situation.
dresses marvel heroes wallpaper.
satyasaich
08-14 06:55 PM
"""The Mexico F2A and Employment Third preference cut-off dates are �unavailable� for both August and September, since those FY-2008 annual limits have been reached. The Visa Office had originally anticipated that this would be a temporary situation. Then with the start of the new fiscal year in October the cut-off dates would have returned to those which had applied during June. However, continued heavy demand in those categories may require the establishment of cut-off dates which are earlier than those which had applied in June. A formal decision determination of the October cut-off dates will not be possible until early September. """
Let's understand it ! I'm sure you are aware about July 2007 Visa Bulletin fiasco. It made every category "C". Before that in June 2007 bulletin - they moved dates for EB3 & EB2 singnificantly. For EB3 India - it moved from May 2001 to Jun 2003 - People who filed their AOS are 'June' applicants and People who filed because of July 2007 bulletin are 'July/Aug' applicants
DOS refering to these June applicants means having PD earlier than Jun 2003. I hope its clear to you.
If one thinks with cool head, what you said makes sense. also if you remember when EB3 (I) was actually retrgoressed on Jan1/2005, the PD was jun/2002. Then it was retrogressed all the way back to 1999 or something. Later on, slowly it came up to March/2001 & stopped there for a while due to the so called 'Hump' (due to 245i cases, i think)
AND slowly but steadily PD for EB-I crawled up to Nov/2001 until May2007.
Suddenly in June'07, the PD was advanced to June/2003 and i know so many pending cases were cleared around july and august of 2007.
So far what i've mentioned are all facts only.
Now looking forward for fiscal year allocations starting from Oct'2008, i can say the PD for EB-I will begin atleast Jun'2002. May be even a better PD but i'm not sure. For sure there is a good chance of making progress to end of 2003 when it comes to Sep'2009. This is based on availability of only those visa numbers as mandated by law as of today.
Any comments
Let's understand it ! I'm sure you are aware about July 2007 Visa Bulletin fiasco. It made every category "C". Before that in June 2007 bulletin - they moved dates for EB3 & EB2 singnificantly. For EB3 India - it moved from May 2001 to Jun 2003 - People who filed their AOS are 'June' applicants and People who filed because of July 2007 bulletin are 'July/Aug' applicants
DOS refering to these June applicants means having PD earlier than Jun 2003. I hope its clear to you.
If one thinks with cool head, what you said makes sense. also if you remember when EB3 (I) was actually retrgoressed on Jan1/2005, the PD was jun/2002. Then it was retrogressed all the way back to 1999 or something. Later on, slowly it came up to March/2001 & stopped there for a while due to the so called 'Hump' (due to 245i cases, i think)
AND slowly but steadily PD for EB-I crawled up to Nov/2001 until May2007.
Suddenly in June'07, the PD was advanced to June/2003 and i know so many pending cases were cleared around july and august of 2007.
So far what i've mentioned are all facts only.
Now looking forward for fiscal year allocations starting from Oct'2008, i can say the PD for EB-I will begin atleast Jun'2002. May be even a better PD but i'm not sure. For sure there is a good chance of making progress to end of 2003 when it comes to Sep'2009. This is based on availability of only those visa numbers as mandated by law as of today.
Any comments
more...
makeup Marvel VS Capcom 3, etc
skv
06-20 01:14 PM
Atalanta sucks
Yes, maybe we try for pre-approved labor before July end?
Yes, maybe we try for pre-approved labor before July end?
girlfriend marvel heroes wallpaper.
kevinkris
07-15 02:01 PM
Show your support to IV and help yourselves..
May be a toast for EB2 moving to 06/2006 ?
And to cheer up Eb3 folks..
May be a toast for EB2 moving to 06/2006 ?
And to cheer up Eb3 folks..
hairstyles Marvel Heroes wallpaper 1
hazishak
07-19 01:33 PM
Not necessarily. Here is a hypothetical scenario:
PersonA = PD of May 30th, 2003 and RD of June 15th, 2007.
Assume that an additional 150,000 I-485 applications were filed petween PersonA and PersonB
PersonB = PD of May 15, 2002 and RD of July 15th 2007.
USCIS starts pre-adjudicating cases based on Receipt date. Assume that by October 1, 2007, they have pre-adjudicated PersonA plus 9,000 of the 150,000 applications and haven't reached PersonB's application yet (they go by RD).
Assuming that the visa cutoff date in Oct, 2007 bulletin is June,2003 making both PersonA and personB current:
PersonA (PD of 2003) will get a visa number and get the case approved while PersonB (PD of 2002) with an older priority date will have to wait a while because his case hasn't been touched by USCIS yet due to the additional 150,000 filings in between that have to be pre-adjudicated first based on RD even if they have 2004/2005/2006/2007 priority dates!!
.
Since both A and B were current at the time of AOS approval. Person with earlier RD will take precedence. however if the cut off date were April 2003, person B will get the visa.
PersonA = PD of May 30th, 2003 and RD of June 15th, 2007.
Assume that an additional 150,000 I-485 applications were filed petween PersonA and PersonB
PersonB = PD of May 15, 2002 and RD of July 15th 2007.
USCIS starts pre-adjudicating cases based on Receipt date. Assume that by October 1, 2007, they have pre-adjudicated PersonA plus 9,000 of the 150,000 applications and haven't reached PersonB's application yet (they go by RD).
Assuming that the visa cutoff date in Oct, 2007 bulletin is June,2003 making both PersonA and personB current:
PersonA (PD of 2003) will get a visa number and get the case approved while PersonB (PD of 2002) with an older priority date will have to wait a while because his case hasn't been touched by USCIS yet due to the additional 150,000 filings in between that have to be pre-adjudicated first based on RD even if they have 2004/2005/2006/2007 priority dates!!
.
Since both A and B were current at the time of AOS approval. Person with earlier RD will take precedence. however if the cut off date were April 2003, person B will get the visa.
rennieallen
10-01 09:16 PM
After the july fiasco, USCIS need not have to worry about recieving huge applications if they move the dates forward. Since almost all the folks (except for folks stuck at BEC) would have turned in the applications uscis should be able to move the dates forward for FY08 to a big extent , so that visa numbers are not wasted.
but again it all depends on how they view this.These are cry from our end..
Yup, because of July '07 there will be no wasted visas for several years...
I am wondering whether USCIS made that mistake on purpose, after the immigration reform thing failed in congress?
but again it all depends on how they view this.These are cry from our end..
Yup, because of July '07 there will be no wasted visas for several years...
I am wondering whether USCIS made that mistake on purpose, after the immigration reform thing failed in congress?
reddymjm
03-03 03:46 PM
Looks like MDix is making fun of EB3-I bcoz current law doesn't allow any spillover for EB3-I category. Damn you MDix.
Law never changed. Its how USCIS interprets it.
Law never changed. Its how USCIS interprets it.
No comments:
Post a Comment