bp333
07-02 11:58 AM
Per the updated bulletin. Can we apply or not apply 485.
Also, how come they didn't know on May 15th when the moved the dates to 2003..
All of us care is EAD/AP, they can approve the GC when the visa's become available.. why cannot they just take 485s and start processing and then keep it a side until visas are available.
Also, how come they didn't know on May 15th when the moved the dates to 2003..
All of us care is EAD/AP, they can approve the GC when the visa's become available.. why cannot they just take 485s and start processing and then keep it a side until visas are available.
wallpaper hair selena gomez clothes for
Tito_ortiz
01-16 11:37 PM
I am afraid the DreamAct folks will just again dig their own graves. That record number will just prove that the change.gov effort is a system which may not attend necessarily needs of Americans, but rather the will of anyone including foreign nationals and illegal aliens. Sorry, just wanted to share a honest reality.
I see that Dream Act folks are trying to get > 60000 points, to showcase their support. We need to match for the posts like Legal Immigration in there. Currently the top posts for "legal immigration" are around 2000 points. Not many ppl are not taking interest.
Please vote up on our causes! Easy job..but please act!
I see that Dream Act folks are trying to get > 60000 points, to showcase their support. We need to match for the posts like Legal Immigration in there. Currently the top posts for "legal immigration" are around 2000 points. Not many ppl are not taking interest.
Please vote up on our causes! Easy job..but please act!
imm_check
11-06 06:34 PM
From what you have mentioned, the answer to your question lies in the notice that USCIS has sent to your attorney....The letter should have exactly the steps needed and the time to respond....Your best bet is to request the attorney to send you a copy of the letter....
Personally, I think USCIS would request the empoyer to sign the check or re-issue a new one and send it within 30 days....it is not a big deal....
All the best....
Do they send a 797 Notice of action?
Personally, I think USCIS would request the empoyer to sign the check or re-issue a new one and send it within 30 days....it is not a big deal....
All the best....
Do they send a 797 Notice of action?
2011 oh, perhaps Selena Gomez,
va_labor2002
09-25 12:36 PM
Any comments from Core Team regarding contacting Rajiv ? His parents are immigrants from India,so he will understand the sufferings of legal immigrants !
I think it is better to contact him.
Guys...Any comments ?
I think it is better to contact him.
Guys...Any comments ?
more...
orangutan
10-05 02:31 PM
I can't stop laughing. :D:D:D.
You made my day.
Not exactly, http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21871
You made my day.
Not exactly, http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21871
gcgreen
07-22 02:31 AM
Quoting the AC21 memo:
"Adjudicators SHOULD NOT PRESUME ABSENCE OF SUCH INTENT and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate."
So, per the memorandum, you MAY be in trouble ONLY if the adjudicating officer decides something is fishy. And the officer is to treat the I-140 and supporting docs (based on which your I-140 was already approved) as prima facie evidence of intent. So why are you worried? Has your I-140 been withdrawn by old employer?
there is a memorandum issued by USCIS on
12/27/2005. It clearly indicated that I can't be denied due to leaving
previous employer prior to 180 days.
http://www.immigration.com/newsletter1/amendac21.pdf
Question 10. Should service centers or district offices deny
portability cases on the sole basis that the alien has left his or her
employment with the I-140 petitioner prior to the I-485 application
pending for 180 days?
Answer: No. The basis for adjustment is not actual (current)
employment but prospective employment. Since there is no requirement
that the alien have ever been employed by the petitioner while the
I-140 and/or I-485 was pending, the fact that an alien left the I-140
petitioner before the I- 485 has been pending 180 days will not
necessarily render the alien ineligible to port. However, in all cases
an offer of employment must have been bona fide. This means that, as
of the time the I-140 was filed and at the time of filing the I-485 if
not filed concurrently, the I-140 petitioner must have had the intent
to employ the beneficiary, and the alien must have intended to
undertake the employment, upon adjustment. Adjudicators should not
presume absence of such intent and may take the I-140 and supporting
documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in
appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be
appropriate.
I guess that the key is to prove that it is a bona fide offer. I have worked for them for 4.5 years. So even if they won't cooperate, I can argue that it is real.
I won't want to restart the GC process again. We are talking about a big amount of money for the whole process.
"Adjudicators SHOULD NOT PRESUME ABSENCE OF SUCH INTENT and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate."
So, per the memorandum, you MAY be in trouble ONLY if the adjudicating officer decides something is fishy. And the officer is to treat the I-140 and supporting docs (based on which your I-140 was already approved) as prima facie evidence of intent. So why are you worried? Has your I-140 been withdrawn by old employer?
there is a memorandum issued by USCIS on
12/27/2005. It clearly indicated that I can't be denied due to leaving
previous employer prior to 180 days.
http://www.immigration.com/newsletter1/amendac21.pdf
Question 10. Should service centers or district offices deny
portability cases on the sole basis that the alien has left his or her
employment with the I-140 petitioner prior to the I-485 application
pending for 180 days?
Answer: No. The basis for adjustment is not actual (current)
employment but prospective employment. Since there is no requirement
that the alien have ever been employed by the petitioner while the
I-140 and/or I-485 was pending, the fact that an alien left the I-140
petitioner before the I- 485 has been pending 180 days will not
necessarily render the alien ineligible to port. However, in all cases
an offer of employment must have been bona fide. This means that, as
of the time the I-140 was filed and at the time of filing the I-485 if
not filed concurrently, the I-140 petitioner must have had the intent
to employ the beneficiary, and the alien must have intended to
undertake the employment, upon adjustment. Adjudicators should not
presume absence of such intent and may take the I-140 and supporting
documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in
appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be
appropriate.
I guess that the key is to prove that it is a bona fide offer. I have worked for them for 4.5 years. So even if they won't cooperate, I can argue that it is real.
I won't want to restart the GC process again. We are talking about a big amount of money for the whole process.
more...
logiclife
06-18 05:59 PM
yeah. still, isn't it a little "short"?!:)
I mean, having seeing some really long lists posted by other members, I'm a littlle concerned. :cool:
Dont be concerned. Over documentation is a common phenomenon and most people do it to preempt RFEs and inquiries and I dont think it works that way.
Here is what I posted on a separate thread earlier today. My lawyer too has sent me a very very short list of documents he needs. And although he is a little slow, his performance so far has been flawless ... Knock on wood.
A lot of lawyers try to preempt a possible RFE by including "AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE" documentation. 3 years of tax returns prove nothing more than what 1 year of tax return would prove.
Also, having a tax return of 2004 doesnt prove that you were in status at all times during 2004. Tax return shows total income that includes salary, bonus, deductions etc, and even Einstein cant figure out the immigration status in 2004 and whether the candidate was in good status at all times just by looking at the tax return.
Another example is color copies of visa stamp. What would a color copy prove that a mono-chrome copy would not? Wouldnt USCIS verify the legitimacy of the visa stamp by cross-referencing it with their own database?
Some lawyers send many years' tax returns, thinking that it might pre-empt the RFEs. Some lawyers send only whats neccesary. I've heard that one of the lawyers in New York doesnt even send employer's letter. That means, basically nothing from the employer. And he too gets cases approved.
Overloading the USCIS with a heavy file, sending a ton of things in addition to what they expect, may be a good strategy if you believe that it might thwart a RFE (and the delay caused by RFE). That doesnt mean it works that way. You can still get RFE and additional request for documents later.
However, sending too thick a bunch, would also make your case look like a "difficult" case. (my belief, I dont know but just common sense would indicate that thicker bigger files are complicated cases on first impression). And what that means is that it will get delayed because the CIS ombudsman report has documented that officers tend to work easy cases first (get the low hanging fruit first) and beef up their performance statistics by doing more cases in less time. Therefore, the complicated bigger cases that should be work on first, instead get worked on last. And sending USCIS last 5 years of tax returns might do exactly that. Why drown the officers in paperwork?
So think a little before sending USCIS 20 pounds of paperwork. More paperwork and overwhelming USCIS with documentation may not mean faster RFE-free processing. (Again, my belief - something to ponder about. But do what you think is right and what your lawyer tells you. I am not a lawyer).
I mean, having seeing some really long lists posted by other members, I'm a littlle concerned. :cool:
Dont be concerned. Over documentation is a common phenomenon and most people do it to preempt RFEs and inquiries and I dont think it works that way.
Here is what I posted on a separate thread earlier today. My lawyer too has sent me a very very short list of documents he needs. And although he is a little slow, his performance so far has been flawless ... Knock on wood.
A lot of lawyers try to preempt a possible RFE by including "AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE" documentation. 3 years of tax returns prove nothing more than what 1 year of tax return would prove.
Also, having a tax return of 2004 doesnt prove that you were in status at all times during 2004. Tax return shows total income that includes salary, bonus, deductions etc, and even Einstein cant figure out the immigration status in 2004 and whether the candidate was in good status at all times just by looking at the tax return.
Another example is color copies of visa stamp. What would a color copy prove that a mono-chrome copy would not? Wouldnt USCIS verify the legitimacy of the visa stamp by cross-referencing it with their own database?
Some lawyers send many years' tax returns, thinking that it might pre-empt the RFEs. Some lawyers send only whats neccesary. I've heard that one of the lawyers in New York doesnt even send employer's letter. That means, basically nothing from the employer. And he too gets cases approved.
Overloading the USCIS with a heavy file, sending a ton of things in addition to what they expect, may be a good strategy if you believe that it might thwart a RFE (and the delay caused by RFE). That doesnt mean it works that way. You can still get RFE and additional request for documents later.
However, sending too thick a bunch, would also make your case look like a "difficult" case. (my belief, I dont know but just common sense would indicate that thicker bigger files are complicated cases on first impression). And what that means is that it will get delayed because the CIS ombudsman report has documented that officers tend to work easy cases first (get the low hanging fruit first) and beef up their performance statistics by doing more cases in less time. Therefore, the complicated bigger cases that should be work on first, instead get worked on last. And sending USCIS last 5 years of tax returns might do exactly that. Why drown the officers in paperwork?
So think a little before sending USCIS 20 pounds of paperwork. More paperwork and overwhelming USCIS with documentation may not mean faster RFE-free processing. (Again, my belief - something to ponder about. But do what you think is right and what your lawyer tells you. I am not a lawyer).
2010 Selena Gomez wore leg
dixie
09-25 02:38 PM
I see no harm in contacting him; but your excitement about Chandrasekharan seems curious to me. When people who have themselves immigrated from India (who now have GC/citizenship) are so indifferent about us, how can you expect a second generation indian journalist to "understand" our problems ? He does not seem to have done any articles on immigration; so there is no objective way for us to say whether he is really sympathetic to us or not.
Remember that even anti-immigration organizations like numbersUSA have lots of members who are immigrants themselves or have immigrant parents.
Any comments from Core Team regarding contacting Rajiv ? His parents are immigrants from India,so he will understand the sufferings of legal immigrants !
I think it is better to contact him.
Guys...Any comments ?
Remember that even anti-immigration organizations like numbersUSA have lots of members who are immigrants themselves or have immigrant parents.
Any comments from Core Team regarding contacting Rajiv ? His parents are immigrants from India,so he will understand the sufferings of legal immigrants !
I think it is better to contact him.
Guys...Any comments ?
more...
haeveingridseyn
09-09 07:56 AM
Hi Everyone..
Thanks for providing this information . I am also searching this type of topic.
Its really helpful to forum members and solve many problem.
Keep it up.
Thanks for providing this information . I am also searching this type of topic.
Its really helpful to forum members and solve many problem.
Keep it up.
hair house selena gomez new
Steve Mitchell
March 3rd, 2004, 02:41 PM
I like. The varying tones are very interesting. I'm sure the black and white version looks better than the color.
more...
chi_shark
10-08 10:43 AM
not website... just the category... thanks for your opinion...
also, title leaves the possibility that the content talks about a creative new business idea... or some creative twist in interpretation of law...
I see nothing wrong with this topic at this website. We had a lot of pressure on GC. The bad economy just made our life worse. We need some high spirit.
And the title clearly indicates that it is not about any specific immigration issue. People don't have to click when not interested.
also, title leaves the possibility that the content talks about a creative new business idea... or some creative twist in interpretation of law...
I see nothing wrong with this topic at this website. We had a lot of pressure on GC. The bad economy just made our life worse. We need some high spirit.
And the title clearly indicates that it is not about any specific immigration issue. People don't have to click when not interested.
hot New song TELL ME SOMETHING I
jiraprapaasa
04-13 11:40 AM
My 4 yr old niece went in person for the visa along with an adult of course.
What document does my niece need to bring to the embassy?
So far she has I-20, SEVIS fee receipt, MRV receipt from post office, school letter, passport, photo 2x2, her address in US, her father statement and book account.
Will consulate officer interview her or her mother who will be going with her?
She is 12 going to be 13 in May does she need a letter from her parent permission to go study abroad.
Can she say that she has her aunt which is me in the US where she will be staying with (We have the same last name) or should she say that she live in a hosted family in the US where school provided.
Her GPA is 4.0 from her 6th grade. Her father statement is good. Is there any how that she will get deny for her student visa.
What document does my niece need to bring to the embassy?
So far she has I-20, SEVIS fee receipt, MRV receipt from post office, school letter, passport, photo 2x2, her address in US, her father statement and book account.
Will consulate officer interview her or her mother who will be going with her?
She is 12 going to be 13 in May does she need a letter from her parent permission to go study abroad.
Can she say that she has her aunt which is me in the US where she will be staying with (We have the same last name) or should she say that she live in a hosted family in the US where school provided.
Her GPA is 4.0 from her 6th grade. Her father statement is good. Is there any how that she will get deny for her student visa.
more...
house Demi is much better,Selena
martinvisalaw
04-19 02:37 PM
USCIS also has guidance on its website here (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=cab23e4d77d73210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCR D&vgnextchannel=cab23e4d77d73210VgnVCM100000082ca60a RCRD)
**************
Special Update: Relief for Foreign Nationals Stranded due to the Icelandic Volcano Eruption
Foreign nationals stranded in the U.S. because of the airport closures in Europe due to the Icelandic volcano eruption and who are about to exceed their authorized stay in the U.S. have two avenues for relief. If at an airport and traveling under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP), they should contact the U.S. Customs and Border Protection office at the airport. They may also contact the local U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services office. Both Department of Homeland Security agencies have provided their staff and offices with guidance on the applicable legal authorities under the VWP in circumstances such as this.
Persons traveling under a visa should contact the nearest USCIS office and follow the instructions below. While these instructions recommend initiating the process 45 days in advance, USCIS is providing reminder guidance on how to handle such cases until normal flights are scheduled between the U.S. and foreign countries affected by the Icelandic volcanic activity.
Extend My Stay
If you want to extend your stay in the United States, you must file a request with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on the Form I-539, Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status before your authorized stay expires. If you remain in the United States longer than authorized, you may be barred from returning and/or you may be removed (deported) from the United States. Check the date in the lower right-hand corner of your Form I-94, Arrival-Departure Record, to determine the date your authorized stay expires. We recommend that you apply to extend your stay at least 45 days before your authorized stay expires.
You may apply to extend your stay if:
* You were lawfully admitted into the United States with a nonimmigrant visa
* Your nonimmigrant visa status remains valid
* You have not committed any crimes that make you ineligible for a visa
* You have not violated the conditions of your admission
* Your passport is valid and will remain valid for the duration of your stay
You may not apply to extend your stay if you were admitted to the United States in the following categories:
* Visa Waiver Program
* Crew member (D nonimmigrant visa)
* In transit through the United States (C nonimmigrant visa)
* In transit through the United States without a visa (TWOV)
* Fianc� of a U.S. citizen or dependent of a fianc� (K nonimmigrant visa)
* Informant (and accompanying family) on terrorism or organized crime (S nonimmigrant visa)
For information on how to apply, see the �How Do I: Guides for Nonimigrants� link to the right.
Last updated: 04/18/2010
**************
Special Update: Relief for Foreign Nationals Stranded due to the Icelandic Volcano Eruption
Foreign nationals stranded in the U.S. because of the airport closures in Europe due to the Icelandic volcano eruption and who are about to exceed their authorized stay in the U.S. have two avenues for relief. If at an airport and traveling under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP), they should contact the U.S. Customs and Border Protection office at the airport. They may also contact the local U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services office. Both Department of Homeland Security agencies have provided their staff and offices with guidance on the applicable legal authorities under the VWP in circumstances such as this.
Persons traveling under a visa should contact the nearest USCIS office and follow the instructions below. While these instructions recommend initiating the process 45 days in advance, USCIS is providing reminder guidance on how to handle such cases until normal flights are scheduled between the U.S. and foreign countries affected by the Icelandic volcanic activity.
Extend My Stay
If you want to extend your stay in the United States, you must file a request with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on the Form I-539, Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status before your authorized stay expires. If you remain in the United States longer than authorized, you may be barred from returning and/or you may be removed (deported) from the United States. Check the date in the lower right-hand corner of your Form I-94, Arrival-Departure Record, to determine the date your authorized stay expires. We recommend that you apply to extend your stay at least 45 days before your authorized stay expires.
You may apply to extend your stay if:
* You were lawfully admitted into the United States with a nonimmigrant visa
* Your nonimmigrant visa status remains valid
* You have not committed any crimes that make you ineligible for a visa
* You have not violated the conditions of your admission
* Your passport is valid and will remain valid for the duration of your stay
You may not apply to extend your stay if you were admitted to the United States in the following categories:
* Visa Waiver Program
* Crew member (D nonimmigrant visa)
* In transit through the United States (C nonimmigrant visa)
* In transit through the United States without a visa (TWOV)
* Fianc� of a U.S. citizen or dependent of a fianc� (K nonimmigrant visa)
* Informant (and accompanying family) on terrorism or organized crime (S nonimmigrant visa)
For information on how to apply, see the �How Do I: Guides for Nonimigrants� link to the right.
Last updated: 04/18/2010
tattoo 2010 hair selena gomez clothes
munnu77
04-29 08:44 PM
-
more...
pictures Last week Selena was in Madrid
stucklabor
03-22 04:01 PM
All, our last interpretation has been confirmed by one immigration lawyer, but we are trying to get more opinions. It looks like all EB visas will now have a hard 10% country cap.
Here is the latest interpretation of the country quotas. The loss of 202(a)(5) will definitely be a problem. I can't write any plainer than this, so if someone else wants to take a shot at explaining, please do.
Sec 202(a)(3):
(3) Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter.
Our analysis:
This paragraph clubs together EB (subsection b of Sec 203) and Family-based (subsection a of Sec 203) immigrant visas. So if there are excess visas under both in a calendar quarter, then country quotas (paragraph 2 above) do not apply. So this leaves a lot of room for creative interpretation. Under a strict reading, the country quotas would not apply only when BOTH EB and FB categories have excess visas. FB has been oversubscribed for 10+ years.
Sec 202(a)(5):
(5) 2/ RULES FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS-
(A) EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
Our analysis:
Excess visas in each EB category will first be given to oversubscribed countries in that same category. E.g., EB2 excess visas will be given to EB2 applicants from EB2 oversubscribed countries. If there are visas even after that, then they will spill over to the next lower EB category. This is the provision that is proposed to be stricken out.
Here is the latest interpretation of the country quotas. The loss of 202(a)(5) will definitely be a problem. I can't write any plainer than this, so if someone else wants to take a shot at explaining, please do.
Sec 202(a)(3):
(3) Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter.
Our analysis:
This paragraph clubs together EB (subsection b of Sec 203) and Family-based (subsection a of Sec 203) immigrant visas. So if there are excess visas under both in a calendar quarter, then country quotas (paragraph 2 above) do not apply. So this leaves a lot of room for creative interpretation. Under a strict reading, the country quotas would not apply only when BOTH EB and FB categories have excess visas. FB has been oversubscribed for 10+ years.
Sec 202(a)(5):
(5) 2/ RULES FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS-
(A) EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
Our analysis:
Excess visas in each EB category will first be given to oversubscribed countries in that same category. E.g., EB2 excess visas will be given to EB2 applicants from EB2 oversubscribed countries. If there are visas even after that, then they will spill over to the next lower EB category. This is the provision that is proposed to be stricken out.
dresses the new Lexus IS 250C
morchu
06-01 04:54 PM
1. Indian passport holders are exempt from the 6-month rule. Link.... I will search when I get time and post.
2. Regarding intention of permanent residence, see "greg siskind" s explanation on a similar topic (after GC) here: http://www.visalaw.com/06feb1/2feb106.html
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=344473#post344473
Greg mentioned that....
"There are no black and white tests for what will be deemed to be an abandonmnet of permanent residency. Rather, USCIS will look at a variety of factors to determine a person's intent. Financial ties to the US, maintain a US employer, maintaining a residence in the US, keeping a car registered in the US, family remaining behind, etc. can all be evidence."
Hi Morchu,
I searched travel.state.gov with 'six-month rule', but couldn't come up with anything specific to this. Can you please post me the link? And I have an Indian Passport.
Ok, so how can one prove his intention at the POE for GC?
....would appreciate your reply.
2. Regarding intention of permanent residence, see "greg siskind" s explanation on a similar topic (after GC) here: http://www.visalaw.com/06feb1/2feb106.html
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=344473#post344473
Greg mentioned that....
"There are no black and white tests for what will be deemed to be an abandonmnet of permanent residency. Rather, USCIS will look at a variety of factors to determine a person's intent. Financial ties to the US, maintain a US employer, maintaining a residence in the US, keeping a car registered in the US, family remaining behind, etc. can all be evidence."
Hi Morchu,
I searched travel.state.gov with 'six-month rule', but couldn't come up with anything specific to this. Can you please post me the link? And I have an Indian Passport.
Ok, so how can one prove his intention at the POE for GC?
....would appreciate your reply.
more...
makeup she has great hair,
marlo
07-18 12:24 AM
This is totally a lawyer matter. Do not rely on any forum for this.
girlfriend Having stuck with her own hair
saketkapur
12-02 06:58 PM
This in from Ron Gotcher website....I guess they are reading our letters.....
Good news concerning AOS denials based on I-140 revocations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We received some very good news over the weekend. In October and November, our office was contacted by a number of adjustment of status applicants who had received denials based on "revocations" of their approved I-140 petitions by former employers. All of these applicants had AOS applications that had been pending for more than 180 days before they left their sponsoring employers. They also had approved I-140 petitions. Nonetheless, vindictive employers in each case attempted to revoke the approved I-140 petitions. The CIS accepted these "revocations" and promptly denied the AOS applications. We were contacted by six different individuals with these types of cases and we filed motions to reconsider in their cases.
Earlier, in September, we handled this type of case and the MTR was granted and the denial successfully reversed. This happened before any of these October/November cases came in or were filed.
I was disappointed to see that the CIS was still attempting to deny cases on this basis. There is absolutely no law to support this type of denial and, in fact, such denials are directly contrary to both statutory law and explicit CIS policy.
I was gratified to see that all six of the MTRs we field in October/November were granted and the denials reversed. I am also encouraged that the CIS accepted our request to reopen the denials of the dependents as well, on their own motion, and spare the pricipal applicants the cost of paying filing fees for MTRs for the denials of dependents' AOS applications.
I hope this means that the supervisors at the service centers involved are now aware of the blatant illegality of these types of denials and will put and end to them in the future. We can only hope that we have seen an end to this nonsense.
__________________
Good news concerning AOS denials based on I-140 revocations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We received some very good news over the weekend. In October and November, our office was contacted by a number of adjustment of status applicants who had received denials based on "revocations" of their approved I-140 petitions by former employers. All of these applicants had AOS applications that had been pending for more than 180 days before they left their sponsoring employers. They also had approved I-140 petitions. Nonetheless, vindictive employers in each case attempted to revoke the approved I-140 petitions. The CIS accepted these "revocations" and promptly denied the AOS applications. We were contacted by six different individuals with these types of cases and we filed motions to reconsider in their cases.
Earlier, in September, we handled this type of case and the MTR was granted and the denial successfully reversed. This happened before any of these October/November cases came in or were filed.
I was disappointed to see that the CIS was still attempting to deny cases on this basis. There is absolutely no law to support this type of denial and, in fact, such denials are directly contrary to both statutory law and explicit CIS policy.
I was gratified to see that all six of the MTRs we field in October/November were granted and the denials reversed. I am also encouraged that the CIS accepted our request to reopen the denials of the dependents as well, on their own motion, and spare the pricipal applicants the cost of paying filing fees for MTRs for the denials of dependents' AOS applications.
I hope this means that the supervisors at the service centers involved are now aware of the blatant illegality of these types of denials and will put and end to them in the future. We can only hope that we have seen an end to this nonsense.
__________________
hairstyles eating Nadine#39;s hair!
ItIsNotFunny
01-06 01:27 PM
Dear fellow IV'ians,
I just wanted to share my good news with all of you on the cusp of a New Year. I am ecstatic to announce that my 140 got approved after a nerve .... ID #85N48789NY4311439
And lastly - Wish You a Happy & Prosperous 2009!! Be safe everybody.
Congratulations! Wish you a GC soon.
I just wanted to share my good news with all of you on the cusp of a New Year. I am ecstatic to announce that my 140 got approved after a nerve .... ID #85N48789NY4311439
And lastly - Wish You a Happy & Prosperous 2009!! Be safe everybody.
Congratulations! Wish you a GC soon.
gc??
11-17 09:03 AM
what is happening? Is anything happening today?
abhijitp
08-02 04:42 PM
EB-1s for Indians and Chinese are also expected to be current. For EB-2, India is expected to have a cut off date of January 8, 2003 and for China the cut off date will be April 22, 2005.
For EB-3, according to Jan, the worldwide cut off date will be August 1, 2002, India will be May 8, 2001 and China will be April 22, 2005.
Jan also reports that 18,000 EB-3 for Indians have been processed in this fiscal year with 8,000 of those cases approved in June and 7,000 in July. By the way, the annual EB-3 limit for Indians is 2,800 so go figure.
Also, approximately 40,000 cases were received at the Texas Service Center on July 2nd and 35,000 were received in Nebraska.
One final amazing fact that Jan has learned - USCIS requested 66,600 (666!) visa numbers from the beginning of the fiscal year through the end of May and 66,800 numbers in June and July.
Why is this good news? Jan 8, 2003 and May 8, 2001 are not good news to me at least.
For EB-3, according to Jan, the worldwide cut off date will be August 1, 2002, India will be May 8, 2001 and China will be April 22, 2005.
Jan also reports that 18,000 EB-3 for Indians have been processed in this fiscal year with 8,000 of those cases approved in June and 7,000 in July. By the way, the annual EB-3 limit for Indians is 2,800 so go figure.
Also, approximately 40,000 cases were received at the Texas Service Center on July 2nd and 35,000 were received in Nebraska.
One final amazing fact that Jan has learned - USCIS requested 66,600 (666!) visa numbers from the beginning of the fiscal year through the end of May and 66,800 numbers in June and July.
Why is this good news? Jan 8, 2003 and May 8, 2001 are not good news to me at least.
No comments:
Post a Comment