senthil1
10-03 04:40 PM
Increasing green card numbers will resolve this problem also. For example doubling the Visa numbers will not have much impact when CIS wastes a few hundred or a few thousand Visa numbers. If Annual cap is 300k then also CIS may waste 5k Visa numbers every year on average. But without increasing gc numbers even full utilization of 140k Visa will not have any impact Indian PD as demand is high.
Last year they "wasted" about 10K visa numbers. It is absolutely up to them. However congress has authorized 140k a year and there are huge backlogs for AOS and CP. So when you put that together, leaving about 10K unapproved is clearly not enforcing congressional mandates. The ombudsman blasted them for this in his report, then we had the VB fiasco. None of this sounds like great management of the benefits. There clearly is room for improvement.
We (us and our employers) as the recipients of the benefits are complaining about this, and it is perfectly legitimate.
If any visa numbers are left unused, I definitely think we ought to take up this issue with congressional leaders like Zoe Lofgren. Even just a visa recapture legislation alone would help us tremendously until 2009(about the earliest they might get back to this issue more fully).
Last year they "wasted" about 10K visa numbers. It is absolutely up to them. However congress has authorized 140k a year and there are huge backlogs for AOS and CP. So when you put that together, leaving about 10K unapproved is clearly not enforcing congressional mandates. The ombudsman blasted them for this in his report, then we had the VB fiasco. None of this sounds like great management of the benefits. There clearly is room for improvement.
We (us and our employers) as the recipients of the benefits are complaining about this, and it is perfectly legitimate.
If any visa numbers are left unused, I definitely think we ought to take up this issue with congressional leaders like Zoe Lofgren. Even just a visa recapture legislation alone would help us tremendously until 2009(about the earliest they might get back to this issue more fully).
wallpaper i love you quotes graphics.
ronhira
08-13 09:26 AM
"08/12/2010: Wow, That Is Fast. H.R. 6080 Presented to President Today, and President to Sign 08/13/2010, Friday
* As soon as the Senate passed the bill, the Congress quickly cleared for White House and has already been presented to the President. Since it passed during the special session, everything had to be cleared out of the Congress quickly, I guess. USCIS must be busy to get ready for processing and collecting increased fees from these employers soon. The new filing fees will be a huge amount, especially when they decide to file a premium processing request. Can you imagine how much these employers will lose for a single case if the case is filed on premium and denied!! Ouch!
* The new fees will take effect tomorrow since the President is scheduled to sign it into law at 11:00 a.m. EST, tomorrow. "
- The OH Law
wondering if its time to leave....
agree..... these new filing fees is a huge amount.... it would have been so good to let immigration lawyers make all this money..... better off.... senate should have passed a bill that immigration lawyers r doing public service & their fee should be increased by $2000....
* As soon as the Senate passed the bill, the Congress quickly cleared for White House and has already been presented to the President. Since it passed during the special session, everything had to be cleared out of the Congress quickly, I guess. USCIS must be busy to get ready for processing and collecting increased fees from these employers soon. The new filing fees will be a huge amount, especially when they decide to file a premium processing request. Can you imagine how much these employers will lose for a single case if the case is filed on premium and denied!! Ouch!
* The new fees will take effect tomorrow since the President is scheduled to sign it into law at 11:00 a.m. EST, tomorrow. "
- The OH Law
wondering if its time to leave....
agree..... these new filing fees is a huge amount.... it would have been so good to let immigration lawyers make all this money..... better off.... senate should have passed a bill that immigration lawyers r doing public service & their fee should be increased by $2000....
RN_Usa
08-02 10:27 AM
guys,
any updates on the bridge bill for schedule A Nurses.
Heard that it is proposed and not passed till today. Any future predictions. The healthcare shortage is critical.
any updates on the bridge bill for schedule A Nurses.
Heard that it is proposed and not passed till today. Any future predictions. The healthcare shortage is critical.
2011 cute love quotes graphics. i
inspectorfox
09-25 10:11 PM
No extension yet... DL expires on Friday. I will have to figure out how to go to work, take care of my family without driving the car.
more...
needhelp!
09-13 02:07 PM
Just mailed out letters to nine more radio/tv/news media addresses in Texas that AILA media site didn't allow email for. I hope USPS will deliver by tomorrow??
texanmom, I did a few Houston/Austin emails as well.
texanmom, I did a few Houston/Austin emails as well.
bpratap
05-28 06:34 PM
Fha
more...
radhay
05-15 05:19 PM
bpratap, faced similar issue since they don't understand. Even if they do they are worried it may cause trouble when they sell the loan to some one else.
I have refinanced with Penfed and they don't have this requirement. It helps to put 20% down payment as some banks waive this 3 year rule with that.
Can you post the name of the bank so others don't waste time and money with those banks.
I have refinanced with Penfed and they don't have this requirement. It helps to put 20% down payment as some banks waive this 3 year rule with that.
Can you post the name of the bank so others don't waste time and money with those banks.
2010 i love you quotes graphics. i
fromnaija
06-01 05:20 PM
The date of the I-140 approval matters just in case the visa dates are retrogressed again before your case is adjudicated, in which case it will be better the longer the delay on your 140 approval. See examlpe 5 in raju123's posting above.
Thank you for your response......
Yes I believe paperwork will be filed for all my dependants concurrently. Does it even matter when the I140 is approved?
It seems that under the new law his cutoff date is Jun 1 since that is when my priority date will be current so as long as he applies for a green card within one year he is ok.
So if we apply concurrently when is his green card application deemed to have been applied for? When we file concurrently or only when and if the 140is approved.
What do you think?
Thank you for your response......
Yes I believe paperwork will be filed for all my dependants concurrently. Does it even matter when the I140 is approved?
It seems that under the new law his cutoff date is Jun 1 since that is when my priority date will be current so as long as he applies for a green card within one year he is ok.
So if we apply concurrently when is his green card application deemed to have been applied for? When we file concurrently or only when and if the 140is approved.
What do you think?
more...
Administrator2
04-30 01:27 PM
IV Team,
I have been calling the list of Senators - and some of them say they do not support amnesty. I do talk about high skilled immigrants (from pappu's brief). My question is how do I make the distinction between the two groups without sounding that I am being against the undocumented?
Appreciate your help on this as I continue calling the Senators. Thanks
Thanks, we expect some of the offices will say this. There can be lot of answers to this question. One way to respond is -
"For last 10 years there has been no High-skilled immigration bill passed by the Congress. The world has changed in last 10 years. I understand that the Senator is a champion for creating more jobs in America. Employment based green cards will create jobs in America. I want to start my own company and hire people in America. But I cannot do that if I don't have a green card.
I would sincerely request you to please convey to the Senator if he would consider supporting some version of the immigration bill
giving more weight to green cards and creating jobs in America, or maybe the Senator could lead the effort for improving the proposal"
Please always end the call on a cordial note thanking the Staff member.
I have been calling the list of Senators - and some of them say they do not support amnesty. I do talk about high skilled immigrants (from pappu's brief). My question is how do I make the distinction between the two groups without sounding that I am being against the undocumented?
Appreciate your help on this as I continue calling the Senators. Thanks
Thanks, we expect some of the offices will say this. There can be lot of answers to this question. One way to respond is -
"For last 10 years there has been no High-skilled immigration bill passed by the Congress. The world has changed in last 10 years. I understand that the Senator is a champion for creating more jobs in America. Employment based green cards will create jobs in America. I want to start my own company and hire people in America. But I cannot do that if I don't have a green card.
I would sincerely request you to please convey to the Senator if he would consider supporting some version of the immigration bill
giving more weight to green cards and creating jobs in America, or maybe the Senator could lead the effort for improving the proposal"
Please always end the call on a cordial note thanking the Staff member.
hair Cute+i+love+you+graphics
aadimanav
12-10 03:37 PM
Source:
Visa Bulletin for January 2010 (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4597.html)
WILL THERE BE ANY ADDITIONAL CUT-OFF DATES FOR FOREIGN STATES IN THE EMPLOYMENT FIRST OR SECOND PREFERENCE CATEGORIES?
At this time it is unlikely that there will be any cut-off dates in the Employment First preferences. It also appears unlikely that it will be necessary to establish a cut-off date other than those already in effect for the Second preference category. Cut-off dates apply to the China and India Second preference categories due to heavy demand, and each has the potential to become "unavailable" should demand cause the annual limit for that category to be reached.
INA Section 202(a)(5) provides that if total demand will be insufficient to use all available numbers in a particular employment preference category in a calendar quarter, then the unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limits. For example, if it is determined that based on the level of demand being received at that time there would be otherwise unused numbers in the Employment Second preference category, then numbers could be provided to oversubscribed countries without regard to per-country limitations. Should that occur, the same cut-off date would be applied to each country, since numbers must be provided strictly in priority date order regardless of chargeability. In this instance, greater number use by one country would indicate a higher rate of demand by applicants from that country with earlier priority dates.
Should Section 202(a)(5) be applied, the rate of number use in the Employment preference category would continue to be monitored to determine whether subsequent adjustments are needed in visa availability for oversubscribed countries. This action provides the best possible assurance that all available Employment preference numbers will be used, while still ensuring that numbers remain available for applicants from all other countries that have not yet reached their per-country limit.
WHAT ARE THE PROJECTIONS FOR CUT-OFF DATE MOVEMENT IN THE EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCES FOR THE REMAINDER OF FY-2010?
Based on current indications of demand, the best case scenarios for cut-off dates which will be reached by the end of FY-2010 are as follows:
Employment Second:
China: July through October 2005
India: February through early March 2005
If Section 202(a)(5)were to apply:
China and India: October through December 2005
Employment Third:
Worldwide: April through August 2005
China: June through September 2003
India: January through February 2002
Mexico: January through June 2004
Philippines: April through August 2005
Please be advised that the above date ranges are only estimates which are subject to fluctuations in demand during the coming months. The actual future cut-off dates cannot be guaranteed, and it is possible that some annual limits could be reached prior to the end of the fiscal year.
Visa Bulletin for January 2010 (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4597.html)
WILL THERE BE ANY ADDITIONAL CUT-OFF DATES FOR FOREIGN STATES IN THE EMPLOYMENT FIRST OR SECOND PREFERENCE CATEGORIES?
At this time it is unlikely that there will be any cut-off dates in the Employment First preferences. It also appears unlikely that it will be necessary to establish a cut-off date other than those already in effect for the Second preference category. Cut-off dates apply to the China and India Second preference categories due to heavy demand, and each has the potential to become "unavailable" should demand cause the annual limit for that category to be reached.
INA Section 202(a)(5) provides that if total demand will be insufficient to use all available numbers in a particular employment preference category in a calendar quarter, then the unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limits. For example, if it is determined that based on the level of demand being received at that time there would be otherwise unused numbers in the Employment Second preference category, then numbers could be provided to oversubscribed countries without regard to per-country limitations. Should that occur, the same cut-off date would be applied to each country, since numbers must be provided strictly in priority date order regardless of chargeability. In this instance, greater number use by one country would indicate a higher rate of demand by applicants from that country with earlier priority dates.
Should Section 202(a)(5) be applied, the rate of number use in the Employment preference category would continue to be monitored to determine whether subsequent adjustments are needed in visa availability for oversubscribed countries. This action provides the best possible assurance that all available Employment preference numbers will be used, while still ensuring that numbers remain available for applicants from all other countries that have not yet reached their per-country limit.
WHAT ARE THE PROJECTIONS FOR CUT-OFF DATE MOVEMENT IN THE EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCES FOR THE REMAINDER OF FY-2010?
Based on current indications of demand, the best case scenarios for cut-off dates which will be reached by the end of FY-2010 are as follows:
Employment Second:
China: July through October 2005
India: February through early March 2005
If Section 202(a)(5)were to apply:
China and India: October through December 2005
Employment Third:
Worldwide: April through August 2005
China: June through September 2003
India: January through February 2002
Mexico: January through June 2004
Philippines: April through August 2005
Please be advised that the above date ranges are only estimates which are subject to fluctuations in demand during the coming months. The actual future cut-off dates cannot be guaranteed, and it is possible that some annual limits could be reached prior to the end of the fiscal year.
more...
matreen
07-15 03:20 PM
Then add Immigration Voice as payee
and give address
Immigration Voice
P O Box 1372
Arcadia, CA 91077-1372
don't I need to provide the account number of IV there.?
and give address
Immigration Voice
P O Box 1372
Arcadia, CA 91077-1372
don't I need to provide the account number of IV there.?
hot i love you quotes for her from
lskreddy
04-30 02:54 PM
Other than boasting how excellent USCIS is doing their job, there was nothing new or helpful to the actual bill. It was actually counter to the task at hand. That was Aytes...
Now, a State dept person is talking about how efficient they are..
Now, a State dept person is talking about how efficient they are..
more...
house i love you alot quotes. i love
willwin
04-03 10:00 AM
Administrator,
can you please CLOSE this thread, please ?
1) It's annoying to see grown up ppl fight like children.
2) This forum needs to keep it's focus. Members are supposed to help each other and our cause. We are IV and IV is us.
3) we do not need internecine fights, that digress's from our mission.
4) This thread is contributing to wastage og volunteer resources, computer resources, temperments and increasing member frustations and BLOOD PRESSURE.
I humbly request you to put this to rest by closing this thread.
Amen.
can you please CLOSE this thread, please ?
1) It's annoying to see grown up ppl fight like children.
2) This forum needs to keep it's focus. Members are supposed to help each other and our cause. We are IV and IV is us.
3) we do not need internecine fights, that digress's from our mission.
4) This thread is contributing to wastage og volunteer resources, computer resources, temperments and increasing member frustations and BLOOD PRESSURE.
I humbly request you to put this to rest by closing this thread.
Amen.
tattoo i love you quotes graphics. i;
smisachu
09-11 11:56 AM
IV rocks�.. Just made contribution of 500$
Cannot come to rally because of personal reasons. Feeling terrible about that�.
Order Details - Sep 11, 2007 10:46 AM CDT
Google Order #636002683618849
Thanks, thats really cool. gave you +ve feed back so made ur red dot go away!!
Cannot come to rally because of personal reasons. Feeling terrible about that�.
Order Details - Sep 11, 2007 10:46 AM CDT
Google Order #636002683618849
Thanks, thats really cool. gave you +ve feed back so made ur red dot go away!!
more...
pictures i love you quotes graphics. i
rajuseattle
08-13 04:52 PM
My only hope is somehow either the senate or the house version of employment based lost visa caoture bill gets into law, either FY2009 or FY2010.
If nothing happens to this effects we are royally screwed , until USCIS and DoL changed their interpretation for the spillover VISA numbers falling into EB-3 bucket we had some hope of catching up with some backlog, but now it seems PD will be stuck around 2001/2002.
I dont know why USCIS /DoL allowed the labor substitutions when they knew majority of the times Labor substitute option was abused by Desi consultants to get Green Cards. Thanks god they stopped this malpractice a year ago and now heavily scritinizing the pending LC applications for I-140 else the genuine folks like me who were the victims of DoL BEC and USCIS backlog would have suffered more.
I am also of the opinion similar to IV member "malagcpahije" and this is probably my last post in the IV as I dont see IV is a united organization, thier is a huge split between different factions of the employment based visa applicants and only relief we are going to get is from US policy makers, in this bad economy noone is willing to even talk about pro-immigration bills. Going to Washington DC will not serve any purpose other than watching those world famous museums and white house.
I am really feeling sad for leaving IV, all the best for the folks who still have faith in IV and its core team.
rajuseattle.....
If nothing happens to this effects we are royally screwed , until USCIS and DoL changed their interpretation for the spillover VISA numbers falling into EB-3 bucket we had some hope of catching up with some backlog, but now it seems PD will be stuck around 2001/2002.
I dont know why USCIS /DoL allowed the labor substitutions when they knew majority of the times Labor substitute option was abused by Desi consultants to get Green Cards. Thanks god they stopped this malpractice a year ago and now heavily scritinizing the pending LC applications for I-140 else the genuine folks like me who were the victims of DoL BEC and USCIS backlog would have suffered more.
I am also of the opinion similar to IV member "malagcpahije" and this is probably my last post in the IV as I dont see IV is a united organization, thier is a huge split between different factions of the employment based visa applicants and only relief we are going to get is from US policy makers, in this bad economy noone is willing to even talk about pro-immigration bills. Going to Washington DC will not serve any purpose other than watching those world famous museums and white house.
I am really feeling sad for leaving IV, all the best for the folks who still have faith in IV and its core team.
rajuseattle.....
dresses i love you
matreen
10-17 01:58 AM
Guys,
I have already invoked my AC21 6 months before and joined a small consulting company, after four months I had an offer from client to join, I decided to join client as full time employee and working from past two months. Planning to send AC21 document by next month including offer letter etc.,
Now, my question is I have a part time job oppertunity to work from home for couple of hours in the weekend (tech support job - pay is not that great but it helps with current economic crises).
Can I allowed to work on part time job while I am working as a full time employee using AC21? (Remember I am on EAD - No more H1)
Is that going to cause any problem to my 485 process?
Will that be OK to run two payrolls on my social 1. Full Time 2. Part time?
I would appreciate your response as soon as possible, because I need accept the offer and follow the legnthy process - background check etc.,..
Thanks,
M
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
I have already invoked my AC21 6 months before and joined a small consulting company, after four months I had an offer from client to join, I decided to join client as full time employee and working from past two months. Planning to send AC21 document by next month including offer letter etc.,
Now, my question is I have a part time job oppertunity to work from home for couple of hours in the weekend (tech support job - pay is not that great but it helps with current economic crises).
Can I allowed to work on part time job while I am working as a full time employee using AC21? (Remember I am on EAD - No more H1)
Is that going to cause any problem to my 485 process?
Will that be OK to run two payrolls on my social 1. Full Time 2. Part time?
I would appreciate your response as soon as possible, because I need accept the offer and follow the legnthy process - background check etc.,..
Thanks,
M
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
more...
makeup dresses i love you quotes
sandiboy
07-18 04:11 PM
Assuming the possibility that PD will be "unavailable" for the next few months at least, then on what basis do they allot visa numbers . PD or 485 receipt date
I believe Visa number is allocated only at time of Adjudicating i.e once everything is clear. At the time of adjudicating your PD should be current & you should be ahead of others per RD.
I believe Visa number is allocated only at time of Adjudicating i.e once everything is clear. At the time of adjudicating your PD should be current & you should be ahead of others per RD.
girlfriend hot i love you quotes
Macaca
09-12 04:47 PM
Will do more tonight
As you see, I don't have the email address of some reporters. But there is a pattern. It will help if someone can verify the pattern for the missing reporters.
As you see, I don't have the email address of some reporters. But there is a pattern. It will help if someone can verify the pattern for the missing reporters.
hairstyles I Love You Three Words Graphic
dval_dpal
12-12 08:53 AM
I have refinanced with Wells Fargo without any issues. If you need more details, please PM me.
your help would be helpful....
i'm also doing refinance with wellsfargo...(submit I-140, EAD)
they r asking for Green card...
If i send I-485 receipt now, would it be enough???
thank you
your help would be helpful....
i'm also doing refinance with wellsfargo...(submit I-140, EAD)
they r asking for Green card...
If i send I-485 receipt now, would it be enough???
thank you
lonedesi
08-05 01:23 PM
^^^^^^^^
gcny2006
07-20 12:52 PM
ok. How did we miss this? Did we miss a chance to call up the concerned senators?
i was thinking the same thing did we take our eyes off the ball. Seems like people towed the part line during the vote but it still seems like a miss
i was thinking the same thing did we take our eyes off the ball. Seems like people towed the part line during the vote but it still seems like a miss
No comments:
Post a Comment