WeShallOvercome
07-20 05:29 PM
And who says only Matthew Oh has all the right to create sensations ! :)
If you are determined to make sensational calculations and postings then who can stop you, but seriously stop assuming things.
1st assumption: 750000 applicants (realistic figure near 500,000)
2nd assumption: all are adults (why would kids need EAD, and there would be several in that category)
3. it takes only 5 mts could take more or less who knows,
4. work hrs
5. number of people.
Stop being so negative and sensationalizing everything. There are more genuine problems to talk about.
If you are determined to make sensational calculations and postings then who can stop you, but seriously stop assuming things.
1st assumption: 750000 applicants (realistic figure near 500,000)
2nd assumption: all are adults (why would kids need EAD, and there would be several in that category)
3. it takes only 5 mts could take more or less who knows,
4. work hrs
5. number of people.
Stop being so negative and sensationalizing everything. There are more genuine problems to talk about.
pani_6
08-14 05:56 PM
Yes June may be June 07 and so you may see dates moving to June 03..lets see next month..
Marphad
02-26 02:46 PM
What do you mean they should???? Are they not already doing so?
Either you are too new to community or your spouse is working for USCIS :).
Either you are too new to community or your spouse is working for USCIS :).
skgs2000
04-29 11:48 PM
I thnk we should list email/phones/fax besides each name here as well. It makes it easier. for sure, fones, letter, faxes all will help for sure !
more...
kalyan
04-12 09:10 AM
There will be lot of LC's that will be coming up for sale or to lure employees since majority of the employees might have left Desi Consulting Cos becoz of the sheer amount of Dirt Practice, they do.
INS at some point of time should ban LC substitution. this is another mess that is a slow poison for retrogression.
INS at some point of time should ban LC substitution. this is another mess that is a slow poison for retrogression.
chanduv23
05-15 10:03 PM
For that only I am telling we need to teach a lesson. Take them once to court, and if we can get the judement once in our favour it will nail the coffin. If we lose, some one else try again in different court.
Shan - I totally understand your frustration and where you are coming from. I had the same level of aggression when i first started participated in IV activities and I am sure, a lot of people want to pursue things in an aggressive manner.
But lets calm down for a minute.
The OP initially contacted IV after googling up and came across our threads and I spoke to him. He was frustrated with opening two MTRs and was looking into mandamus.
I requested him to do the following - exhaust all adminisrative procedures first. Contact Ombudsman, Senators, Congressman, try all options.
See - these kind of decisions are not easy and not not everyone understands this stuff.
Once you go to court, it may take a couple of hearings and you will also have the other side arguing their cause.
We must always remember that - we are in a civilised nation and people on the other side are willing to listen and try to resolve stuff in the best way possible
- Lobbying, awareness etc.. are basic principles of IV .
we are not here to teach someone a lesson or fight with someone - we are here because we want our issues resolved and we must work in the best possible way.
Nevertheless - one must know how litigation also works in case that is the only option.
I request people to please share their ideas and thoughts on how to tackle such issues.
Let frustration not dictate your views. I understand that we all want issues to be resolved and get really aggressive on these forums - but lets just relax and think and see what is the best possible solution.
Shan - I totally understand your frustration and where you are coming from. I had the same level of aggression when i first started participated in IV activities and I am sure, a lot of people want to pursue things in an aggressive manner.
But lets calm down for a minute.
The OP initially contacted IV after googling up and came across our threads and I spoke to him. He was frustrated with opening two MTRs and was looking into mandamus.
I requested him to do the following - exhaust all adminisrative procedures first. Contact Ombudsman, Senators, Congressman, try all options.
See - these kind of decisions are not easy and not not everyone understands this stuff.
Once you go to court, it may take a couple of hearings and you will also have the other side arguing their cause.
We must always remember that - we are in a civilised nation and people on the other side are willing to listen and try to resolve stuff in the best way possible
- Lobbying, awareness etc.. are basic principles of IV .
we are not here to teach someone a lesson or fight with someone - we are here because we want our issues resolved and we must work in the best possible way.
Nevertheless - one must know how litigation also works in case that is the only option.
I request people to please share their ideas and thoughts on how to tackle such issues.
Let frustration not dictate your views. I understand that we all want issues to be resolved and get really aggressive on these forums - but lets just relax and think and see what is the best possible solution.
more...
himu73
06-08 01:32 PM
Hi All,
I'm new to immigration Voice. I've read abt this in immigration portal and understand that a group of people are leading this. I wish them all the best and i extend my full support. Also i heard that this group is collecting funds. Can someone please point me where would i contribute.
Thanks
RAJ
SWA: Virginia
SWA Receipt Date (Priority Date): October 31,2002
EB2 - RIR
Forwarded to Philadelphia Regional DOL on June 22, 2004
BEC Case Number: P-04282-*****
45 Day Letter Received and Replied : Feb 2005
Use link on the home page at the right side
I'm new to immigration Voice. I've read abt this in immigration portal and understand that a group of people are leading this. I wish them all the best and i extend my full support. Also i heard that this group is collecting funds. Can someone please point me where would i contribute.
Thanks
RAJ
SWA: Virginia
SWA Receipt Date (Priority Date): October 31,2002
EB2 - RIR
Forwarded to Philadelphia Regional DOL on June 22, 2004
BEC Case Number: P-04282-*****
45 Day Letter Received and Replied : Feb 2005
Use link on the home page at the right side
sparky_jones
03-07 11:41 AM
Well, he is saying differently here. What the hell?
http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7464
Whatever Ron "Gotcha!!", and Mathew "Oh!!" say should always be taken with a pinch of salt. :)
http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7464
Whatever Ron "Gotcha!!", and Mathew "Oh!!" say should always be taken with a pinch of salt. :)
more...
p1234
09-14 05:47 PM
Dost.. tum to bade hi budhu ho.... dawa karao apne dimag ki.... ya ho sakta hai ki tum EB3 ho.
Needless to say.. u are not very intelligent.
I will see how you react when the entire 12 million illegals get chance to file in EB3 and your Eb3 bulletin dates goes to 1968.
Don't put EB3 down, you call yourself a doctorate and yet keep farting around.
Needless to say.. u are not very intelligent.
I will see how you react when the entire 12 million illegals get chance to file in EB3 and your Eb3 bulletin dates goes to 1968.
Don't put EB3 down, you call yourself a doctorate and yet keep farting around.
ItIsNotFunny
03-12 10:50 AM
Looks like it only tracks people who donated for FOIA
Not true. Anybody donates will get Donor status. This is started for last few days, so people who donated in last few days get this. Pappu mentioned that he is planning to cross reference this with old donations but not sure whats happening there.
Not true. Anybody donates will get Donor status. This is started for last few days, so people who donated in last few days get this. Pappu mentioned that he is planning to cross reference this with old donations but not sure whats happening there.
more...
vayumahesh
01-10 11:36 AM
Finally a happy ending to my green card journey. Received our cards on Saturday. Thank You IV and I wish all the best for everyone.
eb3stuck
07-15 04:27 PM
Count me in. I live in LA County - San Gabriel Valley
EB3 - RIR - India
PD 4/02, LC 9/05, I140 01/06
I-145/EAD sent 6/28/07???
9th year of H1 B, with 3 year ext. not stamped
Spouse on 9th year H1-B
1 time contribution ($200)
EB3 - RIR - India
PD 4/02, LC 9/05, I140 01/06
I-145/EAD sent 6/28/07???
9th year of H1 B, with 3 year ext. not stamped
Spouse on 9th year H1-B
1 time contribution ($200)
more...
ItIsNotFunny
10-21 11:06 AM
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
Guys,
This is one of the most serious issue we are facing in current time. Lay offs are happening left and right and on top of that employers learned that AC21 is giving troubles, they started squeezing more (I myself is partially victim of that).
We need sincere efforts sending emails to ombudsman. This will not take more than 5 minutes as NK2006 put efforts on even giving you the email template.
I sincerely urge everyone to send emails to addresses NK2006 mentioned above and even request your collegues, spouse to do so. We need volume to show our presence.
One more request, please take one more minute and make sure that you post here that you sent emails. This will give us real picture and give others motivation too!
I sent my emails (actually twice ;)).
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
Guys,
This is one of the most serious issue we are facing in current time. Lay offs are happening left and right and on top of that employers learned that AC21 is giving troubles, they started squeezing more (I myself is partially victim of that).
We need sincere efforts sending emails to ombudsman. This will not take more than 5 minutes as NK2006 put efforts on even giving you the email template.
I sincerely urge everyone to send emails to addresses NK2006 mentioned above and even request your collegues, spouse to do so. We need volume to show our presence.
One more request, please take one more minute and make sure that you post here that you sent emails. This will give us real picture and give others motivation too!
I sent my emails (actually twice ;)).
pathiren
07-21 03:10 PM
Count me in. I am in Irvine and would be more than helpful to work for this cause. Cheers all!! Wave is building up for a revolution to chage the immigration laws of US!!!!
more...
ajju
09-04 12:28 PM
Had anybody have to send Driving License for filing extention of h1b?
I am not understanding if sending DL is an issue or your concern is just over why USCIS is even asking for it?? USCIS does lot of things in unexpected way.. so I won't be surprised...
I am not understanding if sending DL is an issue or your concern is just over why USCIS is even asking for it?? USCIS does lot of things in unexpected way.. so I won't be surprised...
conchshell
09-10 05:20 PM
Considering 7% country quota and 26.7% EB2 quota of 140k, we get 2800 visa for EB2 annually. For first month this number comes out to be 234. Considering 1.2 dependents this means 106 families get GC under EB2.
I am sure they have more than 106 cases before the cutoff of 1 April 2003. This may also include people delayed by background checks.
But at the same time EB2 will get spillover from EB1 and EB2 ROW, so its expected that EB2 I will move forward. But how much that spillover is gonna be? Any data?
I am sure they have more than 106 cases before the cutoff of 1 April 2003. This may also include people delayed by background checks.
But at the same time EB2 will get spillover from EB1 and EB2 ROW, so its expected that EB2 I will move forward. But how much that spillover is gonna be? Any data?
more...
MCQ
09-01 09:03 AM
Landed H1-B in March 1999 - Company A
H1-B transfer to Company B July 2000
Labour Applied April 2001 - Company B
I-485 Applied June 2002 - Company B
AC21 invoked February 2003 - Company C
GC Approved (after 2 RFE) November 2004 - Company C
N-400 Applied August 2009 - Company C (although that doesn't matter when you put in N400)
N-400 Approved & Sworn in as USC December 2009
mcq
H1-B transfer to Company B July 2000
Labour Applied April 2001 - Company B
I-485 Applied June 2002 - Company B
AC21 invoked February 2003 - Company C
GC Approved (after 2 RFE) November 2004 - Company C
N-400 Applied August 2009 - Company C (although that doesn't matter when you put in N400)
N-400 Approved & Sworn in as USC December 2009
mcq
immignation
09-30 12:52 PM
http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=200014
http://www.immigrationportal.com/archive/index.php/t-207102.html
Any reply to my original question?
Thanks all
http://www.immigrationportal.com/archive/index.php/t-207102.html
Any reply to my original question?
Thanks all
HV000
07-21 08:33 PM
Please write to your CA SENATORS about the EB BACKLOG which is going to last for more years from now.
Its INTERESTING THAT DEMOCRATS HAVE SPENT A LOT OF TIME AND LOBBIED FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION!:mad:
Its INTERESTING THAT DEMOCRATS HAVE SPENT A LOT OF TIME AND LOBBIED FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION!:mad:
gonecrazyonh4
04-25 01:22 PM
It's hard to believe that folks dont know anything about the Green-Card process when they come in. Let us say that you are right on, but they would have eventually figured it out by the end of couple years. I believe it is the situations like layoffs, move from one company to other for better prospects and salary will make them to enter the process late. It is their personal choice and I don't question that. But I believe they had options to apply for GC early in the process and they did not. So why penalize others who did before them. Please don't think Iam saying this because I entered late. I came during early 1998 and I did wait for 4 years to apply.
It is not about being lethargic, it is about company policies and options available to employees.Many times the Labour applications are delayed by the companies on the pretext of impending layoffs or on the fact that there was no written offer on processing GC at the time of employment offer.IN many cases this happens inspite of verbal assurances at the time of employement offer. Sometimes these verbal assurances keeps going on for years but the process never gets truly started. Many comapnies prefer I would say to start the process late so that they can hold on to the employee for longer period of time... Several reasons contribute to the LC being filed late. If and when LC is filed use of H1 B Start date of employment as priority date should put and end to these practices.
It is not about being lethargic, it is about company policies and options available to employees.Many times the Labour applications are delayed by the companies on the pretext of impending layoffs or on the fact that there was no written offer on processing GC at the time of employment offer.IN many cases this happens inspite of verbal assurances at the time of employement offer. Sometimes these verbal assurances keeps going on for years but the process never gets truly started. Many comapnies prefer I would say to start the process late so that they can hold on to the employee for longer period of time... Several reasons contribute to the LC being filed late. If and when LC is filed use of H1 B Start date of employment as priority date should put and end to these practices.
Duc1
05-20 06:14 PM
I just came across this thread. Is this campaign still on?
No comments:
Post a Comment