desi chala usa
07-14 03:41 PM
Done!!
wallpaper cool hairstyles for teen boys.
snathan
12-16 01:07 PM
we need to write to Sen Joe Lofgren now more than ever..she will try to push the legal bill..also we need to write to her to compensate for some of the waiting time ...so that it gets counted for the citizenship..at least from when the I-485 was applied..I think we will see some sort of push for this ..my only concern is that we again will get caight with the illegals and our issue will be pushed to the side
Can some IV members in CA meet Sen Joe..?..and see what the Sen plans to do..
time for some action now..
One small correction. Zoe Lofgren is congress woman and not a senator.
Can some IV members in CA meet Sen Joe..?..and see what the Sen plans to do..
time for some action now..
One small correction. Zoe Lofgren is congress woman and not a senator.
insbaby
07-24 08:13 AM
I think I have been very lucky so far. I don't think USCIS processes based on anything concrete, I think it's a little random. Or maybe I am just lucky.
I applied for PERM in Sep 2006 - EB3 - India.
I got approved for PERM in Mar 2007.
I applied for I-140 and I-485 concurrently in Jun 2007.
I-140 got approved July 20, 2007 and on July 23, 2007 I received all 4 receipts for I-140, I-485, EAD and AP. So my approval came before my receipt. I live in California so everything went to Nebraksa.
Lawyers emailed saying they also received the EAD card yesterday July 23, 2007.
Now I have to wait for only AP and Adjustment. And I still have 5 years left on my H1-B (2 years on this visa and then another extension).
So I say, anything is possible. I wake up every morning and pray to USCIS because they made my life better :) :) :)
I applied for PERM in Sep 2006 - EB3 - India.
I applied for I-140 and I-485 concurrently in Jun 2007.
If your PD is Sep 2006, how could you file I-485 in Jun 2007? Your dates are current only in July 2007.
I applied for PERM in Sep 2006 - EB3 - India.
I got approved for PERM in Mar 2007.
I applied for I-140 and I-485 concurrently in Jun 2007.
I-140 got approved July 20, 2007 and on July 23, 2007 I received all 4 receipts for I-140, I-485, EAD and AP. So my approval came before my receipt. I live in California so everything went to Nebraksa.
Lawyers emailed saying they also received the EAD card yesterday July 23, 2007.
Now I have to wait for only AP and Adjustment. And I still have 5 years left on my H1-B (2 years on this visa and then another extension).
So I say, anything is possible. I wake up every morning and pray to USCIS because they made my life better :) :) :)
I applied for PERM in Sep 2006 - EB3 - India.
I applied for I-140 and I-485 concurrently in Jun 2007.
If your PD is Sep 2006, how could you file I-485 in Jun 2007? Your dates are current only in July 2007.
2011 teen boy hairstyle.
ragz4u
03-16 03:29 PM
WASHINGTON – The Senate Judiciary Committee today reached agreement on proposals for a new guest-worker program and a plan to allow the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants living in the United States to become permanent residents.
Less than 24 hours after most experts and Capitol Hill watchers believed the committee would be unable to get a bill to the Senate floor by Majority Leader Bill Frist's March 27 deadline, committee Chairman Arlen Specter had brokered deals between some key senators on the complex issue.
No formal votes were taken and committee staffs were preparing to spend the next 10 days drafting language that would put in place the compromises reached. It appeared that at least a dozen of the 18 members on the panel would be prepared to back this deal. The committee plans to meet first thing in the morning on March 27. It is not yet known whether Frist will allow the panel to finish and send its bill to the Senate floor or if he still plans to bring up a more limited, possibly enforcement-only measure.
But even if nothing scuttles the compromise between now and when lawmakers get back from recess, and if the Senate passes a bill with these elements, there would remain a steep battle to get agreement from the House. The House passed an enforcement-based measure in December that doesn't include a guest-worker program or a plan for undocumented immigrants in the United States now.
Early this afternoon, Frist announced his intention to introduce a bill before next week’s recess that would deal with enforcement of immigration laws but will not include any of the controversial guest-worker or illegal immigrant provisions. Officials in Frist’s office say he is doing this to ensure that there is a bill ready on the floor if the committee fails to pass one. If Specter does get a bill out of committee, said Frist press secretary Amy Call, that could be substituted for the majority leader’s measure.
The most likely scenario, said ardent supporters of immigration reform who were pleasantly stunned by today's events, is that this will end in a stalemate, only to be brought up again in the next Congress. But they say it's important that the Senate go on record as supporting comprehensive change.
For the first time, Specter, R-Pa., who said he spent hours on the phone last night with Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., agreed to Kennedy's plan to deal with the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. Specter would have allowed these people to work indefinitely but not get green cards. Kennedy wanted to give them a path to legalization.
Specter agreed this morning with Kennedy's approach, provided that these illegal immigrants would not be able to start legalization proceedings until the backlog of 3 million people now waiting in countries around the world for their chance to come to the United States legally get their green cards.
The deal reached on a new guest-worker plan says that 400,000 new guest workers would be allowed into the country each year. Under the proposal authored by Kennedy and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., that number would have been unlimited. But Kennedy, a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, agreed to a cap and also agreed that after working for two years, these new guest workers would have to go back to their home countries and reapply for another stint as guest workers, one that could last up to six years. But first they'd have to stay in their home countries for one year.
Built into this compromise, however, is a chance for these workers to get a waiver and not go home based on how long they have been employed here or if they are considered essential to a U.S. employer's business.
The plan also allows guest workers to apply for permanent U.S. residency, something not included in either Specter's bill or the other major proposal under consideration, the bill by Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.
Kennedy essentially compromised with Cornyn, who chairs the immigration subcommittee. The deal takes parts of each of their proposals.
Not all members of the committee agreed with these compromises.
Kyl said he still believed the illegal immigrants would get preference over those waiting legally in line overseas because the undocumented would be able to stay in the U.S. and work until their turn at a green card came. Those waiting to come here legally don't have that option, he said.
And several committee members most opposed to a guest-worker program – most notably Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., were not at this morning's session.
Less than 24 hours after most experts and Capitol Hill watchers believed the committee would be unable to get a bill to the Senate floor by Majority Leader Bill Frist's March 27 deadline, committee Chairman Arlen Specter had brokered deals between some key senators on the complex issue.
No formal votes were taken and committee staffs were preparing to spend the next 10 days drafting language that would put in place the compromises reached. It appeared that at least a dozen of the 18 members on the panel would be prepared to back this deal. The committee plans to meet first thing in the morning on March 27. It is not yet known whether Frist will allow the panel to finish and send its bill to the Senate floor or if he still plans to bring up a more limited, possibly enforcement-only measure.
But even if nothing scuttles the compromise between now and when lawmakers get back from recess, and if the Senate passes a bill with these elements, there would remain a steep battle to get agreement from the House. The House passed an enforcement-based measure in December that doesn't include a guest-worker program or a plan for undocumented immigrants in the United States now.
Early this afternoon, Frist announced his intention to introduce a bill before next week’s recess that would deal with enforcement of immigration laws but will not include any of the controversial guest-worker or illegal immigrant provisions. Officials in Frist’s office say he is doing this to ensure that there is a bill ready on the floor if the committee fails to pass one. If Specter does get a bill out of committee, said Frist press secretary Amy Call, that could be substituted for the majority leader’s measure.
The most likely scenario, said ardent supporters of immigration reform who were pleasantly stunned by today's events, is that this will end in a stalemate, only to be brought up again in the next Congress. But they say it's important that the Senate go on record as supporting comprehensive change.
For the first time, Specter, R-Pa., who said he spent hours on the phone last night with Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., agreed to Kennedy's plan to deal with the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. Specter would have allowed these people to work indefinitely but not get green cards. Kennedy wanted to give them a path to legalization.
Specter agreed this morning with Kennedy's approach, provided that these illegal immigrants would not be able to start legalization proceedings until the backlog of 3 million people now waiting in countries around the world for their chance to come to the United States legally get their green cards.
The deal reached on a new guest-worker plan says that 400,000 new guest workers would be allowed into the country each year. Under the proposal authored by Kennedy and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., that number would have been unlimited. But Kennedy, a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, agreed to a cap and also agreed that after working for two years, these new guest workers would have to go back to their home countries and reapply for another stint as guest workers, one that could last up to six years. But first they'd have to stay in their home countries for one year.
Built into this compromise, however, is a chance for these workers to get a waiver and not go home based on how long they have been employed here or if they are considered essential to a U.S. employer's business.
The plan also allows guest workers to apply for permanent U.S. residency, something not included in either Specter's bill or the other major proposal under consideration, the bill by Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.
Kennedy essentially compromised with Cornyn, who chairs the immigration subcommittee. The deal takes parts of each of their proposals.
Not all members of the committee agreed with these compromises.
Kyl said he still believed the illegal immigrants would get preference over those waiting legally in line overseas because the undocumented would be able to stay in the U.S. and work until their turn at a green card came. Those waiting to come here legally don't have that option, he said.
And several committee members most opposed to a guest-worker program – most notably Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., were not at this morning's session.
more...
greencard_fever
12-27 12:48 PM
Applied in July 24 and transfered to Texas on 9/27.Wifes AP got approved and received but mine is still pending.
desi485
11-24 05:34 PM
I left my GC sponser employer 3 months ago and joined new employer on EAD. I spoke to the new company's attorney to file H1B after 2 months of joining. She said that since I have completed 6 years of my H1B so it does not matter if I am on H1B or on EAD as none of them will provide safety net if something goes wrong on 485. Suddenly, after 15 days, I got an email from my Lawyers's office saying that my new company has given permission to them to apply a H1B extn for me and asked me to send the required docs. I am not sure what prompted them to apply my H1B as I had already given up H1B thing and was happy with EAD. I dont know, it might be something to do with charging fee from my new employer or something. Bottomline is no one knows about it and may be even USCIS might not have this scenario in their rule book.
One more thing, in one of the conversations with my new attorney, she mentioned that I can still work on EAD if 485 gets denied because of AC21 reason and MTR has been sent. She said, unless, 485 is denied because of some criminal reason, u can continue working during the MTR period. so another twist??
The lawyer I am working with also said the same thing. If 485 is denied in error (whatever is the reason, AC21 or not), one can file MTR and also continue working on EAD. Since the 485 was denied in error, the employment while MTR is being filed, pending will NOT be counted as unauthorised employment. If you read RG forums, he gave exact similar opinion.
I agree with Chandu, we should try to get this from CIS. Just don't know how:(
One more thing, in one of the conversations with my new attorney, she mentioned that I can still work on EAD if 485 gets denied because of AC21 reason and MTR has been sent. She said, unless, 485 is denied because of some criminal reason, u can continue working during the MTR period. so another twist??
The lawyer I am working with also said the same thing. If 485 is denied in error (whatever is the reason, AC21 or not), one can file MTR and also continue working on EAD. Since the 485 was denied in error, the employment while MTR is being filed, pending will NOT be counted as unauthorised employment. If you read RG forums, he gave exact similar opinion.
I agree with Chandu, we should try to get this from CIS. Just don't know how:(
more...
Libra
09-12 11:10 AM
thank you sameold and sukhwindered for your contributions, hope to see you guys in DC.
2010 Teenage Boys Hairstyle for
bfadlia
02-23 02:24 PM
It means USCIS has pre-adjudicated your I-485 if it was filed before october 2008.
I hope so..
But checking my July 2007 I485 online status, it says it was last updated in Dec 2007..
Shouldn't we all have got recent LUDs or RFEs if all of us were recently pre-adjugated
I hope so..
But checking my July 2007 I485 online status, it says it was last updated in Dec 2007..
Shouldn't we all have got recent LUDs or RFEs if all of us were recently pre-adjugated
more...
singhsa3
09-12 01:50 PM
These are all good thoughts but what u are suggesting takes some time.
The issue has two legs:
Leg 1: Process fix
Leg 2: Increasing number of greencards
What I am talking about is leg 1 and what you are talking about is for leg 2
and both are required.
Sanjeev - I personally feel there is no easy solution for this. Our efforts must be well organized and there has to be geniune effort. A lot of people who post here are all frustrated and angered and they channelize their anger and frustration through these forums whereas instead if it is channelized in a positive way - our campaigns will be more effective and we can reach our goals.
The issue has two legs:
Leg 1: Process fix
Leg 2: Increasing number of greencards
What I am talking about is leg 1 and what you are talking about is for leg 2
and both are required.
Sanjeev - I personally feel there is no easy solution for this. Our efforts must be well organized and there has to be geniune effort. A lot of people who post here are all frustrated and angered and they channelize their anger and frustration through these forums whereas instead if it is channelized in a positive way - our campaigns will be more effective and we can reach our goals.
hair hairstyles for teen boys.
eers
07-20 02:21 PM
You are forgetting spouses , EB-1 and in some cases 18+ years children.
Also quota in 2001, 2002 and 2003 was 195K and not 65 K
not every h1 guy can or will apply for GC. For example many of this big indian IT companies, with lot of H1s in hand, either dont apply GC for employees or they have very strict policies so that most dont qualify.
I know for sure , coz i am a victims of such situation :)
Also quota in 2001, 2002 and 2003 was 195K and not 65 K
not every h1 guy can or will apply for GC. For example many of this big indian IT companies, with lot of H1s in hand, either dont apply GC for employees or they have very strict policies so that most dont qualify.
I know for sure , coz i am a victims of such situation :)
more...
GCard_Dream
01-03 03:47 PM
May be we need to start a immigrationvoice.org in India as well to address these issues. :D
Seriously, I had never thought about these things, specially when you have a citizenship. There may be such a few number of people going back after getting US citizenship that it's probably not even considered an issue but worth a discussion.
As days go by, it is becoming more clear everyday that I will also return back one day, sooner rather than later. I have some questions that haunt me:
- if/when I get my GC, and if I return back, is there a way to hold on to the GC status?
- if someone has a US citizenship, when companies such as Infosys hire them, do they have to get a work visa or something? Is there a concept equivalent of H1/GC for non Indians yet?
Seriously, I had never thought about these things, specially when you have a citizenship. There may be such a few number of people going back after getting US citizenship that it's probably not even considered an issue but worth a discussion.
As days go by, it is becoming more clear everyday that I will also return back one day, sooner rather than later. I have some questions that haunt me:
- if/when I get my GC, and if I return back, is there a way to hold on to the GC status?
- if someone has a US citizenship, when companies such as Infosys hire them, do they have to get a work visa or something? Is there a concept equivalent of H1/GC for non Indians yet?
hot teenage boys and guys in
babu123
04-04 11:17 AM
What is the difference between LLC and C Corp.
which is better to open out of the two if we are in EAD.
which is better to open out of the two if we are in EAD.
more...
house pre teen boys short hairstyle
iamreddy1
01-05 06:04 PM
My labour was filed in Dec 2004 With Boston DOL. I got my 45 day letter form philli processing center in aug 2006.
tattoo emo oys hairstyles 2009. a
9years
10-22 08:03 AM
our attorney did not port yet. He will (if not automatically ported ) now. I am not sure how one should do, we will port after I-140 approval. I-140 approval time, I am not sure 2 days - 4 months. In my case it took 2 days (premium processing).
Hope it helps.
Thank you.
Hope it helps.
Thank you.
more...
pictures cool hairstyles for teen boys.
needhelp!
03-12 11:21 AM
Please send email to info@immigrationvoice.org
Pappu has addressed this in the original thread posted about Donor Forums.
Looks like it only tracks people who donated for FOIA
Pappu has addressed this in the original thread posted about Donor Forums.
Looks like it only tracks people who donated for FOIA
dresses HAIRCUTS FOR TEEN BOYS,
Milind123
09-17 01:04 AM
Listened to the recording. I simply cannot believe what the host was babbling again and again about. He was repeatedly asking Jay “Why should the laws be changes which were set 50 years ago?” I will tell him why the laws are normally changed in general (not related to our case at all). They are changed because by definition law is supposed to be just; it is supposed to be equal. It is required to be non-discriminating. It is changed because people’s life is affected adversely if it remains constant. Laws of nature are the only set on laws that cannot change and that is true because they took billions and billions of years to perfect themselves. Laws of any country on this earth are not perfect. They are made by human beings, who tend to make lot of mistakes. Now, what is amendment? It is a set of new rules that are written to rectify any mistakes made in the existing laws. That itself is changing the law, my friend Raj. There is no county on this earth whose laws have remained the same for a very long period of time, and yet keeping all the people in that country happy. Laws get changed because of the new values added to the system. That is why, my friend Raj, slavery was abolished in 1863 by President Lincoln (BTW my most favorite President). This did not happen by magic. It happened only when the president issued an Emancipation Proclamation, which basically is a law and the jist of that is , "all persons held as slaves henceforward shall be free”. Now how did this happen? Because of the civil war and why did the civil war took place? Simply because people cannot take it anymore. You should know all this Mr. Raj Khanna, you were there to witness it with your own eyes when you were 147 years old (well at least that’s what you claim through your profile).
Raj’s profile
http://www.blogger.com/profile/10263796867450932249
PS I did not listen to the antakshri, but if some of us did listen, we need to provide the curious lady with the correct answer, maybe her GC case is also pending for the last 7 years (probably a future member of IV).
Raj’s profile
http://www.blogger.com/profile/10263796867450932249
PS I did not listen to the antakshri, but if some of us did listen, we need to provide the curious lady with the correct answer, maybe her GC case is also pending for the last 7 years (probably a future member of IV).
more...
makeup mens punk hairstyles
nk2006
10-16 04:29 PM
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: Ombudsman
======================
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
=======================
============================
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
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: Ombudsman
======================
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
=======================
============================
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
girlfriend short hairstyles for teen oys.
pointlesswait
09-08 12:22 PM
why blame the RE developers..as long there are fools ready to throw away their money...they will always be ppl to gather it..
ppl who invest without proper R&D deserve to lose it....
On my recent visit to Bangalore, i got in touch with a real estate developer(who is also a far relative), here is what he told me. First thing any developer does is to put up a website with some pretty pictures of layout and details like floor plan, location etc. This is the first step in attracting NRI's, he told me when he talks to NRI's, the first question they ask is the URL of the project. No wonder, most of the RE developer in recent times have a website, some of the website are a joke with absolutely no details and the rosy pictures of moon, lakes, birds, parks etc :-))
80% of his customers are NRI's, 10% are local goonda's/politician and rest 10% are common people...I was surprised to hear that some NRI's have bought/booked plots just by looking at the website and remitting money from USA...what happened to old school days of personally visiting, checking paperwork,Vaastu, getting opinions of relatives/friends before buying anything...what is the hurry here is beyond me???
I feel, this whole RE market in INDIA is a scam where RE developers are playing a game and targetting NRI's who are easy a prey...
ppl who invest without proper R&D deserve to lose it....
On my recent visit to Bangalore, i got in touch with a real estate developer(who is also a far relative), here is what he told me. First thing any developer does is to put up a website with some pretty pictures of layout and details like floor plan, location etc. This is the first step in attracting NRI's, he told me when he talks to NRI's, the first question they ask is the URL of the project. No wonder, most of the RE developer in recent times have a website, some of the website are a joke with absolutely no details and the rosy pictures of moon, lakes, birds, parks etc :-))
80% of his customers are NRI's, 10% are local goonda's/politician and rest 10% are common people...I was surprised to hear that some NRI's have bought/booked plots just by looking at the website and remitting money from USA...what happened to old school days of personally visiting, checking paperwork,Vaastu, getting opinions of relatives/friends before buying anything...what is the hurry here is beyond me???
I feel, this whole RE market in INDIA is a scam where RE developers are playing a game and targetting NRI's who are easy a prey...
hairstyles Teen Boys Hairstyles With Very
bskrishna
07-11 12:04 PM
heres the thing..we have been talking about the 2004 hump for eb2 for a while now. if you download the perm data from 2005 you will see only 7000+ PERM approvals for India. this included a significant number of EB3 other worker categories like pipe welder, cook, etc ( i am assuming they were eb3 -other worker...correct me if i m wrong)
this was the breakdown per month for perm 2005
March-1
April -13
May-72
June-324
July-351
Aug-833
Sept-1172
Oct-1212
Nov-1541
Dec-1771
7290 - includes everybody - eb2, eb3, eb3 other workers
the whole question was the hump of 2004-march2005
ithis is the first time since when retrogression started on oct 1 2005, that the dates have moved beyond 2005.
do we have any such nos for 04? ideally 05 EB2 should buzz through adjudication in less then a quarter.
this was the breakdown per month for perm 2005
March-1
April -13
May-72
June-324
July-351
Aug-833
Sept-1172
Oct-1212
Nov-1541
Dec-1771
7290 - includes everybody - eb2, eb3, eb3 other workers
the whole question was the hump of 2004-march2005
ithis is the first time since when retrogression started on oct 1 2005, that the dates have moved beyond 2005.
do we have any such nos for 04? ideally 05 EB2 should buzz through adjudication in less then a quarter.
asdcrajnet
07-06 07:15 AM
just dug!!!
JazzByTheBay
09-10 08:51 PM
It was naive for everyone, including those with PDs in 2006/2007 (and - here's the funny part.. even those who recently filed... ) to suddenly expect the tap to be flowing with full force and everyone's AOS being approved magically in the months of August and September 2008.
We have historical data about the USCIS' efficiencies - but for those who believed (and I'm not excluding myself here... ), it was probably a welcome break, full of hope. It was great while it lasted.
In the process, we've lost focus on the bigger goals - HR 5882 being one of them.
When things were "CURRENT", all we could think of was tracking LUDs and claiming superiority based on an earlier PD or a "U.S. Masters... ".
Again, it's time to take a hard look at past successes and failures, question why we're still in this country, and if you have no doubts about that - get back to the business of pushing for legislation, imho.
jazz
Please realize that HR 5882 is the only hope for now. I had mentioned in my previous posts that EB 2 I/C will retrogress in Oct (many said i was just saying this because i was EB3). This is not the time to be complacent or hope that USCIS will start dishing out visas and clear the backlogs. Help in working towards getting something done with the bills, the window of opportunity is very short.
We have historical data about the USCIS' efficiencies - but for those who believed (and I'm not excluding myself here... ), it was probably a welcome break, full of hope. It was great while it lasted.
In the process, we've lost focus on the bigger goals - HR 5882 being one of them.
When things were "CURRENT", all we could think of was tracking LUDs and claiming superiority based on an earlier PD or a "U.S. Masters... ".
Again, it's time to take a hard look at past successes and failures, question why we're still in this country, and if you have no doubts about that - get back to the business of pushing for legislation, imho.
jazz
Please realize that HR 5882 is the only hope for now. I had mentioned in my previous posts that EB 2 I/C will retrogress in Oct (many said i was just saying this because i was EB3). This is not the time to be complacent or hope that USCIS will start dishing out visas and clear the backlogs. Help in working towards getting something done with the bills, the window of opportunity is very short.
No comments:
Post a Comment